From: van@eff.org (Gerard Van der Leun)
Subject: Re: "Civil Disobedience" et al.
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: EFF
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:43:40 GMT

In article <C0CtKJ.BsG@athena.cs.uga.edu>, mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu
(Michael Covington) wrote:
> 
> It must be a slow month for computer news, if all the EFF can find to do
> is republish Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," close on the heels of the
> much-less-funny-than-its-author-thought "Bill o' Rights".
> 

As Editor of EFFector Online, I'd like to note that Rita and I and
the EFF in general do not see the newsletter as merely a PR tool
for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We like to think of it as one
source among many for interesting and thought-provoking items that
concern life on the electronic frontier. 

As such, both Rita and myself are always on the look out for articles
and items that we feel will be of interest. These items do not always
reflect the EFF point of view any more than, say, reports carried
on NPR reflect the views of the station or network management.

When we do use EFFO to promulgate news about the EFF or official
views of the EFF, these articles are always clearly headlined as
such and then signed as such.

For articles that are, in our opinion, satirical... well it would be
churlish to our readers and our authors to label them "satire". If
some of our readers do not or cannot see the humor or the intent, well
that is a failure of either the editor, the author, or the reader and
has to be settled on a case by case basis. I will say that I find it
interesting that you can fool around with a lot of amendments with
no flashback, but if you even jostle the second amendment the flames
rise up on all sides.

> I thought the EFF was supposed to be a pool of computer-ethics expertise,
> i.e., an organization of concerned people who have thought long and hard
> about the ethical and social aspects of computing, and who have the
> technical expertise to back up what they're saying.
You're absolutely right in this belief. But we don't have to strut our
stuff everytime the curtain goes up.

>   
> The last two EFFectors look more like nostalgia for 1960s radicals.
> Please, folks, let's get back on topic before we lose all credibility.

Actually, speaking as an editor, the last two EFFOs have generated more
email than the previous ten combined, so I assume I am doing my job
at getting people thinking. What they think and how is their business.

I'd point out that Thoreau was not a 1960s radical but an 1860s radical,
so I guess you are half-right.

As you'll see in the sig panel I am always looking for good articles
and items. Please send them in. A week or so ago, I got a long letter
from Dave Hughes taking me to task for publishing the Tom Forester
article concerning the failures of computing and telecomputing over
the last ten years. Seems Dave things we should only be putting out
articles that pump up the volume for what he sees as the Bright Side
of the Force. 

I challenged him to write us an article refuting Forester. Nothing
but silence has returned from Dave to date, but I hope he's writing
something that will put Forester in his place. We shall see.

I leave you with two thoughts:
1) Nothing is impossible for the person who doesn't have to do the
work.
2) "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own."


=================== CYBERWRITERS TAKE NOTE ======================
We're always looking for ideas, items, and articles about the Net,
cyberspace, ISDN, civil liberties and the electronic frontier.
Submissions and pointers can be sent to:
                       van@eff.org.
=================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk