From douglas at scn.org Fri Jun 1 09:29:08 2001 From: douglas at scn.org (Doug Schuler) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: hmmm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm not sure how to respond to this. I do wish that JJ was a little more sympathetic to SCN's cause. The Internet was built with *public* taxpayer money and then handed over to commercial interests. It's my feeling that there is a strong need for public space & public access to the information and communcation capabilities of the Internet. I do agree that we're "selling" ideas -- let's make ours as compelling as possible! We've certainly outlived hundreds of dot-coms already!!! -- Doug ****************************************************************** * New Community Networks: Wired for Change Now online * * http://www.scn.org/ncn * * Give us YOUR insights! Help write the new edition! * ****************************************************************** On Fri, 25 May 2001, J. Johnson wrote: > I agree that all this is largely irrelevant to SCN--our bills are small > enough that we can live off of the altruistic fat of the land. Which is > why I maintain that the argument that was presented is clearer if more > specifically focused, such as on web search services. > > I don't believe that the use of "private, proprietary classification > systems" is relevant here. The essence of the issue is not whether us > freeloaders can access the data that someone has compiled that effectively > indexes the Web--it's whether there is any data to start with. Building > those databases requires a heavy investment in computers, Internet access, > and system administration. If advertisers won't pay those bills, who > will? > > It should be noted that, truly, "There Ain't No Free Lunch". SCN has > "free" Internet access, etc., because we have "sold" various people into > providing it. Essentially, we sell an idea. Others sell advertising. It > appears there is more money to be had selling advertising than ideas. > > === JJ ============================================================= > > On Fri, 25 May 2001, Doug Schuler wrote: > > > > > It is an interesting question -- how are search engines > > financed. Unfortunately (for us) search engines are > > in almost all cases *commercial* entities and, hence, > > are subject to the same forces as other commercial > > entities. I don't claim to know all the details but > > there is evidence of dropping competitor's information > > from a search engine's database or of having people pay > > to get their information to the top in a query. Also, > > since search engines use private, proprietary classification > > systems (unlike public libraries, for example, which use > > a public system [like Dewey Decimal] which ALL people can use, > > we have little oversight or ability to plug into it. > > > > -=- Doug > > > > But, all of this is more or less irrelvant to SCN. Having > > advertisements support SCN sounds unworkable and almost > > totally contrary to our mission and principles. > > > > ****************************************************************** > > * New Community Networks: Wired for Change Now online * > > * http://www.scn.org/ncn * > > * Give us YOUR insights! Help write the new edition! * > > ****************************************************************** > > > > On Fri, 25 May 2001, J. Johnson wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 22 May 2001, Doug Schuler wrote: > > > > > > > I wanted to add my two cents. > > > > > > > > We see far too many ads already and, in my opinion, it's the > > > > ads and the commercialization that are killing / will kill the > > > > Internet. If ads are the answer then what the heck is the question! > > > > > > The basic question is: how are "free" services to be financed? > > > > > > I think the argument raised in the original article would have been much > > > clearer if it had focused more specifically on, say, how are search > > > engines to be financed. E.g., who will pay Altavista's bills? If not the > > > advertisers, then who? > > > > > > === JJ ============================================================= > > > > > > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 MGuest at sccd.ctc.edu Fri Jun 1 15:13:17 2001 From: MGuest at sccd.ctc.edu (Guest, Melissa) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:13:17 -0700 Subject: SCN: Free Tickets available for ITEC (June 5-6) Message-ID: Hello SCNers! > Because I now work at Seattle Community College, and we will have a booth > at the ITEC fair next Tuesday and Wednesday, we have a number of free > tickets available! Please contact me if you would like one or more for > yourself, or know of others (including groups) who might like a set. Each > tickets admits two, and normally costs $20. > > Melissa Guest > Program Coordinator > Community Outreach Partnership Center > at Seattle Central Community College > (206) 903 3264 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Oehler, Candace > > Seattle Central and South Seattle will share a booth at ITEC - Information > Technology Exposition & Conference on Tuesday, June 5, and Wednesday, June > 6, 10 a.m to 4 p.m. at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center. > > What is ITEC? > A technology showcase for IT professionals and decision-makers to see, > compare, evaluate and purchase info-technology for their businesses and > training for their employees. This is not a standard job-and-education > fair, but it is an opportunity for the colleges to make connections for > our business/industry relations ties and to promote our contract training > opportunities in InfoTech and other areas. > > Who Attends? > Exhibitors - Manufacturers and resellers of computer hardware, software, > networking products, telecommunications, multimedia, internet/intranet, > wireless solutions, consultants, systems integrators and many more. > Attendees - Key decision-makers from corporate business, educational > institutions; state, local and federal government agencies; CEOs, CIOs, > engineers, programmers, legislative officials and agency directors. > > See www.goitec.com for more information about this event. > > ITEC sent us a number of free tickets to distribute to our business > partners, school/community partners, technical advisory committees, and > Computing Tech staff and faculty. Each ticket admits two and is worth > $20. Let me know how many you would like and you can distribute them to > your contacts as you see fit. > > Candace Oehler > Marketing Coordinator > x5487 > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 jj at scn.org Fri Jun 1 20:40:56 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 20:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: hmmm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Doug, I'm don't understand how you define "SCN's cause" that you should find me wanting in sympathy--perhaps you could elaborate on that. I certainly hope that I am not "suspect" simply because I am not in full, enthusiatic, automatic, and unquestioning agreement with your view. Your statement that "The Internet was built with *public* taxpayer money and then handed over to commercial interests." === JJ ============================================================= On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Doug Schuler wrote: > > I'm not sure how to respond to this. I do wish that JJ was a little > more sympathetic to SCN's cause. The Internet was built with *public* > taxpayer money and then handed over to commercial interests. It's > my feeling that there is a strong need for public space & public > access to the information and communcation capabilities of the > Internet. > > I do agree that we're "selling" ideas -- let's make ours as > compelling as possible! We've certainly outlived hundreds of > dot-coms already!!! > > -- Doug > > ****************************************************************** > * New Community Networks: Wired for Change Now online * > * http://www.scn.org/ncn * > * Give us YOUR insights! Help write the new edition! * > ****************************************************************** > > On Fri, 25 May 2001, J. Johnson wrote: > > > I agree that all this is largely irrelevant to SCN--our bills are small > > enough that we can live off of the altruistic fat of the land. Which is > > why I maintain that the argument that was presented is clearer if more > > specifically focused, such as on web search services. > > > > I don't believe that the use of "private, proprietary classification > > systems" is relevant here. The essence of the issue is not whether us > > freeloaders can access the data that someone has compiled that effectively > > indexes the Web--it's whether there is any data to start with. Building > > those databases requires a heavy investment in computers, Internet access, > > and system administration. If advertisers won't pay those bills, who > > will? > > > > It should be noted that, truly, "There Ain't No Free Lunch". SCN has > > "free" Internet access, etc., because we have "sold" various people into > > providing it. Essentially, we sell an idea. Others sell advertising. It > > appears there is more money to be had selling advertising than ideas. > > > > === JJ ============================================================= > > > > On Fri, 25 May 2001, Doug Schuler wrote: > > > > > > > > It is an interesting question -- how are search engines > > > financed. Unfortunately (for us) search engines are > > > in almost all cases *commercial* entities and, hence, > > > are subject to the same forces as other commercial > > > entities. I don't claim to know all the details but > > > there is evidence of dropping competitor's information > > > from a search engine's database or of having people pay > > > to get their information to the top in a query. Also, > > > since search engines use private, proprietary classification > > > systems (unlike public libraries, for example, which use > > > a public system [like Dewey Decimal] which ALL people can use, > > > we have little oversight or ability to plug into it. > > > > > > -=- Doug > > > > > > But, all of this is more or less irrelvant to SCN. Having > > > advertisements support SCN sounds unworkable and almost > > > totally contrary to our mission and principles. > > > > > > ****************************************************************** > > > * New Community Networks: Wired for Change Now online * > > > * http://www.scn.org/ncn * > > > * Give us YOUR insights! Help write the new edition! * > > > ****************************************************************** > > > > > > On Fri, 25 May 2001, J. Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 22 May 2001, Doug Schuler wrote: > > > > > > > > > I wanted to add my two cents. > > > > > > > > > > We see far too many ads already and, in my opinion, it's the > > > > > ads and the commercialization that are killing / will kill the > > > > > Internet. If ads are the answer then what the heck is the question! > > > > > > > > The basic question is: how are "free" services to be financed? > > > > > > > > I think the argument raised in the original article would have been much > > > > clearer if it had focused more specifically on, say, how are search > > > > engines to be financed. E.g., who will pay Altavista's bills? If not the > > > > advertisers, then who? > > > > > > > > === JJ ============================================================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 jj at scn.org Fri Jun 1 21:36:45 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 21:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: hmmm (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 20:40:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "J. Johnson" Subject: Re: SCN: hmmm [My apologies for that earliar and inadvertent response.] Doug, I'm don't understand how you define "SCN's cause" that you should find me wanting in sympathy; perhaps you could elaborate on that. I certainly hope that I am not "suspect" simply because I am not in full, enthusiatic, automatic, and unquestioning agreement with your view. And I do have problems with your statement "The Internet was built with *public* taxpayer money and then handed over to commercial interests." First, it is misleading. The _original_ NFSnet backbone was federally funded, but the digital infrastructure that now exists is nearly exclusively privately funded. Second, the relevancy of this point is not clear. Keep in mind that the thesis (not mine!) from which this discussion started was (essentially) that without advertising we might not have _some_ services available on the Internet. My contribution is to ask who would pay the bills if the advertisers don't. (And to suggest that it might be more fruitful to consider the specific case of search engines.) Are you suggesting "the government" as an alternate funder? How would this be done in the specific case of search engines? === JJ ============================================================= On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Doug Schuler wrote: > > I'm not sure how to respond to this. I do wish that JJ was a little > more sympathetic to SCN's cause. The Internet was built with *public* > taxpayer money and then handed over to commercial interests. It's > my feeling that there is a strong need for public space & public > access to the information and communcation capabilities of the > Internet. > > I do agree that we're "selling" ideas -- let's make ours as > compelling as possible! We've certainly outlived hundreds of > dot-coms already!!! > > -- Doug > > ****************************************************************** > * New Community Networks: Wired for Change Now online * > * http://www.scn.org/ncn * > * Give us YOUR insights! Help write the new edition! * > ****************************************************************** > > On Fri, 25 May 2001, J. Johnson wrote: > > > I agree that all this is largely irrelevant to SCN--our bills are small > > enough that we can live off of the altruistic fat of the land. Which is > > why I maintain that the argument that was presented is clearer if more > > specifically focused, such as on web search services. > > > > I don't believe that the use of "private, proprietary classification > > systems" is relevant here. The essence of the issue is not whether us > > freeloaders can access the data that someone has compiled that effectively > > indexes the Web--it's whether there is any data to start with. Building > > those databases requires a heavy investment in computers, Internet access, > > and system administration. If advertisers won't pay those bills, who > > will? > > > > It should be noted that, truly, "There Ain't No Free Lunch". SCN has > > "free" Internet access, etc., because we have "sold" various people into > > providing it. Essentially, we sell an idea. Others sell advertising. It > > appears there is more money to be had selling advertising than ideas. > > > > === JJ ============================================================= > > > > On Fri, 25 May 2001, Doug Schuler wrote: > > > > > > > > It is an interesting question -- how are search engines > > > financed. Unfortunately (for us) search engines are > > > in almost all cases *commercial* entities and, hence, > > > are subject to the same forces as other commercial > > > entities. I don't claim to know all the details but > > > there is evidence of dropping competitor's information > > > from a search engine's database or of having people pay > > > to get their information to the top in a query. Also, > > > since search engines use private, proprietary classification > > > systems (unlike public libraries, for example, which use > > > a public system [like Dewey Decimal] which ALL people can use, > > > we have little oversight or ability to plug into it. > > > > > > -=- Doug > > > > > > But, all of this is more or less irrelvant to SCN. Having > > > advertisements support SCN sounds unworkable and almost > > > totally contrary to our mission and principles. > > > > > > ****************************************************************** > > > * New Community Networks: Wired for Change Now online * > > > * http://www.scn.org/ncn * > > > * Give us YOUR insights! Help write the new edition! * > > > ****************************************************************** > > > > > > On Fri, 25 May 2001, J. Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 22 May 2001, Doug Schuler wrote: > > > > > > > > > I wanted to add my two cents. > > > > > > > > > > We see far too many ads already and, in my opinion, it's the > > > > > ads and the commercialization that are killing / will kill the > > > > > Internet. If ads are the answer then what the heck is the question! > > > > > > > > The basic question is: how are "free" services to be financed? > > > > > > > > I think the argument raised in the original article would have been much > > > > clearer if it had focused more specifically on, say, how are search > > > > engines to be financed. E.g., who will pay Altavista's bills? If not the > > > > advertisers, then who? > > > > > > > > === JJ ============================================================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Jun 2 00:36:45 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:36:45 -0700 Subject: SCN: Group polarization Message-ID: <3B18351D.31174.54C4A06@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ========================== (Alexander Stille, NY Times)---As Cass Sunstein, a professor of law at the University of Chicago, saw himself being skewered on various Web sites discussing his recent book, "Republic.com," he had the odd satisfaction of watching some of the book's themes unfold before his eyes. On the conservative Web site "FreeRepublic.com," the discussion began by referring relatively mildly to Mr. Sunstein's book about the political consequences of the Internet as "thinly veiled liberal." But as the discussion picked up steam, the rhetoric of the respondents, who insisted that they had not and would not read the book itself, became more heated. Eventually, they were referring to Mr. Sunstein as "a nazi" and a "pointy headed socialist windbag." The discussion illustrated the phenomenon that Mr. Sunstein and various social scientists have called "group polarization" in which like-minded people in an isolated group reinforce one another's views, which then harden into more extreme positions. Even one of his critics on the site acknowledged the shift. "Amazingly enough," he wrote, "it looks like Sunstein has polarized this group into unanimous agreement about him." An expletive followed. To Mr. Sunstein, such polarization is just one of the negative political effects of the Internet, which allows people to filter out unwanted information, tailor their own news and congregate at specialized Web sites that closely reflect their own views. A "shared culture," which results partly from exposure to a wide range of opinion, is important for a functioning democracy, he argues. But as the role of newspapers and television news diminishes, he wrote, "and the customization of our communications universe increases, society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities in danger of dissolving." This pessimistic assessment is a sign of just how sharply scholarly thinking about the Web has shifted. In its first years, the Internet was seen euphorically as one of history's greatest engines of democracy, a kind of national town hall meeting in which everyone got to speak. As an early guru of cyberspace, Dave Clark of M.I.T., put it in 1992: "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code." Now, with the examples of business and government control offered by the explosion of Web commerce, the merger of America Online and Time-Warner, the Microsoft antitrust case and the litigation over Napster, that is no longer the case. Andrew Shapiro, a guest lecturer at Yale Law School and the author of "The Control Revolution," said that the early euphoria over cyberspace had been replaced "by a kind of 'technorealism,' a second generation of Internet books" that are much more critical. An example is the 1999 book "Code" by Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford University, who argues that the enormous amount of personal information people reveal when they shop online, browse Web sites or call up information offers extraordinary opportunities for both governments and businesses to control their lives. "Left to itself," he wrote, "cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control." Mr. Sunstein's assessment is somewhat different from Mr. Lessig's, though still negative. "His is closer to Orwell's '1984'; mine is more like 'Brave New World,' " Mr. Sunstein explained. If to Mr. Lessig he danger is government or corporate control, to Mr. Sunstein it is a world of seemingly infinite choice, where citizens are transformed into consumers and a common political life is eroded. Both agree, however, that society must begin to make more conscious choices about what it wants the Internet to be. Mr. Lessig's main point in "Code" is that the Internet does not have a "nature." The world we think of as "cyberspace," he said, is an environment created by the architecture of the computer code that gave birth to the World Wide Web. Mr. Lessig's point is that because the Internet is based on "open source" computer protocols that allow anyone to tap into it, it has a specific character that can be, and is, modified all the time. Internet providers can write software to allow users maximum privacy or to track and restrict their movements to an extraordinary degree. The software engineers, as Percy Bysshe Shelley said of poets, are the unacknowledged legislators of our time. We must, Mr. Lessig said, acknowledge this reality and try to shape it. "We can build, or architect, or code cyberspace to protect values that we believe are fundamental, or we can build, or architect, or code cyberspace to allow those values to disappear," he writes. Mr. Shapiro describes himself as more optimistic than Mr. Lessig or Mr. Sunstein. "I came to see more potential in the Internet empowering individuals, but we are all 'technorealists' in that we see personalization and social fragmentation as features of the Net." Other legal scholars agree that fragmentation and polarization have increased with the Internet, but they do not necessarily see it as a problem. "I do not mourn the demise of the domination of the main outlets of news and information," said Peter Huber, a conservative legal scholar who is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of "Law and Disorder in Cyberspace: Abolish the F.C.C. and Let Common Law Rule the Telecosm." "It's true that the oracles of traditional authority, The New York Times, the network news and the universities have lost power. Just look at the declining market share of the major TV networks. But whether you regard that as good or bad depends on where you sit." That doesn't mean he dismisses claims that new technology causes social fragmentation; he just feels that the individual empowerment of the Internet is well worth the price. "The Soviet Union had a 'shared culture' and one source of information, 'Pravda,' " he said. "I think it's impossible to judge what is the exact point at which you have the right mix of diversity and common culture." Mr. Sunstein said he was not talking about limiting diversity but rather the insular way that most sites were structured. For example, he said, most political Web sites have links only to other like- minded sites. Although he stops short of calling for government intervention, he says, "We might want to consider the possibility of ways of requiring or encouraging sites to link to opposing viewpoints." Until the early 1980's, the Federal Communications Commission required broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing viewpoints, a policy eliminated during the Reagan administration. When critics of Mr. Sunstein's book pointed out that his own site at the University of Chicago offered no such links, he responded by including the Web addresses of two well-known conservative colleagues. What some political Web sites are already trying to do is figure out ways to encourage more intelligent deliberation rather than simply name-calling and insults. "We are trying to design sites so that