Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)

Jim writes:

[Jim wants to be able to 'cyber-picket' - force people to read his 
 opinions before they can browse sites he does not like. He is 
 attempting to claim that the net backbones corrospond to public
 spaces, where his local government permits him to picket.]

> Declan writes:
>> And I think that we should be very careful about calling the Net a public
>> forum. Sure, places like Usenet resemble a public forum in some ways, but
>> it's not the same.
> 
> But I am not calling the net a public forum. I am specificaly talking about
> a special case that might arise if we are not aware of the consequences. In
> short it is a statement that it MIGHT be possible to use publicly funded
> network backbones to seriously impede communication using the system against
> itself.

>> I think Greg has it right: you want to forcibly intervene in a
>> communication between two consenting parties. What you want is
>> similar to the right to come into my home and prevent me from
>> speaking freely to my friend or lover. 


'Publically funded network backbones'? Can you name one (in the US)? 
NSFnet and ARPAnet are long dead. Back when they were active, there was 
considerable debate about the legality of commercial speech on the 
net, and earlier, doubts about the legality of any traffic (including 
private email) which was not in support of government funded research.
(the first big mailing list, the SF-Lovers Digest, had a 
quasi-underground existence for many years due to this worry).

Jim also writes:

>Lack of public space may be the saving grace, unfortunately there is
>quite a bit of involvment planned by Uncle Sam if I am not
>mistaken...Internet II... V-II Chip... GAK... ITAR... That
>supercomputer science network thingy...

None of which have the slightest relevance - Internet II is a 
proposed (and still vaporware) project for an academic-research-only
network - it's future existence has no impact on those of us using
the private backbone system of today. Ditto that 'supercomputer 
science network thingy' you mention, which I suspect is the same 
thing. As for "V-II Chip... GAK... ITAR": The fact that some people
in government propose unconstitutional regulations, unworkable
technologies, and policies which work against the public interest
is not a basis to propose further undesirable policies.

Question: if you get the ability to put up your 'cyber-picket' frame,
how about cyber-counter-pickets? Cant the picketee put a page in 
front of yours? Who gets priority? Where does it stop? 

Jim, your idea is roadkill on that horribly imprecise analogy, 
the 'information superhighway' (spit). It can't be resuscitated 
by asking for 'information super-sidewalks' or claiming the existance 
of 'information super-public-spaces'. The underlying metaphor is 
fatally flawed.

Peter Trei
trei@process.com
Disclaimer: These are my own opinions only.

At 10:39 PM 6/4/97 -0400, frissell@panix.com wrote:
>>'Publically funded network backbones'? Can you name one (in the US)? 

>The Net is technically and legally a private value-added network.  
>The last bit of the then existing backbone was privatized the weekend 
>following the OKC bombing in April 1995.  (No relation)

Unfortunately, this is not entirely true.  Within US-occupied North 
America (:-), a number of the NAPs are still government funded, 
though many of the big carriers also have direct interconnections rather 
than only peering through the NAPs.   One of the early NAPs, 
the Commercial Internet eXchange (CIX), was created specifically
to avoid the content censorship required for use of the government parts
(the old Acceptable Use Policy, which banned commercial discussion.)
In other countries, your kilometerage will vary substantially.

Also, the DNS top-levels are largely managed by governments or their
subcontractors - not just the root servers and NSI's .com/.org/etc,
but also .fr, .de, .ru, etc.  Some of this may change with the IAHC plan,
but some of it won't really.

#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
#   (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies.  Thanks.)

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

At 11:33 AM 6/4/97 -6, Peter Trei wrote:
>'Publically funded network backbones'? Can you name one (in the US)? 
>NSFnet and ARPAnet are long dead. Back when they were active, there was 
>considerable debate about the legality of commercial speech on the 
>net, and earlier, doubts about the legality of any traffic (including 
>private email) which was not in support of government funded research.
>(the first big mailing list, the SF-Lovers Digest, had a 
>quasi-underground existence for many years due to this worry).

The Net is technically and legally a private value-added network.  The last 
bit of the then existing backbone was privatized the weekend following the OKC 
bombing in April 1995.  (No relation)

DCF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 5.0 beta
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBM5Ym+4VO4r4sgSPhAQHglgP+PVwxuSuNzSJWNjZgaDtATi+p0pN5uCyp
y9QDT6SQnFmkCn/cvIs0h6Kd++foqxR+pGAquSnqsKB5bMWRDxiyob9oqFiKkO9Z
8W0riSjP18GutnO2xrzozMO9K2mPbwYPHwHm2IAX31kebmr4zYpqu4exq8227jTP
4mHHXb9GlJE=
=reP1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----