From douglas Tue May 1 12:00:56 2001 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 12:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Last Century's Technology!!! Free to good home Message-ID: <200105011900.MAA23048@scn.org> I have two printers that I'd like to give away. They're last year's technology. HP Desk Writer C -- I think this works. AppleWriter Select. This (laser printer) has made a weird noise for years but historicall worked well. It now leaves streaks on the papers and this is not the result of being low on toner. (I thought it was and bought new toner cartridges -- these I will also give to thee.) I have a feeling that this can be gotten into reasonable shape -- but I am NOT the person to do it. Let me know if you want either or both of these artifacts from our last century! -- Doug ****************************************************************** * New Community Networks: Wired for Change Now online * * http://www.scn.org/ncn * * Give us YOUR insights! Help write the new edition! * ****************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 May 3 00:43:24 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 00:43:24 -0700 Subject: SCN: Open source Message-ID: <3AF0A9AC.23393.533C6A7@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ============================ (John Markoff, NY Times)---Microsoft is preparing a broad campaign countering the movement to give away and share software code, arguing that it potentially undermines the intellectual property of countries and companies. At the same time, the company is acknowledging that it is feeling pressure from the freely shared alternatives to its commercial software. In a speech defending Microsoft's business model, to be given on Thursday at the Stern School of Business at New York University, Craig Mundie, a senior vice president at Microsoft and one of its software strategists, will argue that the company already follows the best attributes of the open-source model by sharing the original programmer's instructions, or source code, more widely than is generally realized. The speech is part of an effort by Microsoft to raise questions about the limits of innovation inherent in the open-source approach and to suggest that companies adopting the approach are putting their intellectual property at risk. Advocates of the open-source movement say that making the code available permits other developers to tinker with it, find problems and improve the software. Although the movement has not yet had a significant effect on sales of Microsoft's Office and Windows products in the personal computer market, the company wants to enter the corporate software market, where open source has gained ground. In his speech, Mr. Mundie will argue that one aspect of the open- source model, known as the General Public License, or G.P.L., is a potential trap that undercuts the commercial software business and mirrors some of the worst practices of dot-com businesses, in which goods were given away in an effort to attract visitors to Web sites. G.P.L. requires that any software using source code already covered by the licensing agreement must become available for free distribution. "This viral aspect of the G.P.L. poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it," Mr. Mundie said in a telephone interview this week. I.B.M. in particular has been heavily marketing the free Linux operating system. Mr. Mundie does not identify I.B.M. by name in his speech, which was provided beforehand, but he says that large companies are naïve in adopting the open-source model. "I would challenge you," he said, "to find a company who is a large established enterprise, who at the end of the day would throw all of its intellectual property into the open-source category." An I.B.M. executive said that his company had considered the issues surrounding the protection of intellectual property and had decided that it was possible to follow both a proprietary and a shared business model, even one based on the G.P.L. The executive, Irving Wladawsky-Berger, an I.B.M. vice president, said, "If we thought this was a trap, we wouldn't be doing it, and as you know, we have a lot of lawyers." In February, Jim Allchin, a software designer at Microsoft, became a lightning rod for industry criticism when he said in an interview with Bloomberg News that freely distributed software code could stifle innovation and that legislators should be aware of the threat. Mr. Mundie said he would elaborate on Mr. Allchin's comments while also trying to demonstrate that Microsoft already practices many of what he called the best aspects of the open-source model. "We have been going around the industry talking to people," Mr. Mundie said, "and have been startled to find that people aren't very sophisticated about the implications of what open source means." He acknowledged that the open-source movement was making inroads. "The news here is that Microsoft is engaging in a serious way in this discussion," he said. "The open-source movement has continued to gather momentum in a P.R. sense and a product sense." He said Microsoft was particularly concerned about the inroads that the open-source idea was making in other countries. "It's happening very, very broadly in a way that is troubling to us," he said. "I could highlight a dozen countries around the world who have open-source initiatives." Mr. Mundie said that in his speech, he would break the open-source strategy into five categories: community, standards, business model, investment and licensing model. Microsoft, he said, in support of the community ideal, already has what he called a shared- source philosophy, which makes its source code available to hardware makers, software developers, scientists, researchers and government agencies. Microsoft would expand its sharing initiatives, he said. But he added that the company's proprietary business model was a more effective way to support industry standards than the open-source approach, which he said could lead to a "forking" of the software base resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of standard programs. He cited the history of Unix, which has been replete with incompatible versions. Although he acknowledged that the open- source approach had created new technologies, he said that business models using the open- source community were suspect. "It is innovation that really drives growth," Mr. Mundie said, arguing that without the sustained investment made possible by commercial software, real innovation would not be possible. He reserved his harshest criticism in the text of his speech for the G.P.L., a software licensing model defined by programmer Richard M. Stallman in 1984. "This is not understood by many sophisticated people," Mr. Mundie said. "The goal of the G.P.L. is sweeping up all of the intellectual property that has been contributed. That creates many problems downstream, many of which haven't come home to roost yet." Mr. Stallman has made a distinction between the open-source software movement and the G.P.L., which he designed as part of the free software movement that he led. In a response to Microsoft's Mr. Allchin in February, Mr. Stallman wrote: "The free software movement was founded in 1984, but its inspiration comes from the ideals of 1776: freedom, community and voluntary cooperation. This is what leads to free enterprise, to free speech, and to free software." Today a proponent of the open-source software movement said he thought that Microsoft was taking a clever approach in its challenge. "It's very clever of them," said Eric Raymond, president of the Open Source Initiative. "Instead of attacking the entire open-source movement they've singled out the one license that is in a sense politically controversial." 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 Thu May 3 07:20:11 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 07:20:11 -0700 Subject: SCN: FBI Message-ID: <3AF106AB.21181.15D6B37@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ============================= Is the FBI tracking online protesters? (Amy Standen, Salon.com)---On April 21, protesters from across the U.S. and Canada were gathering in Quebec to protest the Free Trade Area of the Americas summit meeting. While police amassed tear gas and riot gear, protesters hatched plans to take down a two and a half mile-long fence erected to keep them out of sight and sound during the meeting. At the same time, thousands of miles away in Seattle, activities at the Independent Media Center were winding down after a long day of coordinating a joint protest in Blaine, Wash. Only around three people were left in the office at 7 p.m. when a knock came at the door. "FBI agents came in and flashed their badges," recalls Devin Theriot-Orr, an IMC volunteer and legal team co-coordinator. "They wanted to ask us some questions. You don't get visits from the FBI every day, so people were definitely pretty freaked out." The FBI agents wanted to see "all user connection logs" from the IMC's Web site from a period between April 20 and 21. Within that time, the agents charged, someone had posted secret, stolen documents -- one of which was said to contain details of President Bush's travel itinerary in Canada -- on the IMC's News Wire bulletin boards. The sealed demand to turn over the logs also contained a gag order: If news of the FBI demand made it out of the IMC office, the organization faced being held in contempt of court. Somehow, the entirely volunteer-run organization, with dozens of offices around the world and a busy network of online message sites, would have to keep the secret. IMC volunteers searched the site for the offending documents in vain. "We were unable to find anything that met their description," says Devin. "What they told us was false -- that it had to do with travel documents for the president." What the IMC volunteers did find were two documents, purportedly stolen from a Quebec police car, that contained instructions given to Quebec police on how to deal with different protest scenarios, and crib sheets that described which protest groups were expected to be in action in Quebec and how they might be identified. One excerpt reads: A first group of demonstrators may take Laurier Boulevard and Grande Allee street, while others may take Rene Levesque boulevard. The demonstrators will split into groups of 20 or 30 people in order to carry out different actions depending on the choice of their affinity groups. The signal to disperse will be releasing balloons into the air. The two groups may meet at Salaberry Street (or it could be another street) to continue via Rene Levesque towards the Grand Théatre. Despite IMC efforts to keep the order a secret, word got out and soon enough IMC visitors were posting anxious messages on the message boards, calling the FBI order a "raid" and worrying that the media organization had been "taken over" by Secret Service agents. IMC's attempts to remove these posts had the adverse effect, as a report released by the organization later conceded, of "seemingly confirming the worst suspicions of independent journalists who posted brief articles announcing or speculating about mysterious and terrible things going on at the Seattle IMC, then finding their posts removed from view minutes later." Barred by the gag order from putting rumors to rest, IMC volunteers had no choice but to wait it out. Six days later, on April 27, the gag order was lifted. Now IMC and its attorneys are preparing to fight. "The IMC is making plans to challenge the subpoena," says Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Now that the gag is lifted, we can go in and say the subpoena is invalid or unjustified, or all sorts of things." But oddly, points out Theriot-Orr, there has been no request by the FBI to remove the documents in question, which are still posted on the IMC site. "[The FBI agents] came down Saturday night when the information, technically, could still have been relevant. But they never asked us to remove it." Now that the protests are over, the information isn't as subversive as it seemed a week ago. At the IMC, the general feeling is that the FBI's order was intended mainly to intimidate volunteers and posters on the Independent Media sites. "I don't think it was about the stuff that was posted," says Theriot- Orr. "I'm certain they've been monitoring us for some time; we've been on their radar for a while, in my opinion, and I am very curious about whether this was taken to discourage association with the IMC." If the FBI was trying to intimidate the IMC, the tactic appears to be working, says Theriot-Orr. "We've had significantly less posts on our Web site. And I think that's partially because people are nervous. There's a history of this type of COINTELPRO activity against activist organizations that stretches back 30, 40 years. It's nothing new. And we don't really know -- maybe there's a bona fide investigation -- but it sure seems suspicious." Calls to Stephen Schroeder, the assistant U.S. attorney who filed the application for the court order, were not returned. Whether or not intimidation is at issue in this instance, the IMC case has broad significance for the future of online media and freedom of speech, says EFF's Tien. "There's a lot of law about how the First Amendment protects membership lists of political groups. Freedom of association, anonymous political speech -- all these different threads weave together in this case." 