[11765] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Short substantive EFF policy question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stanton McCandlish)
Mon Apr 18 18:52:35 1994
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
To: frezza@radiomail.net (Bill Frezza)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 13:42:23 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: gnu@toad.com, barlow@eff.org, farber@central.cis.upenn.edu, djw@eff.org,
com-priv@psi.com, stahlman@radiomail.net, dbuck@world.std.com,
ggilder@mcimail.com, gbolles@radiomail.net,
rre-maintainers@weber.ucsd.edu
In-Reply-To: <199404181304.AA26550@radiomail.net> from "Bill Frezza" at Apr 18, 94 06:04:24 am
>
> Stanton,
>
> My, my - looks like I hit a nerve.
Yes. This nerve is called lack of sufficient patience to continue dealing
with the same fingerpointing on the same issues, from the same people over
and over again.
> Your contempt for free market principles
No, I only have contempt for free market extremism. Free market
principles, applied sensibly, are great, and I am all for them. Free
market principles applied without reason are senseless, because they do not
take into account reality. The reality of the situation is a market
riddled with regulation. Failing to take into account a market that is
built around regulation will yield failures. Your position would seem to
hold that because theft is bad, we should never lock our doors, because by
doing so we are buying into the theft v. self-protection paradigm. The
current market, of regulation-propped semi-monopolies, is not a healthy
market, but a virulent and dangerous one, and any new proposals that wish to
thrive in this market, need a strong "immune system" as it were. Your
defenseless free-market versions would be slaughtered instantly. They
already HAVE died. If you doubt this, then please show me where they are.
Please demonstrate to me any serious, still-existing, proposals for 100%
deregulation.
When the market is torqued in this manner, for better or ill, simply
removing all regulation in one fell swoop will not fix a thing.
Regulation is like a cocaine addiction: the withdrawl is painful and time
consuming, and it will only work if the subject (in this case the
infotainment/telecom/cable meta-market) *wants* to be clean. Cold turkey,
without a clear and strong will to kick the habit, simply won't cut the
mustard. I see no evidence of this will, and thus I believe only a
gradual reduction in "dosage" will succeed. This is why we are asking for
a minimization of regulation, and are supportive of moves like HR3636 that
would open this meta-market gradually, rather than all in one swell foop.
Also, it is clear to me from your rants that your position is so extreme
that you see even publicly-funded libraries and POTS as a cancer on society
and threat to individual liberty, an opression of the poor, and a criminal
theft of our money for wasteful ends. I think the burden of proof is on
you to demonstrate the veracity of this notion, which on the face of it,
appears to me to be untenable, even if well intentioned.
> is only exceeded by the length of your diatribes.
Yes, I can be tumid.
> Have some mercy on the other readers and let's try a short substantive
> exchange.
Not sure I see the point, but I'm willing to give this another shot.
> Please provide a succinct official EFF response to the following questions.
> (Other EFF executives are welcome to pipe up.)
[...]
I have repeatedly suggested you contact Daniel Weitzner, our point man on
NII issues, but as you don't seem willing to do so, I will attempt to
provide answers to these questions after conferring with the appropriate
people. As you might guess, I am not deputized to spout forth "official
EFF response" without first conferring in this manner. In the event you'd
prefer to talk to Danny about this, you can email him at djw@eff.org.
I have a meeting with him scheduled next monday to discuss just these
sorts of questions. Your queries are not ignored, nor unwanted. Your
anti-EFF diatrbes are unwanted, particularly when you have not taken the
time to contact Weitzner to actually find out what our position IS, but
are simply making guesses about it. I apologize for my previous ire's
intensity, but it is very frustrating to be attacked without reason,
repeatedly and with great vitriol, even after having said the bulk of this to
you before, several times, including pointers to who you can contact to
clear the matter up. This is what I mean by be part of the solution or
get out of the way. For as long as you slam EFF, on a basis that relies
on guesswork and wishful thinking, you are being part of the problem.
> Thank you for your spirited advocacy on behalf of "the public".
Most welcome. I have no hope that I will change your mind on this, as you
appear to be completely adamant, but at least I'll have some questions and
answers at the end of this to add to the FAQ, and a hint at how OP 3.0 can
be improved semantically to avoid these kinds of confusions, and the
resultant accusations and misinterpretations, in the future.
Look for a full response next week (probably not cc'd to all of these
people, who are probably tired of this by now.) Sorry to cut this short,
but I have a newsletter to produce, etc., and not further time to spend on
this.
--
Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
"In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of
phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
- Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994