they promote diversity as well as a sense of community," said Scott Reents, the president of two political Web sites called E-ThePeople and Quorum.org that recently merged. The software design of the sites, Mr. Reents said in support of Mr. Lessig's point, can shape discussion in important ways. For example, at Quorum.org readers are asked to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to a particular posting; that item's placement is determined by reader reaction. (The site tries to prevent people using multiple identities from voting more than once by requiring visitors to register.) On other sites, a group of regular users rank the value of contributions, and the rankings then determines their place on the "bulletin board." How well that works, however, is an open question. When Mr. Sunstein tried to intervene in a discussion of his own book on a techie Web site called slashdot.org, his contribution was given a very low ranking. "I think maybe they didn't believe I was the author of the book," he said. James Fishkin, a political scientist at the University of Texas, said that such efforts at Web democracy follow the model of debate in ancient Sparta called the Shout. "The idea of the Shout is that the candidate that got the loudest applause or shout would win," he said. "Unless we make special efforts to implement more ambitious democratic possibilities, the Internet, left to its own devices, is going to give us an impoverished form of democracy in the form of the Shout." Mr. Fishkin is trying to follow the example of ancient Athens, whose assemblies consisted of several hundred citizens who, after being chosen by lot, would deliberate and vote. He has developed a technique called "deliberative polling" and would like to bring the idea to the Internet. "The idea is this," he said. "What would public opinion be like if people were motivated to behave more like ideal citizens, if they had access to a wealth of information and to competing arguments on a given issue?" Over the last decade Mr. Fishkin has collected a random group of several hundred people and given them carefully prepared briefing documents on both sides of a given issue. Participants question panels of experts and discuss the issues in smaller groups with trained moderators so that no single person is allowed to dominate discussion. After their deliberation, they are then surveyed privately as in any opinion poll, but their views now reflect, it is hoped, careful deliberation. Texas actually used the method to help determine its energy policy, holding a series of deliberative polls between 1996 and 1998. "Because of it, there are now windmills all over the state of Texas," Mr. Fishkin says. Mr. Fishkin is hoping to use the Internet to conduct "deliberative polling" on a much larger basis. To Mr. Lessig, deliberative polling is one of the few hopeful developments when it comes the democracy and the Web. "If Jim can transfer to cyberspace what he has done in real space, I think the Internet could be very different," he said. Yet some view efforts to tame the Internet as doomed to failure. "I think it's a waste of time," said Mr. Huber. "All this talk about `links' and so forth is interesting intellectually, but by the time you try to implement it the technology will be 10 years ahead. When online video becomes as accessible as e-mail, the whole game will change again. And if you think there is fragmentation now, you ain't seen nothing yet." Copyright 2001 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 happygardening.com Sat Jun 2 16:19:44 2001 From: brian at happygardening.com (Brian High) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:19:44 GMT Subject: SCN: Madrid's HiTech Shanty Town Message-ID: <20010602.23194400@mis.configured.host> Madrid's HiTech Shanty Town Posted by michael on Saturday June 02, @11:04AM from the hey-buddy-can-you-spare-some-watts? dept. Alien54 writes: "As reported in CNN, a hi-tech shanty town has arisen in Madrid, Spain, complete with pirated utilities and computer access. Known locally as El Campamento de Esperanza (The Camp of Hope), it is now a village of about 1,200 inhabitants, with libraries, bars, hot showers and cafeterias serving daily meals. They are skilled engineers and technicians, formerly employed by Sintel Telecommunications, a Spanish telecom company that filed for bankruptcy protection in 2000. With a mixture of ingenuity and tenacity, the workers have transformed their claim to $10 million in unpaid wages and refusal to accept forced resignations into a national issue, by squatting on the property where they used to work." Such a thing could never exist in the U.S. for longer than it took to load up the tear gas grenade launchers. ( Read More... | 150 of 235 comments ) http://slashdot.org/articles/01/06/02/1510203.shtml * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 davidb at scn.org Sat Jun 2 20:53:30 2001 From: davidb at scn.org (David Barts) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 20:53:30 -0700 Subject: SCN: Group polarization In-Reply-To: <3B18351D.31174.54C4A06@localhost>; from steve@advocate.net on Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 12:36:45AM -0700 References: <3B18351D.31174.54C4A06@localhost> Message-ID: <20010602205330.A18385@scn.scn.org> Steve writes: > (Alexander Stille, NY Times)---As Cass Sunstein, a professor of law > at the University of Chicago, saw himself being skewered on various > Web sites discussing his recent book, "Republic.com," he had the > odd satisfaction of watching some of the book's themes unfold > before his eyes. On the conservative Web site "FreeRepublic.com," > the discussion began by referring relatively mildly to Mr. Sunstein's > book about the political consequences of the Internet as "thinly > veiled liberal." But as the discussion picked up steam, the rhetoric > of the respondents, who insisted that they had not and would not > read the book itself, became more heated. Eventually, they were > referring to Mr. Sunstein as "a nazi" and a "pointy headed socialist > windbag." > > The discussion illustrated the phenomenon that Mr. Sunstein and > various social scientists have called "group polarization" in which > like-minded people in an isolated group reinforce one another's > views, which then harden into more extreme positions. Even one of > his critics on the site acknowledged the shift. "Amazingly enough," > he wrote, "it looks like Sunstein has polarized this group into > unanimous agreement about him." An expletive followed. Which all goes to show how little what passes for "conservatism" today has to do with the values once associated with traditionalist conervatism. The extremism and polarizing tendencies that Sunstein objects to sound much like what I remember Edmund Burke worrying about whenn I read some of his writings several years ago. Modern-day conservatism is a mishmash of tradationalist conservatism, right-wing libertarianism, and Christian fundamentalism. -- David W. Barts (davidb at scn.org) / http://www.scn.org/~davidb "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." -- Wendell Berry * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 sabrina_B at empas.com Mon Jun 4 03:47:49 2001 From: sabrina_B at empas.com (sabrina_B at empas.com) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 03:47:49 -0700 Subject: SCN: write back when you can 19450 Message-ID: <00002a362b41$00006317$00004bfa@empas.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clariun at yahoo.com Mon Jun 4 21:52:48 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Filters In-Reply-To: <3B16D4D9.10962.4F45730@localhost> Message-ID: <20010605045248.74632.qmail@web13201.mail.yahoo.com> It's too bad these people can't get their own computers at home, as cheap as they are, they have to come to the library and hog access. Of course, the Seattle Public Library and the King County Library System impose time limits on access. I frequently go to the library and I literally see the same people hogging the computers. Maybe they have multiple library cards??? Okay, some can't afford them, I am sure, but some of them appear to be able to...hmmmm. Patrick --- Steve wrote: > x-no-archive: yes > > ========================= > > > (Carl S. Kaplan, NY Times)---In early 1997, the Minneapolis Public > Library began giving its patrons unfettered and unlimited access to > the Internet. The library's First Amendment-inspired policy was > intended to provide a needed service to the community. But Wendy > Adamson, a reference desk librarian at the library's central branch, > said it effectively made her working life a nightmare, and federal > officials appear poised to agree with her. > > Acting on complaints from Adamson and other librarians at the city's > central branch library, the Equal Employment Opportunity > Commission's Minneapolis office ruled last week that the library, by > exposing its staff to sexually explicit images on unrestricted > computer terminals, may have allowed for a hostile work > environment. The blockbuster finding, issued on May 23 following > an investigation by the agency, came in response to complaints > filed a year ago by Adamson and 11 of her colleagues. > > Free speech advocates quickly expressed concern that the > E.E.O.C.'s decision is a dangerous precedent that could pressure > libraries to aggressively monitor patrons' viewing habits or install > filtering software as a means to ward off potential discrimination > suits. But Adamson and Bob Halagan, the lawyer for the librarians, > hailed the commission's finding as a victory for common sense. > > Adamson said the complaints were filed only after she and other > librarians repeatedly notified library officials about their concerns > and detailed what they said were the new policy's negative impact > on staff and patrons. > > "Our downtown library became a club for a large number of men who > were viewing pornography all day," Adamson, who has been a > librarian for over 30 years, said in an interview. "I'd see these men > at the door at 9 a.m. and some of them would still be there at 9 at > night." > > Adamson said that while she was sitting at her workplace and doing > her job, she would look up and see "horrible" stuff on the screens of > nearby terminals. "I'm talking about torture and sex with animals," > she said. It was "really demoralizing and depressing." > > Computer printouts of sexually explicit pictures littered the library, > Adamson said. She said she saw some men at computer terminals > engage in what appeared to her to be masturbation and that > computer users would verbally abuse her when she tried to enforce > time limits. > > The worst part of her day, she said, was watching, helplessly, as > members of the public -- including children -- encountered unwanted > sexual images on terminals. Often, she said, a patron who wanted to > do conventional research would approach a terminal and find that it > was locked onto a sexually explicit site -- owing to a "quicksand" > feature some porn sites use that prevents users from leaving the > site. She said she repeatedly had to calm the patrons and reset the > terminal's browser. > > "We were told [by administrators] to avert our eyes. But we were > surrounded by it," she said, adding that library officials did not > respond to staff complaints about the policy. > > The director of the Minneapolis Public Library, Mary L. Lawson, did > not return telephone calls. The library's spokesperson released a > statement, attributed to Lawson, stating that the library would not > comment on the E.E.O.C.'s finding until it had the opportunity to > consult with its lawyer and trustees. > > The statement noted, however, that last spring the library adopted > revised guidelines for Internet use. Among other things, the new > guidelines include time limits, sign-up procedures requiring > identification, posted notices prohibiting illegal Internet activity and > enforcement procedures. > > The E.E.O.C.'s ruling, called a "determination," is a preliminary > conclusion by the agency that there is reason to believe > discrimination occurred. The commission will next attempt to > resolve the matter through mediation. Adamson said the E.E.O.C. > had privately suggested to the library that it pay each of the 12 > employees $75,000 in damages. > > If the agency's mediation efforts fail -- if the library declines to enter > settlement discussions or if the E.E.O.C. is unable to secure an > acceptable settlement -- the matter may be sent to the Department of > Justice for possible prosecution. In addition, the librarians may elect > to directly sue the library in court. > > David Rucker, an enforcement supervisor for the E.E.O.C.'s > Minneapolis office, declined to confirm or deny the E.E.O.C.'s > investigation of the library, citing his office's policy of > confidentiality. > > Jan LaRue, senior director of legal studies for the conservative > Family Research Council, which has consistently lobbied for > governmental regulation of Internet decency, said that the E.E.O.C.'s > finding will make libraries across the country "sit up and take > notice." > > "When libraries face up to the fact that they face a loss of revenues" > from potential discrimination suits, they will begin to restrict > patrons' access to sexually explicit material on the Internet, she > said. LaRue said that she believed nothing less than filtering > software will solve the problem of a library's hostile work > environment. > > "The Minneapolis Public Library's current policy is to tell people, > 'Don't touch the paint,'" LaRue said. "But people still touch the paint. > It's much more effective to keep [sexually explicit images] from > coming up on the screen as much as possible." > > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at U.C.L.A. who has written > extensively about the Internet, free speech and workplace > harassment law, agreed that the E.E.O.C.'s finding would put > pressure on library trustees to adopt filtering. He added, however, > that he disagreed with the government's policy of forcing libraries, > under the threat of discrimination law penalties, to restrict the > freedom of library users to view legally protected but offensive > material. > > Of course, a library that uses filtering software on all its terminals > risks inviting -- and losing -- a First Amendment lawsuit, Volokh said, > alluding to a 1998 federal district court decision declaring that the > filtering policy of a public library in Loudoun County, Va., was > unconstitutional. > > But losing a First Amendment lawsuit will subject a library to > "nominal damages," Volokh said. Losing a Title VII discrimination > lawsuit can result in damages "with lots of zeros in it," he said. > Faced with the choice between two equally hazardous legal > alternatives, library trustees will logically opt to install filters and > ward off harassment suits with potentially massive damages, he > said. > > Ann Beeson, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who > specializes in cyberlaw cases, said that a charge of sexual > harassment is often used as a pretext to justify library filtering. The > Loudoun County library's filtering scheme was cast in the form of > anti-harassment policy, she said. But the judge in that case found > that there was no hard evidence that any librarian was at substantial > risk of harassment from viewing sexual images. Beeson said that, > even today, millions of library patrons use unrestricted Internet > terminals without harming librarians. In any case, she said, there > are better ways to avoid a hostile environment for librarians than the > use of filtering. Acceptable means include the use of blinders or > "privacy screens" on terminals. > > A new law that requires public libraries and schools that receive > federal telecommunications funds to install Internet blocking > software goes into effect in July, 2002. The federal law was > challenged on First Amendment grounds in March by the ACLU and > the American Library Association. Still, Halagan, the librarians' > lawyer in the Minneapolis matter, said that it is a mistake for people > to reduce the Minneapolis controversy to a filtering vs. non-filtering > debate. "As a matter of fact, my clients are split on the subject," he > said. > > "What this determination will do is cause other libraries to think > about what obligations they have [to their employees] and to > balance that with the First Amendment," he said. "The answer could > be separate computers for children, filtering, limiting printer access, > posting notices or working with local police. It's a complex issue." > Halagan said that the Minneapolis library's revised policy, which > went into effect shortly after his clients filed their complaints, has > resulted in a much-improved work climate, but that more needed to > be done. > > For her part, Adamson said that she hopes the ruling will empower > other librarians who feel harassed to speak up. > > "Our experience will be felt by other people in other libraries," she > predicted. She said that when speaking about this subject, she could > not help recalling an incident when she was helping 12-year old girl > with a term paper. She said they were standing by a bookcase, their > backs to a computer terminal. Adamson said that, when she turned > and saw that the user of the nearby computer was looking at a > picture of a "naked woman tied up," she thought up a ruse to escort > the girl to another part of the library so she would not see the > picture. "This happened all the time. It was so stressful." > > > Copyright 2001 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/ * * * * * * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 be718 at scn.org Tue Jun 5 11:44:29 2001 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Filters In-Reply-To: <20010605045248.74632.qmail@web13201.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I don't think people would go downtown just to use the library computers if they could afford their own computers. The fact that so many people use the library computers is confirmation that there is not enough public access to computers. We shouldn't put down the people who are going to a lot of trouble to use a computer. Maybe the computer giveaway program should pass out information cards (about how to get a free computer) to those using the library computers. Later, Rich ______________________________________________________________________ On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, patrick wrote: > It's too bad these people can't get their own computers at home, as cheap as > they are, they have to come to the library and hog access. Of course, the > Seattle Public Library and the King County Library System impose time limits on > access. I frequently go to the library and I literally see the same people > hogging the computers. Maybe they have multiple library cards??? Okay, some > can't afford them, I am sure, but some of them appear to be able to...hmmmm. > > Patrick > > > > > --- Steve wrote: > > x-no-archive: yes > > > > ========================= > > > > > > (Carl S. Kaplan, NY Times)---In early 1997, the Minneapolis Public > > Library began giving its patrons unfettered and unlimited access to > > the Internet. The library's First Amendment-inspired policy was > > intended to provide a needed service to the community. But Wendy > > Adamson, a reference desk librarian at the library's central branch, > > said it effectively made her working life a nightmare, and federal > > officials appear poised to agree with her. > > > > Acting on complaints from Adamson and other librarians at the city's > > central branch library, the Equal Employment Opportunity > > Commission's Minneapolis office ruled last week that the library, by > > exposing its staff to sexually explicit images on unrestricted > > computer terminals, may have allowed for a hostile work > > environment. The blockbuster finding, issued on May 23 following > > an investigation by the agency, came in response to complaints > > filed a year ago by Adamson and 11 of her colleagues. > > > > Free speech advocates quickly expressed concern that the > > E.E.O.C.'s decision is a dangerous precedent that could pressure > > libraries to aggressively monitor patrons' viewing habits or install > > filtering software as a means to ward off potential discrimination > > suits. But Adamson and Bob Halagan, the lawyer for the librarians, > > hailed the commission's finding as a victory for common sense. > > > > Adamson said the complaints were filed only after she and other > > librarians repeatedly notified library officials about their concerns > > and detailed what they said were the new policy's negative impact > > on staff and patrons. > > > > "Our downtown library became a club for a large number of men who > > were viewing pornography all day," Adamson, who has been a > > librarian for over 30 years, said in an interview. "I'd see these men > > at the door at 9 a.m. and some of them would still be there at 9 at > > night." > > > > Adamson said that while she was sitting at her workplace and doing > > her job, she would look up and see "horrible" stuff on the screens of > > nearby terminals. "I'm talking about torture and sex with animals," > > she said. It was "really demoralizing and depressing." > > > > Computer printouts of sexually explicit pictures littered the library, > > Adamson said. She said she saw some men at computer terminals > > engage in what appeared to her to be masturbation and that > > computer users would verbally abuse her when she tried to enforce > > time limits. > > > > The worst part of her day, she said, was watching, helplessly, as > > members of the public -- including children -- encountered unwanted > > sexual images on terminals. Often, she said, a patron who wanted to > > do conventional research would approach a terminal and find that it > > was locked onto a sexually explicit site -- owing to a "quicksand" > > feature some porn sites use that prevents users from leaving the > > site. She said she repeatedly had to calm the patrons and reset the > > terminal's browser. > > > > "We were told [by administrators] to avert our eyes. But we were > > surrounded by it," she said, adding that library officials did not > > respond to staff complaints about the policy. > > > > The director of the Minneapolis Public Library, Mary L. Lawson, did > > not return telephone calls. The library's spokesperson released a > > statement, attributed to Lawson, stating that the library would not > > comment on the E.E.O.C.'s finding until it had the opportunity to > > consult with its lawyer and trustees. > > > > The statement noted, however, that last spring the library adopted > > revised guidelines for Internet use. Among other things, the new > > guidelines include time limits, sign-up procedures requiring > > identification, posted notices prohibiting illegal Internet activity and > > enforcement procedures. > > > > The E.E.O.C.'s ruling, called a "determination," is a preliminary > > conclusion by the agency that there is reason to believe > > discrimination occurred. The commission will next attempt to > > resolve the matter through mediation. Adamson said the E.E.O.C. > > had privately suggested to the library that it pay each of the 12 > > employees $75,000 in damages. > > > > If the agency's mediation efforts fail -- if the library declines to enter > > settlement discussions or if the E.E.O.C. is unable to secure an > > acceptable settlement -- the matter may be sent to the Department of > > Justice for possible prosecution. In addition, the librarians may elect > > to directly sue the library in court. > > > > David Rucker, an enforcement supervisor for the E.E.O.C.'s > > Minneapolis office, declined to confirm or deny the E.E.O.C.'s > > investigation of the library, citing his office's policy of > > confidentiality. > > > > Jan LaRue, senior director of legal studies for the conservative > > Family Research Council, which has consistently lobbied for > > governmental regulation of Internet decency, said that the E.E.O.C.'s > > finding will make libraries across the country "sit up and take > > notice." > > > > "When libraries face up to the fact that they face a loss of revenues" > > from potential discrimination suits, they will begin to restrict > > patrons' access to sexually explicit material on the Internet, she > > said. LaRue said that she believed nothing less than filtering > > software will solve the problem of a library's hostile work > > environment. > > > > "The Minneapolis Public Library's current policy is to tell people, > > 'Don't touch the paint,'" LaRue said. "But people still touch the paint. > > It's much more effective to keep [sexually explicit images] from > > coming up on the screen as much as possible." > > > > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at U.C.L.A. who has written > > extensively about the Internet, free speech and workplace > > harassment law, agreed that the E.E.O.C.'s finding would put > > pressure on library trustees to adopt filtering. He added, however, > > that he disagreed with the government's policy of forcing libraries, > > under the threat of discrimination law penalties, to restrict the > > freedom of library users to view legally protected but offensive > > material. > > > > Of course, a library that uses filtering software on all its terminals > > risks inviting -- and losing -- a First Amendment lawsuit, Volokh said, > > alluding to a 1998 federal district court decision declaring that the > > filtering policy of a public library in Loudoun County, Va., was > > unconstitutional. > > > > But losing a First Amendment lawsuit will subject a library to > > "nominal damages," Volokh said. Losing a Title VII discrimination > > lawsuit can result in damages "with lots of zeros in it," he said. > > Faced with the choice between two equally hazardous legal > > alternatives, library trustees will logically opt to install filters and > > ward off harassment suits with potentially massive damages, he > > said. > > > > Ann Beeson, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who > > specializes in cyberlaw cases, said that a charge of sexual > > harassment is often used as a pretext to justify library filtering. The > > Loudoun County library's filtering scheme was cast in the form of > > anti-harassment policy, she said. But the judge in that case found > > that there was no hard evidence that any librarian was at substantial > > risk of harassment from viewing sexual images. Beeson said that, > > even today, millions of library patrons use unrestricted Internet > > terminals without harming librarians. In any case, she said, there > > are better ways to avoid a hostile environment for librarians than the > > use of filtering. Acceptable means include the use of blinders or > > "privacy screens" on terminals. > > > > A new law that requires public libraries and schools that receive > > federal telecommunications funds to install Internet blocking > > software goes into effect in July, 2002. The federal law was > > challenged on First Amendment grounds in March by the ACLU and > > the American Library Association. Still, Halagan, the librarians' > > lawyer in the Minneapolis matter, said that it is a mistake for people > > to reduce the Minneapolis controversy to a filtering vs. non-filtering > > debate. "As a matter of fact, my clients are split on the subject," he > > said. > > > > "What this determination will do is cause other libraries to think > > about what obligations they have [to their employees] and to > > balance that with the First Amendment," he said. "The answer could > > be separate computers for children, filtering, limiting printer access, > > posting notices or working with local police. It's a complex issue." > > Halagan said that the Minneapolis library's revised policy, which > > went into effect shortly after his clients filed their complaints, has > > resulted in a much-improved work climate, but that more needed to > > be done. > > > > For her part, Adamson said that she hopes the ruling will empower > > other librarians who feel harassed to speak up. > > > > "Our experience will be felt by other people in other libraries," she > > predicted. She said that when speaking about this subject, she could > > not help recalling an incident when she was helping 12-year old girl > > with a term paper. She said they were standing by a bookcase, their > > backs to a computer terminal. Adamson said that, when she turned > > and saw that the user of the nearby computer was looking at a > > picture of a "naked woman tied up," she thought up a ruse to escort > > the girl to another part of the library so she would not see the > > picture. "This happened all the time. It was so stressful." > > > > > > Copyright 2001 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/ * * * * * * * > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 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 bn890 at scn.org Tue Jun 5 12:41:06 2001 From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Filters In-Reply-To: <20010605045248.74632.qmail@web13201.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Not everybody can afford to buy a computer so they use the Public Libraries, the same way people go to the libraries to use encyclopedias and other reference materals. And some people just don't want computers at home for whatever their reasons. On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, patrick wrote: > It's too bad these people can't get their own computers at home, as cheap as > they are, they have to come to the library and hog access. Of course, the > Seattle Public Library and the King County Library System impose time limits on > access. I frequently go to the library and I literally see the same people > hogging the computers. Maybe they have multiple library cards??? Okay, some > can't afford them, I am sure, but some of them appear to be able to...hmmmm. > > Patrick > > > > > --- Steve wrote: > > x-no-archive: yes > > > > ========================= > > > > > > (Carl S. Kaplan, NY Times)---In early 1997, the Minneapolis Public > > Library began giving its patrons unfettered and unlimited access to > > the Internet. The library's First Amendment-inspired policy was > > intended to provide a needed service to the community. But Wendy > > Adamson, a reference desk librarian at the library's central branch, > > said it effectively made her working life a nightmare, and federal > > officials appear poised to agree with her. > > > > Acting on complaints from Adamson and other librarians at the city's > > central branch library, the Equal Employment Opportunity > > Commission's Minneapolis office ruled last week that the library, by > > exposing its staff to sexually explicit images on unrestricted > > computer terminals, may have allowed for a hostile work > > environment. The blockbuster finding, issued on May 23 following > > an investigation by the agency, came in response to complaints > > filed a year ago by Adamson and 11 of her colleagues. > > > > Free speech advocates quickly expressed concern that the > > E.E.O.C.'s decision is a dangerous precedent that could pressure > > libraries to aggressively monitor patrons' viewing habits or install > > filtering software as a means to ward off potential discrimination > > suits. But Adamson and Bob Halagan, the lawyer for the librarians, > > hailed the commission's finding as a victory for common sense. > > > > Adamson said the complaints were filed only after she and other > > librarians repeatedly notified library officials about their concerns > > and detailed what they said were the new policy's negative impact > > on staff and patrons. > > > > "Our downtown library became a club for a large number of men who > > were viewing pornography all day," Adamson, who has been a > > librarian for over 30 years, said in an interview. "I'd see these men > > at the door at 9 a.m. and some of them would still be there at 9 at > > night." > > > > Adamson said that while she was sitting at her workplace and doing > > her job, she would look up and see "horrible" stuff on the screens of > > nearby terminals. "I'm talking about torture and sex with animals," > > she said. It was "really demoralizing and depressing." > > > > Computer printouts of sexually explicit pictures littered the library, > > Adamson said. She said she saw some men at computer terminals > > engage in what appeared to her to be masturbation and that > > computer users would verbally abuse her when she tried to enforce > > time limits. > > > > The worst part of her day, she said, was watching, helplessly, as > > members of the public -- including children -- encountered unwanted > > sexual images on terminals. Often, she said, a patron who wanted to > > do conventional research would approach a terminal and find that it > > was locked onto a sexually explicit site -- owing to a "quicksand" > > feature some porn sites use that prevents users from leaving the > > site. She said she repeatedly had to calm the patrons and reset the > > terminal's browser. > > > > "We were told [by administrators] to avert our eyes. But we were > > surrounded by it," she said, adding that library officials did not > > respond to staff complaints about the policy. > > > > The director of the Minneapolis Public Library, Mary L. Lawson, did > > not return telephone calls. The library's spokesperson released a > > statement, attributed to Lawson, stating that the library would not > > comment on the E.E.O.C.'s finding until it had the opportunity to > > consult with its lawyer and trustees. > > > > The statement noted, however, that last spring the library adopted > > revised guidelines for Internet use. Among other things, the new > > guidelines include time limits, sign-up procedures requiring > > identification, posted notices prohibiting illegal Internet activity and > > enforcement procedures. > > > > The E.E.O.C.'s ruling, called a "determination," is a preliminary > > conclusion by the agency that there is reason to believe > > discrimination occurred. The commission will next attempt to > > resolve the matter through mediation. Adamson said the E.E.O.C. > > had privately suggested to the library that it pay each of the 12 > > employees $75,000 in damages. > > > > If the agency's mediation efforts fail -- if the library declines to enter > > settlement discussions or if the E.E.O.C. is unable to secure an > > acceptable settlement -- the matter may be sent to the Department of > > Justice for possible prosecution. In addition, the librarians may elect > > to directly sue the library in court. > > > > David Rucker, an enforcement supervisor for the E.E.O.C.'s > > Minneapolis office, declined to confirm or deny the E.E.O.C.'s > > investigation of the library, citing his office's policy of > > confidentiality. > > > > Jan LaRue, senior director of legal studies for the conservative > > Family Research Council, which has consistently lobbied for > > governmental regulation of Internet decency, said that the E.E.O.C.'s > > finding will make libraries across the country "sit up and take > > notice." > > > > "When libraries face up to the fact that they face a loss of revenues" > > from potential discrimination suits, they will begin to restrict > > patrons' access to sexually explicit material on the Internet, she > > said. LaRue said that she believed nothing less than filtering > > software will solve the problem of a library's hostile work > > environment. > > > > "The Minneapolis Public Library's current policy is to tell people, > > 'Don't touch the paint,'" LaRue said. "But people still touch the paint. > > It's much more effective to keep [sexually explicit images] from > > coming up on the screen as much as possible." > > > > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at U.C.L.A. who has written > > extensively about the Internet, free speech and workplace > > harassment law, agreed that the E.E.O.C.'s finding would put > > pressure on library trustees to adopt filtering. He added, however, > > that he disagreed with the government's policy of forcing libraries, > > under the threat of discrimination law penalties, to restrict the > > freedom of library users to view legally protected but offensive > > material. > > > > Of course, a library that uses filtering software on all its terminals > > risks inviting -- and losing -- a First Amendment lawsuit, Volokh said, > > alluding to a 1998 federal district court decision declaring that the > > filtering policy of a public library in Loudoun County, Va., was > > unconstitutional. > > > > But losing a First Amendment lawsuit will subject a library to > > "nominal damages," Volokh said. Losing a Title VII discrimination > > lawsuit can result in damages "with lots of zeros in it," he said. > > Faced with the choice between two equally hazardous legal > > alternatives, library trustees will logically opt to install filters and > > ward off harassment suits with potentially massive damages, he > > said. > > > > Ann Beeson, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who > > specializes in cyberlaw cases, said that a charge of sexual > > harassment is often used as a pretext to justify library filtering. The > > Loudoun County library's filtering scheme was cast in the form of > > anti-harassment policy, she said. But the judge in that case found > > that there was no hard evidence that any librarian was at substantial > > risk of harassment from viewing sexual images. Beeson said that, > > even today, millions of library patrons use unrestricted Internet > > terminals without harming librarians. In any case, she said, there > > are better ways to avoid a hostile environment for librarians than the > > use of filtering. Acceptable means include the use of blinders or > > "privacy screens" on terminals. > > > > A new law that requires public libraries and schools that receive > > federal telecommunications funds to install Internet blocking > > software goes into effect in July, 2002. The federal law was > > challenged on First Amendment grounds in March by the ACLU and > > the American Library Association. Still, Halagan, the librarians' > > lawyer in the Minneapolis matter, said that it is a mistake for people > > to reduce the Minneapolis controversy to a filtering vs. non-filtering > > debate. "As a matter of fact, my clients are split on the subject," he > > said. > > > > "What this determination will do is cause other libraries to think > > about what obligations they have [to their employees] and to > > balance that with the First Amendment," he said. "The answer could > > be separate computers for children, filtering, limiting printer access, > > posting notices or working with local police. It's a complex issue." > > Halagan said that the Minneapolis library's revised policy, which > > went into effect shortly after his clients filed their complaints, has > > resulted in a much-improved work climate, but that more needed to > > be done. > > > > For her part, Adamson said that she hopes the ruling will empower > > other librarians who feel harassed to speak up. > > > > "Our experience will be felt by other people in other libraries," she > > predicted. She said that when speaking about this subject, she could > > not help recalling an incident when she was helping 12-year old girl > > with a term paper. She said they were standing by a bookcase, their > > backs to a computer terminal. Adamson said that, when she turned > > and saw that the user of the nearby computer was looking at a > > picture of a "naked woman tied up," she thought up a ruse to escort > > the girl to another part of the library so she would not see the > > picture. "This happened all the time. It was so stressful." > > > > > > Copyright 2001 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/ * * * * * * * > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 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 jj at scn.org Tue Jun 5 15:10:53 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: search engine funding (was: hmmm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There are some interesting developments on this theme--an article in Monday's (6-04-01) N.Y. Times, p. C1+, disscusses another approach to financing search engine services: selling preferential treatment of what is returned. Recalling the statment reported in the original posting, that users ought not screen out advertisements, as they pay for these services--too late! This article notes: "the effectiveness, and thus the prices, for such ads has plummented as users have trained their eyes to ignore them." So now access to shaping "the results themselves, and not the billboards on the side of the road" is being sold, with the major search services preferentially returning links to sites that have paid for that. (Kind of scary. I might start missing the ads!) The article is a good read. Might be available on-line. And if any one has other ideas for funding such services, I suppose they could be worth a good deal of money. === JJ ============================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 clariun at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 14:27:00 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:27:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Filters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010606212700.37323.qmail@web13207.mail.yahoo.com> But there are people who can afford a computer, and really anyone can get a computer these days. I have a P-90 that is a doorstop, but works great and they go for real cheap. A hog is a hog. Patrick --- Irene Mogol wrote: > Not everybody can afford to buy a computer so they use the Public > Libraries, the same way people go to the libraries to use encyclopedias > and other reference materals. > And some people just don't want computers at home for whatever their > reasons. > > > > On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, patrick wrote: > > > It's too bad these people can't get their own computers at home, as cheap > as > > they are, they have to come to the library and hog access. Of course, the > > Seattle Public Library and the King County Library System impose time > limits on > > access. I frequently go to the library and I literally see the same people > > hogging the computers. Maybe they have multiple library cards??? Okay, some > > can't afford them, I am sure, but some of them appear to be able > to...hmmmm. > > > > Patrick > > > > > > > > > > --- Steve wrote: > > > x-no-archive: yes > > > > > > ========================= > > > > > > > > > (Carl S. Kaplan, NY Times)---In early 1997, the Minneapolis Public > > > Library began giving its patrons unfettered and unlimited access to > > > the Internet. The library's First Amendment-inspired policy was > > > intended to provide a needed service to the community. But Wendy > > > Adamson, a reference desk librarian at the library's central branch, > > > said it effectively made her working life a nightmare, and federal > > > officials appear poised to agree with her. > > > > > > Acting on complaints from Adamson and other librarians at the city's > > > central branch library, the Equal Employment Opportunity > > > Commission's Minneapolis office ruled last week that the library, by > > > exposing its staff to sexually explicit images on unrestricted > > > computer terminals, may have allowed for a hostile work > > > environment. The blockbuster finding, issued on May 23 following > > > an investigation by the agency, came in response to complaints > > > filed a year ago by Adamson and 11 of her colleagues. > > > > > > Free speech advocates quickly expressed concern that the > > > E.E.O.C.'s decision is a dangerous precedent that could pressure > > > libraries to aggressively monitor patrons' viewing habits or install > > > filtering software as a means to ward off potential discrimination > > > suits. But Adamson and Bob Halagan, the lawyer for the librarians, > > > hailed the commission's finding as a victory for common sense. > > > > > > Adamson said the complaints were filed only after she and other > > > librarians repeatedly notified library officials about their concerns > > > and detailed what they said were the new policy's negative impact > > > on staff and patrons. > > > > > > "Our downtown library became a club for a large number of men who > > > were viewing pornography all day," Adamson, who has been a > > > librarian for over 30 years, said in an interview. "I'd see these men > > > at the door at 9 a.m. and some of them would still be there at 9 at > > > night." > > > > > > Adamson said that while she was sitting at her workplace and doing > > > her job, she would look up and see "horrible" stuff on the screens of > > > nearby terminals. "I'm talking about torture and sex with animals," > > > she said. It was "really demoralizing and depressing." > > > > > > Computer printouts of sexually explicit pictures littered the library, > > > Adamson said. She said she saw some men at computer terminals > > > engage in what appeared to her to be masturbation and that > > > computer users would verbally abuse her when she tried to enforce > > > time limits. > > > > > > The worst part of her day, she said, was watching, helplessly, as > > > members of the public -- including children -- encountered unwanted > > > sexual images on terminals. Often, she said, a patron who wanted to > > > do conventional research would approach a terminal and find that it > > > was locked onto a sexually explicit site -- owing to a "quicksand" > > > feature some porn sites use that prevents users from leaving the > > > site. She said she repeatedly had to calm the patrons and reset the > > > terminal's browser. > > > > > > "We were told [by administrators] to avert our eyes. But we were > > > surrounded by it," she said, adding that library officials did not > > > respond to staff complaints about the policy. > > > > > > The director of the Minneapolis Public Library, Mary L. Lawson, did > > > not return telephone calls. The library's spokesperson released a > > > statement, attributed to Lawson, stating that the library would not > > > comment on the E.E.O.C.'s finding until it had the opportunity to > > > consult with its lawyer and trustees. > > > > > > The statement noted, however, that last spring the library adopted > > > revised guidelines for Internet use. Among other things, the new > > > guidelines include time limits, sign-up procedures requiring > > > identification, posted notices prohibiting illegal Internet activity and > > > enforcement procedures. > > > > > > The E.E.O.C.'s ruling, called a "determination," is a preliminary > > > conclusion by the agency that there is reason to believe > > > discrimination occurred. The commission will next attempt to > > > resolve the matter through mediation. Adamson said the E.E.O.C. > > > had privately suggested to the library that it pay each of the 12 > > > employees $75,000 in damages. > > > > > > If the agency's mediation efforts fail -- if the library declines to > enter > > > settlement discussions or if the E.E.O.C. is unable to secure an > > > acceptable settlement -- the matter may be sent to the Department of > > > Justice for possible prosecution. In addition, the librarians may elect > > > to directly sue the library in court. > > > > > > David Rucker, an enforcement supervisor for the E.E.O.C.'s > > > Minneapolis office, declined to confirm or deny the E.E.O.C.'s > > > investigation of the library, citing his office's policy of > > > confidentiality. > > > > > > Jan LaRue, senior director of legal studies for the conservative > > > Family Research Council, which has consistently lobbied for > > > governmental regulation of Internet decency, said that the E.E.O.C.'s > > > finding will make libraries across the country "sit up and take > > > notice." > > > > > > "When libraries face up to the fact that they face a loss of revenues" > > > from potential discrimination suits, they will begin to restrict > > > patrons' access to sexually explicit material on the Internet, she > > > said. LaRue said that she believed nothing less than filtering > > > software will solve the problem of a library's hostile work > > > environment. > > > > > > "The Minneapolis Public Library's current policy is to tell people, > > > 'Don't touch the paint,'" LaRue said. "But people still touch the paint. > > > It's much more effective to keep [sexually explicit images] from > > > coming up on the screen as much as possible." > > > > > > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at U.C.L.A. who has written > > > extensively about the Internet, free speech and workplace > > > harassment law, agreed that the E.E.O.C.'s finding would put > > > pressure on library trustees to adopt filtering. He added, however, > > > that he disagreed with the government's policy of forcing libraries, > > > under the threat of discrimination law penalties, to restrict the > > > freedom of library users to view legally protected but offensive > > > material. > > > > > > Of course, a library that uses filtering software on all its terminals > > > risks inviting -- and losing -- a First Amendment lawsuit, Volokh said, > > > alluding to a 1998 federal district court decision declaring that the > > > filtering policy of a public library in Loudoun County, Va., was > > > unconstitutional. > > > > > > But losing a First Amendment lawsuit will subject a library to > > > "nominal damages," Volokh said. Losing a Title VII discrimination > > > lawsuit can result in damages "with lots of zeros in it," he said. > > > Faced with the choice between two equally hazardous legal > > > alternatives, library trustees will logically opt to install filters and > > > ward off harassment suits with potentially massive damages, he > > > said. > > > > > > Ann Beeson, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who > > > specializes in cyberlaw cases, said that a charge of sexual > > > harassment is often used as a pretext to justify library filtering. The > > > Loudoun County library's filtering scheme was cast in the form of > > > anti-harassment policy, she said. But the judge in that case found > > > that there was no hard evidence that any librarian was at substantial > > > risk of harassment from viewing sexual images. Beeson said that, > > > even today, millions of library patrons use unrestricted Internet > > > terminals without harming librarians. In any case, she said, there > > > are better ways to avoid a hostile environment for librarians than the > > > use of filtering. Acceptable means include the use of blinders or > > > "privacy screens" on terminals. > > > > > > A new law that requires public libraries and schools that receive > > > federal telecommunications funds to install Internet blocking > > > software goes into effect in July, 2002. The federal law was > > > challenged on First Amendment grounds in March by the ACLU and > > > the American Library Association. Still, Halagan, the librarians' > > > lawyer in the Minneapolis matter, said that it is a mistake for people > > > to reduce the Minneapolis controversy to a filtering vs. non-filtering > > > debate. "As a matter of fact, my clients are split on the subject," he > > > said. > > > > > > "What this determination will do is cause other libraries to think > > > about what obligations they have [to their employees] and to > > > balance that with the First Amendment," he said. "The answer could > > > be separate computers for children, filtering, limiting printer access, > > > posting notices or working with local police. It's a complex issue." > > > Halagan said that the Minneapolis library's revised policy, which > > > went into effect shortly after his clients filed their complaints, has > > > resulted in a much-improved work climate, but that more needed to > > > be done. > > > > > > For her part, Adamson said that she hopes the ruling will empower > > > other librarians who feel harassed to speak up. > > > > > > "Our experience will be felt by other people in other libraries," she > > > predicted. She said that when speaking about this subject, she could > > > not help recalling an incident when she was helping 12-year old girl > > > with a term paper. She said they were standing by a bookcase, their > > > backs to a computer terminal. Adamson said that, when she turned > > > and saw that the user of the nearby computer was looking at a > > > picture of a "naked woman tied up," she thought up a ruse to escort > > > the girl to another part of the library so she would not see the > > > picture. "This happened all the time. It was so stressful." > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2001 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/ * * * * * * * > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 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/ * * * * * * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 clariun at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 17:02:01 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: search engine funding (was: hmmm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010607000201.11606.qmail@web13204.mail.yahoo.com> Google does this. Patrick --- "J. Johnson" wrote: > There are some interesting developments on this theme--an article in > Monday's (6-04-01) N.Y. Times, p. C1+, disscusses another approach to > financing search engine services: selling preferential treatment of what > is returned. > > Recalling the statment reported in the original posting, that users ought > not screen out advertisements, as they pay for these services--too late! > This article notes: "the effectiveness, and thus the prices, for such ads > has plummented as users have trained their eyes to ignore them." > > So now access to shaping "the results themselves, and not the billboards > on the side of the road" is being sold, with the major search services > preferentially returning links to sites that have paid for that. (Kind of > scary. I might start missing the ads!) > > The article is a good read. Might be available on-line. > > And if any one has other ideas for funding such services, I suppose they > could be worth a good deal of money. > > === JJ ============================================================= > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/ * * * * * * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 clariun at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 18:18:37 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Group polarization In-Reply-To: <3B18351D.31174.54C4A06@localhost> Message-ID: <20010607011837.27742.qmail@web13208.mail.yahoo.com> I don't have any concerns with the internet. I don't see it as any kind of weird danger to society, just another communications tool. I think the internet is so fragmented, funky, and chaotic that I don't see any problems with people becoming super focused and harded on any one topic or way of thought. I think things will be just fine. The internet is incredible and it will continue to evolved into some strange and incredible ways. And humans will roll with the punches of new technology: Get worried about it at first, then use it, then be comfortable with it and integrate it into their lives. Don't worry, be happy! Patrick --- Steve wrote: > x-no-archive: yes > > ========================== > > > (Alexander Stille, NY Times)---As Cass Sunstein, a professor of law > at the University of Chicago, saw himself being skewered on various > Web sites discussing his recent book, "Republic.com," he had the > odd satisfaction of watching some of the book's themes unfold > before his eyes. On the conservative Web site "FreeRepublic.com," > the discussion began by referring relatively mildly to Mr. Sunstein's > book about the political consequences of the Internet as "thinly > veiled liberal." But as the discussion picked up steam, the rhetoric > of the respondents, who insisted that they had not and would not > read the book itself, became more heated. Eventually, they were > referring to Mr. Sunstein as "a nazi" and a "pointy headed socialist > windbag." > > The discussion illustrated the phenomenon that Mr. Sunstein and > various social scientists have called "group polarization" in which > like-minded people in an isolated group reinforce one another's > views, which then harden into more extreme positions. Even one of > his critics on the site acknowledged the shift. "Amazingly enough," > he wrote, "it looks like Sunstein has polarized this group into > unanimous agreement about him." An expletive followed. > > To Mr. Sunstein, such polarization is just one of the negative > political effects of the Internet, which allows people to filter out > unwanted information, tailor their own news and congregate at > specialized Web sites that closely reflect their own views. A "shared > culture," which results partly from exposure to a wide range of > opinion, is important for a functioning democracy, he argues. But as > the role of newspapers and television news diminishes, he wrote, > "and the customization of our communications universe increases, > society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities in danger > of dissolving." > > This pessimistic assessment is a sign of just how sharply scholarly > thinking about the Web has shifted. In its first years, the Internet > was seen euphorically as one of history's greatest engines of > democracy, a kind of national town hall meeting in which everyone > got to speak. As an early guru of cyberspace, Dave Clark of M.I.T., > put it in 1992: "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe > in: rough consensus and running code." > > Now, with the examples of business and government control offered > by the explosion of Web commerce, the merger of America Online > and Time-Warner, the Microsoft antitrust case and the litigation over > Napster, that is no longer the case. > > Andrew Shapiro, a guest lecturer at Yale Law School and the author > of "The Control Revolution," said that the early euphoria over > cyberspace had been replaced "by a kind of 'technorealism,' a > second generation of Internet books" that are much more critical. > > An example is the 1999 book "Code" by Lawrence Lessig, a law > professor at Stanford University, who argues that the enormous > amount of personal information people reveal when they shop > online, browse Web sites or call up information offers extraordinary > opportunities for both governments and businesses to control their > lives. "Left to itself," he wrote, "cyberspace will become a perfect > tool of control." > > Mr. Sunstein's assessment is somewhat different from Mr. Lessig's, > though still negative. "His is closer to Orwell's '1984'; mine is more > like 'Brave New World,' " Mr. Sunstein explained. If to Mr. Lessig he > danger is government or corporate control, to Mr. Sunstein it is a > world of seemingly infinite choice, where citizens are transformed > into consumers and a common political life is eroded. > > Both agree, however, that society must begin to make more > conscious choices about what it wants the Internet to be. Mr. > Lessig's main point in "Code" is that the Internet does not have a > "nature." The world we think of as "cyberspace," he said, is an > environment created by the architecture of the computer code that > gave birth to the World Wide Web. > > Mr. Lessig's point is that because the Internet is based on "open > source" computer protocols that allow anyone to tap into it, it has a > specific character that can be, and is, modified all the time. Internet > providers can write software to allow users maximum privacy or to > track and restrict their movements to an extraordinary degree. The > software engineers, as Percy Bysshe Shelley said of poets, are the > unacknowledged legislators of our time. We must, Mr. Lessig said, > acknowledge this reality and try to shape it. > > "We can build, or architect, or code cyberspace to protect values > that we believe are fundamental, or we can build, or architect, or > code cyberspace to allow those values to disappear," he writes. > > Mr. Shapiro describes himself as more optimistic than Mr. Lessig or > Mr. Sunstein. "I came to see more potential in the Internet > empowering individuals, but we are all 'technorealists' in that we > see personalization and social fragmentation as features of the > Net." > > Other legal scholars agree that fragmentation and polarization have > increased with the Internet, but they do not necessarily see it as a > problem. "I do not mourn the demise of the domination of the main > outlets of news and information," said Peter Huber, a conservative > legal scholar who is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the > author of "Law and Disorder in Cyberspace: Abolish the F.C.C. and > Let Common Law Rule the Telecosm." "It's true that the oracles of > traditional authority, The New York Times, the network news and the > universities have lost power. Just look at the declining market share > of the major TV networks. But whether you regard that as good or > bad depends on where you sit." > > That doesn't mean he dismisses claims that new technology causes > social fragmentation; he just feels that the individual empowerment > of the Internet is well worth the price. "The Soviet Union had a > 'shared culture' and one source of information, 'Pravda,' " he said. "I > think it's impossible to judge what is the exact point at which you > have the right mix of diversity and common culture." > > Mr. Sunstein said he was not talking about limiting diversity but > rather the insular way that most sites were structured. For example, > he said, most political Web sites have links only to other like- > minded sites. Although he stops short of calling for government > intervention, he says, "We might want to consider the possibility of > ways of requiring or encouraging sites to link to opposing > viewpoints." > > Until the early 1980's, the Federal Communications Commission > required broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing viewpoints, > a policy eliminated during the Reagan administration. When critics > of Mr. Sunstein's book pointed out that his own site at the University > of Chicago offered no such links, he responded by including the > Web addresses of two well-known conservative colleagues. > > What some political Web sites are already trying to do is figure out > ways to encourage more intelligent deliberation rather than simply > name-calling and insults. > > "We are trying to design sites so that they promote diversity as well > as a sense of community," said Scott Reents, the president of two > political Web sites called E-ThePeople and Quorum.org that recently > merged. > > The software design of the sites, Mr. Reents said in support of Mr. > Lessig's point, can shape discussion in important ways. For > example, at Quorum.org readers are asked to give a thumbs up or > thumbs down to a particular posting; that item's placement is > determined by reader reaction. (The site tries to prevent people > using multiple identities from voting more than once by requiring > visitors to register.) > > On other sites, a group of regular users rank the value of > contributions, and the rankings then determines their place on the > "bulletin board." How well that works, however, is an open question. > When Mr. Sunstein tried to intervene in a discussion of his own > book on a techie Web site called slashdot.org, his contribution was > given a very low ranking. "I think maybe they didn't believe I was > the author of the book," he said. > > James Fishkin, a political scientist at the University of Texas, said > that such efforts at Web democracy follow the model of debate in > ancient Sparta called the Shout. "The idea of the Shout is that the > candidate that got the loudest applause or shout would win," he > said. "Unless we make special efforts to implement more ambitious > democratic possibilities, the Internet, left to its own devices, is > going to give us an impoverished form of democracy in the form of > the Shout." > > Mr. Fishkin is trying to follow the example of ancient Athens, whose > assemblies consisted of several hundred citizens who, after being > chosen by lot, would deliberate and vote. He has developed a > technique called "deliberative polling" and would like to bring the > idea to the Internet. "The idea is this," he said. "What would public > opinion be like if people were motivated to behave more like ideal > citizens, if they had access to a wealth of information and to > competing arguments on a given issue?" > > Over the last decade Mr. Fishkin has collected a random group of > several hundred people and given them carefully prepared briefing > documents on both sides of a given issue. Participants question > panels of experts and discuss the issues in smaller groups with > trained moderators so that no single person is allowed to dominate > discussion. After their deliberation, they are then surveyed privately > as in any opinion poll, but their views now reflect, it is hoped, > careful deliberation. Texas actually used the method to help > determine its energy policy, holding a series of deliberative polls > between 1996 and 1998. "Because of it, there are now windmills all > over the state of Texas," Mr. Fishkin says. > > Mr. Fishkin is hoping to use the Internet to conduct "deliberative > polling" on a much larger basis. To Mr. Lessig, deliberative polling > is one of the few hopeful developments when it comes the > democracy and the Web. "If Jim can transfer to cyberspace what he > has done in real space, I think the Internet could be very different," > he said. > > Yet some view efforts to tame the Internet as doomed to failure. "I > think it's a waste of time," said Mr. Huber. "All this talk about `links' > and so forth is interesting intellectually, but by the time you try to > implement it the technology will be 10 years ahead. When online > video becomes as accessible as e-mail, the whole game will change > again. And if you think there is fragmentation now, you ain't seen > nothing yet." > > Copyright 2001 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/ * * * * * * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 clariun at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 18:19:30 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Group polarization In-Reply-To: <3B18351D.31174.54C4A06@localhost> Message-ID: <20010607011930.48855.qmail@web13206.mail.yahoo.com> Good article. Thought-provoking. Just the thing to stimulate thought and discussion. Patrick --- Steve wrote: > x-no-archive: yes > > ========================== > > > (Alexander Stille, NY Times)---As Cass Sunstein, a professor of law > at the University of Chicago, saw himself being skewered on various > Web sites discussing his recent book, "Republic.com," he had the > odd satisfaction of watching some of the book's themes unfold > before his eyes. On the conservative Web site "FreeRepublic.com," > the discussion began by referring relatively mildly to Mr. Sunstein's > book about the political consequences of the Internet as "thinly > veiled liberal." But as the discussion picked up steam, the rhetoric > of the respondents, who insisted that they had not and would not > read the book itself, became more heated. Eventually, they were > referring to Mr. Sunstein as "a nazi" and a "pointy headed socialist > windbag." > > The discussion illustrated the phenomenon that Mr. Sunstein and > various social scientists have called "group polarization" in which > like-minded people in an isolated group reinforce one another's > views, which then harden into more extreme positions. Even one of > his critics on the site acknowledged the shift. "Amazingly enough," > he wrote, "it looks like Sunstein has polarized this group into > unanimous agreement about him." An expletive followed. > > To Mr. Sunstein, such polarization is just one of the negative > political effects of the Internet, which allows people to filter out > unwanted information, tailor their own news and congregate at > specialized Web sites that closely reflect their own views. A "shared > culture," which results partly from exposure to a wide range of > opinion, is important for a functioning democracy, he argues. But as > the role of newspapers and television news diminishes, he wrote, > "and the customization of our communications universe increases, > society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities in danger > of dissolving." > > This pessimistic assessment is a sign of just how sharply scholarly > thinking about the Web has shifted. In its first years, the Internet > was seen euphorically as one of history's greatest engines of > democracy, a kind of national town hall meeting in which everyone > got to speak. As an early guru of cyberspace, Dave Clark of M.I.T., > put it in 1992: "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe > in: rough consensus and running code." > > Now, with the examples of business and government control offered > by the explosion of Web commerce, the merger of America Online > and Time-Warner, the Microsoft antitrust case and the litigation over > Napster, that is no longer the case. > > Andrew Shapiro, a guest lecturer at Yale Law School and the author > of "The Control Revolution," said that the early euphoria over > cyberspace had been replaced "by a kind of 'technorealism,' a > second generation of Internet books" that are much more critical. > > An example is the 1999 book "Code" by Lawrence Lessig, a law > professor at Stanford University, who argues that the enormous > amount of personal information people reveal when they shop > online, browse Web sites or call up information offers extraordinary > opportunities for both governments and businesses to control their > lives. "Left to itself," he wrote, "cyberspace will become a perfect > tool of control." > > Mr. Sunstein's assessment is somewhat different from Mr. Lessig's, > though still negative. "His is closer to Orwell's '1984'; mine is more > like 'Brave New World,' " Mr. Sunstein explained. If to Mr. Lessig he > danger is government or corporate control, to Mr. Sunstein it is a > world of seemingly infinite choice, where citizens are transformed > into consumers and a common political life is eroded. > > Both agree, however, that society must begin to make more > conscious choices about what it wants the Internet to be. Mr. > Lessig's main point in "Code" is that the Internet does not have a > "nature." The world we think of as "cyberspace," he said, is an > environment created by the architecture of the computer code that > gave birth to the World Wide Web. > > Mr. Lessig's point is that because the Internet is based on "open > source" computer protocols that allow anyone to tap into it, it has a > specific character that can be, and is, modified all the time. Internet > providers can write software to allow users maximum privacy or to > track and restrict their movements to an extraordinary degree. The > software engineers, as Percy Bysshe Shelley said of poets, are the > unacknowledged legislators of our time. We must, Mr. Lessig said, > acknowledge this reality and try to shape it. > > "We can build, or architect, or code cyberspace to protect values > that we believe are fundamental, or we can build, or architect, or > code cyberspace to allow those values to disappear," he writes. > > Mr. Shapiro describes himself as more optimistic than Mr. Lessig or > Mr. Sunstein. "I came to see more potential in the Internet > empowering individuals, but we are all 'technorealists' in that we > see personalization and social fragmentation as features of the > Net." > > Other legal scholars agree that fragmentation and polarization have > increased with the Internet, but they do not necessarily see it as a > problem. "I do not mourn the demise of the domination of the main > outlets of news and information," said Peter Huber, a conservative > legal scholar who is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the > author of "Law and Disorder in Cyberspace: Abolish the F.C.C. and > Let Common Law Rule the Telecosm." "It's true that the oracles of > traditional authority, The New York Times, the network news and the > universities have lost power. Just look at the declining market share > of the major TV networks. But whether you regard that as good or > bad depends on where you sit." > > That doesn't mean he dismisses claims that new technology causes > social fragmentation; he just feels that the individual empowerment > of the Internet is well worth the price. "The Soviet Union had a > 'shared culture' and one source of information, 'Pravda,' " he said. "I > think it's impossible to judge what is the exact point at which you > have the right mix of diversity and common culture." > > Mr. Sunstein said he was not talking about limiting diversity but > rather the insular way that most sites were structured. For example, > he said, most political Web sites have links only to other like- > minded sites. Although he stops short of calling for government > intervention, he says, "We