Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 456
Netizens-Digest Thursday, April 3 2003 Volume 01 : Number 456
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re[2]: [netz] Can this be netizenship?
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re[2]: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re[2]: [netz] Can this be netizenship?
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:34:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Lou and others on the netizens list
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Luis De Quesada wrote:
> Hello: I think Ronda has a valid point and increased government responses to the
> opinions and inquiries of common people, vs its usually favorable response to
> powerful and wealthy lobbies, would be a way to improve the communications of
> people with government. I do think government officials listen to common people,
> but like Howard says, many times the outcome or policy implemented maybe different
> from that expected by a particular segment of the population. So is creating more
> referendums the cure? I would defenitely help. Electoral referendums would give
> many people a clearer insight whether their opinions reflect those of the majority
> of their fellow citizens, instead of just relying on media and other polls, which
> are always suspect of manipulation. For example an excellent question on the ballot
> right now would be: Do you favor the war in Iraq? I also think netizens can help
> these communications precisely by bringing these issues and concerns to our list as
> a way of improving communications among the people with other people and their
> government, even if it brings debate on the issues.
> Luis de Quesada
For me the experience of the Internet has demonstrated the value
of interactive discussion among people, rather than people forming
their views in isolation and then stating their views to be counted.
I have found Usenet helpful in this regard.
There are times when I have participated or observed that
there are disagreements regarding something that should happen.
This is especially true in voting on new newsgroups.
The discussion would seem to be going in one direction and
someone would post something indicating a different view.
Often there would be statements of disagreement with that different
view.
The person might not post again for a while, but in a short period
of time the idea that was met with disagreement will reappear and
several people will begin to explore it.
It then could have an effect on the voting process.
I have observed this, had this experience, and also heard of
others who had this experience.
This is different from just having people indicate their view.
This is the result of discussion and the means of diverse views
being aired and considered, even if it takes some time for
the effect to be seen.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:38:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>
> Ronda, I really don't know at all what you mean by this. What discussion
> hasn't happened? If it's the discussion about purpose and scope, I wish you
> would join it. How likely is it that continuing to argue about the political
> tactics of antiwar activists will lead us to a transformative insight into
> the
> nature of netizenship? At this point, I think not very.
The discussion over the view towards the war in Iraq for netizens.
Howard asked that that happen elsewhere.
It is not a question of tactics of antiwar activists.
It is the question of what netizens do when there is a serious
situation like the current attack on Iraq.
Unless that is discussed, and the discussion is welcome, it isn't
that one can claim there has been a failed deliberative process.
The discussion is what helps the deliberative process. If the
discussion is discouraged or there are threats by people to
resign from the list if there is the discussion, then one
can't claim that a deliberative process took place.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:08:20 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Can this be netizenship?
HCB> What do you see as the bounds of hacktivism? Is it acceptable, for
HCB> example, to attack the propaganda ministry of a totalitarian state?
Sure, anyway this is the first thing that's being done in war by
conventional means (just see the case of Iraqi national radio and US
troops taking over)...
HCB> Its central bank? Its military? Its public health service? What if
HCB> all of these are located in the same data center, so a denial of
HCB> service attack against the communications to it can bring all of
HCB> these down?
That could be a problem. But I am not talking about DOS attacks rather
of spreading counter-information on propaganda site.
HCB> Incidentally, who gets to decide who is totalitarian?
Good point. I think we can manage to differentiate between
totalitarian and democratic countries though. I treat China on the
same level as Iraq. China is nothing more than a totalitarian state.
And the companies that trade with China are just very cynical and just
showing that they don't have any common sense and ethic in their
solutions.
HCB> Let's say I know the physical location of a server, and assume that
HCB> it is isolated from anything else. Is there an ethical difference
HCB> between hacking it so it is unusable, or detonating two kilos of
HCB> Semtex against it?
