Naturally, I quite disagree with what I take to be your point. It's hard to refute you, since you don't really attempt to refute me, but rely on two metaphors (the uncorked genie and the freed horse) to get your point across.
I can't tell if your point is about technology generally or the Internet in particular - but in both cases, society attempts to adapt to and regulate the technology and succeeds to a certain degree. By "society" I don't merely mean government, but ordinary people, making the decisions that affect their lives. The claim "society doesn't exist" is as true as the statement "technology doesn't exist"; you seem to have a problem with generalizations.
Would you care to elaborate upon your cryptic concluding statement? "'Society' can either adapt or disappear, the latter being the more likely conclusion." I'd be interested to hear what you mean.
You're right, I think, about the incredible changes, and how resistance is often both bloody and futile.
But despite the changes, it's a little difficult to just say that there are new ways of "thinking, breathing, interacting." (No, I'm not going to interpret you literally.) We are still (mostly) human, with human interests and desires that will only partly change. Many things about our condition will not change, and should not - there exist certain eternal things about who and what we are. I suppose that's the essence of philosophy and religion, and that's why churches still exist, even after the wide dissemination of information that refutes their supernatural theological premises: people still want to believe in things bigger than themselves, and they still want to believe in life beyond death.
The danger, as you rightly point out, is when the power in the hands of the entrenched social institutions and forces is used to attack those who endorse technological change. This is not always an attack by "conservatives" upon "liberals," but often the opposite. Anyway, it makes for fascinating reading a few centuries later (who doesn't love the Luddites?!), but seems to be turmoil for everyone in the midst of it.
Thanks. I think you're quite right when you say "it's a great foot in the door." Just for a bit of technical clarification, can't even slight amounts of scattering seriously distort the data being transmitted?
Moreover, I'm rather curious about upload vs. download speeds.
Finally, you mention L.A. as a possible city where fog might not be a problem. That's probably true, and smog probably wouldn't be a problem there these days (as it would have been a few years ago). But mightn't minor tremors (in an area which, like much of California, is prone to seismic activity) inspire a need to perpetually realign the trasmitting and receiving gear? Over long distances, even the tiniest vibration could hugely affect the angle of the beam.
I hope Katz's later posts have more specific info about the book, because otherwise, he's just patting us all on the backs for being so hip, so with-it.
I completely agree with El Volio's astute comment - this set of technological changes does not necessarily presage a scientific age. There have been a great many instances of technological advance in history that had barely any scientific implications. (Of course, science is indeed being stimulated, by things like journalistic "skywriting" online, because every information technology has eased the discussion of discovery.)
As for there being lots of opponents of technology who strongly deride every advance, well, of course there are always going to be as many neophobes and neophiles. But technology's advance (as James Burke has shown again and again) is nearly unstoppable; the best a society can do is hope to direct it.
You nailed it right on the head. The article mentions that this technology will be weather dependent and need to be adjusted not only for a hard rain, but even for fog. And what if a bird flies in the way of your transmitting laser? Ooops, there goes my download.
It's an interesting idea for people who can't use other technologies because of their location, but I doubt it'll have any wide consumer market, when there are so many other established (and more reliable) technologies.
patent "problem" is part of something much bigger
on
Do Patents Still Work?
·
· Score: 5
There are lots of patent controversies right now, most notoriously problems relating to software business-method (bizmeth) patents, and patents on parts of the human genome.
But these problems should be seen as part of a larger challenge facing intellectual property protections. The Napster and DMCA and DeCSS problems are all related to copyright - another form of intellectual property protection, which is challenged by our new information technologies' ease of dissemination.
Some people have called for major revisions to our copyright laws, and others (like Jeff Bezos and the people in the introduction above) have suggested that the patent system should face strict reforms.
These are sometimes extremely good suggestions, but we would do well to keep in mind the following:
1. The battles over intellectual property protection have been at least this
intense before (even if patent applications have not be so prolific before), and the system survived.
2. We cannot just tinker with these systems, but must treat them with profound respect (even if they are broken) because huge amounts of money and acclaim could end up going to people who don't deserve them, while innovators who do deserve them could get screwed.
3. If we think of copyright and patent problems as parts of a larger set of intellectual property issues that need consideration, it will actually help avoid confusion -- and we will be more likely to convince others (read: legislators) that these issues deserve attention.
For more background on the patent problem, see James Gleick's superb piece, Patently Absurd (NY Times, 12 Mar 00).
When the COPPA rules go into effect, lots of sites will still be noncompliant. That's probably alright, but people must get moving - and dantes, you had better get your higher-ups and lawyers to pay close attention.
The legislation and rulemaking for COPPA was quite contentious, and the FTC is probably going to be much more of a stickler for children's privacy than it has been for Net fraud.
michael wrote that "We've already seen that the FTC refuses to investigate even large-scale privacy fraud on the part of Internet companies, so it seems extremely doubtful that they're going to deploy COPPA Vice Squads to go out and enforce compliance. Unless you're a really big company in really flagrant violation of the law, you have nothing to worry about."