might want to consider the possibility of > ways of requiring or encouraging sites to link to opposing > viewpoints." > > Until the early 1980's, the Federal Communications Commission > required broadcasters to provide equal time to opposing viewpoints, > a policy eliminated during the Reagan administration. When critics > of Mr. Sunstein's book pointed out that his own site at the University > of Chicago offered no such links, he responded by including the > Web addresses of two well-known conservative colleagues. > > What some political Web sites are already trying to do is figure out > ways to encourage more intelligent deliberation rather than simply > name-calling and insults. > > "We are trying to design sites so that they promote diversity as well > as a sense of community," said Scott Reents, the president of two > political Web sites called E-ThePeople and Quorum.org that recently > merged. > > The software design of the sites, Mr. Reents said in support of Mr. > Lessig's point, can shape discussion in important ways. For > example, at Quorum.org readers are asked to give a thumbs up or > thumbs down to a particular posting; that item's placement is > determined by reader reaction. (The site tries to prevent people > using multiple identities from voting more than once by requiring > visitors to register.) > > On other sites, a group of regular users rank the value of > contributions, and the rankings then determines their place on the > "bulletin board." How well that works, however, is an open question. > When Mr. Sunstein tried to intervene in a discussion of his own > book on a techie Web site called slashdot.org, his contribution was > given a very low ranking. "I think maybe they didn't believe I was > the author of the book," he said. > > James Fishkin, a political scientist at the University of Texas, said > that such efforts at Web democracy follow the model of debate in > ancient Sparta called the Shout. "The idea of the Shout is that the > candidate that got the loudest applause or shout would win," he > said. "Unless we make special efforts to implement more ambitious > democratic possibilities, the Internet, left to its own devices, is > going to give us an impoverished form of democracy in the form of > the Shout." > > Mr. Fishkin is trying to follow the example of ancient Athens, whose > assemblies consisted of several hundred citizens who, after being > chosen by lot, would deliberate and vote. He has developed a > technique called "deliberative polling" and would like to bring the > idea to the Internet. "The idea is this," he said. "What would public > opinion be like if people were motivated to behave more like ideal > citizens, if they had access to a wealth of information and to > competing arguments on a given issue?" > > Over the last decade Mr. Fishkin has collected a random group of > several hundred people and given them carefully prepared briefing > documents on both sides of a given issue. Participants question > panels of experts and discuss the issues in smaller groups with > trained moderators so that no single person is allowed to dominate > discussion. After their deliberation, they are then surveyed privately > as in any opinion poll, but their views now reflect, it is hoped, > careful deliberation. Texas actually used the method to help > determine its energy policy, holding a series of deliberative polls > between 1996 and 1998. "Because of it, there are now windmills all > over the state of Texas," Mr. Fishkin says. > > Mr. Fishkin is hoping to use the Internet to conduct "deliberative > polling" on a much larger basis. To Mr. Lessig, deliberative polling > is one of the few hopeful developments when it comes the > democracy and the Web. "If Jim can transfer to cyberspace what he > has done in real space, I think the Internet could be very different," > he said. > > Yet some view efforts to tame the Internet as doomed to failure. "I > think it's a waste of time," said Mr. Huber. "All this talk about `links' > and so forth is interesting intellectually, but by the time you try to > implement it the technology will be 10 years ahead. When online > video becomes as accessible as e-mail, the whole game will change > again. And if you think there is fragmentation now, you ain't seen > nothing yet." > > Copyright 2001 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/ * * * * * * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 clariun at yahoo.com Wed Jun 6 18:24:50 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: China and democracy Message-ID: <20010607012450.28188.qmail@web13208.mail.yahoo.com> I wanted to comment about my comments on China and democracy, that China isn't a democratic country, doesn't have a democratic culture, and that there are really now laws, just the whims of politicians. And the country is run by those who are well-connected. With that, my comments: America is a country that celebrates democratic movements in other countries (WTO?), because of romantic notions of democracy. Our country is a politically dull place, even with Bush in the White House. We are bored. We turn on our TV's and get excited about Chinese democracy. "They will be just like us" we think. Did I also mention that China is basically a collection of very independent states? Warlord-ism hasn't ended with the old days. China has to do all it can do to keep that country together. With that "democratic" movement there years ago (I was in Korea when it was going on), China was in a crisis of going to war with itself. It was really, really, really close. And that would have been very, very, very bad. Patrick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 femme2 at speakeasy.org Thu Jun 7 19:29:12 2001 From: femme2 at speakeasy.org (Lorraine Pozzi) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: First Amendment Issue Message-ID: FYI - there is less public space, more police presence, less public civility in Seattle ... the following should be of interest to anyone interested in issues of free speech and assembly. LP ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:10:45 -0700 From: Thalia Syracopoulos To: "NWWOMEN (E-mail)" Subject: [nwwomen] WTO debris APOLOGIES FOR DOUBLE POSTING This is a heads up about a very serious issue here in Seattle. On Monday, June 18, 2001 at 5:30 p.m. the Seattle City Council will be taking public testimony about the "Special Events Draft Resolution". The Council Finance Committee will vote on the proposed resolution on June 20, 2001 and the entire City Council will vote on it on June 25, 2001. Most of you have probably never heard of the Special Events Draft Resolution. For background information and a copy of the resolution a group of us have set up a web site: http://eventprop.seattlevotermarch.com Please take the time to go to the website and get acquainted with the issues involved. The ability of any organization to get a permit for a rally, march, parade or other activity on public property will be seriously effected by the City Council's action. In short summary the Resolution lays out the circumstances under which the City Council will be the final arbiter of whether or not a permit is issued. If the event is projected to cost more than 3% of the Seattle Police Department overtime budget, it would be the City Council's decision whether or not to issue the permit. There is no mention of events involving First Amendment issues such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. If these issues were relevant to the issuing of a permit, it is the City Council that would define whether or not a particular event - Seafair parade and other events, Fremont Fair, July 4 celebration, November 30 anniversary of WTO, Hempfest and etc - involved First Amendment issues. Once the decision is made there is no appeal process if the permit is denied. If you are able to attend the public hearing on June 18, please do so and sign up to speak. If you are unable to attend, please take the time to write, call or e-mail the Seattle City Council and Mayor Schell. This is not just a "procedural change", it is a threat to our right to political speech and to assembly. The first vote will be in the Finance Committee on June 20, 2001. Committee members are: Jan.Drago at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8801 Judy.Nicastro at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8806 Nick.Licata at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8803 Richard.McIver at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8800 Richard.Conlin at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8805 Heidi.Wills at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8808 [Ms. Wills is an alternate on the committee]. The full Council will vote on June 25, 2001. The other members are: Margaret.Pageler at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8807 Jim.Compton at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8802 Peter.Steinbrueck at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8804 The e-mail address for Mayor Paul Schell is: Mayors.office at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-0500 The address for all City Council members and Mayor Schell is: 600 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: nwwomen-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 clariun at yahoo.com Thu Jun 7 19:36:39 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: First Amendment Issue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010608023639.22465.qmail@web13206.mail.yahoo.com> I bet Mark Sidran is licking his chops over this right now, with his impish smile, his eyes bulging. He loves public order and things to look his way. Gotta love him. Patrick --- Lorraine Pozzi wrote: > > FYI - there is less public space, more police presence, less public > civility in Seattle ... the following should be of interest to > anyone interested in issues of free speech and assembly. LP > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:10:45 -0700 > From: Thalia Syracopoulos > To: "NWWOMEN (E-mail)" > Subject: [nwwomen] WTO debris APOLOGIES FOR DOUBLE POSTING > > This is a heads up about a very serious issue here in Seattle. > > On Monday, June 18, 2001 at 5:30 p.m. the Seattle City Council will be taking > public testimony about the "Special Events Draft Resolution". The Council > Finance Committee will vote on the proposed resolution on June 20, 2001 and > the > entire City Council will vote on it on June 25, 2001. > > Most of you have probably never heard of the Special Events Draft Resolution. > For background information and a copy of the resolution a group of us have > set > up a web site: http://eventprop.seattlevotermarch.com > > Please take the time to go to the website and get acquainted with the issues > involved. The ability of any organization to get a permit for a rally, > march, > parade or other activity on public property will be seriously effected by the > City Council's action. > > In short summary the Resolution lays out the circumstances under which the > City > Council will be the final arbiter of whether or not a permit is issued. If > the > event is projected to cost more than 3% of the Seattle Police Department > overtime budget, it would be the City Council's decision whether or not to > issue the permit. There is no mention of events involving First Amendment > issues such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. If these issues > were > relevant to the issuing of a permit, it is the City Council that would define > whether or not a particular event - Seafair parade and other events, Fremont > Fair, July 4 celebration, November 30 anniversary of WTO, Hempfest and etc - > involved First Amendment issues. > > Once the decision is made there is no appeal process if the permit is denied. > > If you are able to attend the public hearing on June 18, please do so and > sign > up to speak. If you are unable to attend, please take the time to write, > call > or e-mail the Seattle City Council and Mayor Schell. This is not just a > "procedural change", it is a threat to our right to political speech and to > assembly. > > The first vote will be in the Finance Committee on June 20, 2001. Committee > members are: > > Jan.Drago at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8801 > Judy.Nicastro at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8806 > Nick.Licata at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8803 > Richard.McIver at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8800 > Richard.Conlin at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8805 > Heidi.Wills at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8808 [Ms. Wills is an alternate on > the > committee]. > > The full Council will vote on June 25, 2001. The other members are: > > Margaret.Pageler at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8807 > Jim.Compton at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8802 > Peter.Steinbrueck at ci.seattle.wa.us (206) 684-8804 > > The e-mail address for Mayor Paul Schell is: Mayors.office at ci.seattle.wa.us > (206) 684-0500 > > The address for all City Council members and Mayor Schell is: 600 4th Avenue > Seattle, WA 98104 > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > nwwomen-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/ * * * * * * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 jw4 at scn.org Fri Jun 8 00:22:46 2001 From: jw4 at scn.org (Joel Ware IV) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: WAISP Update -- WA SPAM Law Upheld! (fwd) Message-ID: Good news -- SPAM law upheld by WA Supreme Court! Joel Ware, IV jw4 at scn.org Volunteer Coordinator Emeritus, Member of Governance, HR, Ops, Board ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:06:20 -0700 From: "G. R. Gardner" To: announcements at waisp.org Subject: WAISP Update -- WA SPAM Law Upheld! The Washington State Supreme Court on Thursday, in a UNANIMOUS ruling, upheld the constitutionality of the Washington State Anti-SPAM law. WAISP along with the Washington Attorney General authored the law four years ago, which a Seattle trial court struck down as unconstitutional and in violation of the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution. Thursday's ruling by the high court said the trial court erred and remanded the case back to the lower court for trial, and stated: "We find that the local benefits of the Act outweigh any conceivable burdens the Act places on those sending commercial e-mail messages. Consequently, we hold that the Act does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States" Constitution." The ruling quoted liberally from the WAISP filed amicus brief authored in part by our stellar legal counsel Rich Busch. A full text version of the decision can be found at: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/opindisp.cfm?docid=694168MAJ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Jun 9 07:30:44 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 07:30:44 -0700 Subject: SCN: ORBS Message-ID: <3B21D0A4.27525.72025B4@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ========================== (Damien Cave, Salon)---Spam fighters all over the world have lost a controversial weapon in the battle against unsolicited e-mail. Since June 1, the Web site for ORBS -- the Open Relay Behavior Modification System -- has been gutted. Visitors to the site now find nothing more than a gray blank page and a simple message: "Due to circumstances beyond our control, the ORBS website is no longer available." ORBS's main service was a blacklist of Internet mail servers -- computers capable of routing mail across the Net -- that the ORBS administrator, Alan Brown, had identified as potentially capable of forwarding spam. Now that blacklist is no longer available to network administrators, and they want to know why. One popular theory mooted on the Net is that Brown closed down the site rather than comply with a New Zealand court order demanding that he remove two specific ISPs from the blacklist. But Brown, who lives in New Zealand, is keeping silent. "I am unable to answer any of your questions," he writes in an e-mail. "Sorry." Even without an explanation, the demise of ORBS is significant, stirring up, once again, an ongoing worldwide debate over how best to administer the Internet and mediate the Net's intersection of humanity and technology. Questions about ORBS's behavior always centered on the problem of how to handle e-mail abuse. But more generally, ORBS symbolized the ongoing struggle between the Net's tendency to encourage individual freedom and the necessity of combating anarchy. Ever since the Net moved beyond its roots as a small, open, academic community, users have attempted to balance opposing forces. Most favor the right to speak out, along with the right to privacy; they rail against censorship, but at the same time desperately seek the ability to censor unsolicited e-mail by limiting spammers' access to their networks. ORBS supporters say the blacklist was a fully justified form of preventive medicine. Brown saw his mission as identifying every mail server on the Net that allowed "open relays" -- in essence, that permitted the forwarding of mail from one point on the Net to another without any restriction. Spammers love open relays; they employ them to hide their identities and funnel out massive amounts of e- mail for free. But at the same time the open relays bog down the system for other customers. Brown used simple software agents and diagnostic probes to comb the Internet, looking for mail servers configured for open relaying. Whenever he found one, Brown would post the Internet protocol (IP) address on his list -- even if the address had never been used by a spammer. ISPs, systems administrators and everyday citizens who configured their computers to block addresses listed on ORBS could then close off a spammer's favorite distribution tool even before the spammer knew it existed. More controversial, Brown also placed on his list servers that blocked his probes, whether or not he could ascertain if they had open relays. ORBS supporters say such a policy was the only way to keep a flood of open-relay-capable servers from pumping spam across the Net. The end, they argue, justified the means. The immediate impact of the ORBS shutdown could mean more spam, says Michael LeFevre, a London technology company executive. "I've received four spams since ORBS went down last week," he says. "I only received two or three previous to that this year." But not everyone is sorry to see the site go. ORBS has plenty of critics. ORBS wasn't just a useful technology, they say; it was also a tool used by a specific person, Alan Brown, an overzealous spam fighter who went too far. ORBS's own ISP pulled the plug on Brown in 1998 after receiving complaints about the way that Brown used probes to test servers for open relays. Although another ISP agreed to host ORBS soon afterward, Brown's detractors say that he never learned his lesson: He repeatedly insisted that he had the right to test servers as often as he wanted. "Alan Brown created some nice technology -- nobody faults him on that point," says Tom Geller, founder of Suespammers.org, a nonprofit group that lobbies for strict spam legislation. "But he used it in an irresponsible way, invading others' private networks and using others' resources against their stated wishes." He became a living contradiction -- a man who, says Geller, "used others' network resources to prove that it's wrong to use others' network resources." Before the scourge of spam, the Net was a less contentious place. Until the early '90s, open relays were not uncommon. In fact, they were the norm. "I remember when you'd get funny looks for running a mail server that wasn't an open relay," says "Der Mouse," a Canadian spam- fighting veteran who refused to give his off-line name. "I remember when there was a machine on the Net that was advertised as having no password on its administrative log-in. Want a guest log-in? Log in and create yourself one. I remember when the Net was a friendly and civilized place." "Today it is more of an armed camp, suspicious of everyone," he continues in an e-mail. "The Net I knew and loved is dead, killed by uncivilized greedy incompetents who came barging in, without caring that when you barge into a foreign culture it behooves you to learn how they do things. This would not have been a problem, except that they arrived in sufficient numbers to overload the mechanisms that normally would have either brought newcomers up to speed on the culture or rejected them; as a result they killed off the culture we had, the only culture I've ever seen work based on mutual friendship and helpfulness on a large scale." Spam signified the death of the original Net culture, Der Mouse and others argue. By the mid-'90s, systems administrators started fighting it by closing off open relays. Shutting the pipes made it harder for, say, employees of a company to log on to their corporate network from home, but by limiting who could use the network, closed relays also kept spammers out. This, in turn, saved companies and individuals money, since open relays essentially let anyone borrow servers and bandwidth without having to pay for them. But some network administrators moved slower than others. So ORBS appeared, with a mission to move them along. At first, most people on the Net welcomed the service. Open relays were sometimes hard to find, and ORBS worked more quickly than other spam-fighting lists. The Mail Abuse Prevention System's Realtime Blackhole List, for example, acts like an after-the-fact plug. Its main list contains domain names that spam has already been sent from, and MAPS only adds servers to its list after the system administrator of the offending mail server has been given a chance to close the hole but hasn't done it. ORBS, on the other hand, "tested relays and listed them immediately," says William James, a computer consultant in Mississippi. "No negotiation, no notice. It was fast. Someone running an open relay ran the risk of losing a substantial amount of traffic without any notice." Over time, however, Brown's pace and intensity started alienating the very people who sympathized with his cause. John Oliver, a systems administrator in San Diego, remembers butting heads with Brown in early 1999. ORBS probes invaded his servers and tested them for 45 minutes, over and over again. The probes returned and retested a few days or weeks later, "as often and as frequently as they saw fit," Oliver says. Each day that the tests ran, Oliver's server logs lengthened. He received pages and pages of server activity that directly resulted from Brown's tests. "It was annoying because since I wasn't running an open relay, it was wasting my time," he says. "And, of course, I didn't appreciate the implicit accusation that I was an irresponsible admin." Brown regularly tested servers without any evidence of wrongdoing, says Der Mouse. "Let me be precise: He repeatedly 'tested' my home mail server, and if he had any reason to think it had ever relayed spam, he steadfastly refused to produce it," he says. "He also repeatedly did so after I explicitly denied him permission to do so." MAPS also had a run-in with ORBS. In 1999, MAPS listed ORBS on its Realtime Blackhole List, in response to several complaints about the way that ORBS was supposedly abusing networks. The group removed ORBS and stopped blocking it from its own servers three months later, but not before ORBS threw MAPS into its own black hole. Even Suespammers.org found itself blocked over a dispute with ORBS. Until the day the list died, spam fighters who used Brown's list couldn't access the Suespammers site, a major resource that might have helped them in their war on unsolicited e- mail. "Alan's problem is that he was so convinced that testing was necessary that he felt that anyone who didn't want him testing their systems, as often as he wanted to, was somehow just as bad as an actual open relay," says Peter Seebach, a systems administrator who subscribes to several spam-fighting mailing lists. "This is where I drew the line; without any spam coming through a system, and with the admin's request that he not test it, he had no business hitting systems over and over again. I don't see a meaningful distinction between what he did and what script kiddies do with root scripts" that