louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) (03/20/91)
One thing I would like to see, and I think it might work out well, is the creation of EFF chapters at colleges. ACM does this, and although their agenda is different, it seems to work quite well with respect to informing students and teachers about computers. If the EFF did this, they would be addressing some of the problems of the electronic frontier at the basic level -- the corporate employees, lawyers, programmers, etc. of the future. The chapters could sponsor lectures about Computer Use In Business and The Responsibilty Therein and so on. Basically, adress the same issues that come up here on comp.org.eff.talk but within an academic environment. It could help to heighten awareness about what goes on with hackers and networks and direct-mail-advertisement databases and so forth. It would also help people like me who are frustrated and don't know what to do to help actually get out there and do something instead of sit back and read comp.org.eff.news every couple of weeks. If the EFF were to do something like this, I would be glad to help here at Loyola in Chicago any way I could. I'm not too great at organizing or making an agenda, so they would have to spoon feed me an outline or something. Is anyone else interested in this? In the EFF or other students/teachers? Louis Giliberto (louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ! "As above, so below; as below, so above" -- The Kybalion ! ! "I don't trust him; he has dark hair" -- My girlfriend's mother ! ! "So I'm stupid; what's your point?" -- Me !
brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) (03/20/91)
In <1991Mar19.213148.14254@vpnet.chi.il.us>, louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us writes: >One thing I would like to see, and I think it might work out well, is the >creation of EFF chapters at colleges. ACM does this, and although their >agenda is different, it seems to work quite well with respect to informing >students and teachers about computers. That'd be great! Only one catch .. the politics involved in creating anything beyond a "meet in the caf' for coffee and talk" group would be so hellatious as to make it impossible. Maybe our faculty's more uptight than most, but the very thought of bringing up such a thing with most of them would bring a rain of fire down from heaven. To try to talk ethics with some of these people would be pretty interesting. -- Brendan Kehoe - Widener Sun Network Manager - brendan@cs.widener.edu Widener University in Chester, PA A Bloody Sun-Dec War Zone Now that we know he has ID, we could give him an account. finger bush@cs....
poulson@cs.widener.edu (Joshua Poulson) (03/20/91)
Brendan, Don't be so sure that getting the EFF in as an organization would be so difficult. All you need is one faculty advisor to sponsor the activity and don't ask the Student Government Association for any money. Besides, you always have the public's right to freely assemble and voice opinions. If the faculty you know are uptight about such things they say so in the student newspaper. You've done some good work in _The_Dome_ (Widener's newspaper for those who are from elsewhere) before and I'm sure you'd love to again. Now... where are you going to find a sponsor? <grin> (by the way, Brendan, we know where you live... ;-> ) -- --JRP [Joshua.R.Poulson@cyber.Widener.EDU] [poulson@cs.Widener.EDU] "It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." (Abraham Maslow, 1966) You owe the oracle six weeks of tax-free paid vacation in sunny Nome, Alaska.