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 May 4 11:11:03 2001 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Educational Innovation$ -- Automatic Professor Machine!! Message-ID: <200105041811.LAA26265@scn.org> ------------------- Please distribute to interested people.... ------------------------------------------------------ Free Public Lecture!!!!! Coming SOON ******************************************* Introducing the Automatic Professor Machine ******************************************* Wednesday May 9, 2001 6:30 - 7:30 p.m., Lecture Hall 3 The Evergreen State College Olympia Political theorist Langdon Winner, author of "Autonomous Technology", a study of the idea of "technology-out-of-control in modern social thought," will be featured as a guest lecturer at The Evergreen State College in Olympia on Wednesday, May 9, 6:30-7:30 p.m. in Lecture Hall 3. The lecture is free and open to the public. Campus parking is $1.25. Strike it RICH Don't be left out!! Praised by The Wall Street Journal as "The leading academic on the politics of technology", Dr. Winner will be presenting a performance piece, "Introducing the Automatic Professor Machine", which questions the application of information technology and marketing lingo to education. The presentation will provoke an important discussion of the relationship between power and technology, and how digital technology is changing the concept of education itself. Edu-$$ Langdon Winner was born and raised in San Luis Obispo, California, and received his B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. in political science from the University of California at Berkeley. He is Professor of Political Science in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. He has also taught at The New School for Social Research, MIT, College of the Atlantic, the University of California at Santa Cruz, the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, and has lectured widely throughout the United States and Europe. The next really big thing!! This spring he is Hixon-Riggs Visiting Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Harvey Mudd College, and his columns on technology and society appear regularly in the online journal NetFuture. The Plato Lecture series is made possible by royalties from student and faculty software development at The Evergreen State College. This lecture is sponsored by Evergreen's Community Information Systems program. For more information on this program or the lecture, please contact Doug Schuler at 206.634.0752 or via e-mail at dschuler at evergreen.edu. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 publisher at singlescenter.com Thu May 10 09:26:58 2001 From: publisher at singlescenter.com (publisher at singlescenter.com) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Single Role Model Search Now Underway Message-ID: <200105101626.JAA06455@hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net> Hello, We found your organization or email address in a search for organizations who use volunteers and would like to ask your cooperation in a worthwhile recognition project. If you are not involved with a non-profit or community organization then we apologize for the contact, and you may respond with REMOVE in the subject. Do you know a single person doing volunteer work in your community? Would you like to give them some recognition for their selfless caring? The Singles Center's annual Role Model search for candidates will be open until May 31, 2001. If you know of a deserving single, you can submit a nomination at http://www.singlescenter.com/Community/nominate.htm You can read stories of past winners and candidates at http://www.singlescenter.com/Community/index.htm Nominations will be reviewed by The Singles Center staff and selected candidates' stories will be posted on the web site on June 1, 2001 for voting by visitors to the site. The winner will be announced on July 1, 2001 and receives a well deserved free vacation with The Singles Center Travel Club on the Caribbean cruise in November. The winner's favorite charity will receive a $500. donation from The Singles Center. If you don't know of a deserving single, then please forward this message to someone who may know someone. Thanks for your participation in giving some caring singles the recognition they deserve. Betty Van Volkenburg Publisher, The Singles Center http://www.singlescenter.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Fri May 11 00:36:19 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 00:36:19 -0700 Subject: SCN: Recycling Message-ID: <3AFB3403.10287.4DD955C@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ================================ (Jon Skillings, ZDNet)---Once a week, a truck stops at a facility run by the Public Service Enterprise Group in Paulsboro, N.J., loaded with desktop computers, laptops, fax machines, photocopiers, television sets and video recorders. Many of the computers will be fully refurbished, getting clean hard drives, repaired motherboards, and even some elbow grease to wipe away unsightly smudges. The remaining hardware that is deemed unsalvageable will be dismantled for parts: plastic will be smelted, lead and zinc reclaimed, gold and silver extracted. "For all our waste, there is no waste," said Gary Wohler, investment recovery specialist of Public Service Enterprise. Last year, the energy services company recycled 766 computers, 814 monitors and 31 printers this way. It is a telling sign that a truck loaded with expensive electronics is working for the sake of environmentalism in a place like New Jersey - home to the "Sopranos" and a state not widely known for its ecological sensitivities. But New Jersey is one of a handful of states with an activist bent, putting increasing pressure on electronics makers to address what some circles see as as a worldwide environmental threat. And Wohler's company is one of many that has discovered recycling religion. Two decades after becoming perhaps the most indispensable fixture of the modern workplace, the personal computer is confronting an ugly and unavoidable truth: As with all other electronic devices powering the Information Age, it will eventually end up like any other product--in the garbage heap. In fact, watchdog groups say PCs are going out of service faster than they are being produced. "Most of these things are still sitting on shelves or in warehouses," said Jeffrey Tumarkin, team leader at the Environmental Protection Agency's WasteWise program, which has some 1,100 participants, from Anheuser Busch and Eastman Kodak to mom-and-pop stores, schools and state governments. "For companies that have thousands, it's a huge issue." Regulators, corporations and environmental groups around the globe are struggling to decide how to dispose of a seemingly endless supply of PCs and who should be held responsible for keeping tons of hazardous waste out of the environment. Although concerns over discarded computers have been voiced for years, the debate is coming to a head with the threat--and increasing actuality-- of government action worldwide. State and national governments and environmental groups are pointing to PC makers to take responsibility. But companies argue that their counterparts in other industries, such as automakers, are not held similarly accountable for their junked products. Moreover, the issue could not come at a worse time for computer hardware manufacturers, which have been squeezed by eroding profit margins and an overall slowdown in the technology industry. Legislation pending in the European Union, for instance, "would be very costly," said John Minter, environmental affairs representative at Dell Computer. "Somehow, manufacturers would be incurring that cost." As the debate continues, the pile of old PCs keeps growing. The National Safety Council estimates that, in 2002 alone, the number of PCs becoming obsolete will outrun the number of new PCs hitting the market by some 3.4 million. Overall, the EPA estimates, computers and other electronic equipment account for about 220 million tons of waste per year in the United States. And volume is only the beginning of the ecological issues posed by decaying PCs. The machinery also contains elements like lead, mercury and arsenic that can be classified as hazardous waste. "We're not talking Love Canal, but we are talking about some real potential problems," said H. Scott Matthews, research director in the Green Design Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University, referring to the Buffalo, N.Y., toxic waste scandal of the 1970s. Given such important health issues, government agencies and environmental groups say their main concern is with proper disposal, an issue that defies easy solutions. Once the machines are past the point of being resold in corporate garage sales or donated to charitable groups, that means recycling--separating the raw materials to be processed for reuse--and containing hazardous materials. A first step in a cooperative approach came last month when representatives of government, industry and environmental groups met to establish the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative. In a series of discussions over the course of the next year, the 45 participants aim to come to an agreement on a system for electronics disposal. Other issues, including hazardous materials and product design, remain highly contentious and will not be on the table. The goal is to figure out "how to get from what some say is an 11 percent (rate of) recycling and reuse to a much higher number, and over what period of time," said Gary Davis, director of the Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, who is serving as the moderator for the discussions. "Everyone agrees that it needs to increase, and so we're starting from here." Although they support recycling efforts, computer makers say consumers must shoulder a large part of the burden for those initiatives to succeed. Companies such as IBM, Dell Computer and Sony Electronics have recently launched recycling and reuse programs aimed primarily at consumers, and the Electronic Industries Alliance trade group has drafted an initiative on the issue. Their work is something of a pre-emptive strike. The industry, which has historically clamored against any government supervision, wants to avoid having bureaucrats in Washington, Tokyo, Brussels or Boston tell it what to do on the issue. "Either we solve the problem ourselves as an industry, or we'll have government try to solve the problem," said Mark Small, vice president of environmental affairs at Sony. Many governments appear willing to do just that. The International Association of Electronics Recyclers reports that nine countries already have corporate "take back" laws for discarded electronics--including computers in some cases--and that 22 more countries will join them within five years. In Japan, for example, a law went into effect last month requiring manufacturers to take back used TVs, refrigerators, washing machines and air conditioners. Computer equipment isn't covered in the law but could be in the future. In the United States, 45 mercury-related and 21 electronics bills have been introduced at the state level, with bills in Oregon and Arkansas proposing fees on the purchase of PCs to pay for recycling, according to the association. April marked the first anniversary of a law in Massachusetts that bans CRT (cathode-ray tube) monitors from landfills, and other states are considering similar measures. "In the next four years, the issue of computer pollution is going to increase and increase," said Jeremiah Baumann, environmental health advocate at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "The computer industry is going to have to face this." Perhaps the best road map for U.S. recycling legislation can be found in Europe. A key stimulus there comes from the European Union, which through its parliamentary arm is working to pull various existing and proposed national programs into a united front through legislation known as the WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) Directive, which encompasses not just computers and related devices, but also video games, digital cameras, refrigerators, washing machines, toasters and hair dryers. The European Parliament this month will have a key vote on legislation that would require electronics manufacturers to phase out elements such as lead and mercury and to take back used products. "As the (legislation) moves in Europe, that's going to move the debate for the rest of the world," said Dell's Minter. The WEEE Directive sets a target date of December 2005 to begin annual collection of, on average, at least 9 pounds per inhabitant from private households. A related directive sets January 2008 as the date by which manufacturers must find replacements for lead, mercury and cadmium, as well as for chemicals such as flame retardants that show up in circuit boards and plastic covers. The EU adheres to what it calls the "polluter pays" principle, according to which electronics makers must be held accountable for treatment, recovery and disposal of their products when they become waste and that private households should be able to return the products free of charge. This doctrine "means extending the legal, moral and financial responsibility of producers," said Ted Smith, executive director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, an advocacy group focused on the high-tech sector. It is a government's way of telling manufacturers, "your responsibility goes beyond the initial sale and through the life cycle, including disposal," he added. It's the issue of disposal that has drawn manufacturers' attention. They're