6/6 New Yorker anti-crypto propaganda

Highlights of "My First Flame", an article by John Seabrook in the
6/6/94 _New Yorker_ which explains why we need a benevolent government 
to help regulate the internet (a very sophisticated piece of
propaganda, IMHO):

I got flamed for the first time a couple of months ago. [...]  I had 
recently published a piece about Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft,
about whom this person has also written, and as I opened his E-mail to
me it was with the pleasant expectation of getting feedback from a 
colleague.  Instead, I got:

  Crave THIS, asshole:
  Listen, you toadying dipshit scumbag... remove your head from your
  rectum long enough to look around and notice that real reporters
  don't fawn over their subjects [...]  One good worm deserves 
  another.

[...]

My flame marked the end of my honeymoon with on-line communication. 
It made me see clearly that the lack of social barriers is also what 
is appalling about the net.  The same anonymity that allows the 
twelve-year-old access to the professor allows a pedophile access to
the twelve-year-old.  [...]  I sent E-mail to CompuServe, which was 
the network that carried my flame to me, to ask whether their 
subscribers were allowed to talk to each other this way. [...]

...[S]ince this person was a respected author, with a reputation to
consider, I thought someone might be electronically impersonating 
him ... so I settled on a simple, somewhat lame acknowledgment of
the flame [...]

In a few days, I received a reply from the writer, asking when my 
new column, "Pudlicker to the Celebrated," was going to start.

[...] And many of the [new internet] users are not the government
officials, researchers, and academics for whom the net was designed;
they're lawyers, journalists, teen-agers, scam artists, lonely 
hearts, people in the pornography business, and the faddists who
were buying CB radios in 1975.

[Lots of incoherent concerns that the vile e-mail might have
infected his computer with a `worm'.]  [...]

The table of contents for alt.pagan FAQ reads: [...]

20 NIGGER JOKES [...]

I suppose you could choose not to double-click on NIGGER JOKES,
but it's harder than you think.  This is the biggest drawback
of the way newsgroups are set up: a really interesting post
that enriches your understanding of a subject is next to a post
that is appropriate only for the space above the urinal. [...]

I considered posting a query about my worm in the newsgroup 
comp.virus, and I lurked around there for a while, but didn't 
post, because I was worried that my assailant might hear that
I was posting queries about him in a public spaces - it's 
difficult to keep secrets on the net - and devise some even more 
elaborate torture to inflict on my computer, or begin spoofing 
me in some diabolical fashion.  I had already seen how the net
could be used to hurt someone's reputation.  One day, as I was
wandering around inside the Electronic Frontier Foundation
discussion space, which is one of the most interesting news-
groups on the net, I came upon a subject line that said, "Ralph
Berkeley made homosexual advances toward me."  Ralph Berkeley
(I'm not using his real name) is a regular participant in
discussions of net policy, who appears, on the evidence of his
posts, to be an articulate and thoughtful man, and often takes
the postition that completely unrestricted speech might not be
such a good idea [...]

[Discusses his pain with a net.friend and she replies: ] 
Imagine these geeks, suddenly afraid that their magic treehouse
[the internet] was about to be boarded by American pop culture.
[...]

And you don't have to be responsible for what you say [on the
internet].  The great question for the future of the net is:  
To what extent will this extraordinary freedom be allowed to 
remain in the hands of the people, and to what extent will it
be limited and regulated?  The Internet is not the information
highway, but it might become part of the information highway.
In order for this to happen, though, the Internet will have to 
be "civilized" - a word that gives many net users the willies.
The net is, fundamentally, about free speech, while the I-way
is about commercial and civic transactions:  it's a route for 
delivering videos, newspapers, and catalogues into people's
home computers, for filing taxes on-line, eventually for 
voting on-line. Completely unrestricted speech, which is 
desirable in a free exchange of ideas and data, is less vital
when you're talking to a business competitor or to your 
congressman.  

The net poses a fundamental threat not only to the authority
of the government, but to all authority, because it permits
people to organize, think, and influence one another without
any institutional supervision whatsoever.  The government is
responding to this threat with the Clipper Chip [...]