theo.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Theo Heavey) (03/21/91)
louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes: > One thing I would like to see, and I think it might work out well, is the > creation of EFF chapters at colleges. ACM does this, and although their > agenda is different, it seems to work quite well with respect to informing > students and teachers about computers. > What do you mean by saying that ACM has a different agenda. Yes, ACM does NOT take a legal or political stand on these issues. RATHER, the chapters share information regarding issues in computing and let the membership decide as to their own point of view. We cover ethics in one of our SIGs and here at FAU at least we try to discuss the ethical/legal implications of our actions in academia as well as the computing environment. > If the EFF did this, they would be addressing some of the problems of the > electronic frontier at the basic level -- the corporate employees, lawyers, > programmers, etc. of the future. > > The chapters could sponsor lectures about Computer Use In Business and The > Responsibilty Therein and so on. Basically, adress the same issues that
karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar19.213148.14254@vpnet.chi.il.us> louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes: >One thing I would like to see, and I think it might work out well, is the >creation of EFF chapters at colleges. [ ... ] > >The chapters could sponsor lectures about Computer Use In Business and The >Responsibilty Therein and so on. Basically, adress the same issues that >come up here on comp.org.eff.talk but within an academic environment. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is a membership organization that's set up to do these things. CPSR already has a strong cooperative relationship with EFF. There are about twenty local chapters. I don't think they're directly tied to academic institutions, but they're located in cities that make them available to many students. Outreach to colleges is something that could be pursued either by interested students or from within CPSR. Here's a membership form and contact information: ------------------------------ Membership Form for Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Name: Address: Company: Type of work: E-mail address: Chapter: __Austin __Berkeley __Boston __Chicago __Denver-Boulder __Los Angeles __Madison __Maine __Milwaukee __Minnesota __New Haven __New York __Palo Alto __Philadelphia __Pittsburg __Portland __San Diego __Santa Cruz __Seattle __Washington DC Interested in relationship of computing to: __Privacy and Civil Liberties __International Security __Crime __Weapons __Education __Workplace __Environment Membership level: __ $20 Student/Low-income __ $40 Basic __ $75 Regular (receive CPSR poster) __ $150 Supporting (receive all CPSR working papers) __ $500 Sponsoring (receive working papers and book) __$1000 Lifetime (receive poster, papers, book, t-shirt) Additional donation to help support CPSR's work: Make check out to: CPSR Mail form with check to: CPSR P.O. Box 717 Palo Alto, CA 94302-9917 Notice: The CPSR membership database is never sold, rented, loaned, exchanged, or put to use for anything other than official CPSR activity. CPSR may elect to send members mailings with information from other organizations, but the mailing will always originate within CPSR. ------------------------------ Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (03/24/91)
Hmm, I'd be interested in starting an EFF chapter in my High School. Any ideas? This would be a pure education type thing I guess, and I think it would be good to educate the students about their rights before they go to universities like GAT and have them taken away. -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (03/26/91)
In article <669491914.4141@mindcraft.com> karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) writes: >In article <1991Mar19.213148.14254@vpnet.chi.il.us> >>One thing I would like to see ... is ... EFF chapters at colleges. >Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is a membership >organization that's set up to do these things. Yes, but there are people interested in promoting the aims of EFF who aren't interested in promoting the entire spectrum of trendy causes which the Politically Correct define as "Social Responsibility." The electronic frontier might be better served by a separate group. -- "It was more dangerous to drive Mike Van Pelt away from Three Mile Island than Headland Technology/Video 7 to stay there." -- Dr. Bruce Ames. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (03/26/91)
In article <7846@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >Yes, but there are people interested in promoting the aims of EFF who >aren't interested in promoting the entire spectrum of trendy causes >which the Politically Correct define as "Social Responsibility." It is of great interest to me to hear how "the Politically Correct" might define "Social Responsibility" any differently then Mike Van Pelt does. Beyond that, I am also interested in hearing what the "trendy causes" might include which, by implication in the included text, have little to no permanent significance to our societal framework. It seems that everyone who has thought about the issues we discuss here determines which axe, if any, they wish to grind. In my experience, such axes are merely a focal point of an individual's interest, and don't seem to denote exclusivity of interest at the expense of other, though