From bf229 at scn.org Sun Oct 1 22:56:35 2000 From: bf229 at scn.org (SCN User) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Answering machine while u r (fwd) Message-ID: We ARE under God's Precious care, M.R. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 00:37:37 -0500 online - gives u a message The 800 nbr I have not explored This is a rerun; but now they have a few for Premium service & features, too [Oct. expiration date] Check the competition @ --- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Mon Oct 2 18:19:46 2000 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Safe Harbors Message-ID: <200010030119.SAA22754@scn.org> Very interesting article in the August 15th Real Change on the city's computer program plans... http://www.realchangenews.org/pastissues/August_15_00/features/resisting_tag_n_track_aug.html -- Doug ****************************************************************** * Help Shape the Network Society * * Sign the Seattle Statement! * * http://www.scn.org/cpsr/diac-00/seattle-statement.html * * Discuss the Seattle Statement! * * http://www.scn.org/cgi-bin/diac-00/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro * ****************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Mon Oct 2 18:28:12 2000 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: All hail the new barbarism! Message-ID: <200010030128.SAA24647@scn.org> You may find this interesting! -- Doug ****************************************************************** * Help Shape the Network Society * * Sign the Seattle Statement! * * http://www.scn.org/cpsr/diac-00/seattle-statement.html * * Discuss the Seattle Statement! * * http://www.scn.org/cgi-bin/diac-00/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro * ****************************************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 8:11 AM Subject: More Ian Angell > Wired for Anarchy: London School of Economics professor Ian Angell > is a brilliant man with a dark and disturbing vision. And if he's right > about the future, you'd better learn to think like a "new barbarian." > Paul C. Judge > > 10/01/2000 > Fast Company > Fast Company, a Subsidiary of U.S. News & World > Report. > > If Ian Angell is right about the future of the new economy, most of the > world > is screwed. From his vantage point as professor of information systems at > the prestigious London School of Economics ( LSE ), Angell, 53, spins a > scenario of the future in which the world's business and technical elite > use > the Net to live wherever they want and to do whatever they please, without > government intrusion. Leveraging their wealth and their much-in-demand > professional skills, the chosen few ( who really aren't so few ) can live > in > countries that will bid to have them as residents -- through offers of tax > relief and through promises of noninterference in their affairs. > > What will governments get in return? The unprecedented wealth-creating > power of this group of charmed individuals, whom Angell calls the "new > barbarians." And what will become of the billions of people who are left > behind? For some unfortunates, it will be a world of chaos, run by gangs of > thugs. Others will live under the "tyranny of democracies" -- societies > where people will have votes, but where the majority will be ruled by > racial, religious, and ethnic bigots. > > So much for teary-eyed talk about the "digital divide." Most of that > earnest > but shopworn discussion focuses on the powerlessness of the have-nots. So > what about the haves? After all, they are the ones who will be in charge -- > the agenda setters, the power brokers, and the virtual architects of the > new > digital order. What will their world look like? Angell has thought a lot > about that question. > > His answer reflects an unabashedly somber vision, sort of like Free Agent > Nation on a global acid trip. Self-interest and security are the mantras of > Angell's new barbarians. Commerce and communities are disembodied, > existing for the most part on the Internet. Government's role is to shelter > new > barbarians from the scourge of disease, to protect the food supply, and to > provide a clean, well-lighted place for data, the plasma of the new > economy. > > Who would want to live in such a world? Ian Angell, for one. His recent > book, The New Barbarian Manifesto: How to Survive the Information Age ( > Kogan Page, 2000 ), conjures up a world that makes the brutal Darwinist > ecology of Blade Runner seem downright benign. But Angell isn't offering > remedies for rescuing society from such a fate. He believes that this dark > world can't come soon enough. > > "I'm an anarchic capitalist," says Angell. "I believe that business should > be > running the world. Every major technological shift creates winners and > losers. Europe's a disaster because of a sentimental attachment to the > welfare state, which is just a vestige of the Industrial Age, when > politicians > extracted taxes to buy votes." > > Needless to say, Angell revels in being an extremist. He has used his > position as a tenured faculty member at LSE to needle the British > government on issues ranging from privacy rights to its proposal to levy a > "bit tax" on information that passes through computer networks. When The > New Barbarian Manifesto was published earlier this year, it created a stir > among British intellectuals and led the Times of London to dub its author > "the Angell of Doom." He appears to be enjoying the attention, but Angell > is > still a long way from being mainstream. "Whenever large numbers of people > start to agree with me, I think I'm wrong," he says. > > That's the attitude you might expect from a new barbarian. It also gives > Angell a certain currency as a maverick. Companies such as A.T. Kearney, > Cambridge Technology Partners Inc., USB Warburg, and Warner Lambert > Co. have invited him to speak at their corporate gatherings, hoping that > he'll > shake things up with speeches about the changing nature of work, the end of > democracy, and, of course, winners and losers. "When the consultants want > to rattle their technologists, I get up and talk about how methods are > dangerous and statistics are worthless, because they make for tidy minds," > he says. > > Angell's own intellectual journey has been anything but tidy. His > background and upbringing as a working-class intellectual would seem > more likely to have made him into a champion of the little guy. Angell is a > policeman's son who grew up in the coal-mining district in Wales. He > credits his mother, who "lived in a working-class town and was too clever > for her own good," with giving him an appreciation of anarchy and a > distrust > of government. > > He started an academic career as a brilliant mathematician, but at the age > of > 30 he lost his faith in numbers and in their capacity to make sense of the > world. That's one reason he believes that "most of what they teach in > business schools is bunkum. Business is alchemy, anyway, not science." > Math kept him too isolated from flesh and blood, so he switched fields to > computer science. But Angell grew more and more disillusioned with > Britain's modern institutions -- particularly with the government and the > universities -- and he was nettled by the view that information technology > was merely a benign force that would liberate humans from monotonous > toil. > > Eventually, Angell says, he realized that businesspeople -- and > entrepreneurs in particular -- knew of better ways to exploit information > technology. The more time he spent as a speaker inside companies, the more > fascinated he became with those companies' potential to detach themselves > from their surroundings and to continue to flourish. And so, at the center > of > the new-barbarian society is the virtual enterprise, the primary > organization > in Angell's dystopia. > > "The information system is the firm; nothing else is permanent," argues > Angell. If the system gets cracked, either by criminals or by governments, > "the organization is finished." The threat of attack will be constant, > Angell > believes, as disgruntled losers strike at the heart of the new-barbarian > society, and as computer hacking takes on all of the dimensions of class > warfare. > > A few years ago, Angell's special scorn for taxing authorities led him to > propose a banking system that was out of this world. Satellites acting as > depositories for digital cash would allow companies and individuals to > move money anywhere, using computers or even handheld devices linked to > satellite transceivers. With a secure system in place, commerce would > move beyond the reach of any government's ability to tax it. Tax payment > would then take the form of a negotiation between new barbarians and the > countries that are vying for their citizenship. How much would you pay for > security? For trees? For health care? "Companies and countries will be > scouring the globe, competing with each other to attract this top-quality > 'people product,' dragging them off the planes if necessary," Angell > believes. > > Even without bank accounts in space, Angell says, new barbarians are > flexing their muscles in plenty of ways. He points to the U.S. government's > HI-B visa program for top-notch technologists from around the world as one > example. "The new rootlessness of economic mercenaries who are looking > out for welcoming institutions that are in tune with their own aspirations, > has the power to destabilize the wealth of any unsupportive community," he > argues. > > Bad science fiction? It would be, if there weren't a serious core to > Angell's > arguments: Who can really argue with the proposition that elite knowledge > workers can dictate their demands to governments, as opposed to the other > way around? At the end of his book, Angell offers a few pointers on how to > become a new barbarian: Get an elitist education; keep your assets liquid, > and spread them around the globe; familiarize yourself with economic hot > spots that will be the most receptive to people like you. And finally, "Be > ready to flee at a moment's notice." > > Spoken like a new barbarian. > > Paul C. Judge ( pjudge at fastcompany.com ) is a Fast Company senior > editor. Contact Ian Angell by email ( i.angell at lse.ac.uk ). > > This article is available online at > http://www.fastcompany.com/online/39/ifaqs.html > Contact: This article is available online at > http://www.fastcompany.com/online/39/ifaqs.html > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ This listserve is a free service offered by the Vancouver CommunityNet For more info on services offered by VCN see http://www.vcn.bc.ca/groups/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From michele at bourgeat.fr Wed Oct 4 00:17:14 2000 From: michele at bourgeat.fr (michele at bourgeat.fr) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:17:14 +0000 Subject: SCN: I didn't think it would work either!! Message-ID: <200010040716336.SM00135@oemcomputer> As simple as it sounds, THIS WORKS. And there is HUGE money in it! If you are serious about making some extra money real fast legally and ethically, this is something you definitely want to read! :-) This e-mail contains the ENTIRE PLAN of how YOU can make up to $50,000 or more in the next 90 days simply sending e-mail! Seem impossible? Just read on and see how real this is.... It's YOUR turn!!! Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a major nightly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of the program described below to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved that there are absolutely no laws prohibiting the participation in the program. This has helped to show people that this is a simple, harmless and fun way to make some extra money at home. The results have been truly remarkable. So many people are participating that those involved are doing much better than ever before. Since everyone makes more and more people try it out, it's been very exciting. You will understand once you try it yourself! ******THE ENTIRE PLAN IS HERE BELOW****** ***Print This Now For Future Reference*** $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make up to $50,000 in less than 90 days, please read this program...THEN READ IT AGAIN!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY!! It does NOT require you to come into contact with people or make or take any telephone calls. Just follow the instructions, and you will make money. This simplified e-mail marketing program works perfectly 100% EVERY TIME! E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this virtually free method of advertising NOW!!! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business using e-mail. Get your piece of this action!!! Hello - My name is Jonathan Rourke; I'm from Rhode Island. In mid December, I received this program in my e-mail. Six months prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for information on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to see if they would work. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly. I couldn't believe my eyes! Here was a MONEY MAKING MACHINE I could start immediately without any debt. Like most of you I was still a little skeptical and little worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161 24-hrs) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal! After determining the program was LEGAL I decided "WHY NOT!!! Initially I sent out 10,000 e-mails, so my only expense is my time. In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. By January 13, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. Your goal is to "RECEIVE at least 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF YOU DON'T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. My first step in making $50,000 in 90 days was done. By January 30, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. Your goal is to "RECEIVE AT LEAST 100+ ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $50,000 GOAL." Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2. 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 1, of my e-mailing of 10,000, received $58,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much needed new car! Please take your time to read this plan, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER!!! Remember, it won't work if you don't try it. This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It won't work and you'll lose out on a lot of money! In order for this program to work, you must meet your goal of 20+ orders for REPORT#1, and 100+orders for REPORT#2 and you will make $50,000 or more in 90 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I am sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little cost or risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow business owner and are in financial trouble like I was, or your want to start your own business, consider this a sigh. I DID!!! Sincerely, Jonathan Rourke A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: By the time you have read the enclosed program and reports, you should have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, could not have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about myself, I had a profitable business for 10 years. Then in 1979 my business began falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful for me, but it wasn't working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn't me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable economy that had been with us since 1945. I don't have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate because many of you know from first hand experience. There were more failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was vanishing. Those who know what they were doing invested wisely and moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, "THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER. The traditional methods of making money will never allow you to "move up" or "get rich", inflation will see to that. You have just received information that can give you financial freedom for the rest of you life, with "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT." You can make more money in the next few months than you have ever imagined. I should also point out that I will not see a penny of this money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this program. I have retired from the program after sending thousands and thousands of programs. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report to everyone you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 50,000... and your name will be on every one of them! Remember though, the more you send out, the more potential customers you will reach. So my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials and opportunity to become financially independent. $$$IT WORKS!!!