Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!cit-vax!ucla-cs!zen!ucbcad!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hplabsz!taylor
From: bako@acf3.NYU.EDU (John Bako)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: Amnesty International and Telecommunications
Message-ID: <880@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: Thu, 15-Oct-87 23:13:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsz.880
Posted: Thu Oct 15 23:13:58 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Oct-87 17:46:16 EDT
References: <Amnesty>
Sender: taylor@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM
Organization: New York University
Lines: 23
Approved: taylor@hplabs

[This article is taken from the Usenet group `news.groups']

I've registered a NO vote with mike@turing.unm.edu and would like to present
my thoughts to the group.  Firstly, I do believe that Amnesty International
serves an important function in society and does make a difference.  Their
work is important.  What I have a problem with is the nature of the network's
involvement.

Is it really in the network's best interest to carry into a host country
news that may be considered seditious.  What is to stop a government, that
violates its citizens civil rights, from simply turning off the news feed.
I've never seen a breakdown of funding sources for the network, but I'd be
very surprise if a large portion isn't from the government sector.

My point is that Amnesty International should be be able to find a better way
to distribute urgent news.  I understand the network with its international
scope would seem the ideal solution.  But it is just that scope that may
cause articles to show up in a country run by an unfriendly government with
negative results for the net.

Wouldn't a mailing list be the best way to go with this????

					John Bako