attempt to break into a system. Is what ORBS did really so bad? In essence, ORBS was nothing more than a list of servers that Brown checked and decided to block from connecting with his network -- which is one suggested recipe for spam fighting. Doesn't Brown have the right to protect his network by blocking whomever he wants to? Doesn't he have the right to publish a list of whom he's blocking? People who rail against Brown are ignoring the implications of their argument, says "Afterburner," manager of the e-mail abuse department for a large ISP. ORBS may have been run "in a particularly unethical way," he says, but that doesn't mean that Brown should be silenced. Rather, everyone should have "the unfettered right to publish" a blacklist, regardless of how it is organized, he says. Probes don't damage a network, and "nobody is required to use your list if they don't want to," he says. "The situation is somewhat analogous to the idealized free market: If you put out a list that's worth using, people will use it. If you put out a list that is not worth using, people will not use it." But ORBS doesn't quite fit Afterburner's paraphrase of the libertarian ideal. The list was worth using; blocking the servers ORBS listed cut down on spam. Yet those who used the list as a tool against unwanted e-mail didn't necessarily have to pay the costs, which came in the form of ORBS's probes. In other words, Brown's approach looks a lot like a spammer's: He invaded others' networks without consent, offering benefits without costs. Even worse, critics argue, Brown went one step further, blocking servers that didn't have open relays, and adding them to a list that he knew would keep traffic from them. There is, for example, the Xtra Mail lawsuit in New Zealand, which Brown's critics say was a direct result of Brown's unethical practices. Essentially, Brown added Actrix and Xtra Mail's servers to his blacklist after they blocked his probes. He reportedly had no evidence that they used open relays. Actrix and Xtra Mail sued, and on May 24 they won. The New Zealand High Court ordered Brown to remove Xtra Mail's servers from the ORBS database. Brown then said that he would comply, but he remained unrepentant. "ORBS policy is that if you threaten ORBS you'll be manually listed," he said, according to a story in IDG New Zealand. "Telecom [Actrix and Xtra Mail's parent company] threatened me with legal action for two years." Those who have tangled with Brown aren't surprised at his stance. And they don't have a problem with his philosophy, or with his argument that he has a right to form a policy and block whomever he wants. They argue, however, that the policy has to be carried out with honesty. "The list wasn't what it was purported to be," says Oliver, of San Diego. "If you employ a list called the Open Relay Behavior Modification System to protect your server from spam, you expect that list to block open relays and nothing else. But that isn't what you got with ORBS. You got open relays blocked as well as anyone who had attracted the personal enmity of Mr. Brown." Ultimately, Oliver says, the Net should be glad to see ORBS go because it lacked the basic values of the old Internet -- truth, respect and freedom. "It's extremely dangerous to support the use of a tool when the cost for its use includes the loss of a liberty," he says. Still, many of Brown's critics argue that ORBS's technology shouldn't go to waste. The list is already mirrored on at least one site, and some predict that another administrator -- someone with a bit more restraint -- will clean it up and maintain it. If he or she does, perhaps that individual, and other technologists, will learn from Brown's mistakes, says Geller at Suespammers.org. "Any technical endeavor that ignores social aspects is doomed to failure," he says. "It's like making soup without liquid." Copyright 2001 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 jj at scn.org Sat Jun 9 17:01:58 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: search engine funding (was: hmmm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Under the "Yet Another Alternative to Advertising" head the options seem to get scarier. In the July issue of Linux Journal (www.linuxjournal.com) Doc Searls takes a close look at Microsoft's "HailStorm". In MS' own words: "HailStorm will help move the Internet to end-user subscriptions, where users pay for value received." MS would have all of your Internet services coming through them, taking a cut from both you and the vendors. There would be a "certificate-based license relationship with Microsoft" to "filter abusers out of the system. Obtaining a certificate and the ongoing right to use HailStorm services will have a cost associated with it." We may yet wish we had stuck with the ads! === JJ ============================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Jun 9 17:31:57 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:31:57 -0700 Subject: SCN: They're at it again... Message-ID: <3B225D8D.29249.946A842@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ======================== Windows XP Feature Can Re-Edit Others' Sites (Walter S. Mossberg, Wall Street Journal)---Microsoft's Windows XP operating system, due to be released Oct. 25, is designed to be easier and more reliable than previous home versions of Windows. But Microsoft has another agenda for Windows XP: The program is also designed to be a platform from which the company can seamlessly offer users an array of new subscription services via the Internet. One key test of Windows XP will be whether its features do more to benefit consumers or Microsoft's business plan. Another will be whether the operating system favors Microsoft services over those of other companies. The company has said its software won't discriminate against others selling Web-based services. But even though Windows XP is still in development, I've already encountered one proposed feature, in a "beta," or test, version, that shows Microsoft may well flunk both these tests. The feature, which hasn't yet been made public, allows Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser -- included in Windows XP -- to turn any word on any Web site into a link to Microsoft's own Web sites and services, or to any other sites Microsoft favors. In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser, to re-edit anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge or permission, in a way that tempts users to leave and go to a Microsoft-chosen site -- whether or not that site offers better information. The feature, called Internet Explorer Smart Tags, wasn't in the widely distributed second public beta of Windows XP issued in March. And it isn't easy to find, even in later "builds" that have had much more limited distribution. In response to my questions, Microsoft officials stressed that the feature may still undergo modifications to make it more palatable. But they defended it as a useful tool. "Smart Tags represent another step in personalizing the Web and helping bring it to life for individuals by allowing them to get the information they want in the way they want it," says Chris Jones, vice president for Windows XP development. Here's how the Internet Explorer Smart Tags work: On a PC with Windows XP, when you open any Web page, squiggly purple lines instantly appear under certain types of words. In the version I tested, these browser- generated underlines appear beneath the names of companies, sports teams and colleges. But other types of terms could be highlighted in future versions. If you place your cursor on the underlined word, an icon appears, and if you click on the icon, a small window opens to display links to sites offering more information. For instance, in the new browser, a Washington Post Web article on Japanese baseball players was littered with eight Microsoft- generated links that the Post editors never placed on their site. In the beta version I tested, most of these links weren't functional yet, but Microsoft officials confirm that they will send users to Microsoft Web properties or to other properties blessed by Microsoft. One of the links did work: It launched Microsoft's mediocre search engine, which is packed with plugs for other Microsoft services. One Microsoft official says the feature will spare users from "under-linked" sites. But who decides if a site is "under-linked?" It's up to a site's creators to decide how many, and which, terms to turn into links, where those links appear, and where they send users. It's part of the editorial process. In the case of the Washington Post article, the editors included plenty of links but chose to list them at the bottom of the article and in a box to the side of the text. Microsoft decided otherwise. Microsoft says the Internet Explorer Smart Tags feature, which is similar to a Smart Tag feature in the new Office XP, will be turned off by default in the final release, and that users will have to consciously choose to enable it by activating a setting buried in the browser's menus. In addition, Microsoft says, it will provide a free bit of programming code, called a "meta tag," that site owners could use to bar any Smart Tags from appearing on their sites. But if the feature is so benign, why is Microsoft hiding it and offering sites a way to block it? Microsoft also says that other companies, besides itself, will be able to create and distribute add-ons for the browser that will launch their own Smart Tags all over the Web, directing users to their sites. But these tags will be far harder to obtain than Microsoft's. And they will merely allow more companies to invasively re-edit others' sites. Ford would be able to impose its own links on Chevrolet's site, and Republicans could insert links on Democrats' sites. Once the hate groups, the spammers and the junk marketers on the Web get their hands on these Smart Tags, they'll be plastering their links on everything. There have been some excellent third-party programs, like GuruNet (now Atomica), that let users click on words within Web pages to get more information. But these don't place new links on pages, and they aren't built into the browser that more than 80% of Web visitors use. Microsoft's Internet Explorer Smart Tags are something new and dangerous. They mean that the company that controls the Web browser is using that power to actually alter others' Web sites to its own advantage. Microsoft has a perfect right to sell services. But by using its dominant software to do so, it will be tilting the playing field and threatening editorial integrity. Copyright 2001 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 clariun at yahoo.com Sun Jun 10 18:43:21 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: search engine funding (was: hmmm) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010611014321.28073.qmail@web13204.mail.yahoo.com> Another attempt by MS to take total control, and yet lose. MS tries a lot of grand schemes. It seems the bigger the scheme, the harder they fall. I don't hate MS. It is obvious that the grand schemes are not much to worry about. I wonder about the .Net revolution. Actually, I don't wonder about it, don't worry about it. Once there was a time to worry about MS. Patrick --- "J. Johnson" wrote: > Under the "Yet Another Alternative to Advertising" head the options seem > to get scarier. In the July issue of Linux Journal (www.linuxjournal.com) > Doc Searls takes a close look at Microsoft's "HailStorm". In MS' own > words: "HailStorm will help move the Internet to end-user subscriptions, > where users pay for value received." MS would have all of your Internet > services coming through them, taking a cut from both you and the vendors. > There would be a "certificate-based license relationship with Microsoft" > to "filter abusers out of the system. Obtaining a certificate and the > ongoing right to use HailStorm services will have a cost associated with > it." > > We may yet wish we had stuck with the ads! > > === JJ ============================================================= > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/ * * * * * * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 jj at scn.org Mon Jun 11 00:17:46 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: search engine funding (was: hmmm) In-Reply-To: <20010611014321.28073.qmail@web13204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Yet Another Alternative to Advertising: The Washington state anti-spam law--recently affirmed by the state Supreme Court--and its provision for statutory damages of $500 for each violation. As Tom Redfern was saying to me earliar, with all the spam we see we could buy a lot of equipment! Sounds good to me, but there must be some hidden, fatal flaw. === JJ ============================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Jun 12 08:26:49 2001 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: apologies (belated) to JJ Message-ID: <200106121526.IAA14220@scn.org> I'm sorry I'm just getting around to this now. In an earlier message I realized that I overstated my case in a discussion with JJ over advertising on the net. Just because we disagree on some ideas as to how to fund systems such as SCN it is ludicrous for me to question his commitment. And so -- a bit belatedly -- I wanted to apologize. I STILL think that advertising is a flawed way to pay for information and communication and that it's already OUT OF CONTROL in America -- but those issues are for another day. -- Doug * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 jj at scn.org Thu Jun 14 16:53:51 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: ** ATTENTION!!! THE MOVE IS ON-HOLD ** Message-ID: Due to construction delays with the new site: >> We are NOT MOVING this Friday!! << The library is struggling to rebuild a move plan, but currently everything is "total chaos" (IT's official pronouncement). The best guess we can make so far is that we _might_ move late next week, but perhaps not until the week following. Watch the motd for details! Please note that we may LOSE DIALUP SERVICE at 7 PM on Friday: that is when Qwest is going to switch our phone service, and we have not been able to to contact them to abort that. If that happens, use the library's number (386-4140) to connect. === JJ ============================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 sas at scn.org Thu Jun 14 17:41:11 2001 From: sas at scn.org (Seattle Astronomical Society) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: ** ATTENTION!!! THE MOVE IS ON-HOLD ** In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Why am I not surprised that this is happening? The only question is whether this is going to be an example of Murphy's Law, Murphy**2, Murphy*exp(Murphy) or Murphy! Ken Applegate On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, J. Johnson wrote: > Due to construction delays with the new site: > > >> We are NOT MOVING this Friday!! << > > The library is struggling to rebuild a move plan, but currently everything > is "total chaos" (IT's official pronouncement). The best guess we can > make so far is that we _might_ move late next week, but perhaps not until > the week following. Watch the motd for details! > > Please note that we may LOSE DIALUP SERVICE at 7 PM on Friday: that is > when Qwest is going to switch our phone service, and we have not been able > to to contact them to abort that. If that happens, use the library's > number (386-4140) to connect. > > === JJ ============================================================= > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Thu Jun 14 22:45:48 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:45:48 -0700 Subject: SCN: Speech Message-ID: <3B293E9C.20689.4E3B28F@localhost> x-no-archive: yes =========================== (Carl S. Kaplan, NY Times)---First Amendment victories come in many forms. Sometimes they're easy to spot -- like when a judge's strikes down a law because it violates the freedom of expression. Less obvious, but perhaps just as important, are little acts of prosecutors -- such as the decision earlier this week by Westchester County district attorney, Jeanine F. Pirro, to forego prosecuting two high school students who were arrested for their involvement in the creation of a Web site that contained names, telephone numbers and alleged sexual exploits of dozens of their female classmates. Civil liberties experts are applauding the district attorney's capitulation. "I was kind of skeptical about the viability of this criminal prosecution and it appears that the D.A. agrees," said Chris Hansen, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who specializes in Internet cases. Ms. Pirro's office issued a release on Wednesday stating that after a review of the information supplied by the police, she had determined that "there is not sufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution." A spokeswoman for the district attorney said in a telephone interview that while "we found the material on the site offensive and reprehensible," there was nothing in it to bring it up to the level of a crime. "Unfortunately, the two kids got arrested, which is kind of sad," the ACLU's Hansen said. Their "crime" was nothing more than publishing speech on the Internet, albeit unsavory speech, for which they should be embarrassed, he added. Law enforcement initially "overreacted," as they sometimes do when expression on the new medium of the Internet is involved, said Hansen. The two male students, both 18-year-old seniors at Horace Greeley High School in Chappaqua, were arrested on May 30 by New Castle police officers and charged with one count of aggravated harassment in the second degree, a misdemeanor that carries with it a maximum penalty of up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Although police officials, as is their policy, declined to reveal the names of the youths, their Web site had become notorious in the school. The site, which has been shut down, not only commented on the alleged sexual preferences or activities of more than 30 girls, but also included comments on their looks, eating habits and their parents' marital problems, according to the news accounts. Under the New York State penal law, a person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree, when, with intent to "harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person," he or she "[c]ommunicates, or causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm." In simple English, according to Hansen, aggravated harassment laws in New York and other states are designed to punish certain annoying or harassing behaviors, not speech, and thus are poorly suited as weapons against Web sites. A typical case of aggravated harassment is made out when a bill collector calls a debtor 100 times in a short span of time, according to several important legal opinions in the history of the New York harassment statute. A key element of the law, according to the courts, is that the annoying or harassing communication must be transmitted directly to an unwilling listener, thus violating her peace and privacy. For that reason, in a 1985 case, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court held that the distribution of a custom-made magazine accusing a lawyer of homosexuality and dishonest dealing could not be an instance of aggravated harassment, because there was no direct communication to the victim but merely "the distribution of literature, offensive though it may be." "Plainly, not every scurrilous or unsavory communication concerning an individual, no matter how repulsive or in what degree of poor taste, necessarily constitutes criminally harassing conduct," wrote the court in that case, People v. Dupont. Similarly, in a 1989 case the New York Court of held that the act of calling someone a "bitch" in a public space could not be punished by the harassment statute because "abusive -- even vulgar, derisive, and provocative" speech is protected by the First Amendment. States may prohibit public speech only to the extent that the talk creates an imminent danger of violence, said the court. In a related case, a mid-level New York appellate court in 1990 found that a defendant's telephone message to another, calling her an "ugly, selfish bitch" was an instance of aggravated harassment, because the speech was not public but an intolerable "trespass by telephone." One decision last year in New York did find that the creator of a Web site was guilty of aggravated harassment, but the facts in that case are unusual. A man who had a prior relationship with a woman and who wished to negatively depict her, created a Web site that contained suggestive pictures of the woman and attributed to her an infatuation with sex. On the site, the defendant wrote that the woman would be willing to meet potential partners should they contact her. The defendant supplied the woman's address and telephone numbers, and the woman received at least two annoying calls from strangers. The Supreme Court held in the case, People v. Kochanowski, that Mr. Kochanowski was guilty of aggravated harassment because he did not simply distribute his materials over the Internet, but, via a hoax site, essentially "directed" sex-interested people to call the woman at her home and place of work. Mr. Kochanowski was responsible for those harassing calls, the court said. For Hansen, the "perfect analogy" to the Westchester students' Web site is the Dupont case, where the court held that the general distribution of an offensive magazine cannot constitute aggravated harassment. "If in fact these two students said things that are false and defamatory, then there might be a civil cause of action" for defamation," said Hansen. "But there is no criminal case." Other free speech experts expressed relief -- and little surprise -- at the news that the two young men would not be prosecuted. "It seemed to me a real stretch when I read the story. I think [the D.A.'s decision] is absolutely correct," said Robert O'Neil, a law professor at the University of Virginia and director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, a free-speech advocacy group based in Charlottesville, Virginia. O'Neil said that although there have been criminal prosecutions against individuals for sending harassing e-mails to individuals, or for making "actionable threats" in chat rooms, he knew of no case in which a criminal charge for aggravated harassment had gone forward "solely on what is by definition purely verbal activity." Based on the news reports, he said, the Westchester students' Web site featured "pure speech," and did not contain any criminal behavior such as threats or stalking. Nor did the site appear to be intentionally designed to trigger a rash of annoying calls by viewers of the site to the depicted women. "The site just doesn't fit into any actionable categories," he said. Sally Greenberg, a public interest lawyer in Washington, D.C., and the author of an influential 1997 article on Internet harassment, said that all Web sites, no matter how repulsive or obnoxious, are protected by the First Amendment, including sites put up by members of the Klan. "It's all protected speech," as long as the sites don't make credible threats or put someone in danger, she said. Ms. Pirro's decision to drop the case "is not a nice conclusion to reach," said Greenberg, "but it's probably the legally correct conclusion." Copyright 2001 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 steve at advocate.net Fri Jun 15 06:53:39 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 06:53:39 -0700 Subject: SCN: Filters Message-ID: <3B29B0F3.7359.1B10222@localhost> x-no-archive: yes =========================== Censorship High: A 17-year-old takes a stand against a school Web- filtering system that screens out Planned Parenthood but not the Christian Coalition. (Daniel Silverman, Salon.com)---TUSTIN, CA---I was the first student to surf the Web from Foothill High School's new T-1 line. The school's high-speed Internet link had been installed over the summer and I came to school two weeks early to test it out. At that time there was no formalized Internet use policy, no disabled services, no blocked sites, no censorship. And no, I didn't use it to check out a porn site; the first Web site visited by a student in the Tustin Unified School District was CNN. For the