Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 416
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, February 18 2003 Volume 01 : Number 416
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] demonstration
Re: [netz] demonstration
[netz] Back to internet
[netz] Re: Back to internet
Re: [netz] Back to internet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:30:38 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] demonstration
At 12:30 PM -0500 2/17/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>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.
Thanks for the response. My feeling is that the role of the Netizens
list vis-a-vis politics is to deal with the potential tools of
education, political communication, etc., which are independent of
the specific political issue. Understanding the decisionmaking
structure is equally important to those that believe gun control
means a total ban and those that believe it means steadying the gun
with both hands!
Another aspect of this is pure technical and economic feasibility of
the proposed communications methods. I am a participant in the
IETF/IRTF efforts on Internet scalability. While we aren't quite at
the critical point, the current routing architecture can't scale
indefinitely. With "Hactivism", things become even more of a
challenge.
Let me not limit it to hactivism, but to random crackers and script
kiddies, as well as spammers. Any of these can interfere with network
operation, independent of the issue.
Network security also gets deeply into network survivability, as well
as the issues of privacy and of getting information in and out of
totalitarian states. There are huge issues with balancing privacy and
accountability. Spammers use anonymity to steal services and,
especially in countries where people pay by the minute for access,
make it harder to use the net for communications.
>
>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.]
I should probably modify my evaluation to say that single day
demonstrations may not have (or should have) major policy effects,
but a pattern of demonstrations, especially that come across as
non-crazed, do have an effect. Certainly, this was part of the Civil
Rights Movement, and I tend to think of Martin Luther King's "I have
a dream" speech as the crescendo of a swelling tide.
The series of anti-Viet Nam demonstrations certainly had an impact.
Living in Washington in that era, occasionally doing news reporting
but usually just trying to go to work, brings back lots of memories.
I joke "I love the smell of tear gas in the morning," but I actually
found that being JUST on the edge often cleaned out my sinuses rather
nicely!
> 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.
I would wonder how many of the demonstrators did, in some manner,
communicate their position to their elected representatives and to
appropriate committees and executive departments. My own experience
on the Hill is that generic communications, individually, don't have
a huge effect, but the count of such communications does. My Hill
experience was before email was widely available, and indeed when fax
was rare. In general, however, the rule of thumb was to treat a
phone call as having impact 1 and a letter having impact 10. These
days, I'd put a letter at 100 and an email or fax at 10.
These are communications to the member. Communications to the
appropriate staffer, with focused commentary, often has a much
greater effect.
Unfortunately, while the Congress has print and online directories of
members, the Congressional/Federal/Judicial Staff Directories are
commercial products by the respected Congressional Quarterly, with an
online version through Lexis/Nexis. These are the fastest way to find
staffers, although I often knew the structure well enough to find the
right person after an hour on the phone.
I don't fault CQ for charging for their product, especially since it
started as a printed book. But this is the sort of reference
material that I'd love to see generally available. A Netizen project,
indeed, might be to prepare an equivalent database from public
records, and make it available. I like such an idea because it is
issue-independent.
>
>
>If anything, Howard may be taking Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon too
>seriously.
Not that I take them seriously politically, but note the news
coverage, often leading with them. The only specific speakers I know
of at the New York demonstration mentioned were Streisand, Sarandon,
and Desmond Tutu. There might have been speakers with solid
diplomatic or military credentials, but they didn't get coverage.
I suppose it's quite un-PC of me to say that I didn't even take Jane
Fonda's antics in Hanoi nearly as seriously as her role in Barbarella.
>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.
I agree with you. Our civics classes don't teach that politics is
the art of the possible. The old chestnut that people don't want to
know how either sausage or laws are made still holds.
But I recognize, especially in the legislative branch, that the
representative has to do a balancing act to keep leverage on multiple
issues. I don't necessarily hold that term limits are necessary,
because some legislators are reelected because they are excellent at
presenting their constituents' position. Admittedly, constituent
service and pure pork help as well.
>
>> 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.
Purely on pragmatic grounds. It's been my experience that competent
lobbying gets more done, followed by focused constituent message
campaigns.
>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.
One problem I do tend to have with the more recent demonstration is
that they don't seem to have a terribly specific point. I'm thinking,
in particular, of the World Bank demonstrations. There were a lot of
people upset, but there didn't seem to be much consensus on what the
World Bank/IMF actually should _do_. The message also became clouded
with a vicious circle between a small number of violent demonstrators
and the police response.
