TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM (10/01/90)
The recent note indicating how Sears/IBM censors GEnie may provide a warning for the dangers when corporate interests control information flow. "Research" is a broad term, and networking, maintaining or establishing contacts, or simply a courtesy note to say "hi" is a legitimate part of the total research enterprise. There are legitimate problems of over-use that can disrupt the activities of all users, and there are clearly abuses (e.g., hate mail, advertisements). The former can be alleviated with expansion of net resources, a political decision, and one that should be aggressively pursued. The latter is a small price to pay for increased communicative activity, analogous to junk mail, and much easier (and neater) to trash. A free and open democracy depends on unrestrained communication flow. If GEnie is, in fact, engaging in censorship, they might state this in their t.v. ads--"we're pretty cool for what we do, but we *do* engage in censorship and will tell you what's good for you!" Personal mail to friends certainly seems a legitimate use of resources, especially given the problems of snail-mail and the costs of long-distance calling. The various bitnet hotlines are hardly research, but they provide an element of socialization and interaction crucial to an academic community. Newslines such as this can hardly be considered research in the strictest sense of the term, but many of us have benefitted from the dialogues and comments, and this adds to our own knowledge that we apply in our own way. We should resist any attempts to limit access to the nets, and a frightening question is: Who shall determine what counts as research? Does "monitoring" mean that my communications will be read? Will the net police cut off my account if they disapprove of my research? I may be missing something, but recent notes seem to have frightening implications. Rather than criticize Abernathy, who has, after all, provided some useful information (I hadn't seen the information in either Chicago paper or the NYT), perhaps we could entice him to do a follow-up story on the implications of it all? At stake seems to be the current tendency to control cyberspace, and we might take even potential threats quite seriously.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/02/90)
In article <182@netsys.NETSYS.COM> niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM writes: >The recent note indicating how Sears/IBM censors GEnie may provide a warning >for the dangers when corporate interests control information flow. There seems to me to be a far greater danger when government interests control information flow. There is only one government (with many levels) but there are many corporations. I could even see a constitutional amendment forbidding government involvement in the computerization of society. Why? Because in a network society, if the network is under the control of one entity, we would literally be able to implement a police state in software. The push of a button could turn society from freedom to oppression. No armies would have to roll in. No guns would have to be pried from the cold, dead fingers of people who like NRA bumper stickers. Make it so easy to get a police state and I think you could get one. The network must be owned and run by a variety of private interests for the society to remain free. >A free and open democracy depends on unrestrained communication flow. If GEnie >is, in fact, engaging in censorship, they might state this in their t.v. GEnie is not. It is Prodigy that is reportedly removing references to the new fixed-price service of their competitor from Prodigy message boards. (This is unconfirmed.) Note that this is not censorship. Censorship, which is the use of force to stop the flow of information, can only be done by governmental and quasi-governmental authorities. If I were a Prodigy user, I would dislike it, but I would recognize Prodigy's right to not provide information on competitors in their databases. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (10/02/90)
In article <182@netsys.NETSYS.COM> niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM writes: >The recent note indicating how Sears/IBM censors GEnie ... It's Prodigy that's owned and censored by Sears and IBM, not GEnie. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl (wk), uunet!sugar!karl (hm) "The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is responsible. Universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs." -- Joseph Weizenbaum
chip@soi.UUCP (Chip Morris) (10/02/90)
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >The network must be owned and run by a variety of private interests for the >society to remain free. I agree. The Internet appears to be an exception, but the state of grace is temporary. When resources get scarce, as they inevitably will, or when a deep controversy arises, we will see the same kind of fighting as we see in the NEA or state education. >Note that this is not censorship. Censorship, which is the use of force >to stop the flow of information, can only be done by governmental and >quasi-governmental authorities. If I were a Prodigy user, I would >dislike it, but I would recognize Prodigy's right to not provide >information on competitors in their databases. To use Marvin Minsky's phrase, our networks should be "small, cheap and out of control". If we insist on ONE BIG NETWORK, public or private, we are inviting bureaucratic and political control. To appreciate the difference between state cencorship and private restraint, consider the recent FBI operation agains "hackers". If I don't like PRODIGY, I am free to set up my own BBS (and there are many alternatives). But if the FBI and I have a disagreement, they point their guns at my head and steal my equipment. There is a PROFOUND difference, and people need to recognize it! -- Chip Morris, Senior Engineer Software Options, Inc., 22 Hilliard St., Cambridge MA 02138 (617) 497-5054 chip@soi.com
cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) (10/08/90)
In article <1990Oct01.194237.5002@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <182@netsys.NETSYS.COM> niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM writes: >>The recent note indicating how Sears/IBM censors GEnie may provide a warning >>for the dangers when corporate interests control information flow. > >There seems to me to be a far greater danger when government interests >control information flow. There is only one government (with many levels) >but there are many corporations. > >I could even see a constitutional amendment forbidding government involvement >in the computerization of society. Could you see a constitutional ammendment forbidding government involvement in maintaining public roads and highways? Does the fact that the government has the ability to prevent you from using public roads scare you, or make you think that the government will actually use this ability? One of the functions of the EFF should be to extend analogies such as this to the electronic world, so that the government could maintain our networks without causing fear. >The network must be owned and run by a variety of private interests for the >society to remain free. The problem with private interests is that they tend to be driven by profit only, and are not accountable to the public except in that they need money. Private interests scare me much more than public. >Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 -- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu -- WBRS (BRiS) -- WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu WBRS@brandeis.bitnet "Good literature is about Love and War." "Junk Fiction is about Sex and Violence."