[free-sklyarov] An Alternative Line of Argumentation
Izel Sulam
izel at sulam.com
Sun Jul 22 11:34:58 PDT 2001
Seth David Schoen schoen at loyalty.org wrote:
>The C2 group (the public) doesn't actually gain from having Adobe
>"fix" this. To the extent that Adobe has misled anyone or sold anyone
>an inferior or risky product, Adobe has misled publishers and sold
>them an inferior or flawed product. So I'm concerned that your
>approach, although it is quite reasonable, is telling the public about
>what Adobe did _to publishers_, not _to them_.
For one thing, during a 30-second talk with a random passerby, the C1
versus C2 distinction will not become obvious nor verbalized. A consumer is
one who buys products, and this issue is about consumers. Anyone can flash
$3000 and buy encryption services from Adobe. Even on this list, filled
with intelligent, well-educated people, it took a few emails back and forth
to pin down the exact meanings we were wrestling with. So I do not believe
that this will become a problem in the short term.
On the other hand, you have a concern about the validity of the message I
am proposing, and whether our energies would be directed correctly by
looking out for what is essentially C1 rights to receive what they have
been promised. I personally think that consumer rights are a matter of
principle. A company that produces both entry and enterprise level products
(as does Adobe) and has produced a flawed enterprise level product and has
lied about its capabilities (as has Adobe) is very likely to do so for
entry level products as well at some indeterminate point in the future.
Crypto solutions for individuals and small businesses is a newly emerging
industry, and it is set to boom within the next five years as information
becomes the most valuable asset. In this climate, we need to hold companies
responsible for the claims they make about encryption products.
This is also a good way to gently break encryption awareness into public
consciousness. If the first thing the public ever hears about encryption is
"The DMCA outlaws encryption research and it is bad!" then they will get
confused and they will not listen for very long. They might also get scared
because acronyms scare sheeple. If the first thing they hear is "Adobe
makes an encryption product, and it doesn't work. They lied about its
quality. It does not work as advertised. They lied to consumers of their
products. This is wrong. We are championing consumer rights!" then the
public will listen. The public is often receptive to consumer rights
messages. They can relate. They can understand. There are no acronyms
involved.
Then if the curious few want to find out what this encryption product is,
and what it does, etc, they can be given the full story. But there is no
need to dump a ton of bricks (a primer course on DMCA and encryption and
fair use) on the head of every willing listener. You will lose willing
audiences that way, real quick.
As I said before, C2 would only really gain from chaging the essential
attitudes, business philosophies and worldviews of C1 and congresscritters.
This will not happen in the span of a few days. We need to inflict visible
damage, fast, to Adobe's PR image, and we need to legitimize Dmitry's
freedom somehow (I propose the consumer advocate angle) so the FBI can let
him to without looking like fools. The FBI needs an excuse to come out of
this situation looking clean, and if we don't supply such a pretense,
Dmitry will never go free.
The damage to Adobe's PR and the ensuing lawsuits will ensure that this
sort of arrest will not happen in the short to midterm future, during which
time we can set our turrets on the real target, the DMCA.
Comments, suggestions welcome.
- izel
More information about the Free-sklyarov
mailing list