$$$ HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS$$$$!!!! This method of raising capital REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. As with all multi-level business, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the USA allows you to recruit new multi-level business partners, and we sell and deliver a product for EVERY dollar received. YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the EASIEST marketing plan anywhere! It is simply order filling by e-mail! The product is informational and instructional material. Keys to the secrets for everyone on how to open the doors to the magic world of E-COMMERCE, the information highway, the wave of the future!!! PLAN SUMMARY: 1.You order the 4 reports listed below ($5 each) They come to you by e-mail 2.Save a copy of this entire letter and put your name after Report #1 and move the other names down. 3.Via the internet, access Yahoo.com or any of the other major search engines to locate hundreds of bulk e-mail service companies (search for "Bulk e-mail" and have them send 25,000 - 50,000 e-mails for you.) 4.Orders will come to you by postal mail- simply e-mail them the Report they ordered. Let me ask you - isn't this about as easy as it gets? By the way there are over 100 MILLION e-mail addresses with millions more joining the internet each year so don't worry about "running out" or "saturation". People are used to seeing and hearing the same advertisements every day on radio/TV. How many times have you received the same pizza flyers on your door? Then one day you are hungry for pizza and you order one. Same thing with this letter I received this letter many times - then one day I decided it was time to try it. YOU CAN START TODAY - JUST DO THESE EASY STEPS: STEP #1. ORDER THE FOUR REPORTS Order the four reports shown on the list below (you can't sell them if you don't order them). - For each report, send $5.00 CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! Within a few days you will receive, by e-mail, each of the four reports. Save them on your computer so you can send them to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. STEP #2. ADD YOUR MAILING ADDRESS TO THIS LETTER a.Look below for the listing of the four reports. b.After you've ordered the four reports, delete the name and address under REPORT #4. This person has made it through the cycle. c.Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. d.Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. e.Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. f.Insert your name/address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you COPY ALL INFORMATION, every name and address, ACCURATELY! STEP #3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to these instructions. Now you are ready to use this entire e-mail to send by e-mail to prospects. Report #1 will tell you how to download bulk e-mail software and e-mail addresses so you can send it out to thousands of people while you sleep! Remember that 50,000+ new people are joining the internet every month. Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing (surely you can afford $20). You obviously already have a computer and an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! There are two primary methods of building your downline: METHOD #1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we'll assume you and all those involved e-mail out only 2,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives a 0.5% response. The response could be much better. Also, many people will e-mail out hundreds of thousands of programs instead of 2,000 (Why stop at 2,000?). But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a 0.5% response, that is only 10 orders for REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 20,000. Out of those 0.5%, 100 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 100 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 200,000. The 0.5% response to that is 1,000 orders for REPORT #3. Those 1,000 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,000,000 total. The 0.5% response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That's 10,000 $5 bills for you. CASH!!! Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 +$5,00 + $50,000 for a total of $55,550!!! REMEMBER, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF THE 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT THAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE, OR HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF 2,000 Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD #2 - PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET Advertising on the internet is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Let's say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get ONLY 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the Internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 10 downline members. Look how this small number accumulates to achieve the STAGGERING results below: 1st level: your first 10 send you $5.............$50 2nd level: 10 members from those 10 ($5 x 100)..........$500 3rd level: 10 members from those 100 ($5 x 1,000)......$5,000 4th level: 10 members from those 1,000 ($5 x 10,000).....$50,000 $$$$$$$$$$$$THIS TOTALS------------$55,550 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ AMAZING ISN'T IT? Remember, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 10 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Most people get 100's of participants and many will continue to work this program, sending out programs WITH YOUR NAME ON THEM for years! THINK ABOUT IT! People are going to get e-mails about this plan from you or somebody else and many will work this plan- the question is - Don't you want your name to be on the e-mails they send out? ***DON'T MISS OUT!!!***JUST TRY IT ONCE!!!*** ***SEE WHAT HAPPENS!!!***YOU'LL BE AMAZED!!!*** ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out with YOUR name and address on it will be prompt because they can't advertise until they receive the report! GET STARTED TODAY: PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THE FOUR REPORTS NOW. Notes: ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT. CHECKS NOT ACCEPTED. Enclose the $5 with a sheet of paper including: a.the number & name of the report you are ordering. b.Your e-mail address, c.Your name & postal address. REPORT #1 "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM Robin Richardson 136 Roadrunner Ponca City, OK 74604 REPORT #2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM Ryan Doyle 3327 Boyce Ln. San Diego, CA 92105 REPORT #3 "The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM Max Glinsky 3532 Governor Dr. University City, CA 92122 REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel Marketing and the Internet" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM Randy Catlett 817 W. Iola Pl. Broken Arrow, OK 74012 *************TIPS FOR SUCCESS*********************** TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in, because: When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report. It is required for this to be a legal business and they need the reports to send out their letters (with your name on them!) ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. Be patient and persistent with this program- If you follow the instructions exactly - results WILL FOLLOW.$$$$ ***********YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES*************** Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success" If you don't receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT #2 If you don't continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. To generate more income, simply send another batch of e-mails or continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! Before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in this program. Please answer one question. ARE YOU HAPPY WITH YOUR PRESENT INCOME OR JOB? If the answer is no, then please look at the following facts about this super simple MLM program: 1.NO face to face selling, NO meetings, NO inventory, NO Telephone calls, NO big cost to start, Nothing to learn, NO skills needed! (Surely you know how to send e-mail?) 2.NO equipment to buy - you already have a computer and internet connection - so you have everything you need to fill orders! 3.You are selling a product which does NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE OR SHIP! (e-mailing copies of the reports is FREE!) 4.All of your customers pay you in CA$H! This program will change your LIFE FOREVER!!! Look at the potential for you to be able to work a super-high paying leisurely easy business from home! $$$$$$FINALLY MAKE SOME DREAMS COME TRUE!$$$$$ ACT NOW! Take your first step toward making some extra cash, or even achieving financial independence. Order the reports and follow the program outlined above-SUCCESS will be your reward. See you at the top. PLEASE NOTE: If you need help with starting a business, registering a business name, learning how income tax is handled, etc., contact your local office of the Small Business Administration (a Federal Agency) 1-800-827-5722 for free help and answers to questions. Also, the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and free seminars about business tax requirements. Your earnings are highly dependent on your activities and advertising. The information contained on this site and in the report constitutes no guarantees stated nor implied. In the event that it is determined that this site or report constitutes a guarantee of any kind, that guarantee is now void. The earnings amounts listed on this site and in the report are estimates only. If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection in Washington, DC. Under Bill s.1618 TITLE 111 passed by the 105th US Congress, this letter cannot be considered spam as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of removal. This is a one time e-mail transmission. No request for removal is necessary. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From guests at scn.org Mon Oct 9 20:04:00 2000 From: guests at scn.org (Melissa Guest) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Can you help teach? Please?? Message-ID: we have the following dates/times/places for upcoming classes, but are not getting enough volunteers signed up to help. Can you come to any of these? Please call Wade Englund, SCN's Tech Education Program Coordinator at 206 287 4484, or email him at bp760 if you can help with any of these or in the future. Extra bonus - any hours you spend volunteering to help with these classes, SCN can use toward our matching requirement on the grant we have from the city's Technology Matching Fund. Thanks! Classes per venue: 1) Garfield Community Center 2323 E. Cherry St. TRAINING COORDINATOR: Kara Luna 206-684-4788 * Web-based Email (probably yahoo) Monday, October 16 5:30 - 7:30 P.M. Saturday, October 21 9:30 - 11:30 A.M. 2) South Park Community Center 8319 8th Ave S. SITE TRAINING COORDINATOR: Michele Manning 206-762-7780 *Introduction to Web-based Email Class (probably yahoo) Friday, October 20 6 to 9 P.M. *Introduction to the Internet Friday, October 20 2 to 5 P.M. Friday, October 27 6 to 9 P.M. -SCN Instruction of the Basic Computer skills classes below are optional. Please contact Michele if interested- *Introduction to computers (Seniors) Friday, October 13th, 1:30 to 4:30pm *Basic Computer Skills (Five week course, with Intro to Computers as a prerequisite) Monday, October 9th, 6:30 to 8pm Thursday, October 12th, 6:30 to 8pm Monday, October 16th, 6:30 to 8pm Thursday, October 19th, 6:30 to 8pm Monday, October 23rd, 6:30 to 8pm Thursday, October 26th, 6:30 to 8pm Monday, October 30th, 6:30 to 8pm Thursday, November 2nd, 6:30 to 8pm Thanks, Wade Englund--VISTA Volunteer Technology Education Coordinator Seattle Community Network ( http://www.scn.org/teched ) Phone: (206) 287-4484 "What good is technology if people don't know how to use it?" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Wed Oct 11 16:46:47 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:46:47 -0700 Subject: SCN: Open source Message-ID: <39E49977.278.224080C@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ========================= In the free-software world, people obey the rules because they believe in them. In the music industry, the rip-off is a way of life. (Andrew Leonard, Salon.com)---About halfway through Donald K. Rosenberg's new book on open-source software, "Open Source: The Unauthorized White Papers," I hit the chapters on licensing. I brewed another pot of coffee and made sure I had a pile of large needles close by to stab myself with. Learning about licensing is a dirty, dangerous job -- but if you care about free software, you really need to read the fine print. Yes, open-source licenses are boring, complicated, obtuse and multiplying in number faster than porn spam. But they are also the heart of the flourishing open-source software scene. The way they are used, or more to the point, the way they are not abused, is worth paying close attention to. Particularly if you are part of an industry like, say, the music business, where there currently seems to be a wee problem of copyright violation. Never mind the endless, mind-numbing subtleties. You don't really want or need to know that the Sun Community Source License treats derivative rights (the right to make new software programs based on the original source code) differently than the Mozilla Public License. You don't have to care that there are actually two versions of Richard Stallman's famous GPL -- the strict, original version untrammeled by compromise, and the more industry-friendly LGPL. Once you've had the basic parameters explained -- on this side, the side of ideological purity, there is the GPL, and on that side, the side of lenient pragmatism, there are the BSD-style licenses -- you know more than enough to stay, in the words of hacker Eric Raymond, "fat, dumb, and happy." But the longer I puzzled over the various licenses described by Rosenberg, and the longer I mulled over a brilliant essay on the potential legal enforceability of such licenses by Steve Lee, the more I began to be amazed at the deep structural weirdness that clings to the world of open-source licensing. Open-source licenses are the practical foundation of the open-source infrastructure -- and yet at the same time they are almost abstractly irrelevant. For all their carefully crafted clauses, all their painstaking attempts (particularly in the cases of the licenses concocted by commercial companies) to balance various interests, and all the endless digital hot air that has been expended in holier-than-thou license flame wars, not a single one of these licenses has yet been tested in court. No one knows if they will actually work. We know the software works. But do the licenses really ensure survival in an ever more litigious age? We have no idea. And yet free software is thriving. How is that? One answer is that it's not the legal standing of licenses that makes people respect them -- it's the consensus that the rules the licenses codify are essentially fair. That's the lesson that the entertainment industry needs to have drummed into its collective behind. It's well established that nobody trusts record companies. So despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent trying to prop up copyright through legislation, lobbying and lawsuits, nothing seems to work. The record companies need to take a different approach. They must create a system that people will believe in. Force won't work -- in the digital age, it can't work. And while a good license that's part of a fair system can't enforce ethical behavior, it can, in significant ways, encourage it. I once asked Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, whether his opinion on the merits of licensing had changed because of Sun's experience with Microsoft and Java. Sun has historically been a proponent of aggressively licensing its hardware and software to other companies. But Microsoft licensed Java from Sun, and then promptly proceeded to write its own version of the programming language that was incompatible with Sun's. Did that sour Sun on the merits of licensing? No, said Joy. "They [Microsoft] were going to do whatever they wanted. It's quite clear that the law doesn't matter much to them -- what difference does it make if we license it to them or not? They would have done what they wanted anyway." Sun's experience is just another example of how licenses are only as good as the faith that people put into them. And yet, more virtual blood has been shed on the topic of licenses in the free-software community than on practically any other subject. Nothing is surer to enrage hackers than a corporate license that appears designed to take advantage of developer volunteerism. And just let the merest whiff of the accusation surface in a place like Slashdot that some tiny software company has violated the terms of the GPL. The troops mobilize! The e-mail bombings begin! The press, attracted by the hubbub, generates its own frenzy. And invariably, the offending company scrambles to cover its butt -- no one needs that kind of bad publicity. Contrast this, again, with the music business. Open-source software authors intend for their intellectual property to be freely redistributed, whereas songwriters generally do not. (Although with Offspring and Smashing Pumpkins giving away their albums, there are some clear cracks in the dike.) But despite this seemingly huge ethical issue, we end up with two completely different outcomes. In the case where the authors are giving away their software but putting certain conditions on what people are allowed to do with that software, the community of software developers is respecting the letter of the license. Whereas in the case where the songwriter and the record company are