perhaps somewhat lesser, emotional attachment to causes celebre. There is a supurb cohesion which manifests whenever individuals who are members of some otherwise abstract class feel threatened. Please note that membership can be inadvertant and passive, yet such a declaration by Law Enforcement sticks and can be used against an individual in ways impossible to defeat. Computer users who haven't yet felt threatened by the events of the past two years simply haven't yet understood the implications of government activity as an extension of private interests. The eventual understanding will, without a doubt, result in a swell similar to that accompanying the generally belated realizations of our role in Viet Nam. It is to be expected that the level of anger will exceed the past example, as we're directly damaging our own citizens this time, with an obvious and inexcusable malice. Bill Vajk
samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) (03/27/91)
In article <7846@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >Yes, but there are people interested in promoting the aims of EFF who >aren't interested in promoting the entire spectrum of trendy causes >which the Politically Correct define as "Social Responsibility." >The electronic frontier might be better served by a separate group. >-- >"It was more dangerous to drive Mike Van Pelt >away from Three Mile Island than Headland Technology/Video 7 >to stay there." -- Dr. Bruce Ames. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp Before tarring an entire organization with the brush of Political Correctness, you should try to find out if Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility does in fact promote "trendy causes." Furthermore, there are twenty different CPSR chapters, and they have widely differing interests. I'm not saying that you shouldn't start a separate group, but kindly do not sling mud at a group who is, after all, working with the EFF on a number of civil liberties issues. --Samuel Bates Chair, CPSR-Madison
faustus@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Kurt Ackermann) (03/27/91)
In comp.org.eff.talk you write: >One thing I would like to see, and I think it might work out well, is the >creation of EFF chapters at colleges. ACM does this, and although their >agenda is different, it seems to work quite well with respect to informing >students and teachers about computers. >If the EFF did this, they would be addressing some of the problems of the >electronic frontier at the basic level -- the corporate employees, lawyers, >programmers, etc. of the future. Something else you might consider is the general activism of college students. EFF News could be distributed and talked about, perhaps excerpted in college papers as timely or interesting issues came up that concerned a broad enough base of students. Also, as recently mentioned in another thread in c.o.e.t, the local chapters could organize trips to certain court cases (recently very popular in the Chicago area I might add :-) for a show of support and interest. Students might also send mailings to congress-folk, make phone calls, etc. Young, idealistic, and motivated individuals are a good base to build. >The chapters could sponsor lectures about Computer Use In Business and The >Responsibilty Therein and so on. Basically, adress the same issues that >come up here on comp.org.eff.talk but within an academic environment. >It could help to heighten awareness about what goes on with hackers and >networks and direct-mail-advertisement databases and so forth. These are good ideas, too. >It would also help people like me who are frustrated and don't know what to >do to help actually get out there and do something instead of sit back and >read comp.org.eff.news every couple of weeks. >If the EFF were to do something like this, I would be glad to help here at >Loyola in Chicago any way I could. I'm not too great at organizing or >making an agenda, so they would have to spoon feed me an outline or something. >Is anyone else interested in this? In the EFF or other students/teachers? I'm certainly interested. Let's see how this strikes others. >Louis Giliberto >(louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us) Kurt Ackermann | Grey, dear friend, are all | | of your theories; the golden | | tree of life is green! | -Mephistopheles
theo.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Theo Heavey) (03/27/91)
samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) writes: > In article <7846@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > >Yes, but there are people interested in promoting the aims of EFF who > >aren't interested in promoting the entire spectrum of trendy causes > >which the Politically Correct define as "Social Responsibility." > >The electronic frontier might be better served by a separate group. > > Before tarring an entire organization with the brush of Political Correctness > you should try to find out if Computer Professionals for Social Responsibilit > does in fact promote "trendy causes." Furthermore, there are twenty differen > CPSR chapters, and they have widely differing interests. I'm not saying that > you shouldn't start a separate group, but kindly do not sling mud at a group > who is, after all, working with the EFF on a number of civil liberties issues > > --Samuel Bates > Chair, CPSR-Madison Sam, Being from an educational organization's student chapter (ACM) I would like to get more information about CSPR to pass along to our chapter (and others as well). Please send the relevant address(es) etc. and then we can ALL get educated about what CSPR does and does not do. theo heavey chair, acm florida Atlantic university theo@cs.fau.edu
tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) (03/27/91)
The News Manager) Nntp-Posting-Host: na Reply-To: tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) Organization: Standard Disclaimer References: <1991Mar18.214218.29444@vpnet.chi.il.us> <18668@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Mar19.211732.14152@vpnet.chi.il.us> <1991Mar19.213148.14254@vpnet.chi.il.us> <669491914.4141@mindcraft.com> <7846@hsv3.UUCP> Distribution: usa Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1991 23:47:40 GMT Quick and general question: Where can one find more information about EFF? Does it have a membership? What does it do at the local level? Will appreciate all pointers, Tony
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (03/29/91)
In article <1396@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>, learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: > In article <7846@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > >>Yes, but there are people interested in promoting the aims of EFF who >>aren't interested in promoting the entire spectrum of trendy causes >>which the Politically Correct define as "Social Responsibility." > > It is of great interest to me to hear how "the Politically Correct" > might define "Social Responsibility" any differently then Mike Van Pelt > does. > > Beyond that, I am also interested in hearing what the "trendy causes" > might include which, by implication in the included text, have little to > no permanent significance to our societal framework. > > It seems that everyone who has thought about the issues we discuss here > determines which axe, if any, they wish to grind. In my experience, such > axes are merely a focal point of an individual's interest, and don't seem > to denote exclusivity of interest at the expense of other, though perhaps > somewhat lesser, emotional attachment to causes celebre. On about half of what I have seen announced as agenda of CPSR over the years I find myself concerned about the issue and on the opposite side of the debate from CPSR. Other groups that assume the label "Social Responsibility" are wrong a higher proportion of the time. The label "Politically Correct" seems to reliably tie to the areas of difference. Of course, I'm speaking for me, not for Mike Van Pelt. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
swoodcoc@isis.cs.du.edu (Steven Markus Woodcock) (04/01/91)
In article <1991Mar26.164325.2631@spool.cs.wisc.edu> samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) writes: >In article <7846@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >>Yes, but there are people interested in promoting the aims of EFF who >>aren't interested in promoting the entire spectrum of trendy causes >>which the Politically Correct define as "Social Responsibility." >>The electronic frontier might be better served by a separate group. >>-- >>"It was more dangerous to drive Mike Van Pelt >>away from Three Mile Island than Headland Technology/Video 7 >>to stay there." -- Dr. Bruce Ames. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp > >Before tarring an entire organization with the brush of Political Correctness, >you should try to find out if Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility >does in fact promote "trendy causes." Furthermore, there are twenty different >CPSR chapters, and they have widely differing interests. I'm not saying that >you shouldn't start a separate group, but kindly do not sling mud at a group >who is, after all, working with the EFF on a number of civil liberties issues. > > --Samuel Bates > Chair, CPSR-Madison With all due respect, Mr. Bates, your organization lost MY respect when it came down against the SDI concept, favoring the demonstrably amoral M.A.D. doctrine over M.A.S. (Mutually Assured Survival). --Steven M. Woodcock SDI Simulations Engineer Senior Software Engineer National Test Bed -- "...Men will awake presently and be Men again, and colour and laughter and splendid living will return to a grey civilization. But that will only come true because a few Men will believe in it, and fight for it, and fight in its name against everything that sneers and snarls at that ideal..."
swoodcoc@isis.cs.du.edu (Steven Markus Woodcock) (04/01/91)
Kurt:
Count me as interested in helping to form an EFF chapter or two out here
(in the Denver/Boulder/Colorado Springs area).
--
"...Men will awake presently and be Men again, and colour and laughter and
splendid living will return to a grey civilization. But that will only come
true because a few Men will believe in it, and fight for it, and fight in its
name against everything that sneers and snarls at that ideal..."karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr1.061003.18924@isis.cs.du.edu> swoodcoc@isis.UUCP (Steven Markus Woodcock) writes: > With all due respect, Mr. Bates, your organization lost MY respect when >it came down against the SDI concept, favoring the demonstrably amoral >M.A.D. doctrine over M.A.S. (Mutually Assured Survival). > > --Steven M. Woodcock > SDI Simulations Engineer > Senior Software Engineer > National Test Bed It takes some pretty tricky moral gymnastics to deny to oneself that a fully functional `defensive' system would also be a potent tool in an offensive setting. I see no clear-cut moral distinction between the two concepts. If the answer is "But we'd never do that!", please keep it to yourself (note Woodcock's `Organization:' header: `The Good Guys'). Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr1.061003.18924@isis.cs.du.edu> swoodcoc@isis.UUCP (Steven Markus Woodcock) writes: > With all due respect, Mr. Bates, your organization lost MY respect when >it came down against the SDI concept, favoring the demonstrably amoral >M.A.D. doctrine over M.A.S. (Mutually Assured Survival). > > --Steven M. Woodcock > SDI Simulations Engineer > Senior Software Engineer > National Test Bed With SDI, survival is neither "mutual" nor "assured". You are either telling the Big Lie, that such a shield would be impenetrable, or you are optimistic or oblivious to a level approaching religious fanaticism. While I won't go so far as to say "It can't work", it's not too difficult to conclude "it won't work perfectly", i.e. lots of people and places will still get vaporized, perhaps enough to bring down civilization. Some of you SDI guys have pointed to the phone system as a huge, networked application that doesn't crash. Well, it pretty much did crash, and furthermore it is continually being used, affording lots of opportunities for discovering and fixing problems. You'll never have a real SDI test of the magnitude of the one where it'll have to actually work or dire consequences will result, hardly "assured survival." -- -- Have computer, will travel. Same old story, same old song; Come to Texas for the it goes all right till it goes all wrong. chili that burns twice!! -- Will Jennings
randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (04/04/91)
[Followups to talk.politics.misc.] nd t ou ui R Press T __Randolph Fritz sun!cognito.eng!randolph || randolph@eng.sun.com ou ui Mountain View, California, North America, Earth nd t
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (04/06/91)
karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) writes: >It takes some pretty tricky moral gymnastics to deny to oneself >that a fully functional `defensive' system would also be a potent >tool in an offensive setting. I see no clear-cut moral distinction >between the two concepts. It takes a real pacifist to think that such reasoning has any relevancy to national policy. -- The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (04/06/91)
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >While I won't go so far as to say "It can't work", it's not too difficult to >conclude "it won't work perfectly", i.e. lots of people and places will So it won't work perfectly. Does that mean it's no good? Are you perfect? Should we send Star Trek's Nomad after you to eliminate imperfection? -- The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) (04/06/91)
The News Manager) Nntp-Posting-Host: na Reply-To: tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) Organization: Standard Disclaimer References: <1991Mar19.213148.14254@vpnet.chi.il.us> <669491914.4141@mindcraft.com> <7846@hsv3.UUCP> <1991Mar26.164325.2631@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <1991Apr1.061003.18924@isis.cs.du.edu> <670552208.6477@mindcraft.com> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1991 22:32:00 GMT In article <670552208.6477@mindcraft.com> karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) writes: >In article <1991Apr1.061003.18924@isis.cs.du.edu> swoodcoc@isis.UUCP >(Steven Markus Woodcock) writes: >> With all due respect, Mr. Bates, your organization lost MY respect when >>it came down against the SDI concept, favoring the demonstrably amoral >>M.A.D. doctrine over M.A.S. (Mutually Assured Survival). > >It takes some pretty tricky moral gymnastics to deny to oneself >that a fully functional `defensive' system would also be a potent >tool in an offensive setting. I see no clear-cut moral distinction >between the two concepts. So you see no difference between a scud and a patriot? And it takes tricky moral gymnastics for you to figure that out. And you see no clear cut moral distinctions between defense and an indiscriminate weapon of terror. I think you just broke a record in my book of intellectual rape on oneself a person would commit to justify his ideology. Tony
jefu@twics.co.jp (Jeffrey Shapard) (04/06/91)
While one approach would be to set up EFF chapters whenever you have enough people to call it such (how many is that?), it seems to me to be appropriate to AFFILIATE with other groups and organizations, professional and otherwise, which have members that share common concerns. And the concerns of the EFF _should_ be the concerns of all of us in this medium and all of those associated with computers or telecom in any capacity. And whether you are on the "right" side or the "wrong" side -- supply your own definitions of these values. The relationship betwee the EFF and the CPSR, and their cooperation in pulling together one helluva conference in San Francisco -- and one which brought together folks from almost all sides of the issues, cops and hackers, DAs and lawyers, sysops and users, law-makers and law-breakers, the whole range -- is a good model. If you personally do not like the overall tone or agenda of the CPSR chapters, then what about other organizations you are involved in? What about appropriate SIGs of the ACM? What about the EMA, the ENA, the VIA and all those other acronym orgs out there? I always feel a bit distraught when I see a new group arise and calls for yet another organization (I call it the UN Syndrome), when it may be more appropriate to work with and between other existing groups with shared concerns. Hey, isn't that what networking is all about? I would like to see the EFF here in Tokyo, but it would be a lot more effective if we could involve folks in/from other groups, rather than just having a dozen of us off in the back booth of a coffee shop talking into the wind. This newsgroup, by the way, is carried on major nodes of JUNET, Japan's largest internet, but I have yet to see anyone else fro other sites here say a thing... though the issues raised are certainly relevant to the Japanese context as well. The electronic frontier is booming in the land of the rising sun. --jefu * Jeffrey Shapard <jefu@twics.co.jp> "Connectivity * * Connect-activist and Operations Director, TWICS, Tokyo is our biz..." *
shore@theory.tn.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) (04/08/91)
In article <1991Apr3.223200.9420@novell.com> tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) writes: >So you see no difference between a scud and a patriot? And it takes >tricky moral gymnastics for you to figure that out. >And you see no clear cut moral distinctions between defense and an >indiscriminate weapon of terror. The US Army biological warfare research program was dismantled in 1968 but the research and development continues, purportedly for "defensive" purposes. I'm surprised that anyone would consider anthrax anything but an indiscriminate weapon of terror. >I think you just broke a record in my book of intellectual rape on >oneself a person would commit to justify his ideology. This sentence is unparseable. Does an idea lurk within? Follups to alt.activism -- Software longa, hardware brevis Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@theory.tn.cornell.edu
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr5.204255.360@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >>While I won't go so far as to say "It can't work", it's not too difficult to >>conclude "it won't work perfectly", i.e. lots of people and places will >So it won't work perfectly. Does that mean it's no good? Are you >perfect? Should we send Star Trek's Nomad after you to eliminate >imperfection? Jeez, quote two lines out of the article and discard the rest so that you can post a followup that misses the whole point, why don't you? My entire post was in response to a guy who called SDI "Mutual Assured Survival". The part you excerpted was only a piece of a criticism of the mutuality and the assuredness of "MAS". I did not conclude that it couldn't or shouldn't be done, only that it was not "mutual" or "assured", as the original poster, a software engineer at one of the SDI testbeds, asserted. -- -- Have Unix system, will travel. Same old story, same old song; Come to Texas for the it goes all right till it goes all wrong. chili that burns twice!! -- Will Jennings
trevor@ccc.govt.nz (04/11/91)
In article <1991Apr3.223200.9420@novell.com>, tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) writes: >> >> [ header deleted... ] >> >>It takes some pretty tricky moral gymnastics to deny to oneself >>that a fully functional `defensive' system would also be a potent >>tool in an offensive setting. I see no clear-cut moral distinction >>between the two concepts. > > So you see no difference between a scud and a patriot? And it takes > tricky moral gymnastics for you to figure that out. > And you see no clear cut moral distinctions between defense and an > indiscriminate weapon of terror. > I think you just broke a record in my book of intellectual rape on > oneself a person would commit to justify his ideology. > > Tony Ultimately, weapons of "defence" are blurred with weapons of "offense"; the issue is not at all a back-and-white one (as Algernon Moncrieff said, the truth is rarely plain and never simple). Part of British "defence" in WWII was the nightly bombing of German industry (and also cities...). More recently, the point of the ABM limitation treaties (and ABMs certainly ARE defensive, in the same way that Patriots are) was the realisation that ABM sites would encourage the proliferation of ICBMs and SLBMs to whatever point was neccessary to saturate all extant ABM systems AND THEN destroy the cities they "protected". (Re-read that ... kill the people ... ). I would cite the realisation that there is no philosophical difference between offense and defence as the major point of Robert McNamara's education during his term as U.S. defence advisor (please read his account of it before flaming me over this). What has this to do with EFF? Not a lot, I suspect, but since the issue is here I felt a need to answer it. Applying the same sort of arguments to caller-ID (I'm for it), some arguments say it is a defence of privacy and others say it will invade privacy; these arguments are not incompatible: it will do both, at the same time. Someone, somewhere will make a profit out of the junk-call/call-blocking "race" (but it still beats the arms race, morally), and we may (those of us who can afford to participate) end up benefitting in some sort of "quality of life" way from freer & more flexible comms. (We also benefit from technological improvements "spun off" the arms race...) Trevor Ingham trevor@ccc.govt.nz Christchurch City Council, (the address in my header may be Chch, New Zealand. incorrect) The opinions expressed above may not be construed as representing those of my employer or anyone else except myself. "To know the moral precepts, and not to use them to eliminate suffering, is to be like a sick person, who carries around a large medicine chest which is never opened" - Dagpo Lha Dje