worried about the logistics--and especially about how it will translate into dollars and cents. "The recycling targets that were set are pretty high," Minter said. "It's not certain how achievable they are. It's never been done before on this scale." The EU expects the net costs of its collection and recycling requirements for all household electronic equipment to total between $450 million and $800 million per year in its 15 member states, with commercial equipment adding roughly 20 percent to those costs. For the individual consumer, the requirements would likely mean a premium of about 1 percent for most electronic goods, and as much as 3 percent for monitors, according to EU estimates. That could add some $10 to $50 to the typical price of a PC. Or the cost could come when consumers get rid of their old equipment. In a recycling program IBM launched last November, the company is charging $29.99 for consumers and small businesses to ship it any brand of PC, monitor, printer or peripheral. Retailer Best Buy, which will be launching its own electronics recycling initiative later this year, charged between $10 and $25 per device in a pilot program last year, according to a spokesman. "Economies of scale will play a big role," said Tony Hainault, a policy analyst with Minnesota's Office of Environmental Assistance, which worked with Sony to set up a recycling program for the consumer giant's products. "It will be important to collect a large volume of this material to make it cost-effective to recycle." In the end, as with many environmental issues, the success of computer recycling may rest with the individual. As the EPA's Tumarkin put it: "We say it's on everyone in the supply chain, from manufacturer to consumer." --- How do you get rid of it? Old computers don't just fade away--and that's where the problem begins. Just ask IBM, which handled 60,000 tons of computer equipment at the end of its useful life in 1999, coming just from equipment it leased and its own internal operations. But that volume is nothing compared with the avalanche of old machines that could soon bury Big Blue and other computer makers if pending legislation in Europe and elsewhere requires them to take back their products. The EPA estimates that 75 percent of obsolete electronics are still gathering dust in storerooms and attics. The reason behind such warehousing of useless products is simple: No one agrees on the best way to dispose of them. "There's still not an infrastructure for recycling electronics as there is for newspapers," said Renee St. Denis, manager of product recycling solutions for Hewlett-Packard. It is, she said, "an industry that's still evolving." The major obstacle impeding progress of electronics recycling is the uniquely hazardous nature of the material. Those on all sides of the issue are focused on two primary concerns: the sheer number of devices involved and the environmental risks posed by certain components if they are improperly discarded. Of most concern are heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium, as well as chlorofluorocarbons and brominated flame retardants, which can seep from landfills into water supplies or waft from incinerators into the atmosphere. "The immediate problem is a solid waste problem," said the U.S. Public Interest Research Group's Jeremiah Baumann. "The more fundamental problem is the use of toxic metals, heavy metals, in computers." The potential for harm from many of those elements has been well established and has forced changes in consumer products. Lead, for instance, has been banned from gasoline and household paints, and high mercury levels have kept certain fish off restaurant menus for years. The exact extent of the threat from those elements in PCs and related devices, however, has not yet been established. "What is known is that PCs will leach, can leach and do leach," said Ted Smith of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, which estimates that 40 percent of the lead in landfills comes from consumer electronics. Smith acknowledged the need for more testing but said, "What is known is that if you burn this stuff, the metals don't burn and get back out into the environment." The European Union says the hazardous content of electrical and electronic equipment will cause "major environmental problems" if obsolete machines are not suitably treated--and that lack of proper treatment is the norm, with more than 90 percent of electronic waste dumped in landfills, incinerated or recovered without proper precautions. Those companies that do follow careful cleanup procedures face yet another daunting challenge: the financial cost of doing things right. Last year, the Public Service Enterprise Group--a partner of the EPA's WasteWise program--resold 128 computer systems and 150 monitors and donated just over 400 computer systems to community organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, on top of several hundred that it sent off for recycling. The cost was $130,000, but the equipment that was sold raised only about $43,000. "This operation runs in the red," said Gary Wohler of the enterprise group. "Our impression is that the market for this stuff is somewhat limited--it's becoming somewhat saturated now." HP has had costly experiences as well. The company runs its own recycling operation, which deals with some 1,500 to 1,700 tons of obsolete systems per month. The program is run jointly with Canadian mining company Noranda, which sees an opportunity to mine for materials from PCs that it otherwise would dig out of the ground. The returns hardly constitute a moneymaking operation. "We pay Noranda to process this material," HP's St. Denis said. "It's definitely a cost business for us, but one that we feel is important to participate in." Not all companies have had such expensive experiences. Sony's Mark Small said his company's costs were just "pennies per pound" in a 1999 pilot recycling program with the state of Minnesota. Sony believes that in a five-year, national program it would be possible to "get recycling costs down to zero, or at least below landfill costs," he added. The manageable costs were particularly surprising because the project focused on the removal of residential products, in part because their relative lack of uniformity makes them more expensive to process. The program collected nearly 700 tons of used electronic products--about 10 percent of them PCs and monitors--at a cost of just under $300 per ton. "One thing we learned in our project is that it actually costs a lot less than people thought," said Tony Hainault of Minnesota's Office of Environmental Assistance. Although Sony's experience appears to be the exception, he is hopeful that a solution for wide-scale recycling may not be far off. "The fundamentals of the infrastructure are all in place," Hainault said. "It's just a matter of will, to decide now is the time to do this." --- --- Redesigning the PC All parties involved in the recycling debate agree there is only one way to achieve environmental safety in computer disposal: Redesign the hardware from scratch. The agreement ends quickly, however, when it comes to the speed at which careful design should happen. Critics say the computer industry, for all its vaunted innovation, is as guilty of stonewalling as other businesses that have resisted calls for safer, cleaner products. PC makers counter that they are light years ahead of other industries with far more obvious pollution problems, even though they operate under harrowing deadlines and competitive pressures. Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition's Ted Smith says those tight time constraints are a big part of the problem. "The electronics industry is so oriented to today," said Smith, whose organization monitors the environmental practices of computer makers. "To get them to look into the future is the real challenge." Smith compares the computer industry today to the U.S. automobile industry in the 1970s, when it was confronted with Japanese cars that were more fuel efficient and thus had less of an impact on the environment. "Prevention is always not only better but cheaper than cleanup. You can pay now or you can pay later," he said. Dell's John Minter also uses the auto industry for comparison but has a different perspective. "By no means do I think the industry has had its head in the sand," he said. "We really are probably a lot farther ahead than the auto industry was." The obstacles to pollutant-free computing center on the raw elements that make these machines tick. A primary offender is lead, which is used routinely on circuit boards and is an essential component of CRTs that blocks radiation. The densest of elements used in computers, lead is also one of the most resistant to change. Even highly toxic materials like mercury and arsenic take a back seat to this heavy metal. "Right now, the main concern is with lead," said Gordon Hui, an analyst in the EPA's Extended Product Responsibility program. "It's hard to assess what might be the toxicity of other electronics components." But replacements for lead are slow in coming. Although the element has been virtually eliminated from the front panel of glass, the industry has been less successful in finding alternatives to lead in other parts of the monitor. (To enhance the degree to which desktop monitors are recyclable, U.S. manufacturers standardized funnel glass in the early 1990s.) Progress on alternatives to lead in solder also has been slow. The amount of lead varies depending on the monitor and on who's doing the measuring. The EPA says the average is about 4 pounds, while California's Department of Toxic Substances and Control says 5 to 7 pounds. IBM estimates that its 17-inch monitor has 1.1 pounds, according to Wayne Balta, director of corporate environmental affairs at Big Blue. The difficulty of finding a technically feasible substitute for lead has prompted the European Community to revise its proposed legislation targeting hazardous materials in electronics equipment. As the proposal now stands, lead in computer monitors is exempt from general regulations aimed at phasing out elements. The move toward more environmentally friendly PCs and peripherals seems fraught with trade-offs. The increasing popularity of flat-panel screens as a replacement for CRT monitors, for instance, could reduce the risks posed by lead but would probably introduce a greater amount of mercury into the equation. Companies are quick to point out that cleanup programs may pose problems of their own. The Electronic Industries Alliance urges consumers to write to elected officials to oppose "misguided" attempts to ban mercury from electronics or to mandate electronics recycling. Bans on mercury--and thus energy-efficient mercury lamps--"may actually have an adverse effect on the environment" because they would lead to greater release of mercury from coal-fired electric power plants and would "impose large costs on the industry and, in turn, on consumers," according to a posting on the industry alliance's Web site. It is important, IBM's Balta says, "to make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease." "Design for environment" If the heavy metals in computers make for rather intractable challenges, PC makers have found greater success in making it easier to upgrade aging but still functional machines and to take apart obsolete ones. It's an approach the industry refers to as "design for environment." The EIA, for example, points to Apple's use of an access door and modular design in its Power Mac line to allow easy installation, upgrading and servicing of expansion cards, memory and storage devices. In that same vein, IBM says it has reduced the variety of screws, bolts, plastics and glues in its products, changes that make it easier for recyclers to disassemble and process old computers. But other design impulses may get in the way. "The problem is the whole faster, cheaper, smaller push," said Gary Davis of the Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies at the University of Tennessee. "When things get cheaper, they tend to lose their value for recycling and reuse." Indeed, the demand for recycled products remains modest at best. The European Union, which has put a great deal of pressure on electronics makers to take responsibility for obsolete products, acknowledges that producers have "hardly any economic incentive" to factor waste management into the design stage. But it believes its doctrine of extended producer responsibility and mandates for product take-back and recycling will provide that incentive. The EU's parliamentary arm also is examining a proposal to improve waste management at the product design and manufacture stage. That sort of effort is particularly offensive to an industry that prides itself on its voluntary achievements and independence. "It's inevitable that design will play a role," said Holly Evans of the Electronic Industries Alliance. "But industry is opposed to government suddenly telling them how to design their products, so that's sort of a touchy area." Given such vastly different political perspectives, on top of already- complicated engineering issues, many believe that some form of pollution is probably inevitable if computing technology continues to play an important role in society. The Green Design Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University is apparently bracing for that reality in this posting on its Web site: "Generally speaking, it will be impossible to remove all toxics from the design of computers." Copyright 2001 ZD 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 brian at happygardening.com Sat May 12 09:37:25 2001 From: brian at happygardening.com (Brian High) Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:37:25 GMT Subject: SCN: Lessig: Technologists are letting Internet freedoms slip away Message-ID: <20010512.16372500@mis.configured.host> Lessig: Technologists are letting Internet freedoms slip away Friday May 11, 08:52 PM EDT [ Advocacy ] >From tech.mit.edu: "Technologists are to blame for passively allowing freedom on the Internet to fade, Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig told a crowd of technologists in 34-101 yesterday. And now the only way to keep that freedom from disappearing entirely, he explained, is for technologists to speak up and teach the lawyers (and everyone else) why the Internet was created the way it was." http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N25/25lessig.25n.