screaming, vociferously, that people should stop doing what they are doing with their songs, the intent of the author is being trampled. The explanation for the different outcomes, again, is that software developers believe both in the right of software authors to determine what happens to their code and in the essential fairness of the open- source system. The point of open-source licenses is to benefit the user or the software developer, not to exploit them. But record companies don't inspire the same trust. Consumers feel ripped off when they pay $16 for a CD whose cost to produce is minimal. Artists, even if they are opposed to Napster music trading, still feel exploited by record companies. The system is based on each participant trying to get away with as much as they can -- so that's the way consumers behave, too. Open-source software and Napster-style copyright violation are, though different in some important ways, still both sides of the same coin: They are both reflections of the fact that in the digital age, it is absurdly easy to copy things. Open-source software hackers have made that fact into the foundation of the way they do business. The music industry sees it as a threat to all that they hold dear. But it's also an opportunity. If the recording industry could come up with a system that people believed in, they could potentially save themselves, at the very least, the millions that they are spending on legal fees. But to pull that off, the record companies are going to have to hope that if they treat consumers and artists fairly, people will act fairly to them. That's a radical thought -- since in some ways, being fair is patently anti-capitalist. It means not charging what the market will bear, not exploiting either consumers or artists, dividing up the pie more equally than ever before, and then depending on average people not to abuse the system. It's also a very risky business, because there is no guarantee that people will behave honorably. But it's the only way forward. There will always be a workaround to circumvent any security measures the record companies devise, and there will always be a new improved file sharing protocol to replace whatever the lawyers manage to shut down. Underground online black markets will never disappear; ones and zeroes are just too damn good at getting around. Would it work to modify the current system of copyright so that consumers of music would be free to trade the music, if in return they committed to voluntarily compensating artists when they benefited from such trading? Impossible to say. The current experiments, such as FairTunes, are too small in scale, and lack enough support from the big players, to make a dent in the public consciousness. But the open-source example suggests that, even if the licenses themselves aren't enforceable, the language of those licenses may encourage "good" behavior. Steve Lee chooses the Apache license as an example. The Apache Web server is the most widely used program on the Internet for enabling computers to host Web sites. The license that protects its use is a spinoff from the lenient BSD-style family -- an open-source license that says that you can do whatever you want with the code, even make changes to it and keep those changes proprietarily to yourself, as long as you give credit to the original authors of the code. But, as Lee notes, there are some significant additions to the Apache license that emphasize Apache's dependence on volunteer contributions and implicitly make the case for Apache's righteousness. For example, use of the Apache name is forbidden for any derivative software product in which code is kept proprietary. "The incentives created by the legal language of the Apache License," writes Lee, "serve to reinforce the cultural mechanisms ... For example, although the licensee is free to close the code derived from the Apache code base, the licensee would not be able to benefit from the goodwill built up around the Apache name ... Considering these conditions in light of the Apache License's express encouragement of 'voluntary contributions,' the language of the Apache License may provide additional incentives for the licensees to participate in the 'gift culture' of the open source community." Incentives to join the gift economy! If the music industry could figure out how to join in -- or if at the very least it made an honest attempt to join in -- wouldn't everyone stand to benefit? Perhaps profit margins at the biggest record companies would be tightened, but that's just life in the 21st century. It's time to give people licenses that encourage them to be good, rather than invite them to not give a damn. Copyright 2000 Salon.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Wed Oct 11 16:46:47 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:46:47 -0700 Subject: SCN: Privacy Message-ID: <39E49977.27784.2240830@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ======================== A security specialist explains why his open-source version of the FBI's snooping technology is a victory for privacy fans. (Sean Dugan, Salon.com)---Robert Graham has hacking in his blood. In 1988, as a student at Oregon State University, he helped fight the infamous Morris Worm -- an out-of-control software program that nearly broke the Internet. But Graham's security roots go back even further back than that: His grandfather was a code breaker who worked on cracking Nazi communications during World War II. Graham is the CTO of NetworkICE, a security company he co- founded with Greg Gilliom and Clinton Lum to provide "anti-hacking" services such as intrusion detection software. Given his family background and his own interests, one could understand that Graham might be interested in anything related to cyber-snooping. But on Tuesday Graham took his involvement to a whole new level, inserting himself directly into the middle of the charged debate over Carnivore -- the FBI's much-maligned system for spying on the e- mails of suspected criminals. Graham released to the general public the source code to "Altivore," a program that mimics all the capabilities of Carnivore. Part protest against Carnivore's potential for invasions of privacy and part defensive measure aimed at subverting Carnivore, Altivore is the latest escalation of the ongoing battle over just how much privacy we can expect in cyberspace. Graham, 33, is a veteran of the venerable minicomputer maker Data General. He says that these days he doesn't get out too much, he's too busy taking care of business at NetworkICE. And yet somehow he found the time to write and release Altivore. Salon caught up with Graham the day after news about Altivore's release broke. He was happy to explain why he created the software, what he feels the real issues raised by Carnivore are and why there should be a fundamental human right to encryption. What prompted you to write Altivore? >From one perspective, just to poke fun at the FBI. As we describe it, it's like "outing" the FBI. The FBI has kept everything secretive and behind their back rooms and black boxes. We have said: The technology is not as complex as people think. It's actually pretty simple. So we took little bits and pieces from our existing source base of our products -- it's all still "sniffing" -- and dropped it in a new little program called Altivore and shipped the source code for it, so everyone could see how it's done. Also, to give ISPs [Internet service providers] an alternative to the FBI. The FBI comes up with a search warrant and really, what the FBI wants, is just the data. They don't care how you get it. If the ISP can use Altivore instead, they don't need to have this secretive black box on the network. Was it much of a technical challenge? You said on your Web site that you wrote it in a weekend. If I were to write it from scratch, it would take a little bit longer. But since we're copying and pasting stuff that we have already done -- little bits and pieces here and there -- it takes a lot less time. How long have you been using this sniffer technology? The three founders of the company have been doing this sort of thing for 10 years. I've done this 10 times before -- for me, even if it was from scratch, it would take me maybe a couple [of] weekends, rather than one weekend. If you're a gymnast, you can do a trick on the parallel bars -- you just go ahead and do it, whereas it would take somebody like me, for example, years to do the same trick. Is it accurate to characterize Altivore as open-source software? That depends on someone's open-source definition. Right now, we're holding the copyright close to our chest because there are so many open-source licenses out there to choose from. Right now, we're basically just "copyright: us." I think we're looking at the BSD license, rather than the GPL license. Do you think the FBI is being completely honest about what Carnivore does? That's always the big question. In terms of technical sophistication, it doesn't need to be technically sophisticated to do what the FBI says it does. Now, you can presume that it might do lots of other stuff that would require more technical sophistication, but that debate goes on more along the lines of Echelon. We believe that Carnivore has no relationship to Echelon. Echelon is really a content scanner looking for key words like "plutonium." With Carnivore, you only get into a network once you have a court order and the court order says something like somebody's e-mail address. You'll never get a court order for something like content scanning. If there's anything that the FBI has that's like Echelon, it's not Carnivore -- it's something else. Do you think the concerns raised about Carnivore by groups like the EFF and the ACLU are legitimate? The main concern that the EFF and ACLU have is not Carnivore -- it's the fact that the FBI can come in with a court order in the first place and demand all your e-mail traffic. That's their main concern; they don't care about the technology. They make a lot of funny statements about the technology which I'm amused about -- like the EFF said that you can't scan for a single person's e-mail address and sift it out of everyone else's e-mail -- but you actually can, which Altivore shows. Their main issue is the privacy debate -- should the government have the right to sniff all of our traffic? More importantly, encryption technology is becoming more and more built into what we do. The real debate that we're going to have to answer and address as a society at some point is whether encryption is a fundamental human right. Does the government have the right to peer into all of our data or do we have the right to do our best to hide our data -- hide our information, our e-mail and correspondences from the government? NetworkICE is along the lines that we should be considering this and we should think of this as a human right. What kinds of things should we be concerned about -- should we all really be encrypting our data? What are the privacy concerns? Your ISP is already looking at your e-mail. Back at my old company, I would send e-mails to my girlfriend. And a couple of the e-mails were a little bit mushy. One of the e-mails got misdirected because there was a problem with the server. The people maintaining our e- mail service probably had to look at that e-mail in order to figure why it was misdirected. So, they probably read the e-mail message. So, the moral of the story is whether it's the FBI, or just the people trying to get your e-mail to you, people are going to be reading your e-mail occasionally. Therefore, if there's something in the e-mail message that you don't want other people to read, you should encrypt it. Returning to Echelon and Carnivore -- do you think it will ever be possible to completely monitor the entire Net? From a technical standpoint, are we moving in that direction? There's lot of capabilities that can do some effective monitoring, but ultimately, the Net is too big to monitor. For example, if I send e-mail from my company to your company, how does it go across the Internet? There's no centralized point on the Internet where it's going to go through; it follows a convoluted path. The FBI cannot put enough little monitoring devices throughout the Internet to monitor all the traffic. And if they did, the amount of traffic is really, really huge. They can do some monitoring, but ultimately they cannot log it all. They can't save all the network traffic to a disk for later analysis. That would be an awfully big hard drive. That's one of the points about Echelon -- people don't know what it is targeting. But, spying on diplomatic channels is a very common thing. Spying on satellite transmission has been very common. But if I've got fiber optic cable between you and me, Echelon can't monitor that fiber optic cable. Echelon itself is very limited in what it can monitor. So, we'll never have pervasive monitoring, but the government will try and do the best job they can -- that's what governments do. Does creating Altivore put you in an awkward position? On one side, you have the FBI. On the other side, you have groups like the EFF. You seem to be presenting this tool that allows snooping, but at the same time, it's an alternative to the FBI's black box. That was one of our main fears in releasing Altivore. Fundamentally, we're releasing a product whose sole purpose is to spy on people. Which is interesting -- since we're promoting it as a tool to defend against being spied upon. You could easily misinterpret our intentions here and say, "Hey, you're trying to help the FBI with spying." It's an interesting position to be in. Ultimately, the FBI comes in with a search warrant and the real, main issue is the search warrant. They're going to get the data, no matter what. They're going to use Carnivore, or get the ISP to do it for them. Either way, they're going to get the data. We're not actually helping the FBI do anything more than they can already do. So this is more about providing a choice to an ISP? Right. As we say, our current products kick hackers off your networks. Altivore kicks the FBI off your network. Copyright 2000 Salon.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From charjim at scn.org Thu Oct 12 13:08:25 2000 From: charjim at scn.org (Charlotte and Jim Erickson) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Thanks Message-ID: We cannot tell you how much we appreciate the hours you have put into making this wonderful e-mail available. Thank you very much. Charlotte and Jim Erickson, charjim at scn.org ------------------------------------------ Jim & Charlotte Erickson in Richmond Beach charjim at scn.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Sat Oct 14 13:39:14 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:39:14 -0700 Subject: SCN: Web content Message-ID: <39E86202.19265.C472DF@localhost> x-no-archive: yes =========================== Just ran across this posting from the early days of Slate - still looks pretty accurate... =========================== The crazy economics of Internet content by Nathan Myhrvold 9/19/96 (Slate)---Content is king on the Internet--or that's what people say. But the business of supplying Internet content--the business of Slate, among others--is more like Prince Charles at the moment: an iffy, wannabe king. The business faces two obstacles. First, it has no model for collecting revenue: It lacks even a plausible theory of how it can pay for itself. Second, the business must overcome a peculiar crisis of confidence: not because confidence is too low, but because confidence and expectations are far too high to be sustainable. Of all the problems a business may face, the lack of a revenue model is a rather surprising one. How could an enterprise that lacks a way to finance itself even be a business? It's as if biologists discovered a population of animals that have no way to reproduce. Yet, if you start clicking your way around the Internet, you find scads of content with no viable economic model. How did it get there? Vanity is one explanation, along with its complement, voyeurism. The Internet is the ultimate vanity-publishing medium, and therefore, the ultimate place for those of us who like to watch. The Internet can reach an audience at lower cost than any medium before it. It's an ideal outlet for personal vanity (I confess to a personal Web site myself). It's likewise ideal for the dissemination of material by individuals and groups with various axes to grind. And then there's corporate vanity and promotion. Anybody who can afford a box of business cards can afford a Web site. Any company with an 800 number can move its services to the Web for peanuts by comparison. The extreme case of corporate promotion is to strip away all other aspects of your business and sell goods or services via the Net alone, as amazon.com has done with books. In each of these cases--which cover most of what's on the Web right now--the economic dynamic is the same: Content is chasing customers, not visa versa. (No one but I was hankering for me to set up my personal site.) In each case, the content needn't pay for itself because the creator has an ulterior motive. There's no denying that perusing this material on the Net can be fascinating, at least for the moment. But as the medium matures, the fascination will fade. All this stuff has its equivalents in the traditional print medium: self- published poetry, thick