Since I haven't meant DOS attacks, this is irrelevant. What I meant
was just ordinary hack, change & leave approach.
HCB> resource. And make no mistake, I use a military term because a cyber
HCB> attack is no less an attack than an attack with artillery, if it has
HCB> the potential of jeopardizing life-critical resources.
I don't think that totalitarian states have their life-critical
systems online. Actually, I am not aware of sharing life-critical
systems with ordinary sites on the same server. That would be the most
stupid thing in the world to do.
HCB> computer systems unless the attack is part of warfare and subject to
HCB> the occasionally relevant laws of war.
You see, you have to think outside the box.
War doesn't have any laws. USA (democratic country?) was keeping their
prisoners in Guantanamo base where nobody had access except military
personnel. So I suppose they even tortured the prisoners. War doesn't
have any laws. Only good law in war is the law of the stronger.
Individual hacking is more ethical than hacking on demand of military
forces. Individual hacking brings creativity in the process, while
hacking for military or commercial companies is nothing more than a
routine.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- win sux, use mr. red hat :-) -*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:30:19 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Hello Ronda:
Exactly my feelings. There always should be a deliberative process in netizens,
especially when it comes to critical issues like the war in Iraq. I feel that this
list should ideally be formed by people of all points of view, and that we should
all contribute with our views in a friendly and respectful manner as we have as a
part of that deliberative process, which in my opinion is relevant to
communications.
Luis de Quesada
Ronda Hauben wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > Ronda, I really don't know at all what you mean by this. What discussion
> > hasn't happened? If it's the discussion about purpose and scope, I wish you
> > would join it. How likely is it that continuing to argue about the political
> > tactics of antiwar activists will lead us to a transformative insight into
> > the
> > nature of netizenship? At this point, I think not very.
>
> The discussion over the view towards the war in Iraq for netizens.
>
> Howard asked that that happen elsewhere.
>
> It is not a question of tactics of antiwar activists.
>
> It is the question of what netizens do when there is a serious
> situation like the current attack on Iraq.
>
> Unless that is discussed, and the discussion is welcome, it isn't
> that one can claim there has been a failed deliberative process.
>
> The discussion is what helps the deliberative process. If the
> discussion is discouraged or there are threats by people to
> resign from the list if there is the discussion, then one
> can't claim that a deliberative process took place.
>
> Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 23:07:08 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
LDQ> purpose to change policy, but it would give a clearer picture to everyone as to who
LDQ> has a majority. It would also help the government to assess how popular its present
LDQ> policy really is. I do not advocate a referendum every time you want to deal with an
Ten you can also ask: "Do you agree with govermental policy on war on
Iraq?"
BTW: Switzerland is the only country of democracy through referenda I
know about. Irony of this is that until 1979 women in Switzerland
haven't been able to cast their vote. It was probably last
"democratic" country to implement universal suffrage.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- drop the taxes, liberate citizens -*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:58:03 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Hello Dan: An even "plainer english" question I think would be more helpful, perhaps it would
the following would be more explanatory: Do you agree with the war in Iraq, in other words,
should our government be conducting war in Iraq?
Luis de Quesada
Dan Duris wrote:
> LDQ> purpose to change policy, but it would give a clearer picture to everyone as to who
> LDQ> has a majority. It would also help the government to assess how popular its present
> LDQ> policy really is. I do not advocate a referendum every time you want to deal with an
> Ten you can also ask: "Do you agree with govermental policy on war on
> Iraq?"
>
> BTW: Switzerland is the only country of democracy through referenda I
> know about. Irony of this is that until 1979 women in Switzerland
> haven't been able to cast their vote. It was probably last
> "democratic" country to implement universal suffrage.