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Sat May 12 14:31:02 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:31:02 -0700 Subject: SCN: Republic.com Message-ID: <3AFD4926.17864.4AC0254@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ================================ Book review: Republic.com Exploring the effects of cyberspace on American democracy Book excerpt: "A well-functioning system of free expression must meet two distinctive requirements. First, people should be exposed to materials that they would not have chosen in advance. Unplanned, unanticipated encounters are central to democracy itself. Such encounters often involve topics and points of view that people have not sought out and perhaps find quite irritating. They are important partly to ensure against fragmentation and extremism, which are predictable outcomes of any situation in which like-minded people speak only with themselves. I do not suggest that government should force people to see things that they wish to avoid. But I do contend that in a democracy deserving the name, people often come across views and topics that they have not specifically selected. Second, many or most citizens should have a range of common experiences. Without shared experiences, a heterogeneous society will have a much more difficult time in addressing social problems. People may even find it hard to understand one another. Common experiences, emphatically including the common experiences made possible by the media, provide a form of social glue. A system of communications that radically diminishes the number of such experiences will create a number of problems, not least because of the increase in social fragmentation." (Stephen Labaton, NY Times)---The Internet has been hailed as the ultimate tool of autonomy. The evangelists of cyberspace tout the power it confers on users to assemble a universe of information, shop effortlessly virtually anywhere and communicate instantly across continents. Thanks to the Internet, it has become easier than ever to see what you want when you want, and filter out all the rest. To the Internet's architects and boosters, this development represents a triumph of consumer choice. ''Customized information is a natural extension,'' Bill Gates predicted just as the Internet began taking off in 1995. ''For your own daily dose of news, you might subscribe to several review services and let a software agent or a human one pick and choose from them to compile your completely customized 'newspaper.' These subscription services, whether human or electronic, will gather information that conforms to a particular philosophy and set of interests.'' But what Gates hailed as a great liberating force is, in Cass Sunstein's view, a potentially grave threat to democratic governance. Internet technology, he contends, encourages people to limit their exposure to like-minded viewpoints. It offers a powerful new weapon to fringe groups and reinforces extremism. It sharply reduces the kinds of chance and occasionally unwanted encounters that foster discussion and broaden people's thinking. Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago, has written extensively on constitutional law and free speech. His latest effort, ''Republic.com,'' is exceptionally well timed, examining the important political questions surrounding a medium that increasingly shapes the way we think. Exploring the effects of cyberspace on American democracy, Sunstein brings a thoughtful perspective to the unanticipated problems of a world in which an increasing amount of information is transmitted over the Internet. He casts a wide philosophical and historical net, invoking the opinions of jurists like Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes as well as the writings of Amartya Sen and John Dewey. But for all his erudition, Sunstein writes in a clear and inviting style that brings wisdom to even the most obvious of points. The mistake of the Internet evangelists, he maintains, is a confusion of consumer sovereignty, the idea behind free markets, and political sovereignty, the idea behind free nations. Sunstein's thesis is that the emergence of what the writer Nicholas Negroponte calls ''The Daily Me'' -- a customized account of the world made possible through filtering software that uniquely suits one's tastes -- is the natural byproduct of an egocentric medium that enables us to insulate ourselves from ideas to which we are hostile or indifferent. Not only are consumer sovereignty and political sovereignty not the same, but also, Sunstein writes, ''a commitment to consumer sovereignty may well compromise political sovereignty.'' The culture of the Internet presents unusual challenges for a country with a tradition of free expression. The notion, for instance, that public streets and parks are open to speakers and protesters, an essential feature of an enlightened democracy, is grounded in the belief that speakers should have access to an audience and that listeners ought to be exposed to a diversity of views. But this central idea behind what lawyers call the public forum doctrine is lost entirely on the Internet, which, while it gives a platform to anyone with a computer and a telephone, also permits everyone else to tune out the dissenter and live in a sheltered world. Far from being a Luddite, Sunstein sees the obvious benefits of the Internet. ''Many of the emerging technologies,'' he writes, ''are extraordinarily social, increasing people's capacity to form bonds with individuals and groups that would otherwise have been entirely inaccessible.'' But he warns that the Internet can also be a dangerous force when used to reinforce society's worst stereotypes or to fan unfounded rumors. Indeed, it is hardly surprising that a growing number of hate groups have found large audiences on the Web. Sunstein concludes that the Internet's polarizing tendencies can be fixed only through careful initiatives by the government and private companies. He effectively dismisses the notion that the Internet is an unregulated medium, for surely it is no less governed by principles of criminal, property and contracts law than any other technology. He suggests that policy makers and those with Web presences should do what they can to promote exposure to different views. The idea is not without precedent. Cable companies are required by ''must-carry'' rules to reserve a certain number of channels for local and other kinds of programming in order to promote a range of voices. Broadcasters must allot a certain amount of time for educational television. And until the ''fairness doctrine'' was repealed, television and radio broadcasters were obliged to give air time to politicians and others who were criticized on their channels. In the case of the Internet, such ''must-carry'' provisions would be relatively simple to implement: Web sites would be required to provide hyperlink references to opposing views. Sunstein does not go so far as to suggest that the government impose such a requirement, but he says it is not unreasonable for Web sites to regulate themselves voluntarily, in the interest of democratic dialogue. ''No government agency compels adults to read or to watch,'' he concludes. ''Nonetheless, a central democratic goal is to ensure a large measure of social integration -- not merely of racial groups, but across multiple lines, in a way that broadens sympathies and enriches human life.'' ''Republic.com'' raises important and troubling questions about the effects of the Internet on a democratic society. Sunstein's assessment is persuasive, as he attempts to balance the need for a solution to the problems he has identified against the limited role the government ought to play in regulating the Internet. Though Sunstein hardly has all the answers, he performs an important service in casting a skeptical light on a medium more often seen as a utopian technology than as a potentially corrosive force. 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 Sun May 13 19:08:57 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 19:08:57 -0700 Subject: SCN: Search Message-ID: <3AFEDBC9.572.3DC32BF@localhost> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 6483 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steve at groupworks.org Wed May 16 01:16:03 2001 From: steve at groupworks.org (Steve Guest) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 01:16:03 -0700 Subject: SCN: SCN is moving Message-ID: <003501c0dde0$740b8a20$0100a8c0@dellxpsr350> SCN is moving! When the Seattle Public Library, where SCN's system is located, moves to their temporary location this June, so will SCN. This move is currently scheduled for the evening of Friday, June 15th, a week later than originally planned. However, it is possible that unforeseen problems could delay the move further. Watch the login announcements for details. This is only a move of our physical equipment--SCN users will not need to make any adjustments! Our phone numbers will remain the same, our domain name ("scn.org") will remain the same and in general, "The Move" should have no effect on the users of SCN other than some temporary loses of service. Ideally, there would be only one system outage of about four or five hours on the evening of the move, and intermittent network outages of a few minutes over the weekend as the library moves. However, this is a new building that has many ways of impact us. Users should be aware of several "possible" problems. Firstly, as the library moves there will be intermittent interruptions to our Internet access. These could be longer outages if they have problems. If you cannot access SCN from the Internet is it probably because of a networking problem. In addition, MS telnet clients are prone to disconnecting if they do not get a constant stream of packets. If you reconnect immediately, you may get a message from Pine that another process is using your mailbox--that is your previous session. Just wait for it to work out that you got disconnected and let you try again. Secondly, we hope that our new phone lines will be ready for us when we bring the system up. If you call and do not get any answer, we will be working with Qwest to bring it up again. You can always try using the library's number, 386-4140. We are very hopeful that everything will be stable and working by Monday. If not, call our help line, (206) 365-4528 for system status. Other points to note: - E-mail service to the Internet will be closed down all day on the day of the move. - E-mail collected while SCN is down may take a day or so to be delivered. - Call 206-365-4528 for system status. - SPL's terminals in the branches will not be available until Monday. - Watch the login messages ("motd") for important announcements. "The Move" itself should be quite simple and uneventful. Nevertheless, preparing for it is proving quite challenging. Moreover, it is "very" expensive! If you would like to help, please consider making a financial contribution. Your patience and cooperation in this difficult period are also greatly appreciated. If you know of others that would benefit from knowing about the move, please do tell them. Yours truly Steve Guest (Chair of ExComm) and the Operations Team -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- Steve Guest (425) 653 7353 Vice-President of Seattle Community Network http://www.scn.org "Supporting People and Communities with Free Internet Services" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 May 17 07:54:20 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 07:54:20 -0700 Subject: SCN: hmmm Message-ID: <3B0383AC.5906.1B23DBC@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ========================== (David Coursey, ZDNet AnchorDesk)---An email I recently received from my radio colleague David Lawrence brought up a topic near to my heart: why people who filter out Internet advertising by using ad blocking software may be too clever for their - and our - own good. Lawrence, who hosts the "Online Tonight" program on CNET Radio, was mentioning this in the context of a column he recently wrote for a broadcasting trade mag, in which he essentially told his fellow radio people who supported ad blocking that they were cutting their own throats. I think it is even simpler: Blocking ads kills free Internet content. And it also subjects readers to companies willing to sell their integrity and your privacy - for a few bucks. Up front, let me first remind you of the obvious: Both Lawrence and I derive our incomes from advertising revenue collected by our companies. So I am talking from self-interest here. People who use ad blocking software - and there is a lot of it out there - reduce the number of impressions ad-supported Web sites have to sell, thus reducing our revenue. And it's not like this industry is doing exceedingly well and won't notice even a small revenue hit. Rather, we look at the number of page views we get every day and fret, sometimes excessively, when they go down. Yes, advertising can be obnoxious. I find even some of the ads we run to be a tad grating, although I also recently found a really useful piece of software as a free download from one of our banner advertisers. And, yes, when blockers first arrived on the scene I had a lot of fun freaking out the advertising salespeople by showing them pages sans their clients' messages. And if I were a truly evil person, I might use ad blocking against all our competitors' sites (or, worse, suggest that you should). But the truth is that there is a much easier and less dangerous way of dealing with obnoxious ads: Ignore them and they will go away. But they will be less likely to take your favorite free content with them than if you block all ads indiscriminately. If, perhaps, you'd like to actually support what we do, then give the ads a chance and click the ones that interest you. You might even buy something. These companies aren't paying for your online content fix because they like you; they are doing it to drive sales. The alternative to advertising support is less free content and more sites demanding membership fees. Some sites are already offering "ad free" versions to people willing to pay a subscription fee. I see this as a growing trend. As a passing comment: Have you looked at what a daily newspaper costs these days? The New York Times charges me over $10 a week for home delivery - and I still get all the ads. (Of course, I like the ads.) And a metro daily isn't that much cheaper. By comparison, what readers get online for free, thanks to ad support, is quite a deal and worth protecting, I'd say. I mentioned before that a loss of advertising revenue could lead some companies to earn money in "devious" ways. CNET Networks (parent of ZDNet) is a highly ethical media company - minor or even potential transgressions are taken quite seriously - but there are always companies willing to sell editorial coverage in exchange for advertising purchases. Or to sell their mailing lists. Or, well, you get the idea. So if you want to block ads, go ahead; I can't stop you. But if you do, know that the amount and quality of the free content you enjoy will go down accordingly. It's your choice. Copyright 2001 ZD 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 brian at happygardening.com Thu May 17 17:35:28 2001 From: brian at happygardening.com (Brian High) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:35:28 GMT Subject: SCN: hmmm In-Reply-To: <3B0383AC.5906.1B23DBC@localhost> References: <3B0383AC.5906.1B23DBC@localhost> Message-ID: <20010518.352800@mis.configured.host> Before businesses were on the internet trying to get rich, I did not see there ads, either. So was I hurting the 'free content' then? I am trying to remember when I promised to support businesses on the internet by looking at their ads. I made no such promise. If someone wants my money or my personal information or for me to look at some ad, then they have to provide me with something sufficiently motivating. I do not watch commerial television. I do not see ads on commercial television. I am hurting television? I am not watching their ads because their programming does not motivate me to keep the TV on their channel as they show ads. Web sites with ads have not provided sufficient motivation to induce me to turn off ad blocking. On the other hand, there are plenty that businesses have done that I feel hurts the internet. There are violations of privacy, misinformation, spyware, web bugs, SPAM, browser tricks, and on and on. Until I see proof that those tricks will never again be used against me, perhaps I might consider looking at one of their ads. Meanwhile, I won't feel guilty about blocking ads. If they want to charge for their content, fine. Go ahead. --Brian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 5/17/01, 6:54:20 AM, "Steve" wrote regarding SCN: hmmm: > I think it is even simpler: Blocking ads kills free Internet content. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 May 18 00:41:00 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: hmmm In-Reply-To: <3B0383AC.5906.1B23DBC@localhost> Message-ID: The only ads that need blocking (and the only ones that idiotic article talked about) are the ones forced on us. === 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 at scn.org Fri May 18 08:46:50 2001 From: douglas at scn.org (Doug Schuler) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Re: Reminder: 'Secrets of Silicon Valley' -- Seattle screening this Sat. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: FYI... -- Doug ****************************************************************** * New Community Networks: Wired for Change Now online * * http://www.scn.org/ncn * * Give us YOUR insights! Help write the new edition! * ****************************************************************** On Thu, 17 May 2001, Mike Blain wrote: > > SECRETS OF SILICON VALLEY > > A groundbreaking, new documentary film by Snitow-Kaufman Productions > > www.secretsofsiliconvalley.org > > SEATTLE PREMIERE > Saturday > May 19, 7:30pm. > One night only > Seattle Art Museum Auditorium > 100 University Street > Tickets at the door only. > Sliding scale starting at $7 > Q&A with filmmakers and event sponsors to follow. > > All proceeds to benefit the Seattle Independent Media Center and the King > County Labor Agency. > > �Secrets of Silicon Valley� is a shocking expose of the hidden downsides of > the Internet �revolution� and also a funny and moving meditation on America� > s love affair with technology. Told without narration, the film chronicles a > tumultous year in the lives of two young activists grappling with rapid > social change and the meaning of globalization on their own doorsteps. > > Raj Jayadev is a temporary worker who confronts the hype of Silicon Valley > by revealing the reality of an unseen and unacknowledged army of immigrant > workers. Hired by the world's largest temporary agency, Manpower, Inc., to > work in a Hewlett-Packard assembly plant, he is laid off when he organizes > other "temps" to challenge health and safety conditions. But Raj finds > surprising and funny ways to take the controversy to the Internet, the > public and the press. > > Magda Escobar runs Plugged In, a computer training center in a low-income > community just a few miles from the epicenter of high-tech wealth. As > skyrocketing rents and increasing evictions drive out the people she works > to serve, she struggles to find Plugged In a new home. > > �As a former assembly line worker in Silicon Valley, I could write a book > praising this documentary,� says Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a professor of Ethnic > and Women�s Studies > at Cal State University, Hayward. �It explodes the secret of a > non-unionized, mostly non-white, female work force, underpaid and insecure, > the reality beneath the glitz of obscene profits.� > > ------------------------------------ > > To read recent reviews of the film from the New York Times, Salon.com, SF > Chronicle, and more, see: > http://www.washtech.org/news/051001_SSV.php3#reviews > > > THIS SCREENING SPONSORED BY: > King County Labor Council > http://www.kclc.org > > Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild > http://www.nwguild.org > > Seattle Independent Media Center > http://seattle.indymedia.org > > Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (WashTech) > http://www.washtech.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > City Hall without the traffic jams. > www.cityofseattle.net > your 24 hour city hall on the Internet. > > To request to be remove from this list please email list at > digdivide-remove at list.ci.seattle.wa.us > > For more informaition about this list contact: > digdivide-owner at list.ci.seattle.wa.us > > Any other reason please contact: > postmaster at list.ci.seattle.wa.us > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 May 19 00:06:01 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 00:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: laptop needed Message-ID: We have an urgent need for a laptop computer. An older 486 would be just fine. Please contact me if you can help. === 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 at scn.org Tue May 22 09:29:21 2001 From: douglas at scn.org (Doug Schuler) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:29:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: hmmm In-Reply-To: <20010518.352800@mis.configured.host> Message-ID: 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! -- 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, 18 May 2001, Brian High wrote: > Before businesses were on the internet trying to > get rich, I did not see there ads, either. So > was I hurting the 'free content' then? I am trying > to remember when I promised to support businesses > on the internet by looking at their ads. I > made no such promise. If someone wants my money > or my personal information or for me to look > at some ad, then they have to provide me with > something sufficiently motivating. I do not > watch commerial television. I do not see ads > on commercial television. I am hurting television? > I am not watching their ads because their programming > does not motivate me to keep the TV on their channel > as they show ads. Web sites with ads have not provided > sufficient motivation to induce me to turn off ad blocking. > > On the other hand, there are plenty that businesses have > done that I feel hurts the internet. There are violations > of privacy, misinformation, spyware, web bugs, SPAM, > browser tricks, and on and on. > > Until I see proof that those tricks will never again > be used against me, perhaps I might consider looking > at one of their ads. Meanwhile, I won't feel > guilty about blocking ads. If they want to charge > for their content, fine. Go ahead. > > --Brian > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > On 5/17/01, 6:54:20 AM, "Steve" wrote regarding > SCN: hmmm: > > > > > > I think it is even simpler: Blocking ads kills free Internet content. > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 advocate.net Wed May 23 00:25:35 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:25:35 -0700 Subject: SCN: ConnectNet Message-ID: <3B0B037F.20028.5071CDC@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ============================== (Rebecca Weiner, NY Times)---Prodded by high-profile efforts to close the gap between students with access to technology and students without, 98 percent of the country's public schools have been wired for Internet connections. But for many low-income students, that access disappears once schools close their doors for the summer. Now, a group of nonprofit organizations are working to keep those students connected during their summer vacations by building and distributing a directory - in both English and Spanish - of more than 20,000 locations nationwide that offer free Internet access. The ConnectNet database, searchable by zip code, provides information about free Internet access at libraries and other community technology centers. The database listings are linked to mapping software that delivers detailed maps showing the locations of free access points in a given area. ConnectNet, and its Spanish language counterpart Conectado, also operates a toll-free telephone number (866-583-1234) to provide the information to those without Internet access. "This is really the first site of its kind to plot out community technology centers," said Andy Carvin, coordinator of the directory project and a senior associate at the Washington, D.C. based Benton Foundation. The Kaiser Family Foundation is promoting the effort through a serious of television advertisements, directed at teenagers, that will air in English and Spanish throughout the summer. "The summer is a key time to get this message out to kids," said Virginia Witt, senior program officer for the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has produced a series of public service announcements for the Internet campaign. "We're trying to reach those low-income, disadvantaged kids who are disconnected from technology." A handful of nonprofit organizations that had been working separately to build individual databases combined their work to produce ConnectNet. The bulk of free Internet access sites are housed in about 16,000 public libraries throughout the country. The remaining locations are at community technology centers - some of which are sponsored by the Departments of Education, Commerce and Housing and Urban Development. Commerce Department studies examining the digital divide have found that low-income individuals without computers or Internet access in their homes frequently take advantage of free Internet access at their local libraries and community technology centers. Since ConnectNet launched in late March, the Digital Divide Network, which houses the database, has seen a four-fold increase in users visiting its Web site - up to 3,000 visitors a day. Local libraries are bracing for an influx of students over the summer months by offering programs targeted toward kids, such as book clubs and mini courses on how to better use the Internet. "There is a recognition that in the summer, there are more kids around," said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the American Library Association's Washington office. "We do try and bring more people into the library, kids who have nowhere else to go." The only drawback, Sheketoff said, is that libraries, like schools, are facing a shortage of computers and high-speed Internet access to meet the demand. "One of our biggest problems is we don't have enough," she said. "There are not enough terminals or bandwidth." In addition to library-sponsored programs, America Online's AOL at School is creating a virtual summer camp. It will offer activities aimed at kids, such as volunteer opportunities, summer safety tips and family activities, and free teacher training on how to make full use of the Internet. AOL also is offering operators at its call center in Northern Virginia to staff the toll-free ConnectNet number. The AOL Time Warner Foundation has made "a big grassroots push to make sure every place that touches kids knows about this," said foundation Vice President B. Keith Fulton. "Anybody who has technology centers is reaching out. Really for the kids we're trying to reach, we're going through TV and other popular community centers." 