Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 415
Netizens-Digest Monday, February 17 2003 Volume 01 : Number 415
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] internet in totalitarian states - naivety or dumbness
Re: [netz] demonstration
[netz] Peace Rally In NYC
Re: [netz] demonstration
[netz] Chemical & Other WMDS'
[netz] Chemical & Other WMDS'
Re: [netz] Chemical & Other WMDS'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:54:50 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] internet in totalitarian states - naivety or dumbness
> >A student I know from Central Asia who is in the US now said
>>that he didn't understand why the US didn't encourage all Iraqi's
>>to be able to have access to the Internet instead of threatening
>>to bomb them.
>
>Either someone is clearly blind here or totally naive. Just see what is
>China doing with Internet or read more about internet in Cuba (it's
>not really internet, maybe a few networks inside the country) and you
>could know how internet in Iraq could look like.
You bring up some interesting memories and retrospection when you
mention Internet access in China. I forget the exact year, but in
the early nineties, I was a consultant to Sprint, which had the first
of many contracts to establish Internet connectivity to China. That
particular project failed, as did several succeeding ones, in large
part because the Chinese government immediately put political demands
on the technology, and were, in general, terrible to work with.
Before agreeing to consult, I thought long and hard about the ethics
involved. Eventually, I came down on the side that increased
communication would inherently be good. Today, I don't know if I made
the right decision.
Indeed, there are PRC people being good colleagues on technology
mailing lists. But there is also fairly clear evidence that the
Chinese government, in response to international incidents,
encouraged, or at least made no move to suppress, destructive hacking
of systems in the rest of the world. This seemed an acceptable form
of communication, but, in fact, it interrupted communication.
Not to single out China, they are one of several countries that are
technically notorious for not following technical safeguards to
prevent net abuse, or, for that matter, actively hosting spammers.
Taiwan and South Korea also have this problem, to the extent that a
fair number of ISPs and network scientists have blacklisted the .cn,
.tw, and .kr domains, only permitting through known senders. This is
not good for worldwide communications.
>
>Do you really people believe that internet is going to change the
>world so much? I don't want to take you your beliefs (I have eventually
>had the same belief before), but now I am doing my master thesis on
>internet and its influence on democratization of poltiical systems and
>I have to tell you that fact is internet is helping countries on their
>way to democracy only in relatively democratic countries. It works for
>Estonia and Serbia, for Japan, too, but it clearly DOES NOT work for
>China. China officials handle internet very well in favour of their
>propaganda.
>
>Internet in Iraq? Just tell me how many phone lines they have. Or have
>you ever non-intentionally bumped to Iraqi domain? I haven't and of
>course that doesn't mean Iraqi servers doesn't exist. It's just that
>there is hardly any possibility for normal Iraqi citizen to get
>online.
Iraq recently shut down a fair number of servers. I suspect that a
good part of this was to reduce national vulnerability to
cyberattacks. That's not to say some didn't originate in Iraq, but
their networks are presumably more fragile than in countries that
didn't have their communications systems attacked.
Another reason, of course, may be to block alternative positions from
coming into the country.
But how plausible is access for the average citizen, even, say, in
universities? I don't know. If a student did log in to say, the UN
server, would that bring a knock on the door from the secret police?
Remember that the Soviet Union strictly controlled access to ordinary
copying machines, which could be used for samizdat (alternate
political press).
It also takes relatively few propagandists to interfere with
information flow. I have seen some USENET newsgroups dealing with
world policy to be inundated with hate-filled messages apparently
between Indians and Pakistanis, to the point that the groups were
unreadable until I filtered these out.
>And I can tell you it's not so easy here in Slovakia either.
>Not because of technology itself, we have plenty of it, but because
>the costs. And dial-up (still the most widely used method) is pretty
>expensive here in comparison with other countries around us. And now
>we are supposed to be democratic country, so what about Iraq?
>Totalitarian state with access to internet? So, was that student
>really so naive or just flat dumb? Now, I don't really know what's
>better for him to be.
