Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 322
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, July 28 1999 Volume 01 : Number 322
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
Re: [netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
Re: [netz] kmm063 Ads cloaked as posts: the Internet is under seige
[netz] Foundation To Help Public Benefit From Web
[netz] Re: A simple question for Netizens
[netz] Canadian ISP's Under Attack in Internet War (Canada/China)
Re: [netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 00:24:42 +0000
From: Carsten Laekamp <carsten.laekamp@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 05:38:48PM +0000, Kerry Miller wrote:
<First part deleted. I agree with what Kerry wrote there>
> Am I reading too closely, or has Jay started off rather awkwardly?
> > Netizens like citizens make an effort to take responsibility for
> > bettering the situations they are in. "Free" means the opposite.
>
> Can one be 'responsible' (or even 'make an effort,' for that matter) if
> one has no choice? Does he mean to say that 'free' meant
> irresponsibility to, say, Jefferson and Adams?
Hmmm... you've got to see it in the context. John wrote about
"free flow of information". In that phrase, "free" _does_ mean
"unrestricted". Therefore:
>
> And, in moving from these vague generalities to the specifics of
> 'free enterprise' which he conceives as covering John's case, hasnt
> he jumped the 'reasonable' step of *asking John what he means?
that step wasn't needed. IMHO, even the meaning of "information"
doesn't need any discussion here.
I believe the problem is further down Jay's post, when he _restricts_
everything to "[freedom to] post his ads". That's clearly an
assumption.
Personnally, I think that the free flow of information on the Internet
would deserve a discussion (on this list, for instance, if there was
any hope to, at least once, have more than three people involved in a
discussion here :( ) before any call for a petition. Do we want every
content (including illegal stuff) to be freely distributed on the
'Net or do we prefer restrictions, although there is a risk that,
once the first restrictions have been accepted, others will follow ?
Cheers,
- --
Carsten Läkamp
carsten.laekamp@wanadoo.fr
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 01:04:00 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
Carsten Laekamp wrote,
> IMHO, even the meaning of "information" doesn't need any discussion
> here.
>
Whew! Do you mean Information is what the information
economy runs on, so what more do we need to know?
> Personnally, I think that the free flow of information on the
> Internet would deserve a discussion (on this list, for instance, if
> there was any hope to, at least once, have more than three people
> involved in a discussion here :( ) before any call for a petition.
Doesnt your (unnecessary) definition of information say whether it
freely flows or not?
> Do we want every content (including illegal stuff) to be freely
> distributed on the 'Net or do we prefer restrictions, although
> there is a risk that, once the first restrictions have been
> accepted, others will follow ?
>
What three people want is clearly not going to change the
direction of the Net, so isnt there a missing premise here?
Specifically, when you say 'do we want' are you not really asking,
"If we were kings and queens, would we want"? (Not that youre
alone, by any means -- doesnt that kind of hidden assumption
prevail throughout net discourse, up to and including Ignoramuses
Conferring As so many No-Nothings, as if *how ones decisions are
to be implemented is merely some staffer's problem?) Let's get
three people clear on how *three people* can come to understand
one another, and there'll be time enough to see what to do after
that.
Now, if I may be so gauche as to take your question literally, Do *I*
want every content (including illegal stuff) to be 'freely' accessible
or do *I* prefer to have restrictions on my behaviour, I'm reminded
first of all of the alcoholic who insists he's kicked the habit
*because there isnt any liquor in the house anyhow*. I say, all he's
done is displaced his addiction, from the bottle to the barrier that
conceals the bottle. Take away the barrier, and he's into the sauce
again *because its there* ('Is it my fault somebody let me find it?')
Is the converse is easier to see? The honest alcoholic surrounds
himself with booze in order to have temptations to resist! Ok, so
maybe theres no such critter as an honest alkie, but surely the
analogy doesnt force us to say theres no honest democrat! Twelve-
step programs dont have to be democratic, they are the last thing
from it, and its kind of sad that they are promoted as 'successful,'
because they are no model at all for open participatory governance -
- - but they seem to be the only concept that people can get their
brains around anymore. There Is A Higher Power! You are Weak
and Helpless! You Can Not keep yourself from looking at porn, or
violating copyright, or stealing warez, so Somebody has to Take
Care of You.
But that's much too complicated an answer, so I usually fall back
on another question: Am I more likely to be put in charge of
eliminating all dangers to human decency, or to be able to help
someone else learn how to manage the risks they pose? If Im the
Internet Crimez Czar, then by golly, I want *all content to be strictly
controlled, a licence or a fee for everything from the moment you
wake up in the morning, a Vchip on the TV and a remote data link
into your CPU, you bet! (Oooops, betting is a double-plus
ungood... )
Can I say Im feeling *better now?