first few months of the new school year we were free. The nerds in the technology classes used the high-speed network for downloading files and gathering information, checking their e-mail and messaging their friends. We were in heaven, and we knew it wouldn't last. Tustin Unified School District, in Orange County roughly midway between Anaheim and Irvine, is your typical middle-class suburban school system. Like all public school systems, TUSD is working hard to deliver on the vision of the wired classroom. To further this goal, the district applied for and received a technology grant from the federal government. I was on the Digital High School planning committee, and I was the first to bring up the issue of ensuring fair and equitable access for students to online information. Not much was made of it at the time. As time went on and classrooms were brought online, the district oversight became more strict. Using a security tool called a firewall, the district restricted students' access to Internet services like instant messaging, streaming video and online games. One of our students set up a Linux computer, but was quickly told to remove it from the network. No specific reason was given, but we assumed that it was another issue of control. If you don't understand it, ban it. Our acceptable-use policy explicitly prohibits posting messages on chat rooms, message boards or mailing lists. We can't do anything on our school computers that might cause us any material gain. Stock trading is out, as are online auctions, job searches and product price comparisons. In practice, these rules were rarely followed, as teachers turned a blind eye to blatant violations of the overbroad district policy. But the administrators' cautiousness extended to other technologies too. They blocked Telnet, a text communications system for dialing in to other computers. Now I could no longer log in to my home system. They blocked FTP, so we could no longer transfer files to and from school. We had expected this to some degree; bureaucrats are overly cautious, and with all the talk about viruses and hackers, we couldn't really blame them for being scared. Nonetheless, we quickly found ways around their obstacles, and we were content -- until they ramped up the filter. "E-rate" legislation has forced public schools receiving federal funds to shield minors from "objectionable material," although no one really knows what that means. Because the idea of objectionable content is so ill-defined and so variable, no one on the school or district level wants to take responsibility for what is and is not blocked. This problem is not confined to TUSD; school districts across the country do the same thing to shield themselves from the hassle and responsibility: They hire outside firms. Our system is called InterGate, and it is a big black box sitting on a rack in the school district's communications office. Before any request for information can go onto the general Internet, it goes through InterGate. While inside InterGate, our Web browsing requests are individually logged by user name and computer address so that the school can keep track of every site each student visits. Next, the request is sent to a proxy server called Squid. A proxy server acts as a buffer between the Internet and a private network like our school's. Squid requests Web sites and serves them up to users inside a network. It's useful because its caching features make frequently visited Web sites load more quickly for local users in the school. Our version of Squid, however, is "enhanced" with a block list of objectionable sites. This list is distributed by the company that sells InterGate, and is updated automatically every night from a subscription service. The block list is what we all hate. It is the bane of every student and teacher at Foothill High School. We curse it, we shout at it, we bang on our keyboards, but there is really nothing we can do about it. Whenever we click a site that is on the block list, a funny face appears on our screen along with a message informing us that the site we requested has been blocked because it contains objectionable material. There are those words again, "objectionable material." They're used to make parents feel safe, to make lawmakers feel secure, to make society feel good. But they have no real meaning. Try making a list of a hundred randomly selected Web sites and see how many are blocked by filtering systems like Squid. The anti- censorship organization Peacefire does it all the time, and the results are predictable. Huge swaths of the Internet containing unobjectionable content are blocked because one page on that domain or host may have at one time contained one objectionable word or picture. At the same time, thousands of porn sites and hate sites and terrorism sites are left accessible. This is inevitable; it is only a question of numbers. The idea that a handful of employees at InterGate have been able to read through millions upon millions of Web sites and determine what is "objectionable" is laughable. Content-filtering companies that claim all sites are reviewed by human beings are lying outright: It is simply impossible to review that many sites by hand, let alone keep the list up-to-date as sites change. Without the thousands of human beings and millions of dollars required to filter even a substantial chunk of the Internet, filtering companies rely on spider programs. Spiders crawl the Web, searching pages for keywords like "sex" and "revolution." These programs are terribly inaccurate. I have found sites such as Stop Prisoner Rape blocked, in addition to sites promoting atheism and, of course, free-speech sites like Peacefire. Even worse than these spider programs are the sites that are blocked when politics come into play. Filtering companies are more conservative than other organizations and often cater to right-wing groups. Not surprisingly, these companies will, consciously or not, block more liberal speech on the Internet than conservative speech. Thus Planned Parenthood is blocked, while the Christian Coalition is not. Some sites calling for the destruction of gays are allowed, while others that promote gay rights, like GLAAD, are disallowed. These are just a few examples of a huge trend toward repressing speech that is taking place in our schools. The Constitution does not give minors the right to full constitutional and legal protection. However, children under 18 still have the same civil liberties as everyone else, liberties that no one -- not even the government -- should take away. On May 30, I took a stand. I sent an e-mail to every single teacher and administrator in the TUSD, outlining a way to bypass the filtering system. Basically, I set up a second proxy system to direct Web requests. Students and teachers could send Web requests through my proxy server instead of the regular one, thus eluding the InterGate filters and gaining access to an uncensored Internet. I pointed out my reasons for these actions, quoting Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un- American act that could most easily defeat us." I stated that in my position as a computer troubleshooter for the school I had received many complaints from teachers about the overbroad restrictions of the filter. I had been asked many times by individual teachers and students to provide a way to bypass the system. Stating that the most effective guard against the visiting of "inappropriate" Web sites is teacher supervision in the classroom, I revealed my method of bypassing the censorware software. I solicited feedback from teachers, promising that all communications would remain confidential. I asked for opinions both for and against my view, as I wished to encourage a dialogue in the school and community. Responses were immediate. "I think your actions are deplorable," wrote one teacher. "What service does this serve!!" Others worried about district backlash, telling me to "be careful" and wishing me the best on graduation. Most of the e-mails were supportive. "I hope you always have the courage and strength of character to stand up for what you believe to be important," wrote one elementary school teacher. "It's important to be a thinking person, rather than a go-along sheep." Another teacher wrote that she appreciated the bypass because "there are so many cool sites about art and literature that my students cannot get to when we research. I hope this works for the best." Another of my teachers wrote: "It is very true that censorship is alive and well in society ... here in the micro-community of [Foothill High School] and in the macro-community of the US government. I have many opinions on this subject, especially where there are agendas out there that allow some groups to say whatever they want while preventing a response from another group that may have a different or opposing view." However, added other teachers, school staff are discouraged from speaking up about this problem because they are afraid of being labeled porn advocates or being reprimanded by school and district administrators. They supported me, but quietly. I was pleasantly surprised to receive two letters from members of the school board pledging to look into the issue of censorship. Sadly, other members of the district were less open-minded about what I had done. I received a summons at school the next day. I went to the principal's office, where my father was already waiting. The school district assumed I had somehow "hacked" into its system, that I may have compromised its security and that I had invaded its network. Afraid that students and teachers would be able to get around the filter, it pulled the plug on the InterGate server, taking down the entire district's Internet access. I explained that I had done nothing to the computers, that I had used no school systems for my letter and that the district's network was perfectly safe. The distict officials threatened me with suspension and prosecution, promised to bill me for their time and insinuated that I might not be able to attend graduation. I told them that I had broken no school rules and they had no case. School staff berated me with questions as I walked through the halls that day: Why did I do it? What was I thinking? Did I want to graduate? Did I expect that I would go unpunished for my blatant mocking of school authority? Did I really think they would stand around while something as awful as what I had done took place? "Stop with the censorship bullshit," they said. "Didn't you really do this just to draw attention to yourself?" At the same time, students patted me on the back and gave me high- fives. I didn't want to discuss it with any of them. I had made my case, my e-mail spoke for itself and I was ready for the consequences. But punishment never came. Sure, they blocked my bypass site, they removed my administrator account on the school computer system and they banned me permanently from school computers. This was an issue of trust, and the school didn't trust me on its system anymore. I understand this, even if I don't agree with it. However, they were not able to find anything with which to charge me -- no ground for suspension, no civil or criminal charges. I may be one of the first high school students to stand up against the Child Internet Protection Act, or the Child Online Protection Act, or the Communication Decency Act, or whatever it is being called today, but I am in no way the last. It is only the beginning of a fight that we will win, if not in the courts, if not in Congress, then on the technical battleground that is the network: We know the computers, and, in the words of Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, "on the Internet, the code is the law." This fall I head to Brandeis University, an innovative institution that is offering me a chance to minor in a new program, Internet Studies. I hope that this censorship battle ends long before I leave college, but, expecting that it will not, I plan to study law so that one day I can defend the rights of others in court. Meanwhile, I support organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Peacefire, and I pray for a day when we are all free to have our own opinions without fear of persecution, and that we as a society are better for it. America is one of the most free places on earth, and I intend to help keep it that way. Copyright 2001 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 jj at scn.org Fri Jun 15 23:10:32 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: MOVE NEWS: Internet outages next week. Message-ID: SCN's move has been postponed for at least one week. However, we will be loosing Internet connectivity next week as the Seattle Public Library's Information Technology Dept. moves. Please note: At 6 PM next Tuesday (the 19th) ALL SPL COMPUTER SERVICES, including SCN's Internet connection, will be SHUTDOWN until sometime on Thursday. For Tuesday night, Wednesday, and part of Thursday: the only way to access SCN will be via dialup. There will be no telnet or e-mail to or from SCN. SCN's move is being rescheduled; the most likely dates are next Friday, or the following Monday. Watch the login announcements (motd). === JJ ============================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 clariun at yahoo.com Fri Jun 15 23:28:52 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: MOVE NEWS: Internet outages next week. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010616062852.14180.qmail@web13206.mail.yahoo.com> JJ, Thanks for the update. Will the site be down? Patrick --- "J. Johnson" wrote: > SCN's move has been postponed for at least one week. However, we will be > loosing Internet connectivity next week as the Seattle Public Library's > Information Technology Dept. moves. Please note: > > At 6 PM next Tuesday (the 19th) ALL SPL COMPUTER SERVICES, including SCN's > Internet connection, will be SHUTDOWN until sometime on Thursday. > > For Tuesday night, Wednesday, and part of Thursday: the only way to > access SCN will be via dialup. There will be no telnet or e-mail to > or from SCN. > > SCN's move is being rescheduled; the most likely dates are next Friday, or > the following Monday. Watch the login announcements (motd). > > === JJ ============================================================= > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/ * * * * * * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.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 bb615 at scn.org Sat Jun 16 08:25:45 2001 From: bb615 at scn.org (Rod Clark) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: MOVE NEWS: Internet outages next week. In-Reply-To: <20010616062852.14180.qmail@web13206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Thanks for the update. Will the site be down? Patrick, It could pretty easily be mirrored elsewhere for a few days, I'd think. Someone would have to set the DNS records to a short expiration time, or whatever, so that changing www.scn.org over to the mirror host's IP address and back would happen within a suitably short time. Rod Clark * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 scoth at scn.org Sat Jun 16 14:39:51 2001 From: scoth at scn.org (Scot Harkins on scn.org) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:39:51 -0700 Subject: SCN: MOVE NEWS: Internet outages next week. References: <20010616062852.14180.qmail@web13206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003601c0f6ac$e1f34c00$a28cc5ce@corp.thurman.com> The SCN website will be available internally (via dialup) but not via the internet. There will be no external mail services, either. Anything that goes in or out via the internet will be cut off, so you will not be able to browse the internet from SCN. sh -- Scot Harkins (KA5KDU) Greenbank, WA | Native Texan firmly planted in Western Washington scoth at bigfoot.com | SCA: Ld. Scot MacFin, Barony of Madrone, An Tir scoth at scn.org/msn.com | URL ----- Original Message ----- From: "patrick" To: "J. Johnson" ; ; "SCN User" ; ; Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 11:28 PM Subject: Re: SCN: MOVE NEWS: Internet outages next week. > JJ, > > Thanks for the update. Will the site be down? > > Patrick * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 sabrina017 at ejielong.com Tue Jun 19 20:21:24 2001 From: sabrina017 at ejielong.com (sabrina017 at ejielong.com) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 20:21:24 -0700 Subject: SCN: Free conference calling! 22648 Message-ID: <0000742e25c7$00002189$00005878@ejielong.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bn890 at scn.org Thu Jun 21 17:37:31 2001 From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: The Move & Classes Message-ID: Hi ya'all, There is a class scheduled for this coming Tuesday evening, June 26 at Henry and also at STAR, Thursday at 4:30, June 28. Assuming the MOVE goes on, would it be prudent to cancel these classes till we know everything is functioning? Let me know please, Thanx, Irene * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 clariun at yahoo.com Thu Jun 21 20:08:25 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: The Move & Classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010622030825.2458.qmail@web13206.mail.yahoo.com> Irene, What class is it? What are Henry and STAR? Thanks, Patrick SCN Webmaster and Wed Editor Coordinator --- Irene Mogol wrote: > Hi ya'all, > > There is a class scheduled for this coming Tuesday evening, June 26 at > Henry and also at STAR, Thursday at 4:30, June 28. > > Assuming the MOVE goes on, would it be prudent to cancel these classes > till we know everything is functioning? > > Let me know please, > Thanx, Irene > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/ * * * * * * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 bn890 at scn.org Thu Jun 21 20:39:44 2001 From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: The Move & Classes In-Reply-To: <20010622030825.2458.qmail@web13206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The class at Henry library is E-mail - either PINE or any web-mail that a student wishes. The class at STAR center is the disabilities class. On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, patrick wrote: > Irene, > > What class is it? What are Henry and STAR? > > Thanks, > Patrick > SCN Webmaster and Wed Editor Coordinator > > > --- Irene Mogol wrote: > > Hi ya'all, > > > > There is a class scheduled for this coming Tuesday evening, June 26 at > > Henry and also at STAR, Thursday at 4:30, June 28. > > > > Assuming the MOVE goes on, would it be prudent to cancel these classes > > till we know everything is functioning? > > > > Let me know please, > > Thanx, Irene > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/ * * * * * * * > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail > http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 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 groupworks.org Fri Jun 22 03:05:35 2001 From: steve at groupworks.org (Steve Guest) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 03:05:35 -0700 Subject: SCN: Re: The Move & Classes References: <000701c0fb01$76983700$0100a8c0@dellxpsr350> Message-ID: <007401c0fb02$e33b6200$0100a8c0@dellxpsr350> Hi Irene most of the challenges should be fixed by then. Star should be fine, but if there is a problem then it might hit the Henry class. Thanks Steve > Hi ya'all, > > There is a class scheduled for this coming Tuesday evening, June 26 at > Henry and also at STAR, Thursday at 4:30, June 28. > > Assuming the MOVE goes on, would it be prudent to cancel these classes > till we know everything is functioning? > > Let me know please, > Thanx, Irene * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Judy.Evans at spl.org Fri Jun 22 07:15:14 2001 From: Judy.Evans at spl.org (Judy Evans) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 07:15:14 -0700 Subject: SCN: Re: The Move & Classes Message-ID: Irene, It looks like things are fine at the Henry for the Tuesday class. it was down a very short time. Those guys in IT worked non-stop to get it done. SO, a nice hot time at good ol' Henry. :> Judy >>> "Steve Guest" 06/22/01 03:05AM >>> Hi Irene most of the challenges should be fixed by then. Star should be fine, but if there is a problem then it might hit the Henry class. Thanks Steve > Hi ya'all, > > There is a class scheduled for this coming Tuesday evening, June 26 at > Henry and also at STAR, Thursday at 4:30, June 28. > > Assuming the MOVE goes on, would it be prudent to cancel these classes > till we know everything is functioning? > > Let me know please, > Thanx, Irene * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 star at scn.org Fri Jun 22 13:39:14 2001 From: star at scn.org (Special Technology Access Resources) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:39:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: The Move & Classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As for STAR, it depends on SCN. I have time to cancel the class, if need be. Randy Hayhurst Program Director STAR Center of Seattle (206) 325-4284 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 star at scn.org Fri Jun 22 13:48:46 2001 From: star at scn.org (Special Technology Access Resources) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: EMT: Re: The Move & Classes In-Reply-To: <007401c0fb02$e33b6200$0100a8c0@dellxpsr350> Message-ID: Thanks, STEVE!!! I guess we are on for the 28th at STAR 4:30 to 6:30. Randy Hayhurst Program Director STAR Center of Seattle (206) 325-4284 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 bn890 at scn.org Fri Jun 22 19:56:36 2001 From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: EMT: Re: The Move & Classes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: OK Randy, We are on! Would anyone else care to join us at STAR this coming Thursday at 4:30? See ya'll, Irene On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Special Technology Access Resources wrote: > Thanks, STEVE!!! > > I guess we are on for the 28th at STAR 4:30 to 6:30. > > > > Randy Hayhurst > Program Director > STAR Center of Seattle > (206) 325-4284 > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * * > This list is for communication between SCN e-mail trainers regarding > *only* SCN E-mail Training (EMT) related topics. Please use your best > judgment in this matter. Discussion of other SCN related topics can be > done on the list . Thanks for your cooperation. > END > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 jj at scn.org Sat Jun 23 10:07:50 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 10:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Moving on Monday; dialup problems. Message-ID: Just a reminder that The Move is Monday. The shutdown time has been moved back to 6 PM, but the target restoration time is still 10 PM. There are going to be problems with the DIALUP lines: Qwest will be cutting them off anytime between 4 PM and 5 PM. We have no control over that, and there will be no warning. Also, there was (of course) some confusion installing our lines. We don't know if everything will be connected correctly, and if not, there may be interruptions as we try to correct matters. === JJ ============================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Fri Jun 29 12:53:04 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:53:04 -0700 Subject: SCN: AOL & Microsoft Message-ID: <3B3C7A30.322.2C9F830@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ========================== A kind of online "people power" forced open Microsoft's and AOL's doors seven years ago. Today both companies are itching to turn back the clock. Can they do it? by Scott Rosenberg, Salon, excerpts ...we know in our guts that control of the Web is concentrating at an alarming rate. Sure, it's still possible for anyone to put up a Web site. But as the carcasses of independent Web start-ups litter the landscape, the once-wild online free-for-all is rapidly devolving into a showdown between AOL and Microsoft. AOL controls the subscriber lists and a huge chunk of the content; Microsoft controls the consumer operating system and browser. We're reaping the worst of both worlds, networked chaos and monopolistic consolidation. The least common denominator of individual behavior multiplies, while the least common denominator of mass taste prevails. How did