Re: CPSR NII Paper

>
>   CPSR NII Paper
>                     FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>      COMPUTER SCIENTISTS RAISE SOCIAL AND DESIGN CONCERNS
>                      ABOUT THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY
> 
> 
> "In its 'Agenda for Action' document, the Administration has set forth 
> a positive vision of what the NII can be," said Dr. Roberts.  "To 
> achieve that vision, however, the government must play a major role 
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^             ^^^^^^^^^^
> in the design, development, and regulation of the network."  CPSR 
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  This is exactly what you don't want to happen, unless of course you
want shoddy protocols and kludges. Most of the govt services on the net
are the worst software I've ever seen including Nasa Spacelink,
Library of Congress Information System, etc

> o   Guarantee equitable and universal access through an appropriate 
>     mix of legislation, regulation, taxation, and direct subsidies.

  Translation: $25-50 billion dollars tax increase for the middle class.
FCC and Rep. Markey become King of the Net.

> o   Promote the development of a vital civic sector by ensuring 
>     resources, training, and support for public spaces within the NII 
>     where citizens can pursue noncommercial activities.

  IRC, MUDs, Usenet, E-mail. Amazingly, people find ways of developing these
things without govt input.

> o   Promote a diverse and competitive marketplace in terms of the 
>     content carried over the NII.

  Regulations on commercial speech, market quotas?
 
> o   Encourage democratic participation by ensuring full public 
>     disclosure, and actively promoting democratic decision-making 
>     and public participation in all stages of the development process.

  This is the worst part of the proposal. If this rule is followed, the
NII will never be finished in my lifetime. And you thought congressional
gridlock was bad.

> o   Guarantee the functional integrity of the NII by establishing 
>     critical technical requirements including ease of use, widespread 
>     availability, full functionality, high reliability, adequate privacy 
>     protection, and evolutionary expansion.

  Government mandated user interface? ugh.

  I really don't see why we need NII at all. We already have internet.
Cable companies are rushing to provide high bandwidth networks for consumers.
NII seems to be nothing more than WelfareNet. Which isn't surpising since
CPSR praises systems like IGC (Econet, PeaceNet, etc) which are much more
expensive than Netcom, Panix, Digex, and provide shoddier service.

Sam Hill

What the Sam Hill is this?

> >   CPSR NII Paper
> >                     FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> >      COMPUTER SCIENTISTS RAISE SOCIAL AND DESIGN CONCERNS
> >                      ABOUT THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY
....
>   I really don't see why we need NII at all. We already have internet.
> Cable companies are rushing to provide high bandwidth networks for consumers.
> NII seems to be nothing more than WelfareNet. Which isn't surpising since
> CPSR praises systems like IGC (Econet, PeaceNet, etc) which are much more
> expensive than Netcom, Panix, Digex, and provide shoddier service.
> 
> Sam Hill

Very true! In fact, it is the EFF's talk about the "need" for such a
government effort that really worries me about the EFF (a mild kind of
worry...I haven't completely detweilered over it). I'm not clear just
how central are these issues to the EFF, currently, but I urge us all
to try to convince them that the "electronic frontier" really doesn't
need government-built channels and routes.

With a zillion forms of fiber, cable, satellites, land lines,
undersea cables, lots of competing companies, etc., there just is *no
need* for a nationalized effort to build some kind of bureacratic
dream of what the people "need."

And unlike the Interstate Highway System (actually called the National
Defense Transportation System, or somesuch, clearly an
autobahn-inspired Eisenhowwer defense project), which arguably needed
a government-level effort to obtain the land, the crossings, etc., no
such government-level effort is needed to lay more cable, put up more
satellites, etc.

In fact, the relatively anarchic growth of the Net (many nets, of
course) is a major strength and advantage.

We helped kill the Superconducting Supercollider, now we can help kill
Al Gore's TipperNet fantasy.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

> We helped kill the Superconducting Supercollider, now we can help kill
> Al Gore's TipperNet fantasy.
> 
	Eeps. And considering Tipper's penchant for detweilering (Nice
coinage) over "material-inappropriate-for-youngsters" we might have to
have "porn-filters" on every gateway.

> 	Eeps. And considering Tipper's penchant for detweilering (Nice

The Language Police say that "to detweil" is the verb, making "a
detweiler" one who detweils -- as you may have observed.  

Actually, I'm more than a little embarrassed about this particular
coinage, because it's not a flattering characterization of its
namesake, who is obviously having a hard time with all this.  I'd
like to suggest, in fact, that it be buried.

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


[I will make no mention of Detweiler's rants, or the coinage of the 
phrase "to detweil"]

I think that Tim has made a _very_ important point, and several of the
others have made posts supporting it.  If the government is to build a 
National Super-Duper Digital Highway system, they are extremely likely
to feel the "need" to monitor it.  They built the backbones of the 
Internet, and look at the NSA.... reading your email, perhaps?

