Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 385
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, April 25 2001 Volume 01 : Number 385
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: Fwd: FC: FTC action against kids sites smacks of hypocrisy, by
Lizard
Re: [netz] Government and Science Was:FC: Ftc action
[netz] accident of geography
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:41:52 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Subject: [netz] Re: Fwd: FC: FTC action against kids sites smacks of hypocrisy, by Lizard
If this doesn't confuse everything, here is the "prequel" to the
earlier message I sent to Ronda. Oh well...prequels worked for Rambo,
didn't they?
Howard
Here is the original email you sent with the attachment - in chance
to want to post the attachment. Took me a little while to find it too.
Ronda
>From hcb@clark.net Fri Apr 20 12:17:51 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: hcb@pop3.clark.net
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:15:22 -0400
To: ronda@panix.com
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net>
Subject: Fwd: FC: FTC action against kids sites smacks of hypocrisy, by
Lizard
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Just in case you don't subscribe to the politech list -- I think you
do -- I've attached the relevant note. The article is somewhat
sensational, but does touch on an important Internet growth issue: if
it's corporate, it's somehow evil.
Don't misunderstand my position here. Perhaps even more than large
corporations themselves, I tend to believe that the short-term focus
of the current financial environment -- and just plain greed that
ignores the classic lesson of the tragedy of the commons -- has done
enormous damage to the free market. I often trust government more
than private industry to "do the right thing," although I certainly
am reluctant to give government more power than absolutely needed.
But the reality is that the corporate interests are there, and that a
substantial amount of the funding for increased Internet capacity is
going to come from them. I've always liked the criterion for a good
political solution that has all actors leaving the table equally
unhappy, but feeling they received at least some value.
To me, netizens have to operate in such a politicized environment.
The key is to have a model where everyone feels they are getting
something useful. I don't know if you've ever watched an open
container of live crabs, but they are the model we don't want to
have. Whenever an individual crab starts to crawl out, other crabs
will pull it back, presumably muttering "ya thing you're better than
us?"
>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:26:55 -0400
>From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
>To: politech@politechbot.com
>Subject: FC: FTC action against kids sites smacks of hypocrisy, by Lizard
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.2i
>X-News-Site: http://www.wired.com/
>X-URL: http://www.mccullagh.org/
>Sender: owner-politech@politechbot.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: declan@well.com
>X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
>X-Author: Declan McCullagh is at http://www.mccullagh.org/
>X-News-Site: Cluebot is at http://www.cluebot.com/
>
>FTC press release and news coverage:
>http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/04/girlslife.htm
>http://www.internetworld.com/news/archive/04202001c.jsp
>
>Background:
>http://www.politechbot.com/p-01732.html
>http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=coppa
>
>-Declan
>
>**********
>
>http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=01/04/20/038208&mode=thread
>
> COPPA Claims More Victims
>
> posted by lizard on Thursday April 19, @09:58PM
> from the who-needs-the-CDA dept.
>
> The FTC is currently bragging about applying the thumbscrews
> to companies which committed the unthinkably evil crime of
> allowing children to have email accounts without Mommy's permission.
> As might be expected, the liberals are gloating over this and similair
> acts which are, one by one, driving children off the net, all in the
> name of 'protecting' them. Do I really have to note the Lizardrant
> follows?
>
> ---
>
> When the government attempted to mandate age identification data as a
> means of protecting children from the sight of naked nipples, the free
> speech crowed was rightly revulsed. Such would be an unthinkable act
> of censorship. Remember 'L18'?
>
> However, propose the same thing in the name of saving children from
> evil marketers, and liberals applaud.
>
> Folks like Lawrence Lessig, who wail and bemoan 'corporate control' of
> the net, and write books like 'Code' which maintains the net is safe
> only so long as the Evil Corporations don't get their hands on the
> infrastructure, are not only not actively speaking out against this
> sort of regulation -- they demand more of it! Andrew Shapiro, one of
> Lessig's fellow 'cyber-realists', has actually recommended all
> browsers be shipped 'locked down', with massive censorware in place,
> until a code from a central server could be downloaded to indicate the
> user was an adult.
>
> The costs of complying with COPPA are going to force anyone running
> any commercial site to be certain anyone claiming to be over 13, is.
> [1] When such requirements were implied as part of the cost of
> complying with the CDA, liberals shrieked (correctly) that it would
> kill the web. When such requirements are implied in the name of
> 'privacy', liberals shrug and say, "Them's the breaks!" The 'cost of
> doing business' argument was roundly rejected during the CDA days;why
> has it suddenly become valid when the issue is profit instead of porn?
>
> There is more than a slight stench of hypocrisy here.
>
> [1]Otherwise, the law is useless, as anyone with more brain cells than
> candles on their birthday cake will simply lie when asked 'How old are
> you?'. Just as the right-wing bookburners protested that 'Click here
> to enter www.nakedwetteensluts.com if you are over 18' was a joke, so
> the left-wing bookburners (sorry, 'privacy advocates') will protest
> that 'Fill out this form only if you are over 13' is likewise a joke.
