Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 23:29:54 CST From: Jim Thomas Subject: File 4--Some Questions & Comments on EFF Reorganization ((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following exchanges were taken from The Well's EFF conference and a Usenet post). ++++++ Topic 402: Major Changes for the Electronic Frontier Foundation # 75: jim thomas (jthomas) Thu, Jan 14, '93 (22:16) 28 lines Although I, too, recognize and appreciate the tough choices EFF has been forced to make, and respect their continued dedication to pursuing cyberrights, I am still a bit unclear about their direction and what it means for members. Among the concerns: 1) Who is now the constituency? 2) What is the primary source of revenue? While this is normally not particularly an important question, if the primary contributors are large corporations, what are the implications of this for the future? Does the reorganization symbolize a shift away from grassroots "democracy" (remember those discussions waaaay back in '90 when this conference started?) toward restricted access? 4) What issues previously addressed will now be scrapped? Mike (Godwin), in many ways, symbolized what EFF stood for: An aggressive libertarian organization attempting to balance the broad panoply of Constitutional rights with the legitimate needs of law enforcement. His visibility created positive awareness for EFF through his on-line and F2F interactions, and his energy in responding to questions and helping others was critical in giving EFF a positive image on all sides of the various issues. I suspect that EFF would be a very different organization without his participation at some level. I remain unwavering in my enthusiasm for EFF, but I am not yet certain of the implications of the changes or what it means for the members. +++++++++++++++++++++ FROM: John Perry Barlow (barlow@well.sf.ca.us) Jim... These are thoughtful questions. Let me see if I can answer them succinctly: 1) Who is now the constituency? Same as it ever was. Anyone who has an interest in the present and future openness of digital communications. This includes not only the online community....or rather, communities, of today, but all the people who will wake up to find themselves wired tomorrow. 2) What is the primary source of revenue? While this is normally not particularly an important question, if the primary contributors are large corporations, what are the implications of this for the future? To be perfectly honest, we get a lot more support now from large corporations than from individual donors. But I think I can honestly say that we have not been much influenced in our actions by this fact. We have some big jobs to do. None of this comes cheap. We take support where we can find it and don't accept it with strings attached (unless donations are given, as they sometime are, in support of specific programs). The best way to balance the funding weight of the large outfits is for individuals to be a bit more generous in their support. 3) Does the reorganization symbolize a shift away from grassroots "democracy" (remember those discussions waaaay back in '90 when this conference started?) toward restricted access? Please remember that there is a difference between democracy and freedom of expression. We support the latter and hope that the former will be a natural consequence. We believe in unrestricted access. 4) What issues previously addressed will now be scrapped? I think, if you read the statement carefully, you will find that we are scrapping less than we are fine-tuning. The overall agenda remains much the same. ++++++++++++ FROM: Mitchell Kapor (mkapor@well.sf.ca.us) 15, '93 (06:56) The FTP archive will continue to be actively maintained here in Cambridge and later in Washington, D.C. EFF will hire a net-savvy system administrator in the D.C. area to oversee tehcnical operations of eff.org. +++++++ FROM: Jim Thomas (cudigest@mindvox.phantom.com) John (Barlow)---thanks for the succinct (and re-assuring) comments. Growing pains are never easy, and the EFF reorganization becomes an occasion for others of us to critically question our own involvement, goals, and direction, which is usually a good thing. Perhaps the next few months will be an exciting time of growth and maturity for us all. Dialectic of existence, and all that..... I knew a kid who, in highschool biology, took the instructor's pet lizzard and cut off its tail, then its legs, and fed them to it. The lizzard's internal programming predisposed it to self-destructively feed upon itself, much as some of EFF's critics are doing. EFF's reorganization may or may not prove a wise or effective move. The new strategy may or may not be fiddling with the devil. The EFF's apparent direction certainly departs from my own preferences for a more aggressivly radical-populist approach. But, this misses the point. The EFF was formed to protect cyber-rights, and there is more than one "correct" way to do this. The board has chosen the way with which they feel the most comfortable and competent. Some of us may feel betrayed by that choice because, myopically, we feel EFF should be shaped in *OUR* image and deal with *OUR* issues. We forget that social action requires a variety of approaches. If we're not comfortable with EFF's current direction, we can wish them well, organize in alternative ways, and continue to work together in ways that we feel most comfortable for common goals. The primary forces behind EFF, John and Mitch, have been instrumental in helping others, both publicly and privately, for the past three years. Some of the criticisms against them (and EFF) are of the "yeh, but what have you done for us lately?" variety. Lizzards who feed on themselves may be satisfied for the nonce, but they still invariably self-destruct. We should recognize that the EFF's new direction is just one of the necessary steps involved in social action, and the rest of us should use it as the opportunity to reassess ways we can continue to organize and cooperate. We'll become stronger in the process. Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253