lshaw@walt.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) (08/22/90)
I'm not exactly sure, but this newsgroup seems to be about how laws
and computers and freedoms and such interact and perhaps how they
should interact. If I'm wrong, please clarify what it's for.
Also, does anybody know what the EFF's stand on this is? Are they
trying to keep law to a minimum amount of limitation, trying to
make strong laws that protect everybody, or just trying to foster
discussion to see what everyone wants?
I for one cast a vote for keeping everything as free as it is.
The internet is the best example of freedom of speech I've seen.
I can post about whatever I want to and say whatever I want to, and
you don't have to read it if you don't want to. The amazing thing
about it is that it seems to have worked. This experiment in (almost)
total freedom has led to the honor system of netiquette, which, if you've
noticed, most people follow. Sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio
may get low, but it's still better than television or any of the other
information media around. People respect each other without anybody
making them do it. At least, that's true here on the internet.
I suspect most computer scientists will agree. I am concerned that
with all the look-and-feel suits and such, that the computer world could
start to lose the unique character it has and computer science could
become just another part of Big_Business (tm), with all its lawsuits,
bureaucracy, and greed.
As one person put it (in a discussion about lawsuits):
"Doesn't it feel like the fun is just about over?"
Don't let that become the truth.
============================================================================
"The beauty queen, clevely clad, Logan Shaw
admires herself in a cigarette ad. lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Will she admit that all was in vain ========================
when the face in her mirror cracks like a windowpane?"
-Elim Hall, _Things_Break_mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) (08/22/90)
In article <36585@ut-emx.UUCP> lshaw@walt.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) writes: > >Also, does anybody know what the EFF's stand on this is? Are they >trying to keep law to a minimum amount of limitation, trying to >make strong laws that protect everybody, or just trying to foster >discussion to see what everyone wants? I think it is safe to say that the Electronic Frontier Foundation wants whatever laws that *are* passed to reflect what the technology and problems really are, and not what misinformed lawmakers imagine they might be. For example, the law shouldn't assume that most hackers are crooks and technovandals, and should recognize that computer hackers may well represent the best and the brightest of our future human capital. >I for one cast a vote for keeping everything as free as it is. One problem is that things aren't that free right now. There have been a lot of show trials and show prosecutions this year, and a lot of third parties have suffered as well. The seizures at Steve Jackson Games are only the most well-known example. In that seizure, the Secret Service agents told Jackson that the manual for his role-playing game called GURPS Cyberpunk was actually a manual for computer crime. Jackson's company has been crippled by the seizures of their information and equipment, much of which was unnecessary. >The internet is the best example of freedom of speech I've seen. I agree, but the Internet is only part of what this is all about. --Mike Mike Godwin, UT Law School | --S is for 'Save me!' No longer a bar-exam nerd | --T is for 'Take it slow!' mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | --O is for 'Oh, no!' (512) 346-4190 | --P is for 'Please, please don't go!'