mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (03/27/91)
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: [re: steering people interested in local EFF chapters to CPSR] >>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. I was (briefly) on CPSR's mailing list. It mostly looked to me like "Unilateral Disarmament *NOW*" stuff, with a technogeek spin: "Because There's Always One More Bug..." prefix to the unilateral disarmament demand. These topics have little to do with the Electronic Frontier. >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. For starters: Unilateral disarmament. Anti-strategic-defense. Socialism. None of this has anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open. >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. True. But the subset of us who don't want the Electronic Frontier closed off with a bunch of stupid, wrongheaded, misguided laws written by technoilliterates in Congress and various state legislatures does not by any means have a 100% overlap with those who have axes of the Trendy Campus Left type to grind. I might join an EFF chapter. I would not join a CPSR chapter. Which is the only aspect of this debate that really belongs in this group. Debates on the merits of disarmament, strategic defense, and socialism should go to the appropriate talk.politics groups; this is not the place for them. -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the | Mike Van Pelt Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are | Headland Technology reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.| (was: Video Seven) U. S. Constitution, Amendment 10. (Bill of Rights) | ..ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (03/27/91)
In article <7858@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >>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. ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >For starters: Unilateral disarmament. Anti-strategic-defense. Socialism. >None of this has anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open. Interesting that you're willing to narrow your activism. But I believe you've missed an important point. Has to do with curing the disease but the patient died anyway. Regardless of the particular direction on the causes, they are your causes too. >But the subset of us who don't want the Electronic Frontier >closed off with a bunch of stupid, wrongheaded, misguided laws written >by technoilliterates in Congress and various state legislatures does >not by any means have a 100% overlap with those who have axes of the >Trendy Campus Left type to grind. I might join an EFF chapter. I >would not join a CPSR chapter. Appears to me there are two separate concepts at play here. The first is that the stupid, wrongheaded, misguided laws we see written are ususally prepared to some great extent by special interests at the behest of the technoilliterates who, in the past, have had no where else to turn for assistance. The second issue has to do with the "what else." I suggest that in this life you'll rarely, if ever, come up with a 100% match to your desires. So it would seem that unless one is totally opposed to the "what else" in an organization, one joins anyway, for the parts that do mesh with your agenda. If nothing else, your presence does a lot to dilute whatever "what else" aspects you oppose. There's a potential for a double benefit at work here. There's a chance that exposure will somewhat modify your views, and your presence will modify theirs. Happens all the time. >Which is the only aspect of this debate that really belongs in this >group. Debates on the merits of disarmament, strategic defense, and >socialism should go to the appropriate talk.politics groups; this is >not the place for them. Agreed. And I think you'll discover that all organizations at some point exceed (officially) their original reason d'etre. Usually this is because the membership is made up of "entire" human beings whose interests tend to go beyond the narrow perspectives of the organizational charter. And when one similarly minded group or another achieves a majority on the governing board, additional issues spill into the activists cup. Once more, it is important that in order to achieve the representation for your views, you don't shy away from organizations whose agenda is a partial mesh. The don't be shy about working within the framework of the organization to make your voice count. Your presence will attract like minded creatures. Please note that I haven't espoused any particular set of views on the subjects at hand. But I do think it important to work, as much as possible, with organizations that are already there. Bill Vajk
raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael) (03/28/91)
mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >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: > [re: steering people interested in local EFF chapters to CPSR] >>>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. >I was (briefly) on CPSR's mailing list. It mostly looked to me like >"Unilateral Disarmament *NOW*" stuff, with a technogeek spin: "Because >There's Always One More Bug..." prefix to the unilateral disarmament >demand. These topics have little to do with the Electronic Frontier. There are a few CPSR T-Shirts from that era. One of them has a picture of an atomic explosion and the caption "The ultimate error message". Another (my favorite) says, "CPSR: Nerds Against Nukes". Computer- controlled launch-on-warning systems were and are a serious hazard capable of causing the extinction of life on this planet. CPSR was concerned that the people responsible for overall strategic planning (like Reagan) were and are technically illiterate and unaware of the risks involved. This is a valid concern. Pointing out flaws in proposed SDI systems and coming up with alternatives was an important thing for *somebody* to do, and for a while it was perhaps the most important thing that CPSR, and PSR (Physicians for Social Responsibility), did. However, plans for SDI have been scaled back considerably (partly as a result of a new public and congressional understanding of the issues), and as global tensions have eased, CPSR has largely moved on to other issues. CPSR is basically a forum for discussion of ethical issues related to computing. In a CPSR chapter, technically literate people get together and attempt to solve problems related to computer technology. They sponsor debates, write position papers, and lobby congress. They have a Washington office so congresscritters can call up and ask "Is this feasible?" or "What's wrong with this idea?" Groups are organized over many different types of topics, so you can pick what you are interested in and help to form policy in that area. Topics that they've had their hand in might include: Operation Sun Devil: search and seizure as it applies to computers. Censorship vs free speech as it applies to the electronic realm. VDT legislation: what are the risks associated with video displays, power fields, etcetera and do they justify legislation? (They sponsored a talk by the San Francisco board member who was responsible for the recent law, and I assume she was thoroughly grilled at the Q&A session afterwards). Toxic waste disposal/pollution in computer manufacturing. Using Computer Technology To {save the environment,feed the poor,whatever} Getting hold of government records *in computer-readable form* through the Freedom of Information Act. (David Burnham, author of "A Law Unto Itself", spoke at the annual meeting about what he could glean about the IRS and about individual police districts and special prosecutors by analyzing public-domain data with a 4GL.) Lotus Marketplace/ the spread of computer databases vs. personal privacy. Or generally anything you might see in comp.risks. Right now EFF-related issues take up a lot of CPSR's time, but other issues will grow and shrink in importance as new laws are passed and as people's priorities change. >For starters: Unilateral disarmament. Anti-strategic-defense. Socialism. >None of this has anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open. Socialism???? Since when? >True. But the subset of us who don't want the Electronic Frontier >closed off with a bunch of stupid, wrongheaded, misguided laws written >by technoilliterates in Congress and various state legislatures does >not by any means have a 100% overlap with those who have axes of the >Trendy Campus Left type to grind. I might join an EFF chapter. I >would not join a CPSR chapter. You don't need a 100% overlap with CPSR's positions to find it worth joining. They are involved in several causes I have very little interest in. Many members refused out of protest to come to a panel session about "Women in Computing", for example. But on the whole, you could hardly pick a group more opposed to "stupid, wrongheaded, misguided laws written by technoilliterates in Congress". Glad to be a member of CPSR, Glen Raphael raphael@fx.com >The powers not delegated to the United States by the | Mike Van Pelt
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar27.221957.13253@fxgrp.fx.com> raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael) writes: > Pointing out flaws in proposed >SDI systems and coming up with alternatives was an important thing for >*somebody* to do, and for a while it was perhaps the most important >thing that CPSR, and PSR (Physicians for Social Responsibility), did. The problem with "socially responsible" organizations is that they have a tendency towards liberal political agendas and often have few qualms with making up outrageous lies to validate their points. I (attempted to) debated Dr. Helen Caldicott once regarding the danger of nuclear power. She is a key figure in PSR. She stood there and argued that the published (CRC) values for plutonium toxicity were wrong and that her values, which were between 1,000 and 1,000,000 times greater were correct. She very proudly pointed out that she was a doctor. When I cited my sources, she continued to insist she was correct. She claimed that danger due to radiation exceeded danger due to chemical toxicity, even though the published information