I had heard that the Gov was going to shell out money, and let 
private industry build it, I don't know if it's true, or not,
but something I really HATE is the abridging of my freedom of speech
(not to mention my feelings on personal privacy)

I think that this is becoming the second large-scale battle we face,
the Clipper/SkipJack/Capstone fiasco being the first.

Lets forget about ravers [detweiler] and move on...  There's battles to 
be one, 'm boys!

- -nate

- -- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Nate Sammons   email: nate@VIS.ColoState.Edu
|   Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory
|   Finger nate@monet.VIS.ColoState.Edu for my PGP key
|   Key fingerprint =  2D CD 07 CA 7B EC A8 4A  86 7F F3 A8 1D 15 65 46
|   Title 18 USC 2511 and 18 USC 2703 Protected --> Monitoring Forbidden
+--------+ Guerrilla Cryptographer             Always remember "Brazil"

Tim May writes:

> Very true! In fact, it is the EFF's talk about the "need" for such a
> government effort that really worries me about the EFF (a mild kind of
> worry...I haven't completely detweilered over it). I'm not clear just
> how central are these issues to the EFF, currently, but I urge us all
> to try to convince them that the "electronic frontier" really doesn't
> need government-built channels and routes.
 
EFF has been convinced of this since the beginning. The last thing EFF
wants is to have the government build the national information
infrastructure. Instead, we want to encourage both a variety of
information conduits, with a high degree of interoperability, but built by
private enterprise. The idea of the Open Platform (see our papers at
ftp.eff.org) is for private enterprise to create an environment in which
*anyone*--not just a media giant--can become an information provider, and
in which any BBS has the potential to become the WELL or CompuServe, or
whatever it likes.

Since both the telcos and the cable companies already operate under a high
degree of regulation, the issue isn't whether government should play no
role--it's already playing a pretty serious role. Instead, the issue is
how the government can reduce its regulatory role and at the same time
increase incentives for the kind of flexible, switched networks that
support the many-to-many paradigm rather than the traditional one-to-one
paradigm of the telcos or the one-to-many paradigm of the broadcasters.

The result should be a highly competitive environment with less need for
regulation, whether we're talking about local-loop telephone service or
computer-based conferencing systems.

> And unlike the Interstate Highway System (actually called the National
> Defense Transportation System, or somesuch, clearly an
> autobahn-inspired Eisenhowwer defense project), which arguably needed
> a government-level effort to obtain the land, the crossings, etc., no
> such government-level effort is needed to lay more cable, put up more
> satellites, etc.
 
EFF thinks these things will happen anyway, and is not interested in
having the government do them.

> We helped kill the Superconducting Supercollider, now we can help kill
> Al Gore's TipperNet fantasy.

The notion of government-funded information superhighways, as originally
conceived, is already dead, killed by lack of government money (just as
the supercollider was killed). EFF supports NREN, but only as a testbed
for what the NII is eventually going to look like--we can learn a lot
about how networks run by studying the controlled anarchy and the support
of information niches that exists on the Net.

It is commonly thought that EFF supports some kind of massive government
undertaking to build the information infrastructure. But those who read
our position papers at ftp.eff.org know different.


--Mike

TCM> == Timothy C May <tcmay@netcom.com>

 TCM> In fact, it is the EFF's talk about the "need" for such a government
 TCM> effort that really worries me about the EFF (a mild kind of
 TCM> worry...I haven't completely detweilered over it). I'm not clear
 TCM> just how central are these issues to the EFF, currently, but I urge
 TCM> us all to try to convince them that the "electronic frontier" really
 TCM> doesn't need government-built channels and routes.

Have you read the article in _The New Republic_, titled "Mitch Kapor: Data
Highway Guru"?  It's been conveniently electronified and is included in
O'Reilly's _Global Network Navigator_ hyperzine, even.  (Mail info@gnn.com
for details.)

This quote's well within fair use size, given the size of the article:

   Kapor supports a nationwide fiber grid, and sees ISDN as a transitional
   step, not a substitute. Still, he does oppose big government financing
   for fiber, and this financing did seem a live prospect in January,
   after Gore's ambitious campaign rhetoric. Gore now says he was
   misinterpreted and had never envisioned a big government role. In any
   event, the interest in ISDN stoked by EFF and Markey helped end
   discussion of any such role.

I highly encourage you all to give the article a look; since GNN is free,
anyway...
-- 
Christopher Davis * <ckd@kei.com> * (was <ckd@eff.org>) * MIME * RIPEM * [CKD1]
   This netnews posting is presented in the original 80-column aspect ratio.
The black bars bordering the headers and .signature are normal for this format.