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 15:53:55 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <MTL4@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] kmm063 Ads cloaked as posts: the Internet is under seige
>Mark L. if you feel that my posting the ISBN number of Netizens
>in my signature is a violation of the Netizens list, you should
>say so. [snip]
>But to complain about something that I do as a way to tell me
>to not complain about something someone else does is not helpful
>to what is happening. I want you to complain if I do something
>wrong, but to recognize that it is good if I complain when
>I feel something is wrong as well.
More power to you. I did not think the original post was wrong, although
perhaps a bit strange. I find this entire argument very boring, but I
recognize that many folks won't agree with me on that either.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Foundation To Help Public Benefit From Web
http://news.excite.com/news/r/990726/14/net-internet-foundation
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:08:02 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: A simple question for Netizens
> And John Walker has re-emphasized that, for him, it's a simple
> black-vs-white issue. Anyone who has reservations -- for example,
> over preservation of individual privacy -- is against freedom of
> information on the Internet.
>
A good analysis of USA and EU concepts of preserving privacy from the PPI:
http://www.dlcppi.org/texts/tech/privacy.htm
"As matters of general principle, the dictates of the EU Directive
are not entirely unlike the policies designed by some of the leading
self-regulation programs in United States, which tend to stress
notice, choice, access, and security in privacy policies for
consumers, with recourse mechanisms for violations. But unlike
the efforts of industry groups in the United States, the EU Directive
is not voluntary; there is no opportunity for companies to avoid the
system. And whereas in current U.S. law what constitutes "fair"
practices in transactions involving personal data is somewhat
ambiguous, standards are codified in each European Union
member state.
"[...] There is a fundamental distinction between the European
view of privacy and the traditional American view that must be
considered in the context of any policy discussion about privacy:
America does not have the general presumption that data should
be used only for the purposes for which they are gathered.
"This is a particularly important distinction in the context of the
new value proposition that drives a great deal of the innovation in
the New Economy: businesses are often able to add value for
consumers in unexpected ways, often largely as a function of the
quality and quantity of consumer data at their disposal.[...]
"Perhaps the single most powerful argument against a uniform,
top-down regulatory regime for privacy protection online is that the
core forces driving the New Economy enable more flexibility.
Technology and markets can offer customized solutions for
individuals' privacy needs. [...]"
> Personally, I resent the idea that if I don't want the results
> of my x-rays or income tax returns posted for all to see, it
> means I am against freedom of information on the Internet. It
> simply isn't true -- or me or of millions of other people.
Isnt what is coming out of this 'poll' the message that the age of
blanket solutions is past? One can be for or against whatever one
likes, but until we can move discussion beyond black or white/
support or resent/ all ideas of privacy or none, the power of the
collective to find solutions for itself is going to be pissed away and
the same old top-downy blankets laid on us -- for our own good, of
course.
===
John wrote,
> So the first thing you need to do as a Netizen is decide what the
> free flow of information means to you....and then vote.
"Last Tuesday, at a press conference at Niketown on 57th St,
Brandi Hollywood Chastain, the shirt-doffing heroine of the US
women's sopccer team, looked taken aback when she was asked
whether she considered herself a sex symbol. 'I'm not sure what
that means,' she said, before allowing that she might indeed be
one 'if it means feeling good about yourself, confident, wanting to
share with other people.'
"Actually, that's not what it means, as the readers of Gear
magazine's recent 'Sex Issue' in which she posed naked and oiled,
would happily explain to her..."
-- 'Talk of the Town,' The New Yorker, 26 July 99, p 25
Right, you decide what X 'means to you', and the readers of the
New Yorker magazine will tell you *thats not what it means*. As
long as there are still institutions/ establishments/ foundational
instruments of public 'opinion' (read, understanding) able to trivialise
individual determinations of what means what, votes for free
information will prove precisely nothing -- and they are not going to
fold their tents just because the Internet tells them theyre out of
date.
Any so-called vote will be meaningless until we can not just
dismantle but *replace the structural function of such institutions.
The digital revolution is overthrowing a good many traditional
notions, but the very real factors that pertain to each of them are
not going to go away. We can either indulge in charades of 'belief'
in the free flow of information, or we can get to work. For instance,
if we were to recognize that what we have made 'sex' symbolize
really is that authentic feeling of wanting to share, wouldnt that be
a pretty good place to start? Once we're over that bump of
prudery, medical records might not mean quite so much, either.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:28:32
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] Canadian ISP's Under Attack in Internet War (Canada/China)
The CSS Internet News (tm) is a daily e-mail publication that
has been providing up to date information to Netizens since 1996.
