
Computer People for Peace - ehudla
https://eli.naeher.name/computer-people-for-peace/
======
sampleinajar
Interesting to see point 3 of the "Resolution' in 1969. "We oppose the
establishment of mass data banks which pose a threat to our privacy and
concentrate power in the hands of a few."

------
davidy123
Super interesting to see the 1973 issue featured a database of concentrations
of power. From what I can tell, successive projects like Sunlight Foundation
came on with such vigour, but these projects have such little mainstream
impact, instead all these tools get turned against individuals.

~~~
simplecomplex
Sunlight foundation got the laws passed so GPO could provide legislative data
to the public. AFAIK they are the reason GPO/govinfo.gov bill data exists.
Congress having an API is their doing.

[https://sunlightfoundation.com/press/success/](https://sunlightfoundation.com/press/success/)

Many people use this data, from consumer non-profits to lobbyists. OpenStates
is a spin-off of a Sunlight Foundation project as well.

~~~
pc86
OpenStates is a godsend if you're doing any kind of multi-state action with
state legislatures, as each legislature's website is different (obviously),
most are horribly broken (obviously), and many are outdated (only slightly
less obviously).

------
cat199
given the overtly marxist ideological bent and direct, targeted calls to
specific actions wouldn't be surprised if this were related

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement)

[https://medium.com/@JSlate__/how-the-soviet-union-helped-
sha...](https://medium.com/@JSlate__/how-the-soviet-union-helped-shape-the-
modern-peace-movement-d797071d4b2c)

queue the downvotes!

------
AllegedAlec
> the group originated as “Computer Professionals for Peace”; in October 1970
> “Professionals” was replaced with “People” because members “felt that the
> ‘Professional’ label limited the potential scope of the group and smacked of
> elitism.”

What?

~~~
d883kd8
I agree with what you quoted completely. What part don't you understand?

~~~
ben509
Why is elitism implied to be a bad thing in this context? Professional
standards and ethics are something we should strive for, right? For those to
work, you have to discern between people who uphold those standards and people
who don't.

There are places where egalitarianism is most appropriate, e.g. in tallying
political interests, and where elitism is most appropriate, e.g. no one wants
an amateur surgeon.

Even if they want to open the group to hobbyists, as a professional I have
more in common with a hobbyist who actively maintains a software project than
one who doesn't actively contribute; specifically, if you're having a
discussion about software you're largely on the same page with the former.
That's ultimately the point of association, it's to improve conversation by
gathering people who have a shared understanding.

~~~
lucozade
> Professional standards and ethics are something we should strive for, right?

The argument in issue #5 seems to be against ACM's position which they say is
that professionalism implies professional detachment. In other words being
agnostic to the use to which computers are put.

------
UntypedOpinions
I think every reasonable person should be "for Peace". But not for peace at
any cost.

~~~
zandl
It’s just hypocritical anyway, just telling people to be peaceful doesn’t
address the underlying causes at all and the same people aren’t “peaceful” in
their personal live either. They’re confused and in fact reject any clear
understandings of what actually causes peace to begin with.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
This group would have been founded specifically against the Vietnam War, which
America entered on the flimsiest of pretexts[1] with no clear national
interest beyond "fuck Communists", and which killed tens of thousands of
American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians. I don't
see how it could possibly be clearer.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident)

~~~
zandl
Did they solve peace? AFAIK there have been wars since, and having grown up
with these people I know first hand they’re anything but peaceful.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> Did they solve peace?

Nobody claimed they did.

You seem to be arguing with anecdotal figures from your childhood. I'm sorry
the people you grew up with were hypocrites, but if you want to claim that
reflects on either Computer People for Peace or the peace movement in general,
you'll need to give us more details.

~~~
zandl
The problem is that the core issue is the mind and these “peace” type
arguments date back thousands of years, even in 340s AD in China’s Annals of
Lu Buwei you find these same people not addressing their own minds and
preaching “peace” or passivsem. The reality is if you bring up reasonable
things they can do, such as not promoting egotism or having a materialistic
views of everything which directly lead to a lack of what they feel is
“peace”, it just goes over their head and they get angry. Again this is has
been going on with these people for thousands of years now. So rather than
some fake form of peace that doesn’t work, how about addressing the underlying
causes of suffering for everyone instead and stop rejecting them?