foundation studies, annual reports, brochures, catalogs, and so on. It would be a dull world indeed if that's all we got to read. The older media of print, radio, TV, music--all kinds of intellectual property, really--are based on the premise that the creation of content should, at the very least, be economically self-sufficient and ideally, be profitable. This premise is what produces quality content. Time magazine wouldn't have anything like its current resources if the editor and a few buddies put it out as a hobby. We pay for content that we like, and we like the content we pay for. It's a lot more satisfying to pay $7.50 for Steven Spielberg's next epic than it is to watch my home movies for free. Even for me. There is no lack of content claiming to be this sort of Grade A material on the Internet these days. In fact, Slate claims to be an example. But precious little of it is self-supporting. And the economic question is how quality content can become self- supporting, because otherwise, it won't survive. This key question has been obscured by how fast the Internet is growing. Growth for its own sake can be mesmerizing. Millions of people already have personal computers. Getting on the Net is relatively simple for these folks--all you need do is agree to a free trial offer. Plus, you have the old peer-pressure thing going. If your friends all have e-mail, you need it too. Once everybody is talking about the Internet, you'll feel like a fossil unless you get with it too-- hell, everybody's doing it. Go ahead and inhale. The astounding growth in users (estimated at 20 percent a month) stimulates growth in the sort of content that chases them, ensuring the newbies have something to see. The cost barrier is higher for setting up Web pages than it is for using them, but it is trivial compared with the noncyberspace equivalents. To understand the challenge of getting people to pay for Internet content, imagine trying to sell subscriptions to HBO back in the 1950s. People were still fascinated with the sheer miracle of television. They clustered around their primitive sets to watch the damnedest things (Milton Berle for instance). Before people would pay money for premium content, they had to get so bored with TV that they'd say, "Damn it, there's nothing on I want to watch!" Yet, they'd also have to be so addicted that it wouldn't occur to them to turn the machine off. This transition didn't really occur until a large part of the adult audience consisted of people who had grown up with TV. Folks who met the TV as adults would never have as strong a relationship with it--they had other hobbies--they knew, for example, how to read. Why pay a fee for Internet content when a million free sites are just a click away? There's no incentive until people are too addicted to the Net to turn off their computers, yet are bored with what's available. In the very long run, addiction and boredom seem as inevitable as death and taxes, and user fees will then be viable, at least in some cases. Customers who pay for some specialty sites may come sooner, but the mainstream is apt to be slow--exactly how slow is hard to predict. A year? Five years? Must it wait until a generation has grown up with the Web? Maybe not, but there is no reason for the transformation to happen on the same rapid time scale that users join the Web or free sites proliferate. Not everything happens in "Internet time" or is destined to explode at 20 percent a month. The timing isn't driven by technology and how fast we adopt it--it is about shifts in human behavior. Advertising is the other Holy Grail for Internet-content revenue. The TV analogy seems more cheery in this case--at first. Companies selling everything from soap to pickup trucks pump billions a year into television. Before TV, these same companies were big advertisers in other media. Burma Shave, for example, was a strong brand based on cute little roadside signs. The transition to TV transformed consumer-product marketing, and changed the rules. Poor Burma Shave stuck to its signs and lost its pre-eminent position, and many of the national brands that we know today rose to prominence. But the shift took decades. In order for Internet advertising to become a big revenue source, consumer-product companies must decide to put billions of dollars into Net advertising. There are only two ways to do that--shift money away from other media, or substantially increase the ad budget. Both things happened with the arrival of TV. Newspaper ads are down by about 50 percent from 1950 levels (in constant dollars) mainly because national ad accounts were lost to television. Consumer-product companies also spend a larger share of their revenues on all sorts of ads now than they did before TV. Over time, as marketing executives learn to use the Internet effectively, they will shift billions to it. Companies that sell directly on the Internet save money compared with retail stores and, ultimately, will pass some of those savings back as increased advertising. How long before this adds up to billions? Once again, it is hard to say. But there is no reason to think that corporate spending decisions must happen in Internet time. Indeed, there is every reason to think they won't. Why play this crazy game in the meantime? Visions of sugarplums dance in our heads. If you start early, you might make zillions later. This logic is sound, and can sensibly justify businesses that lose money in the short run. Alas, the same logic is also behind financial disasters. Investors see wild 20 percent-a-month growth in one area of the Net, and proceed, willy-nilly, to project revenue and profit for content, forgetting that it is gated by fundamentally different forces. Rising expectations soon take on a self-fulfilling life of their own, fueling new waves of speculation. Early entrants make out like bandits, and nobody wants to be left behind. Meanwhile, the resulting overinvestment only makes the economics worse, as too few paying customers and ad dollars are chased by too much desperate content. The gap between wild expectation and sober reality may be a bump in the road, or it may be a Grand Canyon-sized chasm. Predictions of an Internet wipeout seem overblown, because e-mail and free content are perfectly sustainable. Still, the word that usually goes after "manic" is "depressive," and this cycle may well be played out for Internet content companies. In the long run, the fundamentals seem good. But how long is that? Copyright 1996 Microsoft Corporation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Sun Oct 15 17:50:14 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:50:14 -0700 Subject: SCN: Usenet and ICANN Message-ID: <39E9EE56.2985.B531F@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ========================= (Angela Gunn, Seattle Weekly)---Roaming the Gunn household there exist two cats called, when it amuses us to do so, ES and OS-- Endless Supply and Ongoing Shortage. (Yeah, really. My mom named a cat "Too" once. Deal with it.) Endless Supply is one of those perma-happy beasts who loves being petted, loves being picked up, loves being in your company, loves being. In ES' worldview there will always be enough of the important things-- attention, security, food. Ongoing Shortage, on the other hand, is so stressed you can't look at her without causing yowls of despair. Any unexpected move is an attempt to harm her. The food supply is under constant siege. And under no circumstances is it recommended that you attempt to pick up OS. They crack me up, the cats. They live in the same house with the same people, food, resources. But ES is convinced that there is plenty of everything to go around, while OS operates as if every day is a new threat. Poor kitty, but it's hard to take her misery seriously when ES is sitting there purring. And so it is with ICANN (the well-known Net governing body) and with those who would archive Usenet, that blow-by-blow transcript of the Net's contrary and chatty heart for lo these many years. They're two OSs, actually--both in a sort of crisis mode that's fake and unnecessary and stupid. And any reasonably smart Net citizen can tell that just by looking. Let's take ICANN first, since that body would have us believe they are first among equals in getting to say what is and isn't to be so for the Net. They've just released (and it sure took them long enough) the list of top-level domains (TLDs) that people have asked to create. Top-level domains, for those of you who momentarily mistook this space for the Pet Lady, are the "countries" of the Net-- .com and .org are two top-level domains. Shall we peek at the list? A number of folks want to be in charge of the .kids TLD. A number more want to handle .xxx or .sex. One enterprising Toronto outfit wants to handle both .kids and .xxx, which makes an odd biological kind of sense. The folks at Name.Space want a whopping 118 TLDs including .help, .war, and .soup (!). There's no technical reason that all these TLDs can't exist. (There's also no reason that ICANN charges companies wishing to apply for TLD rights a non-refundable $50K deposit--that's 50 large just for ICANN to take you seriously.) There's no reason that ICANN should limit the number of new TLDs to under half a dozen. But that's what's probably going to happen. Why? Artificial scarcity, baby. If there is less of something, it's more valuable. And if there are fewer TLDs, big corporations have to work less to register all the variations on their name--bigbiz.kids, bigbiz.sex, bigbiz.soup. But ICANN, we cry, shouldn't corporations be forbidden to snap up all those domains? Won't that make for another name shortage just like the one we're facing now, ICANN? Hey, quit bothering ICANN. They're busy. They'll get to that problem when the corporations who are pimping that so-called Net governing body say they're allowed to. (Don't look so shocked. In fact, get me drunk one of these days and I'll tell you off-the-record how Esther Dyson, the chair of ICANN, got her foot in the door at Ziff-Davis, the company that catapulted her to techish prominence.) And then there's Usenet, which owes its luxuriant growth to not having an ICANN in charge of it. Usenet discussions live forever, or at least as long as they're archived. In the past few years, various archives have sprung up, the most famous of which is probably Deja. Hey, guess what? Deja's not interested in that business anymore, and they "temporarily" took down their voluminous archive. Bets are that they're looking for a buyer, but there's a problem: They don't actually own that stuff. I own what I wrote, you own what you wrote, and if Deja's gonna sell they owe us a cut. (Copyright, remember?) And if no one wants to buy . . . bye! Sure it's a beast archive, terabytes of 1s and 0s. And I'm sorry they didn't make money in the gold rush. But you know what? One company's fortunes shouldn't determine the availability of our Nettish history as manifested in scary, silly, irreplaceable Usenet. You know what else? One whored-out "governing body" shouldn't be able to limit the Net's growth to make life easier for the corporations who'd turn it into their turf. Artificial, ongoing shortages. The feline OS has a brain the size of a walnut and is, in fact, a cat. What's these guys' excuse? Copyright 2000 Seattle Weekly * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bm234 at scn.org Tue Oct 17 10:27:13 2000 From: bm234 at scn.org (Charles Hirschman Sr.) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: amont of email space. Message-ID: I don't understand this. I've removed over amillion bytes of space-leaving -well under the million you ask for as a limit. Today it has jumped to l,711.000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Tue Oct 17 15:05:10 2000 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:05:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: internet filitering law Message-ID: <200010172205.PAA25579@scn.org> >From Eron Lloyd in Pennsylvania... Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:27:36 -0400 From: Eron Lloyd To: srjacobs at marauder.millersville.edu CC: luren at reading.lib.pa.us, sandblade at lancaster.lib.pa.us, douglas at scn.org, kathleen at talon.net Subject: [Fwd: Internet Filtering] Hello to all. There is a proposal in the Senate possibly going to be voted on in a week or so. More information on it can be found at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/16/1748204&mode=thread This is BAD. I myself responded by posting the included message below. I encourage you all to do as well. This is just a sidestep of rules in place to limit the Federal influence on state agendas, not to mention an infringement on the First Amendment. Use the link below to get to the proper page - Santorum is the target. Look for the "Internet Filtering" selection on the page (near the middle). Speak your mind. http://congress.nw.dc.us/cgi-bin/message_director.pl?dir=gr&mailaddress0=pajr > Dear Mr. Santorum, > > There has been several discussions about your position on Internet filtering in > public facilties, namely Libraries and Schools. I understand that you may be > only reacting to the enormous amount of concern citizens have expressed over > this issue. However, I believe that a simple solution like filtering software > is NOT going to be able to produce satisfactory results. Instead, this > software, which has been proven constantly to be ineffective and very > inaccurate, may only serve to cripple the right of youth to use the Internet as > a tool of freedom - freedom to collect and distribute information, and freedom > to exchange and explorer alternative opinions. This is to many an outcry of > Constitutional injustice, and would be fought by many much concerned with the > protection of First Amendment rights. As well, it takes power away from > libraries (one of which I happen to work for) and puts that power in the hands > of "software companies", who will ultimately decide what is "appropriate". > Better library and school Internet policies and technology education, not > restrictive information regulations, is the only way to manage a situation such > as this. Issues like these do not only effect the user at a library terminal > that cannot access some vital information because of badly configured filtering > software that the staff does not know how to manage, but also the very core of > the right to public information, as unconventional and unpopular as it may be. > We must remember that even the Bible, which many see as the greatest book of > all time, has been banned in societies in our history's past. Please think > seriously about the repercussions this law could generate, and decide if the > results will be worth the guaranteed ineffectiveness of this policy in > protecting the public. The enemy is not always what you think it is. > > Thank you for your time, > > Eron Lloyd * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Wed Oct 18 14:29:31 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:29:31 -0700 Subject: SCN: Intellectual property Message-ID: <39EDB3CB.26438.31B0896@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ======================== Another oldie that's still pretty relevant... ======================== John Perry Barlow says intellectual property will soon be worthless. His own already comes close. (Robert Wright, Slate 9/96)---Back when I was a journalist - before I became a provider of digital content - I thought life would always be simple: I would write articles, and people would pay to read them. But then I heard about the impending death of intellectual property, a scenario painted by cyberfuturists John Perry Barlow and Esther Dyson. As all media move online, they say, content will be so freely available that getting paid to produce it will be hard, if not impossible. At first, I dismissed this as garden-variety, breathless overextrapolation from digerati social theorists. But even as I scoffed, the Barlow-Dyson scenario climbed steadily toward the rank of conventional wisdom. Barlow and Dyson do have a solution. In the future people like me, having cultivated a following by providing free content on the Web, will charge our devotees for services that are hard to replicate en masse. We will answer individual questions online, say, or go around giving speeches, or spew out insights at private seminars, or (this one is actually my idea) have sex with young readers. The key, writes Barlow, will be not content but "performance." Barlow, a former lyricist for the Grateful Dead, offers this analogy: The Dead let people tape concerts, and the tapes then led more people to pay for the concerts. The seminal version of the Barlow- Dyson thesis is Barlow's 10,000-word 1994 essay in Wired. It is with some trepidation that I challenge the logic of this argument. Barlow is a noted visionary, and he is famously derisive of people less insightful than himself (a group which, in his opinion, includes roughly everyone). He says, for example, that the ability of courts to deal correctly with cyberissues depends on the "depth of the presiding judge's clue-impairment." Well, at the risk of joining Barlow's long roster of the clue-impaired, here goes. Barlow's argument begins with a cosmic premise: "Digital technology is detaching information from the physical plane, where property law of all sorts has always found definition." This is wrong on two counts. First, all