Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 334
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, August 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 334
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] The Internet way (was: danger, safety, power.
Re: [netz] The Internet way (was: danger, safety, power.
[netz] Re: The Internet way
[netz] Taiwan Defense Ministry Sets Up Information Warfare Committee
Re: [netz] Taiwan Defense.... blab, blab, blab
Re: [netz] .. Defense?....*is* blab, blab, blab
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:59:02 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] The Internet way (was: danger, safety, power.
Jamal,
> I remember reading about a Singaporean (I think) company, who had
> set up an alternative system, that recognised a different character
> set. This was to enable urls to be typed in a different script to
> the regular ASCII one. Can anybody clarify this? And also can
> anybody inform as to the consequences of this for the IANA root?
> Would this be the beginning of the fragmentation of the net?
Is this IDNS (www.idns.org)? In its own way, the 'internationized
DNS' is in the same boat as the ccTLDs: the moral value of having
URLs in various scripts (or a domain for your own country) is
impeccable - but getting the persuasive influence together to make
a change that everybody else has to go along with is a different
kettle of fish, even tho *technically the change is apparently
entirely feasible.
>From my abstracted pov, the *concept of iDNS makes the present
'root' just another domain: what we call top-level would be second
level, and 2nd level becomes third level -- obviously creating
rampant confusion among all those debaters who speak of TLDs
and 2LDs (and nothing else ;-)). In other words it would be one
heck of a precedent: if we start to grow *up the tree in the name of
language, why cant we do it for colour or gender or the number of
teeth in your favourite hen's beak? (Otoh, why *not have a growing
tip at both ends of this hierarchy? Everyone gets to have a
monopoly for fifteen minutes.)
> it seems that the problem is that the "Internet way" of making
> decisions wasn't carried out by the politicians.. But what was
> this "Internet way"? A lot of it seems to have been done (dare I
> say it? - oh go on..) by elite groups of technical gurus, with
> little thought for what is now the most populous of Internet user:
> Joe Normal.
They werent 'elite' until Joe gallumphed onto the scene in his
sports shirt and neckful of cameras and started throwing money
around demanding service cause he had to get back to the airport!
But it occurs to me that there was a moment when, if the NSF
techs had asked their political buddies down the hall, they could
have seen that there were precedents all over the lot for separating
the *registry role from the agent or *registrar: the DMV does not
inspect your vehicle, or the Registry of Deeds conduct property
surveys; the marriage licensor does not perform the marriage, etc
etc.
It may not have seemed 'necessary' at the time, I agree, but
maybe thats the lesson to be learned: even *administrators can
forget that they are not *ministers (not even J.P.'s ;-)) -- as certain
advisors are apparently forgetting that they are not supervisors.
Whether this is dereliction of *fiduciary responsibility, I havent a
clue, but it does suggest that the abysmal ignorance of principles
of social organization among us proles is not our fault. How did we
know we might have to reinvent government from scratch? Talk
about your bootstraps!
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Internet way (was: danger, safety, power.
Kerry wrote:
> [Internet technical gurus] werent 'elite' until Joe gallumphed onto
> the scene in his sports shirt and neckful of cameras and started
> throwing money around demanding service cause he had to get back to
> the airport!
Some Internet technical gurus, such as Jon Postel and Vint Cerf, were
highly respected within their field of expertise. When the Internet
became more popular, naturally they became recognized worldwide. The
same could be said for people like Bill Gates, who 15 years ago was
just the CEO of a small PC software company.
> But it occurs to me that there was a moment when, if the NSF techs
> had asked their political buddies down the hall, they could have
> seen that there were precedents all over the lot for separating
> the *registry role from the agent or *registrar: the DMV does not
> inspect your vehicle, or the Registry of Deeds conduct property
> surveys; the marriage licensor does not perform the marriage, etc
> etc.
Possibly. 20/20 hindsight is always right. :) I imagine if they were
to do over again, they would have structured the cooperative agreement
with NSI rather differently.
Someone like Gordon Cook or Karl Auerbach, who have studied the
NSF/NSI cooperative agreement in depth, might be able to comment on
what NSF was thinking, circa 1992, of what the "business" of domain
name registration might be.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 01:18:32 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: The Internet way
> Some Internet technical gurus, such as Jon Postel and Vint Cerf,
> were highly respected within their field of expertise.
Respect does not make an elite (read your Bible); privilege does.