>
> ####
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
>You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
>To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
>This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:32:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Government and Science Was:FC: Ftc action
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@clark.net> wrote:
Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com> wrote:
>Howard> I'm not convinced there is a single free market, although
>market principles do apply in some cases. But I keep coming back to
>the question -- where are the resources for scaling the internet
>going to come from?
What are those resources?
Some are scientific invention and research. That is what I have
found required for scaling in the past. In fact that is what
I find to be the most important resource.
Scaling involves a qualitative change. That requires the research
to figure out what will make that possible. Scaling involves
something new. It is not just to do more of what is now done,
but to do what can be done in a new way. My study of the Internet
and its scaling thus far points to the fact that scaling is a research
problem that requires a research institution to support its
development.
>>I don't understand how a "free market" could function in terms of
>>providing the needed support and development to the Internet.
>Howard> Let's assume that it does not. The reality is that scaling
>the Internet takes considerable investment. All the fiber, routers,
>servers, amd skilled people represent billions of dollars, at the
>very least. Even if you look at free software models like GNU,
>there's still lots of cost.
Interesting. As your paradigm leaves out the issue of research
to find how to do the scaling.
Bell Labs at AT&T is the example of what I mean in some ways.
To have a world class telephone system in the US it was understood
that there was a need to have a means to support the future development
and the scientific research needed for that future development.
That required support Bell Labs. The way to do that was to regulate
AT&T and to make sure that it provided the needed support for
Bell Labs.
It turns out that the Internet is also a public utility and it also
needs a research arm for its development.
The telephone infrastructure in the US was built by a regulated
process where users pay for their service, and that paid for the
infrastructure.
Internet development in the US needs to sort out what is the way
to support infrastructure development, *not* just assume it
will be a private corporate process.
In fact the private corporate process really can't handle the
development of the needed infrastructure.
There may be a way private corporations are part of what is developed,
but they can't be the determining factor if we want the kind
of advanced infrastructure for the Internet comparable to what
it was possible to create in the US under the regulated paradigm
that was AT&T and Bell Labs.
>So -- and this is a question -- where does this funding come from?
>General tax revenues? That gets really complex in a multinational
>situation. Even at the national level, it can get highly politicized.
There is a question to be considered, not the assumption of an answer
before the question is formulated.
What is the question though is the problem that has to be taken on.
I don't think it can start with "funding" as its essence.
I think the question has to start with "What is the needed institutional
form for scaling the Internet? What are the elements of that form?"
The question has to allow for investigating the nature of the problem.
>User fees? If so, how are they collected and paid?
But its not that money is the first consideration.
The first consideration is that there is a need for the research
to be able to be done to determine what scaling will require.
If you read the email from Einar Stefferud that I sent to the Netizens
list yesterday, you can see that he has a different proposal for
what is needed to scale the DNS than the US Dept of Commerce presented
to the National Academy of Science committee meeting that I went to
on April 9 in Washington.
Without the scientific process to try to determine what is needed
for the scaling, it doesn't matter how much money is poured in.
It will be wasted.
One the scientific research is done, then there should be a similar
scientific approach to determining what form the infrastructure's
development should take.
The paradigm of the Internet was to have a way to interconnect
dissimilar networks. It seems that that has gotten changed to
having a backbone that some company(s) create.
Is that a paradigm as well for the scaling?
If it is up to the companies who will be protecting their investments
they will say yes.
But perhaps that isn't the best paradigm for the scaling?
The original Internet architecture was designed so that it could
interconnect dissimilar networks under dissimilar forms of administrative
or political control.
To have private companies creating the backbone may put the component
networks on the Internet at the mercy of those private companies.
>>The Internet is a child of scientific and technical research nad
>>to scale it we need the continuation of this scientific and technical
>>research.
>Howard> Historically -- and I go back to the middle ages here --
>research has never been self-funding. It has enormous economic
>benefit, but scholars and researchers always had patrons. At first,
>these came from the aristocracy or even the church. In the 19th and
>early 20th centuries, we certainly saw industrial research centers
>evolve. Massive government support of research is mostly a construct
>of the Cold War.
To the contrary it seemed that WWII demonstrated the need for
governments to support scientific research. And so after the war
there was the recognition that this was now an important
need. For example Vannevar Bush and the important report he
and others at the National Academy of Science did "Science: the
Endless Frontier"
I agree that with Sputnik going up there was the money allocated
in the US and the kind of institutional form created to support
such research.
But a reason Sputnik was developed was because the Russian people
turned to science to try to prevent another war.
So it is not only the cold war, but the effort to prevent another
world war that has motivated the events that have led to the
public support for science that helped to make possible ARPA (1957?)and
the Information Processing Techniques Office that Licklider started
at ARPA in 1962.