>
> dan
> --------------------------
> email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
> ICQ: 17932727
>
> *- drop the taxes, liberate citizens -*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:51:22 -0500
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Ronda Hauben wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
>
>>Ronda, I really don't know at all what you mean by this. What discussion
>>hasn't happened? If it's the discussion about purpose and scope, I wish you
>>would join it. How likely is it that continuing to argue about the political
>>tactics of antiwar activists will lead us to a transformative insight into
>>the
>>nature of netizenship? At this point, I think not very.
>>
>>
>The discussion over the view towards the war in Iraq for netizens.
>
>Howard asked that that happen elsewhere.
>
>It is not a question of tactics of antiwar activists.
>
>It is the question of what netizens do when there is a serious
>situation like the current attack on Iraq.
>
>Unless that is discussed, and the discussion is welcome, it isn't
>that one can claim there has been a failed deliberative process.
>
>The discussion is what helps the deliberative process. If the
>discussion is discouraged or there are threats by people to
>resign from the list if there is the discussion, then one
>can't claim that a deliberative process took place.
>
>Ronda
>
Ronda, what deliberative process? What are we deliberating about? "The
question of what netizens do when there is a serious situation like the
current attack on Iraq"? Evidently we do different things. But how is
that the topic of a deliberative process? How will we know whether the
deliberative process is succeeding?
What makes this discussion a "netizens" discussion, other than the use
of the word "netizens"? Yes, it's been pointed out that people use the
Net to get information, that some use it to communicate and/or to
organize across great distances, and that it might be argued that a
march is in some way analogous to the Net. That seems like pretty slim
pickings for these dozens of posts. What are we deliberating about? We
don't seem to be deliberating about Howard's thoughts about the
appropriate purpose and scope of the list. We don't seem to be
deliberating much about Net design, or Net institutions.
Howard isn't trying to end netizen discussion of the war, and surely
knows that he wouldn't stand a chance if he did try. I will amend my
question: How likely is it that continuing to argue about whatever we
are arguing about, and indeed to argue about what we are arguing about,
will lead us to a transformative insight into anything whatsoever?
Time is finite. Howard does us a great courtesy by explaining the basis
of his dissatisfaction and putting it on the table for discussion. Of
course, he also allows himself to get sucked into the threads that he
says he wants to discourage. And as for me, let's not start. Maybe we
should rename this list "codependents".
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:52:48 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Can this be netizenship?
>HCB> What do you see as the bounds of hacktivism? Is it acceptable, for
>HCB> example, to attack the propaganda ministry of a totalitarian state?
>Sure, anyway this is the first thing that's being done in war by
>conventional means (just see the case of Iraqi national radio and US
>troops taking over)...
>
>HCB> Its central bank? Its military? Its public health service? What if
>HCB> all of these are located in the same data center, so a denial of
>HCB> service attack against the communications to it can bring all of
>HCB> these down?
>That could be a problem. But I am not talking about DOS attacks rather
>of spreading counter-information on propaganda site.
A serious question is whether all hacktivists will be this precise in
their differentiation -- just altering content, or going beyond.
Even altering content can cause inadvertent DOS if it hits referral
links or active content.
Putting the message aside, it can be very useful for the "Good Guys"
to see what the propaganda being put forth consists of. Changes in
propaganda content often signal internal changes to a regime, or can
cause accidental disclosures of valuable information (e.g., a current
picture of Saddam that also has a recognizable landmark on the
horizon, as well as a current newspaper).
>
>HCB> Incidentally, who gets to decide who is totalitarian?
>Good point. I think we can manage to differentiate between
>totalitarian and democratic countries though. I treat China on the
>same level as Iraq. China is nothing more than a totalitarian state.
>And the companies that trade with China are just very cynical and just
>showing that they don't have any common sense and ethic in their
>solutions.
>
>HCB> Let's say I know the physical location of a server, and assume that
>HCB> it is isolated from anything else. Is there an ethical difference
>HCB> between hacking it so it is unusable, or detonating two kilos of
>HCB> Semtex against it?
>Since I haven't meant DOS attacks, this is irrelevant. What I meant
>was just ordinary hack, change & leave approach.