information does take physical form. Whether digital or analog, whether in ink or sound waves or synaptic firings or electrons, information always resides in patterns of matter or energy (which, as Einstein noted, are interchangeable manifestations of the physical world). To be sure, the significance of information is independent of its particular physical incarnation. So is its value. You download this article from Slate's servers and copy it onto your own hard disk, and it's still worth - well, nothing, but that's a bad example. Suppose it were a Madonna video: You'd get just as much enjoyment out of it regardless of which particular bunch of electrons embodied it. But this independence of meaning and value from physical incarnation is nothing new. It is as old as Sumerian tablets, to say nothing of the Gutenberg press. Indeed, the whole reason intellectual-property law exists is that people can acquire your information without acquiring the particular physical version of it that you created. Thus, Barlow's belief that "property law of all sorts" has always "found definition" on the "physical plane" signals a distressing confusion on his part. The one sense in which it's true that information is "detached" from the "physical plane" - the fact that information's value transcends its physical incarnation - not only fails to qualify as an original insight, and not only fails to make intellectual-property rights obsolete; it's the very insight that led to intellectual-property rights in the first place. Barlow announces from the mountaintop: "It's fairly paradigm warping to look at information through fresh eyes - to see how very little it is like pig iron or pork bellies." Maybe so, but it's hard to say for sure, since the people who really did take that fresh look have been dead for centuries. If you somehow forced Barlow to articulate his thesis without the wacky metaphysics, he'd probably say something like this: The cost of copying and distributing information is plummeting - for many purposes, even approaching zero. Millions of people can now do it right at their desks. So in principle, content can multiply like fruit flies. Why should anyone buy an article when a copy can be had for nothing? Answer: Because it can't. The total cost of acquiring a "free" copy includes more than just the copying-and-transmitting costs. There's 1) the cost--in time and/or money--of finding someone who already has a copy, and will give it to you for free or for cheap; 2) the risk of getting caught stealing intellectual property; 3) any premiums you pay to others for incurring such risks (as when you get copies from bootleggers); and 4) informal punishments such as being labeled a cheat or a cheapskate. The size of this last cost will depend on how norms in this area evolve. Even in the distant future, the total cost of cheating on the system, thus figured, will almost never be zero. Yes, it will be way, way closer to zero than it used to be. But the Barlow-Dyson scenario still is wrong. Why? Because whether people cheat doesn't depend on the absolute cost of cheating. It depends on the cost of cheating compared with the cost of not cheating. And the cost of getting data legally will plummet roughly as fast as the cost of getting it illegally-- maybe faster. In their writings, Barlow and Dyson make clear they're aware of this fact. But they seem unaware of its fatal impact on their larger thesis. How could cybersages have such a blind spot? One theory: Because they're cybersages. You have to be a career paleohack like me, getting paid for putting ink on paper, to appreciate how much of the cost of legally acquiring bits of information goes into the ink and paper and allied anachronisms, like shipping, warehousing, and displaying the inky paper. I wrote a book that costs $14 in paperback. For each copy sold, I get $1. The day may well come, as Barlow and Dyson seem to believe, when book publishers as we know them will disappear. People will download books from Web sites and either print them out on new, cool printers or read them on superlight wireless computers. But if so, it will then cost you only $1--oh hell, make it $1.25--to get a copy of my book legally from my Web site. Now imagine being at my Web site, reading my promotional materials, and deciding you'd like to read the book. A single keystroke will give you the book, drain your bank account of five shiny quarters, and leave you feeling like an honest, upstanding citizen. Do you think you'll choose, instead, to call a few friends in hopes of scoring an illegal copy? And don't imagine that you can just traipse on over to the "black- market book store" section of the Web and find a hot copy of my book. As in the regular world, the easier it is for Joe Consumer to track down an illegal distributor, the easier it is for cops to do the same. Black marketeers will have to charge enough to make up for this risk, making it hard to undersell my $1.25 by much. And there are other reasons, too, why the cost of cheating will be nontrivial. Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger, there's another reason for the cost of legal copies to drop. Many journalists will reach a much larger audience on the Web than they do now. The "magazine" model of bringing information to the attention of readers is stunningly inefficient. I hope it's not egotistical of me to think that when I write an article for, say, the New Republic, I am not reaching nearly everyone who might have an interest in it. Granted, the Web is not yet a picture of efficiency itself. Search engines, for example, are in the reptilian phase of their evolution. But most observers--certainly the Barlows of the world--expect radical improvement. (I'm not saying all journalists will see their audiences grow. The likely trend, when you think about it, will be for many obscure and semiobscure journalists to see their audiences grow, while the few rich and famous journalists will see their audiences shrink. Cool.) One much-discussed cybertrend is especially relevant here: the scenario in which various data brokers offer a "Daily Me," a batch of articles tailored to your tastes, cheaply gleaned from all over the Web. When this happens, guys like me will be living the life of Riley. We will wake up at noon, stumble over to the keyboard in our pajamas, hammer out 1,000 words, and then--without talking to a single bothersome editor--make our work available to all data brokers. Likely fans of my article will be shown, say, the first couple of paragraphs. If they want to read more, they deposit a quarter. Will you try to steal a copy instead? Do you steal Tootsie pops at checkout counters? The broker and the electronic cash service will pocket a dime of that. I take my 15 cents and head for the liquor store. Of course, this "disaggregation of content" may be ruinous for magazines like Slate. But consider the upside. Not only will the efficiency of the system permit rock-bottom pricing that discourages cheating, but the fluidity of content will disrupt channels of potential cheating. If you subscribe to a regular, old-fashioned online magazine, it's easy to split the cost of a subscription with a few friends and furtively make copies. (You wretched scum.) But if you subscribe to the "Daily Me," this arrangement makes no sense, because every Me is different. Sure, you may e-mail a friend the occasional article from your "Me." (You wretched scum.) And, in general, this sort of "leakage" will be higher than in pre-Web days. But it would have to reach massive proportions to negate the overall gains in efficiency that will keep people like me in business. This argument, like all arguments about the future, is speculative. It may even be wrong. But it is consistent with the history of the world. The last half-millennium has seen 1) data getting cheaper and easier to copy; and 2) data-creation occupying a larger and larger fraction of all economic activity. Thus far, in other words, as the realm of information has gotten more lubricated, it has become easier, not harder, to make a living by generating information. Cyberspace is essentially a quantum leap in lubrication. Barlow's insistence that intellectual property will soon be worthless is especially puzzling since he is one of the biggest troubadours of the Third Wave information economy. Sometimes he seems to think it's possible for a sector of a market economy to get bigger and bigger even while the connection between work and reward in that sector breaks down. He writes: "Humanity now seems bent on creating a world economy primarily based on goods that take no material form. In doing so, we may be eliminating any predictable connection between creators and a fair reward for the utility or pleasure others may find in their works." Far out, man. Copyright 1996 Slate.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Wed Oct 18 22:17:16 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:17:16 -0700 Subject: SCN: Geekcorps Message-ID: <39EE216C.17691.4C757C2@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ======================= A Techie Volunteer Corps (Shaila Dewan, NY Times)---Sarah Wustner, a Seattle software engineer, thought about joining the Peace Corps when she graduated from the University of California at San Diego in 1998. But, she said, "they didn't have anything that really fit my skills." Now, with a stint at Microsoft on her resume, she has taken a leave of absence from her job at Oxygen Media to live in Ghana for three months. Ms. Wustner is part of the pilot team of six volunteers for Geekcorps, a high-tech version of the Peace Corps. Instead of teaching math, as technologically adept Peace Corps workers often do, Ms. Wustner, 24, will help a Ghanaian software company teach its workers the Java and Unix programming languages. "I want the satisfaction of feeling that all of the expensive education that I got helped someone in a really real way," she said. Geekcorps was the idea of Ethan Zuckerman, 27, who made a modest fortune ("enough to buy myself time," he said) when the Internet company he helped start, Tripod, was bought by Lycos in 1998. Lacking economic expertise, he consulted with Elisa Korentayer, 25, who has been both an investment banker and a poverty relief worker; she became a co-founder of Geekcorps. The idea for Geekcorps came when Mr. Zuckerman was in Ghana in 1993 on a Fulbright fellowship to study African music. Because of a strike at the University of Ghana, he spent a lot of time in the library and noticed that it did not have many books published later than 1957, when Ghana became independent from Britain. "I thought, If there was just an Internet connection," he said, "you could more than double this library." In 1999 he left Lycos and began looking for a way to harness the philanthropic urges of his newly rich friends. The budget for Geekcorps's first year, $350,000, was financed largely by Mr. Zuckerman and people he knew from Tripod. Geekcorps is based in North Adams, Mass., in the dot-com corridor of the Berkshires. Geekcorps is not unique. Volunteer programs designed to bridge the "digital divide" have been proliferating. The term itself, once used primarily to describe the gulf between Internet haves and have-nots within Western countries, refers more and more frequently to the huge disparity in access between the world's economic giants and its fledgling economies. Nearly 400 of every 1,000 Americans are Internet users, according to the International Telecommunication Union, as opposed to 3.5 of every 1,000 Africans. Since Aug. 1, the United Nations has sent 37 high-tech volunteers to countries like Benin, Botswana and Ecuador. The State Department's version, called the Global Technology Corps, began in late 1998 and has sponsored more than 20 projects in Kosovo, Nigeria, Poland and other far-flung locales. Still another project, Net Corps America, focuses only on Latin America and the Caribbean. And in August the Peace Corps began to include information technology among its specialties, sending 10 volunteers to Belize. These programs reflect the idea, enunciated this summer by the United Nations and the Group of Eight, that the Internet can provide medical information, economic opportunities and online courses that will enable developing countries to leapfrog ahead. But there are an infinite number of ways to chip away at the obstacles to total connectivity, including putting computers in schools and rewriting telecommunications regulations. Geekcorps, although tiny, has attracted the attention of people like Denis Gilhooly, the director of information and communications technology for the United Nations Development Program. "The key to information infrastructure is a dual approach of bottom-up development, exemplified by Geekcorps," he said, "and top-down efforts, which would be exemplified by the UNDP Global Network Readiness and Resource Initiative." What Geekcorps is doing, he continued, is "seeding the next generation of entrepreneurs, and that's invaluable in these countries." Both Mr. Zuckerman and Ms. Korentayer, who is the Geekcorps program director, said they had been pleasantly surprised by the number of Ghanaian businesses — including an art gallery, a graphic design firm and a software company — that asked for help. "There were so many companies that were so well positioned to receive the kind of help that we can offer," Ms. Korentayer said. In the future Mr. Zuckerman plans to pursue high-tech companies as donors and to persuade "venture philanthropists" like the Noaber Foundation, which gave Geekcorps a grant, to pump capital into Geekcorps's Ghanaian clients. The main thing that sets Geekcorps apart from other volunteer efforts, Ms. Korentayer said, is the fact that it was started by dot- com insiders. "Geekcorps is far better positioned to appeal to the techie sector in the U.S.," Ms. Korentayer said. "Our competitive advantage is that a lot of techies have heard of us." Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From brian at gonorthwest.com Thu Oct 19 11:52:56 2000 From: brian at gonorthwest.com (Brian High) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:52:56 -0700 Subject: SCN: Congressional panel says no to filters Message-ID: <000601c039fd$cb9ac1c0$fd00a8c0@arilabs.com> x-no-archive: yes ===================================================================== Congressional panel says no to filters Congress may be stunned by its own commission that says filtering technology is not ready to police our schools and libraries. By Ted Bridis, WSJ Interactive Edition October 19, 2000 5:03 AM PT [clear.gif] WASHINGTON -- A commission created by Congress to study ways to protect children online will advise against requiring public schools and libraries to use filtering software, even as lawmakers in the waning days of the legislative session consider mandating the use of such tools. In a report expected to be released Friday, the 18-member panel, set up under the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, recommends that government should encourage the use of filtering technology to protect children from the Internet's seedier neighborhoods. It also will call on industry to improve filtering software. But the commission declined to recommend the mandatory use of antipornography filters, saying no particular technology yet offers an ideal solution. That puts the panel directly at odds with a Republican-sponsored amendment to the annual spending bill for the Department of Education and some other agencies, which would require schools and libraries to install software filters if they buy technology with certain types of federal subsidies. "We didn't recommend any mandatory practices," said Donald Telage, chairman of the commission and an executive at Network Solutions Inc. "We did consider them, but not even the most-conservative members of the commission felt that was the road to go down." [...] http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2642392,00.