Hacker 2/HACKER2.mdf/cud/cud504d.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 6KB | 139 lines

Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 23:29:54 CST
From: Jim Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--Some Questions & Comments on EFF Reorganization

((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following exchanges were taken from The Well's
EFF conference and a Usenet post).

++++++

Topic 402:  Major Changes for the Electronic Frontier Foundation
# 75: jim thomas (jthomas)      Thu, Jan 14, '93  (22:16)      28 lines

Although I, too, recognize and appreciate the tough choices EFF has
been forced to make, and respect their continued dedication to
pursuing cyberrights, I am still a bit unclear about their direction
and what it means for members. Among the concerns:

1) Who is now the constituency?
2) What is the primary source of revenue? While this is normally not
   particularly an important question, if the primary contributors
   are large corporations, what are the implications of this
   for the future?
Does the reorganization symbolize a shift away from grassroots
   "democracy" (remember those discussions waaaay back in '90 when
   this conference started?) toward restricted access?
4) What issues previously addressed will now be scrapped?

Mike (Godwin), in many ways, symbolized what EFF stood for: An
aggressive libertarian organization attempting to balance the broad
panoply of Constitutional rights with the legitimate needs of law
enforcement.  His visibility created positive awareness for EFF
through his on-line and F2F interactions, and his energy in responding
to questions and helping others was critical in giving EFF a positive
image on all sides of the various issues. I suspect that EFF would be
a very different organization without his participation at some level.

I remain unwavering in my enthusiasm for EFF, but I am not yet certain
of the implications of the changes or what it means for the members.

+++++++++++++++++++++

FROM:  John Perry Barlow ([e-mail])

 Jim...

These are thoughtful questions. Let me see if I can answer them
succinctly:

 1) Who is now the constituency?

 Same as it ever was. Anyone who has an interest in the present and
 future openness of digital communications. This includes not only the
 online community....or rather, communities, of today, but all the
 people who will wake up to find themselves wired tomorrow.

 2) What is the primary source of revenue? While this is normally not
     particularly an important question, if the primary contributors
     are large corporations, what are the implications of this for the
     future?

 To be perfectly honest, we get a lot more support now from large
 corporations than from individual donors. But I think I can honestly
 say that we have not been much influenced in our actions by this
 fact.

We have some big jobs to do. None of this comes cheap. We
take support where we can find it and don't accept it with strings
attached (unless donations are given, as they sometime are, in support
of specific programs).  The best way to balance the funding weight of
the large outfits is for individuals to be a bit more generous in
their support.

 3) Does the reorganization symbolize a shift away from grassroots
     "democracy" (remember those discussions waaaay back in '90 when
     this conference started?) toward restricted access?

 Please remember that there is a difference between democracy and
 freedom of expression. We support the latter and hope that the former
 will be a natural consequence. We believe in unrestricted access.

 4) What issues previously addressed will now be scrapped?

 I think, if you read the statement carefully, you will find that we
 are scrapping less than we are fine-tuning. The overall agenda
 remains much the same.

++++++++++++

FROM: Mitchell Kapor ([e-mail]) 15, '93  (06:56)

The FTP archive will continue to be actively maintained here in
Cambridge and later in Washington, D.C.  EFF will hire a net-savvy
system administrator in the D.C. area to oversee tehcnical operations
of eff.org.

+++++++

FROM: Jim Thomas ([e-mail])

John (Barlow)---thanks for the succinct (and re-assuring) comments.
Growing pains are never easy, and the EFF reorganization becomes an
occasion for others of us to critically question our own involvement,
goals, and direction, which is usually a good thing. Perhaps the next
few months will be an exciting time of growth and maturity for us all.
Dialectic of existence, and all that.....

I knew a kid who, in highschool biology, took the instructor's pet
lizzard and cut off its tail, then its legs, and fed them to it.  The
lizzard's internal programming predisposed it to self-destructively
feed upon itself, much as some of EFF's critics are doing.

EFF's reorganization may or may not prove a wise or effective move.
The new strategy may or may not be fiddling with the devil.  The EFF's
apparent direction certainly departs from my own preferences for a
more aggressivly radical-populist approach. But, this misses the
point. The EFF was formed to protect cyber-rights, and there is more
than one "correct" way to do this. The board has chosen the way with
which they feel the most comfortable and competent. Some of us may
feel betrayed by that choice because, myopically, we feel EFF should
be shaped in *OUR* image and deal with *OUR* issues. We forget that
social action requires a variety of approaches. If we're not
comfortable with EFF's current direction, we can wish them well,
organize in alternative ways, and continue to work together in ways
that we feel most comfortable for common goals.

The primary forces behind EFF, John and Mitch, have been instrumental
in helping others, both publicly and privately, for the past three
years. Some of the criticisms against them (and EFF) are of the "yeh,
but what have you done for us lately?" variety.

Lizzards who feed on themselves may be satisfied for the nonce, but
they still invariably self-destruct.  We should recognize that the
EFF's new direction is just one of the necessary steps involved in
social action, and the rest of us should use it as the opportunity to
reassess ways we can continue to organize and cooperate. We'll become
stronger in the process.

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253