From: Julian Assange <proff@suburbia.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:13:22 +0800
To: jonl@well.com (Jon Lebkowsky)
Subject: Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960903115249.006e7bfc@mail.well.com>
Message-ID: <199609031324.XAA30461@suburbia.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> At 07:40 PM 9/2/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >> what *constructive* 
> >> alternative to EFF do you propose? if you have none, please shut up.
> >
> >I think any organization that would apply political pressure rather than
> >bow to it would be an alternative.  I think an organization in touch
> >enough with its own policy to prevent its staff and board from making
> >embarassing big brother type proposals to curtail the ability of any of us
> >to post without attributation would be an alternative.  I think an
> >organization without the internal conflict and strife that has clearly
> >marred EFF in past and made it a laughable attempt at cohesive political
> >persuasion would be an alternative.  I think an organization that had
> >official policies on the core issues which it proposes to influence would
> >be an alternative.
> >
> >In short, an organization that had even one of the needed elements of
> >legislative influence.  (Cohesive, directed, persistent, and
> >uncompromising).

Certain members of the EFF board seem to be politically naive. The
rational, intelligent lobbyist will always see both sides of the
argument.  Presenting both sides of the argument to the world at large
is another matter altogether. You should only present both sides of the
argument to the inner policy tactics personnel only in order to formulate
policy and create defences for the weaknesses in your position. To the
outside world only ever sees a united front. This is basic politics.

The EFF is most certainly not the only speaker on the floor where this
issue is concerned. There are some very powerful government interests
who oppose anonymity in any form. For the EFF, who is viewed as normally
opposing government regulation, to have it's spokes-person start
shooting off her mouth and the EFF's previous position down publically
before they even go into battle is political suicide.

The claim of `I was just presenting my personal opinion on the matter'
doesn't hold water. Dyson represents a political lobby group and has no
"personal opinion" when talking publically about issues that concern the
organisation she has been elected to represent. In the interview
material I have seen Dyson talks about the EFF in the same context as
the anonymity issue, and the reader understandably gains the impression
that she is speaking on the behalf of the EFF, and I'm sure at the
time Dyson and the interviewer thought she was too.

Compromise is part of the legislative process, but it is something you
do behind closed doors when the battle is concluded and each faction
is counting the dead and starting to divide up territory. If you
start the battle in a compromised position, expect to loose everything.

Dyson, given her age and experience should be well aware of this, which
is why I find her remarks unusual.

-- 
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely  exercised for the good of its victims  
 may be the most  oppressive.  It may be better to live under  robber barons  
 than  under  omnipotent  moral busybodies,  The robber baron's  cruelty may  
 sometimes sleep,  his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who  
 torment us for own good  will torment us  without end,  for they do so with 
 the approval of their own conscience."    -   C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_ 
+---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+
|Julian Assange RSO   | PO Box 2031 BARKER | Secret Analytic Guy Union        |
|proff@suburbia.net   | VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA | finger for PGP key hash ID =     |
|proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu | FAX +61-3-98199066 | 0619737CCC143F6DEA73E27378933690 |
+---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+