samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) (03/28/91)
I do not want to get into an argument about what CPSR does and does not do, but the last post contained some rather misleading information. 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. > > For starters: Unilateral disarmament. Anti-strategic-defense. Socialism. > None of this has anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open. > CPSR was started as an anti-strategic-defense organization, but very specifically because of the "technogeek" angle: the founders felt that they could point out solid technical reasons why SDI would not work as designed. The idea of unilateral disarmament is not a CPSR stand, though some of its members would think that is the logical next step; there are other members who believe that a good space-based defense CAN be built. There is even less evidence to say that CPSR supports socialism; CPSR is primarily concerned with raising issues of computers in society and discussing the implications, not with fostering a particular political agenda (in fact, as a non-profit organization, there are specific limits to how political it can be!). The anti-SDI stance is only one of several of CPSR's concerns; others are computers and health, computers in the workplace, and privacy and civil liberties issues. The last of these has been progressing quite nicely in conjunction with the EFF, which gave CPSR a major grant immediately upon its startup. Mr. Van Pelt is correct that CPSR has other concerns that do not have anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open. However, CPSR does share the EFF's concern with over-restrictive legislation of "electronic liberties." Hence one could join CPSR to talk about EFF issues, depending on how comfortable he/she is with the rest of CPSR's concerns. He is also right that this is getting off the topic of the group; I will be glad to have further discussions about CPSR on e-mail, but will not post further on the topic. > -- > 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 > > For those who are interested in finding out more about CPSR, you can write to: CPSR P.O. Box 717 Palo Alto, CA 94302-9917 or send e-mail to: eroberts@cs.stanford.edu (Eric Roberts, president of CPSR) --Samuel Bates Chair, CPSR-Madison
lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield) (03/29/91)
I also didn't want to clutter up an important newsgroup (not to mention that it's one of the last with a reasonably small and appropriate flow) but Mr. Bates's post contains some equally misleading information: samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) writes: >I do not want to get into an argument about what CPSR does and does not do, >but the last post contained some rather misleading information. >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. >> >> For starters: Unilateral disarmament. Anti-strategic-defense. Socialism. >> None of this has anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open. >> >Mr. Van Pelt is correct that CPSR has other concerns that do not have >anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open. However, CPSR >does share the EFF's concern with over-restrictive legislation of >"electronic liberties." Hence one could join CPSR to talk about EFF issues, >depending on how comfortable he/she is with the rest of CPSR's concerns. One could indeed join CPSR to talk about EFF issues; one could also join the Communist Party to talk about dialectical materialism. "Joining" an organization involves several things that people should be conscious of; particularly given the current discussions of privacy and information flow. If you join CPSR, you will be counted as a CP who is for SR; you will become one of the "nnn,nnn members who I represent, Congressman"; you will be listed as such on their rolls, you will (at least implicitly) have given your support (*and* your dollars) to *their* goals. Many organizations say right out front that by joining you state that you support their goals; ACM is one of the most blatant examples. I will not join ACM, because I do not agree with all of their Canons; but if I'm not Politically Correct, by *their* definitions, they exclude me. I would like to support the CM-related activities, I would like to attend SIGxxxx-es, I would like to receive their journals, I would like to attend their meetings. To do so, I *must* support their goals. I would guess that CPSR is the same way; even if they don't say it right on the enrollment form (like ACM) it's there. You are a *member* of CPSR, just as you would be a *member* of the Communist Party. -- -- Laird P. Broadfield | Year after year, site after UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb | site, and I still can't think INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com | of a funny enough .sig.
louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) (03/29/91)
In article <8243@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield) writes: > >I would guess that CPSR is the same way; even if they don't say it right >on the enrollment form (like ACM) it's there. You are a *member* of >CPSR, just as you would be a *member* of the Communist Party. This is the key point. I agree with this 100%. I am not for "social responsibility" as they define it. While I may agree with concern over the environment (as any person with half a brain would), I may not necessarily agree with the CPSR stance on what should be done. For example, I agree that we shouldn't dump toxic waste into the ocean, but I'm not about to join Greenpeace since I don't think the solution is to cap the outlet pipes of a chemical factory. As Mr. Broadfield states, by being a member, you passively support the agenda of the group you belong to. By voting democrat or republican, you don't necessarily support all of thier political agenda, but you are responsible for furthering it whether you like it or not. The agenda I would like to further most is that of the EFF. I would like to expand the Electronic frontier, make non-technogeeks aware of it, and influence how society thinks about it. The way I would like society to think about it would definitely not be represented by the agenda of CPSR since the frontier represents much more than social responsibility. I have nothing against CPSR, but when I suggested EFF chapters and someone suggested CPSR in lieu of them, I was somewhat amazed since the purpose of both groups *do* overlap but are decidedly different in many respects. I am not for promoting socially responsible computer professionals as I am in promoting attitudes towards the electronic frontier that are informed. This has a much broader aspect than social responsibility. For example, CPSR would probably be against hacking. This would, in most people's minds be socially irresponsible. However, down under, hacking is not always socially irresponsible. Most people still don't agree about whether what Morris did was right or wrong. The courts think it was wrong. The EFF is not concerned with the social responsibility of the act -- they are concerned with how the frontier is represented in light of such acts. That is my interpretation of the EFF agenda, and not a statement by them. I would not join ACM to promote the agenda of the EFF, and I don't plan to join CPSR to promote the agenda of the EFF. While all three groups may overlap, the agenda is different. I may join CPSR or ACM for a different reason, but not for the same reason I would join EFF> At any rate, I haven't heard any EFF guys say anything about this. Mr. Godwin? Any comments? Or should I send a letter to Mr. Kapor suggesting this? I would really like to see something like this start up. I know that a lot of people (believe it or not) at my school, including the faculty, still have not even heard of the EFF. THis would help to generate interest and publicity in the group which, in turn, may help to generate more income when the group gets non-profit status and needs the income. I think this would be a good thing. Loyola might even be a good test school since it is rather small, has a wide curriculum, is in a major city, has a decent law school, and, of course, some of the most famous outrages against the electronic frontier have been commited by branches of institutions located right here in Chicago. (My plug for Loyola having a chapter) Louis Giliberto, Jr. P.S. Maybe even a non-school-specific related chapter such as combining Loyola with U of I-Chicago, University of Chicago, and IIT at least until it begins to grow. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ! "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 !
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (04/01/91)
In article <1991Mar29.080758.14069@vpnet.chi.il.us> louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes: >Most people still don't agree about >whether what Morris did was right or wrong. The courts think it was wrong. >The EFF is not concerned with the social responsibility of the act -- they >are concerned with how the frontier is represented in light of such acts. I'd like to think that we are concerned with both. You are correct, however, to note that EFF is deeply concerned with how the prosecution of computer crimes shapes the social awareness of computers and computer use. >At any rate, I haven't heard any EFF guys say anything about this. Mr. >Godwin? Any comments? Or should I send a letter to Mr. Kapor suggesting >this? We're in the process of developing our plan for EFF membership. Until now, we have relied primarily on ad-hoc organization by people in areas that need specific problems addressed. I think I can safely say that we're interested in any proposals to start EFF chapters--good ideas come from everybody. When we receive our federal tax-exempt status, we will be able to move on the membership issue. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 | "You gotta put down the ducky mnemonic@eff.org | if you wanna play the saxophone." Electronic Frontier | Foundation |