But it's not quite that simple. Actually, the FTC has been conducting sweeps for Net fraud, and I expect they will start doing much the same thing for kiddie privacy. However, while fraud-hunting is challenging because you need to chase down elusive "businesses" that change online locations frequently, playing the sheriff for violations of children's privacy is easier: investigating and confirming violations are simpler since the FTC can go after established companies.
Also, FTC sweeps aside, COPPA may open the door for lots of lawsuits, perhaps even class-action suits. (Are your lawyers listening yet?)
Not complying by tonight is not a big deal. Not complying by early summer is a problem. If you don't have your act together by August, you're in serious trouble.
You're quite right about these Grade-A, USSC approved restrictions on freedom of speech. Unforunately, you're arguing against something I didn't say - or at least didn't intend to say. I'm well aware that things that are literally "speech" are often classified as "actions" (and occasionally, vice versa, when an action has an expressive function) and therefore, "speech" can be regulated. What I was objecting to with my "no, no, no" was something Cliff was asking in the original article - whether laws used to "regulate" speech might be used to prevent (or "combat," as he wrote) future DDOS attacks. I think that would be an awful idea.
Thanks for your reply, though. In writing this reply, I clicked on your user info, and saw that you ended one of your previous comments with "If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example." Right on.
First of all, I want to thank you for your thoughtful comments, and the quite interesting sites you mention. Second, just as a warning, you mention that you were upset that a telemarketer got your girlfriend's name - but you should be concerned that both your name and phone number are available for the world to see in the comments to the FTC you've posted online. (I only mention that in case you want to take it down.)
Also, I actually know a great deal about the laws regulating telemarketers (although certainly not as much as you probably have probably learned in the course of your research). A useful link you might want to put online as your site progresses is for the free Enigma software (which I first read of on Lockergnome which is just a little program that helps you keep track of and respond to telemarketers, letting you quote relevant laws.
The main problem you seem to have with my comment is, I believe, the same that several others have had - with my third point. Unfortunately, I think it may be a misunderstanding, because I did not quote the original article thoroughly enough before responding to it. When I said "no, no, no," I was responding to the question about whether "such behavior" could be "combatted." But if you go back to the original article, you'll see that Cliff was writing about whether laws like those that protect you from phone harassment (from pranksters instead of telemarketers) could also be used against DDOS attackers. I definitely don't think that's a good idea. And I greatly fear that the guaranteed protections of free speech will become dangerously entangled with computer code (indeed, they already are), which could provoke unfortunate unexpected consequences for both programmers and law enforcement.
Finally, one last point about something you wrote: "doesn't realize that the First Amendment and all the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court deal with INDVIDUALS and that telemarketers are calling on the behalf of a corporation/company. The activities of a company CAN be and ARE regulated, including what they CAN and CANNOT SAY."
I'm sorry to say you are incorrect. The distinction is not between individuals and corporations. There are no special rules on companies, or other corporate bodies. In fact, the word "corporate body" is redundant - the word "corporation" etymologically means "body," because a corporation is treated like a single person, rather than a mere association of individuals. Congress cannot make special laws restricting the speech of corporations.
However, Congress can make laws restricting the actions of individuals and corporations - and the Supreme Court has ruled in cases since about the days of WWI that certain things that are literally "speech" are actually actions - such as yelling fire in a crowded theather - and can thereby be regulated. The regulations and restrictions placed on telemarketers are not placed on their freedom of speech, but rather on their freedom to take certain "actions." If you were an individual (and not a corpoation) soliciting for money over the phone during restricted times of day, I bet you could be punished the same way a corporation would be.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments. And I very much look forward to watching your telemarketing pages progress.
(1) "We now have fledgling laws against unsolicited commercial e-mail... [W]e now have protections from SPAM.
What? That's totally wrong, at least in the U.S. No laws have been passed by Congress restricting spam, and the few state laws that have been passed have been thrown out by the courts as violating constitutional free speech protections. Cliff, what protections do you think you have against spam? There are none. Please, I beg you, prove me wrong - log onto Thomas and find a law that protects you from spam.
(2) "Just wondering if the laws under which the U.S. Government is pursuing the DDoS attacks on Yahoo! and Amazon could be applied to telemarketers."
No, the laws being used to "pursue" the DDOS attackers are actually more akin to laws that would apply to grafitti artists or arsonists. They are not laws about "using a public network to bother end users."
As others have noted here, the technology is improving (in some areas) to combat telemarketers. And the technology to combat spam is improving, too. But there are bigger worries than these nuisances - and we should be more concerned about more important personal information than our e-mail addresses and our phone numbers.
(3) "Will laws be written to combat such behavior? Can such laws be written?"
No, no and no. "Congress shall make no law," the First Amendment tells us, to abridge the freedom of speech. That first amendment protects lots of things that are odious to many people - including, despite the best efforts of some wrong-headed Members of Congress, flag burning.
Imagine that a law is written preventing unsolicited commercial calls. What happens if I accidentally dial your phone number in an attempt to complete a solicited commercial call - can you prosecute me? What other forms of communication should be regulated next? Perhaps TV ads, for destroying your tranquility and peace of mind by letting commercialism interfere with your entertainment?
There are already strict laws regulating what you can say and spend in political campaigns. There are already strict laws in some areas against billboards. But how far do you want to go to abridge others' right to communicate - all in the name of avoiding a nuisance?