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Sat Oct 21 17:19:24 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:19:24 -0700 Subject: SCN: ICANN Message-ID: <39F1D01C.17682.1A3B90D@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ======================= An interview with radical Karl Auerbach, who just got elected to the Internet's top governing body. (Damien Cave, Salon)---For the past two years, Karl Auerbach has made a hobby of criticizing ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. He has called the Net's controlling authority over domain names everything from inept to "an organ of the trademark lobby." But on Tuesday the 50-year-old "wild-eyed radical," as he often calls himself, became part of that which he loathes: one of five new members of ICANN's board of directors. Can the ultimate outsider transform an organization from the inside? Not even Auerbach is sure. "I'm nervous," he says. "I feel like I just signed up to replace Sisyphus, so that he can go to Hawaii while I undertake to roll the boulder up the mountain every day just to have it roll back down every evening." Auerbach is willing to push anyway. He's confident that the voters who put him in -- everyday Net users who registered through a convoluted online process at ICANN -- made the correct decision. He might be right. The cheerful, bearded 50-year-old has activism in his blood. ("My grandparents worked to promote labor unions, and my father worked to redress imbalances of power in the California TV repair industry," he says.) His own life reflects an eclectic, uniquely Californian mix of technology, law and protest. This strange brew first appeared during Auerbach's teenage years. Growing up in Van Nuys, Calif., during the 1960s, he developed a love for math, attended the same high school as Internet pioneer Vinton Cerf and began to question what were then the early stages of the Vietnam War. In 1966, he joined an antiwar congressional campaign; in 1970, while studying physics at UCLA, Auerbach found himself running from the Los Angeles Police Department during a riot sparked by the news of the Kent State killings. Soon after that, computer science struck his gray matter's fancy, and after meeting up with Cerf -- whom he didn't know in high school -- Auerbach began working on the beginnings of TCP/IP. This led him to software, and throughout the '80s and '90s, Auerbach spent most of his time founding or helping to start small infrastructure companies that helped networks work more efficiently. These firms typically ended up being acquired by larger corporations: Epilogue Technology Corp., which Auerbach founded in 1986, is now part of Wind River Networking Products; Precept Software was acquired by Cisco in 1998, which is where Auerbach now works as a researcher. Through it all, Auerbach maintained his passion for political protest. He says he earned a law degree "because I had been subjected to what I thought was an illegal search by the L.A. sheriff's department and I was curious whether it was, in fact, illegal." (It was.) And when ICANN formed in 1998, under dubious circumstances, Auerbach took up the cause, arguing for a more democratic, less corporate structure. He even formed the Boston Working Group in September of the same year, drawing 1,000 people to the online policy think tank to discuss "the management of Internet names and addresses." But it's one thing to be a critic and quite another to try to effect change. We spoke to Auerbach about his plan for reform, how he hopes to implement it and what he'd like to see ICANN become. You've condemned ICANN repeatedly, but in your ideal world, what would it look like? How would you like to see ICANN changed? We're talking about a California remodeling job, where you knock down the whole house but for one wall and build a new house around it, then tear down the remaining wall. Essentially that's what ICANN needs. It needs a fundamental, ground-up restructuring. I'm talking about a restructuring to the point where the supporting organizations -- such as its law firm -- need to be redefined, if not eliminated; where the board members come exclusively from the at- large membership votes; where everything that ICANN has done so far is subject to a very short sunset provision and has to be reenacted lest it expire. I'm talking about a major overhaul. How on earth do you go about changing this -- you're one man on a board of 19. Yeah, well, I'm going to lose a lot. However, there are other things that a member of a board of directors has. The first thing can be seen in the word "direct" -- a director directs. That's an action word. A director must act, a director must direct, must make well-informed decisions. To do that, a director has the right to inquire about and examine all the records, documents and procedures of a corporation. Very little is hidden from a director's eyes. This gives a director an enormous power to know what's going on in the corporation and to expose improper activity. Also, by my behavior, I intend to exemplify "open, transparent and accountable." I intend to be a standard by which other board members will be measured. What else do you bring to the table? Well, ICANN is moving into a realm where knowledge of technology is actually going to make a difference. And I know the technology. For example, all this business about top-level domains and how many the Net can support -- there's been no technical discussion of how many it can actually support. And most people don't understand the issues of content management, which is very definitely changing domain names from being globally meaningful to locally meaningful. A lot of people think "domain name" uttered anywhere means the same thing. They think a name is just a name is just a name. Yet it costs a lot of money to move content around the network, both in terms of bandwidth and in terms of time. Users get really tired of waiting for stuff to get dragged across the Net. The idea is -- and Akamai and other companies are doing this -- you move content, you spread it around so it's replicated, so when somebody asks for it, you intercept the domain-name query and you look at it and say: "Where is this user coming from? Where is the closest place he can get the content?" And your DNS [domain name system] answers, then points the user to the place that's closest. Therefore, we've got geographically sensitive domain names. And there's this strong financial pressure by data providers and ISPs to manage the content so it can get to the users more efficiently, in terms of not generating so much bandwidth consumption. This is big bucks -- we're talking billions of dollars here. ICANN doesn't understand this. It's assuming that domain names are this globally unique name space, when in fact they are evolving to become more of a personal domain space. So unless one understands the technology and the implications of it, when one enacts rules regulating it, you essentially pour concrete around the technology. You inhibit, if not prevent, innovation. By creating all of these laws about rights to names and structures and DNS, we don't know what innovation we're impeding. Do you remember the Hushaphone decision back in 1956? No. I'm much too young to remember anything that happened in 1956. Ah, it's a very interesting case. In the 1950s, AT&T was The Phone Company, this huge monolith, and it and the Federal Communications Commission -- which was pretty much subject to AT&T's whim -- had an iron fist of control over the telephone system in the United States. But there was a little company called Hushaphone, which built a plastic and aluminum widget that clamped onto the mouthpiece of the telephone. As with when you put your hand around the mouthpiece, it cut out exterior sound and helped focus your voice into the microphone. It was a totally passive piece of equipment. AT&T went ballistic. It said, "You can't sell that product; it will damage and destroy the telephone network." And the FCC said AT&T was right. "We can't have linemen blown off the telephone poles from a high-voltage shock because someone's using a Hushaphone" -- that sort of thing. It actually took something like 20 or 30 years to get to court, but the U.S. District Court took a look at this thing and said, "AT&T, you're full of it. This little widget cannot possibly harm the telephone network. Plain common sense tells us that." So the District Court enacted a standard that said any action that is privately beneficial is permissible on the telephone network, as long as it's not publicly detrimental. That's an important standard; that was the crack that broke AT&T apart. Hushaphone was the start. We need to revisit that rule. We need to realize that large technical entities sometimes don't tell us the truth. We have to realize when we're being subjected to a snow job. It takes some technical savvy to look at something and say, "This emperor has no clothes." Where does your relationship with Cisco fit into this? I don't speak for Cisco and I never will. Cisco is not like the old companies where the president gives an order and everyone marches off wherever he says. We are more of the cats. And most of us are financially independent, so we don't have to follow orders anyway. Are you going to have enough time to do for ICANN what you would like to do? Yeah, I think so. It will of course interfere with my work, but it's been interfering with my work for a couple of years. I'll probably continue about the same kind of schedule, which is work, then say "Hi" to my wife in the evening, then go do ICANN stuff. She doesn't like that. Aren't you also doing DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] research? I'm not sure how much of what I'm doing is yet open for public release, so I'll be a bit vague. But I'm doing research with folks at UC-Berkeley on means to build what I like to call "autopilots" for the Net. The idea is to add intelligent control systems and make use of process control principles to exercise that control and keep the Net operating within limits established by the network administration. This kind of thing will become increasingly important as the Internet moves toward providing "lifeline" services and time-sensitive applications, such as I.P. telephony. OK, let's get into some of your more specific gripes about ICANN. What do you think is ICANN's biggest flaw? First of all, ICANN is not a legislature, yet it is enacting what amounts to a law that is above all other nations on the planet. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy [for domain names] supersedes U.S. trademark law or any other trademark regime in any other country. ICANN will claim that it is merely private and contractual, but the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit was not imposed by federal law directly. It was imposed by the federal government saying to the states, "We will withhold money unless you -- the states -- enact a 55-mph speed limit." So just because it's done by contract doesn't mean ICANN is not enacting what amounts to a worldwide law. And ICANN doesn't have the structures associated with classical government: a full-participation review, a tension between various opposing forces -- a separation of powers. It doesn't even have a notion of due process. It essentially is an oligarchy that operates on the same principles that Louis XIV did. So it's an inappropriate body to enact what amounts to worldwide legislation. Look at most of the UDRP cases. We have the Brazilian soccer team taking away Corinthians from someone in the U.S., for example. I'm just waiting for the second shoe to drop, which is when the city of Corinth in Greece goes after the soccer team in Brazil. But if your vision of pure democracy is realized, won't ICANN be crippled -- even slower than ever? After all, not even the Founding Fathers decided that pure democracy would work. Sure, it's chaotic, but we only had 3,000 people from North America vote in this election. And we're talking about a group that has communications possibilities well in excess of anything that was imaginable to people in the 1780s. And what's wrong with moving slowly? We're in a whole new environment. How do you think ICANN should handle the addition of new top-level domains, which may be the first piece of policy you have a hand in? ICANN should be in the business of giving away top-level domain slots -- not names, but slots. A slot is a chance to put the name of your choosing into the root zone. ICANN should not look at the semantics of that name whatsoever. ICANN should be absolutely blind to the meaning of that word in any given language. All ICANN should do is check to make sure that the name is not being used already. Secondly, ICANN should keep its hands absolutely out of the way the top-level domain is operated. It should allow them to go out of business. It should allow them to impose their own charters at their own choosing. If someone gets a slot and wants to call it "foo" and only include Web sites about "foo" birds, that's the business of foo's top-level domain. ICANN should not try to be a policeman of charters or anything else. How many names should there be? We can easily handle 10,000 top-level domains per year. By actual experiment, I've determined that the domain-name system can technically hold at least 1 million top-level domains with no problems whatsoever, probably many times that. Should companies get any protections from ICANN? No. There are existing trademark laws that they can use. What the trademark people want is fast recourse. They don't want to have to go to Brazil, which happens to have a domain they want; and they've gotten this and more. But why should we give trademark people this speedy access to supernational jurisdiction? I'd rather let the law evolve along the lines that it evolved over the past 2,000 years, which is by trial and error, finding out what works a case at a time. The legal system has these techniques. And of course, there will be injustices along the way, but we already have plenty of injustices with the UDRP. And what's more frightening is that the whole ICANN legal system doesn't have the same checks and balances that the true legal system does. The true legal system is very much aware that it makes mistakes: It has notions of review, of overturning prior judgments. It's all built into the system. But ICANN doesn't have any of that. Sounds like a libertarian stance -- are you in fact a libertarian? Not really. I'm very much in favor of strong government regulatory regimes when there is a need for them. I've read a fair amount of history -- particularly the history of the U.S. since the Civil War -- and it is clear to me that the development of the regulatory state was a good thing and well justified by the abuses. I don't see that those abuses have waned, and thus there are still good reasons for strong regulatory bodies. That said, I do recognize that there is value in recognizing that there are areas in which nongovernmental coercive forces -- such as Adam Smith's "invisible hand" -- are still a valid, and even preferable, alternative to a governmental regulatory body. In the DNS space, it's my feeling that ICANN should limit itself to handing out lots and lots of slots in the root zone and let the operators of those slots run them as they please. It's my feeling that this is an area in which we can allow nongovernmental and nonregulatory forces to work (in conjunction with the preexisting legal framework that penalizes things like defamation and trademark infringement). In the I.P. address allocation area, I take the reverse point of view -- that a strong regulatory body, and ICANN, are indeed needed. I don't think in the I.P. address area that economic forces will produce a solution that is good in terms of being open to new entrants or future flexibility of the Net. And as for ICANN's third role -- protocol parameters -- that's simply a useless appendage to ICANN. It reminds me of something that Dickens came up with -- the Circumlocution Office -- a governmental entity with no positive function but that took it upon itself to make sure that no other governmental entity could do its job. I tend to feel that ICANN ought to lop off its useless "protocol parameter" appendage. I wouldn't call that "libertarian"; I'd call that rational. Ultimately, do you really think you fight the system while working within it? Of course. If I didn't believe that, I'd be fighting ICANN's systems tooth and nail. But I'm afraid of the vacuum that would result if ICANN were to disappear completely. Where do you see the organization going? I believe ICANN was given two distinct and contradictory roles, one of which was to establish itself, the other of which was to try to come up with policies regarding domain names. ICANN is a new experiment in international government. There's no source of authority for that. The only place it's going to come from is historical acceptance, and the only way it's going to get that is by doing things that are right, so that over time, people say, "You know, ICANN's doing the right thing." They'll just come to accept it, and ICANN will grow to power by that means. To do that, you have to get people to accept the decisions and to accept that they've had a meaningful participation. So to me, ICANN's race to put policy into place without creating the structural integrity and trust was a complete error. And it's suffering from it now. No one trusts ICANN anymore, and it may not be recoverable. I'm going to try to recover it. It also means maybe we have to throw out a lot of what's been done and start all over again, with everybody involved this time. It's a brave new world. Copyright 2000 Salon.