What caught Jo Normal's eye was all the fun these nerds were
having, and he naturally thought this resource should be put to use
instead of just kicking around the campus. (One could draw
parallels with the white settlers in Africa and the US, altho 'elite'
wasnt the term they used...)
> When the
> Internet became more popular, naturally they became recognized
> worldwide. The same could be said for people like Bill Gates, who
> 15 years ago was just the CEO of a small PC software company.
The same could be said of NSI, which did its job well enough until
its so called dispute resolution policy started people wondering
how to do it differently and neolib politics emerged in all its glory.
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:28:47
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: [netz] Taiwan Defense Ministry Sets Up Information Warfare Committee
Should governments protect citizens from Cyber Warfare?
Yes/No
What are your thoughts?
Registrations for the On-line Learning Series of Courses are now
being accepted. All courses are delivered by e-mail, are two to
three weeks in duration and cost between $5.00 US and $25.00 US.
Information is available at:
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
All Courses Start 1 September 1999
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.
- --------------------
Taiwan Defense Ministry Sets Up Information Warfare Committee
(Asia/ROC)
Taipei, Aug. 16 (CNA)
http://www.chinatimes.com.tw/english/epolitic/88081604.htm
The Republic of China's Ministry of National Defense (MND) on Monday
said it had established a committee to deal with information warfare.
A MND official disclosed the information at a public hearing on the
protection of Taiwan's computer systems from mainland Chinese
intrusion. He noted that "we are able to defend ourselves in an
information war, but we will not initiate an offensive." According
to the official, in 1985 Beijing had already developed its plans for
information warfare, and actual implication of the plan started in
1995.
He claimed that in 1997 Beijing conducted exercises in Nanjing and
Beijing using computer viruses to interrupt broadcasting systems and
military communication systems.
Those at the public hearing were also told that mainland China has
introduced advanced technology from Britain and France for use in
simulated wars.
To counter the mainland moves, the official said the MND has set up
an advisory committee on information warfare strategy, and in the
future will invite experts and party representatives to study its
comprehensive strategy to combat information warfare.
Regarding the safety of the island's military data, the official
said the MND computer system can be separated from outside
connections.
He went on to say the ability to separate was why the MND computer
system was not affected during the July 29 islandwide power blackout
nor by recent incidents of website invasion by computer hackers.
The public hearing, held at the Legislative Yuan, was presided over
by two Democratic Progressive Party legislators, Lee Wen-chung and
Tsai Ming-hsien.
- ---------------
Also in this issue:
- - Taiwan Defense Ministry Sets Up Information Warfare Committee
(Asia/ROC)
The Republic of China's Ministry of National Defense (MND) on Monday
said it had established a committee to deal with information warfare.
- - Openly inciting opposition on the web (Asia/PRC)
"Falungong" Changchun website closed down
On Aug. 12, a reporter learned from sources involved in the case
that Changchun Public Security Bureau recently closed down the
illegal "Falungong" organization's Changchun website, "Falun dafa in
Changchun." Suspects were detained according to the criminal law.
- - Y2K Effects Said Unlikely on Web (US)
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Some Web sites may be unavailable and some
consumers might be unable to send e-mail because of the Year 2000
technology problem, but the global network itself will largely be
unaffected, some of the Internet's top experts predict.
- - REDUCING THE GAP BETWEEN THE KNOWS AND THE KNOW-NOTS (UN)
In the race to lay claim to knowledge, "the global gap between haves
and have-nots, between knows and know-nots, is widening" warns the
Human Development Report 1999, commissioned by the United Nations
Development Programme.
- - Colorblind commerce? (US)
Net brings progress for black entrepreneurs, but old issues remain
- - The Internet : Taking us back to the middle ages (UK)
Research from the UK's Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
suggests that the Internet may well take the world back to the days
when unions, workers groups and professional guilds provided the
framework that maintained the worlds social fabric.
- - Net group seeks to link schools (Japan)
MAEBASHI--Netday is a volunteer group promoting the establishment of
the infrastructure necessary to enable schools to use the Internet.
- - 'Netracy' from 12 proposed (Japan)
Everyone at the age of 12 should have access to the Internet from
home, a 16-year-old high school girl proposed in the September issue
of Chuo Koron magazine issued earlier this month.
- - Government Moves to Make Data More Accessible (US)
WASHINGTON - In a move designed to make more government information
available free over the Internet, the Department of Commerce has
proposed shutting down a controversial agency whose core business is
the resale of government documents and reports.