... is not in the technology itself, but in the ways it is being used. We're asking the wrong questions if we're wondering merely how best to use laptops.
Technology is changing education in two ways - by changing the ways we teach old things, and then by changing the very things we teach. So far, most of the uses of high tech in the classroom have been attempts to answer that first question: "How can we teach the same things differently?" Very few people are taking a stab at the hard questions, like, "Why should we teach long division, if students will always have calculators?" or "Why learn geography, if students will have world maps at the fingertips forever?"
I'm not staking out a position on those questions, I'm just trying to point out that a discussion about the best way to use laptops in education today is not grounded in a fundamental understanding of the deep, deep changes technology is wreaking in education. When we ask about laptops in education, let's not just marvel about what would be coolest (which is often how Boards of Education develop their budgets for computers), but let's try to ruminate over what standards we should set for learning.
We've got an archive of related articles and links on our Education page.
The article was quite good, but the author seemed genuinely surprised to hear tech people arguing against corporate power. That should not come as a surprise.
In fact, the main flaw in the piece, as I see it, is that the author somehow assumed that "libertarianism" is the same as "anarchism." Libertarians know that there is an appropriate role for government, but that its role should be minimized to prevent an unhealthy accumulation of power in one corruptible institution. For the same reason, libertarians often oppose organized religion. And for the same reason, libertarians are now increasingly wary of aggregating corporate power.
It is a brilliantly American notion - best expressed in Federalist No. 10 - that factions and institutions ought to conflict with one another, for by their conflict is our freedom best preserved. Asking government to act against business institutions shows, therefore, not a sudden change of heart, but a deeper understanding of libertarian philosophy.
Occasionally, the author just went overboard, as when she blathered on about how librarians are civil servants paid by the public - and therefore, "true" libertarians should despise librarians? What nonsense.
Look, the political alignments of the tech communities (for there is not just one tech "community" of course) are likely to shift frequently in the coming years. As long as we don't get duped by "quick fixes," or slip into bed with an established political party, we will be able to keep sight of our ideas and ideals, and we shall watch our political power increase as society generally comes to accept the striking importance of technological issues.
First of all, why is/. posting so many requests from students? As somebody pointed out a few days ago, shouldn't they be learning valuable research skills by going out and finding these sources on their own? Unless, of course, if Slashdot can itself be considered a legit reference source for researchers. Hmmm...
That said, you can find some nanotech links here:
* My think tank's Innovation page has links to stories and other related sites.
* The Open Directory Project has a number of great links here, including a link to the important Foresight Institute.
The consulting firm founded by Ralph Reed apologized today for encouraging "a small number of individuals" to express their views about the Microsoft case to George W. Bush, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. The firm said it would halt the contacts...
"We are not hoping or expecting that any different administration will pull back or withdraw this (antitrust) case," [Microsoft spokesman Dan] Leach added. "We believe and we fully expect that we will win this case on appeal."
Re:technology and education
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 1
You're quite right that computers as they exist today could not replace teachers. And you are also correct that people learn at their own pace and in their own way. That is why I do not suggest that teachers be replaced any time soon. Instead, as you quoted,I just suggested "computerized teaching systems that have instant access to information unobtainable scant years ago." In many ways, the Internet can already serve that role. If a student is interested in baseball, he can follow his interest in baseball on the Web - and it may lead him to learn about trajectories, and from that projectile physics, and from that space exploration. Cultivating personal curiosity will let people learn in ways that were impossible a few years ago. That is what I meant; not that teachers ought to be replaced by machines. (Although someday, perhaps at least some of their tasks might.)
A. Keiper
Re:technology and education
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 2
That's a good point. I didn't necessarily mean replacing teachers, however. (Both my parents and several of my friends are teachers, and they would hunt me down and kill me if I so much as whispered such a thought.)
What I meant in that paragraph is that much of the learning that required expensive private tutors just a century ago will be available cheaply (or freely) over computerized networks that allow students' curiosity to control learning.
And (risking mutilation from my family and friends who are teachers), I can imagine a day when computerized systems might be so advanced that they make most teachers obsolete. People worry about how "impersonal" distance education will be, forgetting that any distance education over the Internet will be far more engaging than the "personal" education common for much of human history (like scholastic monks learning from thick handwritten books in the Middle Ages) or even U.S. history (recall the image of Abe Lincoln reading books by firelight).
Also, many students have been scarred, not helped, by teachers and peers in our public education system, and this might provide some relief.
technology and education
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 3
Technology is giving us new tools for teaching - from the Internet to televisions in the classroom. In 1980, teachers showed their students decades-old educational films. In 1990, teachers showed their students months-old educational videos. Now, with educational TV and Internet content, teachers can show their students news as it breaks.
A century ago, wealthy families would spend huge sums so tutors could pay individual attention to a student. Now we can envision a day when all students get individual attention, from computerized teaching systems that have instant access to information unobtainable scant years ago.
Already there are online - and accredited - high school and university classes. Soon, neither work nor age nor location will impede your continuing education.