It might not be as emotionally satisfying to large numbers, but, for
example, I could easily see a group of recognized academics,
industrial and financial executives, etc., meeting to prepare
specific proposals. A credible strategy for debt relief is hard to
brush away as "radical".
>
>Best,
>Mark Lindeman
>Bard College
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:28:10 -0500 (EST)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] demonstration
Howard,
A few points among many...
> Thanks for the response. My feeling is that the role of the Netizens
> list vis-a-vis politics is to deal with the potential tools of
> education, political communication, etc., which are independent of
> the specific political issue.[...]
I basically agree -- although at this time, at least, I wouldn't want to
enforce the line too strictly. I won't bother to echo all your other comments
in this vein.
> I would wonder how many of the demonstrators did, in some manner,
> communicate their position to their elected representatives and to
> appropriate committees and executive departments.
I wonder too. My rough guess is "many, many, though not nearly enough." ;)
Your "insider analysis" is helpful here. A netizen-related connection:
MoveOn.org (an organization I was somehow viscerally predisposed to dislike)
has organized a wide range of communications with Congress and the White House,
including a day of office visits.
[WRT demonstration speakers, most participants at most rallies of my experience
have no idea what the speakers are saying. In the NY Times story, the speakers
weren't even mentioned by name until the 17th graf; the Times was much more
interested in who was demonstrating. For better or worse, anti-war activists
around here are most likely to quote Scott Ritter and, recently, General
Zinni. None of this to discount your points, just to illustrate my difference
in emphasis.]
[WRT demonstrations vs. lobbying:]
> Purely on pragmatic grounds. It's been my experience that competent
> lobbying gets more done, followed by focused constituent message
> campaigns.
Again, we differ in emphasis. I'm basically a policy wonk, and I don't think
that demonstrations _alone_ are ever likely to do much good. But perhaps your
discussion of the civil rights movement indicates the benefits of sometimes
going beyond competent lobbying and focused constituent message campaigns. (I
agree with your point there that it helps for demonstrators to (1) appear sane
[grin -- OK, those are my words] and (2) show some staying power; I think the
current anti-war movement scores pretty well on those criteria.)
> One problem I do tend to have with the more recent demonstration is
> that they don't seem to have a terribly specific point. I'm thinking,
> in particular, of the World Bank demonstrations. There were a lot of
> people upset, but there didn't seem to be much consensus on what the
> World Bank/IMF actually should _do_. The message also became clouded
> with a vicious circle between a small number of violent demonstrators
> and the police response.
I happily concede the last point, with the caveat that in Seattle, the police
apparently started spraying pepper spray in people's eyes (etc.) even before
the anarchists started smashing windows. (I don't think that proves much about
politics in general, but folks who were there tend to be pretty bitter about
it.) As to the rest, I think it's true, but it doesn't trouble me so much in
context. In the nature of the case, mass movements or organizations aren't
well suited to agree on multiple-point action plans. The "anti-globalization
movement" does seem to have some agreement about the problems -- and a fair
number of smart people who are poised to participate in savvy lobbying.
Whoops, I went on too long. OK, back to work.
Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:05:30 +0100
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: [netz] Back to internet
Maybe it would be nice to get back to topic of this mailing list.
I have some questions for you since as I have already mentioned I am
working on my Master Thesis on internet and its influence on
democratization of political systems. I am trying to figure out if
there is any correlation between internet and democracy rating and my
research is based on 6 countries - starting with totalitarian
countries (Cuba and China), going through Mexico, Serbia and Estonia
and ending with "undemocratic democracy", Japan.
Do you think that internet undermines government's power (in
totalitarian states) and helps with democratization in any way?
If yes, what conditions have to be fulfilled?
Any other comments or ideas on what to include or what could be a good
paper to read?
Thanks,
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- drop the taxes, liberate citizens -*
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:10:25 -0500 (EST)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] Re: Back to internet
Yvonne Liu <yvonne@igc.org> submitted this to the netizens list:
Curious, how do you define democracy? What is figured into this index
rating?
Dan Duris wrote:
> Maybe it would be nice to get back to topic of this mailing list.
>
> I have some questions for you since as I have already mentioned I am
> working on my Master Thesis on internet and its influence on
> democratization of political systems. I am trying to figure out if
> there is any correlation between internet and democracy rating and my
> research is based on 6 countries - starting with totalitarian
> countries (Cuba and China), going through Mexico, Serbia and Estonia
> and ending with "undemocratic democracy", Japan.
