learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (03/16/91)
Included text is gathered from several articles: Mike Godwin wrote: & Both Karl Denninger and William Vajk are mistaken to assume that & the EFF is not acting on certain cases. As we indicate in EFF News 1.03, & there are a number of cases we simply cannot talk about yet. I look forward to future reports which, as I mentioned, are presently notably absent, and according to my understanding of more recent statements, 'must remain so for tactical reasons.' John G. DeArmond wrote: } ... why not share the information with the net? } It would cut down on criticisms like you responded to and it would } reassure others like myself who probably would NOT speak out, that the } EFF is indeed involved and providing some form of assistance. Mike Godwin replies: & Are you saying that sharing such information would be good public & relations? It is precisely the criticism that we care too much & about public relations that I was responding to. This is the information age. This is the age of communications. It seems that in spite of the fact we're on the same team, we're having trouble communicating. Perhaps it is a matter of being in the right church, the wrong pew ? I have chosen my words in this newsgroup very carefully. I find it impossible to defend against things I didn't say. Actually, it shouldn't be necessary. Michael P. Deignan wrote: % Clearly, since the parties in other cases could become lax and take % advantage of the EFF's goodwill, it may be a good idea take this type of % position. Other times, depending on the nature of the case in question, % it would be nice to know if the EFF is going to get involved (or, if the % EFF is contemplating action.) Successful strategy for this form of activism requires the appearance of omnipresence and strength. It also requires a virtual presence at all targeted working levels. To get there requires some direct contact in the initial stages to enhance recognition. One need only look at the ACLU to note that once an organization has taken a hand in helping to establish case law, the need for direct intervention reduces over the long haul. This assumes a general understanding by all concerned that the strength and resolve continue to exist. Where any weakness is discerned, the image of invincibility necessary to success by mere presence deteriorates rapidly. In my humble opinion, best to stop contemplating issues like good will and begin contemplating issues like power. In 1990, the Computer Fraud Control Association (CFCA) perceived a new threat to successful prosecutions (eg, doing business the old way) arising if "several organizations promising funding for legal defense follow through." Doesn't this imply a recognition by the CFCA of the general weakness of the bulk of the cases provided serious monies were available for defense ? To bring this all back down to a personal level, which is where I live, I feel it appropriate to mention that I'm not here on the net simply griping because there's a medium here for my use. I'm expending at least one day per week actively working on issues related to these discussions, usually ferreting out information or expanding a database of names/places/events/legal_issues. I thought it important enough to disseminate information regarding this frontier to the non-netted public sector to assist Glen Roberts in putting together issue 22 of his Full Disclosure newspaper. I mention these matters to place my reasoning and positions into perspective. My criticisms are meant to be constructive, to be challenges. Bill Vajk | Nature abhors a vacuum. - Francois Rabelais [Gargantua]
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (03/19/91)
In article <1361@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: > >I look forward to future reports which, as I mentioned, are presently notably >absent, and according to my understanding of more recent statements, 'must >remain so for tactical reasons.' I don't know what counts as "notably absent." We have been publishing editions of EFF News every few weeks, and we report on whatever we can report on at the time of publication. >This is the information age. This is the age of communications. It seems >that in spite of the fact we're on the same team, we're having trouble >communicating. Perhaps it is a matter of being in the right church, the wrong >pew ? I have chosen my words in this newsgroup very carefully. I find it >impossible to defend against things I didn't say. I'm not sure what you are alluding to here. You will note that I replied both to you and to Karl Denninger. Karl talked about how EFF is interested primarily in public relations, in his view. My point was that if this were true, we would always put a priority on communicating everything we do at the time we do it, in order to maximize our apparent "omnipresence" (your word), and in spite of the irreducible fact that tipping our hand may work against the interests of the people we're working for. >Successful strategy for this form of activism requires the appearance of >omnipresence and strength. It also requires a virtual presence at all >targeted working levels. To get there requires some direct contact in the >initial stages to enhance recognition. We will give consideration to your opinions on these and other matters about how best to present EFF to the public. >In my humble opinion, best to stop contemplating issues like good will and >begin contemplating issues like power. In 1990, the Computer Fraud Control >Association (CFCA) perceived a new threat to successful prosecutions (eg, >doing business the old way) arising if "several organizations promising >funding for legal defense follow through." Doesn't this imply a recognition by >the CFCA of the general weakness of the bulk of the cases provided serious >monies were available for defense ? Perhaps. But I'm not sure how the issue of "following through" is connected to the issue of publicizing ourselves when we follow through. >To bring this all back down to a personal level, which is where I live, I >feel it appropriate to mention that I'm not here on the net simply griping >because there's a medium here for my use. I'm expending at least one day per >week actively working on issues related to these discussions, usually ferreting >out information or expanding a database of names/places/events/legal_issues. I >thought it important enough to disseminate information regarding this frontier >to the non-netted public sector to assist Glen Roberts in putting together >issue 22 of his Full Disclosure newspaper. I mention these matters to place my >reasoning and positions into perspective. My criticisms are meant to be >constructive, to be challenges. We are aware of, and applaud, your independent efforts on these issues. We take both your efforts and your criticisms seriously. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 | "You gotta put down the ducky mnemonic@eff.org | if you wanna play the saxophone." Electronic Frontier | Foundation |