I don't know the extent to which Iraq's military and civilian
communications networks share facilities. There's no question that
military links were attacked heavily in 1991, and have had difficulty
in getting spare parts. How much this affects the physical ability
to bring in communications, I can't say, but going back to WWII,
telephone infrastructure was a major targeting objective when it
could be hit with any precision. In WWII, that usually meant
sabotage, since bombing was not accurate enough. Now, it is.
>
>Other thing is that peaceful solutions work in my opinion only in
>more-less democratic countries, just check the example of Gandhi. I
>even wrote about his satjagraha and non-violent approach, but from
>what I have found it's clearly visible that his approach would not
>work in totalitarian state. He would be imprisoned in a moment or two
>and then likely sentenced to death.
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:08:47 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] demonstration
>Of course I don't agree with limiting your right to demonstrate in any
>case. Just don't let them to take it from you.
>
I do agree with that right, although I must say that at least in the
US, mass demonstrations rarely have any real effect on national
policy. Perhaps one of their roles is to motivate activists.
Were I those same activists, I would concentrate more on systematic
lobbying of the Congress and appropriate decisionmakers elsewhere.
Now, when I say systematic lobbying, I do _not_ mean focusing on
getting time at public hearings. Decisions often have been made
before that point.
From practical experience, lobbying involves significant research on
how to make your desire consistent with the position of a
decisionmaker. That may range from large letter-writing campaigns
from a legislator's district, to sending focused expert commentaries
to oversight committees where the problem is in an executive branch
agency.
Now, when I say focused, the net may pay an important part in
research. Often, it's far less important to get communications with
the elected official, as with the staff specialist in the area of
concern. It is worth using the net to research public statements of
the official, and look for positions that can be cited as supportive
of your goals. There are many other such techniques, but they tend to
be hard and unglamorous.
I appreciate Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon as artists, but a
demonstration focusing on them as major speakers strikes me as
absurdities. That isn't to say that some "celebrities" don't have
real credentials, but there is an amazing tendency to focus on
celebrity (at least in the US) as equivalent to authority. Someone
like Bono has entree to officialdom even for unpopular opinions,
because he has managed to demonstrate commitment and knowledge.
Frankly, after 30-plus years of living in the Washington DC area, my
emotional reaction to demonstrations shutting down the city tends to
be against whatever they are for. (Yes, I am opposed to the
still-continuing snowstorm that has dropped at least 2 feet/60 cm)
In an earlier message that may have gotten lost, I mentioned that the
US is NOT a democracy, nor is it intended to be. It is a republic.
Large numbers of people demonstrating for a position do not and
should not directly influence policy. Indeed, one can speak of a
million-attendee demonstration as quite large, but a million people
is a small minority of the electorate.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:06:09 -0500
From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
Subject: [netz] Peace Rally In NYC
Hello: It was a privilege being with the Haubens and other netizens at the
great and unprecedented anti-war demonstration here in New York City on
Saturday Feb.15th. The rally was a big success in spite of the efforts of
some in the federal and local governments to supress or diminish it.
Demonstrators were caged in by metal barricades on each or every other block
and were prevented from joining other demonstrators on the next block ahead
of them. In spite of this the speeches were heard, through loudspeakers,
stationed on mobile vehicles and the massive demonstration stretched as far
as the eye could see. I would call it not only a success but its magnitude,
unprecedented. There were reports and in fact later I saw on television how
some demonstrators were injured by NYPD officers in horseback and I did not
see but also heard about some arrests and other demonstrators being injured
by police. Other massive demonstrations in other American cities and cities
throughout the world were equally successful.
