(You may need to manually repost this to c'punks. NB: I did not authorize redistribution of my email to you to c'punks in the first place. But since it's there now... Black Unicorn typed:
Why am I any more mistaken for pointing out that a single influential member of EFF's staff or board is anti-anonymity and yet remains with the organization than you are for pointing out that a single influential member who happened to be anti-anonymity has left?
I didn't say you were more mistaken than anyone or anything else. I'm not aware of a mistakenometer with which to make such a measurement. I pointed out your assumption that "It is clear that the personal beliefs of those involved in EFF are those of compromise, present day politics, and a general lack of moral fiber" is not in fact "clear" at all, because you have insuffient information to make such a statement. You don't even have to belive my remark that others in EFF have very pro-anonymity positions - you categorization of EFF is still logically bankrupt, because you don't have enough facts to make it.
If my position, as you represent, is misguided, surely your point about Mr. Johnson is equally so. If the board is almost 100% pro-anonymity, where's the official position?
The board is not almost 100% pro-anonymity. There are widely differing opinions on the topic, and many board members have not directly wrestled with this issue before at all. I've seen some opinions shift in the space of a few messages. This should clearly illustrate why there is no official position yet. Some EFFers are not only not in agreement with eachother on this, but aren't sure where they stand at all. This is the first time the issue has come up for the board as a whole since early 1995, and the board's composition is very different now. This is the same process EFF goes through every time an issue comes up on which we have no position. Sometimes a position is agreed upon, and there we are, but sometimes no position is taken, as is still the case with intellectual property. In cases like that, we look at what happens on a case by case basis, rather than categorically. (That is to say, even on stuff where we have no position, if something happens that harms the public interest we do not feel any obligation not to act simply because we lack a position on the meta-issue.) It will take some time to formuate a position on it. Personally, I am confident that if EFF takes a position on online anonymity, it will be the positive stance you would expect from us. It is also likely to be tempered with a discussion of responsibility issues, just like every other EFF position. This is not a "sellout" or a "compromise" just a recognization of fact: anonymity does have costs associated with it, such as the ability to defame without the defamed party having much recourse other than contradiction. Such costs should be stated openly, not lied about or ignored. If EFF or other organizations pretend there are no costs or belittle concerns about costs, we undermine everything we are working for - we undermine the public interest and individual liberty.
In so far as an organization is much defined by those involved, I think it entirely right to wonder aloud about the personal motives of the staff and board. I think this PARTICULARLY prudent given EFF's reputation and prior conduct.
That's fine. I do think you should wonder. But wondering and making unfounded accusations are different things. It's one thing to say, "I wonder if Black Unicorn has good moral fiber whatever that is, and in fact I suspect he doesn't" (hypothetically, mind you), but it's quite another to say "Black Unicorn has no moral fiber!" (whatever moral fiber might be.)
I would be most happy to be proven wrong and see EFF suddenly, in a burst of impressive moral fiber, speak out publically and take some political action to assure anonymous communication.
Don't be surprised if it happens. Also don't be surprised if it doesn't happen. In EFF's 6+ years, no clear consensus on anonymity has yet evolved within any version of EFF's board and staff. DO be surprised if you see EFF take an official position against anonymity. If that happens, I'll start looking for another job. I'm confident it won't happen, or I'd probably already be looking for another job.
Things simply are not as black and white as they might seem.
Well, let's have a clear official position issued then to end all dispute.
I'd like to see that too, but it may be a while in comming.
What is EFF doing if not supporting anonyminity?
That's a very good question. EFF has, the entire time I've been with it, and before that the entire time I was observing it (that is, ~1992 to present) been quite supportive of anonymity, in ways that range from relying on facets of the NAACP case in our own CDA challenge, to defending online anonymity when being interviewed by the press, to providing publicly available materials (e.g. at http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Anonymity) on anonymity including remailer lists and FAQs, to having a link on our "other interesting sites" page to the WWW remailer gateway, to permitting anonymous posts to all of our public mailing lists. I can't think of any EFF statement against anonymity, and even Esther's personal statement is not against anonymity, just advising caution and noting that there are many unresolved concerns in this area.
I'm hardly going to support an organization that proports to be pro-internet freedom and yet has no official position on anonyminity. Of
It's certainly your right to not support us. I'm sad that you won't, but it is beyond anything I can do anything about. Positions on issues take time to evolve.
course you should expect people to wonder about EFF when you have no official position and yet some staff and board members seem to have a statist bent.
Again, I think you're making unfounded assumptions. The fact that Dyson has questions about the balance of the value and cost of online anonymity does not indicate a "statist bent". Hell, *I* have questions about that balance. For myself, I've found adequate answers, and have come to the conclusion that even if anonymity on the net were abused 1000x more than it is now, it would still be better to have anonymity than to not have it. But I have to let other people come to that conclusion themselves, with my help when appropriate. I can't find any value in demonizing others who've not come to that conclusion, even if if I do find value in severely criticizing people who have taken a completely anti-anonymity position, which Dyson has not. Dorothy Denning, different story. I will happily criticize her positions into the ground, because they are what they are. EFF's position does not exist yet, and the only not completely pro-anonymity individual opinions I've seen out of the board are not anti-anonymity, they're just full of questions. I can't slam people for having questions. -- <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech@eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation </A><P> Online Activist </HTML>