What's more, technology is not just changing how we learn, but what we learn. As others here have noted, we're moving to a system wherein the teaching of information literacy is becoming more common. But what does that mean? Does it merely mean the ability to navigate your way to the information you need? Or does it mean we will become know-nothings, unable to make the simple associations of knowledge that are possible when facts have been crammed into our mind by brute force? Santayana famously said that those who are not familiar with history are "doomed to repeat it"; if you don't know history, but merely know where to find it, are you doomed to repeat it? It's up in the air.
We have a number of articles on this topic on our Education page.
If anyone wishes to send their comments to the Copyright Office in PDF format, I would be glad to save your message in PDF format and send it back to you so you can send it on to the Copyright Office. As the EFF site notes, PDF is not required by the Copyright Office, but it is "preferred."
If you wish, we'll also make suggestions for how you can improve your comments for maximum effect.
Last week (8 Mar 00) I spoke by telephone with Ian McCallum, who is in TopClick's Market Development group. Basically, I wanted to know how TopClick planned on making money, since we intended to feature them on our Personal Security page.
Ian explained that TopClick believes there is a substantial segment of the Net population concerned with privacy, and that at least part of that segment would be willing to pay for services that protect privacy. Thus, while the search engine will remain free, TopClick will charge for other products they plan on rolling out (such as AllowMail, which another poster mentioned).
A previous poster mentioned that he thought the name TopClick sounds particularly cheesey. While I'm not certain, I suspect that the name is intended to raise the specter of DoubleClick in your mind. Certainly for anyone concerned for their privacy, DoubleClick is never far from mind.
So basically, the deal is this: the company seems to sincerely believe (in Mr. McCallum's words) "that every single member of the online community has an inherent and indisputable right to privacy on the Internet." They are going to work to educate the Net population, through their comprehensive Privacy Center. And they believe they are among the first of a (hopefully long) stream of companies that will prove wrong all those naysayers who cluck that privacy and profit are incompatible.
Thank you kindly for the links, but I disagree with your conclusion. Lots of companies are pursuing patents on their genomic data, and I feel they deserve compensation for the money, time and labor of their work. That's why I think a short-term patent would be effective; companies wishing to do research with that data could pay for it, or wait the short while (perhaps two years? four?) till they get it for free. Other companies that do decide to use the genomic data for research will pay for it - and if they manage to create a successful drug based on that research, the cost will trickle down to the consumers, so in the end the people who benefit from the drug are the ones who pay for the research behind it.
And I disagree also with your argument (which I have perhaps misinterpreted?) that the only intellectual property that should be safeguarded is that which protects the public good or national security. Why shouldn't innovators and discovers benefit from their hard work? We're really debating what I consider one of the most civil notions of modern society: that those who do research or create new things should be rewarded just as if they performed more tangible tasks like bricklaying or farming. There are significant parallels in the copyright discussion (which Katz's post today raises); in that arena, if your argument were carried to its conclusion (ad absurdum), practically nothing could be copyrighted. After all, music and literature benefits the public, so it "should be free for everyone," right?
Perhaps I am being unfair to you; if so, I apologize. And I thank you again for your thoughtful reply and the links.
Again, Mr. Katz's depiction of the problem is unfair and unbalanced.
The heart of the problem was addressed by several people in their responses to the first part of Katz's post (yesterday). It is this:
How can the needs of consumers and the needs of creators be balanced?
In other words, how can companies, artists, authors and other creators get a return on their investment of time and money, so they do not lose the incentive to go on creating? If Stephen King's new Internet novel is circulated via e-mail and mirrored on Web sites, he loses money and may never publish online again. If a database company finds its databases copied and republished for profit (which is legal today, strangely) that company will lose the incentive to keep making databases. And when the creators stop creating, everyone loses out.
"Piracy" isn't a very accurate term for what amounts to a bloodless file download
No, it isn't a very accurate term. Many people don't like to think of themselves as pirates and thieves when they download music illicitly over the Web. (I don't like to think of myself that way, although the RIAA would probably be upset at my hard drive's contents.) But nobody says the term "pirate" need only apply to patch-wearing, parrot-loving, peg-legged sailors. Periods of great technological change often leave language lagging behind, and I suggest rather than criticizing the word, Katz criticize the idea.
Is the Internet so insecure (by its very nature, as Katz's citation of Lessig yesterday implied) that ideas are forced to flow freely? I highly doubt it. Technology has a way of solving problems technology creates. Creators will find new ways of creating artificial obstacles online that serve the same purpose as the physical obstacles that prevent theft: to make sure money is collected.
The notion of free music threatens the way they work -- which is why the DMCA was passed, and why the music industry is spending tens of millions to shut down free music sites on the Web.
Yes, that's true. And the music industry's behavior (like the movie industry's behavior in the DVD/DeCSS debacle, or the TV industry's behavior in the iCRAVE case) has been thuggish. Certainly these old-fashioned, slow-learning industries should be thankful for the Web pioneers who have shown them that there exists a market for new means of transmitting the products of creative work. But they needn't genuflect before the new medium and allow it to endanger their livelihood. And that is what it does, all the misleading talk about $15 billion made by the music industry last year aside. (After all, how do we know the recording industry mightn't have made $16 were it not for MP3s?) When you download music illegally over the Internet, you are depriving someone of the potential for profit. No, you haven't broken in to their house, but you have in essence robbed their checkbook of what it might hold tomorrow.
Look, clearly we're in a period of technological change, and it is profoundly affected every (every!) segment of society. But notice that Katz proposes NO SOLUTIONS to this intellectual property problem, except that creators entirely give up any claim over what we consider intellectual property. In other words, Katz would throw out something we should cherish because we recognized it all too recently in human history: that people who create things deserve to earn from their creativity, in the same way that a farmer or bricklayer should earn from his labor.
What is the one thing Katz proposes? This:
A rational legislature grasping this will would seek laws that reflect the new reality, rather than an outdated one.
In other words, Congress (which he just accused of screwing up copyright law) should stick its hands in copyright law AGAIN, presumably after they become "rational." Fortunately, Congress is designed to be a slow-moving, deliberative body, unresponsive to minor gusts of political wind. Let us hope that they do not take the advice of Katz and others who demand more governmental meddling. Instead, let's allow the process to develop slowly, over time. Strong case law and protracted public committment to technology are better protections than legislative interference.
Anyone can challenge the validity of the patent by putting up five grand
Interesting proposal, and quite intricate, but I seriously disagree with your suggestion of charging five thousand dollars for the opportunity to dispute a patent. If an impoverished programmer wants to dispute a patent claim (perhaps because he had the idea first), he should have priority and protection whether he can pony up the five-K or not.
I certainly agree with the crux of your proposal - that patent expiration dates "would be based on the dynamicity of the technology." I'm not sure what "dynamicity" means, but I assume it means something like "the pace of change." If so, your idea and mine are at heart motivated by the same wish: for a patent system that reflects that long-term monopolies of discovery or innovation can stifle (instead of encouraging) progress in fast-moving fields.
That's actually a really good analogy, thanks. From my point of view, the people who create music or compile databases are providing a product or service akin to creating the bridge, and therefore deserve to charge tolls. But you're quite right to say that their actions have been more than a little trollish, thuggish and nasty.
This discussion is quite similar to another thread posted today about the Human Genome Project. In my post on that other thread (click here) I propose that a new category of patent be created, so researchers can have control over (and profit from) their data but only for a very limited time. That way, they can deservedly benefit financially from their investment of time and money (an incredible contribution to genomic research) while researchers' desire to have all genomic research freely available will only be put off briefly.
Incidentally, if you are interested in reading other articles about the genome patent controversy, we have a collection on our Biotechnology page.
As others have pointed out, the Human Genome Project data have been publicly available all along anyway. Many researchers have already enjoyed the opportunity to begin working from those data.
But the larger question is whether the private firms will be forced to relinquish their data. The CNN story says nothing about that.
Someone else mentioned Celera, and quoted a story from Wired's website. Celera is, by far, not the only company pursuing patents on genomic data. Other companies (with thousands more patents applied for) include HGS, Incyte and Athersys. (You can read about their efforts on our Biotech page.)
My proposal: Create a new class of patent with a shorter lifespan that will allow these companies to rightly profit from their research (which has helped the public project immensely). This is rather like Jeff Bezos's proposal for Amazon patents; a new category with fewer years of monopoly so innovators can still benefit from their work and their investments, while the public will still benefit in the not-too-distant future.
Is that fair? I know many here on/. don't buy the notion of compromise (ever), but lots of you are eminently fair-minded. Is my proposal unreasonable?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't tell if your point is about technology generally or the Internet in particular - but in both cases, society attempts to adapt to and regulate the technology and succeeds to a certain degree. By "society" I don't merely mean government, but ordinary people, making the decisions that affect their lives. The claim "society doesn't exist" is as true as the statement "technology doesn't exist"; you seem to have a problem with generalizations.
Would you care to elaborate upon your cryptic concluding statement? "'Society' can either adapt or disappear, the latter being the more likely conclusion." I'd be interested to hear what you mean.
A. Keiper
But despite the changes, it's a little difficult to just say that there are new ways of "thinking, breathing, interacting." (No, I'm not going to interpret you literally.) We are still (mostly) human, with human interests and desires that will only partly change. Many things about our condition will not change, and should not - there exist certain eternal things about who and what we are. I suppose that's the essence of philosophy and religion, and that's why churches still exist, even after the wide dissemination of information that refutes their supernatural theological premises: people still want to believe in things bigger than themselves, and they still want to believe in life beyond death.
The danger, as you rightly point out, is when the power in the hands of the entrenched social institutions and forces is used to attack those who endorse technological change. This is not always an attack by "conservatives" upon "liberals," but often the opposite. Anyway, it makes for fascinating reading a few centuries later (who doesn't love the Luddites?!), but seems to be turmoil for everyone in the midst of it.
Sorry for ranting!
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Moreover, I'm rather curious about upload vs. download speeds.
Finally, you mention L.A. as a possible city where fog might not be a problem. That's probably true, and smog probably wouldn't be a problem there these days (as it would have been a few years ago). But mightn't minor tremors (in an area which, like much of California, is prone to seismic activity) inspire a need to perpetually realign the trasmitting and receiving gear? Over long distances, even the tiniest vibration could hugely affect the angle of the beam.
Are these realistic concerns?
A. Keiper
I completely agree with El Volio's astute comment - this set of technological changes does not necessarily presage a scientific age. There have been a great many instances of technological advance in history that had barely any scientific implications. (Of course, science is indeed being stimulated, by things like journalistic "skywriting" online, because every information technology has eased the discussion of discovery.)
As for there being lots of opponents of technology who strongly deride every advance, well, of course there are always going to be as many neophobes and neophiles. But technology's advance (as James Burke has shown again and again) is nearly unstoppable; the best a society can do is hope to direct it.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
It's an interesting idea for people who can't use other technologies because of their location, but I doubt it'll have any wide consumer market, when there are so many other established (and more reliable) technologies.
See this related article: Science-fiction staple new entry in high-speed Net (C|Net News.com, 22 Mar 00)
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
But these problems should be seen as part of a larger challenge facing intellectual property protections. The Napster and DMCA and DeCSS problems are all related to copyright - another form of intellectual property protection, which is challenged by our new information technologies' ease of dissemination.
Some people have called for major revisions to our copyright laws, and others (like Jeff Bezos and the people in the introduction above) have suggested that the patent system should face strict reforms.
These are sometimes extremely good suggestions, but we would do well to keep in mind the following:
2. We cannot just tinker with these systems, but must treat them with profound respect (even if they are broken) because huge amounts of money and acclaim could end up going to people who don't deserve them, while innovators who do deserve them could get screwed.
3. If we think of copyright and patent problems as parts of a larger set of intellectual property issues that need consideration, it will actually help avoid confusion -- and we will be more likely to convince others (read: legislators) that these issues deserve attention.
For more background on the patent problem, see James Gleick's superb piece, Patently Absurd (NY Times, 12 Mar 00).
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
The legislation and rulemaking for COPPA was quite contentious, and the FTC is probably going to be much more of a stickler for children's privacy than it has been for Net fraud.
michael wrote that "We've already seen that the FTC refuses to investigate even large-scale privacy fraud on the part of Internet companies, so it seems extremely doubtful that they're going to deploy COPPA Vice Squads to go out and enforce compliance. Unless you're a really big company in really flagrant violation of the law, you have nothing to worry about."
But it's not quite that simple. Actually, the FTC has been conducting sweeps for Net fraud, and I expect they will start doing much the same thing for kiddie privacy. However, while fraud-hunting is challenging because you need to chase down elusive "businesses" that change online locations frequently, playing the sheriff for violations of children's privacy is easier: investigating and confirming violations are simpler since the FTC can go after established companies.
Also, FTC sweeps aside, COPPA may open the door for lots of lawsuits, perhaps even class-action suits. (Are your lawyers listening yet?)
COPPA ought to be taken very seriously, and many companies are scrambling to comply. (See, for instance, this C|NET article, Many Web sites will pay high price for children's data , or this Wired article, Time Running Out on Kid E-mail .)
Not complying by tonight is not a big deal. Not complying by early summer is a problem. If you don't have your act together by August, you're in serious trouble.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
Thanks for your reply, though. In writing this reply, I clicked on your user info, and saw that you ended one of your previous comments with "If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example." Right on.
Yours,
A. Keiper
Washington, D.C.
Also, I actually know a great deal about the laws regulating telemarketers (although certainly not as much as you probably have probably learned in the course of your research). A useful link you might want to put online as your site progresses is for the free Enigma software (which I first read of on Lockergnome which is just a little program that helps you keep track of and respond to telemarketers, letting you quote relevant laws.
The main problem you seem to have with my comment is, I believe, the same that several others have had - with my third point. Unfortunately, I think it may be a misunderstanding, because I did not quote the original article thoroughly enough before responding to it. When I said "no, no, no," I was responding to the question about whether "such behavior" could be "combatted." But if you go back to the original article, you'll see that Cliff was writing about whether laws like those that protect you from phone harassment (from pranksters instead of telemarketers) could also be used against DDOS attackers. I definitely don't think that's a good idea. And I greatly fear that the guaranteed protections of free speech will become dangerously entangled with computer code (indeed, they already are), which could provoke unfortunate unexpected consequences for both programmers and law enforcement.
Finally, one last point about something you wrote: "doesn't realize that the First Amendment and all the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court deal with INDVIDUALS and that telemarketers are calling on the behalf of a corporation/company. The activities of a company CAN be and ARE regulated, including what they CAN and CANNOT SAY."
I'm sorry to say you are incorrect. The distinction is not between individuals and corporations. There are no special rules on companies, or other corporate bodies. In fact, the word "corporate body" is redundant - the word "corporation" etymologically means "body," because a corporation is treated like a single person, rather than a mere association of individuals. Congress cannot make special laws restricting the speech of corporations.
However, Congress can make laws restricting the actions of individuals and corporations - and the Supreme Court has ruled in cases since about the days of WWI that certain things that are literally "speech" are actually actions - such as yelling fire in a crowded theather - and can thereby be regulated. The regulations and restrictions placed on telemarketers are not placed on their freedom of speech, but rather on their freedom to take certain "actions." If you were an individual (and not a corpoation) soliciting for money over the phone during restricted times of day, I bet you could be punished the same way a corporation would be.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments. And I very much look forward to watching your telemarketing pages progress.
Yours,
A. Keiper
Washington, D.C.
What? That's totally wrong, at least in the U.S. No laws have been passed by Congress restricting spam, and the few state laws that have been passed have been thrown out by the courts as violating constitutional free speech protections. Cliff, what protections do you think you have against spam? There are none. Please, I beg you, prove me wrong - log onto Thomas and find a law that protects you from spam.
(2) "Just wondering if the laws under which the U.S. Government is pursuing the DDoS attacks on Yahoo! and Amazon could be applied to telemarketers."
No, the laws being used to "pursue" the DDOS attackers are actually more akin to laws that would apply to grafitti artists or arsonists. They are not laws about "using a public network to bother end users."
As others have noted here, the technology is improving (in some areas) to combat telemarketers. And the technology to combat spam is improving, too. But there are bigger worries than these nuisances - and we should be more concerned about more important personal information than our e-mail addresses and our phone numbers.
(3) "Will laws be written to combat such behavior? Can such laws be written?"
No, no and no. "Congress shall make no law," the First Amendment tells us, to abridge the freedom of speech. That first amendment protects lots of things that are odious to many people - including, despite the best efforts of some wrong-headed Members of Congress, flag burning.
Imagine that a law is written preventing unsolicited commercial calls. What happens if I accidentally dial your phone number in an attempt to complete a solicited commercial call - can you prosecute me? What other forms of communication should be regulated next? Perhaps TV ads, for destroying your tranquility and peace of mind by letting commercialism interfere with your entertainment?
There are already strict laws regulating what you can say and spend in political campaigns. There are already strict laws in some areas against billboards. But how far do you want to go to abridge others' right to communicate - all in the name of avoiding a nuisance?
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
Technology is changing education in two ways - by changing the ways we teach old things, and then by changing the very things we teach. So far, most of the uses of high tech in the classroom have been attempts to answer that first question: "How can we teach the same things differently?" Very few people are taking a stab at the hard questions, like, "Why should we teach long division, if students will always have calculators?" or "Why learn geography, if students will have world maps at the fingertips forever?"
I'm not staking out a position on those questions, I'm just trying to point out that a discussion about the best way to use laptops in education today is not grounded in a fundamental understanding of the deep, deep changes technology is wreaking in education. When we ask about laptops in education, let's not just marvel about what would be coolest (which is often how Boards of Education develop their budgets for computers), but let's try to ruminate over what standards we should set for learning.
We've got an archive of related articles and links on our Education page.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
In fact, the main flaw in the piece, as I see it, is that the author somehow assumed that "libertarianism" is the same as "anarchism." Libertarians know that there is an appropriate role for government, but that its role should be minimized to prevent an unhealthy accumulation of power in one corruptible institution. For the same reason, libertarians often oppose organized religion. And for the same reason, libertarians are now increasingly wary of aggregating corporate power.
It is a brilliantly American notion - best expressed in Federalist No. 10 - that factions and institutions ought to conflict with one another, for by their conflict is our freedom best preserved. Asking government to act against business institutions shows, therefore, not a sudden change of heart, but a deeper understanding of libertarian philosophy.
Occasionally, the author just went overboard, as when she blathered on about how librarians are civil servants paid by the public - and therefore, "true" libertarians should despise librarians? What nonsense.
Look, the political alignments of the tech communities (for there is not just one tech "community" of course) are likely to shift frequently in the coming years. As long as we don't get duped by "quick fixes," or slip into bed with an established political party, we will be able to keep sight of our ideas and ideals, and we shall watch our political power increase as society generally comes to accept the striking importance of technological issues.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
That said, you can find some nanotech links here:
* The Open Directory Project has a number of great links here, including a link to the important Foresight Institute.
* And, of course, there is Ralph Merkle's page.
Good luck. I wish /. had some rule that we would only offer assistance to students who let us read their finished products.
A. Keiper
Washington, D.C.
The consulting firm founded by Ralph Reed apologized today for encouraging "a small number of individuals" to express their views about the Microsoft case to George W. Bush, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. The firm said it would halt the contacts...
"We are not hoping or expecting that any different administration will pull back or withdraw this (antitrust) case," [Microsoft spokesman Dan] Leach added. "We believe and we fully expect that we will win this case on appeal."
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
A. Keiper
What I meant in that paragraph is that much of the learning that required expensive private tutors just a century ago will be available cheaply (or freely) over computerized networks that allow students' curiosity to control learning.
And (risking mutilation from my family and friends who are teachers), I can imagine a day when computerized systems might be so advanced that they make most teachers obsolete. People worry about how "impersonal" distance education will be, forgetting that any distance education over the Internet will be far more engaging than the "personal" education common for much of human history (like scholastic monks learning from thick handwritten books in the Middle Ages) or even U.S. history (recall the image of Abe Lincoln reading books by firelight).
Also, many students have been scarred, not helped, by teachers and peers in our public education system, and this might provide some relief.
A. Keiper
A century ago, wealthy families would spend huge sums so tutors could pay individual attention to a student. Now we can envision a day when all students get individual attention, from computerized teaching systems that have instant access to information unobtainable scant years ago.
