CYBER-RIGHTS Digest 3 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Rights Campaign Progress Report by Arun Mehta 2) Re: fwd: Kurt: some proposed language by Arun Mehta 3) Mensa by dnichols@foothills.eznet.com 4) Re: U.S. Senate Bill 314 may impact IRC operators (fwd) by rgm3@is.chrysler.com (Robert Moskowitz) 5) Judges and Ayn Rand by LECLERC YVES 6) Re: Antonov and anarchy by Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) 7) Re: fwd: Kurt: some proposed language by kurt@Data-IO.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) 8) Re: Antonov and anarchy by fred@sunserv.optiplan.fi (Fred Baube) 9) Re: Judges and Ayn Rand by fred@sunserv.optiplan.fi (Fred Baube) 10) rights- re: Arun: NGO piece by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 11) fwd: Nichols: Internet as power by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 12) fwd: Briggs: eloquence on roundtable by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 13) re: Yves: Internet & Democracy by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 14) fwd: EFF: FBI spying agenda by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 15) re: In defense of progress(ives) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 16) Mobs and democracy by LECLERC YVES 17) Re: Antonov and anarchy (bis) by LECLERC YVES 18) re: Yves: Internet & Democracy by LECLERC YVES 19) Re: rights- re: Arun: NGO piece by fred@sunserv.optiplan.fi (Fred Baube) 20) Re: Mobs and democracy by nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) 21) Columbia Crypto Conference by George 22) re: Democracy and Progress by Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) 23) Re: Mobs and democracy by LECLERC YVES 24) Re: Stewart: fickle fan :>) by Charles Stewart 25) Re: anarchy examples by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 26) Re: Stahlman & democracy by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 27) Re: Mobs and democracy by kurt@Data-IO.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) 28) Re: anarchy examples by Heiko Recktenwald 29) re: Yves: Internet & Democracy by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 30) fwd: AllianceCM COALITION by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 31) ** ABOUT THIS LIST ** by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 32) CR-13Feb: Leclerc re: Censorship Bill S.314 by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 33) CR-13Feb: Priest: Ed Markey Forum; Strategy for CPB by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 34) CR-13Feb: "net anarchy & democracy" (thread) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 35) CR-13Feb: Athearn: Pressler Draft Intro by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 36) CR-13Feb: Stewart: Partic. Demo. Proj. (announce) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 37) CR-13Feb: "Libraries" (new list; "Rights") by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 38) CR-13Feb: "Stahlman & Stewart" (2/2) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 39) CR-13Feb: "people's nets" (thread) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 40) CR-13Feb: "Stahlman & Stewart" (1/2) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 41) CR-15Feb: Cyber Rights mini-FAQ by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 42) CR-15Feb: "net anarchy & democracy" (thread) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 43) CR-15Feb: "broadband pricing" (thread) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 44) CR-15Feb: "response to S.314" (new thread) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 45) |*>-- CyberRights FAQ :: 15 Feb 95 --<*| by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 46) New: INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 47) fwd: Internet & Zapatista's by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 48) CR-16Feb> "re: Cernsorhip S.314" (cont) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 49) CR-16Feb> The Nation: "CyberNewt" by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 50) CR-16Feb> "net anarchy & democracy" (cont) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 51) CR-16Feb> Recktenwald: Euro cyber conference by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 52) CR-16Feb> "pricing; capitalism" (threads) by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 53) CR-16Feb> Nelson: no ISDN bottleneck by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) 54) CR-16Feb> Summary: Cyber Rights Campaign by rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 18:51:50 +0530 (GMT+05:30) From: Arun Mehta To: cyber-rights @ sunnyside.com Subject: Re: Rights Campaign Progress Report Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Richard K. Moore wrote: > > Each of these documents should have a short (couple pages) version, and a > longer (but shorter than the current Declaration) version. > > Instead of being framed as "Rights Declarations", I think they should be > repositioned, perhaps along these lines (not these terms, precisely): > > o on-net document: "Our culture is in danger -- Spread the word" > > o off-net document: "Cyberspace: what's in it for you?" > May I suggest several, short, off-net documents: "Cyberspace: what's in it for you?" for the student, housespouse, activist, NGO, government, school, library, firm,... OK, maybe I'm getting a bit carried away - but I'm sure each one of us could do a decent job of describing to one's own peers what's in it for them. Hopefully there are enough different professions represented here? > ** Feedback on this plan, and offers of assistance, are invited ** If you like, I could do a piece describing what's in it for the NGO, along the lines of what I wrote about amnesty international. Even if we do decide to do just one large piece, it might still come in handy. Arun Mehta Managing Director, Indata, B-69, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-24. Tel: +91-11-6841172 or 6849103. Fax +91-11-4635785. amehta@doe.ernet.in ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 19:38:42 +0530 (GMT+05:30) From: Arun Mehta To: cyber-rights @ sunnyside.com Subject: Re: fwd: Kurt: some proposed language Message-ID: > From: kurt@Data-IO.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) > If we talk about creating an internet trust, or an internet tax haven, > we're ignoring the fact that distributed control is the next paradigm. > How foolish of us. If we talk about creating a single kind of > communication link (spare satellite transponders) for the internet, > we're making the same mistake. We want a net that is as heterogeneous > as possible, because it defeats centralized control. You misunderstood the suggstion I made. I never suggested "a single kind of communication link." spare satellite transponders were merely to be one more source of Internet access - perhaps a preferred source for certain kinds of traffic, such as Usenet, but that would follow simply from the cost structure. I'm fleshing out the proposal a bit, anyone have contributions to make, please let me know. Arun Mehta Managing Director, Indata, B-69, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-24. Tel: +91-11-6841172 or 6849103. Fax +91-11-4635785. amehta@doe.ernet.in ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 01:04:06 PST From: dnichols@foothills.eznet.com To: bab@io.com Cc: multiple recipients of list< cyber-rights @ cpsr.org > Subject: Mensa Message-ID: Hi, regarding the Mensa statement, I was disappointed to read it but do believe it is accurate. Attached is the article and source. As a comment, I hear parts of this type of thinking by some of my faculty, frequently, by holders of doctorates. Please, am not condemming the org. As stated below, iq does not assure common sense or sensitivity. Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 01:29:36 -0500 (EST) From: ODIN Message-Id: To: odin@conan.ids.net Subject: FEB 8: DISABILITY/News & Views Return-Path: Received: from shadow.net (anshar.shadow.net) by foothills (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04917; Wed, 8 Feb 1995 22:45:28 -0800 Received: (odin@localhost) by shadow.net (8.6.8.1/jc-1.0) id BAA18073; Thu, 9 Feb 1995 01:29:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 01:29:36 -0500 (EST) From: ODIN To: odin@conan.ids.net Subject: FEB 8: DISABILITY/News & Views Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 10971 X-UIDL: 792314130.000 [*****PNEWS CONFERENCES****] ###################################### From: ICAD Editors Subject: MENSA & EUTHANASIA In mid January, Nikki Frey resigned as editor of a newsletter "Lament" published by the Los Angeles chapter of MENSA in California that has 2000 members. Mensa is an international organization for people whose IQ scores are in the top 2%. Frey's resignation was demanded by the chapter's executive committee in a 5 to 1 vote (Frey cast the one vote against demanding her resignation). This reversed an earlier board vote of December 3, 1994, when the board gave Frey support in a unanymous vote. The chapter president, a woman known only as Gowen, suggested that such articles were okay for their newsletter because their readers are bright enough to distinguish between a rational debate of issues and hate propaganda. However, after public outrage and many complaints from MENSA members, the organization changed its position. Alan Stillson, puzzle editor for the newsletter and stepfather of a son with Down Syndrome was one of the major complainers and threatened to quit unless action was taken: "As a member of Mensa who enjoys the organization and most of the members and as the stepfather of a Down's syndrome child who loves him and is incensed at the thought of the advocacy of his extermination, I insist on an immediate written apology and retraction of the policy of printing hate articles." Her dismissal follows the controversy created when Lament published two articles that called for the extermination of people who are mentally handicapped, disabled, old, or homeless. Frey seemed surprised at the controversy. She was quaoted in the Los Angeles Times saying that "I would not print anything I thought was truly harmful or offensive. I didn't think it was harmful: I don't think it's even offensive-Nobody wants to have a deformed child." One of the articles suggested that Hitler's greatest harm had not been the killing of six million Jews but rather that in doing so he had done damage to a rational discussion of creating a master race. One article recommended that people "who are so mentally defective that they cannot live in society should, as soon as they are identified as defective, be humanely dispatched." According to Frey, the newsletter has been publishing this kind of material for years. Jon evans article was indicated: "It is not clear to me just exactly why anyone would expend time and money on the homeless. What good are they? The vast majority are too stupid, too lazy, too crazy, or too anti-social to earn a living. Granted there are a few people who have fallen beneath the blows of circumstances and are unable to afford any place to live, but they are few and far between. The rest of the homeless should be humanely doen away with, like abandoned kittens." he also stated: "A piece of meat in the shape of a man but without a mind is not a human being, whetehr the body be deathly ill, dmaged by accident, mentally blank because of brain deficiency, or criminally insane." The horror of the Mensa incident is that significant numbers of intelligent people can consider the "rational discussion" of such ideas as somehow ethically more acceptable than a rational discussion of the merits of cannibalism, slavery or child rape. The redeeming fact is that the majority of Mensa members apparently have more sense than this disturbed and disturbing minority. Martin Elkort, another Mensa member summed it up saying, This indicates to me that a high IQ does not necessarily translate to common sense or wisdom." Dick Sobsey Abuse & Disability Project 6-102 Education North University of Alberta Edmonton, AB T6G 2G5 CANADA Phone: 403/ 492-3755 Fax: 403/492-1318 dick_sobsey@ualberta.ca ####################################################### / ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 07:20:21 -0600 From: rgm3@is.chrysler.com (Robert Moskowitz) To: Vadim Antonov , avg@sprint.net, stahlman@radiomail.net Cc: com-priv@psi.com, cyber-rights @ cpsr.org , digitaliberty@phantom.com Subject: Re: U.S. Senate Bill 314 may impact IRC operators (fwd) Message-ID: <9502101236.AA16345@clncrdv1.is.chrysler.com> Vadim Antonov said: >As for Internet -- it is probaly the first working experiment in >applying the principles the 19 century anarchists (Kropotkin, et al) >thought of. Several million people participating in the social >discourse with *no* central governing body and no national >boundaries -- if this is not _serious_ then what is? Actually I tend to place it as a rational anarchic structure as Ann Rand tried to define. The only other documented, large scale rational anarchy was the Jewish people during the time of the Judges. Robert Moskowitz Chrysler Corporation (810) 758-8212 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 07:59:20 -0400 (EDT) From: LECLERC YVES To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: Judges and Ayn Rand Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > Actually I tend to place it as a rational anarchic structure as Ann Rand > tried to define. The only other documented, large scale rational anarchy > was the Jewish people during the time of the Judges. Wrong on your first count. In Ayn Rand's utopia, as far as I can remember, ego and self-interest were the major factors and the strong had no use for the weak. In classic anarchist theory and the Hebrew Judges period, on the opposite, community interest and mutual assistance were paramount. I much prefer the latter as a model for the Internet, and I do believe it is closer to the reality, although it does run against the grain for corporate America. Yves Leclerc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 08:36:03 -0800 From: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) To: c1615@er.uqam.ca Subject: Re: Antonov and anarchy Message-ID: <199502101636.IAA29380@radiomail.net> Leclerc: Hmmm . . . You're telling us that a population that can't distinquish between "needs" and "demands" and who therefore are manipulated by sellers of "any but the most basic of products" should be put in charge of a world filled with far more complex and abstract issues than personal health care and picking a lawyer. Huhh? Did I miss a class in Critical Theory and drop the linkage here? Direct democracy has been recognized throughout the history of politics as "mobocracy." I'm sure you know this history very well but for those who don't, the Federalist Papers are a good place to start . And, that's "mob" as in "the mob" -- i.e. it's rule by the Godfather. In it's more modern forms it usually is referred to a rule by the "experts" -- i.e. those who can formulate the questions on which we "vote." Micheal Vlahos of Newt Gingrich's PFF describes these new mob bosses as "brain lords" -- demonstrating the historical enthusiasm for "democracy" among aristocrats (and crooks, among others). The Internet is indeed a military project. And, in legal terms, since it's funding has all come since the 1971 "Mansfield Ammendment" it must have been funded *primarily* for a military purpose. Call it "anarchy" and express surprise that ("for Pete's sake") these folks funded it but now they (Congress) want to "control" it. And, I'll bet you that "democracy" -- probably "anticipitory democracy" -- is high on the new Internet agenda. Are there any real political scientists out there (not ideologues, please), who have a reading on the support/opposition for "democracy" in this country? I've researched a piece of the Toffler/Gingrich involvement in the 1970's but what's the bigger picture? Where does the attack on representative republican government some from and what are it's defenders up to (if anything)? Has the new high-tech version opened a new chapter in this saga? Mark Stahlman New Media Associates New York City stahlman@radiomail.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 09:01:01 PST From: kurt@Data-IO.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: Re: fwd: Kurt: some proposed language Message-ID: <9502101701.AA03722@ Data-IO.COM> >> kurt@Data-IO.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) said >> If we talk about creating an internet trust, or an internet tax haven, >> we're ignoring the fact that distributed control is the next paradigm. >> How foolish of us. If we talk about creating a single kind of >> communication link (spare satellite transponders) for the internet, >> we're making the same mistake. We want a net that is as heterogeneous >> as possible, because it defeats centralized control. >Arun Mehta replied >You misunderstood the suggstion I made. I never suggested "a single kind >of communication link." spare satellite transponders were merely to be >one more source of Internet access - perhaps a preferred source for >certain kinds of traffic, such as Usenet, but that would follow simply >from the cost structure. I'm fleshing out the proposal a bit, anyone have >contributions to make, please let me know. I'm afraid you misunderstood *my* point. The very last thing we want is any kind of centralized organization for internet transport. Distributed communication, distributed control, point-to-point and channel-less. This is the new paradigm. Learn it. Use it. Any big organization becomes a big target. First off, they'll have a discernably large volume of data to move, something worth a lot of money. Something you shouldn't give away. Far easier for individual non-profit organizations like universities to talk providers out of a little free bandwidth. A service provider could "own" the internet by providing service free for awhile until we got used to it, and then begin to make demands with the threat of a sudden total cutoff of service. Any big organization becomes visible to competitors. You're competing with the very telcos and cable companies you fear. They're bound to react. By contrast, a million individual sites making individual contracts are invisible, like microbes, unworthy of individual destruction, yet working together to accomplish a goal. Any big organization becomes a focus for restrictive legislation, proposed by competitors and people with moral agendas. You can sue the internet organ Mr Mehta wants to create, or enjoin it from providing servicee, or enjoin the parties who carry its signals in a national region. Unless the organization owns its own satellites and uplink, it can be stopped. By contrast, individual nodes can make a pretty good case that they havn't got the resources, the ability, or the mandate to monitor or filter content. A distributed system is more resillient, less noticeable, less easily stopped by the legal ploys that have evolved to damage large corporate entities. Lets not be a big target. Lets sneak under the radar in a million separate places. 'They' won't see us comming. Their eyes and their defenses are designed for an older kind of opponent. Distributed communication, distributed control, point-to-point and channel-less. This is the new paradigm. Learn it. Use it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 19:18:37 +0200 (EET) From: fred@sunserv.optiplan.fi (Fred Baube) To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: Re: Antonov and anarchy Message-ID: <9502101718.AA10935@sunserv.optiplan.fi> Surely sendmail reeled when thusly spake LECLERC YVES: > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 20:48:36 -0800 > From: LECLERC YVES > Subject: Antonov and anarchy > > On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Vadim Antonov wrote: > > > You obviously do not realize how slanted is the view the American media > > (or whatever other countries' broadcasting/newsprint) presents on even > > neutral matters. I have the benefit of being able to compare what it > > tells and what is told in other places of the world -- facts are > > the same but the _selection_ and _emphasis_ are very different; to > > the effect of producing completely different impressions. (...) > > > It is not conspiracy in the classical sense; it is the rating-driven > > convergence on the most popularized viewpoints, kind of self-feeding > > loop. > > [..] > > Since information has largely become "infotainment", journalists (note that > I have been one for the last 30 years, so I do know what I am talking > about) and others responsible for informing the public have by and large > given in to catering to demand rather than need. But information is a > complex and far from primary product, so there is no guarantee that > ordinary citizens really know their needs; for instance, they'd much > rather hear good news than bad, and little meaningless bits close to home > than major meaningful facts from far away. > > This is one clear case where the "invisible hand" of the market has been > far from exerting its magic to give us the best possible result. This exchange reminds me of the book "The Media Monopoly" by Ben Bagdikian (sp?). His point is that there is not a conspiracy to reduce the output of the American media to idiotic pablum (including feel-good melodramas and flag-waving jingoism), that's just the logical outcome of the economic structure of the industry. And IMHO this structural phenomenon has knock-on effects for politics. I would hate to see the same forces take over the Net. And yet, might one consider Prodigy and their ilk to be the "prime time programming" of cyberspace ? > > As for Internet -- it is probably the first working experiment in > > applying the principles the 19 century anarchists (Kropotkin, et al) > > thought of. Several million people participating in the social > > discourse with *no* central governing body and no national > > boundaries -- if this is not _serious_ then what is? > > I don't know where this Vadim comes from -- is it his first posting here? > but he's a real acquisition. Not only does he know something about > political theory, he's not afraid of calling things by their name: yes, > the Internet is a (Defense sponsored, for Pete's sake!) *anarchist* > experiment on the grand scale, and it is developing precisely as the > theorists of this ideology (especially the Spaniards of the 20s and 30s) > predicted: anarchy works best in a borderless milieu where all or nearly > all of the participants are reasonably civic-minded and expert at what > they do. Not a bad description of us CPSR junkies? Someone's .Sig has captured the operational essence of this: "The Net interprets censor- ship as damage, and routes around it." The Net does indeed seem to be a functioning anarchy. Netizens "live" and "die" not by sanctions from authority, such as the bill proposed by the Right-Thinking Senator Exon, but by their intelligence, wit, and reputation. Sure, the Pentagon still calls the shots on techni- cal standards, but there's no contradiction there. /fred -- F.Baube(tm) Nymphs vex, beg quick fjord waltz. G'town Univ MSFS '88 baube@optiplan.fi #include ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 19:28:12 +0200 (EET) From: fred@sunserv.optiplan.fi (Fred Baube) To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: Re: Judges and Ayn Rand Message-ID: <9502101728.AA10998@sunserv.optiplan.fi> As I understand it, also in the Ukraine in around 1920 there were a few million people living in what amounted to an anarchy. And "what if", in these examples from history, the Net had existed ? (I rather suspect that this sort of speculation is well outside the charter of this group.) /fred -- F.Baube(tm) Nymphs vex, beg quick fjord waltz. G'town Univ MSFS '88 baube@optiplan.fi #include ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:52:35 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ sunnyside.com Subject: rights- re: Arun: NGO piece Message-ID: <199502101855.SAA18464@GPO.iol.ie> Arun: ________________________________________________________________________ May I suggest several, short, off-net documents: "Cyberspace: what's in it for you?" for the student, housespouse, activist, NGO, government, school, library, firm,... If you like, I could do a piece describing what's in it for the NGO, along the lines of what I wrote about amnesty international. Even if we do decide to do just one large piece, it might still come in handy. ________________________________________________________________________ Excellent idea, IMHO. Everyone please send in any such language segments that inspire you -- maybe instead of a monolithic document, we'll have a set of building blocks that can be assembled for different audiences as needed. And remember Charles Bell's suggestion: if you come up with a gem of a message, post it off to appropriate audiences immediately (and copy us) -- no need to wait for our document process to converge. --- FAQ: to unsubscribe: tell "listserv@cpsr.com": "unsubscribe cyber-rights". -Richard, *cyber base: ,. * * earth home: Wexford Ireland ____.,______________ _______ ________________________________ | ; . . , * * ~ | , ; . ; , ~ * ~ ~ | | , ' , . , \ / _-_ ~ | | ~ | /~~ ~~\ | | ___________|_|__________|____ /~~ ~~\ | | / / / \ \ \ _-_ } | |/_______________________________\ /~~ ~~\ -_ / _-_ | | | _____ _____ | /~~ ~~\ // ~~ /~~ ~~ | | |_|_| ____ |_|_| { }| /~~ | | | |_|_| |__| |_|_| |\ _- -_ / | { | | | | o| | ~~ \\ // ~~ \\ \ _- - | |____________|__|___________| | | ~~ \\ //| | \- \ @ # | | * # | | | | / -/ `/ // \\ \/ @ | | | |_______________/ - \_________________________________|_________| citizenships: (trees by dennis@eng.utoledo.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:54:53 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: fwd: Nichols: Internet as power Message-ID: <199502101858.SAA18516@GPO.iol.ie> From: Don Nichols To: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: establishment agendas True, even in micro environment like my small college, the system administration has had much difficulty with students having freedom to discuss whatever, download potentially "unacceptable" material. The admin. tried at first to monitor as a BBS sysop monitors, basically "listening" in on the traffic, but that became impractical..still..the paranoia and desire to control what goes on the Internet gate is in place. Globally, we are over 30mg at this moment. The concept of global communicaton with double that..60 meg of enlightened users must astonish the opposition. I suspect the demographics of the expanded net, meaning the types of users by census, will be similar to now, even with a 100 meg on surfers. As I have thought before, cyberspace can be the antypical Tower of BAbel, allowing a multitude of cultures to freely communicate, bypassing the media and government propaganda. That is assuming the world decides to use English as the dos of the net. As an example of GII changing the agendas of governments, if right now I could converse with a rebel in southern Mexico or a typical worker, what perspective would I hear compared to what is delivered by traditional media. And that information would likely be passed on to the listgroups subscribers I currently have online- that one person's alternative information would then pass on to an estimated 7000 net users, my sphere of influence. As an old hippie of the sixties, my political action groups would have had a field day using the Internet to co ordinate demonstrations and supplying social intelligence. Hoover would have been almost neutralized by our new methods of communication. What a thought -Richard, *cyber base: ,. * * earth home: Wexford Ireland ____.,______________ _______ ________________________________ | ; . . , * * ~ | , ; . ; , ~ * ~ ~ | | , ' , . , \ / _-_ ~ | | ~ | /~~ ~~\ | | ___________|_|__________|____ /~~ ~~\ | | / / / \ \ \ _-_ } | |/_______________________________\ /~~ ~~\ -_ / _-_ | | | _____ _____ | /~~ ~~\ // ~~ /~~ ~~ | | |_|_| ____ |_|_| { }| /~~ | | | |_|_| |__| |_|_| |\ _- -_ / | { | | | | o| | ~~ \\ // ~~ \\ \ _- - | |____________|__|___________| | | ~~ \\ //| | \- \ @ # | | * # | | | | / -/ `/ // \\ \/ @ | | | |_______________/ - \_________________________________|_________| citizenships: (trees by dennis@eng.utoledo.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:55:02 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Cc: Jeff Briggs Subject: fwd: Briggs: eloquence on roundtable Message-ID: <199502101858.SAA18520@GPO.iol.ie> From: jbriggs@capital.edu (Jeff Briggs) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Republicans If this were only partisan bickering it would not be worth commenting on. Some participants on this roundtable have not seen the connection of the ideological struggle to telecommunications, and telecommunications to democracy (what remains of it). To talk narrowly about policy issues and strategy is fine and necessary. But don't to censor one of the most important dialogues that we can have as Americans. The topic is telecommunications. That doesn't just mean some fiber optic wires, coaxial cables, transmittors, microwave relays, FCC, phone companies, media conglomerates, and big players. It means whether and if and how much freedom will be engendered or repressed by these new media. Right now the ownership of American media is virtually invisable. Can you give a detailed picture? We're debating the *content* that will be communicated, and who will control it, and what the implications will be for you and me and our country men and our children. If you still think this is just "partisan bickering" then you haven't woken up to what's happening... Jeff Briggs jbriggs@capital.edu -Richard, *cyber base: ,. * * earth home: Wexford Ireland ____.,______________ _______ ________________________________ | ; . . , * * ~ | , ; . ; , ~ * ~ ~ | | , ' , . , \ / _-_ ~ | | ~ | /~~ ~~\ | | ___________|_|__________|____ /~~ ~~\ | | / / / \ \ \ _-_ } | |/_______________________________\ /~~ ~~\ -_ / _-_ | | | _____ _____ | /~~ ~~\ // ~~ /~~ ~~ | | |_|_| ____ |_|_| { }| /~~ | | | |_|_| |__| |_|_| |\ _- -_ / | { | | | | o| | ~~ \\ // ~~ \\ \ _- - | |____________|__|___________| | | ~~ \\ //| | \- \ @ # | | * # | | | | / -/ `/ // \\ \/ @ | | | |_______________/ - \_________________________________|_________| citizenships: (trees by dennis@eng.utoledo.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:53:51 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Cc: cyberjourn Subject: re: Yves: Internet & Democracy Message-ID: <199502101857.SAA18501@GPO.iol.ie> Thanks, Yves, for a journal-quality piece on Internet, decmocracy, and media balancing. Such pieces contribute to a better understanding what we're about. You said: __________________________________________________________________________ The truly ironic consequence of this is that the Internet is basically undemocratic, since democracy and anarchy are incompatible. The one needs a strong government to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of individuals, the other rejects the idea of government itself. Now, which side of that barricade are you gals (and guys) on? Honest, now! __________________________________________________________________________ As you may have predicted from our earlier conversations, I can't let you get by with what are (IMHO) overly narrow definitions of "democracy" and "anarchism". Democracy does not require a strong government, or even formal laws -- and hasn't in specific historical examples. It requires only _some_ mechanisms of social cohesion, linked _somehow_ (not necessily involving any kind of elections) to the "people's will". Those mechanisms might involve tribal customs, a strong church infrastructure, a unified labor movement, or whatever. The official government (the First Estate?) may or may not be a dominant player in this mix. Anarchism, IMHO, doesn't necessarily reject governance, though it does always eschew central, hierarchical governance (as bespeaks its etymology). The Internet isn't without governance. Its governance is distributed among sysops and list owners, who make independent decisions about how to structure facilities and online discussions (in collaboration with their constituencies), and who share an informal, evolving, flexible set of net-cultural norms. I'd say we have a multi-layer, distributed, anarchistic governance system. I think the Internet can be viewed as both a democracy and an anarchy. Internet is really a universe of communities -- each with its own little anarcho/democratic process -- you need to compare cpsr-global with Pasadena, say, and Internet as a whole with the United Nations, or perhaps the United Planets. With Internet, we're back in the Classical city-state model. Democracy and anarchism can also coexist in the real world, and in fact the two combined may be man's natural normative social state -- the combination shows up repeatedly in our record of indigenous peoples. -Richard, *cyber base: ,. * * earth home: Wexford Ireland ____.,______________ _______ ________________________________ | ; . . , * * ~ | , ; . ; , ~ * ~ ~ | | , ' , . , \ / _-_ ~ | | ~ | /~~ ~~\ | | ___________|_|__________|____ /~~ ~~\ | | / / / \ \ \ _-_ } | |/_______________________________\ /~~ ~~\ -_ / _-_ | | | _____ _____ | /~~ ~~\ // ~~ /~~ ~~ | | |_|_| ____ |_|_| { }| /~~ | | | |_|_| |__| |_|_| |\ _- -_ / | { | | | | o| | ~~ \\ // ~~ \\ \ _- - | |____________|__|___________| | | ~~ \\ //| | \- \ @ # | | * # | | | | / -/ `/ // \\ \/ @ | | | |_______________/ - \_________________________________|_________| citizenships: (trees by dennis@eng.utoledo.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:52:24 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org , comlaw-l@lawlib.wuacc.edu Cc: Stanton McCandlish Subject: fwd: EFF: FBI spying agenda Message-ID: <199502101855.SAA18452@GPO.iol.ie> Exerpted rom: EFFector Online, published by: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Internet: ask@eff.org Editor: Stanton McCandlish, Online Services Mgr. "If five years from now we [the FBI] solve the access problem, but what we're hearing is all encrypted, I'll probably, if I'm still here, be talking about that in a very different way: the objective is the same. The objective is for us to get those conversations whether they're by an alligator clip or ones and zeros. Whoever they are, whatever they are, I need them." - FBI Director Louis Freeh, clarifying statements that the FBI may seek legislation to ban strong encryption, in an Oct. 1994 interview with Steven Levy. -Richard, *cyber base: ,. * * earth home: Wexford Ireland ____.,______________ _______ ________________________________ | ; . . , * * ~ | , ; . ; , ~ * ~ ~ | | , ' , . , \ / _-_ ~ | | ~ | /~~ ~~\ | | ___________|_|__________|____ /~~ ~~\ | | / / / \ \ \ _-_ } | |/_______________________________\ /~~ ~~\ -_ / _-_ | | | _____ _____ | /~~ ~~\ // ~~ /~~ ~~ | | |_|_| ____ |_|_| { }| /~~ | | | |_|_| |__| |_|_| |\ _- -_ / | { | | | | o| | ~~ \\ // ~~ \\ \ _- - | |____________|__|___________| | | ~~ \\ //| | \- \ @ # | | * # | | | | / -/ `/ // \\ \/ @ | | | |_______________/ - \_________________________________|_________| citizenships: (trees by dennis@eng.utoledo.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:53:02 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: Joe Costello Cc: Phil Agre , cyber-rights @ cpsr.org , Subject: re: In defense of progress(ives) Message-ID: <199502101856.SAA18472@GPO.iol.ie> Joe, Thanks for your inspiring ariticle in RRE. I fully agree with the _theoretical potential_ of electronic media to provide tools for societal improvement, but I must question some of your assumptions about what that foretells for the future. I'd love to learn from you some of your thinking, behind the writing. ______________________________________________________________________ Joe Costello Foundation Communications joec@cts.com Humanity is rapidly approaching the end of the industrial era. Economic philosophy is increasingly unable to find answers to chronic problems and societal institutions are cracking at their foundations. Human society is being affected by the advancement of knowledge at a pace of unprecedented speed; human life is being impacted on every level. As the industrial era brought in new philosophies and tools of organization, so too will this new era. The tools of this new era are being constructed from electronic media. Simply, the ability to move information at the speed of light. Electronic media are relatively new, but their impact upon the institutions of American society has exploded with nuclear force. The reformation which electronic media will bring has just begun and the greater the implementation the more exponential the rate of change. ______________________________________________________________________ Agreed that society seems unable to find answers to chronic problems, but I don't think you can assume that society has a natural tendency to evolve in the direction of solving those problems. The problems aren't causeless -- they come about from the societal stress induced by various change-forces -- and those forces are not oriented around solving society's problems: they result rather from the expansion of various political/economic paradigms that have their own "agendas", such as corporate power consolidation, fundamentalist-religion propagation, capital migrations, etc. etc. Your "flywheel effect" -- the natural tendency of society to solve its problems -- acts as a buffer to these changes, but is increasingly unable to exert much of a braking influence. It is most certainly incorrect (IMHO) to attribute dominance to societal-improvement in the overall scheme of change-forces. The stability of the current global order (measured by corporate health and public opinion docility) seems to be quite robust, and is able to endure wars, famines, and military dictatorships, without requiring any return to the drawing board to realign global societal priorities -- except in the direction of greater corporte hegemony. Remember the old story about the patent for a 200-mile/gallon car? -- an oil company bought the patent and burned it. "Economically natural" trends are all to vulnerable to sabotage by existing power centers. The very fact that Internet is blossoming as a vehicle for participatory democracy mobilizes the forces of reaction -- for whom particpatory democracy is a familiar foe: one they've been defeating on various battlegrounds for centuries. In the USA, they've defeated the unions, the socialists, the progressives, the new-leftists, the liberals, & the Democrats -- the Internet is their next lunch. They like the selective-audience-dissementation leveraged marketing potential of electronic media, and they'll carry that forward into Cyberspace Inc. But their obvious intention is to leave the cypher crowd and and the public interest crowd behind on the cyber dock. PFF's Magna Carta is the Mein Kampf of Cyberspace Inc, and Internet's demise screams out between the lines, with no reading glasses required. Thus the long-range potential you so eloquently anticipate for electronic media is being sytstematically "headed off at the pass" by one of the "societal forces" I mentioned -- in this case the combined forces of the telecommunications industry, the mass-media industry, and the PR-public-mind-control-news infrastructure. And in the shorter term, the damn is about to break on the overlflowing resevoir of resentment the establishment holds toward the Internet culture. Take a look at Censorship Bill S 314. Here's part of an anlysis by James T. Bruce and Richard T. Pfohl Wiley, of Rein & Fielding: These provisions could have a chilling effect on electronic message services, providers, carriers, or anyone else who could be deemed to "transmit[] or otherwise make[] available" prohibited electronic communications. Thus, for example, if someone sent an indecent electronic comment from a workstation, the employer, the e-mail service provider, and the carrier could all potentially be held liable, and subject to up to $100,000 in fines or up to 2 years in prison. This provision also has potentially chilling effects on electronic bulletin boards, discussion groups, and basic electronic mail communications. Although some service providers regularly screen bulletin boards to ensure that no obscene or indecent remarks appear upon them, the incredible proliferation of such bulletin boards makes comprehensive screening practically impossible.2 Bulletin Boards on the Internet, and, potentially, electronic messages, include numerous postings making racist remarks, arguing that the Holocaust never occurred, etc. All of these could conceivably be considered "indecent," or annoying, abusive or harassing, any of which could subject employers, services, and carriers to liability. And we've had previews of how such a law is likely to be enforced. Even without such legislative authorization, bulletin boards have been closed down in dramatic swat-team midnight raids, with all equipment confiscated, and very little regard for due process or constitutional rights. With this new legislative backing, such raids will enjoy far more justifcation, and can be followed up with effective prosecutory teeth. Of primary signficance is the arbitrary discretion retained by law-enforcement agencies to selectively target bulletin-boards and lists which they find objectionable. If a civil penalties bill were passed instead, then you and I could sue bulletin board we thought violtated the public interest (holocaust deniers or whatever), but with a criminal package, the initiatory discretion is left, essentially, with the FBI, and other friends of Clipper. So while I buy into your vision, I (bemoadedly) put it in the realm of "what if" science fiction, rather than realistic social prediction. Unless we do something about it. -Richard, *cyber base: ,. * * earth home: Wexford Ireland ____.,______________ _______ ________________________________ | ; . . , * * ~ | , ; . ; , ~ * ~ ~ | | , ' , . , \ / _-_ ~ | | ~ | /~~ ~~\ | | ___________|_|__________|____ /~~ ~~\ | | / / / \ \ \ _-_ } | |/_______________________________\ /~~ ~~\ -_ / _-_ | | | _____ _____ | /~~ ~~\ // ~~ /~~ ~~ | | |_|_| ____ |_|_| { }| /~~ | | | |_|_| |__| |_|_| |\ _- -_ / | { | | | | o| | ~~ \\ // ~~ \\ \ _- - | |____________|__|___________| | | ~~ \\ //| | \- \ @ # | | * # | | | | / -/ `/ // \\ \/ @ | | | |_______________/ - \_________________________________|_________| citizenships: (trees by dennis@eng.utoledo.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:12:55 -0400 (EDT) From: LECLERC YVES To: Mark Stahlman Cc: com-priv@psi.com, digitaliberty@phantom.com, cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: Mobs and democracy Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Mark Stahlman wrote: > Hmmm . . . You're telling us that a population that can't distinquish > between "needs" and "demands" and who therefore are manipulated by sellers > of "any but the most basic of products" should be put in charge of a world > filled with far more complex and abstract issues than personal health care > and picking a lawyer. Huhh? Did I miss a class in Critical Theory and > drop the linkage here? You didn't miss anything, and your point would be well taken if you didn't charge me with an intention I never had. I never said "should be put in charge"; what I said is, there is no other choice: this is the dilemma we are in. Either elect incompetents through the current process, which is pretty well documented not by ideologues but by social and political scientists from Weber and Schumpeter to Aron and Philippe Braud, or try something else. True direct democracy has never been coupled with the kind of information systems and decision support we now have; I think it may be worth a shot. Which is a kind of answer to your next paragraph, too. The technical term, by the way, is not "mobocracy" but "demagogy" (Aristotle) and it describes pretty well -- as you do -- what happens when you let people decide only on the basis of a "free market" of adverse propagandas, rather than valid information: > Direct democracy has been recognized throughout the history of politics as > "mobocracy." I'm sure you know this history very well but for those who > don't, the Federalist Papers are a good place to start . And, that's "mob" > as in "the mob" -- i.e. it's rule by the Godfather. In it's more modern > forms it usually is referred to a rule by the "experts" -- i.e. those who > can formulate the questions on which we "vote." Micheal Vlahos of Newt > Gingrich's PFF describes these new mob bosses as "brain lords" -- > demonstrating the historical enthusiasm for "democracy" among aristocrats > (and crooks, among others). > Are there any real political scientists out there (not ideologues, please), > who have a reading on the support/opposition for "democracy" in this > country? The problem is not with the word "democracy", but with the idea itself. As far as I can see, most Americans are against it deep down: they are libertarian anarchists, mostly without knowing it. Trouble is, they call it "democracy" and are surprised when other nations don't understand what they mean! I'm not doing this to promote anarchy, but to try to make things a little clearer for everyone. I think anarchy may be fine on the 'Net, but would be lousy as a national political system, in fact. I'm almost ashamed to confess I'm really a democrat (small d) at heart; but I'm quite worried at how we seem to be intent on sabotaging the system while appearing to defend it. Yves Leclerc P.S. I'm a free-lance writer and journalist, doing this stricly on my own time. My personal interest in it is, I'm writing a book on "what comes after liberal democracy", and getting a lot of ideas and leads from the discussions. I'll return the qestion: who are *you* representing in this, and what do you get from it? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:33:17 -0400 (EDT) From: LECLERC YVES To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: Re: Antonov and anarchy (bis) Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Fred Baube wrote: > This exchange reminds me of the book "The Media Monopoly" > by Ben Bagdikian (sp?). His point is that there is not > a conspiracy to reduce the output of the American media > to idiotic pablum (including feel-good melodramas and > flag-waving jingoism), that's just the logical outcome > of the economic structure of the industry. And IMHO this > structural phenomenon has knock-on effects for politics. Right. Just think for a moment of the medias as a "decision support system" for democracy... and you'll measure how much trouble we're in! > The Net does indeed seem to be a functioning > anarchy. Netizens "live" and "die" not by > sanctions from authority, such as the bill > proposed by the Right-Thinking Senator Exon, > but by their intelligence, wit, and reputation. Look at my answer to Stahlman elsewhere on this list, for a comment about this. Yves Leclerc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:51:53 -0400 (EDT) From: LECLERC YVES To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: re: Yves: Internet & Democracy Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Richard K. Moore wrote: > Democracy does not require a strong government, or even formal laws -- and > hasn't in specific historical examples. It requires only _some_ mechanisms > of social cohesion, linked _somehow_ (not necessily involving any kind of > elections) to the "people's will". Those mechanisms might involve tribal > customs, a strong church infrastructure, a unified labor movement, or > whatever. I was essentially talking of government as a "mechanism of social cohesion", as you so aptly phrase it, not necessarily as its current incarnation into a separate institution. The role can be played by churches, unions, whatever... on this, you're right. But whichever it is, you can bet anarchists will reject it. > Anarchism, IMHO, doesn't necessarily reject governance. It rejects any structure where power can accumulate permanently. And this seems to be the case on the 'Net, as you rightly describe hereafter. But this doesn't mean that nobody ever makes decisions for others. > The Internet isn't without governance. Its governance is distributed > among sysops and list owners, who make independent decisions about how to > structure facilities and online discussions (in collaboration with their > constituencies), and who share an informal, evolving, flexible set of > net-cultural norms. I'd say we have a multi-layer, distributed, > anarchistic governance system. > > I think the Internet can be viewed as both a democracy and an anarchy. Yes, it is a blend of both. I'd call it an imperfect or incomplete anarchy, but I won't quibble if you define it from the other end: an anarchic democracy, maybe? This means it has internal contradictions, as have most systems. The true questions, then, are: can we live with those contradictions, and in which of the opposite directions do we want to evolve mostly? Yves Leclerc P.. By the way, your .sig is really getting out of hand! I'm even tempted to cut those trees, old ecologist that I am. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 22:29:44 +0200 (EET) From: fred@sunserv.optiplan.fi (Fred Baube) To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: Re: rights- re: Arun: NGO piece Message-ID: <9502102029.AA11243@sunserv.optiplan.fi> > Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 11:27:39 -0800 > From: rkmoore@IOL.IE (Richard K. Moore) > > Arun: > ________________________________________________________________________ > May I suggest several, short, off-net documents: "Cyberspace: what's in > it for you?" for the student, housespouse, activist, NGO, government, > school, library, firm,... > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Excellent idea, IMHO. Everyone please send in any such language segments > that inspire you -- maybe instead of a monolithic document, we'll have a > set of building blocks that can be assembled for different audiences as > needed. When I first joined CPSR, I was impressed that they had available a series of short monographs, four or eight pages each, about verious topics. Each was well-written, and importantly, was addressed directly to the topic in question. One could follow one's own interests posthaste. /fred -- F.Baube(tm) Nymphs vex, beg quick fjord waltz. G'town Univ MSFS '88 baube@optiplan.fi #include ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 15:39 EST From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) To: c1615@er.uqam.ca Subject: Re: Mobs and democracy Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:12:55 -0400 (EDT) From: LECLERC YVES The problem is not with the word "democracy", but with the idea itself. As far as I can see, most Americans are against it deep down: they are libertarian anarchists, mostly without knowing it. Yup. I think I finally convinced my dad that he was really an anarchist. After all he said himself that "Government can't do anything right." I'm not doing this to promote anarchy, but to try to make things a little clearer for everyone. I think anarchy may be fine on the 'Net, but would be lousy as a national political system, ... The plaintive complaint about any system of governance is that it is terrible, but that all others are worse. The problem, as I see it, is that governance of a whole society is not a solvable problem. In fact, it might not even be possible to arrive at a *good* solution. It might only be possible to escape bad solutions. -- -russ http://www.crynwr.com/crynwr/nelson.html Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key 11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | What is thee doing about it? Potsdam, NY 13676 | Capitalists try to avoid a free market. Why might that be? ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 95 16:04:26 EST From: George To: < cyber-rights @ sunnyside.com > Subject: Columbia Crypto Conference Message-ID: <950210210425_555063.0_EHF78-1@CompuServe.COM> Columbia University's Graduate School of Business in New York City is holding conference March 3 on "Cryptography, Technology, Law, and Economics." Will examine: Cryptography and Commerce on the Infobahn: Myth and Reality Constitutionality of Mandatory Key Escrowing Rationales for Export Restrictions on Cryptographic Software The Effect of Patents on the Cryptographic Industry Call 212/854-4222 or Fax 212/932-7816 for info. This is not an ad. Thought some on this list might be interested. I'm not affiliated with Columbia in any way. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 13:10:58 -0800 From: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) To: rkmoore@iol.ie Subject: re: Democracy and Progress Message-ID: <199502102110.NAA21107@radiomail.net> Richard: In a couple of recent posts you said (re:Yves: Internet & Democracy) > Democracy and anarchism can also coexist in the real world, and in fact > the two combined may be man's natural normative social state -- the > combination shows up repeatedly in our record of indigenous peoples. and (re:In Defense of Progress(ives)) >So while I buy into your vision, I (bemoadedly) put it in the realm of "what if" science fiction, rather than >realistic social prediction. Unless we do something about it. What ties these two ideas together? "Indigenous peoples" and "progress" through "post-industrial" electronic media? When Alvin Toffler (who could have written the original post on "progress") or his Japanese counterpart Taichi Sakaiya or any "futurist" attempts to engage in actual social prediction (which, understandably, they try to avoid), they always seem to be drawn inexorably back to feudal society. Why? Because they are actually talking about a program that has consistently been favored by aristocrats, oligarchs and imperialists throughout many millenia. To believe that "indigenous peoples" were ruled by a combination of anarchy and democracy one must read some highly suspect anthropology/archeology. Primitive (not "normative" or "indigenous") tribes that have survived to this day are primarily the shards of previous civilizations that utterly self-destructed. The older societies from which these decend were primarily terrible, crushing hierachies. And, if you want to get really ancient about it (like the Mayans for instance), these people very likely lived in terror of interalized "voices" that commanded them to follow the brutal, human-sacrificing "God-King." Julian Jaynes is perhaps the best reference on how ancient civilization was not yet "conscious" and how it was ruled by auditory halucination. Life was much simpler back then -- back before the mind-body paradox. When Georg Lukacs and his cohorts met in 1922 to form what became the Frankfurt School, he was concerned with why "Bolshevism" didn't seem to take in the West. As you may recall, Lukacs, the Hungarian aristocrat, wrote "What will save us from western civilization?" while he searched for the answer to why Marxism seemed to only work in feudal societies. Lukacs was too early for "post-industrial" theory but I suspect he would have gotten a kick out of the current "revolutionary" mood. Afterall, the "end of the industrial age" talk has always been politically aimed at . . . who else, the industrialists. And, who has always had the biggest bone to settle with the "industrialists" -- that's right it's those feudalist/aristocrats (like Lukacs) who were displaced by the filthy "bourgeoisie." While there's always a chance that something truly "post-industrial" will come along, so far the dominant angle has been back-to-the-land (emotionally, if not literally unless you were unlucky enough to be born in China) -- i.e. strictly pre-industrial. As a result, "indigenous" and "post-industrial" are very difficult to separate conceptually and they naturally crop up all the time together. Mark Stahlman New Media Associates New York City stahlman@radiomail.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 16:17:13 -0400 (EDT) From: LECLERC YVES To: Russell Nelson Cc: Droits CPSR Subject: Re: Mobs and democracy Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Russell Nelson wrote: > The plaintive complaint about any system of governance is that it is > terrible, but that all others are worse. The problem, as I see it, is > that governance of a whole society is not a solvable problem. In > fact, it might not even be possible to arrive at a *good* solution. > It might only be possible to escape bad solutions. I'm not sure there is no "good" solution; what I'm sure of is, there is no "universal" solution: politics is too involved with customs and cultures for a system to be portable as-is from one country to another. The best we might get at would be a set of workable principles, which would be applied in different ways in different contexts. The American Presidential system is a good example. It has remained reasonably democratic in the U.S., but in the 30 or 40 other countries where it was tried, it always ended up either in a dictatorship or a civil war! In fact, the British constitutional monarchy and parliamentarism has fared quite a bit better... and it is much more kludgy and haphazard! Yves Leclerc P.S. What is ? First time I see them. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 13:56:45 -0800 (PST) From: Charles Stewart To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: Re: Stewart: fickle fan :>) Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Richard K. Moore wrote: > What I think Mark is saying is that we shouldn't see Grinch as evil and > Gore as good, but both as suspect. > > OK. I buy that; I bought it all along. > > So what? > > That is certainly no reason for us to be happy with what they're both > doing, or to sit on our butts and observe. Richard, I did not precieve that Mark was advocating that we "be happy with what they both are doing". I precieved that he was allied with us in being upset about it. I am not real framialiar wirh the previous postings in this string, but I also did not precieve that Mark was advocating that we just "stit on our butts and observe". As your critique implys though, I also do not see Mark proposing any course of action to constructively deal with these powermongers. But to me I see 2 problems with your reaction to Mark. First, it frequently is the most effective strategy in dealing with a problem to just sit down and meticiuliously (sp) blueprint exactly what the hell is the nature of the problem that we face. It appears to me that Mark is bringing a prescious and valuable discerning eye and critical mind to our discussion. If he is wrong on some points, we can filter it out, but he looks pretty dam sharp to me, and I think we should listen carefully to what he has to say. Second, many people in our camp are specialists. If all that Mark feels comfortable bringing to our endevor is his meticulious anylisis of our current perdicament, that is fine with me. I am a free market libertarian, and I believe that Mark should be allowed to walk away from the burdens of formulating strategy for dealing with whatever we decide is the true nature of our problem at any time he wishes to do so. Those of us who are generalists )I believe you and me at least) can carry on effectively without his further assistance. If he wants to sit on his but after he contributed what he wants to contribute, I think we should thank him kindly, and persevere to do the rest of the work without being judgmental against his style of interacting. Third, (oh yea, ok 3 points), I didn't see any thing in his postings to indicate that he was advocating that we just "sit on our butts and observe". Mabey I missed that. If he does, I will join you in denouncing this less than optoimal strategy. Chuck... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 22:25:06 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: Re: anarchy examples Message-ID: <199502102228.WAA21492@GPO.iol.ie> Robert Moskowitz said: >Actually I tend to place it as a rational anarchic structure as Ann Rand >tried to define. The only other documented, large scale rational anarchy >was the Jewish people during the time of the Judges. Other large scale rational anarchic structures: o international postal and telephone systems o most international arrangements o most native american tribes, as well as their inter-tribal arrangements o any free-market economy -Richard, ; , *cyber base: ,. * * earth home: Wexford Ireland ____.,______________ _______ ________________________________ | ; . . , * * ~ | , ; . ; , ~ * ~ ~ | | , ' , . , \ / _-_ ~ | | ~ | /~~ ~~\ | | ___________|_|__________|____ /~~ ~~\ | | / / / \ \ \ _-_ } | |/_______________________________\ /~~ ~~\ -_ / _-_ | | | _____ ____ _____ | /~~ ~~\ // ~~ /~~ ~~ | | |_|_| |__| |_|_| { }| /~~ | | | |_|_| | o| |_|_| |\ _- -_ / | { | | | |__| | ~~ \\ // ~~ \\ \ _- - | |____________====___________| | | ~~ \\ //| | \- \ @ # | | * # | | | | / -/ `/ // \\ \/ @ | | | |_______________/ - \_________________________________|_________| citizenships: (trees by dennis@eng.utoledo.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 22:25:14 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: Re: Stahlman & democracy Message-ID: <199502102228.WAA21495@GPO.iol.ie> >Direct democracy has been recognized throughout the history of politics as >"mobocracy." I'm sure you know this history very well but for those who >don't, the Federalist Papers are a good place to start If you're extremely selective in which histories you read, and depend on Toffler/Gingrich et al for your primary source materials, it's not surprizing you are missing the "bigger picture". But take heart, you can still learn. In the meantime, don't be so afraid of democracy, your fellow man isn't really out to take your cellular phone. -Richard, ; , *cyber base: ,. * * earth home: Wexford Ireland ____.,______________ _______ ________________________________ | ; . . , * * ~ | , ; . ; , ~ * ~ ~ | | , ' , . , \ / _-_ ~ | | ~ | /~~ ~~\ | | ___________|_|__________|____ /~~ ~~\ | | / / / \ \ \ _-_ } | |/_______________________________\ /~~ ~~\ -_ / _-_ | | | _____ ____ _____ | /~~ ~~\ // ~~ /~~ ~~ | | |_|_| |__| |_|_| { }| /~~ | | | |_|_| | o| |_|_| |\ _- -_ / | { | | | |__| | ~~ \\ // ~~ \\ \ _- - | |____________====___________| | | ~~ \\ //| | \- \ @ # | | * # | | | | / -/ `/ // \\ \/ @ | | | |_______________/ - \_________________________________|_________| citizenships: (trees by dennis@eng.utoledo.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 16:18:12 PST From: kurt@Data-IO.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: Re: Mobs and democracy Message-ID: <9502110018.AA26920@ Data-IO.COM> >From: LECLERC YVES >The problem is not with the word "democracy", but with the idea itself. >As far as I can see, most Americans are against it deep down: they are >libertarian anarchists, mostly without knowing it. I doubt it. What I suspect is that the group that is the most dissatisfied with the government as it is may be libertarian anarchists. People tend not to make much comment when government (or anything else) meets their expectations and serves their needs. Why should they? It's not apathy, necessarily. It could just be satisfaction. So when you hear complaints, remember that the complainer represents not the average, but the person who wants change the most. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 02:16:13 MEZ From: Heiko Recktenwald To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: Re: anarchy examples Message-ID: < 199502110126.RAA06479 @ snyside.sunnyside.com > On Fri, 10 Feb 1995 15:43:04 -0800 Richard K. Moore said: >Robert Moskowitz said: > >>Actually I tend to place it as a rational anarchic structure as Ann Rand >>tried to define. The only other documented, large scale rational anarchy >>was the Jewish people during the time of the Judges. If they had judges, they had law and so there wasn't any anarchy at all. Dunno, if it is usefull to expand the theme of the list so far. Heiko. > >Other large scale rational anarchic structures: > o international postal and telephone systems ???? International law, international orgarnisations... > o most international arrangements ??? Why not say, every deal ? > o most native american tribes, as well as their inter-tribal arrangements > o any free-market economy Mysticism. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 10:26:43 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM Subject: re: Yves: Internet & Democracy Message-ID: <199502111030.KAA27738@GPO.iol.ie> Yves asks about the evolution of Internet culture: _____________________________________________________________________________ Yes, it is a blend of both [anarchy & democracy]. I'd call it an imperfect or incomplete anarchy, but I won't quibble if you define it from the other end: an anarchic democracy, maybe? This means it has internal contradictions, as have most systems. The true questions, then, are: can we live with those contradictions, and in which of the opposite directions do we want to evolve mostly? _____________________________________________________________________________ (1) re/Net anarchy: I'd hope this aspect of the net could stay unchanged forever. Total freedom of speech and assembly is wonderful. The anarchistic environment provides the _foundation_ for all manner of useful sharing, discussing, organizing. etc. Most important, perhaps, is that we have the freedom to allow our process to evolve in unpredictable ways, as we learn how to make use of it. (2) re/Net democracy: "Democracy" on the net is a question at a different level. Democracy is not in competition with anarchy as a way of _managing_ the infrastructure; democracy is rather a possible _application_ of the infrastructure. As a community, we have not been exploiting that potential. We do well at using the net for discourse, but we aren't sufficiently exploiting its potential as a vehicle for effective political action. To do so requires that we learn how to get beyond chatting about "interesting issues", and focus on such things as: o developing common agendas o doing work in parallel off line o acting as an organizing agent for off-net political mobilization --- Participatory democracy is (IMHO) worthy of our pursuit. An anarchistic net is an ideal environment for that pursuit. The two synergize; they don't contradict. -Richard ******************* * rkmoore@iol.ie * * Wexford Ireland * ******************* ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 14:18:21 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: fwd: AllianceCM COALITION Message-ID: <199502111421.OAA29275@GPO.iol.ie> From: AllianceCM@aol.com Hello everyone: The Alliance for Community Media issued the following press release today about Sen. Pressler's draft legislation and I thought you might want to see it. Hubert Today the Alliance produced and hosted a successful off- the-record editorial conference on important public interest issues involved with telecommunications reform. In fact, since it was "off the record," we had to turn away C-SPAN which wanted to cover the event! The reporters who attended represented both popular and trade press. Attached is the agenda for event, which includes the participants from our public interest coalition, and a press release included in the press packet. Special kudos go to government relations coordinator Jeff Hops for bringing our coalition partners together, cultivating the press, and orchestrating the entire event. And sincere thanks to the Alliance members who have made contributions to the Alliance to make his position possible... _________________________________________________________ PUBLIC INTEREST TELECOMMUNICATIONS COALITION OFF-THE-RECORD BACKGROUND EDITORIAL CONFERENCE AGENDA 9:00am Welcome -- Barry Forbes, Exec. Dir., Alliance for Community Media, discussion facilitator 9:05am Opening Statements Jill Lesser, Civic Media Project/People For the American Way Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Media Access Project Anthony Pharr, United Church of Christ Jeff Chester, Center for Media Education Brad Stillman, Consumer Federation of America Gary Bass, OMB Watch Mark Lloyd, The Benton Foundation Anthony Riddle, Alliance for Community Media Discussions 9:30am Potential Impact of Sen. Pressler's Draft Legislation on Public Interest Coalition Membership Interests -- Andrew Schwartzman, Media Access Project, Discussion Leader 10:00am The Goals of the National Information Infrastructure: A Hard Look at the Realities for Marginalized Americans -- Tony Pharr, Discussion Leader 10:30am Potential Uses of the Information Superhighway in the Context of an Eroding Public Sector -- Jeff Chester, Discussion Leader _________________________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Barry Forbes February 10, 1994 (202) 393-2650 ALLIANCE 'DISMAYED' BY PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL AND WILL WORK FOR "TRUE BIPARTISAN SOLUTION" Washington, February 10 -- The Alliance for Community Media, a national grassroots organization active in ensuring access to electronic media, today expressed its dismay with the draft telecommunications bill released by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Larry Pressler (R-SD). The Alliance promised an all-out grassroots campaign to involve all Commerce Committee members in crafting truly "bipartisan" and inclusive telecommunications reform. "Senator Pressler has presented a bill that virtually ignores the private citizens and the community organizations who depend so greatly on the public airwaves and public rights of way," stated Barry Forbes, Executive Director of the Alliance. "This bill is the equivalent of selling off public land to lumber companies -- and leaving no space for public parks. Although the draft bill makes a few few passing references to nonprofit entities and noncommercial uses of telecommunications networks, it proposes no commitments nor guidelines to support the non-profit/non-commercial uses of these networks. Instead of a 'global village,' this bill will create a global strip mall." Mr. Forbes stated that almost 1,000 public, educational and governmental ("PEG") access centers, and millions of Americans who produce and view public access programming each week will be left behind in this round of legislation. "This bill supposedly champions free competition -- yet does not provide specific guarantees for regulatory parity for all providers of telecommunications services. Certain classes of telecommunications companies would be effectively granted special waivers from the commitment to support PEG access, as allowed under Title VI of the Communications Act. This effective waiver would deny support for the cable access activities of our schools, our churches, our community groups, our libraries, and our local charities through local franchise fees," stated Mr. Forbes. Most PEG users are local nonprofit religious, charitable, and educational organizations, such as Churches, synagogues, Little Leagues, YMCAs, Boys Clubs, elementary and secondary schools, Chambers of Commerce, Rotaries, Kiwanis, and American Legion chapters. "If Congress does not allow local PEG access support for all providers of television by wire, competitive forces will effectively deny access to community organizations and average Americans. I don't think a lot of Members of Congress realize this. Frankly, I am flabbergasted that at a time when both Congress and the President have been so vehement about devolving local autonomy back to cities, towns, families, and community institutions, they seem intent on attacking those institutions as well," stated Forbes. "Congress seems only able to see the Regional Bells, the cable companies, the Long Distance companies, the electronic publishers, the alarm-monitoring industry, and the software manufacturers," stated Forbes. "Our organization plans to show them that average Americans care deeply that they have access to the information superhighway -- not just as passive recipients of information and entertainment, but as producers of information and full participants in our electronic democracy. In the next few weeks, we will be mobilizing our members to make our voices heard on Capitol Hill. I am confident that this will make at least some Members sit up and take notice." - 30 - ________________________________________________________ National Office Alliance for Community Media 666 11th Street, NW, Suite 806 Washington, DC 20001-4542 Voice: (202) 393-2650 Fax: (202) 393-2653 E-mail: AllianceCM @ aol.com "Ensuring everyone's access to electronic media since 1976." Barry Forbes, Executive Director "Do what's right. Do it right. Do it right now." ______________________________________________________ BNN-TV/The Answer Channel 617-720-2113 x 11 Boston Community Access Foundation 617-720-3781 (fax) 8 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116 hjessup@world.std.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 14:59:23 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Cc: Doug Schuler , Subject: ** ABOUT THIS LIST ** Message-ID: <199502131502.PAA00620@GPO.iol.ie> CPSR Cyber Rights Campaign Greetings: As you know, this cyber-rights list was set up for a specific purpose: to support the activities of a CPSR Working Group on Cyber Rights. This is a different kind of list than most of the other ones you are familiar with. This list is not primarily: o a topic-based "discussion group" o a news-distribution channel Instead it is: o a project-coordination infrastructure o a team-process enabler o a goal-oriented endeavor Given these special circumstances, I should have set the list up initially on a moderated basis, so as to provide appropriate digest/thread support. Sorry. We've had an explosion of traffic, much of it not particularly related to moving our endeavor forward. As a consequence, the list is now moderated. I will henceforth organize postings to this list into timely, subject-tagged, thread digests. Nothing will be censored out, although in some cases authors will be asked to edit or condense. Frequency of thread distributions will depend on traffic, and on relevance to the list's mission. Important business will not get queued up. There is a traffic backlog from the weekend which I will package and redistribute shortly, but I wanted to get this notice out to you first. In Solidarity, -Richard ******************* * rkmoore@iol.ie * * Wexford Ireland * ******************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:12:55 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-13Feb: Leclerc re: Censorship Bill S.314 Message-ID: <199502131916.TAA05349@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:02:04 -0800 Sender: LECLERC YVES Subject: Rights and laws re S.314 Barry Shein wrote: ___________________________________________________________________ The real problem is that people are imagining new "law" vis a vis the internet. For example, all these restrictive proposals seem to go way beyond the liabilities and culpabilities imposed on telephone or postal or package delivery services. The main analogue they derive from are TV and radio. But that power was derived from the FCC's control over what was perceived as limited bandwidth spectrum, whence grew licensing, whence grew community interest, etc. But obviously a lot of folks just think the impositions on TV & radio oughta just apply to everything and be derived from nothing much more than "we got the guns so we make the laws". I think the best approach is to make sure that every other analogous medium is included in any such bills. If Fedex and the US Postal Service and the Telcos et al agrees to be liable for everything they might deliver then I suppose we all are in the same boat. ______________________________________________________________________ The first problem is that of freedom vs security: you can't have both totally, they are opposites. Any security measure restricts somebody's freedom (yours or that of the other guy you want to be protected against). The best we can hope for is a reasonable compromise, which probably will change with time and evolution of the media. Secondly, the current media laws are made for broadcast media, not personal exchange (as you note, postal laws are a better source for this). But the Internet and the NII-defined infobahn are both private and public channel at the same time. Which set of laws can apply? Or must we devise a new kind of rules trying to take both types of communication into account at the same time? The main parameter here is another conflict: that of openness against privacy. Again, these are essentially opposites, you can't have both at the same time. Which do we prioritize, or how much of each do we want (and how much of the other are we willing to tolerate)? My gut feeling is that with modern communication-managind (read, for the purpose of this, "snooping") tools, we'll just have to learn to live in glass houses. But in that case, I'd like governments and corporations to be put in the same situation as individuals... Yves Leclerc =========================================================================== =========================================================================== -Richard ******************* * rkmoore@iol.ie * * Wexford Ireland * ******************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:11:58 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-13Feb: Priest: Ed Markey Forum; Strategy for CPB Message-ID: <199502131915.TAA05324@GPO.iol.ie> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 05:18:20 -0800 Sender: "W. Curtiss Priest" Subject: Ed Markey Froum and a Strategy for CPB W. Curtiss Priest, Ph.D. Center for Information, Technology & Society 466 Pleasant Street Melrose, MA 02176 Internet: bmslibmitvma.mit.edu, Voice: 617-662-4044, FAX: 617-662-6882 This document may be distributed freely February 12, 1995 An Open Discussion with Government, Foundations, Non-profits and Grassroots Efforts The Will to Create the Future: Public Issue #8: "Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- Under Attack: Strategies for the 104th Congress At three PM today, Ed Markey hosted a critical forum to help shape the debate about the fate of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting(CPB). Held at Lexington High School in Massacusetts, the three speakers spoke to the need to maintain the CPB. Ed Markey spoke about the important role that Public Television plays in balancing the type of programming offered by commercial networks, noted that the support of CPB amounted to $2 per person per year compared to hundreds of dollars for the reception of cable, and noted that many children do not even receive cable in their homes. He read off the names of programms that were available on public television and contrasted that with the fare offered on commercial stations -- unsuitable to children and parenting. He then called the Public Broadcast Station the Children's Broadcast Stations, since from seven AM to six PM, the programming is 100% child oriented. Henry Becton, Chairman of WGBH, of Boston, provided a broad defense for their programming and noted that 1) the sale of merchandise such as from the successful show Barney was precarious -- the show may be a "blip" and the amount is small compared to federal funding, 2) the loss of government support would require public television to shift programming in the wrong direction to attract advertisers, and 3) the presence of advertisers would drive away many loyal viewers, compounding the problem. Peggy Charren, the previous director of Action for Childrens' Television, in Boston, spoke about the ways public television has served children, how insensitive commercial television is to children's needs. She spoke of how outraged she was that to sell CPB to a private firm would be to betray her and many others. She noted that children's programming and responsiveness was built on the hard work and sweat of people like her, with no finanical return. And she spoke about the likelihood of destroying the very quality, civic leaders like she, had worked hard to achieve. What was unspoken, however, was the need to devise a strategy to prevent cutbacks to CPB. Yes, writing letters would help and, in particular, writing to John Porter, Jack Fields, and Newt Gingrich would help. Ed Markey spoke of hope on the Senate side that many senators from rural areas would recognize the importance of National Public Radio, and vote with those interests in mind. Unspoken, however, was the implicit ideology in the current agenda of CPB. Indeed, when this was suggested by one of the audience at the microphone, Ms. Charren recoiled to think that her position was ideological. But that's the point. Why else are powerful Republicans attacking CPB? It isn't for the $2/year that it costs. Rather it is because they consider CPB to be ideologically distasteful, smacking of elitism and liberal values. This is not to say that their default solution -- to leave it to the market -- would provide any better programming for the quality of children's education, but that, in their minds, it would at least not have the CPB bias. Those on the side of CPB must face the fact that their agenda is every bit as an issue of values as those who oppose CPB. And, those supporting CPB must see their side, not as value laden, but as value rich. From shows on home improvement and cooking to thought provoking documentaries, the programming is built on the ideological belief of strong education, free speech, and open debate of issues. The ideological conflict must be recognized and addressed up front. Back door statements about the low cost of CPB misses the point. The Republicans don't care how little it is, as long as the government has any role, they are upset. The question boils down to what programming provides the backbone of a good, virtuous society. We have on one hand commercial programs like "Baywatch" pandering to the baser instincts of society and, on the other, we have shows like I'll Fly Away with You and Masterpiece Theatre imbued with strong family values and noble traits. Documentaries such as the one on the Civil War, remind us of how savage we can really be and help persuade us to tame our more beastial tendencies. In a society fraught with violence, abuse, and divorce, programming must address and help resolve the ills of society as well as provide amusement and culturally redeeming education. Programming must act in tandem with the broad array of social values that many interests wish to bring to the good of the country -- from the right, as well as from the left. CPB is in the spotlight. It needs to not only react defensively, but to learn from the attacks from the right how to better serve the nation as a whole. The attacks are a signal for CPB to grow and address a wider audience, and a country in need. Our leadership in Washington should overcome the petty fighting about whose values are correct, and move to instituting a CPB that achieves a pluralism of positive programming that learns from both sides of the debate and embodies a fuller range of values than it does today. Only by seeing the political process as providing a "message" will there be progress. Protecting CPB, as is, is not enough. This challenge is a healthy one. All sides must entertain the possibility of remaking a CPB that is worthy of government largesse. And, at least the majority leadership, must be convinced that the country is better off with this re-attuned CPB than without it. -Richard ******************* * rkmoore@iol.ie * * Wexford Ireland * ******************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:12:31 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-13Feb: "net anarchy & democracy" (thread) Message-ID: <199502131916.TAA05342@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 16:52:20 -0800 Sender: LECLERC YVES Subject: re: Yves: Internet & Democracy On Sun, 12 Feb 1995, Richard K. Moore wrote: > (1) re/Net anarchy: > I'd hope this aspect of the net could stay unchanged forever. Total > freedom of speech and assembly is wonderful. The anarchistic environment > provides the _foundation_ for all manner of useful sharing, discussing, > organizing. etc. > > (2) re/Net democracy: > "Democracy" on the net is a question at a different level. Democracy is > not in competition with anarchy as a way of _managing_ the infrastructure; > democracy is rather a possible _application_ of the infrastructure. > > Participatory democracy is (IMHO) worthy of our pursuit. > > An anarchistic net is an ideal environment for that pursuit. > > The two synergize; they don't contradict. Good, We are getting pretty close to an understanding on this. The model I am developing for my next book (the exact formula came to me only about a month ago) has, as two of its five basic mechanisms: - Participatory democracy to control a State strong enough to offer security and fair treatment to its citizens; - An anarchic communications network to preserve freedom of speech and thought against the encroachments of both the State and corporations. I know you don't like the "strong State" part, but to me it is an unavoidable necessity in most areas of the world: very few countries, apart from the U.S. and a few island kingdoms, are not in danger of being threatened by bigger or more aggressive neighbors (including the U.S., by the way). And even in the U.S., I'm not sure you don't need a strong public authority to keep the corporations honest -- at least until they "wither away" (shades of Engels) in an information economy! Please take this one a bit tongue in cheek, but the underlyning ideas are serious. I hope we'll have a chance to discuss them. Yves Leclerc =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:02:01 -0800 Sender: LECLERC YVES Subject: Good reading? On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, John Robert Behrman wrote: > Do you have a list of published works I might study. Not knowing your background, I'll give you three, at different levels: + George H. Sabine, "A History of Political Theory", New York 1971. This is essentially a "political science 101" manual, but it offers a very concise and complete panorama of political ideologies and their relationship with culture and geography. Pretty good starting point. + Crawford B. MacPherson, "The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy", Oxford 1977. A critical view of the development of Western politics in the last two centuries, and a well articulated proposal for direct democracy. + Yves Leclerc (yea, I blow my own horn!), "Dead-End Democracy", Montreal and Toronto 1994. An analysis of the functional defects of representative democracy and the dangers of the "individual rights" approach. If you can read French, I would add three more: + Bertrand Badie, "L'Etat Importe: l'Occidentalisation de l'Ordre Politique", Paris 1993. A rigorous but hard-to-read demonstration of the impossibility of exporting Western-style democracy to non-european cultures. + Guy Hermet, "Le Peuple Contre la Democratie", Paris 1989. Shows how most electorates tend to prefer "strong men" to open, democratic leaders. A bit frightening. + Christian Deschamps (editor), "L'Interrogation Democratique", Paris 1987. A collection of essays by historians, philosophers, economists and political scientists on the contradictions of democratic thought. Contains some very acute observations, but with little sense of direction. There is also some good stuff in Spanish (published mainly in Mexico and Cuba in the 70's), but I don't have the references at hand. Yves Leclerc =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:01:37 -0800 Sender: Charles Stewart Subject: Re: U.S. Senate Bill 314 may impact IRC operators (fwd) Barry, Mark, & Richard, I agree with Barry's essential sentiments that "they" are in a position of influance sufficiently powerful to influance the decisions that affect uor lives (if I am not reading too much in). And with regard to the collapse of nation states, I think there will be long term benefit, but short term negative impact on the populace. But Mark, you said ""replacing representative democracy with direct" really cracks you up." What's the joke? Explain the punch line to me please. Chuck Stewart, the Participatory Democracy Project... On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Barry Shein wrote: > > From: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) > >Now, I'm not given to "conspiracy theories" -- primarily because in an open > >system, social control doesn't work. With information freeing available and > >freedom of speech, folks will not be bamboozled for long -- as long as they > >do their homework. But, when I hear the view that the "people" will > >benefit from the collapse of nation states, I really have to laugh. And, > >the idea of "replacing representative democracy with direct" really cracks > >me up. These are funny times indeed. > > Yes...but...that's what they...want...you...to...think. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD > =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:01:34 -0800 Sender: fred@sunserv.optiplan.fi (Fred Baube) Subject: Re: anarchy examples Surely sendmail reeled when thusly spake Heiko Recktenwald: > Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 17:30:30 -0800 > From: Heiko Recktenwald > Subject: Re: anarchy examples > > On Fri, 10 Feb 1995 15:43:04 -0800 Richard K. Moore said: > > > >Other large scale rational anarchic structures: > > o international postal and telephone systems > ???? International law, international orgarnisations... > > o most international arrangements > ??? Why not say, every deal ? Indeed, international law is not a contradiction in terms. It's a structure that has been built up over the years. The best example is the principle of diplomatic immunity; it exists by consensus. International law arises in three ways: by custom (a la diplomatic immunity, which dates to the Renaissance), by codification (of existing practice), and by crystallization (which is to say, the relatively rapid emergence of a consensus, say at an international conference) Similarly, one might seek to "codify" the existing Net culture, the current practice, something like that, to make it clear, both to ourselves and to clowns like Senator Exon, what exactly it is we seek to promote (or defend, as the situation may be). /fred -- F.Baube(tm) * For a balanced, nutritious G'town Univ MSFS '88 * diet, don't forget the baube@optiplan.fi * Five Basic Food Groups: #include * Salt, Sugar, Grease, * Carbohydrates, and Alcohol =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 14:59:19 -0800 Sender: Heiko Recktenwald Subject: Re: Antonov and anarchy (bis) On Fri, 10 Feb 1995 15:37:35 -0800 LECLERC YVES said: >On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Fred Baube wrote: > >> This exchange reminds me of the book "The Media Monopoly" >> by Ben Bagdikian (sp?). His point is that there is not > >Right. Just think for a moment of the medias as a "decision support >system" for democracy... and you'll measure how much trouble we're in! So why not going so far and giving nodes to Lybia and Iran, if they aren't already netted ? > >> The Net does indeed seem to be a functioning >> anarchy. Netizens "live" and "die" not by >> sanctions from authority, such as the bill >> proposed by the Right-Thinking Senator Exon, >> but by their intelligence, wit, and reputation. why not simply say, the net is functioning, simply that. The anarchy thread seems to come from a wrong alternative, so to say. There is simply . no need to improve it. Net ok as it is... Got the ema analysis of the 314 bill. Slept over it. and then I asked myself if this isn't the same unproven craze like the crypto law de lege lata. Nebulae... Heiko. PS.: To add a practical adcive: why not printing buttons like NEt OK, that peoples can wear on the street like those energie nucleair non mercy buttons. Seems to be easier to realise than any oldtimestyle manifestos. Nothing against the idea of cyberrights, but the idea seems to be rather limuted. another idea for a nice button could be Richard Hamiltons "Slip it to me", London Artist. I am shure he would give it to us ;-) I would wear it. You'll find it in many Books on 60s Popart. Maybe we should start to become more anarchistic in our methods too. So, who prints and distributes the NET OK buttons ? Cherio, h. =========================================================================== =========================================================================== -Richard ******************* * rkmoore@iol.ie * * Wexford Ireland * ******************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:17:11 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-13Feb: Athearn: Pressler Draft Intro Message-ID: <199502131920.TAA05408@GPO.iol.ie> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:01:30 -0800 Sender: fga@world.std.com (Fred G Athearn) Subject: Pressler Draft Intro I've just read the first part of the Pressler draft for the new telecommunications bill. This is what I see right off: There is a finding that competition is the best way to "spur" the development of new services and that it is "time" eliminate restrictions on the Regional Bell OCs. and one of the goals is to ``preserve and REVISE universal service.'' The policy is to ``end regulation over time as competition takes place'' but there is a recognition that just removing regulatory restrictions will not be enough to bring telecommunicaions competition to all places and this is to be delt with as follows: ``Incentives for deployment of advanced telecommunications will be employed in areas where competition does not occur.'' Looking at this from the viewpoint of someone living in Southern Vermont outside the service area of existing cable TV systems this is how I see the Pressler policy playing out: First we wait three year from the time of enactment to see if deregulation is enough to get someone to pull another wire up our hill. During that time all telecommunications and associated economic development is taking place in areas of the state already served by cable and where there is ``competition'' (mostly in the form of local cable systems getting the best deal with NYNEX that they can). Then one day around the turn of the century I will get a notice with my bill saying that if I want to be able to get a better connection to cyberspace than my plain old 14.4 modem will give me I should write or email my congressman and tell him to support a big package of ``incentives'' so that they can offer me something like ISDN. Is this realy what the bill is saying? Or is living in the woods here just making me cranky? Fred Athearn Paradise Hill Bellows Falls VT 05101 (802) 869-2003 (voice) fga@world.std.com (E-mail) -Richard ******************* * rkmoore@iol.ie * * Wexford Ireland * ******************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:13:17 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-13Feb: Stewart: Partic. Demo. Proj. (announce) Message-ID: <199502131916.TAA05352@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:45:28 -0800 Sender: Charles Stewart Subject: P.D.P. Flyer Mission Statement of the Participatory Democracy Project To use recent technological advances to provide the general populace with a large interactive database and supportive supplemental mechanisms into which they can submit and retrieve political propositions and fresh and firm verifiable voluntary voting response data as to what the collective political views of the populace actually is, and to use this data and these mechanisms to elevate the collective political consciousness level of the community. Addendum: To provide sufficient quantities of this data to accurately document weather legislators are actually representing the wills of their constituencies. To develop and use current technological advancements to set precedents in the areas of openness, accessibility, fairness, speed, and accurate documentation to and of this data. Secondarily, to provide the populace with sufficient forums of free and open debate so that people of broadly diverse political beliefs and cultural backgrounds can become sufficiently well informed on the issues to use the Participatory Democracy Project's database and voting response data tallying mechanisms to make progress in responsibly working towards mutually acceptable solutions to the myriads of problems facing the planet. To use the hoped for resultant data which verifies the responsible collective decision making track record of the populace at large, to nullify the arguments of those who would disenfranchise the larger populace from assuming progressively greater roles in the governmental decision-making processes, to actually empower the populace at large to assume this progressively greater role in the governmental decision-making process, and to validate the appropriateness of seriously discussing the merits of actually adopting a truly Participatorially Democratic governing structure. Charles Stewart 15-9-94 *********************************************************** FLYER PDPMCTV-2.8 We have the technology. We can rebuild the body politic. The technology is now available to construct and fulfill that exact vision of Americas founding fathers for "A More Prefect Union". We feel this "Perfection" is obtainable through promoting increases in participation in governmental decision making by the population at large. We feel that increases in participation support this concept of perfection because we believe there has been a historically recognized Natural Law which continues to operate and recognize that INCREASES BY THE POPULATION at large IN GOVERNMENTAL DECISION MAKING, WILL CAUSE direct proportional INCREASES IN THE overall QUALITY OF adopted GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES. We feel this Natural Law is so recognizable and undeniable that it can be reduced to a 1 to 1 mathematical equation. When this ability to allow increased participation by the population at large becomes a political body's focus, then Participatory Democracy is by definition more efficient than the present Representative Democracy we are struggling under. We feel History and logic both show that Participatory Democracy is a true Democracy while our present Representative Democracy is severely lacking in its ability to reflect the values our "Constitutional Republics" were suppose to secure. We feel shifts which decentralize this decision making process will undeniably produce policies which are more in harmony with the Laws of Nature and Natures God. We feel these policies will be more able to secure those more sensible and moral governmental policies of that "More Perfect Union" and "Constitutional Republicanism" which the founders of this great nation envisioned. The facilitation and promotion of a decentralizing paradigm shift in this decision-making process is the object of our Participatory Democracy Project. Briefly our goals are first to promote communication between individuals about political issues in an effort to raise the collective political consciousness level of the community. Secondly, we wish to influence government officials to become more responsive and accountable to the will of the people. Thirdly, we want the people to establish a track record of responsible reactions to the issues so that the foundation can be laid for the eventual complete direct Democratization of all governmental structures everywhere. Right Wing & Republican concerns of "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule" can be addressed by consitutional mandates that all governmental officials will not recognize or enforce edicts which the publicly available voting tally indicates to have less than the appropriately graduated support level of 66%, 75%, 90%, 99%, or even 100% consensus. The specifics could be hammered out later. The point is that a Democratically based Constitution need not be tied to mere majoritarianism as many detractors contend. Our group has consensus that infringement of inalienable rights, declarations of war, the death penalty & other dangerous issues should be Constitutionally prohibited from becoming invoked without these substantially larger majority votes. Even consensus could be required on some issues as is the case in attempts at conviction in a traditional Jury Trial. We feel that it is both necessary and doable that we tabulate the votes of everyone wishing to be involved on every proposition anyone wishes to submit. We can do this in manners that are quick, accurate, and sufficiently open that fraudulent or subversive activities are certifiably impossible. The technology is now available to accomplish this on an hourly basis. We feel that once we have enough results, we can begin to influence the media & government officials to decentralize the policy making processes downwards from the insensitive larger Governmental & Corporate bureaucracies towards those of us natural, real, individuals persons the policies are affecting. The mechanisms involved in Participatory Democracy should allow all proponents of all propositions to have full and equal opportunity for their propositions to be heard in central forums of debate such as our MCTV television show, our TeleVote system, & our newsletter. When resources and time are limited though, the voting populace should decide which persons best represent their views and thus occupy the forum. Our TeleVote system soon should allow this. Televote's voice mail, touchtone voting, & computer modeming capabilites, soon will have the capacity to give everyone full and fair opportunity to market their propositions to every person who calls into the system. Call TeleVote now at 668-3932 to explore. These mechanisms will be used to tabulate and give feedback concerning our audiences responses to the various propositions of our panelists and a myriad of other issues from the populace at large. Newsletters and users guides will be published to promote "user friendliness" through-out the system. These propositions, questions and concerns will be organized, indexed, and democratically prioritized in manners which will allow the public to interact easily and to just that degree to which they feel comfortable. "Think Globally and Act Locally" seems to be the grassroots philosophy necessary to bring about these changes. As such, the PDP is presently focusing on developing a local foundation and open skeletal framework around our forum of debate in the MCTV television show within which people of broadly diverse political beliefs can work towards mutually acceptable solutions to the myriads of problems facing this planet. We hope the numbers of people participating will become so large that the orthodox media will begin to carry our tally results. This should influence legislation to become more responsive to the will of the people, as the legislators will quickly have firm verifiable data as to what the wishes of the people actually are. Legislation can then become more responsive to the will of the people through pressure on the legislators, and/or the use of the referendum or initiative process. The Format of our television show at MCTV incorporates elements of debate into open public forum style discussions. Under the umbrella of a preselected theme, participants are requested to present questions or propositions to each show. We strive for ease in computerization, so participants are requested to present their questions and propositions in simple formats such as can be responded to with a yes or no response. We always attempt to get all of the participants to voluntarily vote on all of the propositions presented. The show lasts 3 hours, and is shot in front of a live audience. We tally votes from the audience by ballots through computer terminals set up in the room. We calculate and publish whether the viewers support or oppose the propositions each of the panelists are presenting. After the show our newsletter, voice mail system, and computer bulletin board service will tabulate our results from the public at large. We later hope to expand to bi-monthly or even weekly showings and to broadcast live. We wish to broaden and diversify the composition of our participants at all events, and all political activists or other concerned and responsible persons everywhere are always invited to come and participate. Our polling process will openly and accurately enable the viewing public to select which participants views are to gain the most support. This project aims to set precedents in the areas of openness, fairness, speed, and accurate documentation of peoples beliefs. Many of us feel that if we follow these fundamental and time tested principles closely, that Utopia itself is within our reach. The coordinators of this Project, are Charles Stewart, Jeff Liddicoat and Jack Loranger. We can be reached at: 39275 Hood St. # D, Sandy Or. 97055 phone (503)668-5091 Feedback is a critical ingredient in governments formed by and for the people. Please communicate... =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:45:31 -0800 Sender: Charles Stewart Subject: P.D.P. F.T.P. Site ------------Original Message Posted in Multiple Lists------------- -------Cross-Posting & Republication Authorized & Requested------- Official Announcement of the Participatory Democracy Project Coordinator & Editor: Charles Stewart 12-February-1995 V-2 With regard to the establishment of a site for retrieving files through the Internet process of File Transfer Protocol (FTP) & World Wide Web (WWW) ================================================================ The Participatory Democracy Project submits this announcement of a site on the Internet for theavailability to access our files, including the full list of 663 questions assembled from it's entire body of participants from it's Portland area T.V. show. The PDP's goals, mission-statement, ballot responses and other growing files are also available. We encourage all to browse &/or download the files and complete responses to those portions of those subject of the questionnaires which are of concern to yourself. ************************* The files can be reached through the Internet by accessing the World Wide Web (WWW) and running the program lynx and typing the following U.R.L. address as a command: ftp://agora.rdrop.com/pub/users/chuck/ This method appears to be most efficient for those with WWW access. You can browse the files or download them directly from the site. The files can also be reached through the File Transfer Protocol (F.T.P.) by typing the following command from a shell on any terminal connected to an Internet host computer: ftp agora.rdrop.com After the connection is established, type: anonymous at the prompt for logging in, then press enter, and then type in your email address when the agora system next asks for your password. Next go to the P.D.P.'s F.T.P. area by typing: cd pub/users/chuck You can then list the available files by typing ls -l. ************************* The files presently available are as follows: BalotLst.txt 15274 This is all of the ballots collected from recent Communet activity on the internet. MSFl.txt 10072 This is the Mission Statement and Flyer outlining the goals and philosophy of the PDP. PDPQuest.txt 101857 This is the main 663 Questionnaire. PQAChuck.txt 27407 This is all of Charles Stewart's answers to all 663 questions to provide an example of how the answer-sheet should be filled out, and for the reference of all interested parties. PQAns.txt 4476 This is a blank answer-sheet/ballot for the entire questionnaire. Small portions of this document may be emailed back at any time. PQInst.txt 8569 This is an instructional document for reference as to how to respond to the questions on the answer-sheet. Type "get" followed by the file or files you wish to download. Close the connection by typing "bye". That's all. ******************************************** We expect to update these files, especially the BalotLst file frequently. We encourage all to interact as much as possible. We make all data as available to the public as authorized by each individual user, and are committed to policies of as much openness as possible. Ongoing discussions as to the intricacies of how the Participatory Democracy Project is growing are presently carried out in the Internet email list of Communet. We plan on posting past conversations from Communet and other sources concerning the theories and practices for implementing direct electronic democracy on the PDP-Agora site soon. All suggestions for improving this process are welcome. Feedback is a critical ingredient in governments formed by and for the people. Please communicate ... ********************************* Charles Stewart at 39275 Hood St, # D; Sandy Oregon, PZ-97055 ph-503-668-5091 chuck@agora.rdrop.com or chuck@teleport.com Producer of the Portland area MCTV cable access show: the "Participatory Democracy Project". "I know of no safe depository of the powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think they will not exercise control with discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to educate them. ***" T. Jefferson, 1821 =========================================================================== =========================================================================== -Richard ******************* * rkmoore@iol.ie * * Wexford Ireland * ******************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:16:53 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Cc: comlaw-l@lawlib.wuacc.edu, roundtable@cni.org, tpr-ne@MITVMA.MIT.EDU, Subject: CR-13Feb: "Libraries" (new list; "Rights") Message-ID: <199502131920.TAA05395@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== From: borton@macc.wisc.edu (Barry Orton) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: New list for public library advocates --------------------------------------------------------------- Announcing a new discussion list: PUB-ADV Libraries for the Future is announcing a moderated discussion list for users and advocates of public libraries. Given the opportunities and challenges facing public libraries today, we believe it is essential for library advocates to have a forum in which to share ideas about promoting citizen support, fundraising, building partnerships with other community institutions, ensuring access for all groups to library services, advocating for libraries as part of the National Information Infrastructure, and other issues. PUB-ADV is for members of existing library support groups (trustees, friends) as well as for any citizen or organization who sees his or her public library as a vital community resource and who wants to preserve and develop its potential. Community organizers, social service providers, educators, parents and youth, readers - all are welcome! If you want to subscribe, follow these instructions: Send a message to LISTSERV@nysernet.org (no subject necessary) saying: subscribe PUB-ADV [your full name here] For example: To: LISTSERV@nysernet.org Subject: Message: subscribe PUB-ADV George Knox [Use your name] Thanks- PUB-ADV Moderator: Linda Kravitz lkravitz@clark.net Libraries for the Future 521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1612 New York, NY 10175-1699 Tel: 212/682-7446, Fax:212/682-7657 =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:02:15 -0800 Sender: cyber-rights@Sunnyside.COM From: hkklein@MIT.EDU Subject: Library Bill of Rights Here is some related work going on in the library community: ------------------------------ Topic No. 7 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 21:32:44 -0500 (EST) From: kgs@intac.com (Karen G. Schneider) To: publib@nysernet.ORG Subject: The Library Bill of RightsOA and the Internet Message-ID: March 3-5, the Intellectual Freedom Committee will meet in Chicago to draft an interpretation for the Library Bill of Rights with respect to electronic access. As an IFC member and a librarian with strong background in and affinity with public libraries, and (donning my cybrarian hat) as an Internet jane-of-all-trades, I would really appreciate input from my public-library colleagues. I'd like to take a page from Carrie Gardner, a doctoral student at Pitt who approached local system administrators with a copy of the Library Bill of Rights and asked them how they could violate the Bill. They cooperated by explaining the many ways they could countermand the Bill--to take a basic example, by limiting what newsgroups people could read. I'd like similar input from you, as librarians and library employees. If you would rather reply in a positive vein, you could always respond by explaining how you could *actively support* the Bill--for example, by providing public access to the Internet, or by ensuring that minority viewpoints were reflected in resources the library's browser hotlist pointed to. Feel free to respond to me personally; I'll collect input and post to the list. Here's the Library Bill of Rights, in case you don't have your Intellectual Freedom Manual handy (from Intellectual Freedom Manual, 4th Ed.): *********************************************************************** THE LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services. 1. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people in the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. 2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. 3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. 4. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgement of free expression and free access to ideas. 5. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. 6. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use. *************************************************************************** =================================================================== Karen G. Schneider Cybrarian/Internet Trainer "Have Powerbook, Will Travel!" kgs@intac.com Need a NJ provider? Free referrals. Blue Highways Internet Services http://www.intac.com/~kgs =================================================================== =========================================================================== =========================================================================== -Richard ******************* * rkmoore@iol.ie * * Wexford Ireland * ******************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:14:04 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-13Feb: "Stahlman & Stewart" (2/2) Message-ID: <199502131917.TAA05354@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== (cont.) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:02:07 -0800 Sender: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) Subject: Re: Vintage Stahlman & Democracy Chuck: Thanks for the effort and passion that you put into responding to my posts. I, like you, am opposed to the "powermongers" and I, like you, crave peaceful solutions to mankind's problems. But, as an analyst of technology and business affairs and as someone with a little experience in these matters, I'm convinced that whatever "participitory democracy" we will get will not be of our/your design. It will be designed by the new technocrats or what I've been calling the cybercrats. It will be designed by and for the "powermongers" -- not because we want it that way but precisely because they hold all the cards. I've been careful to give ample citation to Alvin Toffler's "anticipatory democracy" movement of the 1970's to help guide the conversation to the specific form that this nefarious use of "democracy" is likely to be unveiled. (Check into Washington 2000, the version of A/D that florished in that state just north of you.) While, so far, only Yves LeClerc has engaged the discussion at this level of specifics on this list, I'm hopeful that there are as many students of history as activists on the list and that others will join the conversation at the level of specific plans, people and historical precedent. I'm aware that many on this list have spent considerable portions of their lives agitating for radical political changes. And, I apologize if my comments seem to be disrespectful to that (frustrating) experience. I take your posted comments at face value and don't try to figure out which oligarch employs whom (despite the widespread speculation about my origins) . As far as I'm concerned this list is composed of earnest, well-meaning cyber-rights advocates, like myself. Revolutionary theory has taken a double beating since the collapse of Bolshevism and the co-option of the term by Gingrich. The equating of Marx- Lenin with Toffler-Gingrich in last week's New Yorker editorial was not idle chatter. If you propose to *overthrow* these creatures then you most demonstrate how. Participating in plebecites which they design over an Internet that they control is simply not a convincing notion. Does anyone in this "movement" know what they are doing? How will the "powermongers" be defeated? (Sorry, if that's negative vibes but it's a question that needs to be asked.) Mark Stahlman New Media Associates New York City stahlman@radiomail.net =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:01:47 -0800 Sender: Charles Stewart Subject: Vintage Stahlman & Democracy Mr Stahlman: I admire much of the work and insight you are bringing to this discussion. But you are also bringing in what many of us perceive for lack of a better term as "negative vibes". And it is complicated by the fact that you are bold-facedly admitting your destain for the voluntary system of co-operative governing known as direct democracy. These processes are very sensitive to members of our community producing unwarranted negative vibes. It shuts down the whole cooperative effort. I have spent years coming to the conclusion that direct (or participatory) democracy is the only peaceful solution to societies present problems. It's our only ticket out. If we don't develop voluntary mechanisms of self governance as equal, free and responsible individuals, the powermongers will continue to steer our society along it's present course of self destruction. Your input is valuable. I hope we can make sufficient progress in moving towards consensus on some of the following critical issues so that we can all work constructively together. I apologize for the length, Chuck... Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 06:22:33 -0800 From: Mark Stahlman Subject: re: Stahlman's mumbo jumbo > We've only just met but I've been around for awhile. I've >been analyzing technology and policy for ten+ years (leading >analyst on Sun Micro, wrote "Why IBM Failed", etc.). Sorry if >I'm raining on your parade but you're seriously in need of an >umbrella. Your credentials are significant footnotes. But that's all they are is footnotes. Either you are bringing constructive input into this free association of proud sovereign individuals or you are not. And I am concerned that in spite of the very valuable insight you are bringing to the discussion, your elitist and disrespectful tone with Mr. Moore, who I believe is the central organizer of this medium of communication, presents us all with a net loss. We can make good and significant progress without your input Mr. Stahlman. > There's a reason why *both* Gore and Gingrich support the >cornerstone of the new "technocracy" -- Universal Access. So refresh me, what's wrong with universal access? >Tell you what. >You do your research and I'll do mine. Let's both report on what >we find and then compare the results with reality. Excellent proposition, almost sounds like too much democracy though :) . > These guys are all professional social engineers and >brainwashers. They are using the "future shock" of new >technologies to herd a stupefied Washington DC into their newly >constructed (but with an old blueprint) stockpens. > And, everyone who's promoting increased government control >over *new* technologies is helping them out -- whether they know >it or not. > You're right, there's some very big bucks behind these guys >and it ain't U.S. Steel. They've been trying to tell you it's >not a left/right thing anymore. It's a non-ideological >"technocrat" futures-lib social control thing. Most of us on this list probably have consensus with the essence of your statements here. But the left while erring on the big government and regulations points have to it's credit consistently opposed the proposition that "trickle down" governing and economics are valid alternatives. This is a critical ingredient in opposing the agenda of the powermongers we are facing, and if you think the right wing is not significantly more threatening to us all here (presently anyway) than the left wing, I believe you are wrong. Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 06:37:47 -0800 From: Mark Stahlman Subject: Re: The New(t) Telecomm Agenda: cable sells out to telcos >Arun: You said: >> I agree with what Mark says, great note. How do you feel about >> Gilder's opposition to the FCC auction, which supports obsolete >> technologies that require exclusive use of a bandwidth slice, >> while new technologies allow multiple broadcasts to coexist. He >> says in "Auctioning the Airwaves", Forbes ASAP April 11, 94" > It's a bad idea because the technology is moving fast enough >to possibly avoid the need for exclusive licenses. It's a bad >idea because it puts the spectrum in the hands of the highest >bidder -- who is the least competitive and least innovative (see >my Letter to Editor of the NYT's Nov. 8, 1994). > And, it's a bad idea because it feeds the "technocrats" >information industrial policy push. And that's why EFF's founder >Mitch Kapor told me it wasn't important and that they "much >bigger fish to fry." > BTW, Gore and Gingrich both *totally* supported the auction. >And, in case it wasn't clear, Gilder is *not* a technocrat. You are really bringing great stuff to the discussion. Salute!! Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 08:43:01 -0800 From: Mark Stahlman Subject: Re: more vintage Stahlman >Richard: You said: >> What you're basically advocating is that "the phone company >> knows best" and the rest of us should watch in awe as they >> create cyber miracles. >> The technology is not nearly as uncertain as you pretend, and >> the financial/regulatory issues are crucial now. > I oppose the cybercrats attempts to control these >technologies. I've publically fought with Bill Gates (among >others) on the notion that "you have to be big to win big." > > There is absolutely *no* urgency to these policy issues >what-so-ever. It is pure "future shock" to scare people about >big business taking over the net or building out 500 channel >"even vaster wastelands" (as EFF/CDTer Danny Wiesner put it in >his intro to the infamous EFF Open Platform 2.0). All this is >pure "future shock" employed by cybercrats who want to control >the biggest threat to their existence -- a network of thoughtful, >intelligent, productive individuals -- the Net. Throwing in with >this urgency makes one either the cybercrat's dupe (my original >critique of EFF) or their agent (and sometimes I wonder why "the >benefit of the doubt" still comes so easy). I agree that the first 3 rules are all "Dont Panic". But do we have consensus, that we need to keep emotional reactions to a minimum, and we need to nurture the biggest threat to the cybercrats existence-"a network of thoughtful, intelligent, productive individuals"? If we do then how about some more effort from your end in attempting to voice your dissent in a less confrontational manner. I am not sure that these issues are not urgent as you claim. But what ever their nature, I believe they are presently productive issues around which to build the mass democratic movements necessary to disenfranchise the elitists from their positions of control in our society. Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 10:12:53 -0800 From: Mark Stahlman Subject: Re: Amen >Ben: > Yes, let's keep the "oligarchy's" filthy grubs off the net. >But, alas, universal access is *their* project! > It's a component of the participatory democracy plan -- an >"oligarchical" idea from day one. > The "oligarchical" or what I've been calling "technocrat" >outfits (like AT&T) all support "universal access." That's why >*every* politician voted for it in every version of the "telecom >reform" acts proposed over the past few years. It's a facet of >social control under stress that started with "opinion polling" >after WWII. Mark, universal access is not "*their* project!". It's an idea with ebbs and flows and varying shades of grey. It's a good idea whose time has come, and both the good guys and the bad guys are on the band wagon. It appears that you are advancing the argument that we can't have universal access without the "oligarchy". We have the resources to provide these minimal standards of access to all members of society, and like access to paved roads, to deny access to the poor and disenfranchised is either really stupid or just plain elitist powermongering evil. While oligarchies like AT&T may secretly wish to retain influence among the masses by denying universal access to information for the poor and disenfranchised, it's to big to argue against, and the "ologarical" "technocrat" outfits (like AT&T) are (unlike yourself) smart enough to not argue against it. The most effective strategy for tho oligarchical powermongers is to take a firm position on the moral high ground supporting "universal access" and to purposefully and secretly send out infiltrators who are either misguided and stupid, or just plain evil, and to use them to cause as much confusion, opposition and delay to this meritorious proposition among the true popular (democratic) movements as possible. And for the record, there are many of us here who are quite concerned that you are obviously not stupid. And we are quite frustrated with consistently being faced with the conclusion that you may actually be purposefully causing confusion and dissent in our ranks. I would suggest that you carefully reexamine the merits of your positions, and when you are the least bit unsure of taking a position in opposition to the majority, that you either hold your tong, or that you take the time and energy to edit your messages and concerns sufficiently carefully and respectfully that you cease and diciest from causing skips in our collective heartbeat. Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 20:39:06 -0800 From: Mark Stahlman Subject: Re: U.S. Senate Bill 314 may impact IRC operators (fwd) > I prefer Bill Frezza's non-confrontational decades-long slow >shift myself. I agree. We need to move as slow and purposefully as possible, and to remain very skeptical of false alarmists. But we need to also provide for mechanisms which can react to true alarms. We don't have to gain much ground, but we should fight real hard against loosing any ground. > The only reason why SR314 could be taken seriously is because >of the "future shock" generated by all the Infobahn hype. The >push to put the Internet in every school and library has, as >predicted, generated a smut-attack "backlash". "Future shock" is >a very old crowd control mechanism. Well said. > Do you think there is any force on earth which can throw cold >water on the notion that some amazing new social/cultural/ >economic force is right around the corner -- when it isn't? Is >there anything which can turn off the now built-in assumption >that a new social compact (EFF/CDT's language) or a cyber-Magna >Carta (PFF) or a cyber-"Bill of Rights" (CPSR) are needed? So Mark, do you have a crystal ball or what? I respect your ability to guess that there are no new social cultural forces around the corner, but I don't see how you can make the blanket statement that it is just not there. And no. You're wrong when you present the blanket proposition that a cyber bill of rights or Magna Carta is not needed. You may be correct that "we the people" have no inherent need for such documents, but as our social universe is unfolding here, we are being presented with the need for such documents merely because the oligarchical powermongers are drafting a subversive one for us. We at the grassroots now have to respond with something similar to what Mr. Moore is presenting to us or the powermongers will get their draft statutorily enacted through a lack of any other options on the tables of the legislators. They will win by default. And if people like you would get on board and help us to work toward consensus constructively, instead of sitting back and throwing rocks at us, maybe, just maybe, we could get a superior document formulated here. Such an effort may even grow into a movement which would eventually build a sufficiently massive and broad based democratic movement to take back control from the elitists. Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 14:06:58 -0800 From: Mark Stahlman Subject: Re: U.S. Senate Bill 314 may impact IRC operators (fwd) > Does anyone recognize a pattern here? > Manufactured crises. A call for citizen action. Plebiscites >(radio, then and now) on issues far too complicated to vote on. >A fundamental shift in political power to . . . no, not the >"people" -- to the "experts." So then Mr. Stahlman, Let us get this right. What you are actually opposed to is a power shift to the experts. Well, you have no argument here with those of us supporting direct democracy. We are all (well most of us anyway) opposed to entrusting the responsibilities of governing to a selected few franchised persons governing as "experts". We all essentially agree on this. But "Huhh? Did I miss a class in Critical Theory and drop the linkage here?" Specifically, How do you link our common distrust of governing by experts to the proposition that direct democracy is unworkable? I recognize that you have a stale canned argument that democracy quickly deteriorates into governing by the experts, but at that point (if it ever occurs, which I believe it wouldn't in a well engineered democracy) the governing structure has been taken over by a elitist-expert governing mechanism. At that point, your complaint should be that the elitist-expert mechanism was allowed to replace the democratic mechanism. You should not then be complaining that the democratic process is defective, because at that point the democratic process is no longer in existence. You cannot blame the defects of elitist expert governing on democratic governing process. The two are diametrically opposed, and there is no linkage between them. > Re-read Daniel Bell's 1972 "The Coming of Post-Industrial >Society" or Toffler's own 1972 compilation "The Futurists" and >absorb the detailed academic discussion of the power shift to >"think-tanks." > And, then imagine how long these folks have been waiting for >the world to come their way. I would argue that think-tanks could be beneficial in a democratic society. So long as a separation of powers, or a broad base with opposing views in the separate think tanks is preserved. I would guess that they would probably not be much more oppressive than our present morphodite representative system. But I agree with the general thrust of your concerns that "we the people" should not place any degree of power or trust in them, but merely use them as informational formulation resources to be presented to the populace for voting after and/or during free and open debate. Just keep the power in the hands of the people. We'll all be ok... > And, out of the blue this lovely opportunity called the >"Internet" comes along. Wow, this is potentially much better >than radio -- this one is really two way and you only have to >push a button to "vote." All we have to do is "control" it >enough make it useful it for this "power shift." So what happens if "we the people" vote to keep the internet, develop the ability to just push a button to vote, and refuse to let "them" "control" it? We really can do this. I don't see why you can't see the light. > in an open system, social control doesn't work. With >information freeing available and freedom of speech, folks will >not be bamboozled for long -- as long as they do their homework. Jeez Mr. Stahlman. Sounds like maybe we should hire you as our direct democracy P.R. man. So how-come you turn right around and trip up that beautiful thought with: > And, the idea of "replacing representative democracy with >direct" really cracks me up. You just throw these inflammatory and prejudicial comments out there with no support whatsoever Mr. Stahlman. Your mouth is bigger than your brain sir, and admittedly your brain is large and powerful, just wish we could get it channeled constructively. Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 09:05:39 -0800 From: Mark Stahlman Subject: Re: Antonov and anarchy > Direct democracy has been recognized throughout the history >of politics as "mobocracy." Yes. By a selected few elitists in control of the mechanisms of propaganda, who consistently use those propaganda tools to manipulate the weak-minded and confused into accepting the agendas of self-serving central planners. But your statement is incomplete. If you were attempting to state that a majority of historical scholars addressing the issue equate direct democracy with mobocracy, I believe you are wrong. It would take me time to research the issue, and I admit that current literature has highlighted the cause of the detractors of direct democracy, but I don't see you making any cites either. And really, whether historically "mobocracy" resulted from attempts at direct democracy is off point from our present concerns. The game has changed with our newer technological advances. We can engineer idiot-proof safegaurds now, no matter what happened in the past. > I'm sure you know this history very well but for those who >don't, the Federalist Papers are a good place to start. No. The anti-federalist papers are a superior place to start. Also rightings on collective governing through mechanisms of Common Law and Natural Law by Lysander Spooner, William Blackstone, and John Locke. These are still less than optimal though, because almost all of the historical texts cannot respond competently to the impact that current technological advances are making on the proposition of direct democracy. > And, that's "mob" as in "the mob" -- i.e. it's rule by the >Godfather. In it's more modern forms it usually is referred to a >rule by the "experts" -- i.e. those who can formulate the >questions on which we "vote." Micheal Vlahos of Newt Gingrich's >PFF describes these new mob bosses as "brain lords" -- >demonstrating the historical enthusiasm for "democracy" among >aristocrats (and crooks, among others). So could you be a bit more clear about how you are defining direct democracy here? I mean are the people getting to vote in your definition of "mobocracy" or not. And are their votes being counted as in a true mandate from the people, or has this godfather you refer to somehow engineered himself into an invisible position of control so that he can replace the voting results of the populace with his own dictates? I don't get it. To quote your own artful oneupmanship: "Huhh? Did I miss a class in Critical Theory and drop the linkage here?" Who allowed this "godfather" into our democratic process? How did he get control of the ball? What you are criticizing as "mobocracy" is vastly different from what we are defending as "direct democracy", and again, many of us find it hard to believe that you are too stupid to see this lack of linkage. Perhaps we are arguing semantics. I detect a similar destain for the central planners among the vast majority of those here in this discussion including you, Richard, and myself. But when you presuppose that "we the people" are incapable of engineering safegaurds into mechanisms of direct democracy which would dilute into insignificance the impacts of the Gingrinch's and Vlaho's on the vote totals of the populace, I believe you are being not only overly pessimistic, but downright counterproductive. If you can't voice your admittedly valid concerns in a constructive tone, why don't you just let those of us dedicated to ironing out the admittedly significant wrinkles in the broadcloth of broad-scale direct democracy do our work free from your negative vibes. If we screw it up, we'll let you say "I told you so". I promise. > Are there any real political scientists out there (not >ideologues, please), who have a reading on the support/opposition >for "democracy" in this country? I've researched a piece of the >Toffler/Gingrich involvement in the 1970's but what's the bigger >picture? Where does the attack on representative republican >government come from and what are it's defenders up to (if >anything)? I would also be interested in this data. This is a valuable request Mr. Stahlman, and I salute you for making it and I echo your request. However, data less substantive from idealogues (an unnecessarily slanderous term) I would also find useful. The data from the non-credentialed community I find frequently to be more useful to addressing broad-based problems. ************************************************************* Charles Stewart at 39275 Hood St, # D; Sandy Oregon, PZ-97055 ph-503-668-5091 chuck@agora.rdrop.com or chuck@teleport.com Producer of the Portland area MCTV cable access show: the "Participatory Democracy Project". "I know of no safe depository of the powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think they will not exercise control with discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to educate them. ***" T. Jefferson, 1821 =========================================================================== =========================================================================== =========================================================================== =========================================================================== =========================================================================== -Richard ******************* * rkmoore@iol.ie * * Wexford Ireland * ******************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:15:59 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-13Feb: "people's nets" (thread) Message-ID: <199502131919.TAA05374@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 08:14:15 -0800 Sender: Heiko Recktenwald Subject: satelites etc, instant democracy etc. I liked reading the statements of Kurt a lot, concerning satelites etc. Now I saw a posting in de.soc.netzwesen saying, that at least 90% of all transcontinental usenet traffic, maybe other traffic as well, goes over ONE node, run by Alternet/Uunet. One broken transistor... Is that true (and is it important) ? One node in Virginia. Another point concerning the danger of demagogy: There could be some institutional mechanisms to slow down things. An example from the old world. Constitution of Belgium slows down changing of constitution, there are allways things, that can be changed, by requiering an election for a new parliament first. Maybe it is usefull to know this example. Heiko. =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:02:10 -0800 Sender: fga@world.std.com (Fred G Athearn) Subject: Arun's Satellite fits in Kurt's Paradigm I don't think that what Arun Mehta is suggesting contradicts the basic paradigm if it is viewed as an outreach tool and as a last ditch protection against local blackouts. The idea is that one of the ``nodes'' in the network would be like a one-way relector that would feed stuff out over a regular satellite broadcast channel. This way anyone within the footprint of the satellite with dish and disk would also be able to have an up-to-date reflection of, for example, usenet and a subset of list mail. Now this is not the same as being on the net, but is a lot more than nothing. It could serve as an entry point for new locations (who might have to use a third-world version of ``sneaker-net'' to get messages out to the net). It could also serve as an important, though one-way, back-up link for the other nodes on the net. Arun put forward the idea as a way to make censorship by a local power futile. Nodes would see any local black-out, natural or man made, and switch to satellite feed. If local authorities could at best only slow down output messages from nodes within their jurisdiction, while anyone with a dish could read the rest of the world's comments on this, local powers would find tampering with the net dumb. The idea of multiple paths and back-up systems is central to the distributed communication paradigm and an available, economical, and powerful potential link should not be rejected on ideological grounds just because it is one-way. All the more so, when it has the ability to nip potential govrnment tampering in the bud. Fred Athearn Paradise Hill Bellows Falls VT 05101 (802) 869-2003 (voice) fga@world.std.com (E-mail) =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 14:59:23 -0800 Sender: Arun Mehta Subject: Re: fwd: Kurt: some proposed language On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Kurt Guntheroth wrote: > > I'm afraid you misunderstood *my* point. The very last thing we want is any > kind of centralized organization for internet transport. I really don't think we disagree on this one - I am not suggesting "any kind of centralized organization for internet transport." I am suggesting a way to make it easier for people not living in major cities with excellent access to the big providers to have reasonable access. In some parts of the world, it will help us escape government control. > Distributed communication, distributed control, point-to-point > and channel-less. This is the new paradigm. Learn it. Use it. Again, I have no complaints with the "new paradigm", nor should you if what I'm suggesting simply distributes communication to one more channel. > Any big organization becomes a big target. First off, they'll have a > discernably large volume of data to move, something worth a lot of money. > Something you shouldn't give away. Far easier for individual non-profit > organizations like universities to talk providers out of a little free > bandwidth. A service provider could "own" the internet by providing service > free for awhile until we got used to it, and then begin to make demands with > the threat of a sudden total cutoff of service. I don't understand the point of "give away." Give away what? I'm not comfortable with an Internet surviving on universities talking providers out of a little free bandwidth. As regards the pusher-junkie argument you use, that you first give the stuff away free, then when the person gets hooked you raise the rates, this works only if the stuff is is short supply. If hordes of Internet service providers exist, nobody can do this. OK, to follow your analogy, if the satellite service stops suddenly or threatens to raise rates, those in rural areas and other beneficiaries I listed will mourn. But once a demand is created, competition will start, and that will keep the rates down. > > Any big organization becomes visible to competitors. You're competing with > the very telcos and cable companies you fear. They're bound to react. By > contrast, a million individual sites making individual contracts are > invisible, like microbes, unworthy of individual destruction, yet working > together to accomplish a goal. In India, the government prohibits me from offering long-distance communication facilities: that privilege the government alone has. If I want to offer e-mail services, I have to pay exorbitant licence fees, and agree to liability for anything objectionable carried on the network. Satellite broadcasts are the only uncensored public sources of information. (I doubt e-mail providers actually read each message, but in effect the law requires them to). And since when are microbes indestructible, just because they are unworthy of individual destruction? > > Any big organization becomes a focus for restrictive legislation, proposed > by competitors and people with moral agendas. You can sue the internet > organ Mr Mehta wants to create, or enjoin it from providing servicee, or > enjoin the parties who carry its signals in a national region. Unless the > organization owns its own satellites and uplink, it can be stopped. Oh, I'd like someone to try - the best publicity the Internet could possibly have, lots of mail clogging the mail boxes of congressmen and senators, I would not mind a visible David v/s Goliath challenge of the kind you suggest! Imagine this - a company in Belize is being sued for broadcasting to the US material mostly generated in the US, and publically available there. All this while CNN and other American companies have been inundating Belize's skies with all sorts of junk (of course, the Internet doesn't carry just porn - this is when we highlight all the wonderful discussions between students, teachers, support groups,...) - wouldn't this be a wonderful case to fight? > By > contrast, individual nodes can make a pretty good case that they havn't got > the resources, the ability, or the mandate to monitor or filter content. What if the law requries them to? Inability to comply with the law means you close. > A distributed system is more resillient, less noticeable, less easily > stopped by the legal ploys that have evolved to damage large corporate > entities. Lets not be a big target. Lets sneak under the radar in a > million separate places. 'They' won't see us comming. Their eyes and their > defenses are designed for an older kind of opponent. The Internet is too large to "sneak under the radar" - oh, I certainly do not object to the large number of different providers, I'm just suggesting an alternative that will work better for people whom the current Internet does not serve very cost-efficiently. Arun Mehta Managing Director, Indata, B-69, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-24. Tel: +91-11-6841172 or 6849103. Fax +91-11-4635785. amehta@doe.ernet.in =========================================================================== =========================================================================== -Richard ******************* * rkmoore@iol.ie * * Wexford Ireland * ******************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 19:15:19 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-13Feb: "Stahlman & Stewart" (1/2) Message-ID: <199502131918.TAA05371@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 07:03:41 -0800 Sender: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) Folks: This column will run in Computer Reseller News on Monday, 13 February 1995: Momma, It's The Killer Bottleneck Again Like most of you, I was glued to the screen to watch the Super Bowl (or as my 11 year old daughter says the "Stupor Bowl"). Like many of you I was bored with the football and mostly watching the ads. I really liked the singing bullfrogs and the dollar-rejector cracked me up. But, the one that I couldn't shake was that kid who sucked himself into the Pepsi bottle. Not because it was cute (it was grotesque) or because it showed how great Pepsi must taste (please), it was because it was actually about the "bottleneck" -- that big telecommunications bottleneck that haunts all of us. We all want full- motion two-way video-on-demand right now -- don't we? We all want to be broadcasters of our own lives -- like Wayne and Garth -- don't we? And, we're all so obsessed with "eliminating the bottleneck" that we'll do anything to get rid of it -- won't we? Today we have the M-Bone. The Internet's Multi-casting Backbone which, because of bandwidth demands, connects only 1,500 of the Net's 70,000 constituent networks but nonetheless is running full tilt -- showing us NASA shuttle video live and even Rolling Stone concerts. And, I'm sure we all feel the same way Mick Jagger did when he opined, "And, I hope it doesn't all collapse." Heavy stuff, that rock and roll. The telecommunications "bottleneck" is a big myth. In fact, we have no idea what to do with broadband two-way pipes. Surprisingly perhaps, most of us don't want to send out a steady video streams-of-consciousness. We are being bamboozled by a sophisticated, updated version of "Future Shock." When Alvin Toffler wrote his 1970 best- seller by that name, he was highly aware that people tend to let themselves be railroaded when they are afraid. Fear of technology, fear of big business, fear of "them" -- it's all pretty much the same. Throughout the ages it's been called scare tactics and, today, we're wallowing in them. Lest anyone be confused, this is certainly not a partisan issue. The idea of the "Information Superhighway" wasn't a Gingrich creation. The fact that VP Gore's longtime associate, Reed Hundt, who now runs the FCC has a sculpture of a "bottleneck" on his desk is also no surprise. With ISDN there simply is no "bottleneck" today -- and that's why that poor kid in the Pepsi bottle looked so twisted. Don't get caught in the bottle yourself. [Copyright New Media Associates, 1995] Mark Stahlman New Media Associates New York City stahlman@radiomail.net =========================================================================== Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 15:45:24 -0800 ender: Charles Stewart Subject: Re: Vintage Stahlman & Democracy Mark, It was good to get your response today. I find these interactions quite beneficial. It appears we are making at least some progress in moving towards consensus. That is good. Here's some more: > I'm convinced that whatever "participatory democracy" we will >get will not be of our/your design. It will be designed by the >new technocrats or what I've been calling the cybercrats. It >will be designed by and for the "powermongers" -- not because we >want it that way but precisely because they hold all the cards. Wait a second. What if we design our own. What if we start sharing myriads of files and formatting myriads of propositions into well organized indexes, concerning both pending legislation and grassroots concerns. And what if we all share voting result files where all of us are allowed to vote on everything anyone wishes to present. What if we have the myriads of issues democratically prioritized so people can blow off the less important issues when they get tired of lengthy involvement. What if we get 51% of the voting populace of the U.S. involved in a truly grassroots direct democratic plan, and what if 51% of those voters make it clear that they want a power-shift in our direction? Sorry, I don't think they hold all of the cards. In fact I think we have a better hand right now. That's exactly why they are trying to lock everything down in the perverse legislation they are advancing. We're about 2 steps and a reach away from being able to put something really significant together, and they know it, and they're correctly scared they are going to loose their elitist position in our society. > I've been careful to give ample citation to Alvin Toffler's >"anticipatory democracy" movement of the 1970's to help guide the >conversation to the specific form that this nefarious use of >"democracy" is likely to be unveiled. I am not acquainted with this text. I am sure that you have other informational resources which I would be quite impressed to view also. But I do have my own materials and studies in sufficient quantities and qualities to give me the firm belief that we can engineer mechanisms of direct democracy on a sufficiently sound foundation to produce the power-shifting and peaceful changes we all are advocating. > I'm hopeful that there are as many students of history as >activists on the list and that others will join the conversation >at the level of specific plans, people and historical precedent. I've got an FTP site set up for the Participatory Democracy Project at: ftp://agora.rdrop.com/pub/users/chuck/ WWW can also access it, but there are some bugs. I'll post a full announcement later. Outlines of the specific plans and strategy we have thus far arrived at are there and in a constant state of growth and reacessment. I've been involved in extensive discussions on the maillist Communet wherein many of these issues have already been hashed out. I'll try to post those relevant message strings at the FTP site soon. > I take your posted comments at face value and don't try to >figure out which oligarch employs whom (despite the widespread >speculation about my origins). As far as I'm concerned this list >is composed of earnest, well-meaning cyber-rights advocates, like >myself. My personal strategy is to give everyone here and in similar encounters the benefits of any doubts. But I am also convinced that there are too many chips on the table for the powermongers to not have an infiltrator or two among us. I don't know who they are, and I am not all that concerned about trying to flush them out. But the radar is on, and if we keep our poop together, they will be relatively harmless. > Revolutionary theory has taken a double beating since the >collapse of Bolshevism and the co-option of the term by Gingrich. >The equating of Marx-Lenin with Toffler-Gingrich in last week's >New Yorker editorial was not idle chatter. I am not sure I follow your logic on Bolschivism. I think what we are proposing is quite distant from that. I am unacquainted with the dynamics much of what you refer to. Any more detailed enlightenment you felt predisposed to share would be appreciated. > If you propose to *overthrow* these creatures then you most >demonstrate how. Yea, well if you can't see it on it's face, It may be easier for those of us pushing the envelope, to "just do it", than it is to jump through sufficient hoops to demonstrate it. You seem quite well read on the issue already, so I am not real optimistic that submitting materials on what I, the PDP and others here are proposing would be sufficient to sway you. I encourage you to check out my PDP FTP site if you are sincerely looking for workable strategies, and if you have specific focuses which you want further explanation of, I would be glad to respond in this list. > Participating in plebecites which they design over an >Internet that they control is simply not a convincing notion. We have consensus on this point. I'm also not into plebecites, and I have no intention of allowing "them" any disproportionate or counterproductive influence in the design or control of the system we evolve. > Does anyone in this "movement" know what they are doing? By "they" do you mean the powermongers or "we" the activists opposing them? > How will the "powermongers" be defeated? (Sorry, if that's >negative vibes but it's a question that needs to be asked.) It's not negative vibes, It's quite possibly the most important question confronting us. I'll post a copy of the PDP's Flyer and Mission Statement along with this note and the FTP announcement. The flyer has paragraphs which outline specific strategy of the P.D.P. I am glad to be discussing these things with you in a tone of mutual respect Mr. Stahlman. I really hope we can build something here which can grow to accomplish the changes we are all advocating. Peace, Chuck... =========================================================================== =========================================================================== (cont.) -Richard ******************* * rkmoore@iol.ie * * Wexford Ireland * ******************* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:08:57 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: Curtis Lang Cc: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-15Feb: Cyber Rights mini-FAQ Message-ID: <199502151312.NAA04033@GPO.iol.ie> >Hello, Curtis Lang here. I'm interested in participating in the CPSR >development of a campaign to promote human rights in cyberspace. I write/have >written about new media and politics for publications ranging from New Media >and Ad Age to WORTH magazine and Ralph Nader's Multinational Monitor. Let me >know what's up and how I can help. Thanks. ========================================================================== Oh yes please -- we need you... Tell " listserv @ cpsr.org " to "subscribe cyber-rights Curtis Lang". We have these documents: o FAQ: Cyber Rights Working Group o fwd: PFF's "Magna Carta" o "Magna Carta analyzed", rkm o "S.314 analysis": ELECTRONIC MESSAGING ASSOCIATION o "Declaration of Cyber Rights", rkm o thread summary: CR Strategy o latest CR progress report o CPSR's "NII-Document-Serving-the-Community" (5 parts) Curtis -- we need our positions to be represented in quality OpEd pieces, on a global scale, and to get them placed. Your contribution is much needed. Could you get a pilot project going on a fast-track basis?? What about S.314? -rkm --- __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard *******************************************************| |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | *************************************************************************| | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:11:22 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-15Feb: "net anarchy & democracy" (thread) Message-ID: <199502151314.NAA04127@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 06:27:38 -0800 Sender: LECLERC YVES Subject: Guilt by association In answer to Mark Stahlman: > The "oligarchical" or what I've been calling "technocrat" >outfits (like AT&T) all support "universal access." That's why >*every* politician voted for it in every version of the "telecom >reform" acts proposed over the past few years. It's a facet of >social control under stress that started with "opinion polling" >after WWII. Oh oh! Something wrong, there: guilt by association is no more acceptable from the left than from the right, and may be even more dangerous for ideas than for people. Because Hitler was in favor of motherhood doesn't make motherhood a Nazi ploy! The fact that "the opposition" embraces a concept should not automatically mean "we" are against it, only that we should look carefully to see: a) why they embrace it; b) if they mean the same thing as us by it. In the case of universal access, I'm not sure I care very much that every American -- or every Martian, for all that -- may download commercial video-on-demand; I do care that every citizen, however poor or remote, can plug into interactive communication medias where they can express themselves freely and get the public information they need in whatever form suits them (within reason, of course). If Gingrich or Saddam Hussein agree with this interpretation of universal access, so much the better! As for "incentives", if civic pride and a better-working social structure no longer come under this heading in the U.S., you are indeed in trouble. In fact, a friend of mine suggests a new role model for young Americans brought up under the great moral principle of "the profit motive": Benedict Arnold. He really stuck it to those pinkie revolutionaries, he used the information market for all it was worth and made a tidy sum at it. Bully for him, and a Bronx cheer for those silly idealists Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington! Yves Leclerc =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 06:27:33 -0800 Sender: LECLERC YVES Subject: Delay mechanism Heiko Recktenwald wrote: > Another point concerning the danger of demagogy: There could be some > institutional mechanisms to slow down things. An example from the old > world. Constitution of Belgium slows down changing of constitution, > there are allways things, that can be changed, by requiering an election > for a new parliament first. Maybe it is usefull to know this example. This kind of "damping mechanism" is essentially a "conservative" concept, since it tends to maintain the status quo, but applied intelligently, it can also be pretty useful in direct democracy. Its object is to allow for a cooling period after a decision is taken and before it applies, so that people can think twice about a move made either under strong emotion or without sufficient information. Similar to the veto of the U.S. President, it can be a form of protection against demagogy, as well as a tool for demagogues. The key is, when is it used and by whom? In my opinion, it should not be automatic except in the most extreme cases -- for instance before you change a basic principle or institution of the community, say from capitalism to socialism or from representative to direct democracy. For the rest it should be in the hands of a body of people chosen both for their wisdom and their civic mindedness, among the major currents of opinion in a society. And it should require a strong majority of them (for example, two thirds), so that it would have the moral strength of a consensus. There are few good examples of this in our system, but many in tribal Africa and among the Native Americans; for this reason, it has not been the subject of much study by political scientists and activists -- who usually only look at Western political ideas. Yves Leclerc =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 06:27:30 -0800 Sender: LECLERC YVES Subject: Re: CR-13Feb: "Stahlman & Stewart" (2/2) Charles Stewart (?) wrote: > So then Mr. Stahlman, Let us get this right. What you are actually > opposed to is a power shift to the experts. Well, you have no argument > here with those of us supporting direct democracy. We are all (well most > of us anyway) opposed to entrusting the responsibilities of governing to > a selected few franchised persons governing as "experts". We all > essentially agree on this. Not necessarily. Problems are so complex and even trivial choices have such far-reaching consequences that we do need experts at the helm. That the qualifications to be President of the U.S. or Prime Minister of Canada are much less severe than to be a practicing lawyer or physician is not too reassuring to me. I have come to think I'd rather trust someone trained and qualified for the job than some "nice guy" elected through a popularity contest. The true problem is, how do you control the experts? I see several methods, which should probably be combined: 1. They should be made publicly accountable and forced to report periodically -- say twice a year. 2. They should be hired and dismissed individually at any moment, not as a group, party or government at fixed intervals of several years. 3. Major decisions should be made by open public vote and imposed on the executive, somewhat in the way they are in Switzerland. This is what I see as the best role for direct or participatory democracy. Don't ask me how such sweeping changes could be made in our systems of government. I don't have a pat answer, but I think such a "utopian ideal" -- in French we say "utopie de reference", which I don't know how to translate -- is useful as a kind of mental yardstick for new ideas and suggestions. Yves Leclerc =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 13:49:53 -0800 Sender: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS Subject: Re: Mobs and democracy On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Russell Nelson wrote: > Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:12:55 -0400 (EDT) > From: LECLERC YVES > > The problem is not with the word "democracy", but with the idea itself. > As far as I can see, most Americans are against it deep down: they are > libertarian anarchists, mostly without knowing it. > > Yup. I think I finally convinced my dad that he was really an > anarchist. After all he said himself that "Government can't do > anything right." The problem of democracy is that it does not come automatically. We are born free in a civilizations of billions of people or even in a city of thousands. We have to discipline our behavior and the design of our institutions in order to get the most desirable outcome, and avoid the unilateral conduct of strategically placed persons who govern by power alone. What we can see from present governmental systems is the result the writer protests "Government can't do anything right." It is a mistake to conclude however that we cannot do better. Rather, it is closer to the truth to admit, we are not even trying. Vigdor =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 13:49:50 -0800 Sender: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS Subject: re: Democracy and Progress On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Mark Stahlman wrote: > Richard: > > In a couple of recent posts you said (re:Yves: Internet & Democracy) > > > Democracy and anarchism can also coexist in the real world, and in fact > > the two combined may be man's natural normative social state -- the > > combination shows up repeatedly in our record of indigenous peoples. This is true, as I have written elsewhere in the context of confronting the "counterculture of madness" that is responsible for the growing epidemic of youth homicide [Fins-PaN-04]. When human beings are true to their innate motivations and capabilities--in community groupings--the participants function most successfully by responding to their most powerful motivations: a) exercising their own creative powers (subjectively), and b) engaging themselves deeply in shaping their own society (objectively). This merging of high quality behavior by both primative people and inhabitants of the modern city state is the most wonderful outcome confirmed by state-of-the-art managagement science. Vigdor =========================================================================== =========================================================================== __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard *******************************************************| |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | *************************************************************************| | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:12:16 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-15Feb: "broadband pricing" (thread) Message-ID: <199502151315.NAA04151@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 12:24:54 -0800 Sender: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS Subject: Re: Declaration of Rights (3 Feb) I have two serious problems with this draft: 1) pricing; and 2) strategy. The argument addresses two pricing strategies, unit price, and commodity-price. However, one of the fundamental issues left out of that argument is the fact that no pricing mechanism under the market system will serve the paramount public goods that are essential to a mature democratic society. The distinction between the conception of information as a commodity in the market-place and the public functions of information are expressly recognized in the current federal policy framework for information resources management, under OMB Circular No. A-130, para. 7a. Moreover, the needs of the society involving a set of heterogeneous networks "are at the opposite pole from the homogeneous characteristics of private and commercial networks that merely provide a common denominator capability focused on a perceived market niche. These distinctions inescapably mandate a distinct configuration of infrastructure requirements not burdened with profit pressures. [ ___________________________________________________ [ rkm: [ I agree with Vigdor's principle that social service _should_ [ be paramount in the list of mandatory goals for any national [ or global infrastructure. Unfortunately we're losing this one currently [ on the hill, by a wide margin. [ [ I believe that if tariffs can be set on a "cost-plus" basis for [ for raw packet transport, that would be all we need to guarantee [ economic feasibility to our grass-roots, low cost, Internet community. [ In this tariff model, if they want broadband to be affordable, [ they can't charge very much at all for text message traffic. [ [ This is a principle we should be able to sell rather broadly. [ It is how the phone system and postal system have always operated [ [ It is how Internet operates, except here the cost is spread among [ node maintaners instead of levied per message. [ [ The telcos will object violently because they see their voice traffic [ revenue base being seriously threatened. Voice will be simply too [ cheap to be very profitable, and messages will increasingly supplant [ voice as more people get online. [ [ I think Vigdor's approach "infrastructure requirements not burdened with [ profit pressures" suffers from two serious problems domestically (not so [ necessarily in Europe): [ (1) It will be hard to get such a plank implemented in the grinch [ climate. [ (2) If we did succeed, we would then be in the higly vulnerable [ position of being seen as a biased, public-sector charity case, [ like PBS and NPR -- we don't want that! [ [**----->> : Your thoughts? [ [ ___________________________________________________ I have discussed this problem in my article, "The Politics of Cyberspace," published in the Journal of Government Information, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 249-280 (1994). An etext version is included in Fins Information Age Library, in the directory Periodicials_and _Newspapers/Fins-PaN-01. In that article I have also discussed the importance of including, in any community vision statement or "declaration of rights," a strategy that evidences mastery over the political forces that are essential "to move from here to there" as Peter Senge underscores in "The Fifth Discipline" 12 (1980) [observing that the first condition of nurturing vision is "a genuine belief that we can make our vision real in the future." What I am suggesting is simply that participants in this discussion consider and decide at the outset that a distinct infrastructure to serve the paramount public goods, and a strategy to realize that vision, be included in this "declaration" to give it real life. Vigdor [ ___________________________________________________ [ rkm: [ My previous comments were about our political campaign, [ and strategy in the current NII debate (as on the lists: comreg, tpr-ne). [ I agree that our Declaration should take the high ground re/ [ public purpose. [ [**----->> : Your thoughts? [ [ ___________________________________________________ ------------------------------------- On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, Richard K. Moore wrote: > 3.1 Pricing > > There are two fundamental pricing models that could be adopted for the > transmission services offered by a cyberspace infrastructure vendor: > - by bandwidth (quantity) of data transmitted > - by value of the information transmitted. > [ ] =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 07:39:26 -0800 Sender: kwe@cts.com (Kent W. England) Subject: Build BISDN. They will come. At 2:39 PM 2/13/95, Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) wrote: > >The telecommunications "bottleneck" is a big myth. In fact, we have no >idea what to do with broadband two-way pipes. There *is* a bottleneck. No, there *isn't* a bottleneck. Excellent reparte. A few years ago I might have said you were right -- we didn't know what to do with fatpipes, but whenever anyone has asked "What will they do with FR/ATM/SMDS/ISDN?" the right answer has been "They'll Do Internet". And it's always worked out that way. [ ___________________________________________________ [ rkm> [ "They'll Do Internet" is the opportunity that _should_ be [ available on any new infrastructure. BUT: it is not guaranteed. [ If the telcos get unregulated pricing, they have every incentive [ to make internet-style communication prohibitively costly. They [ can make loads more money with the bandwidth other ways. [ [ ___________________________________________________ Yes, I would buy a fatishpipe to get digital video on demand. I'd prefer Internet digital video. Yes, I would buy a pudgypipe to get an Internet Phone and Internet Talk Radio. Yes I would buy a stoutpipe to get animated video/audio web pages. Yes, I'll buy a fatpipe to do all of the above. Me and a few thousand of my closest friends doing these things on a high performance Internet would add up to broadband. Build it. I'll come. ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ Kent W. England Six Sigma Networks 1655 Landquist Drive, Suite 100 619.632.8400 Encinitas, CA 92024 kwe@cts.com ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:31:53 -0800 Sender: kestral@ugcs.caltech.edu (Joe Andrieu) Subject: Killer Bottleneck Mark, Nice column, however I think you are significantly out of the pocket with your claims. =>The telecommunications "bottleneck" is a big myth. In fact, we have =>no idea what to =>do with broadband two-way pipes. I for one have incredible ideas of what to do with broadband two-way pipes. For the last two years I've worked to pull together my plan, and I expect to be working on it for a few more as the rest of the world catches up and lays the fiber that will bring us connectivity for the next generation. [ ___________________________________________________ [ rkm> [ Don't underestimate the rapidly-deployable power of [ better-switched, more diverse cable offerings! [ [ Apple & Microsoft are talking to cables & are building low-cost [ set top boxes. Apple & Microsoft are both active in the exploitation [ of Internet discussion groups. [ [ The telcos are flirting with cable leases: they know the technology [ can be rapidly re-purposed. They should be forced to lease and not [ own! Let the other players make better use of cable in a free [ competitive market place! [ ___________________________________________________ Perhaps you don't appreciate the videophone, despite the grandparents who wait days for that video tape of their newest grandchild. Or the business executive that keeps flying around the country and the world to make one appointment after another. It may not be the same as visiting in person, but it sure makes that phone call 100 times more effective, and no doubt will reduce the frequency of those personal trips. Did I mention telecommuting? Boy oh boy. To make that 9:12 meeting without leaving my home office sure would be nice. I'm looking forward to that. And what about entertainment? Who needs five hundred channels when I could have ANYTHING on demand with true video throughput from my favorite digital library. And let's not forget the opportunities for true virtual reality. 56k will get you close, but all the way. It will take not only massive computing at the Reality Center, but massive bandwidth to connect the player. Entertainment will drive this medium, just as it did radio and TV. Did I say anything about home schooling or remote educational coops? Interactive video sure would make learning Hindi about 100x easier than it is right now at J. Random Middle school in America. And how about that spelling test Janet had to take today, but had to stay home because she was sick? Or the family who wants to teach their kids at home, but would readily pay for a few extra courses of education for their kids. Interactive Education. Sounds like a fine use for broadband to me. I'm sorry Mark, your arguments don't stick with me. While it may be true that the videophone is overhyped (at todays prices it certainly is) and the only real need for symmetric broadband connectivity, I for one can't wait for the pipes to open the connections to the home. And don't think they won't be placed. Stronger forces than I are pushing the envelope to get the American consumer* plugged in to advanced video, and my bet is that the Internet is helping to pave the way for those services. Data, Video, Virtual Reality? Just give me the bandwidth and publishing access and I'll show you how to make money off it. *smiles* -j *I hope these same forces are active in other countries too. I just don't know at this time. -- Joe Andrieu Andrieu Marketing andrieu@association.org Internet Marketing Consultant =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 15:52:53 -0800 Sender: Per Gregers Bilse Subject: [No bottlenecks] On Feb 13, 6:39, Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) wrote: > Not because it was cute (it was grotesque) or because it showed how great > Pepsi must > taste (please), it was because it was actually about the "bottleneck" -- > that big > telecommunications bottleneck that haunts all of us. We all want full- > motion two-way > video-on-demand right now -- don't we? We all want to be broadcasters of People do want full two-way communication, in spite of what you suggest in the article; otherwise they'd just turn on the TV. I imagine this kind of stuff to be great fun too -- not unlike amateur radio or the Internet itself ("My First Ping"). But somebody has to foot the bill, no matter how fun or desirable it is. And please, nobody start shouting "Free! Free!"; that only pushes the cost upwards. [ ___________________________________________________ [ rkm> [ You are right: we shouldn't position ourselves as seeking [ a handout. We don't need to. All's we need is that the current [ telephone tariff model (price based on cost of resources used) [ be carried into NII. We should be happy to pay our way in a [ market driven system: that's more secure than being on the dole. [ ___________________________________________________ > The telecommunications "bottleneck" is a big myth. In fact, we have no > idea what to > do with broadband two-way pipes. Surprisingly perhaps, most of us don't >[...] > With ISDN there simply is no > "bottleneck" The fundamental problem you have is when somebody, using ISDN or high-speed modems (or leased line), expect global or even just regional connectivity at full, continuous access speed from their ISP, at the price of (a local telephone call +) access charge. This simply doesn't work. Internet access is the deal of a lifetime, but you can't do 64k+ video-conferencing at the price of a local telephone call. Does not compute. [ ___________________________________________________ [ rkm> [ True -- but if the pricing is _fair_ you can optimize the [ "media-richness" of each given posting based on your budget, [ the value of your message, and its requirement for media glitz. [ ___________________________________________________ -- bilse, EUnet Communication Services BV http://www.EU.net +31 20 623 3803 (dir: +31 20 592 5110) fax +31 20 622 4657 =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 15:51:08 -0800 Sender: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS Subject: Re: Antonov and anarchy On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Fred Baube wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Vadim Antonov wrote: > > > > > You obviously do not realize how slanted is the view the American media > > > (or whatever other countries' broadcasting/newsprint) presents on even > > > neutral matters. I have the benefit of being able to compare what it > > > tells and what is told in other places of the world -- facts are > > > the same but the _selection_ and _emphasis_ are very different; to > > > the effect of producing completely different impressions. (...) > > > > > It is not conspiracy in the classical sense; it is the rating-driven > > > convergence on the most popularized viewpoints, kind of self-feeding > > > loop. > > > > [..] > > > > Since information has largely become "infotainment", journalists (note that > > I have been one for the last 30 years, so I do know what I am talking > > about) and others responsible for informing the public have by and large > > given in to catering to demand rather than need. But information is a > > complex and far from primary product, so there is no guarantee that > > ordinary citizens really know their needs; for instance, they'd much > > rather hear good news than bad, and little meaningless bits close to home > > than major meaningful facts from far away. > > > > This is one clear case where the "invisible hand" of the market has been > > far from exerting its magic to give us the best possible result. We are governed in all communications systems by the purposes and their value content, of those who most exercise control over the system. If the system is controlled by market mechanisms and the business interests who participate in them, one must expect that "social goods" such as the human, social, and ecological needs of the civilization will be disregarded and the content will be organized to manipulate the audience so as to maximize profits. In systems that are not subjected to profit pressures, the opportunity exists for careful concern to be focused on needs. So if citizens want a better future, it is absolutely essential that the emerging information and telecommunications infrastructure be designed--in significant part--to respond to the social goods required by a mature democratic society. Stated differently, [*]a strictly commercial infrastructure is **absolutely unacceptable** and must be prohibited in every peaceful way available[*] including, if necessary, nonviolent protest. This is all quite elementary. However, it needs to be repeated continuously and emphatically, the glories of the marketplace to the contrary notwithstanding. [ ___________________________________________________ [ rkm> [ There is an element of utopianism here -- Vigdor seems [ to require that policy makers become socially-conscious [ as the first step toward rational discourse. [ [ I don't see that as very likely in the USA. Not now. Not soon. [ [ As I say elsewhere in this post, we will do better to make our [ demands in terms of a competitive, commodity-style, tariff model. [ [ ___________________________________________________ Vigdor =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:12:21 -0800 Sender: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: > The telecommunications "bottleneck" is a big myth. In fact, we have > no idea what to do with broadband two-way pipes. Sure, this is a non-problem. Throw money at it, and it just goes away. The "bottleneck" is at the checkbook, and not the HSSI interface. It sounds to me like you've never priced or had to lease a trans-continental DS1 or DS3 circuit. There are serious dollars involved, and worse of all, they come back to haunt you every month, unlike the one-time capital cost of the boxes you put at the ends. I'm sure many of us have wonderful ideas on what to do with broadband pipes. The issue is how to recover the costs to pay for the transmission medium, and yet still keep the cost of "Internet Service" attractive to those that want to use it to deliver other services. Louis Mamakos [ ___________________________________________________ [ rkm> [ As I've already agreed above, this is THE CRITICAL ISSUE. [ The telcos need to: [ (1) protect their current voice revenue base [ (2) make a profit in new interactive ventures [ [ They have no intrinsic motivation to enable Internet style usage [ and several reasons to discourage it. [ [ ************************************************* [ ** PROPOSAL **----->> | WE architect a tariff structure that provides | [ | low-cost messaging plus revenue protections/ | [ | opportunities for telcos, cables, & media | [ | moguls. Then we sell the hell out of it. | [ | | [ | * ANY TAKERS?? * | [ | | [ ************************************************* [ ___________________________________________________ =========================================================================== =========================================================================== __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard *******************************************************| |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | *************************************************************************| | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:13:25 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-15Feb: "response to S.314" (new thread) Message-ID: <199502151316.NAA04176@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 12:23:42 -0800 Sender: "Marc Rotenberg" Subject: CNN Debate on S. 314 There will be a live debate on CNN tonight at 6:30 pm EST regarding S. 314, "the Communications Decency Act of 1995." I will be on with Senator Exon to discuss the implications of the proposal. Marc. ___________________________________________________________ [ ___________________________________________________ [ rkm> [ Marc -- how did it go?? [ Will there be more CNN opportunities? [ [ ___________________________________________________ =========================================================================== =========================================================================== [ ___________________________________________________ [ rkm> The Rights WG is currently developing OpEd piece around the Magna Carta. (*Charles -- How's it going?*) ***********************************************| **----->> I hereby PROPOSE: |that we also put S.314 very early in our OpEd | ================ |material. The censorship campaign and the | |economic power grab are two prongs of the | |same attack. We should point up the | |connection and respond to the broader | |attack. This increases audience concern | |and gives us more ammunition to build | |our conterattack around. | ***********************************************| __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard *******************************************************| |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | *************************************************************************| | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 17:07:34 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org , gii-doc @ cpsr.org , cpsr-glob, Cc: comlaw-l@lawlib.wuacc.edu, telecomreg@wingra.adp.wisc.edu, Subject: |*>-- CyberRights FAQ :: 15 Feb 95 --<*| Message-ID: <199502151710.RAA08552@GPO.iol.ie> ================================================================= | cyber-rights @ cpsr.org FAQ :: 15 Feb 95 - rkmoore@iol.ie | ================================================================= ______________________________________________ |>* The Campaign for Rights in Cyberspace *<| |>* *<| |>* Working Group: Computer Professionals *<| |>* for Social Responsibility (CPSR) *<| |_____________________________________________| Answers to Frequently Asked Quesions FAQ: 15 Feb 95 The Cyber Rights Campaign is being managed as a Working Group of CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibity, a highly respected public service organization. CPSR has been effective in influencing Federal legislation re/ the social impact of technology. One purpose of the Campaign is to educate the global public about the beneficial social/political aspects of the current Internet group-communications model: to make everyone aware that preservation of Internet-style communities should be seen as global priority. A second purpose of the Rights Campaign is to alert the USA and global communities to the intense telco-funded legislative campaign currently threatening the Internet's existence: o In the short term, the Censorship Bill (S.314) would require Internet service providers to snoop on and censor all message traffic: this would be devestating to current Internet usage patterns and a fundamental denial of freedom of speech, association, and privacy. o In the longer term, Newt Gingrinch and the telcos are attempting to set up a regulatory framework for a new interactive-media infrastructure which would eliminate the grass-roots uses of interactive communications, and build instead a fully commercialized, 500-channel, mass-media marketplace fully as sterile as today's network TV. ================================================================= ______________________________________________ |>*-----To participate in this campaign -----<| |>* *<| |>* Send the message: *<| |>* subscribe cyber-rights Your Name *<| |>* to listserv @ cpsr.org *<| |>* *<| |>* Post a self intro to: *<| |>* cyber-rights @ cpsr.org *<| |>* *<| |>* To unsubscribe, tell the listserv: *<| |>* unsubscribe cyber-rights Your Name *<| |>* *<| |>* Questions to WG Coordinator: *<| |>* Richard K. Moore *<| |_____________________________________________| ================================================================= ___________________ # Working Documents # #---> Currently available on request: | | o fwd: PFF's "Magna Carta" | o "Magna Carta analyzed", rkm | o "S.314 analysis": ELECTRONIC MESSAGING ASSOCIATION | o "Declaration of Cyber Rights", rkm | o thread summary: CR Strategy | o latest CR progress report | o CPSR's "NII-Document-Serving-the-Community" (5 parts) |______ ================================================================= ___________________ # Volunteers needed # #---> Your chance to make a difference: | | o to create OpEd pieces | o to place pieces in worldwide media | o for liaison with other lists and organizations | o to participate in activist discussion process | o to broaden the experience-base of our campaign community |______ ================================================================= __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard *******************************************************| |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | *************************************************************************| | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 10:14:06 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: comlaw-l@lawlib.wuacc.edu, telecomreg@wingra.adp.wisc.edu, Cc: gii-doc @ cpsr.org , cpsr-nii @ cpsr.org , cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: New: INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS Message-ID: <199502161017.KAA05251@GPO.iol.ie> One of the most central questions being discussed on this list is: "What regulation, if any, is appropriate at this point in the developement of the cyberspace 'frontier'?" The opponents of regulation argue that "infrastructures" (in the USA) have typically been developed on an entrepreneurial, unregulated, basis, and that regulation came later -- after markets developed based on those infrastructures. The railroad industry, with "tracks" as the "infrastructure" has been cited repeatedly to substantiate this argument. The image of tracks being layed across the western wilderness, with little evidence of existing markets, indeed seems compelling,... until you analyze the analogy being asserted. The fact is that the broadband infrastructure, _when it is first installed_ will already be much more complete and mature than the initial track-system was. The table below illustrates that the broadband system, with "dial-tone" signal running over it, is not compable to raw "track" alone, but is comparable instead to a market-ready transport system. In addition, there is a tremendous backlog of intellectual property (videos, television shows, online databases, ...) ready for immediate distribution over this new channel. Futhermore, the end-user delivery infrastructure (the installed base of television sets) is totally in place. Only small, inexpensive, control boxes need to be deployed, in parallel with broadband. And the "market" -- the viewers -- is fully mature: it is already consuming these same properties over other channels, and can be expected to avail itself of the new channel as soon as it becomes operational (because of its enhanced consumer options). Not only that, but a vast network of "tracks" has _already_ been laid (the cable networks). Please note that cable is fully capable to serve as an an intial broadband infrastructure: that's why the telcos are so keen to buy up cable, and are already negotiating deals along that line. Clearly, when the "electronic infrastructure" goes operational -- which could begin within a year in urban areas -- the marketplace will already be at a state of maturity and size that the railroads only reached after _decades_ of market development. It is therefore appropriate, in seeking regulatory precedents, that we look at the railroad industry much later in its life cyce -- at a point where a significant proportion of the nation's goods were travelling over it. The pioneer days of track-laying are simply not relevant to our current situation. >From this more accurate perspective, it is clear that _common-carrier_ regulation is the appropriate and necessary framework for this new infrastructure. Just as with the railroads, the national good (_economically_ as well as socially), is best served if the the infrastructure is available on a level-playing-field basis to all third-party content owners. As part of such a common-carrier framework, a _minimal_ layer of price/access regualation is necessary: o The pricing formula must be equal for all content owners. o The price must be based on the "transport resources" used: - for rail, the basis is: WEIGHT & SIZE - for broadband, the basis is: BANDWIDTH. o Access must be available on a non-descriminatory basis to all content owners. What I'm suggesting is a _very minimal_ regulatory framework, aimed at maximizing competition and economic growth. I see no need for the government to involve itself with the following matters: o the dollar amount of the tarrifs o public access to the infrastructure o whether telcos own cable o whether telcos own content (but the accounting procedures need to be monitored to assure fairness to third-party content owners) I have complete faith in the free market to bring the price down to where public groups can afford to use it -- unsubsidized. The competition from video-rental stores and existing television channels will guarantee a reasonable pricing level for broadband. There _is_ a natural-monopoly aspect to this industry, and I see no reason to compel the construction of wasteful, redundant physical facilities. Cables won't be forced to sell to telcos: cables can stand their ground and offer only to lease facilities; or they can choose to compete themselves -- they should be free to make their own decisions. I hope this analysis is useful to the discussion on this list, and I look forward to your thoughts on this matter. ====================================================== | : | | RAILROAD PRECEDENT | CYBERSPACE | | : | |====================================================| | physical property | intellectual property | | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | TRANSPORT | | | MARKETPLACE | | | | | | | <...> | <...> | |_________________________|__________________________| | | + carrier signal, | | + rolling stock | "dial tone" | TRANSPORT | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | SYSTEM | _____ | | | ________ \ []/__\/ | | | |______|-|_______} | --010-1-00-01-11-- | | oo oo OO oo | ========<>======== | | #################### | | |_________________________|__________________________| | track | wire, cable, fiber | | ^^^^^ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | INFRA- | | | STRUCTURE | ----------------- | | | / / / / / / / / | ========<>======== | | ----------------- | | | | | ====================================================== __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard *******************************************************| |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | *************************************************************************| | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 17:44:12 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyberjourn, cpsr-glob, cyber-rights @ cpsr.org , Subject: fwd: Internet & Zapatista's Message-ID: <199502161747.RAA12493@GPO.iol.ie> Indigenous Rebels Get High Tech Aid By SARA SILVER Associated Press Writer MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Mexico's Zapatista rebels operate in the nation's most backward state, where the nearest phone is sometimes 50 miles away. But their supporters are on the technological edge, where worldwide communication is just a modem away. The rebels' statements are traveling the information highway, relayed by church and human rights groups. Through the Internet, they're being heard around the globe. __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard ******************************************************** |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | ************************************************************************** | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:51:04 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-16Feb> "re: Cernsorhip S.314" (cont) Message-ID: <199502161954.TAA14953@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 04:44:06 -0800 Sender: fga@world.std.com (Fred G Athearn) Subject: People's Nets Arun Mehta (of India) says: : If I want to offer e-mail services I have to pay exorbitant : license fees, and agree to liability for anything : objectionable carried over the network. And I suppose that India's civil law is based on that of England which is known for its "plaintiff friendly" liable laws. Back in the U.S. of A. the "Communicatioins Decency Act of 1995" would impose criminal liability of providers for non-decent communications and if it becomes law I suppose it would not take some smart plaintiffs' attorney long to make the argument that because there is a legal duty to read everything anyway, it is not unreasonable to view those who offer e-mail etc. as being like the editors of newspapers. This kind of liability would be a burden alo on the large communications providers but it would also give them an excuse to charge special fees to those who want to send transmissions that would include individual messages from written by many other people. "After all" they would say, "this sort of service has many more expenses associated with it than using the same bandwidth for reruns of old TV shows." In an unregulated environment it would be necessary to bring an antitrust action to challenge their apportionment of costs between their own censorship, legal and insurance costs and those associated with those seeking access to provide competing services. I think that the bottom line is that unless all communications providers have no right or duty to look at the content of what is sent by others we will have a monopolistic cyberspace with much more broadcast and point-and-click communications than real point-to-point (people's nets) types of communication. Fred Athearn Paradise Hill Bellows Falls VT 05101 (802) 869-2003 (voice) fga@world.std.com (E-mail) =========================================================================== =========================================================================== __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard ******************************************************** |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | ************************************************************************** | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:51:14 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-16Feb> The Nation: "CyberNewt" Message-ID: <199502161954.TAA14955@GPO.iol.ie> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 07:05:58 -0800 Sender: "W. Curtiss Priest" Subject: Article from The Nation on Gingrich NOTICE: Copyrighted material, do not redistribute unless you abide to the copyright notice appearing at the end of this article February 6, 1995 The Nation. 