Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!mips!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!shemp.cs.wisc.edu!samuel
From: samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: CPSR vs. EFF
Message-ID: <1991Jun29.160107.6264@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 29 Jun 91 16:01:07 GMT
References: <1991Jun27.051845.30495@wpi.WPI.EDU> <1991Jun28.142859.20500@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <1991Jun28.202810.1594@craycos.com>
Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu (The News)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 42

SB = Sam Bates
JD = James Davies

SB: The key word here is "help"; the CPSR are not saying that they can 
SB: solve these problems by themselves.  They _are_ saying that computer 
SB: technology and expertise have not generally been directed at these 
SB: problems, and that it has the potential to _help_ find a solution.

JD: "not generally directed"?  Do you really believe that the majority of
JD: computer technology is being used by the military these days?

Maybe I did make this a bit strong.  It's certainly the case that the vast
majority of computer science _research_ is funded by the military (or at least
it was three years ago, when we had a study group on the topic), but I guess
that does not imply that the use of computer _technology_ is primarily
military.

JD: I interpreted the CPSR ad as strictly a political statement, on a topic which 
JD: has no relevance to computers.  After all, do you really think that this
JD: war was caused by technology?  I thought it was caused by Iraq's invasion
JD: of Kuwait...

I disagree that the topic had no relevance to computers; I think the use of
computers in war or indeed in any endeavor is a reasonable topic of discussion
by a group of computer professionals.  Whether it is read as a political
statement depends on your point of view, as you so ably point out below...

JD: What would you think if a steel industry group (SPSR?) took out an ad decrying
JD: the use of steel in the gulf war?  Would you think that it wasn't political?

This is an interesting question, and I'm not sure how to answer it.  My first
feeling is to say that steel has been used in war for a long time now, while
this is the first significant use of computers in war.  Hence the decision to
use steel in war was made long ago, and is no longer subject to debate; the
use of computers in war _is_ still subject to debate.  So if by 'political'
you mean 'attempting to influence policy,' then I guess you are right; the
ad was political.  But it is not political in the sense that it supports
specific political actions; it merely outlines some goals that CPSR thinks
are worth supporting.  These goals can be pursued by people of any political
persuasion.
						--Samuel Bates
						  speaking for myself, not CPSR