[65027] in Cypherpunks
Re: LACC: Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Stromberg)
Mon Sep 9 14:21:01 1996
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 10:54:15 -0700
From: Dan Stromberg <strombrg@hydra.acs.uci.edu>
To: Julian Assange <proff@suburbia.net>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
I sent this to you privately, because I did not want a public war.
You've chosen to bring it to the list anyway.
What you've written below appears to be quite nonsequitur, but I suppose
one can guess the upshot.
Many governments are quite braindead, when it comes to crypto, yes.
I will reiterate: many governments are also quite braindead, when it
comes to demonstrating reasonably accurate "metaknowledge", when it
comes to having a clue about just how certain something really is.
I obviously applaud your efforts to free crypto.
I obviously deplore your efforts to fight crypto in the manner of the
ugliest of politicians, and find it quite hypocritical that you've
suggested that in so doing, you are -avoiding- arguments of those who
seek to destroy you. I believe it is quite clear, you're arguing
against yourself: your methods are very much those of the ones who "seek
to destroy you.", and to the extent that this is true, I'd say they
-have- destroyed you.
Note that I have seen/noticed no example of this from you - only that
you have -stated- that things should be phrased in a quite B&W manner
for political advantage.
Were you seeking to make things messier, when you brought this to the
list without asking first?
Julian Assange wrote:
> > How many of the world's stupid policies have been enacted, because
> > someone decided to present only one side of an issue, realized it was
> > "the wrong side", and felt they couldn't later change their mind for the
> > better - because they presented the issue as overly black-and-white
> > initially?
>
> I agree, however you are confusing large parties, so dominant as to form
> government and policy at whim with those that represent a particular
> cause or interest group. The EFF falls into the latter category. Its
> goals are relatively narrow, its membership tiny. Such a small group,
> fighting under-resourced battle against powerful, conservative interests
> does not need, and should not espouse the arguments of those who seek to
> destroy it. When Canoing up a waterful, one does not need to paddle
> backwards 50% of the time in order to be "fair".
