1996-09-10 - Re: LACC: Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?

Header Data

From: Dan Stromberg <strombrg@hydra.acs.uci.edu>
To: Julian Assange <proff@suburbia.net>
Message Hash: 526c137700ab4f4ff2602ce9e15334851cada969b6f8d63ef5dacf156255d6dd
Message ID: <323459C7.5492@hydra.acs.uci.edu>
Reply To: <199609080749.RAA01948@suburbia.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-10 01:26:52 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:26:52 +0800

Raw message

From: Dan Stromberg <strombrg@hydra.acs.uci.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:26:52 +0800
To: Julian Assange <proff@suburbia.net>
Subject: Re: LACC: Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
In-Reply-To: <199609080749.RAA01948@suburbia.net>
Message-ID: <323459C7.5492@hydra.acs.uci.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

I sent this to you privately, because I did not want a public war. 
You've chosen to bring it to the list anyway.

What you've written below appears to be quite nonsequitur, but I suppose
one can guess the upshot.

Many governments are quite braindead, when it comes to crypto, yes.

I will reiterate: many governments are also quite braindead, when it
comes to demonstrating reasonably accurate "metaknowledge", when it
comes to having a clue about just how certain something really is.

I obviously applaud your efforts to free crypto.

I obviously deplore your efforts to fight crypto in the manner of the
ugliest of politicians, and find it quite hypocritical that you've
suggested that in so doing, you are -avoiding- arguments of those who
seek to destroy you.  I believe it is quite clear, you're arguing
against yourself: your methods are very much those of the ones who "seek
to destroy you.", and to the extent that this is true, I'd say they
-have- destroyed you.

Note that I have seen/noticed no example of this from you - only that
you have -stated- that things should be phrased in a quite B&W manner
for political advantage.

Were you seeking to make things messier, when you brought this to the
list without asking first?

Julian Assange wrote:
> > How many of the world's stupid policies have been enacted, because
> > someone decided to present only one side of an issue, realized it was
> > "the wrong side", and felt they couldn't later change their mind for the
> > better - because they presented the issue as overly black-and-white
> > initially?
> I agree, however you are confusing large parties, so dominant as to form
> government and policy at whim with those that represent a particular
> cause or interest group. The EFF falls into the latter category. Its
> goals are relatively narrow, its membership tiny.  Such a small group,
> fighting under-resourced battle against powerful, conservative interests
> does not need, and should not espouse the arguments of those who seek to
> destroy it. When Canoing up a waterful, one does not need to paddle
> backwards 50% of the time in order to be "fair".