Joining the EFF

 Joining the EFF

by Esther Dyson

Publisher of Release 1.0

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is probably best--but incorrectly--

known as "Mitch Kapor's organization to defend computer hackers." In

fact, the basic message of the Foundation, "There's a new world coming.

Let's make sure it has rules we can live with." These rules will

establish the rights and also the responsibilities of the users of the

electronic infrastructure- which means, eventually, all of us.

The Foundation's most visible efforts, yes, involve the defense of

people charged with various forms of electronic trespass and damage.

This is not to say that there's no such thing as illegal hacking, but

that not all hacking is illegal. Many hackers' rights are abridged when

they are arrested by government agents who don't understand how a

computer works. There's a certain fear of the unknown that makes people

suspect the worst of a supposed "computer criminal." Searches have been

overly broad, and charges ridiculously overstated. Moreover, innocent

bystanders are hurt too, when bulletin boards are closed down and their

means of communication with each other is disrupted.

Sentences are also unduly harsh: Consider the proposed prohibition on

Robert Riggs' use of a computer after his release from prison.  The

computer is not a magic, deadly instrument but rather something closer

to a telephone. Many criminals plan their crimes by telephone or even

commit telephone farud, but they don't get barred from telephone usage

thereafter. Says EFF: "Such restrictions tend to promote the notion that

computers are inherently dangerous...[and that] access [to them falls

properly within the scope of government action."

The EFF also advocates government funding for the National Research and

Education Network, and passage of bills to do 80 currently in the Senate

and House. That doesn't mean that NREN would be the only thing going,

but it would be a spur to and resource for private efforts. Certainly

such a network should exist, but what's the best way to get it done?

Should access be subsidized for the poor or distant, as it was for

telephone service and still is for postal service? Should the subsidies

be direct, or should they go to users, or should they be achieved

through regulation?

Perhaps these questions don't have absolute answers, just as the

telephone business has evolved through variety of forms (not always

gracefully, to be sure). Perhaps we should start with a subsidized

network that ultimately will pay its way!  Although the EFF has

positions on these issues, its major concern is that the public take

part in addressing them, rather than leaving decisions up to a handful

of bureaucrats and interested parties.

Beyond that, there are important issues to consider and resolve, such as

the definition and protection of Constitutional rights including

privacy, free speech and assembly. In some cases, its more important to

have laws that are clear than precisely what those laws are. The world

can adjust to most laws, as long as they make some sense and are

consistent. Most interesting right now is the delicate tension over the

classification of network services such as Compuserve and Prodigy.  Are

they publishers, liable for the information they disseminate, or

utilities and common carriers, required to carry anything for the public

at large -and therefore not liable for its content? Or is this a false

dichotomy (as AMIX's Phil Salin asserts): For example, a BBS might be

like a bookstore: free to select the books it stocks and sells, but not

responsible for their content individually (i.e., for libel, say).  Nor

is the bookstore responsible for what anyone says inside its walls. Yet

some "adult" bookstores and record stores have been closed by local

legal actions. The precedents are muddy.

Finally, there's the awkward question of how to make the network good

for people without stuffing culture down unwilling throats.  If you

believe that broadcast TV is mostly junk and public TV is mostly

subsidized culture for the well-off, how do we make networks a people's

medium - real global villages rather than a global TV set or a global

museum? Will people use them to communicate rather than vegetate if you

make it easy? Can we regain the community involvement people lost when

everything became too big and complicated? Are citizens' groups working

over the net fringe groups, or are they harbingers of how everyone could

get involved?

I came to this with the benign American assumption that anyone

apprehended by the police has probably done something wrong; spending

time in Eastern Europe, watching the LA police videos and learning about

some of the EFF cases have changed my perspective forever.

I am now a board member of the EFF. But don't worry, Release 1.0 won't

become a mouthpiece for the EFF. In fact, when Mitch Kapor asked me to

join, I responded that I was pleased and flattered, but not sure I

should join; I certainly don't agree with all the views of the other

board members. "That," said Mitch, "is the point."

In other words, I joined the EFF to help set its agenda, not just to

help carry it out. and so I strongly urge that you get involved too.

Esther Dyson is the Editor and publisher of Release 1.0, a newsletter

covering the computer industry, from which this article is reproduced by

permission.