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Mon Oct 23 06:32:17 2000 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 06:32:17 -0700 Subject: SCN: Privacy Message-ID: <39F3DB71.24279.193D438@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ========================== (Tom Weber, Wall Street Journal)---When your personal privacy is at stake online, would you prefer to be left alone except when you grant permission? Or are you comfortable having your movements tracked unless you specifically object? Beneath all the fuss about cookies and databases, the debate about Internet privacy comes down to two very different approaches. In privacy jargon, the first is known as "opt in." Marketers agree not to collect or use personal data unless you affirm that you want to participate in their programs. "Opt out" takes the opposite tack, assuming you want to participate unless the site hears otherwise. So far, the Net is primarily an opt-out world. When the Federal Trade Commission examined popular Web sites earlier this year, it found 75% had opt-out policies. Now proposals to mandate Web privacy are circulating in Congress, and both methods are in play. Meanwhile, dot-com companies are readying new services that raise fresh privacy questions. As concerns mount, the choices companies and their customers make will shape the future of personal privacy. "The default should be that you have privacy," says opt-in advocate Pamela Samuelson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Opt-out policies are better than no choice at all, she says. But she argues that because of the complexity of Web tracking systems and the difficulty of making an informed choice, consumers should have the benefit of privacy without the hard work. Click onto most Web privacy policies and you'll see what Prof. Samuelson means. Yahoo's statement is two pages long and packed with links to other pages you need to read to fully comprehend it. It's also sprinkled with euphemisms. Yahoo says it draws on its data to "customize" ads -- in other words, it uses what it knows about you to try to sell you things you'll be tempted to buy. Yahoo's policy also highlights the burden placed on consumers who want to opt out of Web tracking efforts. Sixteen paragraphs in, users learn that Yahoo doesn't vouch for the advertising networks that insert ad banners onto its pages. Those networks place their own tiny "cookie" files onto your computer, and they have their own privacy policies. So if you use Yahoo and want to opt out of such tracking, you'll need to visit the Web sites of every ad network Yahoo works with -- all 19 of them. The fact is, much of the Web's underlying technology is designed to collect information about users, silently and automatically. The opt- out procedure at online ad network DoubleClick underscores how tough it can be to curb the Web's natural instincts. You can't actually tell DoubleClick to keep its cookies off your computer. Instead, you must ask for a special DoubleClick cookie that says, effectively, ignore me. "Currently it's the only way to do it," says Jules Polonetsky, DoubleClick's chief privacy officer. "Otherwise we would not recognize you as someone who has opted out." Most privacy safeguards on the Net represent voluntary efforts by site operators. But lately privacy has become such a hot-button issue that legislators are floating proposals that would regulate how Web sites gather personal data. South Carolina Democrat Ernest Hollings introduced a Senate bill that would bar sites from tracking personal data unless users opt in. Other bills would regulate Web privacy but allow sites to use opt-out procedures. America Online, among other big Internet companies, is supporting one of the opt-out bills. Larry Ponemon, the top privacy guru at PricewaterhouseCoopers, says most companies want to stick with opt out. But he advises clients to seriously consider opt in. "There are real business advantages," he says. "Consumers are starting to view privacy as a loyalty ingredient." More stringent regulations are inevitable, he says, so companies might as well adopt policies now that will allow them to score points with consumers. Should consumers be worried? So far, much of the privacy firestorm has centered on tracking data from cookies, which reveal information about which Web pages a consumer visits. But with the growth of e-commerce, information about purchasing behavior is potentially more valuable. A visit to the front page of Amazon.com shows just how much the bookseller knows about you, or at least thinks it does. (Note to Jeff Bezos: My recent purchase of a few "Blue's Clues" books for my two-year-old daughter does not mean you should keep recommending "Blue's Lost Backpack" as my next book purchase.) The real privacy challenges are yet to come. Personal video recorders like ReplayTV and TiVo and the boom in online music raise the possibility that marketers will monitor what we watch and listen to. Continued interest in so-called dynamic pricing suggests that an individual's penchant for buying Madonna CDs might tempt a Web merchant to "customize" the price on her next release by an extra buck or two. And wireless Web services will eventually be able to pinpoint your location in the real world as well as the virtual one. DoubleClick's Mr. Polonetsky says that in the case of data that wireless systems gather about your physical location, his company favors an opt-in approach. "That's something sensitive," he says. Meanwhile, to learn more about how to opt out, visit the Center for Democracy & Technology's guide at opt-out.cdt.org. Copyright 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From cheaprates1234 at earthlink.net Wed Oct 25 03:16:55 2000 From: cheaprates1234 at earthlink.net (cheaprates1234 at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 03:16:55 Subject: SCN: re:Hello Phone, Sept 2000 Invoice,''', Message-ID: <117.461435.261435@mx.boston.juno.com> HELLO PHONE the worlds cheapest International Callback Phone Company http://www.hometown.aol.com/cheaprates99/ For questions about bill emailto: cheaprates1234 at earthlink.net Phone Charges Report date: 10/2/00 ID: 6313213770 ATT: JERRY AND JAN LACKEY SAUDI ARAMCO BOX 11064 DHAHRAN 31311 SAUDI ARABIA Minimum amount; $00.00 Phone Charges: $26.64 Tax Amount: $00.00 FIRST MONTH %50 OFF: $13.32 ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Total Amount: 13.32 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- HELLO PHONE the worlds cheapest International Phone Company http://www.hometown.aol.com/cheaprates99/ emailto: cheaprates1234 at earthlink.net Date: Time: Mins: Dialed Number: Country: Amount: 9/01/00 01:00:00 1:00 01196612987873 Saudi Arabia $0.49 9/02/00 10.45:01 1:00 0119713875983 UAE $0.31 9/02/00 05:58:47 2:00 01159139595 Bolivia $0.80 9/05/00 06:00:53 15:00 0113978567333 Italy $1.50 9/06/00 10:50:02 1:01 124287867898 Bahamas $0.12 9/10/00 11:10:58 1:00 0119613768543 Lebanon $0.40 9/11/00 03:55:00 7:00 0117955674333 Russia $3.01 9/12/00 03:00:00 1:00 0119727657655 Israel $0.11 9/13/00 03:40:00 1:00 011411878765445 UK $0.05 9/15/00 14:15:00 1:00 011813736373 Japan $0.09 09/18/00 12:35:22 1:00 01149715337094 Germany $0.04 09/18/00 12:57:33 2:30 17804256505 Canada $0.12 09/18/00 14:00:03 5:00 01149714120600 Germany $0.21 09/19/00 05:36:39 14:51 011639197263002 Philip Cell $3.60 09/19/00 12:50:56 20:00 17044230102 North Caroli $1.00 09/19/00 13:12:08 1:00 12814414411 Texas $0.05 09/20/00 03:49:07 8:53 01131653325428 Neth $0.54 09/20/00 04:26:53 4:28 01196265513206 Jordan $2.25 09/20/00 05:58:47 5:36 01131774264017 Netherlands $0.27 09/20/00 06:04:53 15:26 01131742464017 Netherlands $0.77 09/20/00 10:43:02 4:30 15183859131 NewYork $0.22 09/26/00 11:20:58 4:00 0113572336690 Cyprus $0.92 09/27/00 02:55:32 7:28 01133142545425 FranceParis $0.45 09/30/00 03:35:39 1:00 01127832516377 South Africa $0.31 09/30/00 03:39:16 21:00 01127832516377 South Africa $6.51 09/30/00 14:15:21 21:07 0114967725731 Germany $1.05 | Total amount Due: $13.32 http://www.hometown.aol.com/cheaprates99/ For questions about bill emailto: cheaprates1234 at earthlink.net * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Wed Oct 25 15:57:11 2000 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: TV leftwing? Message-ID: <200010252257.PAA04993@scn.org> FYI... To: loka-alert at egroups.com From: "The Loka Institute" Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:16:39 -0000 Subject: TELEVISION'S CONSERVATIVE BIAS (Loka Alert 7:5) Loka Alert 7:5 (25 October 2000) PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY WHERE APPROPRIATE THE TILT OF THE TUBE The Structural Conservative Bias of Television By Jeffrey Scheuer Friends & Colleagues: In this Loka Alert author (and longtime Loka Institute Board member) Jeffrey Scheuer dissects the familiar claim of political conservatives that the U.S. mass media -- television especially -- evince a leftwing bias. To the contrary, argues Scheuer, the structural properties of television offer systematic advantages to the conservative wing of the political spectrum. Scholars and activists alike will want to come to terms with his challenging and original thesis. This is one in an occasional series on the democratic politics of research, science, and technology issued free of charge by the nonprofit Loka Institute. TO BE ADDED TO THE LOKA ALERT E-MAIL LIST, or to reply to this post, please send a message to . TO BE REMOVED from the Loka Alert E-mail list, send an E-mail with no subject or message text to . (If that fails, just notify us at ). Cheers to all, Dick Sclove (Dick Sclove, the Guest Editor of this Loka Alert, is the founder and former Executive Director of the Loka Institute. For an illustrated update on how he is enjoying his sabbatical, see the photograph at: ) The Loka Institute Jill Chopyak, Executive Director P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA E-mail Web Tel. 413-559-5860; Fax 413-559-5811 *********************************************************** CONTENTS (I) THE TILT OF THE TUBE by Jeffrey Scheuer.......(5-1/2 pages) (II) LOKA INSTITUTE UPDATES........................(1 page) (III) INTERNSHIPS AT THE LOKA INSTITUTE...........(1/3 page) (IV) ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE....................(1/3 page) *********************************************************** (I) THE TILT OF THE TUBE The Structural Conservative Bias of Television By Jeffrey Scheuer http://www.thesoundbitesociety.com SIMPLE VS. COMPLEX IDEAS -- AND WHY THE DIFFERENCE MATTERS Do technologies have ideologies? Are machines morally and politically neutral extensions of human scientific genius? Or are their effects at times latent, obscure, unpredictable, but profound in their impact on social and power relations? These questions have important political implications for progressive scholars and activists. Viewed from one angle, technologies -- machines and mechanical systems -- are patently morally and politically innocent. As inanimate objects lacking consciousness, they cannot project or pursue human values. They are not existential agents. Communication technologies, on this view, deliver messages, but messages are not embedded in their very structure. >From another angle, however, machines are deeply implicated in society and social structures. Cars, for example, allow their users more individual freedom than mass transit systems. But they are also inherently less egalitarian. Not everyone can afford a car, and when communities (such as suburbs) are designed for automobiles, they reward car-owners and punish others. Car-based cultures also keep us separated from one another, closed off (with families or immediate friends) in our own metallic domains. They encourage us to compete for space rather than to share it, they reflect our differences of status and taste, and so on. The difference between seeing cars (or any other technologies) as neutral devices and seeing them as ideologically-charged is not a difference between a true perspective and a false one, but rather between a simpler and a more complex one. Both perspectives (and a spectrum of possible intermediate views) are valid on their face, and in their own terms. The simpler view has the advantage of its own obviousness and accessibility. The more complex perspective, while appealing to a narrower audience -- an audience with a higher tolerance of social complexity -- explains more broadly and more deeply. Here's the kicker: the complex view of technology (and, indeed, of government and society in general) is the natural view of the left. The simpler view is that of the right. Both views have their merits, up to a point. Which we choose cannot be decided by some supreme principle, but reflects our subjective appetite for complexity. And here's the follow-on kicker: one particular, dominant technology of our times -- television -- naturally favors the conveyance of ideas and perspectives that are simpler. Television, by its very design and structure, is inherently more hospitable to the messages and values of the right. TELEVISION AS A TOOL OF THE LEFT? A simple, unbridled faith in technology is a pillar of American conservatism, and sister to the unbridled conservative faith in the market. These twin faiths are linked to the broader conservative habit of seeing the world through simpler lenses. The conservative faith in technology and markets is thus linked as well with an aversion to the deeper and more systematic modes of understanding that are the implicit goal of progressives and the left. This applies to television as much as to anything else. If we regard TV as merely "a toaster with pictures" (the unintentionally ridiculous phrase of Mark Fowler, a Federal Communications Commission member under President Ronald Reagan), then there is not much more to say about its social and political effects. End of discussion -- burn the toast. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that television, unlike toasters, actually pervades American life and consciousness; that something we typically watch for several hours a day actually influences our lives and our ideas; and that it cannot possibly be without some profound political effects. Conservatives also claim that the media are progressive. (TV is a liberal toaster.) They've been saying this for years. Television and the printed press, they say, are dominated by progressives who shape how we see the news. Now this is an interesting claim, and not entirely without merit. And it bears noting that most, if not all, media criticism from the right consists of variations of that claim. No doubt many members of the journalistic community, and many other producers of media and popular culture, are progressives of one form or another. But -- with particular reference to television -- I'd like to mention a few minor objections to the "liberal media" argument. In fact, a lot of minor objections, leading up to one major one. Let's start with the little ones. First, the majority of journalists in the so-called progressive media, in recent surveys, are to the right of the rest of America on economic issues. On social issues they remain somewhat to the left. Second, professional imperatives and other pressures on most journalists override personal political leanings. It just doesn't matter that much how a mainstream reporter or producer or editor votes. It seldom shows in his or her work. (I'm not counting journals of opinion or highly-opinionated TV talk shows). Third, the mainstream media are owned and operated by an oligopoly of giant corporations -- like AOL Time Warner, General Electric, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. -- which are not interested in journalistic glory or investigative reporting. Their only agenda is the bottom line. And commercial profit in the media means entertainment, not muckraking or rocking the boat. Fourth, the boundaries between editorial and advertising and marketing (and entertainment generally) are eroding virtually across the board in American journalism. That's not a sign of progressive bias. Fifth, recent Democratic candidates in America -- Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, to say nothing of candidates lower down the ballot -- have not exactly had a free ride in the media. Sixth, the most brilliant manipulators of the U.S. media, perhaps ever, were the handlers of Ronald Reagan and George Bush. (Mark Hertsgaard, in his book On Bended Knee, explains where the progressive media were during the Reagan presidency: nowhere to be seen.) And is it the progressive media that make it so hard to get elected to anything in America if you've ever smoked pot, worn a beard, loved a member of your own sex, professed atheism, or called yourself a "liberal"? Television certainly can't be called progressive based on the accuracy of its characterizations of minorities, working people, the poor, gays, spiritualists, or deviant lifestyles. Nor is it the left that insists debate on political talk shows be mainly between the center and the right. Even public television has become a bastion of conservative politics and business-oriented shows, funded by ultra- conservative private foundations like Scaife, Olin, Bradley, JM, and so forth. Maybe that's why such arch-conservatives as William F. Buckley, Patrick Buchanan, Robert Novak, John McLoughlin, Cal Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk set the political tone of the electronic media. Not to mention the latest ranting, homophobic entry into this crowd, Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Furthermore, it isn't the progressive media that have made TV a powerful vehicle for the religious Right -- vaulting Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and other Christian broadcasters from obscurity to a central position in American political life. And the tabloid TV shows are not exactly celebrations of equality, tolerance, and social harmony. Finally, it wasn't the progressive media that brought us Ronald Reagan, Oliver North, and the most conservative Congress in American history - led by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Dick Armey, John Kasich, and Tom DeLay. Accusing the media of being progressive has been a brilliantly successful ploy of the right. The conservative commentator William Kristol put it best: "I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." TELEVISION: THE HIDDEN HANDMAIDEN OF CONSERVATISM But quite apart from the media environment and the content of TV shows, there is a more basic way in which television lends itself to conservative values and messages. This argument against the media's putative liberalism takes roughly the form of a syllogism: 1. Electronic media radically simplify the world -- or at least, they relentlessly and pervasively encourage us to see it in a simpler way. 2. Simpler views of politics and society are quintessentially conservative, and more complex views are quintessentially progressive and radical. 