- - In praise of minutiae (Israel)
(Augist 17) - I recently declined an offer to adopt a kitten,
figuring my cramped second-floor apartment would be cruel captivity
for the poor creature.
- - Chatham's place in the sun on the Net (NZ)
ONE of New Zealand's most remote outposts hopes that combining the
Internet and millennium celebrations will kick-start its economic
development.
- - New Lists and Journals
* NEW: Borland C++ Builder Beginners List
* CHANGE: Hebrew Translating
* NEW: Jewish Editing
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, 18 Aug 1999 01:54:07 -0400
From: "Al Sessions" <cedar@telenet.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] Taiwan Defense.... blab, blab, blab
- ----- Original Message -----
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
To: <netizens@columbia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 12:28 AM
>
> Should governments protect citizens from Cyber Warfare?
>
> Yes/No
>
> What are your thoughts?
No. Well, maybe. Ah, hell, why not.
There's my answer. That pretty much much sums up my response to your
message. Seven words in exchange for thirteeen, seems like a reasonable use
of bandwidth. The rest of your blatant self promotion; I will, of course,
be snipping.
I helped initate this thread, and will shortly post a real response. For
now, I'm just pissed. This is absurd and goes against everything I believe.
What was designed to be a forum for the exchange of ideas, has turned into a
billboard for some lame online learning scam.
Mr. Walker, your postings to this list are inapropiate. If you prefaced your
posts with a personal thought or made some effort to stay on topic, I would
feel differently. If somehow you acknowledged your detractors or simply
respected the wishes of the majority this would have ceased to be an issue.
However, you don't do that...even worse, I have yet to see evidence of
original thought. What I see are snippetts from reliable sources, repackaged
by you, into a fomat that you think you can sell.
I am often wrong, I can be very abrasive at times. Please prove me
wrong...how else am I to learn.
I would be curious to encounter a graduate of your classes or a published
(by someone other than yourself) piece of writing. When proven wrong, I
shall quickly remove myself to alt.flame.nitwit, and never bother you again.
In the meantime...thanks for teaching me how the filters in this mailer
work.
> Registrations for the On-line Learning
<SNIP>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:34:55 +0200
From: "Jamal Shahin" <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] .. Defense?....*is* blab, blab, blab
Al (et al.)
As much as I'd like not to waste my time with this, here goes. If you want
to skip this junk, then please ctrl-f (or ctrl-w) for </blab>. I've tried to be
ontopic for everything after this point.
On 18 Aug 99, at 1:54, Al Sessions wrote:
> From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
> >
> > Should governments protect citizens from Cyber Warfare?
> >
> > Yes/No
> >
> > What are your thoughts?
>
> No. Well, maybe. Ah, hell, why not.
>
> There's my answer. That pretty much much sums up my response to your
> message. Seven words in exchange for thirteeen, seems like a reasonable use
> of bandwidth. The rest of your blatant self promotion; I will, of course,
And so am I to deduce that the rest of your message is a waste of
bandwidth?
> be snipping.
Fine; that's what the delete key is for.
> I helped initate this thread, and will shortly post a real response. For
> now, I'm just pissed. This is absurd and goes against everything I believe.
> What was designed to be a forum for the exchange of ideas, has turned into a
> billboard for some lame online learning scam.
Ridiculous. How many ideas have been discussed actively by the list since
June? 12 contributors: Three (possibly) of which specifically popped up to
deal with John's messages: John, Ronda, Jay, Kerry, Mark, P. Gantt, Greg,
Bino, yourself (Al), Carsten, Michael Gurnstein and myself. One of these
contributors cross-posted a general announcement.
Approximately 180 messages. The large majority of which deal with John.
And besides, I don't like the words "lame" and "scam".
> Mr. Walker, your postings to this list are inapropiate. If you prefaced your
> posts with a personal thought or made some effort to stay on topic, I would
> feel differently. If somehow you acknowledged your detractors or simply
> respected the wishes of the majority this would have ceased to be an issue.
What majority? There are over 100 subscribers to this list (or were at the
beginning of the year), and how many have stated a definite objection to
John's postings? And what is "on topic" in a discussion of ideas? Surely the
discussion of whether governments should protect individuals in the
Information Age is absolutely *on topic for such a list? (More about this
later: I have tried to include something substantial in this message)
> However, you don't do that...even worse, I have yet to see evidence of
> original thought. What I see are snippetts from reliable sources, repackaged
> by you, into a fomat that you think you can sell.