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 jj at scn.org Fri May 25 01:34:47 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 01:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: hmmm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 Fri May 25 07:29:22 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 07:29:22 -0700 Subject: SCN: Blogging Message-ID: <3B0E09D2.416.18A612E@localhost> x-no-archive: yes ========================= (J.D. Lasica, Online Journalism Review)---Back around 1993, in the Web's neolithic days, starry-eyed Net denizens waxed poetic about a million Web sites blooming and supplanting the mainstream media as a source of news, information and insight. Then reality set in and those individual voices became lost in the ether as a million businesses lumbered onto the cyberspace stage, newspapers clumsily grasped at viable online business models, and a handful of giant corporations made the Web safe for snoozing. But a funny thing happened on the way to the Web's irrelevance: the blogging phenomenon, a grassroots movement that may sow the seeds for new forms of journalism, public discourse, interactivity and online community. While no one is really sure where this is all heading, my hunch is that blogging represents Ground Zero of the personal Webcasting revolution. Weblogging will drive a powerful new form of amateur journalism as millions of Net users - young people especially - take on the role of columnist, reporter, analyst and publisher while fashioning their own personal broadcasting networks. It won't happen overnight, and we're now seeing only version 1.0, but just wait a few years when broadband and multimedia arrive in a big way. For the uninitiated, a blog consists of a running commentary with pointers to other sites. Some, like Librarian.net, Jim Romenesko's Media News or Steve Outing's E-Media Tidbits, cover entire industries by providing quick bursts of news with links to full stories. But most blogs are simply personal journals - links-laden riffs on a favorite subject. I spoke this month with six journalists or writers who publish Weblogs and asked for their take on the phenomenon and its significance for journalism. Three appear below and three will appear next week. Paul Andrews Andrews, who now lives in San Francisco, was technology columnist for the Seattle Times before taking an early buyout. He co-authored the book "Gates" (Doubleday, 1993) and wrote "How the Web Was Won" (Broadway Books, 1999), about Microsoft's embrace of the Internet. He began his Weblog in November. Weblogs come in all shapes and flavors, and Andrews has sampled plenty of them. "Some are tech-based, some are glorified dating services, some are nothing but a collection of links. The ones I like the most give something personal as well," he says. Not everyone who keeps a journal is a journalist, he points out, and "you can write on the Web about your work and life without being a journalist." But professional journalists too often dismiss those who don't work for traditional media, he says, when the truth is that the most vital and moral dispatches on the Web are being created by amateurs. "It's the role of institutional media to act as gatekeepers," he says, "but what you have in print publishing today is a consolidation that's inimical to the diversity that exists in everyday life. With the rise of the Internet, people don't need to be bounded by those traditional filters anymore." The Net opens up the spigots for those who want to take on the mantle of journalist. "The Web gives voice to a lot of alternative points of view," Andrews says. "Anyone connected with the WTO protests in Seattle and Quebec City knows that the protestors' viewpoints were either ignored or misrepresented by the radio, TV and newspaper coverage. The commentary was almost willfully ignorant. How silly, how arrogant that alternative voices were not allowed to be heard. I always thought the role of the journalist is to ensure that the voice of the people should be exposed. "Now, thankfully, the protesters who want to get their story out can bypass the media by using live audio or a Webcam to offer raw feeds during a live protest or forum. If you're a guy with a video recorder filming an event in a certain neighborhood and streaming it on the Internet and reporting it on your Weblog, you're practicing a straightforward kind of amateur journalism." Andrews thinks Weblogs and other forms of online journalism are on the rise in part because of the rapid decline in the credibility of big media. "I think the Web is actually becoming more credible while established media are losing ground," he says. "And name me the last five serious efforts at public-interest journalism by institutionalized media." Andrews doubts that we'll see many journalists at traditional media companies launch their own personal Weblogs. (New Republic columnist Andrew Sullivan is one exception.) "I think newspapers still look askance at the Web and they don't want their reporters online even on their own time," he says. Part of the reason for the upsurge in blogging at sites like Weblogger.com and Blogger.com is that the tools for self-publishing have become far easier and more automated. "When the first browsers were invented, you still had to know how to script," Andrews says. "Now you've got templates and applications and free server space so that all the nuts and bolts are taken care of for you and all you have to do is concentrate on the writing." Andrews lays out a sort of manifesto for journalism blogging in a disquisition called Who Are Your Gatekeepers? In it he gives a fascinating historical survey of the role played by publishers of first- person journals, noting that Columbus' ship log with his personal ruminations became the hot news publication of its day, and that the first newspaper in America was shut down by colonial authorities for printing unsanctioned gossip about the king of France's sex life and a local suicide. Writes Andrews: "A new style of journalism, based on a 'raw feed' directly from the source, is emerging. Journalists testing the new waters are ... bound to wreak havoc on institutionalized media. ... Where the Weblog changes the nature of 'news' is in the migration of information from the personal to the public. ... Hit the 'post' button and any personal writing becomes published writing. ... As a thousand flowers bloom, the Web's garden of information becomes more diverse, enlightening and transformative than anything the traditional paper-based print world can provide." Since writing that several weeks ago, Andrews has dialed back his rhetorical flourishes a notch. "I'm a little more measured today," he says. "The dot-com implosion and the vision for the Internet has a lot of us going through a reassessment. It's also been sobering to realize what a demanding form of expression Weblogging is. On the whole it'll be a slower uptick than I predicted earlier. But my kids and their kids live on the Internet, and as their world evolves it will be much more of an electronically published world." Does he still think Weblogs will bring about a new form of journalism? "That's the key question," he says. "I don't know. If the tools become more sophisticated, if bots can point you to other bloggers whose ideas match criteria you've set up, then I think we'll evolve to a different kind of journalism. Right now it's still too hard to make those connections. But I'm still hopeful. We're getting there." Deborah Branscum Branscum, based in Berkeley, Calif., is a contributing editor to Newsweek who wrote a feature on blogging for the magazine's March 5 issue, is also a contributor to Fortune.com, Macworld, Wired, PC World and other publications. She began her Weblog in December. "I began doing a Weblog for a patently self-serving reason: to promote my not-yet-world-famous conference for technology and PR executives," Branscum says. "A Weblog gives me a forum where I can bitch bluntly about the many failings of media PR. But it's become just addictive and incredibly fun to do." Branscum ticks off four cool things about Weblogs: ...Creative freedom. Part of a blog's allure is its unmediated quality. "For a working journalist, there's no luxury like the luxury of the unedited essay," she says. "I've been an editor longer than I've been a writer, and I know the value that an editor brings to your copy. Even so, there's an enormous freedom in being able to present yourself precisely as you want to, however sloppily or irrationally or erratically. I don't have an editor to pitch the story to, or a copy editor who decides he's not happy with my syntax... You think it, you write it, you put it out to the world." ...Instantaneity. "Even when you're writing for a weekly magazine, it seems like it takes forever to see your work in print," Branscum says. "With a Weblog, you hit the send key and it's out there. It's the perfect disposable journalism for our age." ...Interactivity. "It's a kick to get feedback from people you've never heard of who stumble on your Weblog," she says. Branscum estimates that 30 readers might surf her blog on a slow day and 900 might read it on a busy day, with pointers from other sites and other bloggers often driving traffic to archived material. ...Lack of marketing constraints. "The people who are interested in your perspective find you, instead of you having to find a publication that reflects their interests," she says. "You don't have to necessarily tailor your work for a certain readership or demographic." Like most bloggers, Branscum updates her Weblog sporadically, averaging twice a week. She blogs mostly about media matters, from the state of entertainment journalism to a rant on rude reporters. Does Branscum think we're slouching toward some new form of journalism? "I'm not quite willing to go there," she says, "but I do think it's an interesting question for PR folks and the people who have to deal with Webloggers. My attitude is, if you haven't established your credibility by writing for any major publications, it's not written down anywhere that people have to answer your questions. So far, the Weblogs I've seen tend to be less about actual reporting and more about analysis and punditry and opinionated commentary." For now, independent journalists will continue to devote their time and energy to publications that pay, Branscum says. "Unless someone figures out a way to pay journalists for our Weblogs, my best efforts will go to Fortune.com and Newsweek. For now, Weblogs are a fabulous exercise in self-indulgence because you're writing for yourself." Glenn Fleishman Fleishman, based in Seattle, is a free-lance reporter for The New York Times, Wired and Fortune and a computer columnist for The Seattle Times. He began writing a Weblog on technology and his personal life in November. "Blogging was this phenomenon that I thought of as not very interesting for a long while," recalls Fleishman, a free-lancer since 1994. "When the Guild at the Seattle Times went on strike last November, I came across Paul Andrews' Weblog and discovered how easy it was to set up the tools. I decided to try it out." Fleishman came to the same conclusion as Branscum: that Weblogs are taken more seriously than a static Web page. "It's this gem, this nut, that people interact with differently," Fleishman says. "A Weblog gives off a patina of credibility and authoritativeness that you don't find in other corners of the Web." The medium seemed well-suited to Fleishman, a self-described "pretty opinionated guy." His Weblog tends to focus on technology issues like low-speed wireless networks or his six-month stint at Amazon.com. His goal is to parlay his blog into a "dead-tree job" as a full-time columnist for a print publication. Fleishman found that he could use his Weblog to report or discuss issues that fell outside the scope of an article he was writing for a print publication. "Issues kept coming up in my reporting that I couldn't include in my report, often because I was expressing an opinion and my story wasn't an analysis or how-to piece," he says. His Weblog gave him a forum to publish relevant reporting that would have remained buried in his notebook. Another advantage of Weblogs is that you're not completely at the mercy of big media. Fleishman cites the example of Dave Winer, a software entrepreneur whom John Markoff interviewed for an article in the New York Times last