3. It follows that the simplifying filters of television and radio promote the tidy sound bites of the right and militate against the more complicated ideas of the left. How does television simplify? It offers us a deceptively narrow lens on social reality, one that focuses on highly specific points in time and space: confined scenes, brief actions, individuals, small groups. Television is all about immediacy, action and singularity. It's great for depicting spectacles: news conferences, sporting events, ceremonies, wild animals in the bush. It compartmentalizes and disintegrates experience, rather than connecting or integrating. By personalizing and dramatizing social life, and by presenting experience in artificially concrete terms, TV is perfectly suited to visceral, uncomplicated messages. Conversely, television ignores or resists complexity in all its forms: context, remote causes and effects, ambiguity, and perhaps most of all, disparities between appearance and reality. The tube therefore de-emphasizes larger ideas that it cannot depict onscreen: social movements, causes (including social causes), economic conditions, historical forces, distant ramifications, collective enterprises, evolutionary progressions, underlying patterns. And these latter, I would suggest, are precisely the intellectual foundations of egalitarianism and the left. Conservatism at its best (and worst) is centered on simpler values: the independent self and nation, and a political minimalism based on smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations, a more limited agenda, fewer rights and duties. Like television itself, conservatism is skeptical of the hidden, the systemic, the paradoxical, the contradictory, the remote. The values and messages of the American right -- small government, laissez-faire, "rugged individualism," its views on defense, crime, faith, family, guns -- revolve around simple orthodoxies: market fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, moral and constitutional fundamentalism. Liberalism, on the other hand, is based on more complex notions of interdependent communities and a more structured society, with a more intricate social contract. It asks more of us and offers more in return: more equality, more government, more change -- not the sorts of things you'd immediately think of as telegenic. Hence my central, contrarian claim: television is an ideal medium not just for polemical sound bites and attack ads, but for the more limited ideas and agenda of the right. The electronic media may be progressive in some ways, but overall their effects are conservative. Of course there are exceptions and complications to this argument. TV is not a right-wing conspiracy. And dignified simplicity certainly has its place as the arch principle of a tolerant, libertarian brand of conservatism -- a brand that still plays a significant role in American life, but one that isn't highly visible in the media. Likewise, complexity -- especially academic complexity -- has its limits and tactical liabilities. And of course the left can sometimes be polemical and simplistic too. But even then, it is invariably on behalf of more complex underlying values. (Where are the snappy sound bites for day care, health care, full employment, legal aid, college loans, worker safety? Where's the bumper- sticker slogan for single-payer health insurance or equalizing public school funding across districts?) Post-industrial societies are rapidly becoming more complex -- a reason, perhaps, why people seek political refuge in simple, divisive slogans and sound bites. What can the left do about it? Television will be with us, in one form or another, for a long time to come. Even as it converges and merges with the Internet, TV will not fundamentally change -- at least not in foreseeable ways that will dramatically alter its political valences. What the left must do is focus on understanding the media and the specific challenges they pose to progressive values and messages. This involves devising progressive sound bites, but also recognizing the limits of sound bites as vehicles of progressive ideas. It also involves teaching kids to be media literate -- teaching them how to decode, analyze, and distinguish various kinds of messages and images. Other countries (including the U.K., Canada and Australia) are much further along in this area. Media literacy is critical thinking about media, and we need it in America. However, as you might suspect, critical thinking and media literacy are complex enterprises. They encourage us to look beyond arguments and appearances, and thus are inherently subversive, anti-commercial, and egalitarian. It will be hard to bring conservatives on board that bandwagon. But the first step for progressive advocates and thinkers is recognizing the problem. The left has nothing to fear but television itself. * * * ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jeffrey Scheuer is a member of the Board of Directors of the Loka Institute and author of the new book THE SOUND BITE SOCIETY, from which this Loka Alert has been loosely adapted. Critical appraisal of Jeffrey Scheuer's SOUND BITE SOCIETY: TELEVISION AND THE AMERICAN MIND (New York and London: Four Walls Eight Windows Press) http://www.thesoundbitesociety.com "One of the most incisive critiques of television and its cultural impact I've read in years. Mr. Scheuer makes his case with a precision and clarity that will resound with anyone who's ever wondered . . . how we managed to let our national political discourse become an incomprehensible blur of sound bites." -- _Electronic Media_ "Breaks new intellectual ground . . . lively and invigorating . . . a delicious writing style . . . deeply incisive." -- _The Chicago Tribune_ "[A] brilliant analysis of TV grammar and how it prohibits complex discourse. -- _Choice_, Feb. 2000 "An insightful but profoundly unsettling volume." -- Langdon Winner in _Dissent_, Spring 2000. ************************************************************ (II) LOKA INSTITUTE UPDATES LOKA PARTICIPATES IN EUROPEAN COMMISSION-FUNDED PROJECT The Loka Institute is a partner in a project funded by the European Commission to begin the development of an international network of community research centers/science shops. The SCIPAS (Study and Conference for Improving Public Access to Science) group is a consortium of institutes and organizations from Denmark, Northern Ireland, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Israel, Romania, South Africa and the United States, with informal representation from Canada and England. The group is studying the trends, operations, and developments within community-based research and community research centers/science shops around the world. Studies undertaken by consortium partners include: 1. An inventory of best practice employed by and ways of operating the science shops in some of the participating countries. 2. An inventory of support mechanisms for the creation of new science shops in various countries. 3. The structure of a training program for science shop co- coordinators. 4. A blueprint for the international publication and dissemination of results and studies. 5. The creation of a public database of science shops, and a model for internet communication 6. A study on the influence of science shops on university curricula and research. 7. A study on the potential for international science shop/community research center co-operation. Through the project the consortium intends to lay the foundations for an international network of 'science shops' that will hopefully open its doors with further EU support in 2001. The international conference on science shops will be held in Brussels in January 2001. Conference registration and information can be found at ************************************************************ (III) LOKA INSTITUTE INTERNSHIPS The Loka Institute has openings for volunteers, graduate and undergraduate student interns, and work-study students. Interns' responsibilities include updating our Web page; managing email lists and listservs; conducting background research on issues concerning science, technology, and society; and helping with administrative work. Interns committing to a semester or more will have the opportunity to integrate independent research into their internship experience. Candidates should be self-motivated and able to work as part of a team as well as independently. A general knowledge and comfort with computers is needed. Experience in Web page maintenance is preferable. Undergraduate students, graduate students, and recent graduates are welcome to apply. Loka is able to provide interns with an expense stipend of $35 per day for volunteering (or $700 per month full-time-equivalent). If you are interested in working with us to promote a democratic politics of science and technology, please send a resume and a succinct cover letter explaining your interest and dates of availability to: The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA. We also are accept applications by e- mail to or by fax to 413-559-5811. ************************************************************ (IV) ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE The Loka Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to making research, science and technology responsive to democratically decided social and environmental concerns. Current Loka projects include: o The Community Research Network o Deliberative Citizens' Panels on Science & Technology o Identifying Democratic Technologies o Building a Constituency for Democratizing Research, Science & Technology TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE, to participate in our on-line discussion groups, to download or order publications, or to help please visit our Web page: . Or contact us via E-mail at or by telephone at 413-559-5860. ### * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Thu Oct 26 13:58:52 2000 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Digital Divide event Message-ID: <200010262058.NAA20846@scn.org> FYI... Here is an upcoming event. They do *charge* for the conference but if you want to come to these events you don't have to register. -- Doug ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPERTS TO SPEAK ON DIGITAL DIVIDE IN SEATTLE Larry Irving, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, will address the annual meeting of the National Communication Association (NCA) in Seattle on "The Digital Divide and Telecommunication Policy" on Saturday, November 11, from 9:30-10:45 a.m. in Room 612, 6th Floor, Washington State Convention and Trade Center (WSCTC). This talk is central to the "engaged" theme of this year's convention and part of NCA's continuing effort to spur debate and find solutions to the problem of inequities in communication access in our digital culture. Irving was appointed by President Clinton in 1993. His duties included serving as Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), making him the first African American to head the Commerce Department agency. During his six-year tenure at the Commerce Department, Irving earned an international reputation as a leader in telecommunications and information policy. He played a major role in the Clinton Administration's efforts to bring about the most sweeping reform of America's telecommunications law in 60 years through the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He was also a principal voice for policies promoting diversity in the commercial broadcast arena. In addition to his pivotal role in shaping U.S. government policy on the information superhighway, e-commerce, and telecommunications, Irving is perhaps best known for his tireless efforts to increase opportunities for minorities and women in the emerging digital economy. In 1995, Irving initiated a landmark NTIA survey, "Falling Through the Net," which showed a dramatic gap between those who had access to telecommunications technology (telephones, computers, and the Internet) and those who did not. The report recommended policies aimed at increasing Internet access to close the digital divide. Irving supervised two follow-up studies to "Falling Through the Net" which indicated that while Clinton-Gore administration policies were helping to narrow the digital divide, both continued and innovative policies were needed to eliminate the gap. After Mr. Irving's morning presentation in Seattle, the discussion of digital divide issues continues in two companion programs with national and local leaders. The panels will be on Saturday, November 11, from 2:00-3:15 p.m. and from 3:30-4:45 p.m. both in Room 214, 2nd Floor, WSCTC. During these programs, with the insights of leading advocates, the audience and panelists will brainstorm about how individuals and national organizations can be proactive on this crucial issue and network and collaborate with government agencies, libraries, other organizations, corporations, and foundations at the forefront of the challenge to eliminate inequity in participation in the cybersociety of the new Millennium. In addition to Larry Irving, these two panels feature Nancy C. Kranich, President of the American Library Association, a key organization heavily involved in promoting information literacy and Internet access for all; Doug Schuler, an internationally recognized author and expert on democratic and community-empowering communication, former chair of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and co-founder of the Seattle Community Network; Trish Millines Dziko, co-founder and Executive Director of Seattle's Technology Access Foundation, a national model program for community-based solutions to bridge the digital divide; and Susan B. Kretchmer, Johns Hopkins University and Rod Carveth, Southern Connecticut State University, NCA scholars who are working with the Government of Canada on its Knowledge-Based Economy and Society initiative as well as various national and global consortiums of researchers, professionals, and organizations concentrating on the pressing concerns raised by the new information society. ----- Genie Online Services E-Mail ------ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Thu Oct 26 16:46:47 2000 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: "Panopticon or Power to the People" talk at Evergreen Message-ID: <200010262346.QAA08032@scn.org> This talk is in Olympia -- probably fairly south for many of you. We'd still love to see you there! Also, please help us spread the word on this -- especially if you have Oly friends or colleagues. Thanks! -- Doug FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ****** NOVEMBER 1, 2000 Contact: Doug Schuler 206.634.0752 Plato Lecture Series 2000 - 2001 "Tech Threats!! Exploring New Computer Enabled Challenges" First Free Public Lecture of the Season "Panopticon or Power to the People: Some Social Implications of Ubiquitous Wireless Networks" Wednesday, November 8th, 6:00-7:00 p.m., Lecture Hall 1 On November 8th 6:00 -7:00 p.m., Marc Smith, Microsoft's only "Research Sociologist," (Collaboration & Multimedia Group: Microsoft Research) will explore the social implications of wireless networks which he believes are poised to become ubiquitous. Two sociological concepts, (1) Power/Knowledge and (2) social dilemmas, will be discussed in the lecture as a guide to the kinds of social institutions and relationships that are likely to emerge through the use of these tools. Will people control these new networks, or will the NETWORKS be in charge?!? According to Smith, "Wireless computer networks and the devices to communicate with them are about to become ubiquitous. A profusion of devices is likely to emerge quickly from handhelds to cheap, disposable sensors. Groups of people using these tools will gain new forms of social power, ways to organize and coordinate their interactions and exchanges just in time and just in place. Using these tools, people will be able to collectively construct a range of resources that were too difficult or expensive, or simply impossible to provide before. At the same time these tools will gather a constellation of intimate data about each of us. Eventually wireless devices will penetrate every nook and cranny of the social world, bringing the efficiency of information technology to the production of panoptic power." This free public event, sponsored by The Evergreen State College through a Plato Royalty grant, will be held at TESC in Lecture Hall 1. We are also pleased to announce some of the other speakers for this series. Note that this information is tentative. * Phil Bereano, University of Washington, "Genetic Engineering and Threats to Privacy" * Paulina Borsook, Author of Cyberselfish. "Of Greed, Technolibertarianism and Geek Omnipotence" * Langdon Winner, author of Autonomous Technology, the Reactor and the Whale and many other books and articles. "The Automatic Professor" We don't have dates yet for the 2001 speakers. We are currently planning on Wednesday night presentations. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * *