cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-09-03 - What is the EFF doing exactly?

Header Data

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
To: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
Message Hash: d0d01c9f8f908bf0eacd54c6c5ed981c104f2973f0e61ff6b0d4511d4c35d7df
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960902174944.29644A-100000@polaris>
Reply To: <199609022132.OAA16572@eff.org>
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-03 01:53:07 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:53:07 +0800

Raw message

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:53:07 +0800
To: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
Subject: What is the EFF doing exactly?
In-Reply-To: <199609022132.OAA16572@eff.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960902174944.29644A-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Stanton McCandlish wrote:

> > > What is or is not your personal or EFF's official position is meaningless.
> > > It is clear that the personal beliefs of those involved in EFF are
> > > those of compromise, present day politics, and a general lack of moral
> > > fiber.
> 
> But that's not clear at all, since none of you have access to internal 
> discussion on this or any other topic here.  Esther's position is one of 
> guarded caution. Our former board member David Johnson's was one of 
> almost complete anti-anonymity (a fact that probably had a lot to do with 
> his leaving the board), while other board and staff members are 100% 
> pro-anonymity, and yet others are middleground or entirely silent on the 
> topic.

Why am I any more mistaken  for pointing out that a single influential
member of EFF's staff or board is anti-anonymity and yet remains with the
organization than you are for pointing out that a single influential
member who happened to be anti-anonymity has left?

If my position, as you represent, is misguided, surely your point about
Mr. Johnson is equally so.  If the board is almost 100% pro-anonymity,
where's the official position?

In so far as an organization is much defined by those involved, I think it
entirely right to wonder aloud about the personal motives of the staff and
board.  I think this PARTICULARLY prudent given EFF's reputation and prior
conduct.

I would be most happy to be proven wrong and see EFF suddenly, in a burst
of impressive moral fiber, speak out publically and take some political
action to assure anonymous communication.

> 
> Things simply are not as black and white as they might seem.
>

Well, let's have a clear official position issued then to end all dispute.

> > I agree with you whole-heartedly. I am stunned by the EFF's position on
> > this matter and they no longer have my support. Here are some more
> > of Dyson's statements on this subject.
> 
> You've not been reading very carefully. There is no "EFF's position on 
> this matter".  There is just Esther Dyson's position on this matter, 
> and quoted out of context.

Maybe there should be an EFF position on the matter.

What is EFF doing if not supporting anonyminity?

I'm hardly going to support an organization that proports to be
pro-internet freedom and yet has no official position on anonyminity.  Of
course you should expect people to wonder about EFF when you have no
official position and yet some staff and board members seem to have a
statist
bent.

> --
> <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/">    Stanton McCandlish
> </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org">        mech@eff.org
> </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/">         Electronic Frontier Foundation
> </A><P>        Online Activist    </HTML>

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li

Thread