>
> Do you think that internet undermines government's power (in
> totalitarian states) and helps with democratization in any way?
>
> If yes, what conditions have to be fulfilled?
>
> Any other comments or ideas on what to include or what could be a good
> paper to read?
>
> Thanks,
>
> dan
> --------------------------
> email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
> ICQ: 17932727
>
> *- drop the taxes, liberate citizens -*
..........................................................................
yvonne liu | yvonne at people-link dot org | aim: whyloo
..........................................................................
And as for Saddam having "weapons of mass destruction" (or mass
diversion as some critics say) The US has these weapons. So do Israel,
South Africa, Germany, France, Italy, England, Russia, and now China,
India, Pakistan. How is it the US and its allies (except the Chinese)
can have such weapons, but no one else can. The answer to that, of
course, is White Supremacy and Imperialism. And what should be the
growing understanding by the American people and the democratic people
of the world, is what the far right Bush coven wants is a military
dictatorship of the world.
- -- Amiri Baraka, The ADL Smear Campaign Against Me: I Will Not Resign, I
Will Not Apologize (Oct. 7, 2002)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:31:29 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Back to internet
At 2:05 AM +0100 2/18/03, Dan Duris wrote:
>Maybe it would be nice to get back to topic of this mailing list.
>
>I have some questions for you since as I have already mentioned I am
>working on my Master Thesis on internet
One of the beginning points is how you define "internet".
The generic, lower-case term refers to independently administered
networks interconnected with the Internet Protocol (IP) [1]. Subsets
of this are:
-- intranets: networks not open to the public and operated by one
organization. These range from routine
corporate networks (typically using many of the same tools, such as
Web browsers, as the public Internet), to high-security networks
(e.g., internal hospital or utility).
-- extranets: networks using IP, not open to the public, but linking
independent organizations. Think credit card authorization and other
financial networks, just-in-time ordering, or military networks.
-- Internet: the set of interconnected public networks that conform to
a common naming and addressing plan, and exchange routing (topology)
information through the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).
[1] While people often refer to TCP/IP, IP or the "Internet Protocol
Stack" or "Internet Architecture" is more correct. TCP is not used
in all IP-based applications.
Now, where does something like a totalitarian country's network, that
controls at least connectivity outside the country, fit here? If
public Internet access is heavily controlled, is it closer to an
extranet?
>and its influence on
>democratization of political systems. I am trying to figure out if
>there is any correlation between internet and democracy rating and my
>research is based on 6 countries - starting with totalitarian
>countries (Cuba and China), going through Mexico, Serbia and Estonia
>and ending with "undemocratic democracy", Japan.
A couple of things might confound your model. In the electronic age,
Japan historically has been an early adopter of networking, in part
because computers and computer networks are much more friendly to
their system of writing (Kanji and Hiragana). This is also an
attraction for China, at least for internal use.
There may also be a variable for network entry* due to a lack of
older telephony infrastructure. Many Eastern European countries are
going directly to cellular phones rather than wiring houses (other
than with broadband), since it's cheaper and faster to implement. As
far as I can tell, this is China's basic assumption on improving its
telephone plant, while Japan has an excellent telephone system. IP
based telephony is also more resource-conservative than conventional
telephones, although an IP telephone is more complex than a
dial/pulse phone.
>
>Do you think that internet undermines government's power (in
>totalitarian states) and helps with democratization in any way?
Is there an example of a totalitarian government that allows
unrestricted Internet access? Would that not be a prerequisite to
saying that the (upper case) Internet can affect democratization?
While, for example, there is a good deal of Chinese cooperation in
international scientific and engineering forums, the Chinese
government has tolerated to encouraged activities hostile to the
operation of the global Internet. These include attacking sites that
criticize Chinese policy, to being a haven for spammers.
South Korea has been a spammer haven, but the government has been
pushing responsible behavior. It might be a good reference point, as
it also deals with the special problem of an ideographic language.
India has relatively widespread and open Internet access, but to
those who can afford it. They do face the problem of over 100
internal languages, although most educated Indians are fluent in
English. It might be close to the Japan end of the spectrum.
>
>If yes, what conditions have to be fulfilled?
>
>Any other comments or ideas on what to include or what could be a good
>paper to read?
>
>Thanks,
>
>dan
>--------------------------
>email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
>ICQ: 17932727
>
>*- drop the taxes, liberate citizens -*
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #416
******************************
