[12859] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EFF Platform
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ira Brodsky (via RadioMail))
Wed Jun 1 23:00:42 1994
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 1994 14:28:07 PDT
From: Ira Brodsky (via RadioMail) <brodsky@radiomail.net>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
To: mech@eff.org
Stanton,
Rather than repeating everything,
I'd like to make just three points:
1. The EFF's concerns about
information 'have nots' are baseless
and misplaced. Freedom of the printed
press has always meant freedom from
licensing and--with the exception of
laws dealing with libel and
pornography--regulation. No
friend of the free press would demand
that the government force certain
newspapers to publish 'diverse' views
or emphasize specific topics, or
make suburban readers subsidize rural
readers. Doing those things wouldn't
ensure democracy, they would end it.
The EFF's efforts to deliver electronic
information to rural and urban poor,
I suspect, looks to most observers
like a hobby more than a meaningful
endeavor. Most information is still
delivered in printed form and is
(thanks to unregulated free markets)
both cheap and widely available. If
you really want to promote access to
information, why point the 'have nots'
in the direction of expensive
computers?
2. Regulation isn't inevitable--it
is created by people. A more
appropriate 'mugger' analogy would
be this:
EFF: we don't like crime, but it's
inevitable. Therefore, we want to
promote 'good' crimes (e.g., Robin
Hood).
My view: Crime is wrong. The fact
that we haven't managed to completely
eliminate crime is not an argument
for ceasing to oppose it.
3. Why spend time attacking the EFF?
Because the EFF is well-financed,
is not honest about its true
intentions, and the EFF's program
is dangerous. As someone said,
"the road to Hell is paved with
good intentions". Your Open Platform
is a recipe for limited access and
free speech. Government control of
the media (i.e., regulation) is the
problem, not the solution.
Ira Brodsky
Datacomm Research
Wilmette, IL
708. 256. 1763