stated just the opposite. I wouldn't doubt that popular belief is still that plutonium is far worse as a radioactive substance than as a chemical poison - and it is a =very= poisonous substance. Another amusing example is the outlawing of DDT. Despite laboratory evidence, much of it generated by the environmentalist factions, proving that DDT is perfectly safe in the environment, DDT was outlawed because the public had been brainwashed into believing DDT is harmful. There was also evidence of falsified or intentionally misleading information presented to the EPA when the hearings were conducted. Yet, DDT is still outlawed - even though many pesticides currently in use are far more harmful to the environment, and many of these decompose to DDT-related compounds. DDT saves lives, both human and livestock, yet some "socially responsible" collection of people decided that, contrary to scientific evidence, DDT is a technological boogie-man. The problem as I see it is that the public is technologically illiterate. In the case of plutonium, everyone gets rabid at the word "radiation". If they knew that PC's emit "radiation" in various forms and at various frequencies, they'd probably demand the government do something about it. It isn't widely known, for example, that high resolution color monitors generate small amounts of X-rays because by the higher voltages. It isn't some great health hazard - but it still exists. In the case of DDT, "Silent Spring", a work of fiction, was held up as a work based on scientific fact, even after the information was disproven. The public didn't understand the implications of the various experiments (such as the famous "egg thinning" hoax) or such concepts as "solubility", (which explained why cited levels of dissolved DDT in fresh water were false and later exposed to be caused by adding alcohol to the water, which is itself toxic to marine life) and the misleading information (pelican depopulation which was actually caused by bill-slitting performed by fishermen) was already accepted as established fact. So you expect me to believe that "Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility" is behaving scientifically and responsibly? Fat chance. -- John F. Haugh II | Distribution to | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "I want to be Robin to Bush's Batman." -- Vice President Dan Quayle
randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (03/29/91)
[Followups directed to talk.politics.misc.] This is getting into a classic libertarians-vs-leftists else debate, and it's sounding more and more like a talk.politics.misc discussion. I strongly suggest arguments over the rightness or wrongness of the political left or right be moved to talk.politics.misc; we're really not going to resolve this here. 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
karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) (03/31/91)
In article <7858@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >I was (briefly) on CPSR's mailing list. It mostly looked to me like >"Unilateral Disarmament *NOW*" stuff, with a technogeek spin: "Because >There's Always One More Bug..." prefix to the unilateral disarmament >demand. These topics have little to do with the Electronic Frontier. The scope of what CPSR works on has expanded dramatically since Mike read their mailings. Some of the more active study groups are working on electronic privacy issues and on other civil liberties issues related to the rise of the electronic civilization. [ Bill Vajk asked:] >>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. > >For starters: Unilateral disarmament. Anti-strategic-defense. Socialism. >None of this has anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open. The strategic defense stuff grew from two roots. The first was opposition to the more ambitious Star Wars projects, trying to keep the tecnical feasibility of the control programs from being oversold. The second was Cliff Johnson's hobbyhorse, the concept that a launch-on-warning strategic defense system that bypasses decision-making by the appropriate humans is both dangerously destabilizing and a violation of US law. Socialism? The membership of the Palo Alto chapter has a bimodal distribution, divided between New Left types and libertarians. Whatever Mike says, lots of non-leftists are comfortable in CPSR. The radical libertarian individualists who think that "social" and "society" are dirty words probably won't join. I doubt that it would be productive to limit any political action group's charter enough to make them happy; let 'em sit in their own little bomb shelters with their shotguns. Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) (04/01/91)
