[free-sklyarov] psychology: differences between the FBI/DoJ and Adobe

[Kevin]

I think your description applies more to bureaucrats than whores^H^H^H^H^H^H
politicians.  I don't know much about Mueller, but my guess is he is a
politician.  If he thinks that keeping Dmitry in jail will hurt his chances
of being confirmed by the senate, he will probably drive Dmitry to the
airport himself.


Free Dmitry you dumb son-of-a-bitch.
- Joe Pesci, Lethal Weapon 2

----- Original Message -----
From: <kathryn at ksml.com>
To: <free-sklyarov at zork.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 4:03 PM
Subject: [free-sklyarov] psychology: differences between the FBI/DoJ and
Adobe


> A few reasons why I think the next step- dealing with the FBI/DoJ- will be
> harder.
>
> Think of a time you had to admit you were wrong. Did you first dig in your
> heels a little? Would you have admitted your mistake if other people were
> there? If that admission reflected badly on all those people? Or what if
> someone else tried to take credit for changing your mind, and you didn't
> want to give them that credit? Ever not done something because you've been
> ordered to do it, otherwise, voluntarily, you'd have done it? That's the
> psychology we'll be dealing with in the FBI/DoJ.
>
> With Adobe, they weren't admitting that a product was wrong, only a
decision
> was wrong. With the Gov't their choice to arrest Dmitri has everything to
do
> with their core competency/ product ("Can we arrest the right guy?").
> Letting him go = admission of failure.
>
> With Adobe, boycotts and use of alternate products are a credible threat.
> And the EFF could simultaneously play good cop / bad cop = help give them
an
> out while reminding them these cases can go on for years. The protests
> outside tell Adobe exactly what those years will mean and who they'll be
> losing as customers.
>
> >From Adobe's point of view the EFF = a relatively safe way to explain why
> they changed their minds: the EFF gave them arguments they hadn't thought
of
> yet. That you got help from experts who know more than you about a subject
> isn't a bad thing *if you aren't expected to know as much as the experts.*
>
> Different with the Gov't. No direct boycott. You can't play good cop / bad
> cop with cops. And the gov't won't want to admit that outsiders know more
> than/ can advise them about the law.
>
> With Adobe, our protest = geeks persuading geeks. Adobe's programmers
> probably read Slashdot, etc., knew what was up, and could sympathize with
> Dmitri. With the gov't there'll be much less common ground. The FBI/DoJ
acts
> suspicious at best about clever programming and hacks.
>
> With the Gov't, they won't want the appearance of responding to
protesters.
> Especially as to them "protester" = a mix of "riot, Seattle,
> tree-sitters..." = people you never deal with. Adobe looked out the window
> to see "unhappy customer base" = people you can't ignore.
>
> With the confirmation hearing- these are the people who voted for the
DMCA.
> Their gut reaction might be "Do I want that an innocent man was arrested
by
> the law I made? Easiest solution is to think of him as a guilty man." Ever
> watch prosecutors / officials talking about actually innocent people
who've
> been sent to jail and now released? They'll go to contorted lengths to
avoid
> admitting the people are in fact innocent.... "well, they're
*procedurally*
> innocent, but they still must've done *something*" The Gov't will really
> want to find something wrong w/ Dmitri.  We'll have to be careful not to
> trigger their defensiveness.
>
> food for thought.
> Kathryn Myronuk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov
>