NODE 172cb21fA Cyberspace Independence Refutation
strata@virtual.netMon, 12 Feb 1996 05:21:41 +0800
Mr. Barlow, you've done many good things for cyberspace and individual
rights, and I respect you for that. BUT...I have a major bone to pick
with this. I'm not accusing you personally of anything, but I think
this document is going to cause more trouble than it's worth, and
large chunks of it are patently untrue. Untrue documents that inspire
people to correct their mistakes can be uplifting, but this one
inspires a level of smug self-righteousness that's not going to make
the net a better place. See details below.
>To: barlow@eff.org
>From: John Perry Barlow <barlow@eff.org>
>Subject: A Cyberspace Independence Declaration
>It attempts to place more restrictive constraints on the conversation
>in Cyberspace than presently exist in the Senate cafeteria, where I
>have dined and heard colorful indecencies spoken by United States
>senators on every occasion I did.
Good call, by the way. I hope the foreword re: hypocrisy also goes
into the book.
>Or, more to the point, let us now take our leave of them. They have
>declared war on Cyberspace. Let us show them how cunning, baffling,
>and powerful we can be in our own defense.
Let us show them how cunning, baffling, and powerful we can be as
armed federal marshals walk into a major ISP and shut down their
routers, as replays of Operation Sun Devil occur in people's houses,
as major idiocy of the sort that only a scared government in a country
which considers itself free can carry out. I don't know which is more
disheartening, the actions themselves or the spirit of "we're doing
this for your own good" in which they are carried out. But I
digress. All the little-boy fantasies of the Powerful Internet don't
mean two beans when an officially sanctioned thug turns the switch
from 1 to 0 on your POP. It'll happen. Just watch.
>I have written something (with characteristic grandiosity) that I hope
Yes.
>You can leave my name
>off it if you like, because I don't care about the credit. I really
>don't.
I believe you. It's one of the admirable qualities you have.
>But I do hope this cry will echo across Cyberspace, changing and
>growing and self-replicating, until it becomes a great shout equal to
>the idiocy they have just inflicted upon us.
Yes, that's what I'm afraid of. See my opening remarks.
>A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
>Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and
>steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the
>future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome
>among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.
Oh, let's start right off pretending that
a) the net is an independently funded entity with no government
infrastructure and
b) independent of (non-electronic) world society and world government
While we're at it, let's press a monkey-brain hot button in any person
of political power by saying their power does/should not apply here.
This will not only make them receptive to the reasoning which we will
lay out in the rest of the document, it will impress them with our
real-world suavity, tact, and general with-it-ness.
>We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I
Nature abhors a vacuum. I assume it surprises no one that much of the
major flack about the net began when it became widely known to
government that the net considered itself anarchic.
>address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty
>itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are
>building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to
>impose on us.
You must be talking about IPV6. Sorry, I couldn't resist. But
certainly the TRA and various other things will be *much* easier to
implement in the IPV6 Internet. Control structures exist to be used,
gang.
>You have no moral right to rule us
Hello? Are we laboring under the belief that even a scant majority of
governments truly believe in the morality of their rule? Or, since a
government is a collection of individuals who tend to act with the
worst instincts of a mob when only a few are present, that the
individuals themselves feel that they are morally entitled to rule?
> nor do you possess
>any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.
Like walking into MAE-WEST and powering it down due to court orders.
Nope. None at all.
>Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Yes.
>You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you.
We took a defense department network and ran with it, but since we've
been playing with it for over a decade, it's ours now. Just like when
the neighbor kid loaned us his toy and we fixed it up, painted it, put
new wheels on it, and now he wants it back! WAAAAAAHHHH!
>You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not
>lie within your borders.
Yes, but. Inasmuch as the culture of cyberspace grows from (as you
say below) the actions of individuals, it grows from the "real world"
(I hate that phrase, but need to use it to be clear). We were all
raised in that world, that world provides many (perhaps most) of the
denizens of cyberspace with their livelihoods and access, and both
encourages and constrains their actions, from the engineer who
subscribes to a gay mailing list secretly for fear of losing his job
to the public policy advocate who openly posts pro-net/anti-censorship
material to com-priv in defiance of her government post.
> Do not think that you can build it, as though
>it were a public construction project. You cannot.