month. "Dave said the article gave an inaccurate interpretation of what he had to say. He gave his own account on his site to clarify his position." For journalists, Fleishman says, Weblogs offer one overriding appeal: Here's a media form that lets you write at any length about any issue you care deeply about. "As a reporter, it's nice to be able to present an informed conclusion, based on your own experience, without having to go to the requisite two dozen so-called expert analysts who cancel each other out," he says. "You're the only one who's standing behind this opinion." Fleishman doesn't buy into the standard blogger mantra that unmediated writing is superior to copy that has passed through the editorial sausage factory. He finds blogging neither superior nor inferior to traditional journalism - just infinitely fascinating. "One of the most interesting things about blogs is how often they've made me change my mind about issues," he says. "There's something about the medium that lets people share opinions in a less judgmental way than when you interact with people in the real world." That's what seems to resonate with bloggers: not the publication of a first-person journal but the chain of interaction it often ignites. Says Fleishman: "Someone spots an article or commentary you've posted, which triggers a blog entry, which triggers further responses, and before you know it your blog becomes part of an interactive discussion in this obscure backwater of the Web that's being read and cited by thousands of people. It's pretty amazing." Copyright 2001 Online Journalism Review * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 at scn.org Fri May 25 09:41:07 2001 From: douglas at scn.org (Doug Schuler) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: hmmm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 May 25 20:36:11 2001 From: jj at scn.org (J. Johnson) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 20:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: hmmm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 clariun at yahoo.com Tue May 29 12:27:33 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: hmmm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010529192733.1853.qmail@web13207.mail.yahoo.com> Financed by taking a loss. Companies finance things that are a loss in themselves, but are a value-added item to the whole of the company. They are providing something for free to the public, they are taking a loss on it since it does not bring in any money, but on the whole it adds value to the company. Apple provides a lot of free stuff with it's iTools feature. You can get free online disk space, free email address, free web site space (with no ads). This is something that brings no direct money to Apple, but brings them money indirectly. If people want iTools, the will get a newer Mac or OS 9 which they will need to run iTools. Patrick --- "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/ * * * * * * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.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 Tue May 29 20:02:45 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: Blogging In-Reply-To: <3B0E09D2.416.18A612E@localhost> Message-ID: <20010530030245.53285.qmail@web13207.mail.yahoo.com> Steve, Thanks for posting the article. Blogging could really be a part of scn, as much as I envision the scn online magazine of being. There are many, many great sites out there that blog. Even the humor sites that poke fun at the president can be fun with a bit of truth. It's a perspective that is fresh and you won't find it elsewhere. (In this humor case you may be able to find that type of humor in Mad Magazine.) Patrick P.S. It's sad, though, when anyone quotes Paul Andrews. I think Mr. Andrews has about as much insight and intelligence as a glass doorknob. Not sure how he got that Seattle Times' job. I cringed whenever I read his misinformation-laden articles on technology. Heck, anyone can pull information out of their tail-end. --- Steve wrote: > x-no-archive: yes > > ========================= > > > (J.D. Lasica, Online Journalism Review)---Back around 1993, in the > Web's neolithic days, starry-eyed Net denizens waxed poetic about > a million Web sites blooming and supplanting the mainstream > media as a source of news, information and insight. Then reality set > in and those individual voices became lost in the ether as a million > businesses lumbered onto the cyberspace stage, newspapers > clumsily grasped at viable online business models, and a handful of > giant corporations made the Web safe for snoozing. > > But a funny thing happened on the way to the Web's irrelevance: the > blogging phenomenon, a grassroots movement that may sow the > seeds for new forms of journalism, public discourse, interactivity > and online community. > > While no one is really sure where this is all heading, my hunch is > that blogging represents Ground Zero of the personal Webcasting > revolution. Weblogging will drive a powerful new form of amateur > journalism as millions of Net users - young people especially - > take on the role of columnist, reporter, analyst and publisher while > fashioning their own personal broadcasting networks. It won't > happen overnight, and we're now seeing only version 1.0, but just > wait a few years when broadband and multimedia arrive in a big > way. > > For the uninitiated, a blog consists of a running commentary with > pointers to other sites. Some, like Librarian.net, Jim Romenesko's > Media News or Steve Outing's E-Media Tidbits, cover entire > industries by providing quick bursts of news with links to full > stories. But most blogs are simply personal journals - links-laden > riffs on a favorite subject. > > I spoke this month with six journalists or writers who publish > Weblogs and asked for their take on the phenomenon and its > significance for journalism. Three appear below and three will > appear next week. > > Paul Andrews > > Andrews, who now lives in San Francisco, was technology columnist > for the Seattle Times before taking an early buyout. He co-authored > the book "Gates" (Doubleday, 1993) and wrote "How the Web Was > Won" (Broadway Books, 1999), about Microsoft's embrace of the > Internet. He began his Weblog in November. > > Weblogs come in all shapes and flavors, and Andrews has sampled > plenty of them. "Some are tech-based, some are glorified dating > services, some are nothing but a collection of links. The ones I like > the most give something personal as well," he says. > > Not everyone who keeps a journal is a journalist, he points out, and > "you can write on the Web about your work and life without being a > journalist." But professional journalists too often dismiss those who > don't work for traditional media, he says, when the truth is that the > most vital and moral dispatches on the Web are being created by > amateurs. > > "It's the role of institutional media to act as gatekeepers," he says, > "but what you have in print publishing today is a consolidation that's > inimical to the diversity that exists in everyday life. With the rise of > the Internet, people don't need to be bounded by those traditional > filters anymore." > > The Net opens up the spigots for those who want to take on the > mantle of journalist. "The Web gives voice to a lot of alternative > points of view," Andrews says. "Anyone connected with the WTO > protests in Seattle and Quebec City knows that the protestors' > viewpoints were either ignored or misrepresented by the radio, TV > and newspaper coverage. The commentary was almost willfully > ignorant. How silly, how arrogant that alternative voices were not > allowed to be heard. I always thought the role of the journalist is to > ensure that the voice of the people should be exposed. > > "Now, thankfully, the protesters who want to get their story out can > bypass the media by using live audio or a Webcam to offer raw > feeds during a live protest or forum. If you're a guy with a video > recorder filming an event in a certain neighborhood and streaming it > on the Internet and reporting it on your Weblog, you're practicing a > straightforward kind of amateur journalism." > > Andrews thinks Weblogs and other forms of online journalism are on > the rise in part because of the rapid decline in the credibility of big > media. "I think the Web is actually becoming more credible while > established media are losing ground," he says. "And name me the > last five serious efforts at public-interest journalism by > institutionalized media." > > Andrews doubts that we'll see many journalists at traditional media > companies launch their own personal Weblogs. (New Republic > columnist Andrew Sullivan is one exception.) "I think newspapers > still look askance at the Web and they don't want their reporters > online even on their own time," he says. > > Part of the reason for the upsurge in blogging at sites like > Weblogger.com and Blogger.com is that the tools for self-publishing > have become far easier and more automated. "When the first > browsers were invented, you still had to know how to script," > Andrews says. "Now you've got templates and applications and free > server space so that all the nuts and bolts are taken care of for you > and all you have to do is concentrate on the writing." > > Andrews lays out a sort of manifesto for journalism blogging in a > disquisition called Who Are Your Gatekeepers? In it he gives a > fascinating historical survey of the role played by publishers of first- > person journals, noting that Columbus' ship log with his personal > ruminations became the hot news publication of its day, and that the > first newspaper in America was shut down by colonial authorities for > printing unsanctioned gossip about the king of France's sex life and > a local suicide. > > Writes Andrews: "A new style of journalism, based on a 'raw feed' > directly from the source, is emerging. Journalists testing the new > waters are ... bound to wreak havoc on institutionalized media. ... > Where the Weblog changes the nature of 'news' is in the migration > of information from the personal to the public. ... Hit the 'post' button > and any personal writing becomes published writing. ... As a > thousand flowers bloom, the Web's garden of information becomes > more diverse, enlightening and transformative than anything the > traditional paper-based print world can provide." > > Since writing that several weeks ago, Andrews has dialed back his > rhetorical flourishes a notch. "I'm a little more measured today," he > says. "The dot-com implosion and the vision for the Internet has a > lot of us going through a reassessment. It's also been sobering to > realize what a demanding form of expression Weblogging is. On the > whole it'll be a slower uptick than I predicted earlier. But my kids > and their kids live on the Internet, and as their world evolves it will > be much more of an electronically published world." > > Does he still think Weblogs will bring about a new form of > journalism? > > "That's the key question," he says. "I don't know. If the tools > become more sophisticated, if bots can point you to other bloggers > whose ideas match criteria you've set up, then I think we'll evolve to > a different kind of journalism. Right now it's still too hard to make > those connections. But I'm still hopeful. We're getting there." > > Deborah Branscum > > Branscum, based in Berkeley, Calif., is a contributing editor to > Newsweek who wrote a feature on blogging for the magazine's > March 5 issue, is also a contributor to Fortune.com, Macworld, > Wired, PC World and other publications. She began her Weblog in > December. > > "I began doing a Weblog for a patently self-serving reason: to > promote my not-yet-world-famous conference for technology and PR > executives," Branscum says. "A Weblog gives me a forum where I > can bitch bluntly about the many failings of media PR. But it's > become just addictive and incredibly fun to do." > > Branscum ticks off four cool things about Weblogs: > > ...Creative freedom. Part of a blog's allure is its unmediated quality. > "For a working journalist, there's no luxury like the luxury of the > unedited essay," she says. "I've been an editor longer than I've > been a writer, and I know the value that an editor brings to your > copy. Even so, there's an enormous freedom in being able to > present yourself precisely as you want to, however sloppily or > irrationally or erratically. I don't have an editor to pitch the story to, > or a copy editor who decides he's not happy with my syntax... You > think it, you write it, you put it out to the world." > > ...Instantaneity. "Even when you're writing for a weekly magazine, it > seems like it takes forever to see your work in print," Branscum > says. "With a Weblog, you hit the send key and it's out there. It's > the perfect disposable journalism for our age." > > ...Interactivity. "It's a kick to get feedback from people you've never > heard of who stumble on your Weblog," she says. Branscum > estimates that 30 readers might surf her blog on a slow day and 900 > might read it on a busy day, with pointers from other sites and other > bloggers often driving traffic to archived material. > > ...Lack of marketing constraints. "The people who are interested in > your perspective find you, instead of you having to find a publication > that reflects their interests," she says. "You don't have to > necessarily tailor your work for a certain readership or > demographic." > > Like most bloggers, Branscum updates her Weblog sporadically, > averaging twice