karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) (09/09/90)
In article <JIM.90Sep5151902@baroque.Stanford.EDU> jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) writes: >Given the previous message, which should get the higher priority: >better security or better ethics? Either could have prevented it. > >Maybe spaf is right that "helping to establish a sense of >responsibility in users of networks and computers" is as important as >protecting our rights. Both in their initial press releases and in John Barlow's article in the current issue of `Whole Earth Review', the EFF have put much emphasis on the need to establish a shared set of values to inform future judgements on proper and improper use of electronic communications media. The motivation is the well-founded fear that, if we don't articulate such values soon enough and forcefully enough, Congress will create a new rationale for censorship, as they did for the broadcast media. Gene Spafford's contribution has been a near-hysterical attack on the EFF principals for failing to pre-judge what those values should be. His comments probably would not have incited an exchange of flames if he'd entered into a reasonable discussion, and not immediately presented an apparently-closed-minded judgement. I have two problems with his pronouncements: - It's not practical to solve security problems by locking up all the hackers, any more that we can solve drug problems by locking up all the users. In both cases, there are just too many of us. - It's silly to put so much emphasis on `encouraging responsibility' before we discuss what that responsibility entails. How can we even think of putting all of `them' away before we decide who `they' are? As I wrote in an earlier posting which may or may not have actually been propagated, the one-sided (pro-rights) nature of the EFF press releases and the ACLU's history match pretty well the one-sided emphasis of the Bill of Rights. As in the society at large, the responsibilities of members of the electronic global village must be defined in terms of respect for the rights of others, after we understand what those rights are and what they should be. -- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (09/11/90)
In article <9009091647.AA23752@mindcrf.mindcraft.com>, karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) writes: > Both in their initial press releases and in John Barlow's article in > the current issue of `Whole Earth Review', the EFF have put much > emphasis on the need to establish a shared set of values to inform > future judgements on proper and improper use of electronic > communications media. The motivation is the well-founded fear that, if > we don't articulate such values soon enough and forcefully enough, > Congress will create a new rationale for censorship, as they did for > the broadcast media. Exactly my fear, and a point I have been making to seminar audiences and my classes for years. However, I believe regulation is more appropriate a term than censorship. Unfortunately, this concern was not mentioned in the initial posting here listing the EFF's stated missions. That's why my initial posting referred to a "missing mission." > Gene Spafford's contribution has been a near-hysterical attack on the > EFF principals for failing to pre-judge what those values should be. Bullsh*t! I made no attack on the EFF's principals (or principles...I'm not sure which you really meant). I also made no attack on them for not already deciding what those values are. Rather than attack me as "hysterical," please try reading what I've written before you respond to it. > His comments probably would not have incited an exchange of flames if > he'd entered into a reasonable discussion, and not immediately > presented an apparently-closed-minded judgement. About as close-minded as your posting was. Go back and read my original posting again. Then tell me whose posting was close-minded and pre-judged. My postings have been flamed because I dare to suggest that there is another side to some of these claims of rights-abuse, and that unless an awareness is cultivated of *both* sides of the argument, the problem will not be properly addressed. > > I have two problems with his pronouncements: > > - It's not practical to solve security problems by locking up all the > hackers, any more that we can solve drug problems by locking up > all the users. In both cases, there are just too many of us. Obvious. I never claimed otherwise. Don't attribute it to me unless you can find someplace I've said it...or even implied it. > - It's silly to put so much emphasis on `encouraging responsibility' > before we discuss what that responsibility entails. How can > we even think of putting all of `them' away before we decide > who `they' are? I never made a claim anywhere about "putting all of 'them' away." What the heck have you been reading? Has somebody been forging articles with my name on them? Or are you just making stuff up and attributing it to me? We must discuss what responsible & appropriate use of computers *is* before we can talk about appropriate laws and regulation (if any). We very well can't talk about abuses before we know what responsible use is. THAT is what I think the EFF should be working on (in addition to the other efforts), and so far, the abuse I've received here for suggesting it has done nothing but convince me (and many others responding by e-mail) that I'm right. -- Gene Spafford NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) (09/11/90)
[I can't believe I'm actually posting to this group, which really should be
named talk.politics.computers, but here we go...]
In article <9009091647.AA23752@mindcrf.mindcraft.com> karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) writes:
Gene Spafford's contribution has been a near-hysterical attack on the
Oh, stop! Just give it up and go home. Spaf has *not* been "hysterical"
(either in the funny or shrill sense of the word). He's made some
statements with which one may agree or disagree. He's said some things
which were right and some which were wrong (and been good enough to admit it
(for which some other twit actually flamed him)). Personally, I wish he'd
stop asking for educated legal opinions - go to misc.legal for that.
But ferchrissake can we get back to the topic at hand?
I have two problems with his pronouncements:
- It's not practical to solve security problems by locking up all the
hackers, any more that we can solve drug problems by locking up
all the users. In both cases, there are just too many of us.
Strawman. He's never proposed any such thing and you know it. He may have
advocated locking up criminals, but surely you're not one to agree with
"hacker" == "criminal".
- It's silly to put so much emphasis on `encouraging responsibility'
before we discuss what that responsibility entails. How can
we even think of putting all of `them' away before we decide
who `they' are?
OK, let's get back to basics here. EFF stands for "Electronic Frontier
Foundation" and that's not just a cute acronym. It embodies a set of ideas,
based on the previous-century's experiences with the Western frontier. The
idea is that -- ideally -- the old West was a place where people more or
less respected each other, and kept pretty far apart. But when the
population got to the point of forming towns, then they needed help keeping
law and order, so they elected sherrifs, gave them badges, and respected the
badges. [Of course this is an idealized picture; I know that.]
As I see it, the EFF is proposing that *we* civilize the electronic frontier
in much the same way. Our community has grown to the point where we have
the equivalent of "towns" and things occasionally get out of control. So
there are two choices, we can elect our own sherrifs and give them the
respect they need, or we can continue screwing around until Big Brother
comes in and imposes His law'n'order on us.
Now, what I read Spaf to be saying was basically in agreement with this,
except that if we're going to be self-policing (he seemed to be claiming) we
needed to start with some kind of principles/ethics which would teach people
why the sherrifs were there and why one should respect them. Frankly, I
don't see what's so objectionable about that.
--
--Alan Wexelblat phone: (508)294-7485
Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com
"Politics is Comedy plus Pretense."stm@torsqnt.UUCP (Scott "Worf" MacQuarrie) (09/12/90)
wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: [deleted text} >[deleted text] Personally, I wish he'd >stop asking for educated legal opinions - go to misc.legal for that. Actually, one of the only useful things in Gene's posting(s) was that he WAS requesting Legal opinions on these matters which could easily affect you all. I only wish that someone familiar with Canadian Law would post as suscinct an explaination of the legal implications of these actions. I'd like to thank Mike Godwin for taking the time to post useful information on here and do his bit to raise the signal to noise ratio of this place. If there is anyone out there with a background in Canadian Law I would be interested in hearing about the legal implications for a similiar situation in Canada. As some of you may not know, Canada has a different Consitution and Bill of Rights (which is a VERY recent thing to have here), which changes the options available in a legal environment. An example of this, for those of us who grew up with television eyes, is that there is no legal right (as far as I know) to a phone call after being arrested in Canada. In closing, Thanks for the postings Mike and I hope you continue to allow us access to yourself as a resource for this group. It seems that Gene's Ego has forced him to move on now that he has been shown as mistaken in some of these areas. I fail to see the loss of his pop-legal advice as being too great a difficulty here. >-- >--Alan Wexelblat phone: (508)294-7485 >Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com >"Politics is Comedy plus Pretense." Scott T. MacQuarrie Systems Analyst, Sequent Computer Systems (Canada) Ltd. Toronto, Ont. 416-733-9200 stm@torsqnt.com or stm@sequent.com Opinions expressed are my own -- Scott T. MacQuarrie Systems Analyst, Sequent Computer Systems (Canada) Ltd. Toronto, Ont. 416-733-9200