we...wind up in such straits? To answer that, we have to look back to the roots of today's commercial Internet, the heady days of 1994 and 1995. What made that time so exciting? For the first time in our experience, the spread of the Web had...leveled the playing field of media distribution. The Web's open design and standards meant that publishers of all stripes could stop worrying about getting their products to people; all you had to do was plug your content into the Web, and anyone who had access to the Web could get it. The Web didn't eliminate distribution costs (there are still servers to buy and bandwidth charges to pay), but it dramatically reduced them, and gave the notion that "everyone's a publisher" some credence beyond hype. "Publisher" covers a vast spectrum, though, from AOL Time Warner to your local HTML whiz kid. As commercial publishers colonized the Web and private individuals flexed their new publishing muscles, two vastly different visions of the Web's purpose and value emerged. Old-line media corporations that viewed the Web as a threat and commercial start-ups that saw it as an opportunity shared one perspective: The Web had to be made a safe place for profits, whatever it took in the way of advertising, subscriptions, privacy invasions and other increasingly desperate measures. Meanwhile, the do-it-yourself Web publishers -- from the "build your own page" homesteaders of 1995 to the more recent explosion of weblogs -- reveled in the new ease with which they could post information, from personal trivia to headline-making revelations, to the entire world, and didn't worry much about money. In no other medium have "pro" and amateur, commercial and "just for fun" found themselves so inseparably intertwined. But along the way each camp tended to conveniently forget some facts: The amateurs lost sight of how heavily their "free" publishing was subsidized by venture-capital investments in Net infrastructure -- investments that, having proved largely unprofitable, are no longer flowing. The pros, meanwhile, talked up projections of vast growth for Internet usage, without acknowledging how much of that use went to e-mail or Britney Spears fan pages, neither of which was likely to boost a media company's bottom line. Thanks to this dynamic, the Web we know today evolved. The medium became a laboratory for big corporate media and technology companies to test new software and new business models at relatively low risk and cost. Much of the Web's seven- year history is a chronicle of these failures: The e-commerce missteps of 1996..., the city-site wars of 1997, the me-too portal mania of 1998 and 1999, the dot-com dollar palooza that peaked and then cratered in 2000. A lot of predictions made with great idealism didn't pan out. After a brief first wave of innovative new sites -- Hotwired, Feed, Word, Suck, Salon and Slate -- the notion that the Web would foster a renaissance of independent publishing quickly withered in the face of some hard truths about Web media: Yes, it's easier and cheaper to put up a site than to print a newspaper or magazine or start a TV station, but journalism and information still cost money. And once you hang out your Web shingle you still have to figure out a way for people to find out that it's there. So of that first wave of high-profile "indies," Hotwired and Word are long gone, Feed and Suck have just gone into deepfreeze and Salon's financial difficulties have become a long-running soap opera in the financial press. (Slate may belong to this group in its target audience, but it is now so deeply intertwined with the Microsoft Network that its Web address has become a mere redirect from "www.slate.com" to "slate.msn.com," and its editor, Michael Kinsley, says he doesn't even have a separate balance sheet.) There's no reason the Web can't support a flourishing field of independent professional publishers in the middle ground between Big Media and feisty amateur -- no reason, that is, as long as you give this still-fledgling business time to sort itself out. Web users will eventually accept the necessity of paying subscription fees for the content they really want. Advertisers will eventually stop holding the Web to standards of guaranteed effectiveness that their bloated print and broadcast budgets could never meet. Sustainable businesses will evolve out of the carnage of the dot- com downturn, or grow off the corpses of failed start-ups. Broadband connections and software improvements will, across a decade-long vista, reduce users' frustration and impatience. Anyone, anywhere, will still be able to put up a Web site and reach anyone else online with news, gossip, truth or lies. One big "but" hangs in the way of this rosy scenario, however. As Microsoft and AOL play out their corporate duel, each will inevitably seek to lock in customers and lock out competitors. I think a significant number of Web users, myself included, would be happy to see these two giants cripple each other in the process. The trouble is, their moves are more likely to injure bystanders -- and could wreck the Net itself. While no one company may "control" the Web, Microsoft and AOL each have it within their power to wreak a lot of damage on the network and its users. At the moment, the pressure is on Microsoft to whittle down AOL's overwhelming lead in the subscriber rolls, so it's Microsoft that's causing the most trouble. Since Microsoft controls the operating system and Web browser that most consumers use, Microsoft looks to bend its software in directions that will help drive users to its Web sites and other businesses. This is what Microsoft calls "innovation" and "integration" -- and what the U.S. legal system, depending on which court's ruling is currently in force, calls "monopolistic behavior" and "antitrust violation." Microsoft's role in the ecology of the Internet business has long been to "cut off the air supply" of competitors. Microsoft execs deny coining that memorable phrase, which emerged during the antitrust trial -- but whether they used it or not, it accurately describes the company's tactics. Today, AOL -- with its tens of millions of subscribers -- has the luxury of, in essence, being the atmosphere of the online world. Where Microsoft needs to subsidize its online efforts with the obscene profits generated by its desktop-software monopoly, AOL controls the world's largest stream of direct revenue from online services. This is thanks to the company's unique position in serving as the country's biggest Internet service provider and its largest producer of content. It's not yet clear how AOL will respond to Microsoft's offensive, but you can be sure it will give up no ground without a battle -- in the courts or the consumer market or the software arena or everywhere at once. AOL will do everything in its power, as it always has, to keep users' eyes and dollars from roaming beyond AOL turf -- and now that AOL's turf is so vast, that's an easier task. Before asking whether either of these companies could control the Web or the Net, you have to pin down what you mean by "control." There's control of speech -- of individual users' ability to say what they want. There's control of access -- of whether and how we're able to find and reach others across the network. And of course there's control of the ability to make money online. As long as AOL's and Microsoft's struggle is fought primarily in that final realm, the fight won't be one that most Net users will care about; one mega-corporation's money grab looks pretty much like another's. Things will get far more interesting, however, if the conflict spills over into the other two categories. ...the more AOL and Microsoft "leverage" their advantages in, respectively, subscribership and software, the more likely they are to start closing off entrances and exits and transforming their fiefdoms into private networks. In the world of instant messaging, each company's users are unable to connect with the other's -- a preview of what corporate control of access on the Net looks like. Think of how it would feel if e-mail worked that way! In fact, it's not hard to imagine this at all -- because it's exactly how the commercial online world worked before 1994. The smoke of today's AOL/Microsoft war obscures a secret agenda the two companies will never admit to publicly: They don't like the Internet -- and never have. Microsoft's MSN and AOL were both closed, proprietary networks when the Web exploded and upended their business plans, forcing each to change course radically: Microsoft turned its battleship around to sink Netscape in the browser wars, while AOL dropped its hourly charges. Both companies hooked up their networks to the open Net, while conniving to keep their users just a little fuzzy about where the "branded" AOL or Microsoft turf ended and the rest of the Net began. Both companies, you can bet, would be far more comfortable in a world without the Internet -- a world in which they governed who could post content on their networks and taxed anyone who made money from it. Seven years ago, only one thing made them accept and embrace the strange new notion of a network that nobody owned or controlled: the overwhelming enthusiasm for the Net on the part of masses of users and developers. A kind of online "people power" forced open Microsoft's and AOL's doors seven years ago. Today both companies are itching to turn back the clock. Can they do it? They'll certainly try. But if these companies push too hard, those who care about the survival of an independent Web may simply vote with their feet and wallets, as they did once before. If they don't -- and only if they don't -- it will be time to sing a requiem for the Net. Copyright 2001 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 douglas Fri Jun 29 15:50:10 2001 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 15:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Municipal Information Infrastructure Message-ID: <200106292250.PAA01002@scn.org> To: Council Member Jim Compton and others concerned about access Subject: Municipal Information Infrastructure Dear Council Member Compton: I am a former CTTAB member and advocate for information policy that is of benefit to all citizenry. To that end I've convened conferences, written editorials and articles, taught classes, presented at conferences, and served on CTTAB. I am writing to inquire about the fate of a Seattle City Council resolution that was made two or three years ago that seemed to have vanished without a trace. To the best of my recollection the council directed the Department of Information Services to develop a feasibility study for a municipally owned infrastructure. This direction was apparently ignored for the first year ostensibly due to the "Y2K problem." Ignoring the fact that this was an extremely poor excuse in my opinion, the fact remains that this direction has been entirely unheeded. Can you fill me -- and the citizens of Seattle -- in on the status of this proposal? Tacoma has implemented a large program in the time that our proposal was gathering dust. While a project of this magnitude may eventually be shown to be infeasible I am sad to see it shelved with no public input and deliberation. This is much too important to be left to city administrators who, apparently, are opposed to the program. Information and communication for all citizens are key to a democratic society and Seattle can be, in my opinion, a leader in this area. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. -- Doug Schuler * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 clariun at yahoo.com Fri Jun 29 18:45:22 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: AOL & Microsoft In-Reply-To: <3B3C7A30.322.2C9F830@localhost> Message-ID: <20010630014522.16585.qmail@web13202.mail.yahoo.com> This article, while well written, was written too early. A court made a decision yesterday, and while Microsoft and a lot of people think that Microsoft won, the court was hard on them for the really bad things they did, and went easy on them for the little things that MS did. MS does not have an easy road ahead at all. People may go after MS like people went after the tobacco companies. It was decided that MS was guilty of abusing it's power while a monopoly. It's okay to be a monopoly in this country, our government will sanction it. But use that power to control and be abusive? That is bad. Keep it up and you will be in court like MS. And that is why they have a rough road ahead. Industry insiders are saying that slapping MS on the hand won't work. Only breaking up the company will work. So I don't see MS controlling the internet or anything else. I see them controlling a particular industry, but not everything. The heat needs to be kept on them, but they will never control everything. I'm more worried about AOL. Now that is a mindless company. And they ship software that is worse than that put out my MS. I hate AOL software more than I hate Windows (I own a Mac and a PC, but I prefer Macs. And I don't really hate Windows, but if I was asked to hate some software, it would be that clunky, crappy AOL!) Patrick Patrick --- Steve wrote: > x-no-archive: yes > > ========================== > > A kind of online "people power" forced open Microsoft's and AOL's > doors seven years ago. Today both companies are itching to turn > back the clock. Can they do it? > > > by Scott Rosenberg, Salon, excerpts > > ...we know in our guts that control of the Web is concentrating at an > alarming rate. Sure, it's still possible for anyone to put up a Web > site. But as the carcasses of independent Web start-ups litter the > landscape, the once-wild online free-for-all is rapidly devolving into > a showdown between AOL and Microsoft. AOL controls the > subscriber lists and a huge chunk of the content; Microsoft controls > the consumer operating system and browser. > > We're reaping the worst of both worlds, networked chaos and > monopolistic consolidation. The least common denominator of > individual behavior multiplies, while the least common denominator > of mass taste prevails. > > How did we...wind up in such straits? To answer that, we have to > look back to the roots of today's commercial Internet, the heady > days of 1994 and 1995. > > What made that time so exciting? For the first time in our > experience, the spread of the Web had...leveled the playing field of > media distribution. The Web's open design and standards meant > that publishers of all stripes could stop worrying about getting their > products to people; all you had to do was plug your content into the > Web, and anyone who had access to the Web could get it. > > The Web didn't eliminate distribution costs (there are still servers to > buy and bandwidth charges to pay), but it dramatically reduced > them, and gave the notion that "everyone's a publisher" some > credence beyond hype. > > "Publisher" covers a vast spectrum, though, from AOL Time Warner > to your local HTML whiz kid. As commercial publishers colonized > the Web and private individuals flexed their new publishing > muscles, two vastly different visions of the Web's purpose and > value emerged. Old-line media corporations that viewed the Web as > a threat and commercial start-ups that saw it as an opportunity > shared one perspective: The Web had to be made a safe place for > profits, whatever it took in the way of advertising, subscriptions, > privacy invasions and other increasingly desperate measures. > > Meanwhile, the do-it-yourself Web publishers -- from the "build your > own page" homesteaders of 1995 to the more recent explosion of > weblogs -- reveled in the new ease with which they could post > information, from personal trivia to headline-making revelations, to > the entire world, and didn't worry much about money. > > In no other medium have "pro" and amateur, commercial and "just > for fun" found themselves so inseparably intertwined. But along the > way each camp tended to conveniently forget some facts: The > amateurs lost sight of how heavily their "free" publishing was > subsidized by venture-capital investments in Net infrastructure -- > investments that, having proved largely unprofitable, are no longer > flowing. The pros, meanwhile, talked up projections of vast growth > for Internet usage, without acknowledging how much of that use went > to e-mail or Britney Spears fan pages, neither of which was likely to > boost a media company's bottom line. > > Thanks to this dynamic, the Web we know today evolved. The > medium became a laboratory for big corporate media and > technology companies to test new software and new business > models at relatively low risk and cost. Much of the Web's seven- > year history is a chronicle of these failures: The e-commerce > missteps of 1996..., the city-site wars of 1997, the me-too portal > mania of 1998 and 1999, the dot-com dollar palooza that peaked and > then cratered in 2000. > > A lot of predictions made with great idealism didn't pan out. After a > brief first wave of innovative new sites -- Hotwired, Feed, Word, > Suck, Salon and Slate -- the notion that the Web would foster a > renaissance of independent publishing quickly withered in the face > of some hard truths about Web media: Yes, it's easier and cheaper > to put up a site than to print a newspaper or magazine or start a TV > station, but journalism and information still cost money. And once > you hang out your Web shingle you still have to figure out a way for > people to find out that it's there. > > So of that first wave of high-profile "indies," Hotwired and Word are > long gone, Feed and Suck have just gone into deepfreeze and > Salon's financial difficulties have become a long-running soap opera > in the financial press. (Slate may belong to this group in its target > audience, but it is now so deeply intertwined with the Microsoft > Network that its Web address has become a mere redirect from > "www.slate.com" to "slate.msn.com," and its editor, Michael > Kinsley, says he doesn't even have a separate balance sheet.) > > There's no reason the Web can't support a flourishing field of > independent professional publishers in the middle ground between > Big Media and feisty amateur -- no reason, that is, as long as you > give this still-fledgling business time to sort itself out. Web users > will eventually accept the necessity of paying subscription fees for > the content they really want. Advertisers will eventually stop holding > the Web to standards of guaranteed effectiveness that their bloated > print and broadcast budgets could never meet. > > Sustainable businesses will evolve out of the carnage of the dot- > com downturn, or grow off the corpses of failed start-ups. Broadband > connections and software improvements will, across a decade-long > vista, reduce users' frustration and impatience. Anyone, anywhere, > will still be able to put up a Web site and reach anyone else online > with news, gossip, truth or lies. > > One big "but" hangs in the way of this rosy scenario, however. As > Microsoft and AOL play out their corporate duel, each will inevitably > seek to lock in customers and lock out competitors. I think a > significant number of Web users, myself included, would be happy > to see these two giants cripple each other in the process. The > trouble is, their moves are more likely to injure bystanders -- and > could wreck the Net itself. > > While no one company may "control" the Web, Microsoft and AOL > each have it within their power to wreak a lot of damage on the > network and its users. At the moment, the pressure is on Microsoft > to whittle down AOL's overwhelming lead in the subscriber rolls, so > it's Microsoft that's causing the most trouble. > > Since Microsoft controls the operating system and Web browser that > most consumers use, Microsoft looks to bend its software in > directions that will help drive users to its Web sites and other > businesses. This is what Microsoft calls "innovation" and > "integration" -- and what the U.S. legal system, depending on which > court's ruling is currently in force, calls "monopolistic behavior" and > "antitrust violation." > > Microsoft's role in the ecology of the Internet business has long > been to "cut off the air supply" of competitors. Microsoft execs deny > coining that memorable phrase, which emerged during the antitrust > trial -- but whether they used it or not, it accurately describes the > company's tactics. > > Today, AOL -- with its tens of millions of subscribers -- has the > luxury of, in essence, being the atmosphere of the online world. > Where Microsoft needs to subsidize its online efforts with the > obscene profits generated by its desktop-software monopoly, AOL > controls the world's largest stream of direct revenue from online > services. This is thanks to the company's unique position in serving > as the country's biggest Internet service provider and its largest > producer of content. > > It's not yet clear how AOL will respond to Microsoft's offensive, but > you can be sure it will give up no ground without a battle -- in the > courts or the consumer market or the software arena or everywhere > at once. AOL will do everything in its power, as it always has, to > keep users' eyes and dollars from roaming beyond AOL turf -- and > now that AOL's turf is so vast, that's an easier task. > > Before asking whether either of these companies could control the > Web or the Net, you have to pin down what you mean by "control." > There's control of speech -- of individual users' ability to say what > they want. There's control of access -- of whether and how we're > able to find and reach others across the network. And of course > there's control of the ability to make money online. > > As long as AOL's and Microsoft's struggle is fought primarily in that > final realm, the fight won't be one that most Net users will care > about; one mega-corporation's money grab looks pretty much like > another's. Things will get far more interesting, however, if the > conflict spills over into the other two categories. > > ...the more AOL and Microsoft "leverage" their advantages in, > respectively, subscribership and software, the more likely they are > to start closing off entrances and exits and transforming their > fiefdoms into private networks. In the world of instant messaging, > each company's users are unable to connect with the other's -- a > preview of what corporate control of access on the Net looks like. > Think of how it would feel if e-mail worked that way! > > In fact, it's not hard to imagine this at all -- because it's exactly how > the commercial online world worked before 1994. The smoke of > today's AOL/Microsoft war obscures a secret agenda the two > companies will never admit to publicly: They don't like the Internet -- > and never have. > > Microsoft's MSN and AOL were both closed, proprietary networks > when the Web exploded and upended their business plans, forcing > each to change course radically: Microsoft turned its battleship > around to sink Netscape in the browser wars, while AOL dropped its > hourly charges. Both companies hooked up their networks to the > open Net, while conniving to keep their users just a little fuzzy about > where the "branded" AOL or Microsoft turf ended and the rest of the > Net began. > > Both companies, you can bet, would be far more comfortable in a > world without the Internet -- a world in which they governed who > could post content on their networks and taxed anyone who made > money from it. Seven years ago, only one thing made them accept > and embrace the strange new notion of a network that nobody owned > or controlled: the overwhelming enthusiasm for the Net on the part of > masses of users and developers. > > A kind of online "people power" forced open Microsoft's and AOL's > doors seven years ago. Today both companies are itching to turn > back the clock. Can they do it? They'll certainly try. But if these > companies push too hard, those who care about the survival of an > independent Web may simply vote with their feet and wallets, as > they did once before. If they don't -- and only if they don't -- it will be > time to sing a requiem for the Net. > > > Copyright 2001 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/ * * * * * * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.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/ * * * * * * *