Yes. Though "building" is not quite what I'd call it. More like
when they bulldoze a section of neighborhood which is actually a haven
for poor families and an extended culture simply because the buildings
and the cultural ways are deemed "unsightly"-- large families living
in small apartments and hanging out their washing, sitting out on the
stoop being neighborly, etc. Townhouses come up and people don't know
their neighbors anymore, but it "looks nice" and thus must be
progress.
> It is an act of
>nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.
Yes, but see "real world influence" above.
>You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation,
No comment.
> nor did
>you create the wealth of our marketplaces.
You did not pour money down ratholes such as highspeed nets to carry
talk.bizarre, sf-lovers, and bandykin because the technical
administrators of the existing, government-funded networks knew that
cyberspace could emerge if DARPA were tricked into creating it. "Our
links are already almost saturated!" You did not provide countless
network pioneers a living from government grants nor complain when
they spent much of their research time writing network utilities
rather than doing AI or compilers or what they were actually being
paid to do. You did not pay people to build the network. You did not
provide free access and TACACS cards to anyone with the savvy to just
ask for them in the late 70's and early 80's, helping grow the core of
network culture. You did not again and again provide equipment and
resources only to watch them become privatized by the core of
sysadmins and techies that you paid over the years, often in outright
blackmail ("we'll walk away unless you sell/give us the equipment and
facility"). And you certainly didn't do this only to see the same
people utterly denigrate the access to those resources and claim that
only their time, attention, and effort created the network and
cyberspace. Clearly they could have done it without any money,
machines, or extant wiring, it was merely more efficient use of their
valuable time to do it at your expense.
> You do not know our
>culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our
>society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.
Yes, like "thou shalt not take home equipment from one's company,
university, or govt office without paying for it, even if it is older
or unused". Or "thou shalt not steal computer time, long-distance
services, etc".
>You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use
>this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these
>problems don't exist.
No argument here. Dead on, as far as I'm concerned.
>Where there are real conflicts, where there are
>wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means.
Like use of copyrighted material, for instance. We who forward things
from the "experimental" (but going for years) AP and NYT news wire
feeds, the Dave Barry mailing lists, the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon
daily web sites, we will identify them and address them by our means
if we ever decide there's a problem there that we actually care about.
Same with snuff stories about real people, harrassment of women,
minorities, or homo/bi/trans-sexuals online, etc. Online advertising
actually bothers us, so we completely smite and try to drive out of
business people who are clueless enough to try spamming. So what if
it's like executing someone for a traffic offense, they should have
read the manual before logging in. In the "real world", few of us
bother to go to the post office and fill out a card saying "refuse all
mail to 'Resident'" because it's too much trouble, thus passively
acquiescing to the torrents of junkmail and flyers we get from our
neighborhood stores. I wonder why they get the idea that direct mail
works?
> We are
>forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according
>to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.
No kidding. But more on that later, with both barrels.
>Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought
>itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications.
> Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not
>where bodies live.
Ooo, mystical. My bones are shaking, help me! Our bodies may not
live there, but our endocrine systems sure do...
>We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or
>prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station
>of birth.
Right, only by ISP and spelling and punctuation ability. This
paragraph is where I decided I finally had to come out and call
bullshit to this whole thing. And how many of the people on the mailing lists
that claim to be full of internet liberators, free-speech advocates,
people who are "building cyberspace" etc look at something posted by,
say, an AOL account, with the same level of fair judgement as they do
a .stanford.edu or some well-known company name? How many postings
with good ideas have been publicly ridiculed on any number of lists
and newsgroups because of spelling or punctuation errors?
How many posts with an obviously female account name have been
publicly denigrated with "wow, you must be PMS today"?
How about "we are creating a world that all may enter without
privilege or prejudice as long as they conform to certain literary
standards, have a gender-neutral account name, and don't take potshots
at any sacred net.religious institutions such as 'cancel poodles' (ah
those paragons of democratic free speech), flame wars, and the utterly
omniscient and fair judgement of the net.gods, who have proven
themselves in the majority of cases to have written prodigious network
utilities and made major technical contributions, and therefore must
be reasonable, impartial, and pure of heart."
>We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her
>beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into
>silence or conformity.
I'm rolling on the floor, but I'm not sure if I'm laughing or crying.
WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? Can someone take an anonymous poll of the
Known Network and ask the following: "I routinely refrain from
posting my opinions or beliefs to mailing lists and/or newsgroups for
fear of flaming, harrassment, or ridicule, even when I am confident of
those beliefs or opinions (strongly-disagree disagree no-opinion agree
strongly-agree)" Think about how many mailing list or newsgroup
communities are real communities, and how rare they are, and how they
go downhill because "too many people hear about it" and people stop
feeling that they can participate fully without fear of squelching.
Hell, look what the cypherpunk community did to Detweiler! I've never
met the man, but I've read his papers and he doesn't seem like a total
nut case to me. It's one thing to ostracize someone, but baiting them
is going a little far. Similar things have happened in many online
communities. "Yeah, there are some real nut cases out there, and
sooner or later a big enough community runs into them". Even if we
accept that, does that mean we have to handle them with a complete
lack of compassion? Do we have to be little boys with sticks
tormenting a wounded animal? I don't think so.
>Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and
>context do not apply to us. They are based on matter, There is no
>matter here.
Awesome. Among other things, all those .sigs saying that the
Microsoft Network consents to such-and-such fees if they redist this
message, or that this message is copyright the Extropy Inc folks if it
appears on this list, etc are just hot air, and those folks won't mind
it. For that matter, source code copyrights on the net are just a
quaint custom, and so are people's personal privacy expectations with
regard to their email and to their files. I mean,
electronic privacy isn't a concept of property, identity, or
expression is it? What's all this fuss about crypto? Silly people,
those legal concepts don't apply here!!! Now go read your users mail
like a good sysadmin and turn in heretics to the thought police. Mr.
Barlow says it's okay, right here in this widely-forwarded document!
Now I understand why there is no fear of the plug being pulled-- so
what if this message is being read on a physical screen and is stored
on a physical disk, with a physical junction joining it to the network,
"there is no matter here". The fact that the computer on which you
read this may belong to someone else, may be shut down without your
control, may be being misused according to their intent just by
transmitting this message, that is irrelevant! OMMMMMMM-- are you
receiving this message? OMMMMMMMM....
>Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order
>by physical coercion.
The persons we have kicked off numerous online services, such as
Cantor & Seigel, email harrassers, stalkers, etc are not really "us",
so this statement is entirely self-consistent, Selah.
> We believe that from ethics, enlightened
>self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our
>identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The
>only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize
>is the Golden Rule.
Even if we don't apply it universally to ourselves, only to those
online bodiless entities who meet with our approval and are clearly
also members of the intellectual and anarchic elite!
> We hope we will be able to build our particular
>solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are
>attempting to impose.
Why yes. Bad law on a bad situation does not make it right. Again,
I agree here.
>In the United States, you have today created a law, the
>Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution
>and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison,
>DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.
Cool. I wonder how much hate mail I will get for this commentary?
Perhaps I will be immediately dismissed as
a) not a member of the technical elite of netdom or hackerdom, and
therefore clueless
b) an outsider, ditto (hey, I've only been on the net since 1981, I'm
just a pup; and I never became a netnews household word)
c) a woman, who is probably on the rag
>You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a
>world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you
>entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are
>too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments
>and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are
>parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot
>separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.
Set BOLE generators on HYPER, captain. Aye aye!
Please. This sort of thing is so riddled with inaccuracies,
hypocrisy, half-truths, and the occasional kernel of absolute
correctness that it ought to be taken out and shot. Where are *our*
"parental responsibilities" to network newcomers, to AOL and the
Microsoft Network people (to name a few)? How many of the self-avowed
denizens of cyberspace feel like "natives" in the "real world"? How
many decent politicians do you think are out there trying to do their
job and being confronted with only a single tarbrush of shirking
spineless cowardice? Yes, I should give up my political career and
the hope of building new housing in my district, getting more school
funding, etc for a bunch of twenty (or thirty)-something
non-constitutents who think of me as a pustulent gastropod. I'll run
right out and vote against TRA!!
How much do you go out of your way for people who openly despise you
and publicly declare your stupidity with every other breath?
>In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United
>States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting
>guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the
>contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that
>will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.
PTHTHT. Take a look at the hierarchic network structure. Have you
made your BIND mods yet to allow alternate root-level nameservers?
Tsk tsk-- how will people find you after your domain name gets taken
out of the InterNIC servers and your ISP is forced to pull your
network number or get shut down? Or rather, how will other people
besides your group of fellow net.elite peers find you?
>Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate
>themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to
>own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas
>to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our
>world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and
>distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no
>longer requires your factories to accomplish.
See copyright issues in various places above.
And what the hell are you referring to by "ideas as an industrial
product"? It sounds very noble, but it has little to do with freedom
of speech on the net! As we have all seen, many industrial products
ranging from inflatable sheep to magazines as respectable as the "New
Yorker" don't have to conform to the provisions of the TRA.
And the "global conveyance of thought" hasn't needed factories ever.
Broadcast communications media have sufficed, ranging from newspapers
to radio to satellite TV.
>These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same
>position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination
>who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We
>must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we
>continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread
>ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.
Isn't that special. Not all of us can afford to go to Switzerland,
John.
>We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be
>more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
We've got a hell of a lot of work to do, then. Let's start by not
flaming people at the drop of a hat. Perhaps I myself am guilty of
this-- everyone who flames thinks they have a good enough reason.
But unlike some people, I've never claimed to be a superior being.
>Davos, Switzerland
>February 8, 1996
>John Perry Barlow, Cognitive Dissident
************
I don't know what the "right" things to do are to protect free speech
on the net. I'm trying to figure that out, like many of you. I do
know, or rather, passionately believe, that missives like this
Declaration are a major red herring. Every person who takes his or
her five minutes to forward this to another mailing list or to his or
her congresscritter is wasting time and helping to promote an
impression of the net as a place full of immature, unrealistic people.
Find something original and concrete to do instead. Spend the five
minutes writing and *mailing* an original letter to your elected
official and mention you are in his or her district. Write a
non-judgemental, helpful explanation of something to a net newcomer.
Install PGP on your roomate's machine and teach him/her how to use
it. Take an hour to write and post a refutation to a meme which
you think will harm the net community. Just go DO something.
It's a hard thing to face, that armed persons might come to your door
and shut down your livelihood and your main access to your chosen
community of friends, and possibly shoot you or your loved ones in
the process. The sooner we face and deal with that fear in ourselves,
and use that transformative power to direct our actions for individual
and collective freedom, the better. Pretending we are ruling a
powerful invisible empire which is immune to violence is not the way
to get there. Get real about the virtual.
2/11/96
M. Strata Rose
strata@virtual.net
Copyright 1996 M. Strata Rose. This message may be forwarded in its
entirety as long as this notice is retained.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQBtAzDquVEAAAEDAJzWZyzHAO92FpvwUFrGNk3LCHRsTu4BT+scMw/3CdJtWoCB
9HGoj8N/4jLE0kjJH+2iNT0nvfHCjJbd7s1wXUbKcjoJBi6+mUJIe+mjyyjMxuyz
ulM1UdqyunAFqCBz1QAFEbQjTS4gU3RyYXRhIFJvc2UgPHN0cmF0YUB2aXJ0dWFs
Lm5ldD4=
=x64T
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
*************************************************************************
M. Strata Rose strata@virtual.net
VirtualNet Consulting 408-534-3714
Unix & Internet Administration since 1983 http://www.virtual.net/
*** Better Business Bureau member ***
*************************************************************************
NODE 6f4c6270Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
"Dave Emery" <die@pig.die.com>Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:50:25 +0800
Congratulations.,. most of the polemics about the overweaning
power of the net, particularly in such communities as cypherpunks are
touchingly nieve tripe. You have spoken the truth - and the hard words
need to be heard and understood before it is too late.
A lot of people forget the basic truth that the net is based
almost entirely on physical communications facilities owned for the most
part by huge corperations that have deeply incestuous relationships with
the political power structure and very little interest in preserving the
self important dreams of a few members of a self selected net "elite".
If ordered to pull the plug they will, and cyberspace as we know it will
evaporate overnight.
And there is essentially no possibility of practical alternative
communications facilities becoming available - aside from the titanic
capital costs of creating such, most of the resources required such as
radio spectrum, orbital slots and rights of way are tightly controlled by
the entrenched corperations that operate the present facilities.