Subscription information is available at:
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/inews.htm
or send an e-mail to jwalker@bestnet.org with
SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the SUBJECT line.
The following is an excerpt from the CSS Internet News. If you are
going to pass this along to other Netizens please ensure that the
complete message is forwarded with all attributes intact.
NOTE: Registrations for the On-line Learning Series of Courses
for August are now being accepted. Information is available at:
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
- ------------
Canadian ISP's Under Attack in Internet War (Canada/China)
Hamilton, Ontario Internet service provider experiences Denial of
Service attacks after hosting Falundafa site.
by John Walker
CSS Internet News
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker
Tuesday, 27 July 99
The Falundafa site was transferred to Bestnet Internet Inc late last
night after another Canadian ISP which had been hosting the site
could no longer cope with the continual attacks.
Eric Weigel, Director of Bestnet Internet Inc. said in an interview
today that the site was up at Bestnet by about 10:00 P.M. EST last
night and the Denial of Service attacks began within an hour.
Bestnet is one of several ISP's mirroring the sect's site after it
was banned by the Government of China.
System logs show attacks originating from The Information Service
Center of XinAn, Beijing, China, and other locations in China.
One ISP reports that "It is not just my machine under attack it is
many machines from all over the US and Canada many of which are .edu
(educational) sites."
Mr. Weigel says "Bestnet will attempt to continue hosting the site in
spite of attacks from individuals or governments. That's what we do."
A regime that attempts to stifle free speech on the 'Net is bound to
fail. A site that is banned in one country can be mirrored on
hundreds of servers all over the world in just hours.
This is one of the great strengths of the Internet.
Links:
Falundafa
http://www.falundafa.ca
Bestnet Internet Inc.
http://www.bestnet.org
Asia Pacific Information Center
http://www.apnic.net/db
Eric Wiegel, Director Bestnet Internet Inc.
ericw@bestnet.org
- ------------
Also in this issue:
- - Canadian ISP's Under Attack in Internet War (Canada/China)
Hamilton, Ontario Internet service provider experiences Denial of
Service attacks after hosting Falundafa site.
- - US police funded by IT giants (UK/US)
Hi-tech companies are paying out thousands of dollars to hard-up
police departments in the US to help combat computer-related crime.
- - Net hubs lacking in rural pockets (US)
NEW YORK -- Nearly 61% of all metropolitan areas have no connection
to a high-speed Internet backbone hub, leaving them "at serious risk
of falling behind in the digital economy," according to a study to be
released Tuesday by a group that favors deregulating phone
companies.
- - IDC Research: Global PC Shipments Up 27 Percent (Ireland)
At the end of this year's second quarter, global PC shipments were
up 27 percent, year-over-year, according to IDC Research.
- - China in Internet war on banned Falungong sect (Asia)
10.20 a.m. Chinese authorities are taking the war against the banned
Falungong sect to the Internet - the medium which played a part in
popularising the group's teachings in the first place.
- - Richmond woman with emphysema finds solace through Internet group (US)
Glenda Jones misses the time when she could walk for five minutes
without becoming short of breath.
- - Giants battle for control of Internet's future (US)
In several years, AT&T intends to make high-speed Internet access so
easy and affordable that millions of Americans will be able to enjoy
dinner with relatives thousands of miles away through live TV
hookups between their homes.
- - Portrait of a Cyber-Posse as the Self-Policing Gang (US)
A trio of key Net policymakers is largely responsible for
implementing the Administration's self-regulatory vision
- - U.S. Tells Network Solutions to Share Dot-Com Database (US)
Who really owns the "whois" directory?
- - Senior Women: Defining the Audience (US)
The baby boomers have been turning 50 for only two years, and
already they have stirred an enormous amount of activity in the
industry.
- - AT&T sues Fla. county over Net access (US)
Company fears more municipalities could follow the county's lead by
enacting mandatory open-access laws.
- - AOL users hit by unusual hoax (US)
The fake message allegedly fools users into giving up information on
their accounts and credit cards.
- - New Lists and Journals
* NEW: Mishpat Update- Cyberlaw informer
* NEW: True Crimes
* NEW: justuschickns
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
- -------------------------------
Excerpt from CSS Internet News (tm) ,-~~-.____
For subscription details email / | ' \
jwalker@hwcn.org with ( ) 0
SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the \_/-, ,----'
subject line. ==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
"On the Internet no one / __/~| / |
knows you're a dog" =( _____| (_________|
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker
- -------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 04:54:21 +0200
From: Carsten Laekamp <carsten.laekamp@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Freedom for Commercial content?