John provides a service. As such, he is entitled to charge for this service.
There are plenty of other examples of this occurring. The posts he makes
to this list are free. The sig files (whilst a bit large) are just sig files. There
is always some content to John's postings which (I believe) *is on topic.
You only pay for the cost of downloading (and in North America isn't this
virtually nothing?) In the information age, everything is about the service
sector. This is the direction in which the Western world is going (you might
think that unfortunate). But would you gratefully accept John's postings if
they didn't come with the .sig? That doesn't make sense.
I don't believe that he's harming anyone by posting to this list (again, you
know where the delete key is). But, if the general consensus evolves that
John's posts should be stopped, then I will agree to this. As of yet, I see
no general consensus. Three (?/ maybe four) against; and three (or four)
who have no specific desire to see John's postings stopped. If you include
John (whom as a member of ths list has a valid opinion?) that possibly
makes five who don't particularly wish to see John stop his postings. If you
include all those who haven't responded to Ronda's call, then maybe
there's 100+ Netizens who don't mind reading/ deleting John's postings. If
you wish to persist in complaining, please make your complaints privately.
There's no apparent need to continue this discussion in public, as THERE IS
(apparently) LITTLE INTEREST. I'm sending this to the list to clarify this.
I'm not defending John here (I'm sure he's more than capable) but I'm
defending his right to do what he does on this list. Whether it is a "lame
scam" or not, we are capable of working that out for ourselves. Are you
denying someone their opportunity to speak? Sure, if you think that the
posts are inappropriate, then ask the list-manager what the rules are. If
there are no rules, then maybe we need to create some. All interested
parties should perhaps discuss this. Perhaps *then we can determine
whether John's postings are detrimental to the spirit of the list.
I'm also interested (from one Netizen to another) as to how you can so
disinterestedly answer John's question in seven non-committed undecisive
words. "No/ well/ maybe/ ah/ hell/ why/ not". For someone who is so
interested in the discussion of ideas, this sure as hell doesn't say a lot. How
am I to continue this discussion (of ideas) if you don't give me anything to
consider?
> I am often wrong, I can be very abrasive at times. Please prove me
> wrong...how else am I to learn.
Perhaps by reading the other postings.. the ones that arose from this
"thread". ;)
> I would be curious to encounter a graduate of your classes or a published
> (by someone other than yourself) piece of writing. When proven wrong, I
> shall quickly remove myself to alt.flame.nitwit, and never bother you again.
> In the meantime...thanks for teaching me how the filters in this mailer
> work.
I hope that you appreciate that John's postings have simply (if nothing
else) helped you in effective use of your email software (and information
filtering). Perhaps you should think about the issues he's trying to raise,
and answer the first part of his message rather than spend all your time
reading his .sig file.
I apologise if I seem "abrasive". This was not the intention.
</blab>
on topic stuff:
Why should governments protect individuals? History shows us that
governments have protected individuals in order to protect themselves.
I've just read an interesting chapter about West Berlin (during the Cold
War), which says that West Germans were paid a West Berlin allowance to
live there. Not for their protection or comfort, it seems, but in order to
keep them in West Berlin, so that the Democratic Republic couldn't just take
control of the whole of Berlin.
So, it seems that protection of individuals by governments was often
related to territory. But in cyberspace, why does this matter? Or perhaps it
is now cyber territory? (ie. information spaces?)
I'd like to ask for clarification on a couple of points. How far does "protect"
go? If the US was to set up a detection network (completely hypothetical,
of course) to protect its crucial infrastructures, would this count as
protection of individuals?
What's the difference between cyber warfare and regular warfare? Is the
focal point of one territory and the other information?
If so, have governments always protected their citizens from information?
Didn't I read (in one of John's posts? - I can't remember) about an
international treaty that denounced stoppage of the flow of information?
I'll try to find my reference, but also if someone could help me out..
- --
I hope that this provides some interesting ground for a discussion of ideas.
Thanks John for raising these points. I sincerely hope that this discussion
will move on to better times.
Looking forward to constructive correspondence.
Jamal
(and my sig follows, just to annoy ;) ....)
Jamal
- --
http://www.internetstudies.org/
http://www.hull.ac.uk/eurstuds/
tel: +39(0)348 794 6568
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #334
******************************