And the communications network infrastructure in the US has long
since outgrown its earlier days of comparative electronic anonymity - if
the government decides it has to control and or eliminate a network or
host it does not like it will be damned hard to construct one that
cannot be detected, mapped and tracked down to physical people typing
on physical keyboards at the end of physical wires and fibers. Crypto
may help until it is so regulated and controlled that the mere act of
possessing uncontrolled crypto software or hardware, or sending,
receiving or even just storing on disk a message that the government
cannot read is ipso facto justification for a long mandatory jail term -
(and that day is coming). Remailers may help until anonymous
forwarding of electronic messages of any kind to third parties for the
purpose of concealing the sender or recipients true identity is a
serious crime except for certain very narrowly defined exceptions such
as otherwise legal anonymous political speech and such things as
legitimate anonymous self help groups. International sites may help
until the government decides that international traffic to rogue states
is something that it historically has had control of and can regulate
(witness the embargo for many years on telephone traffic to Cuba),
But it seems very clear as long as the government has ultimate
control of the communications facilities used to send the messages the
government can and will control their passage if it feels it has to.
Unfettered, uncontrolled, uncensored net access to anything
like the current wide cross section of the great washed, upper income,
upper education sector of the population reached by the current
Internet is a short term historical accident - there are too many
powerful groups challenged and threatened by such for this period of 100
flowers to last.
And, alas, the overbroad controls put in place by scared
politicians in response to the "excesses" of this period of freedom may
well have the effect of making it completely impossible to create
another academic, fringe, elite, intellectual, anarchic Internet ... it
may well become seriously illegal to operate any free electronic forum
of wide scope without rigorous pre-publication mechanisms in place to
eliminate illegal information, pornography, stolen intellectual
property, improper racist, sexist, or nationalistic sentiments,
blasphemy, seditious speech, profantity, concealment of true traceable
identity, impersonation of another, and quite possibly anything that
could be construed as defaming the character of a person or institution.
I'm enough of a coward to believe that perhaps we should concede
the greater public Internet to the commercial interests that seek to
turn it into a vast shopping mall and let them control speech, regulate
content and license speakers provided that it still is possible for
private, academic, fringe, full free speech electronic networks to exist
for at least some of the intelligensia. And I'm afraid that may be the
real bargain we face....
A defeated pessimist,
die@die.com
NODE 2520e2f3Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
Ed Carp <erc@dal1820.computek.net>Tue, 13 Feb 1996 01:50:31 +0800
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Dave Emery wrote:
> A lot of people forget the basic truth that the net is based
> almost entirely on physical communications facilities owned for the most
> part by huge corperations that have deeply incestuous relationships with
> the political power structure and very little interest in preserving the
> self important dreams of a few members of a self selected net "elite".
> If ordered to pull the plug they will, and cyberspace as we know it will
> evaporate overnight.
>
> And there is essentially no possibility of practical alternative
> communications facilities becoming available - aside from the titanic
> capital costs of creating such, most of the resources required such as
> radio spectrum, orbital slots and rights of way are tightly controlled by
> the entrenched corperations that operate the present facilities.
> Unfettered, uncontrolled, uncensored net access to anything
> like the current wide cross section of the great washed, upper income,
> upper education sector of the population reached by the current
> Internet is a short term historical accident - there are too many
> powerful groups challenged and threatened by such for this period of 100
> flowers to last.
Well, that's the way the net is *now* - but it wasn't always so. I
remember the days when the net was composed of a *lot* of point-to-point
UUCP connections eventually winding up at the backbone. People could be
many hops away from the backbone and still have email and news access.
True, there was no such thing as the web, nor TCP/IP, but we *did* have
connectivity and communications. If the Feds pulled the plug on the
backbone, I can see that there are a lot of people who would drag UUCP
and pathalias out of the closet, and the UUCP Mapping Project would live
again (hams have their own backbone are would be not as severely affected
by the backbone going away).
Not that it wouldn't be hard - but it's doable.
--
Ed Carp, N7EKG Ed.Carp@linux.org, ecarp@netcom.com
214/993-3935 voicemail/digital pager
800/558-3408 SkyPager
Finger ecarp@netcom.com for PGP 2.5 public key an88744@anon.penet.fi
"Past the wounds of childhood, past the fallen dreams and the broken families,
through the hurt and the loss and the agony only the night ever hears, is a
waiting soul. Patient, permanent, abundant, it opens its infinite heart and
asks only one thing of you ... 'Remember who it is you really are.'"
-- "Losing Your Mind", Karen Alexander and Rick Boyes
The mark of a good conspiracy theory is its untestability.
-- Andrew Spring