From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Time For.... (was US Makes Commercial Software Piracy a Felony)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:45:58 GMT

In article <92110612195@drktowr.chi.il.us> magus@drktowr.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes:

>2) "Louis is mistaken ... neither EFF board members nor EFF employees."
>   No, Mr. Godwin, I think you are mistaken.  I know for a fact that
>   the EFF had people in Chicago on and off investigating sundevil, including
>   Mitch Kapor himself.

Mitch Kapor did not come to Chicago to investigate Operation Sundevil.
He did a stopover once at Midway airport to meet with a defendant who
was asking for EFF help. The meeting lasted for a few hours, after
which Kapor had to continue on his scheduled flight. Are you complaining
that Kapor did not schedule an appearance at an ACM meeting at that time?

>  I know that a member of the staff (maybe he is no
>   longer a member, but he is still active in the campaign) was in Chicago
>   a few weeks ago.

I'm not sure which "member of the staff" or which "campaign" you are
referring to here. I was in Chicago myself on Labor Day weekend in 1991,
but I wasn't asked to speak to ACM. It appears from some of the statements
you make here that you are relying on some second- and third-hand
information. If you can be more specific, I can determine whether an EFF
representative was in Chicago at a given time, and whether that person
could possibly have spoken to your ACM meeting.

>  If you are trying to tell me that no one who can
>   represent the EFF to the officers' satisfaction has even been in Chicago
>   except lawyers deposing Foley et al., then you must think I live under
>   a rock.

Whom do you have in mind? I have no idea which EFF representative you are
talking about here. Again, it seems likely that you are misinformed or
working on too little data.

>  Do you even know where the warrants were discovered for
>   a particular seizure in Sundevil?

Yes.

>  The names "Full Disclosure" and
>   Chicago come to mind.

FULL DISCLOSURE and its editors were very valuable in the RIPCO case and
in the Len Rose case.

>  I'm sure the EFF legal staff is accepting
>   facsimilies instead of federal documents now.  Why would you think
>   someone would believe this?  I hope it's an honest mistake on your
>   part.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here with your reference to fax.
We do have a fax number, though.

>That was not my inference, and certainly the smallest portion of my post.
>If that is the only point you got out of it, I suggest you re-read it.
>The point was the EFF does not do enough to inform the general public,
>and should divert funds and energy from other activities to this one.

Which activity would you like us to take funds from?

>I was not bashing the EFF for not bowing to me, I was
>bashing them for ignoring an important aspect of any movement for reform:
>backing from the majority of the population in a democratic society.

I don't believe we are deliberately ignoring anybody. Again, I'm sorry
we were unable to send someone to your ACM meeting.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd