Cognitive Dissident: Interview with John Perry Barlow

Bob Hellbringer writes "Mother Jones Magazine has an online interview with John Perry Barlow of the EFF, on the things that all slashdotters love: 'the Total Information Awareness project, online activism, file sharing, and the prospect of a digital counterculture.'"

Comments

More reason for the RIAA to be angry

[trmj]

the prospect of a digital counterculture.

Last time I checked, all coutercultures were mandated by the RIAA. Perhaps this is the real reason they are so uppity about computers?

Re:speak for yourself

[kscd]

"the prevailing topics of discussion on Slashdot still center around that same list of drivel: the RIAA, Microsoft, and stories about "chilling effects" that are just barely more than "we hate the government but we don't know why" flamefests.""

Probably gonna get flamed for this, but:
The chilling effects people on /. are talking about are not drivel. They are rights that are in the process of being taken away. Sure right now it centers on the **AA's, but they are setting dangerous precedents. And on the whole hate the government thing, I don't think anyone is saying they hate the government. More like, they love the democratic government we have/had in the US, and don't want to see it stripped away for some short term gains.

Re:speak for yourself

[lacheur]

When the issues of the day are domestic and international terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, the prospect of war in Iraq and elsewhere

I think this is one of the points he's trying to make. The "war on terror" is being used to distract people from the constitution-trampling our fearless leader is currently engaging in. When I see that 3/4 of the "issues of the day" revolve around the OssamaTerrorSaddamIraqWar, it just shows me that it's working. Personally, I'm far more worried about Bush taking away my freedom than Saddam Hussein throwing some empty chemical warheads at me.

Re:And what about..

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Does the government want to track and record all communications sent by me?

Short answer: yes, with a but.

The government does want to track and record all communications sent by you. This is called, in military parlance, SIGINT, for "signals intelligence," and it's a doctrine that's as old as the hills. Basically SIGINT means to keep your ear to the ground and listen for signs that the bad guys are doing something that you'll wish you could have prevented. But nobody really cares about you, personally, so as long as you're not planning to hide weapons of mass destruction in your garage or anything, you're fine.

Speaking of getting political

[mabu]

I can think of no organization that is more active in protecting the base rights that most people in the tech community relish than the EFF, of which Barlow is a founder. Every member of Slashdot should also be a member of this organization. Among other things, the EFF is defending Fair Use Doctrine especially as it applies to digital content (an area where there seems to be lots of double standards), Internet Censorship, Government/Corporate surveillance and a lot more.

Re:Speaking of getting political

[Zoop]

And such an effective political institution it is.

Oh, wait:

<sarcasm>And such an effective political institution it is.</sarcasm>

When, oh when, is the EFF going to get a DC office? A friend of mine called about volunteering. Neither of us had great sums of money, but we had time. Their response?

"Oh, we only accept local volunteer help."

"That's OK, we're in DC."

"Um, we only have an office in SF."

"???"

Helloooooo--the political capital of the U.S. is in Washington, DC, not Berkeley, CA. You don't even have to rent space in the District to be effective. The NRA has a massive complex in Fairfax, VA. So why, oh why, is the EFF only in SF? Do they think that Ashcroft is going to come to them to ask them what they think? Are they going to get videoconferences with congresscritters? Do they think the'll have any political influence without playing the political game? Not with all the more money they bring to the table.

I like the ideals of the EFF, I just find it to be a fairly lackluster effort. I'd give time and what little money I can spare to an effective organization, but at the moment, my charitable money is better given to the Institute for Justice (politically unpopular with Slashdotters, I know) and the ACLU.

It's not as if there are no successful models to follow, people.

Another perspective of the TIA

[updog]

Another interesting persepective of TIA can be found here. It basically says that for every 250 people correctly identified as terrorists, there will be 250,000 people incorrectly labeled as terrorists. And, if 0.1% of these people are sufficiently traumatized, they could potentially become terrorists, and you now have 250 new terrorists, just as many as you found in the first place!

Not to mention the violation of privacy and civil liberties of those 250,000 innocent individuals...

Popularized the term "Cyberspace"?

[Captain Beefheart]

I don't mean to niggle, but I was under the impression that it was William Gibson who popularized this phrase. Do I just need to cut down on my crack habit or something?

Only in our time

[squared99]

could the songwriter for the Grateful Dead become the voice of reason. And a good one at that. Meanwhile "elected" officals are trigger happy, right wing, christian capitalists zeolots.

JPB:
There are a million virtual streetcorners with a million lonely pamphleteers on them, all of them decrying the war and not actually coming together in any organized fashion to oppose it. It strikes me that existing political institutions -- whether it's the administration or Congress or large corporations -- only respond to other institutions.

I hear a lot of complaints about slashdot being too political lately, not enough cool techy stuff. I disagree, if we have the resource of a forum like this one, we need to keep it going. We need to share this infomration, it affects a lot of us and it affects a lot of things to come. The information shared on this site has led to a lot of individual's political awakening, and those that awaken are starting to realize that they can make a difference, either by writing to an elected official, or making a donation to an organization like the EFF.

Keep it up slashdot. Cool toys and gadgets are great, but I like freedom more.

Re:Only in our time

[cpt kangarooski]

Really? The Communists did for over a hundred years. Are you a kid?

And besides which, there have been plenty of fervent capitalists who were opposed to personal freedoms -- the ones that they couldn't make money off of, and other people's that interfered with their own profits. See for example the attacks on unions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Capitalism is not any good at protecting liberty, and that's not what it's for. It's a decently good economic system, but that doesn't make it the best possible or anything. Swearing allegience to capitalism is like swearing allegience to your car. It's just a tool, not an end all by itself.

Re:And what about..

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a troll or what?

Sure, intelligence about the enemy in any situation gives you power over them. In this case, you (any random citizen) are in the position of enemy.

"But nobody really cares about you, personally, so as long as you're not planning to hide weapons of mass destruction in your garage or anything, you're fine."

Sure, we all know that nobody like J. Edgar Hoover ever really existed, right? And people in power deserve all the power we can give them, because, after all, they're only in power to help us. Right? [/sarcasm]

The problem with your perspective is that, even if people are doing nothing wrong, they are not "fine." Not if someone with access to the information has a reason -- political, financial, or personal -- to use that information against the surveilled.

Good interview

[Diabolical]

Really. Quite entertaining. Wish /.'s interviews were like this.

Anyhow. His view on the current laws on cyberterrorism is exactly my view (i'm contributing to BoF (Bits of Freedom) a dutch "EFF" if you want).

It frightens me that the US government is taking these steps and stands. The country which used to be known for his freedom is slowly turning into a country like Irak itself. Controlling it's own people. It would not surprise me if even the American press is being controlled. I used to dream of leavin my own country and live in the USA. That dream has been destroyed over the last couple of years when it became clear that what constitutes freedom in my mind did not have the same meaning in the USA.

I'm so disappointed in my countrymen.

This is a pretty harsh remark but i guess it's right on the mark for most of the people i know who live in the US. They all share the feeling that their countrymen look deliberately the other way because they are afraid that if they speak up they would be branded anti-patriotic. The worst part of it is that they too look the other way. They refuse too admit it but whenever i want to discuss the TIA they just response with the phrase "It's for the protection of us all" and that's it.

I hope that the EFF can create enough momentum to turn the tide. Otherwise we are facing a grim future.

What are your expectations?

[donscarletti]

I for one are much more sick and tired by posters doing slashdot bashing on slashdot itself! To me, Slashdot is a site for the discussion of all things electronic, online and virtual (if you will excuse the buzzwords, they are sickening I know)

For now, the threat on peoples lives comes from both terrorists and the reckless United States Governement with their wars against defensless countries like Iraq, like you said. But these days the theme of slashdot is quite detached from real world suffering and distruction. Slashdot is news for nerds, a suppliment to the regular news to bring us things of particualar importance for net-dwellers. And for this special esoteric news the villins are not terrorists, not uncle sam, not faulty heat sheilds but those who want to change our environment (the net and our own computers) forever. People like Microsoft, the RIAA and legislators that want to turn information into something that is tightly monitored and unacessable even on ones own computers are what the slashdot community (the bulk of them) are most threatened by.

People come to slashdot. They insult it on the forums they created. They insult the bulk of the community by calling them repetitive. They use words like karma-burn to discribe their posts to make moderators feel guilty to give them the -1s they deserve and they dare to try and change it to fit them!

Slashdot is getting political in a way people give a damn about. It gets political in a way as its readers and community gives a damn about with the exception of those who consider it some matter of their vain pride that they attend it to mock their opinions in a medium created for them. If you want to see war, turn on the TV, there is death, poverty, flaming astronaughts, germ bombs, guncrazy preasidents threatening to use nukes. Then you can discuss them, with friends and family over dinner. You could join a political party, join some demonstration, write a letter to the newspaper or member of parlement, write an alegorical novel, take up sculpture and express yourself that way, become a vidgilante and linch someone, join a terrorist organisation, or you could even go as far as posting your conserns at a different website... there are plenty out there that would love to hear you opinions about "real" political issues. Even post to slashdot when they post their numorous stories about your beloved reality (the space shuttle was mentioned twice). Get political about something that people give a damn about, but don't stop us from getting political about things that people don't.

Speaking of A Brave New World. . .

[D iz a n k Meister]

If the government would just legalize weed, I'd put up with a lot more TIA type stuff.

Re:And what about..

[Anonymous Coward]

"First, even to get access to the data in the abstract sense, you have to be a trusted individual. Then, in order to get access to any particular piece of data, you have to convince a bunch of highly trusted individuals that you have a compelling need for that access."

You have to be a trusted individual. Trusted by whom?

"Initiatives like TIA are more about analysis and synthesis, and getting the right data to the right agencies in a timely manner, than about new information gathering methods."

I agree, they are more about analysis and synthesis. These initiatives strive to identify patterns that may indicate dangerous activity. The only problem is: before a crime has been committed, no crime has been committed. It's a problem that is firmly rooted in the nature of the universe.

These initiatives attempt to bypass the problem. They will try to do so by creating a large, steady stream of suspects, many of whom will spend long periods of time in detention for no real reason. If you doubt that this will happen, I suggest you look around. It is already happening, primarily to people of Middle Eastern descent.

"See, we had the data, but we didn't have systems in place for getting that data into the right hands at the right time and in the right context."

You say, "We had the data." Who exactly had the data? Some people in government may have had suspicions or scattered facts, but there is a large leap between these and the knowledge of a plot. A system like TIA would not have connected those facts.

TIA was not proposed to assemble pre-determined government agency suspicions into a final, central bundle of crime knowledge. If it were, and if such a thing were possible (which I doubt without the aid of artificial intelligence), then it might have helped. But this is not the case. TIA was proposed to gather together all available commercial data on all people in order to perform blanket filtering and pattern-matching queries.

Re:speak for yourself

[davesag]

The simple fact that you can climb on your computer and post a message about "Constitution-trampling" is a sign that the Constitution is alive and well.

or the poster is in another country. sure you seppos have 'freedom', but you can't buy fresh milk in the shops can ya now? that's the freedom you want to impose on the rest of the world? the freedom to work for minimum wage for some mega-corp? the freedom to join the army or die in a ghetto? heck a huge proportion of amerikans don't even have the right to vote! freedom? don't make me laugh. contrast to europe. there you are free. free to say what you like, free to smoke pot in public, free to move from one country to another without restriction (you yanks can't even go visit cuba without repercussions -still think you are free?).

the great shame of america is that you just can't see the bars of your iron cage. travel the world a bit and you'll see what real freedom is about. what you have is non-fattening-dairy-free artificial freedom substitute.

Bless the phamphleteers

[seven89]

JPB said:

There are a million virtual streetcorners with a million lonely pamphleteers on them, all of them decrying the war and not actually coming together in any organized fashion to oppose it.

On a purly practical level, this remark is off base. There was a long build-up to American-Iraqi War I, but there were no serious mass protests (that I can recall) until the bombing began. Then the bombing campaign and the subsequent mop-up ground action was over before the opposition could make much of a difference. Things are very different these days -- the opposition continues to build and the fighting has not even started. I suspect the war will proceed as planned, but at every escalation point the anti-war structures now in place will facilitate a great escalation of opposition from the general public.

Meanwhile, sites such as www.antiwar.com provide hundreds of thousands of people with information about what the Bush administration is doing, what's happening in Europe and in the Arab world. That kind of easy access to relevant news and excellent commentary simply didn't exist during any other war or buildup to war. True, today the guy who checks out antiwar.com every morning might not be doing anything else. But next month maybe he will be marching in streets in protest, and he will have absorbed a great deal of background information that will make a difference in subsequent "yeah, I was there" conversations.

That kind of talk directly adresses a fundamental weakness of the Bush people -- the mass consent, such as it is, they have engineered is based primarily on the shallow propaganda technique of constant repetition. Saying "Saddam has got to disarm!" and "weapons of mass destruction!" over and over again creates in the minds of many people the notion that Iraq is just as dangerous as, say, North Korea. BUT, quite often, really, conversation with more knowledgable fellow citizens can disabuse people from such impressions.

As to the "phamphleteers," if there really are a million of them, that's wonderful! Getting intellectualy involved with issues, formulating one's thoughts, putting them in words, putting them up, almost literally, before the whole world -- those things are often precursors to more active forms of involvement. And I bet some of them have some worthy ideas, too.

Re:speak for yourself

[cpt kangarooski]

Yup. Sure does. Seeing as how actually copying the CD's is illegal anyway, this is not a problem.

Copying CDs is not necessarily illegal. It depends on the circumstances. Your blanket statement is wrong.

Oh, you say, but this is infringing on my fair use rights! Guess what? You have no fair use rights. None. If you make certain uses of a work, those uses are defined by the law as being non-infringing. But that's an exception, not a right. If the copyright holder wants to use technological means to prevent you from exercising that exception, they're free to do so. And the law says you have to respect their wishes on that matter.

This is arguably a violation of the Copyright Clause, however since the DRM will effect public domain works. At the very least it is inappropriate for government to grant copyrights to such works, if not simply unconstitutional.

(and of course, the exercise of fair use, and use of public domain works is protected by the First Amendment -- again making government-endorsed as it were interference impermissible)

They don't give a damn about analog copies

Well, first, they used to. Second, it's likely, considering the analog hole and the possibility of a shift towards analog again, that they will eventually attack it again.

The culture of entitlement isn't satisfied with this arrangement, though. The culture of entitlement says that it's every American's God-given right to play CD's on his computer, and that it's every American's God-given right to make MP3's. The culture of entitlement can get stuffed.

Given that copyright is intended to promote public aims and goals, if there is a culture of entitlement, then it has a lot going for it, and its wishes should be seriously taken into consideration in crafting copyright law, if not followed wholeheartedly. Copyright is supposed to work for people, not artists. Thus 'get stuffed' is wrong. A better answer would be 'we'll change things so that you are entitled as much as you want and practically can be.'

Re:speak for yourself

[YrWrstNtmr]

but you can't buy fresh milk in the shops can ya now?
Fresh milk? You mean like the radiation enhanced crap that can sit on a room temperature shelf for weeks on end? Or the non pasteurized stuff straight from the cow? I've had it. Doesn't sound too fresh to me.

the freedom to work for minimum wage for some mega-corp?
No one I know has a minumum wage job. Or are you speaking of the 'freedom' to be unemployed? Check the unemployment figures.

the freedom to join the army
I'd rather have the freedom to choose whether I join the military (and I did), rather than be forced to, as is the case in a lot of countries.

a huge proportion of amerikans don't even have the right to vote!
And you know why? They voluntarily gave up their right to vote. Being convicted of a felony can strip you of your right to vote. Want to vote? Don't commit a felony. Simple as that.
Until a few short years ago (1971), 1/2 the population of Switzerland could not vote.

free to say what you like
Really...how is Europe so different from the US in this regard? Specifics please.

free to smoke pot in public
Just as not ALL countries in Europe turn a blind eye on smoking pot, not all States in the US toss you in jail for it either. Learn a little before you make such sweeping statements.

free to move from one country to another without restriction
How soon they forget. Just a few short years ago, people were being shot on sight just trying to go from one part of Germany to another. Freedom? Just a few short years ago, at every border crossing, you had to stop and show your 'papers'.

Freedom to travel to Cuba? Try going from Greece to Turkey. Drive around Albania at night. See how long you last.
Whose country has posted border guards in another country, ostensibly to stop illegal immigrants?
Freedom to travel, as it is in the states, is contingent upon certain rights and responsibilities. it's not quite as 'free' as you imply.

How about the 'freedom' to pay crushing taxes to give the slackers of society a free house. Or the 'freedom' to give to every family a monthly child benefit, regardless of need. I'd rather the money go to those who actually need it, not a government handout to a banker in London.
How about the 'freedom' to be forced to give your employees several weeks of vacation, regardless of merit? Yes, it is nice to have significant vacation time, but should I as an employer be forced to do that?

Should we have kept our military home during WWII? (and no, we did NOT win the war singlehandedly) You'd all be speaking German. The ones left alive, that is. Why did you beg for us to help out in Kosovo? Because you lacked the collective political will to do it yourselves.

I have traveled the world a bit. I dare say, more than you. Grow up a little, and get some time perspective. Stop watching the horrowshow on the TV. Learn what actually happens.

It's easy to say America sucks. When you're the big dog, everyone wants to take a shot at you. And no, it is not perfect.

Show me a place that is, though.

Re:speak for yourself

[pridkett]

These rights are only extended to citizens of the United States. Non-citizens are basically at the government's pleasure. There are no guarantees in the Constitution that apply to non-citizens.


Maybe you should explain that to Jose Padilla and why he is being held in violation of the 5th amendment. I'm not saying that's he's not a traitor or a terrorist, but he still is US citizen. For those of you who don't know who Jose Padilla is, you should see this blurb at the BBC or chargepadilla.org for more information.


Open your eyes a bit and take a look around before engaging in discourse, you'll find it most enlightening.


Oh the sweet irony...

Re:speak for yourself

[LarsG]

Holy crap! Thanks to the law, if I do something that's against the law, I could get in trouble! Holy crap!

By the devine digested foodstuff! If that law makes no sense, is it wrong of us to say that it is bad?

Seeing as how actually copying the CD's is illegal anyway, this is not a problem.

Huh? No, it isn't. Making copies might be legal or illegal. Redistributing copies is in most cases illegal.

Unscrupulous people want to copy CD's rather than paying for them. This is against the law

True so far.

Oh, you say, but this is infringing on my fair use rights! Guess what? You have no fair use rights. None.

This is where we disagree.

First of all, you should read about the legislative history of "fair use". The current fair use portion of US copyright law was defined and carved out by the courts because they were presented with cases where copyright law and other rights (such as the right to free speech, critisism, science, etc) collided, and they had to make a compromise. This was later codified as a set of "fair use" rules (the four step test) in the 1976 revision of the copyright law.

Some highlights to help your googling:
1841: Folsom v. Marsh
1973: Williams and Wilkins Co. v. United States
1976: Fair use and first sale codified in US copyright law.

If you make certain uses of a work, those uses are defined by the law as being non-infringing. But that's an exception, not a right.

Actually, without fair use and other safety valves, copyright law would be unconstitutional. Even the copyright clause itself limit the scope of copyright law:

"The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

If the copyright holder wants to use technological means to prevent you from exercising that exception, they're free to do so. And the law says you have to respect their wishes on that matter.

The law, prior to the DMCA, said nothing of the sort. And in the analog world, courts have ruled against copyright holders that have unfairly tried to limit other peoples' legal use of their creations.

And I violently reject the notion that private interests should be free to rewrite copyright law to suit their own business plans - that is not, and never was, the purpose of copyright law.

But here's the deal. The RIAA only cares about preventing digital copying. They only care if you try to make a digital copy of a CD, or to generate digital MP3's from that CD

Ah, young Skywalker. Let me tell you about the olde times and "Home Taping Kills Music". In the ancient times of the cassette recorder, the RIAA entered a similar panic mode to prevent analog copying. The difference is that RIAA was not powerful enough then to buy laws and dictate technology. Today is seems like the movie/music industry is.

Your arguments about chilling effects add up to a big fat zero. Sorry.

Crypto research and computer security? The right to preserve something I've bought? Those "fair use" rights and all the explicit exemptions in copyright law? The media industry controlling the tech industry? The DMCA giving the creator of a protected media format patent-like monopoly protection?

A few large economic interests are using copyright law to shape the digital world in their own picture, ignoring lots of other rights that are equally important.