A valid point if and only if this is the only sort of attck being made.
>
>HCB> resource. And make no mistake, I use a military term because a cyber
>HCB> attack is no less an attack than an attack with artillery, if it has
>HCB> the potential of jeopardizing life-critical resources.
>I don't think that totalitarian states have their life-critical
>systems online. Actually, I am not aware of sharing life-critical
>systems with ordinary sites on the same server. That would be the most
>stupid thing in the world to do.
Dan, after 30-plus years of working with computing and network
systems, there is NOTHING I would consider too stupid for someone to
do. Since many totalitarian states like centralized planning, One
Big Computer actually tends to fit their mindset better than in a
freer country. Nothing that's a general rule, but something to
consider.
>
>HCB> computer systems unless the attack is part of warfare and subject to
>HCB> the occasionally relevant laws of war.
>You see, you have to think outside the box.
>
>War doesn't have any laws. USA (democratic country?) was keeping their
>prisoners in Guantanamo base where nobody had access except military
>personnel. So I suppose they even tortured the prisoners. War doesn't
>have any laws. Only good law in war is the law of the stronger.
>
>Individual hacking is more ethical than hacking on demand of military
>forces. Individual hacking brings creativity in the process, while
>hacking for military or commercial companies is nothing more than a
>routine.
Having seen what's been done in some military cyberattacks, and in
the more general area of counter-C3I, sorry. Individual hacking just
isn't in the same league of sophistication as, say, a systematic
plan, including hard and soft kill, to take down a command and
control system.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 17:47:59 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
At 4:51 PM -0500 4/3/03, Mark Lindeman wrote:
>
>Time is finite. Howard does us a great courtesy by explaining the
>basis of his dissatisfaction and putting it on the table for
>discussion. Of course, he also allows himself to get sucked into
>the threads that he says he wants to discourage. And as for me,
>let's not start. Maybe we should rename this list "codependents".
>
OOOOH....that one deservedly stung. I'm somewhat reminded of a
technical tale of designing interactive voice response systems for a
behavioral medicine managed care facility. See #2:
"Welcome to Automated Mental Health Services.
If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly.
If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2.
If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5 and 6.
If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you
want. Just stay on the line so we can trace the call.
If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will
tell you which number to press.
If you are passive-aggressive, get someone guilty enough to press 8.
If you are depressed, it doesn't matter which number you press. No
one will answer.
If you are manic, press them all repeatedly while laughing wildly
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 17:55:51 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Luis wrote,
>Hello Dan: An even "plainer english" question I think would be more
>helpful, perhaps it would
>the following would be more explanatory: Do you agree with the war
>in Iraq, in other words,
>should our government be conducting war in Iraq?
Our social scientists can comment better than I, but you are getting
into an area of survey research fraught with potential errors, when
you try to reduce something to "plain English."
I'll make a very simple comment about the proposed referendum
question and move on. Even if the US is using its entire armed
forces in Iraq, by classical definitions from the Congress of Vienna,
no state of war has been declared.
On a more general note, survey researchers typically present several
forms of the same basic question, selected randomly for each
respondent, to try to normalize bias that might be implicit in the
wording of the question. Indeed, such randomization may be done
throughout a short list of questions, so that there become tens or
hundreds of question sets. Advanced statistical methods are then
applied to try to filter out bias.
Given the political resistance to even basic statistical sampling in
such things as census work, that level of statistical sophistication
for referenda is probably a complete political non-starter -- yet not
to use it can bias the results. No good answer, at least if you are
treating this as a government process.
A more distributed Netizens approach might be to try to create a
survey research group that is considered utterly impartial, whose
findings are made public.
The idea of the "trusted intermediary" is actually quite common in
network security, and perhaps might be looked at for other purposes,
such as a common source of openly available intelligence analysis.
>Luis de Quesada
>
>
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #456
******************************