Still in spite of my protest on behalf of the people of Iraq,not to be
confused with an endorsement of Sadam and his regime, I have grave concerns
about Sadam Hussein's deadly chemical weapons and possibly other WMD in his
military arsenal, his committment of monetary and scientific resources to
their manufacture and his past use of deadly chemicals, no matter how
trivial or reduced or perhaps erroneously reported in one isolated case,
these uses might have been. My concerns are not to be confused with an
endorsement of a military attack against Iraq, diplomacy must be pursued not
war. In an attack the innocent people of Iraq, will get hurt and many will
lose their lives, not to mention our boys and the Iraqi soldiers. Since the
beginning of this crisis I have endorsed the efforts of those world leaders
in France,Germany,the Russian Republic, the Vatican, the UN and others who
have been working hard to achieve a peaceful solution to this crisis,
through diplomacy and negotiations. There must be honesty and willingness on
both sides to achieve this most wanted peaceful solution by the people of
the world as they have clearly demonstrated in such large numbers.
Luis de Quesada
Netizen
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:30:17 -0500 (EST)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] demonstration
I've enjoyed Howard's thoughtful and multifaceted contributions. Although I
wouldn't want the Netizens list to become "all politics, all the time," there
are some interesting twists to this conversation that I wouldn't know how to
find anywhere else. I've especially valued the parts dealing with China,
although I have nothing to add myself. As for the link between "netizenship"
and engagement in global political crises -- well, I'd certainly be unnerved if
there were only one view of the matter.
It's true that mass demonstrations tend to motivate activists; I think Howard
may underestimate their effect on U.S. policy, but of course it's very hard to
tell. [It seems likely to me, for instance, that the Earth Day rallies in 1970
helped to bring about the landmark U.S. environmental legislation of the early
1970s -- and, dare I say it, helped to foster something of a global
consciousness.] For what it's worth, plenty of focused lobbying is happening,
too, and I doubt that the demos count as a distraction from more tedious but
more effective modes of political activity.
If anything, Howard may be taking Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon too
seriously. Actually, I wasn't aware that they spoke. I don't know anyone who
takes his or her political views from celebrities. But I think that many
people would rather cheer for like-minded celebrities than like-minded
politicians, perhaps because they consider the celebrities more honest.
Personally (and I suppose I can say professionally as a political scientist), I
think that politicians tend to get a bum rap, but I can't say that there are
many I feel like giving a full-throated cheer for, either.
> In an earlier message that may have gotten lost, I mentioned that the
> US is NOT a democracy, nor is it intended to be. It is a republic.
> Large numbers of people demonstrating for a position do not and
> should not directly influence policy. Indeed, one can speak of a
> million-attendee demonstration as quite large, but a million people
> is a small minority of the electorate.
The "democracy vs. republic" distinction is actually somewhat murky, in part
because there was and is no universally accepted definition of either term. I
do agree that demonstrations shouldn't directly influence policy; nor should
lobbying, which I think Howard prefers as a mode of political participation.
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the "right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances." So, if lobbying is a form of petition, I suppose that
demonstrations and lobbying are equally embraced in the U.S. political system.
Best,
Mark Lindeman
Bard College
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:02:35 -0500
From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
Subject: [netz] Chemical & Other WMDS'
Hello Everyone:
I want to expand on my views about WMDS'on the message I posted on our
netizens message board. My concerns about these weapons are not only limited
to Iraq, whom I believe is being singled out as if this nation was the only
one who has deadly chemical weapons and we are told may be 5 years away from
the development of nuclear weapons. My concerns extends to other nations,
including our own who have these weapons and are still stockpiling them,with
more nations getting into this terrible business, with no clear indication
as to when these weapons will be destroyed, even though agreements between
world powers have been made and programs put in place to do so. I strongly
believe that the UN could be instrumental towards complete nuclear and
deadly chemicals weapons disarmament by all nations who have these
devastating weapons and to prevent and prohibit any further development of
these weapons by any nation, in other words complete and verifiable
multilateral WMD disarmament. Until this happens humanity shall always live
under the threat of these weapons, these weapons as it was once said by some
of their advocates, do not prevent wars, they promote them and make it
possible to carry on with wars in more terrible ways. I firmly believe that
there is no "right or wrong hands" when it comes to the possession of these
weapons. History has shown that, time and again. The terrible experiences of
the use of deadly chemicals during WW-I and the use nuclear weapons during
WW-II as well as the post-war nuclear weapons testings, must not be
forgotten and must lead to their verifiable and complete destruction forever
for the survival of humanity and the environment of our planet.
