🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ssatchell.823184372@BIX.com>,
ssatchell on BIX <ssatchell@BIX.com> wrote:
>boursy@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) writes:
>>In article <310BE334.B5C@passport.ca>, Jason Smith  <pax@passport.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>	The EFF sold out and has split and is now just a shell of its
>>former self.  They became dependent upon large corporations for their
>>survival and became part of the DC establishment.
>
>>	Read the article on them in the Feb. issue of Wired Mag.--it
>>covers the story very well.
>
>>	I've never cared much for the EFF even way back when they 
>>were in my hometown of Cambridge, Ma.  They always represented the
>>interests of the business owners (ISPs, etc.) first over the 
>>consumers of such.  That's not consumer advocacy at all.
>
>
>Steve,
>     I see a lot of ranting and raving about how the EFF isn't for consumer
>advocay, but what I don't see from you and others is any indication that you
>know the history of the creation of the EFF or it's original charter.
>You have conveniently forgotten who started the thing, too.
>     The EFF had as its founding job to support Steve Jackson and his company,
>Steve Jackson Games, from the jack-booted thugs of the Secret Service in the
>wake of the SS seizure of computers and the loss of a copyrighted publication,
>the game _Cyberpunks_.  The contention was that the Secret Service engaged in
>harrassment by shutting down a legal operation -- a contention that won the
>day in court.


	Yes--I'm not denying the EFF has done many worthy things and their
goals--especially in the beginning days were by and large noble.


>     One of the founders was Mitch Kapor, still Mr. Lotus Development Corp.
>in those days.
>     You complain that the EFF represents the interest of business owners
>first over consumers of such.  To the extent that consumers can be hounded
>by the Feds, that's inaccurate.  To the extent that the usual target of Fed
>activity is to the guy who owns the hardware, you're right.
>     Of course, the fact that EFF was also looking out for the rights of the
>BBS operator has passed you, as well. 

	Oh--not at all.  In the case of the BBS operater my primary concern
is with the users--not the owner.  Many BBS's are very successful 
businesses--that in no way makes them 'bad' but it does but them in a 
catagory of a merchant and the users customers.  The goal of a decent online
advocacy group must be with the users.


> Again, EFF is more interested in the
>targets of oppressive Federal government law enforcement action -- and the
>consumers just aren't being arrested and their equipment seized for no good
>reason.


	They've done virtually nothing for users/consumers in terms
of censorship, plug pulling, etc.  And they're funding is predominatly
from large corporations.  Read the Wired Article--some there will 
readily admit these funding sources can influence their behaviors--after
all it's where their salary and funding comes from--it's like a politician
who takes big bucks from corporations and then claims they've no influence.

	The fact of the matter is that EFF has split and the new splinter
group left with most of the people and funding.  Maybe now is a chance for
reflection and real advocacy on behalf of online consumers as opposed to
business owners.  As more and more of this online industry becomes run
by enourmous online services, with cable and phone companies about to 
jump in in a major way, etc. there is all the more need for this and far
less relationship to their old rationalizatons based on a tiny bbs.

	Even organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union are
disgusted with the EFF.

				Steve