[Discussion about why we need Clipper and why good encryption
is bad.]  The obvious danger in supplying people with 
encryption is that encryption makes it easier to keep secrets,
which makes it easier for people to commit crimes.  With 
powerful encryption, the net would become an ideal place for 
criminals to organize conspiracies. [...]  Dr. Clinton C.
Brooks, the N.S.A.'s lead scientist on the Clipper Chip 
project, told me, "You won't have a Waco in Texas, you'll have 
a Waco in cyberspace.  You could have a cult, speaking to each
other through encryption, that suddenly erupts in society -
well programmed, well organized - and then suddenly disappears
again."  Therefore, in an effort to balance the good and bad
sides of encryption, the United States government has proposed
that people use a brand of encryption that the government has
designed, which is powerful enough to take care of everybody's
legitimate encryption needs but has an electronic "back door"
that law-enforcement agencies could use, with a court order, 
to listen to the conversations of people they suspect of being
criminals.  This brand of encryption is inside the Clipper 
Chip.

[...]  In the future, somebody will develop encryption that
the N.S.A. won't be able to crack, and smart criminals will be 
able to talk without being overheard. [...]

[Author describes meeting he had with John Norstad of 
Northwestern University to ask about his "worm".] "Do I 
recognize the right of this person to flame me? Yes, I do. Do
I celebrate his right to flame me?  I'm not sure.  Do I
recognize the right of this person to send me a worm? Definitely
not.  But at what point does a flame become a worm?  I mean, can
a virus be a form of free speech?  In other words, could a 
combination of words be so virulent and nasty that it could to
property damage to your head?"  

[Norstad reassures author by telling him that most people on the
net "don't have a life."]

-----------
bdolan@well.sf.ca.us

> 
> Highlights of "My First Flame", an article by John Seabrook in the
> 6/6/94 _New Yorker_ which explains why we need a benevolent government 
> to help regulate the internet (a very sophisticated piece of
> propaganda, IMHO):
>

Sounds like Mr. Seabrook may be just slightly anal retentive, only
a tad dangerous with his visions of a "kinder, gentler" net.

The culture that is "the Internet" is an anarchy and will probably
remain that way for some time to come. If he desires a more 
sanitized on-line world, he should probably stick to Prodigy.

Attitudes like his, in my own opinion, are what has made this
country (Amerika) a nation of overly sensitive dolts.

Cheers,

(speaking only for myself -- certainly not for Sprint...) 
_______________________________________________________________________________
Paul Ferguson                         
US Sprint 
Enterprise Internet Engineering                    tel: 703.904.2437 
Herndon, Virginia  USA                        internet: paul@hawk.sprintmrn.com

> From: "Bradley W. Dolan" <71431.2564@CompuServe.COM>
> In a few days, I received a reply from the writer, asking when my 
> new column, "Pudlicker to the Celebrated," was going to start.

This guy even mentions that the flamer has a reputation at risk, but
apparently doesn't think of the normal social response: publicizing
the gist of this little exchange of e-mail.

> groups on the net, I came upon a subject line that said, "Ralph
> Berkeley made homosexual advances toward me."  Ralph Berkeley
> (I'm not using his real name) is a regular participant in
> discussions of net policy, who appears, on the evidence of his
> posts, to be an articulate and thoughtful man,

Apparently the writer didn't stick around to read the rest of this
thread, in which the poster was roundly excoriated as a putz, even
by people with little fondness for David Sternlight.

Yeesh.  I think I'll write a letter to the _New Yorker_, though they
won't publish it.

   Eli   ebrandt@hmc.edu

New Yorker writer says:
   [Many clueless things, including:]
   The net poses a fundamental threat not only to the authority
   of the government, but to all authority, because it permits
   people to organize, think, and influence one another without
   any institutional supervision whatsoever. 

Oh, Dear.  We Certainly Can't Let That Happen.

Sigh.  This gentleman obviously needs to be regrooved.  Does anyone
have his net address?

-Anthony Garcia
agarcia@sugar.neosoft.com
"Wacos In Cyberspace:  Hear, hear!"