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 01:04:00AM +0000, Kerry Miller wrote:
>
> Carsten Laekamp wrote,
>
> > IMHO, even the meaning of "information" doesn't need any discussion
> > here.
> >
> Whew! Do you mean Information is what the information
> economy runs on, so what more do we need to know?
Nope. But:
a) in an computer-network context, "flow of information" mostly refers
to "series of 0's and 1's"
b) if you try to define what's information or not, based on the
content carried by those 0's and 1's (or any other vector), and then
decide on what may "flow" and what not, there isn't any "free flow"
anymore, simply because for someone else, "information" will have a
broader understanding of the word.
>
> > Personnally, I think that the free flow of information on the
> > Internet would deserve a discussion (on this list, for instance, if
> > there was any hope to, at least once, have more than three people
> > involved in a discussion here :( ) before any call for a petition.
>
> Doesnt your (unnecessary) definition of information say whether it
> freely flows or not?
Huh ?
>
> > Do we want every content (including illegal stuff) to be freely
> > distributed on the 'Net or do we prefer restrictions, although
> > there is a risk that, once the first restrictions have been
> > accepted, others will follow ?
> >
> What three people want is clearly not going to change the
> direction of the Net, so isnt there a missing premise here?
> Specifically, when you say 'do we want' are you not really asking,
> "If we were kings and queens, would we want"? (Not that youre
> alone, by any means -- doesnt that kind of hidden assumption
> prevail throughout net discourse, up to and including Ignoramuses
> Conferring As so many No-Nothings, as if *how ones decisions are
> to be implemented is merely some staffer's problem?)
Someone posted here a call for a petition. We can either decide,
everyone on his own, whether to sign it or not. Or we could discuss
the issue. Not to have one's own decisions implemented, but to see
different points of view. Up to everyone else to sign the petition
afterwards or not. I would very much like to hear others' opinions
on that subject, because I am not really certain what answer is the
right one (although I do have a preference, of course).
This list, is called, AFAIK, "Netizens", which, somehow ;), sounds
close to "citizens". Somehow, I think that discussion is an important
part of "being part of the city".
BTW: where the "Ignoramuses" are right is that they are Heirs to the
Throne, at least in the eyes of the King.
> Let's get
> three people clear on how *three people* can come to understand
> one another, and there'll be time enough to see what to do after
> that.
Strange idea... if three people cannot manage to understand (you
didn't say "agree with") each other, why fight for anything at all ?
>
> Now, if I may be so gauche as to take your question literally,
Why "gauche" ?
> Is the converse is easier to see? The honest alcoholic surrounds
> himself with booze in order to have temptations to resist! Ok, so
> maybe theres no such critter as an honest alkie, but surely the
> analogy doesnt force us to say theres no honest democrat! Twelve-
> step programs dont have to be democratic, they are the last thing
> from it, and its kind of sad that they are promoted as 'successful,'
> because they are no model at all for open participatory governance -
> - but they seem to be the only concept that people can get their
> brains around anymore. There Is A Higher Power! You are Weak
> and Helpless! You Can Not keep yourself from looking at porn, or
> violating copyright, or stealing warez, so Somebody has to Take
> Care of You.
Exaggerating that much is too easy. For one thing, "violating
copyright, stealing warez" is (in most cases) not an addiction. Second:
unlike the problem of addiction (not talking about indirect
consequences here), some of the information carried by the 'Net can
have direct consequences on other people than the reader: warez sites
do harm the manufacturer of the "stolen" software; instructions on how
to manufacture weapons will hurt the people they will be used against
(ok, this _is_ an indirect consequence, but it still is the purpose
of those sites), ...
And don't forget that, if "free flow of information" is the rule, ISPs
won't be able to put up spam filters anymore (although I personnally
don't like those things because I'm afraid that they will bar too
many messages, many people do want them).
> If Im the
> Internet Crimez Czar, then by golly, I want *all content to be strictly
> controlled, a licence or a fee for everything from the moment you
> wake up in the morning, a Vchip on the TV and a remote data link
> into your CPU, you bet! (Oooops, betting is a double-plus
> ungood... )
Sure, I agree. But why don't we have _total_ control of the information
carried by the 'Net nowadays ? Partly because there has been
(some) self-regulation. If the "free flow" becomes the (internal)
rule, someone "from the outside" _will_ ask for tight control of
the whole thing, sooner or later. And the Internet _users_ will
applaud. Remember, neither communism nor fascism (etc...) developped
in _stable_ societies.
But, of course, this might all not happen because we will have a
all-e-commerce network "too soon". That alternative
isn't great either...
- --
Carsten Läkamp
carsten.laekamp@wanadoo.fr
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #322
******************************