a week. She blogs mostly about media matters, > from the state of entertainment journalism to a rant on rude > reporters. > > Does Branscum think we're slouching toward some new form of > journalism? "I'm not quite willing to go there," she says, "but I do > think it's an interesting question for PR folks and the people who > have to deal with Webloggers. My attitude is, if you haven't > established your credibility by writing for any major publications, > it's not written down anywhere that people have to answer your > questions. So far, the Weblogs I've seen tend to be less about > actual reporting and more about analysis and punditry and > opinionated commentary." > > For now, independent journalists will continue to devote their time > and energy to publications that pay, Branscum says. "Unless > someone figures out a way to pay journalists for our Weblogs, my > best efforts will go to Fortune.com and Newsweek. For now, > Weblogs are a fabulous exercise in self-indulgence because you're > writing for yourself." > > Glenn Fleishman > > Fleishman, based in Seattle, is a free-lance reporter for The New > York Times, Wired and Fortune and a computer columnist for The > Seattle Times. He began writing a Weblog on technology and his > personal life in November. > > "Blogging was this phenomenon that I thought of as not very > interesting for a long while," recalls Fleishman, a free-lancer since > 1994. "When the Guild at the Seattle Times went on strike last > November, I came across Paul Andrews' Weblog and discovered > how easy it was to set up the tools. I decided to try it out." > > Fleishman came to the same conclusion as Branscum: that > Weblogs are taken more seriously than a static Web page. "It's this > gem, this nut, that people interact with differently," Fleishman says. > "A Weblog gives off a patina of credibility and authoritativeness that > you don't find in other corners of the Web." > > The medium seemed well-suited to Fleishman, a self-described > "pretty opinionated guy." His Weblog tends to focus on technology > issues like low-speed wireless networks or his six-month stint at > Amazon.com. His goal is to parlay his blog into a "dead-tree job" as > a full-time columnist for a print publication. > > Fleishman found that he could use his Weblog to report or discuss > issues that fell outside the scope of an article he was writing for a > print publication. "Issues kept coming up in my reporting that I > couldn't include in my report, often because I was expressing an > opinion and my story wasn't an analysis or how-to piece," he says. > His Weblog gave him a forum to publish relevant reporting that > would have remained buried in his notebook. > > Another advantage of Weblogs is that you're not completely at the > mercy of big media. Fleishman cites the example of Dave Winer, a > software entrepreneur whom John Markoff interviewed for an article > in the New York Times last month. "Dave said the article gave an > inaccurate interpretation of what he had to say. He gave his own > account on his site to clarify his position." > > For journalists, Fleishman says, Weblogs offer one overriding > appeal: Here's a media form that lets you write at any length about > any issue you care deeply about. "As a reporter, it's nice to be able > to present an informed conclusion, based on your own experience, > without having to go to the requisite two dozen so-called expert > analysts who cancel each other out," he says. "You're the only one > who's standing behind this opinion." > > Fleishman doesn't buy into the standard blogger mantra that > unmediated writing is superior to copy that has passed through the > editorial sausage factory. He finds blogging neither superior nor > inferior to traditional journalism - just infinitely fascinating. "One of > the most interesting things about blogs is how often they've made > me change my mind about issues," he says. "There's something > about the medium that lets people share opinions in a less > judgmental way than when you interact with people in the real > world." > > That's what seems to resonate with bloggers: not the publication of > a first-person journal but the chain of interaction it often ignites. > Says Fleishman: "Someone spots an article or commentary you've > posted, which triggers a blog entry, which triggers further > responses, and before you know it your blog becomes part of an > interactive discussion in this obscure backwater of the Web that's > being read and cited by thousands of people. It's pretty amazing." > > Copyright 2001 Online Journalism Review > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 steve at advocate.net Thu May 31 06:40:33 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 06:40:33 -0700 Subject: SCN: China Message-ID: <3B15E761.20902.1549541@localhost> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 6896 bytes Desc: not available URL: From clariun at yahoo.com Thu May 31 17:11:17 2001 From: clariun at yahoo.com (patrick) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN: China In-Reply-To: <3B15E761.20902.1549541@localhost> Message-ID: <20010601001117.28949.qmail@web13207.mail.yahoo.com> Of course, most people do not know about Chinese society. Chinese government is run by individuals who have good connections. Laws do not mean much in Asia, it is for the lowly class, above Confucian principles. And so the law is applied as one wishes, as it is not the law that is consistent, just the inconsistent abuse of that power. Dissidents are often people who are as well-connected. They have motives. They may want democracy, but democracy as they see it. Chinese society is not really democratic by any means. The dissidents often use their power in society and they usually want power for themselves, not to change the government. I read articles about China very skeptically. The articles often use the same terms, the same ideas, the same labels to Chinese society, and those views are old and stale, as are the terms they use to label Chinese. I have great admiration for Chinese society. However, it is different from our American society (which I am less fond of, day by day) and we can't compare it with our society. If I had the chance, I'd be living over there right this minute, in Shanghai, preferably. The real trick to the articles is to read between the lines. However, for most people, their only exposure to China is through these articles. There is a good article that was profiled on Salon.com yesterday, about China, the internet, and it's new culture (which has a generational change about every two to three years, according to someone interviewed for the article.) Patrick --- Steve wrote: > x-no-archive: yes > > > ========================== > > > > (Katharine Mieszkowski, Salon)---For more than two-and-half months, Yang > Zili, 30, a Chinese writer and software developer, has been under arrest in > the custody of the Beijing State Security Bureau. Among his apparent > crimes: being a Web handyman for pro-democracy Chinese intellectuals. > > > "There are a lot of senior veteran dissidents who don't even know how to > use e-mail," explains Richard Long, editor of VIP Reference, a U.S.-based > Chinese dissident online publication. "They've been restricted by their > technology handicap, and all of a sudden you have this guy coming in and > helping them to get online and get their articles published. That's > something that the government doesn't like." > > > Yang was arrested in mid-March, along with three fellow founding members > of the New Youth Society, a group that meets weekly to discuss political > and social reform. Another member of the group was detained but never > formerly arrested, and has since been released and put under "supervised > residence." The four arrested members of the group, including Yang, have > been charged with "subverting state power." There's no word on when their > trials or sentencing will take place. > > > "These five young men are the pride of the 1970s generation of China," said > one friend of Yang's, who asked not to be identified. Aside from Yang, they > are Xu Wei, a reporter who organized the Book Reader's Society at Beijing > Normal University when he was a philosophy graduate student; Zhang > Honghai, a freelance writer who, when he was an undergraduate at Beijing > Broadcast College, organized the Book Reader's Society there; Jin Haike, a > geologist who organized the Youth Forum as an undergraduate at China > Geology University; and Zhang Yanhua, another geologist who studied at > China Geology University and who was just detained and then released. > > > On March 13, Yang was on his way back to Beijing from his grandmother's > funeral in Hadan when he simply disappeared. It wasn't until mid-April that > his wife, Lu Kan, received official notice of the arrest and the charge. > According to a letter posted on the Free Yang Zili Web site by Lu, she was > also arrested. The couple's home was ransacked, and Yang's computer > was seized along with other household items, including the couple's love > letters from before they were married. Lu was released after three days. > According to people close to Yang, his friends have also been interrogated. > > > While he was a master's student at Beijing University, Yang co-founded the > Current Affairs Society, a student discussion group on social issues in > China. The school forced the group to dissolve, and Yang has been under > surveillance ever since. > > > Yang's more recent association, the New Youth Society, which held > meetings and published articles online, apparently drew many university > students to its discussions. The four arrested members of the group also > served as volunteer teachers in illegal underground schools in Beijing that > educate children whose families are not official residents, although they > may work or live in the city. Without a "hukou" -- or official family > registration card -- the children are not allowed to go to local state > schools, > and the alternative schools that they attend are outlawed. > > > But it's Yang's activities online that made him really stand out. Until his > arrest, Yang published a Web site called "Yang Zili's Garden of Ideas," > which still exists on a mirror site. He published his pro-democracy writings > on the site, like this March poem titled "The Ghost of Communism." He was > also critical of the government crackdown on the Falun Gong. But the > software developer is hardly the most outspoken or visible critic of the > Chinese government among liberal thinkers and intellectuals in Beijing. > > > "If you are famous, you have bigger protection," explains Long. "Yang Zili > is someone who is a small potato." Still, beyond anything he wrote and > disseminated online, Yang posed another kind of threat: He had Web and > computer skills. In Beijing pro-democracy circles, he was known to be the > go-to guy for computer problems and online publishing. > > > "The fact that he could help others get around the official censors was > particularly threatening to the state," said Minky Worden, electronic media > director at Human Rights Watch. "There is some indication that he is part of > a more general crackdown on those who are liberals in academia and the > press, and in particular people who had anything to do with the Internet." > > > According to the Digital Freedom Network, Yang and his colleagues are > among some 10 other Chinese political prisoners who have been detained > because of their actions on the Net. For example, two years ago, Lin Hai, a > Shanghai computer company owner, received a two-year sentence for > selling 30,000 e-mail addresses to VIP Reference. The dissemination of the > addresses was ruled an "incitement to subvert the state." > > > "It's about information. It's about losing control on the monopoly on > information. The Chinese government is scared," says Long. The Chinese > government may be scared, but it also seems to be quite comfortable using > the Net to crack down on the behaviors that it deems subversive. > > > Worden explains: "The Chinese government wants the Web for commercial > purposes but does not want the Web to be used for any political or > organizational activity. There's a lot that is frequently said about the > ability > of the Internet to jump borders and empower activists, and that may be true > in the long term. But the Chinese government is using the new technology > to make it an instrument of control, and those who are pushing the envelope > with technology are the ones who are most likely to be targeted by the state > for punishment." > > > But Yang and his cohorts are not being forgotten in mainland China and > beyond. Liu Xiaobo, a literary critic and prominent dissident who has been > arrested twice and served a three-year sentence, is among the well-known > critics of the Chinese government within China who has taken up their > cause, writing articles about them and publishing them on Web sites like > VIP Reference. And on May 17 a group of overseas Chinese dissidents > awarded Yang a Young Freedom Fighters award of about $1,000, which was > sent to his wife. Long explains: "They are trying to find a way to help them > spiritually and materially." > > > > 0100,0100,0100Copyright 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 - 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 steve at advocate.net Thu May 31 23:33:45 2001 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:33:45 -0700 Subject: SCN: Filters Message-ID: <3B16D4D9.10962.4F45730@localhost> 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/ * * * * * * *