In article <19128@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: >In article <1991Mar27.221957.13253@fxgrp.fx.com> raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael) writes: >> Pointing out flaws in proposed >>SDI systems and coming up with alternatives was an important thing for >>*somebody* to do, and for a while it was perhaps the most important >>thing that CPSR, and PSR (Physicians for Social Responsibility), did. > >The problem with "socially responsible" organizations is that they have >a tendency towards liberal political agendas and often have few qualms with >making up outrageous lies to validate their points. Cite a few "outrageous lies" made up by CPSR, please. >The problem as I see it is that the public is technologically illiterate. All the more reason for non-illiterate members of voluntary organizations to offer their expertise. People with organizational affiliations are better able than individuals to have their views heard. >In the case of plutonium, everyone gets rabid at the word "radiation". If >they knew that PC's emit "radiation" in various forms and at various >frequencies, they'd probably demand the government do something about it. >It isn't widely known, for example, that high resolution color monitors >generate small amounts of X-rays because by the higher voltages. It >isn't some great health hazard - but it still exists. Many of those high-resolution color monitors are quite well shielded because their manufacturers, some users, some pressure groups (including CPSR), and some regulatory agencies are aware of this fact. There is a minor health hazard and the fix (shielding) is relatively inexpensive. >So you expect me to believe that "Computer Professionals for Social >Responsibility" is behaving scientifically and responsibly? Fat chance. How about offering a critique based on what CPSR actually is and what its members do, John, instead of a flame based on your prejudices against its name? So far we've seen the red paintbrush and guilt-by-association applied to CPSR. How long before we hear that it's a Commie-Jewish conspiracy, and a threat to the American Way of Life? (oops, maybe I'd better catch up in this group before I ask this one ...) Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Komarimasen) (04/06/91)
In article <7858@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) treats us to some
real inanities for which I am about to flame him. Hit 'n' now if you have
no interest.
I was (briefly) on CPSR's mailing list.
Isn't there an award given for long-distance conclusion-jumping? Mike,
having vast experience with CPSR, feels qualified to grace us with his
definitive conclusions on its form, purpose, motives, and putative
resemblance to the EFF. Yeah, right. [1]
It mostly looked to me like "Unilateral Disarmament *NOW*" stuff, with a
technogeek spin: "Because There's Always One More Bug..." prefix to the
unilateral disarmament demand.
In his enlightened way Mike is, I think, trying to refer to CPSR's
organizational position against Star Wars (SDI). I won't go into the
details of that position - you can read for yourself about the debates and
discussions that went on around the topic. Suffice it to say it wasn't a
position CPSR took lightly, and it has been quite controversial.
These topics have little to do with the Electronic Frontier.
Perhaps. I can, when I'm in a mood, work up an argument that the
surroundings of SDI, particularly the attempt to classify everything in
sight and restrict things like the FOIA is related. I can also point out
that the jingoism invoked by a US-only "defense shield" (stop laughing you
in the back) is contrary to the standards of the emerging electronic
community. But you're probably not interested in reasoned debate like that.
You'd rather toss around phrases like...
Unilateral disarmament. Anti-strategic-defense. Socialism.
Booga-booga!! Socialism! Run fer the hills, wimmin, while us hairy-chested
capitalist libertarian macho types protect you from the Red Menace.
Yawn.
None of this has anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open.
On the other hand, we might discuss how the socialists governments of
countries like Finland and Sweden have passed privacy laws that may, in some
ways, be superior to those of the good-ole Yew Ess of Ay.
I might join an EFF chapter. I would not join a CPSR chapter.
And I, sir, would not join any organization which would have you as a
member. (That's sarcasm, Mike. Listing organizations to which we both
belong shows you've missed the point.)
Which is the only aspect of this debate that really belongs in this
group. Debates on the merits of disarmament, strategic defense, and
socialism should go to the appropriate talk.politics groups; this is
not the place for them.
This is kind of funny. A few months ago, when I dropped out of regular
participation in the group, I wrote a note saying how disappointed I was
that this group had become talk.politics.computers. Plus ca change...
[1] For the record: I was a member of CPSR for four years, during part of
which time I served as South region chapter treasurer and another part as
program chairman for the same chapter. I am no longer a member because I
think $40 dues are outrageous, esp. given how little of that is given back
to the locals.
--
--Alan Wexelblat phone: (508)294-7485
Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com
"People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them that
Benjamin Franklin said it first."