From: Jon Lebkowsky <jonl@well.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:21:00 +0800
To: Stanton McCandlish <unicorn@schloss.li (Black Unicorn)
Subject: Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960903152037.58cfc590@mail.well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:04 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote:


>> I, unlike EFF, have never compromised my efforts to make strong crypto,
>> unescrowed strong crypto, and digitial communications, free from the FUD
>> spouted by government and media alike.  I, unlike EFF, have never
>> compromised my efforts to resist the expansion of a wiretap state.  I,
>> unlike EFF, have never proported to be a political represenative for these
>> positions and folded under the weakest of pressures like a reed.
>
>EFF has done none of that either.
>
>Compromise: 1. a settlement in which each side gives up some demands or 
>makes concessions. 2. a) an adjustment of opposing principles, systems, 
>etc., by modifying some aspects of each   b) the result of such an 
>adjustment. 3. something midway between two other things   4. a) exposure,
>as of one's reputation, to danger, suspicion, or disrepute   b) a 
>weakening, as of one's principles, ideals, etc.) as for reasons of 
>expediency.
>
>1 did not occur. EFF yielded nothing on any of the issues you mention.
>On Digital Telephony, which you clearly allude to, EFF opposed 
>implementation of the wiretapping provisions of the CALEA bill from start 
>to finish, and was instrumental in stripping most of them out, replacing 
>them with new privacy protections.  2 did not occur. Our mission remains 
>unedited from the day it was adopted, and EFF is just as committed to those
>principles now as ever.  We don't have a system, in the relevant sense, 
>as such.  There was no such adjustment, ergo no result of one.  3 does 
>not apply in any relevant sense (our steadfast assault against the CDA is 
>a "compromise" under such a definition because it was neither a total 
>victory, nor a total loss - yet I'm certain this is not the definition of 
>"compromise" that you intend).  4a is not relevant (that's the 
>security/secrecy-related definition, a nonsequitur in this context).  4b
>is simply a restatement of 2a - simply didn't happen.  Our results speak 
>for themselves on this.

Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing; without some give and take, we
sorta run right over each other. OTOH, I do agree that a strong position is
necessary at this juncture.

--
Jon Lebkowsky           http://www.well.com/~jonl              jonl@hotwired.com