Luis de Quesada
Netizen
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:01:48 -0500
From: "Luis G. Dequesada" <lgd42@hotmail.com>
Subject: [netz] Chemical & Other WMDS'
Hello Everyone:
I want to expand on my views about WMDS'on the message I posted on our
netizens message board. My concerns about these weapons are not only limited
to Iraq, whom I believe is being singled out as if this nation was the only
one who has deadly chemical weapons and we are told may be 5 years away from
the development of nuclear weapons. My concerns extends to other nations,
including our own who have these weapons and are still stockpiling them,with
more nations getting into this terrible business, with no clear indication
as to when these weapons will be destroyed, even though agreements between
world powers have been made and programs put in place to do so. I strongly
believe that the UN could be instrumental towards complete nuclear and
deadly chemicals weapons disarmament by all nations who have these
devastating weapons and to prevent and prohibit any further development of
these weapons by any nation, in other words complete and verifiable
multilateral WMD disarmament. Until this happens humanity shall always live
under the threat of these weapons, these weapons as it was once said by some
of their advocates, do not prevent wars, they promote them and make it
possible to carry on with wars in more terrible ways. I firmly believe that
there is no "right or wrong hands" when it comes to the possession of these
weapons. History has shown that, time and again. The terrible experiences of
the use of deadly chemicals during WW-I and the use nuclear weapons during
WW-II as well as the post-war nuclear weapons testings, must not be
forgotten and must lead to their verifiable and complete destruction forever
for the survival of humanity and the environment of our planet.
Luis de Quesada
Netizen
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:40:00 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Chemical & Other WMDS'
At 1:01 PM -0500 2/17/03, Luis G. Dequesada wrote:
>Hello Everyone:
>I want to expand on my views about WMDS'on the message I posted on
>our netizens message board.
Again, my question about the relevance of this to Netizens comes up.
Not to challenge your position, but how could network technology be
part of the solution?
>My concerns about these weapons are not only limited to Iraq, whom I
>believe is being singled out as if this nation was the only one who
>has deadly chemical weapons and we are told may be 5 years away from
>the development of nuclear weapons. My concerns extends to other
>nations, including our own who have these weapons and are still
>stockpiling them,with more nations getting into this terrible
>business, with no clear indication as to when these weapons will be
>destroyed, even though agreements between world powers have been
>made and programs put in place to do so.
One hypothetical might be for independent organizations making
certain intelligence sensor information available. The problem is
that these are very expensive and require experience in
interpretation. A related problem is the more you make available
about the sensors, the more violator know about how to counter them.
>I strongly believe that the UN could be instrumental towards
>complete nuclear and deadly chemicals weapons disarmament by all
>nations who have these devastating weapons and to prevent and
>prohibit any further development of these weapons by any nation, in
>other words complete and verifiable multilateral WMD disarmament.
What technological measures would you propose for the UN to do that
it does not now do? For example, IAEA surveillance cameras and the
like can give significant information, but not if a country removes
them or interferes with their operation.
>Until this happens humanity shall always live under the threat of
>these weapons, these weapons as it was once said by some of their
>advocates, do not prevent wars, they promote them and make it
>possible to carry on with wars in more terrible ways. I firmly
>believe that there is no "right or wrong hands" when it comes to the
>possession of these weapons. History has shown that, time and again.
>The terrible experiences of the use of deadly chemicals during WW-I
>and the use nuclear weapons during WW-II as well as the post-war
>nuclear weapons testings, must not be forgotten and must lead to
>their verifiable and complete destruction forever for the survival
>of humanity and the environment of our planet.
Another Netizen goal may be to give accurate information on the
threats, and non-threats, of these weapons. I don't have the issue
in front of me, but a recent issue of the Journal of the American
Medical Association described the chilling effect that bioterrorism
hysteria has had on legitimate medical research. There has been media
frenzy about research that either would be of no practical benefits
to terrorists, or even help prevent weapons effects.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #415
******************************