>
Howard>>>But the reality is that the corporate interests are there, and that a
>>>substantial amount of the funding for increased Internet capacity is
>>>going to come from them. I've always liked the criterion for a good
>>>political solution that has all actors leaving the table equally
>>>unhappy, but feeling they received at least some value.
>
>>But the Internet is a new development. And its a development that
>>requires an infrastructure. And that infrastructure requires scientific
>>research to keep it evolving and developing. And the Internet has
>>been created as a complex system built on feedback. And a system
>>that is built on feedback is different from one that isn't.
>>How does one support the continued development of a complex system
>>built on feedback? One can't just assume that corporations can and will
>>do it.
>Howard> Then who will, and who pays for it?
In the end the public pays for it despite the process. But the question
of what "it" is has to be sorted out before the question of what
the money is and how it is gathered.
>
>>Traditionally corporate entities are often not able to do research
>>that is 10 or 20 years into the future.
>Howard> At the current rate of technological progress, even the
>academics I know are hesitant about trying to look at networking
>models that far ahead. Current thinking in Internet scaling focuses
>the operational forums in methods for the next 2 years or so, the
>IETF protocol groups up to about 5 years, and the Internet Research
>Task Force aiming at solutions that could start deploying in about 5
>years.
That is a real problem. Perhaps the problem that has led to the
current lack of foresight in what will help to scale the Internet.
I basically feel that there is a need for the kind of institutional
research form like IPTO to support the longer term research that is
needed.
>In some of my other fields of interest, such as medicine, the
>acceleration of knowledge there also is such that 10 years is a long
>time, and very few will express opinions beyond that. Bell Labs
>could, indeed, look that far ahead given the rate of knowledge growth
>in 1950.
There would be the ability to look further ahead if there were
the kind of institutional form and support for research that
IPTO pioneered.
There is a need to learn from this development and build on it,
as the experience from IPTO shows that such a institutional form
is needed to support the Internet's continued development and scaling.
There was pressure on the US Congress from the US computer industry
which led to the ending of IPTO. This has to be understood so
that the "vested interests" can be appropriately inhibited so
that the needed research can be supported.
>>And they are not happy with
>>others doing research that may obsolete their investments.
>>But also there is a special issue about whether corporations can
>>be open and work in the open way that is needed for a feedback system's
>>development.
>
>>So I don't see how corporate entities can be seen as the most important
>>aspect of Internet development. While scientists working in government
>>with the academic and even the coroporate community can work in the open
>>way that is needed. That is what I have learned from my research
>>of the Internet's early development. Also there is an international
>>issue with regard to Internet development that has to be understood
>>and taken up. There is a need for international collaboration to
>>make Internet development possible.
>
>>There was an interesting discussion online about all this in 1997
>>-- about who can do the basic research and how Bell Labs was able
>>to support basic research because it was regulated -=
>>It's online at http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/discussion.txt
>>
>To me, netizens have to operate in such a politicized environment.
Yes that is true. The politics of science has to be taken on.
But that means recognizing that there are "vested interests" and in
the past there have been ways of inhibiting the damage they can do :-)
>>What are you saying here? What do you see are the implications
>>of operating in such a "politicized environment"?
>Howard> Constant compromise. Lobbying, not presented as abstract
>goods but to give all parties a sense they are playing in a
>non-zero-sum game.
Interesting.
My research shows something different. It shows that when ARPA was
originally created it was put under the Secretary of Defense's office
so it wouldn't be at the mercy of the defense contractors.
That later when it became DARPA, it was put at an even level with
the defense contractors and left very vulnerable.
So there was a matter of institutional placement to deal with the
problem of the vested interests, not compromising with them.
I have a paper describing this all. If you are interested I will
give the url as I don't have it at the moment.
>>The key I feel is understanding the nature of the Internet and
>>what it needs for its further development. To me its a social
>>question, not one of commercial self interest.
>Howard> The social question _includes_ commercial self-interest,
>unless you are talking about a completely socialist system where a
>central body provides funding. Or do you have some other funding
>model in mind?
Well I didn't think that the regulated AT&T that developed the
world class telephone infrastructure in the US was any
"socialist system" though I am sure that MCI/worldcom might say
it was as that was their effort to end the deregulation and the
benefit that MCI got as a result.
In the process much has been lost. When I try to call my mom,
I often can't get thru because she lives in a more rural part
of New Jersey and finds it very difficult and expensive to get
phone service there now with the breakup of AT&T.
And Bell Labs is gone as well.
These were very far from "completely socialist systems" .
To the contrary regulation is part of the scientific development
of the US government. See for example the book "Government and Science"
by Don Price. It's an important book to read for background on
government and science and the relationship between the two.
With best wishes
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:27:08 -0500
From: Steven Clift <slc@publicus.net>
Subject: [netz] accident of geography
Rhonda,
I recall scanning your book once recall a reference by early Internet
leaders to the "accident of geography." May I bother you with the source
for that quote. Is it online anywhere?
Cheers,
Steve
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #385
******************************
