Knights who say NII (was Crypto(A), govt & NII)

Tim May writes (1):

> Having read the three main "position papers" on NII (the White House
> paper, the CPSR analysis, and the EFF "Open Platform" piece), I'm as
> convinced as ever that the Data Highway is largely about regaining
> control of the currently anarchic network system.

Mike Godwin replies (2):

> For what it's worth, I don't think this interpretation can be read into
> EFF's Open Platform paper. 

A rotated view on each of these.

1) NII is not "about" anything in particular.  You can look at what 
each person talking about it means in each instance, or you can look at
what effect the ideas will have when they become incarnated in 
government organizations and rules, and take on lives of their own.
Or you can look at the process that keeps the topic alive as a
popular issue.  I'm not sure what kind of "about" Tim was talking.

2) It doesn't matter so much what interpretations can be read into
EFF's, or anyone's papers.  What matters is the effect they'll have.

Giving the government savvy advice, telling them they should do whatever
will promote, say, competition or open forums...what effects will these
have?  They may provide justifications, expertise and targeting info 
for interventions, for instance.  New ways to get involved...

There's a dynamic to things like this involving momentum and
snowballs and chaos theory; government; media; punks; the public; 
policy orgs, tanks and wonks; and regulated industries.

I can't think of one positive thing (as opposed to the negative thing,
disengagement) government can contribute to the goals of EFF.  I wonder 
if the EFF folks are sure there are some.  Mitch Kapor talks of 
"decentralists" who want to use government to promote decentralization--
thwart centralization effects that happen in capitalism, I suppose.  
(You may have missed Mitch's post as it was forwarded by Ell Dee.)
The government can stop all the things it does that produce 
centralization (it produces centralized capitalists, for instance), 
but the most centralized organization in the world as the 
decentralist's tool or ally doesn't seem workable to me.  The
means clashes against the ends.

Telling a bull that he should make whatever 
positive contributions he can to the china shop...is worse than just 
not mentioning that there are none.  To the bull it suggests, well, 
a fact-finding tour at least...  "But we didn't say that."
Of course not.  The good guys just tag along and advise against what's
*specifically* happening, while gesturing in a forward direction.  I'm 
sure anyone in CPSR or EFF who's even heard the word libertarian has 
weighed similar arguments.

I've seen Mitch and Mike (for instance) talk.  Both energetic 
yet eminently rational and calm.  The perfect people to talk someone 
down from a contemplated harmful act.  I hope that's what they end 
up spending their time doing, in this NII business, (although it's 
not a positive- or creative-sounding or pleasant thing to wish
on someone).

And sure, of course I hope sane heads prevail everywhere, that
everything everyone says is taken in the right spirit by everyone
involved and no terrible travesty of "Open Platform" comes to pass,
unlike the rest of the history of such things.  Times are
changing...  I just don't like the whole country waiting for the
government to "do better this time, we promise," when it's not
helpful for the government to do anything except put down the
blunderbus and come out.

-fnerd@smds.com
quote me
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvtoxiQCVAgUBLMs3K
ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2toust1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz
3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hanC0R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG
sRjLQs4iVVM=
=9wqs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Steve Witham writes:

> Giving the government savvy advice, telling them they should do whatever
> will promote, say, competition or open forums...what effects will these
> have?  They may provide justifications, expertise and targeting info 
> for interventions, for instance.  New ways to get involved...
 
The government is already tempted to get involved, all the time. We can't
make the government go away by resolving that it would be nice if they
weren't around. Best to work from where we are, not where we'd like to be.

> I can't think of one positive thing (as opposed to the negative thing,
> disengagement) government can contribute to the goals of EFF.

Government is not the only potential source of harm--private industry can
be plenty harmful.

> The government can stop all the things it does that produce 
> centralization (it produces centralized capitalists, for instance), 
> but the most centralized organization in the world as the 
> decentralist's tool or ally doesn't seem workable to me.  The
> means clashes against the ends.

I don't see how. One actually can use a weapon to keep the peace, for
example.

> Telling a bull that he should make whatever 
> positive contributions he can to the china shop...is worse than just 
> not mentioning that there are none.

I think you're reasoning from your conclusions here, not toward them.
What's more, government ain't the only bull in this shop.


--Mike