154 CyberNewt ****************************Advertisement********************************* Subscriptions to the Nation: 1-800-333-8536 $48/year, 2yr $80, $28 educator's rate, $28 students ****************************Advertisement********************************* A week after he wrapped his mitts around the Speaker's gavel, Newt Gingrich stood before a packed Washington hotel ballroom in the role he seems to relish most: that of historian/ philosopher/visionary. He rambled on about change, freedom, the Information Age, the Third Wave of social development, the decline of bureaucracies, the decen- tralization of power, the establishment of a "citizens' move- ment"--all the familiar themes. The occasion was a one-day conference of cyberjocks convened by the Progress and Free- dom Foundation, and Gingrich's formal subject was "From Virtuality to Reality." But the Speaker had more in mind than advancing his well-known interest in futurism and sci-fi. His aim was (and is) to hijack the cyber-revolution on behalf of the conservative movement. The operating premise of the Progress and Freedom Founda- tion, a tax exempt outfit created by a Gingrich sidekick, is that as the world moves from an age of industry to an age of in- formation--the so-called Third Wave, cresting in the after- math of the agrarian and industria1 "waves"--the "political infrastructure of the United States is ill prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities." So the foundation brings to- gether futurists, policy analysts, telecommunications experts and computer mavens to ponder what it all means and advo- cate proposals for "renewing American civilization." The message behind Gingrich's prominence at the P.F.F.'s confer- ence was clear, and was conveyed in the next day's headlines: Gingrich is thinking ahead. He's a leader. He is also a clever fellow. The conference assembled gen- uine futurists--most notably Alvin and Heidi Toffler of Fu- ture Shock and Third Wave fame, who have been friends of Gingrich's for two decades--and champions of supply-side economia and cultural conservatism, such as George Gilder and George Keyworth Jr., President Reagan's science adviser and a Star Wars aficionado. (In 19 73, Gilder wrote an anti- feminist tract, Sexual Suicide, declaring that "the woman's place is in the home.") AU were together to scratch heads about "Democracy in Virtual America." Some participants spoke of the positive technological consequences of cyber-politia: Political parties can have volunteers working from home; po- litical meetings can be held on-line. But the discussion was far-reaching. New Age Republican Arianna Huffington. a foundation board member, assailed Heidi Toffler's call for more women legislators and decried the "mistaken belief that the mind alone can conquer everything." Much mention was made of the "devolution of power." Everything was attrib- uted to the Second Wave (bad) or the Third Wave (good). The welfare system is Second Wave; so is stimulating the economy. (The Tomers consider the nuclear family and California's Proposition 187 to be Second Wave, but the Newtites don't want to hear that.) What's Third Wave? Smaller government, states' rights, privatizing school systems, unfettered free enterprise. Gingrich is seeking cyber-cover for age-old conservative precepts. For years, he has sincerely celebrated the informa- tion revolution and advocated an aggressive space program. (The current issue of the P.F.F.'s newsletter calls for coloniz- ing Mars; it also contains a list of "American proverbs," in- cluding the maxim, "He that does not work, neither shall he eat.") And foundation literature admirably proclaims that with the coming of a cyber-world, "the opportunity is now before us to empower every person." But Gingrich's cyber- embrace is about politics, high and low. "The conflict between Second Wave and Third Wave groupings is the central politi- cal tension cutting through our society today," declares the P.F.F.'s "Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age." In other words, the basic political conflict is between a decrepit old order of paper-pushing central bureaucracy and a bright new one of computer-enhanced individuality and demassification. The foundation is run by Jeffrey Eisenach, who formerly headed GOPAC, Gingrich's secretive and bitterly partisan po- litical action committee. Days after the November elections, Eisenach held a closed-door Capitol Hill briefing for Repub- licans only. There Frank Luntz, whiz-kid G.O.P. pollster and foundation fellow, credited Eisenach with devising the Con- tract With America and presented polling data, according to a Democratic House aide who was forced to leave the room. This meeting may have violated tax laws that prohibit tax- exempt groups from partisan activity. There is nothing particularly futuristic about the funding sources behind the P.F.F. and its conference. Telecommuni- cations firms subsidize the group: AT&T, BellSouth, Turner Broadcasting System, Cox Cable Communications. Otha do- nors to the P.F.F.'s $1.9 million bank account include conserva- tive foundations, Wired magazine, high-tech firms, military contractors and drug companies (another foundation passion is attacking the Pood and Drug Administration). When Senator Phil Gramm spoke at the conference lunch- eon, the tables closest to the podium were reserved for cor- porate benefactors: Eli Lilly, Seagram's, Philip Morris, S.B.C. Communications (formerly Southwestern Bell). Not much of a figure on the cyber-frontier, this G.O.P. presidential wan- nabe had little to share on "virtual democracy," and instead gave a stock campaign speech. "Ideas, not vested interests, determine the outcome of the debate," he said. His brave new idea: massive deregulation. Grammism bloomed at the afternoon panel. Michael Roths child, identified as a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, began by as- serting, "The economy is not a machine The economy is a rain forest." You can tinker with a machine, retool a machine, slow down or speed up a machine. But anyone who proposes to intervene in the delicate, organic, complex ecosystem known as the economy will have to prove first that the intervention will be "environmentally sensitive." Such an approach, Roths- child said, will "nurture the Information Age economy." It will do so by undermining antitrust action and government regulation--which was one of the few concrete goals to emerge from all the Third Wave jargon spilled during the conference. Cilder was more specific, denouncing all controls on telecom- munications--such as limits on the mergers of cable and phone companies--as actions that "will stifle the Third Wave." There was a moment of dissent when Mitchell Kapor, a de- signer of Lotus 1-2-3 and co-founder of the Electronic Fron- tier Foundation, asked, "Where are you on the risks to society that come from highly centralized private power? . . . If you dismantle the government, how comfortable are you with AT&T, Microsoft, Bell Atlantic and others deciding what you watch?" He wondered why no one had raised questions of so- cial justice: "You're introducing a new rhetoric for social Darwinism." Heather Higgins, a P.F.F. fellow, replied, "Capi- talism can never have a human face," and then went on to con- demn progressive taxation and social program entitlements. Gingrich closed out the conference rhapsodizing about the need to wire every child into cyberspace so none of them fail to catch the Third Wave. It's a noble sentiment, as is his call for more information for all. But left unstated is how this will happen, particularly if telegopolies do not permit it. When Vice President Gore recently suggested firms bid for federal dollars to hook up schools, libraries and hospitals, the founda- tion sniffed, "That is not how we approach telecom." Gingrich has long realized that high-tech devices can bol- ster conservative political organizing. With the Progress and Freedom Foundation, he is using pop social anthropology and cyber-rhetoric to position himself and his rightist comrades as proglessive, forward-looking--and inevitablc The Speaker is a master at blending themes and interests. Recently, he had on his weekly cable TV show--which airs on the conservative National Empowerment Television network--John Malone, president of TeleCommunications Inc., the nation's largest cable company. Both men spoke enthusiastically about de- legulation. Afterward, a TCI spokesman said that the com- pany hoped to find room for NET in its programming next year. Now that's systems expanding synergy. DAVID CORN NEWTNESS The Congress will be open. Folks'll get It all on-line, Newt says And yet We didn't know that he and Murdoch met. It somehow wasn't on the Internet. Newt dropped the deal, and dropped the wacko he Made House historian. He's quick to free Himself from any liability. One needs but ask the former Mrs G. Calvin Trillin *************************************************** Copyright Notice: This article is protected under copyright law. The right to disseminate this article is also protected under copyright law. The copyright law permits copying of materials for personal use under the protection of fair use. The copyright law also permits the copying of recent materials for the "teachable moment." This allows copying for educational purposes. Also, the courts generally interpret copyright protection by economic criteria. If the copying of a material reduces revenues to the copyright holder, the court usually decides in favor of the plaintiff; if the copying doesn't effect or increases the revenues, the court usually decides on behalf of the defendent. It is our judgment that occasional copying of a newspaper article does not reduce revenues to the publisher and can actually create more demand for a newspaper by attracting readership. An excerpt provides free advertising for the publisher. Thus, under fair use, teachable moment, and economic criteria we selectively convey this copyrighted material to others. ****************************************************** _______________________________________________________________________________ | W. Curtiss Priest, Ph.D., Director *********************** | | Center for Information, Technology, & Society * Improving humanity * | | * through technology * | | 466 Pleasant Street *********************** | | Melrose, MA 02176-4522 BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU | | Voice: 617-662-4044 Gopher to our publications: | | Fax: 617-662-6882 GOPHER.EFF.ORG (under similar organizations) | _____________________________________________________________________________| __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard ******************************************************** |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | ************************************************************************** | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:52:08 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-16Feb> "net anarchy & democracy" (cont) Message-ID: <199502161955.TAA14978@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 09:24:03 -0800 Sender: kurt@Data-IO.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) Subject: Re: CR-15Feb: "net anarchy & democracy" (thread) Kurt Guntheroth replies about... >Sender: LECLERC YVES >Subject: Re: CR-13Feb: "Stahlman & Stewart" (2/2) >Problems are so complex and even trivial choices have >such far-reaching consequences that we do need experts at the helm. That >the qualifications to be President of the U.S. or Prime Minister of >Canada are much less severe than to be a practicing lawyer or physician >is not too reassuring to me. I have come to think I'd rather trust >someone trained and qualified for the job than some "nice guy" elected >through a popularity contest. Ask a surgeon if you need surgery and what do you think he'll say? Yes of course. He's a surgeon. He's trained to think in terms of surgery. Ask a lawyer if we need another law. Yes, of course. He's a lawyer. He's trained to think in terms of law. Ask a general if we need more defense spending. Yes. Ask a cop if there's too much crime. Yes. Ask any expert if he's doing a good job. Yes. Oh, I forgot one...ask a computer nerd if the internet is the most important thing in the universe. Yes! Experts are good at generating ideas, but not necessarily good at selecting the best idea from a group, and they definitely cannot be relied upon to be objective when evaluating rival plans. With my magic wand, I'd make politicians generalists with good analytical skills and some compassion for the human condition. Letting lawyers make law is a mistake, or hadn't you noticed. =========================================================================== =========================================================================== __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard ******************************************************** |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | ************************************************************************** | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:52:52 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-16Feb> Recktenwald: Euro cyber conference Message-ID: <199502161956.TAA15008@GPO.iol.ie> [ Heiko -- do you have any email addresses for these folks? - rkm ] =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 05:21:14 -0800 Sender: Heiko Recktenwald Subject: eurotelepolitics something in the air, voila: INFO ueber Gegengipfel-Planungen zum G7-Treffen (Thema Informationsgesell- schaft) CONTRE-SOMMET SUR LA SOCIETE DE L'INFORMATION 24. Februar 1995 in Brssel (Belgien) 17.00 - 22.00 Vlekho - 336, Rue Royale ------------------------------------- Auf dem Gegengipfel zur Informationsgesellschaft mit dem Titel "SOCIETE DE L'INFORMATION: POUR QUI? POURQUOI?" (Informationsgesellschaft: fr wen? warum?) sind am Freitagabend 3 Podiumsdiskussionen geplant: I. "Services publics des te'le'coms et de l'audiovisuel: esp`ece en vole de disparition?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Philippe Moureaux (Abgeordneter Belgiens) Aline Pailler (Europa-Abgeordnete Frankreichs) Boy Luethje (Universitaet Frankfurt/M., BRD) Christophe Aguiton (Federation SUD, Frankreich) Reigna Mokrane (CGSP-RTBF, Belgien) II: "Nouvelles technologies et multime'dia: perspectives au Nord et au Sud" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Philippe Defeydt (Abgeordneter Belgiens, ECOLO) Asdrad Torres (Professor Universitaet Rennes, collaborateur au Monde Diplomatique, Frankreich) Carlos A. Afonso (IBASE, Brasilien) Paul Ficheroulle (Socialime-Liberte's, Belgien) III. "Socie'te'de l'information: enjeux de'mocratiques et culturels" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Luciana Castellina (pre'sidente de la Commission Culture et Me'dias du Parlement Europee'n, Italien) Jacques Robin (Transversales Sciences & Culture, Frankreich) et des personnalite's du monde du spectacle et de l'audiovisuel Fuer weitere Auskuenfte: 0032-2-284 42 30 / FAX 0032-2-284 91 51 ------------------------ VeranstalterInnen: ------------------ Comite' du De'fense du service au public Comite' de De'fense du service public de l'Audiovisuel ECOLO Fe'de'ration SUD Ligue Internationle pour les Droits et la Libe'ration des Peuples Socialisme-Liberte's --------------------------- doris kretzen F.I.B. - Forschungs- Informations- & Bildungsstelle des BdWi * Bund demokratischer Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler e.V. Postfach 543 * D - 35017 Marburg ------------------------------------------------------------------------- __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard ******************************************************** |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | ************************************************************************** | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:52:19 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-16Feb> "pricing; capitalism" (threads) Message-ID: <199502161955.TAA14984@GPO.iol.ie> =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Feb 1995 22:08:59 +0000 Sender: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS Subject: Re: CR-15Feb: "broadband pricing" (thread) On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, Richard K. Moore wrote: > > =========================================================================== > =========================================================================== > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 12:24:54 -0800 > Sender: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS > Subject: Re: Declaration of Rights (3 Feb) > > I have two serious problems with this draft: 1) pricing; and 2) strategy. > [...] > [ ___________________________________________________ > [ rkm: > [ I agree with Vigdor's principle that social service _should_ > [ be paramount in the list of mandatory goals for any national > [ or global infrastructure. Unfortunately we're losing this one currently > [ on the hill, by a wide margin. We are loosing this one because there has been no viable opposition, as I make clear in Fins 3.3, but the whole purpose of this "declaration of rights" is to change the balance of political forces and move the NII and GII toward a desirable future. A market-centered infrastructure, dominated by a small group of monopolists and oligopolists will guarantee the worst future that can be imagined. The fight on this issue must not start by conceding the worst that we can have, merely over the spoils of the existing market system, which must be transformed if we are to have any serious chance of genuine progress. Moreover, existing political forces in the Clinton administration recognize the importance of the point raised here. For example, the response of the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council to the US Goals for the upcoming G-7 Summit on the GII, states: To the extent there are limitations of market access ... a country might reserve a reasonable portion of its overall capacity for ... public interest purposes. [Both the cited documents are available at Fins-II2-02,03]. This is an understatement since the marketplace always disregards the public goods that are essential to a mature democratic society, and it is the right time and place to fight this issue out. ______________________________________________________________________ | rkm 2/16> | | | | Consider the telephone system. It is a "market-centered infra- | | structure", and yet it serves our social needs perfectly well. | | If we can achieve a similar model for cyberspace, then we | | assure the survival of our net universe. | | | | Your more noble pursuits -- achieving public recognition of the | | social value of networking, etc. -- are part of this campaign; but | | they are not undermined by a pragmatic position on the pricing | | issue. I recommend we pursue both short & long-term objectives | | in parallel. | |_____________________________________________________________________| > [ > [ I believe that if tariffs can be set on a "cost-plus" basis for > [ for raw packet transport, that would be all we need to guarantee > [ economic feasibility to our grass-roots, low cost, Internet community. > [ In this tariff model, if they want broadband to be affordable, > [ they can't charge very much at all for text message traffic. Information on "cost-based pricing" is part of the agenda for the G-7 conference. This pricing scheme apparently has the endorsement of the Clinton administration. It is not, however, "all we need to guarantee economic feasibility to our ... community." The present proposal for a "monster model" combining content and conduit will guarantee monopoly rents and the destruction of all information service providers except those in the loop of the monopolists and oligopolists, without any room for service to the public goods that are the core of the human, social, and ecological needs of a viable civilization. The Robber Baron era to which we are now on the road to returning, was also based on a cost-based system with the best cost accounting system that could be attained! > [ > [ This is a principle we should be able to sell rather broadly. > [ It is how the phone system and postal system have always operated > [ > [ It is how Internet operates, except here the cost is spread among > [ node maintaners instead of levied per message. > [ > [ The telcos will object violently because they see their voice traffic > [ revenue base being seriously threatened. Voice will be simply too > [ cheap to be very profitable, and messages will increasingly supplant > [ voice as more people get online. > [ > [ I think Vigdor's approach "infrastructure requirements not burdened with > [ profit pressures" suffers from two serious problems domestically (not so > [ necessarily in Europe): > [ (1) It will be hard to get such a plank implemented in the grinch > [ climate. Indeed, I think it would be virtually impossible to get such a plank implemented in the grinch climate, which is designed to rape and plunder the citizenry to the max. Our job is to inform the public, provide viable alternatives, and thereby, radically change that grinch climate. > [ (2) If we did succeed, we would then be in the higly vulnerable > [ position of being seen as a biased, public-sector charity case, > [ like PBS and NPR -- we don't want that! Since when is genuine concern for the paramount public goods that are essential to the social and ecological health of this nation, but disregarded by the market system, to written off as a "biased, public-sector charity case"? That's the extremist talk coming from the worst of our appalling existing situation. > > What I am suggesting is simply that participants in this discussion > consider and decide at the outset that a distinct infrastructure to > serve the paramount public goods, and a strategy to realize that > vision, be included in this "declaration" to give it real life. > > Vigdor > > [ ___________________________________________________ > [ rkm: > [ My previous comments were about our political campaign, > [ and strategy in the current NII debate (as on the lists: comreg, tpr-ne). > [ I agree that our Declaration should take the high ground re/ > [ public purpose. > [ > [ > [ ___________________________________________________ Such a strategy must squarely address the dysfunction of the market system and the failures of the capitalist ethic. Refusing to deal with either, is worse than no response at all, it deceives the people into thinking that pathetic nibbling at the margins can solve anything. > [**----->> : Your thoughts? Vigdor ______________________________________________________________________ | rkm 2/16> | | | | I happen to agree about capitalism; I see it as mankind's | | terminal illness! But this isn't an effective rallying cry if you | | are seeking to build a broad, progressive coalition around more | | immediate concerns. | | Net-based "people's coaltions" can be a vehicle to create new | | conciousness about the possibilities for democracy and economic | | organization, but early adoption of an "anti-capitalist" plank | | would be both unnecessary and unproductive. | |_____________________________________________________________________| =========================================================================== =========================================================================== __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard ******************************************************** |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | ************************************************************************** | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 19:53:05 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-16Feb> Nelson: no ISDN bottleneck Message-ID: <199502161956.TAA15016@GPO.iol.ie> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 06:33:41 -0800 From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) Sender: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) Subject: Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 06:39:06 -0800 From: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) The telecommunications "bottleneck" is a big myth. In fact, we have no idea what to do with broadband two-way pipes. Oh? How about national, or even supra-national radio stations? Nearly a year ago at Interop, Carl Malamud walked into the auditorium where the Cybercast headquarters were, of a morning, and remarked that he was going to put some morning music on. I didn't realize it at the time, but I should have asked "Why?" It's always morning somewhere on the Internet. Why not a radio station for all-morning music? With ISDN there simply is no "bottleneck" today... You live in NYNEX-land and you can say this with a straight face? At Networks Expo, NYNEX was unable to get the Boston Netware Users Group ISDN connection going. -- -russ http://www.crynwr.com/crynwr/nelson.html Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key 11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | What is thee doing about it? Potsdam, NY 13676 | Capitalists try to avoid a free market. Why might that be? __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard ******************************************************** |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | ************************************************************************** | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 02:05:02 +0000 From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) To: cyber-rights @ cpsr.org Subject: CR-16Feb> Summary: Cyber Rights Campaign Message-ID: <199502170208.CAA19769@GPO.iol.ie> To: Cyber Rights interest Cc: This message presents a summary of the Cyber Rights Campaign: o what it's trying to do o how it's trying to do it o where it is in the process Richard K. Moore Campaign Coordinator CPSR Working Group / Cyber Rights cyber-rights @ cpsr.org =========================================================================== =========================================================================== *---> Current Strategy Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 _________________________________________________________________________ There are different threads to the project. One thread is to work up some pieces along the lines of the MC Analysis, and get them out there ASAP to fud the Magna Carta. Doug Schuler is looking into places to distribute, and Charles Bell is working on an initial OpEd piece. Besides developing opposition to the Gingrich vision, and alerting people to the scepter of Cyberspace Inc, that thread should get lines of communication open for our campaign. The second thread is the development of pieces expressing our vision of what cyberspace is about, why that's important to _everyone_, how the the possibility of that vision being realized is being mortally threatened, and what guarantees are required to salvage it's possibility. These pieces are to be customized for various audiences, including: o net lists o domestic public service orgs o global public orgs o newspapers, journals & magazines o congress o talk shows? The 3Feb Declaration of Rights is our primary working document at this time, as source material and/or concepts, for those pieces, along with CPSR's "SERVING THE COMMUNITY". The third thread combines the outreach program of thread 1, with the content of thread 2, and should evolve into a global coalition-formation effort. Not global in the sense that we expect millions to sign up, but global in geographic scope of allied groups. The net makes this feasible. The final thread is to work with the coalition to achieve political influence on a global scale. There's little we can accomplish domestically, I believe, given the "Contract with America" mentality. But most European countries have a more diverse political spectrum, and there is hope of some real influence. We can help them to see that what the USA is bringing to G7 is not the best fruits of American technology and know how, but rather a scheme to invade their markets, and undermine their sovereignty over their communications infrastructures. =========================================================================== =========================================================================== *---> Current Status Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 _________________________________________________________________________ o> Net Discussion | | The list is engaged in investigating the nature of | net democracy, and how it can be enhanced. Also under discussion | is campaign strategy and the politics of the current intiatives | on Capitol Hill. Specific tasks are handled by private | discussions among the participants. |____________________________________ o> Participation on telecommunications policy lists | | Several members are active on such lists as , | , & -- countering the vociferous | participation by unabashed industry spokespeople. |__________________________________________________ o> Recruitment / Outreach | | I sent an appeal to the and lists and | have received an enthusiastic response. Well-connected, | working journalists can get our message in front of the | global public, if anyone can. |__________________________________________________ =========================================================================== =========================================================================== *---> Net-Process Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 _________________________________________________________________________ To: CPSR Cyber Rights Campaign Greetings: As you know, this cyber-rights list was set up for a specific purpose: to support the activities of a CPSR Working Group on Cyber Rights. This is a different kind of list than most of the other ones you are familiar with. This list is not primarily: o a topic-based "discussion group" o a news-distribution channel Instead it is: o a project-coordination infrastructure o a team-process enabler o a goal-oriented endeavor Given these special circumstances, I should have set the list up initially on a moderated basis, so as to provide appropriate digest/thread support. Sorry. We've had an explosion of traffic, much of it not particularly related to moving our endeavor forward. As a consequence, the list is now moderated. I will henceforth organize postings to this list into timely, subject-tagged, thread digests. Nothing will be censored out, although in some cases authors will be asked to edit or condense. Frequency of thread distributions will depend on traffic, and on relevance to the list's mission. Important business will not get queued up. =========================================================================== =========================================================================== __________________________________________________________________________ -Richard ******************************************************** |-Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace-| Guard your | |--CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs--| Cyber Rights | ************************************************************************** | rkmoore@iol.ie | Ask to see: { "Magna Carta analyzed" } | | Wexford Ireland | {"Declaration of Rights in Cyberspace"} | ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ End of CYBER-RIGHTS Digest 3 ****************************