Already there are online - and accredited - high school and university classes. Soon, neither work nor age nor location will impede your continuing education.
What's more, technology is not just changing how we learn, but what we learn. As others here have noted, we're moving to a system wherein the teaching of information literacy is becoming more common. But what does that mean? Does it merely mean the ability to navigate your way to the information you need? Or does it mean we will become know-nothings, unable to make the simple associations of knowledge that are possible when facts have been crammed into our mind by brute force? Santayana famously said that those who are not familiar with history are "doomed to repeat it"; if you don't know history, but merely know where to find it, are you doomed to repeat it? It's up in the air.
We have a number of articles on this topic on our Education page.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
If you wish, we'll also make suggestions for how you can improve your comments for maximum effect.
Just send your message to:
Copyright_reply@hotmail.com
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
Ian explained that TopClick believes there is a substantial segment of the Net population concerned with privacy, and that at least part of that segment would be willing to pay for services that protect privacy. Thus, while the search engine will remain free, TopClick will charge for other products they plan on rolling out (such as AllowMail, which another poster mentioned).
A previous poster mentioned that he thought the name TopClick sounds particularly cheesey. While I'm not certain, I suspect that the name is intended to raise the specter of DoubleClick in your mind. Certainly for anyone concerned for their privacy, DoubleClick is never far from mind.
So basically, the deal is this: the company seems to sincerely believe (in Mr. McCallum's words) "that every single member of the online community has an inherent and indisputable right to privacy on the Internet." They are going to work to educate the Net population, through their comprehensive Privacy Center. And they believe they are among the first of a (hopefully long) stream of companies that will prove wrong all those naysayers who cluck that privacy and profit are incompatible.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Thank you kindly for the links, but I disagree with your conclusion. Lots of companies are pursuing patents on their genomic data, and I feel they deserve compensation for the money, time and labor of their work. That's why I think a short-term patent would be effective; companies wishing to do research with that data could pay for it, or wait the short while (perhaps two years? four?) till they get it for free. Other companies that do decide to use the genomic data for research will pay for it - and if they manage to create a successful drug based on that research, the cost will trickle down to the consumers, so in the end the people who benefit from the drug are the ones who pay for the research behind it.
And I disagree also with your argument (which I have perhaps misinterpreted?) that the only intellectual property that should be safeguarded is that which protects the public good or national security. Why shouldn't innovators and discovers benefit from their hard work? We're really debating what I consider one of the most civil notions of modern society: that those who do research or create new things should be rewarded just as if they performed more tangible tasks like bricklaying or farming. There are significant parallels in the copyright discussion (which Katz's post today raises); in that arena, if your argument were carried to its conclusion (ad absurdum), practically nothing could be copyrighted. After all, music and literature benefits the public, so it "should be free for everyone," right?
Perhaps I am being unfair to you; if so, I apologize. And I thank you again for your thoughtful reply and the links.
Yours,
A. Keiper
The heart of the problem was addressed by several people in their responses to the first part of Katz's post (yesterday). It is this:
In other words, how can companies, artists, authors and other creators get a return on their investment of time and money, so they do not lose the incentive to go on creating? If Stephen King's new Internet novel is circulated via e-mail and mirrored on Web sites, he loses money and may never publish online again. If a database company finds its databases copied and republished for profit (which is legal today, strangely) that company will lose the incentive to keep making databases. And when the creators stop creating, everyone loses out.
No, it isn't a very accurate term. Many people don't like to think of themselves as pirates and thieves when they download music illicitly over the Web. (I don't like to think of myself that way, although the RIAA would probably be upset at my hard drive's contents.) But nobody says the term "pirate" need only apply to patch-wearing, parrot-loving, peg-legged sailors. Periods of great technological change often leave language lagging behind, and I suggest rather than criticizing the word, Katz criticize the idea.
Is the Internet so insecure (by its very nature, as Katz's citation of Lessig yesterday implied) that ideas are forced to flow freely? I highly doubt it. Technology has a way of solving problems technology creates. Creators will find new ways of creating artificial obstacles online that serve the same purpose as the physical obstacles that prevent theft: to make sure money is collected.
Yes, that's true. And the music industry's behavior (like the movie industry's behavior in the DVD/DeCSS debacle, or the TV industry's behavior in the iCRAVE case) has been thuggish. Certainly these old-fashioned, slow-learning industries should be thankful for the Web pioneers who have shown them that there exists a market for new means of transmitting the products of creative work. But they needn't genuflect before the new medium and allow it to endanger their livelihood. And that is what it does, all the misleading talk about $15 billion made by the music industry last year aside. (After all, how do we know the recording industry mightn't have made $16 were it not for MP3s?) When you download music illegally over the Internet, you are depriving someone of the potential for profit. No, you haven't broken in to their house, but you have in essence robbed their checkbook of what it might hold tomorrow.
Look, clearly we're in a period of technological change, and it is profoundly affected every (every!) segment of society. But notice that Katz proposes NO SOLUTIONS to this intellectual property problem, except that creators entirely give up any claim over what we consider intellectual property. In other words, Katz would throw out something we should cherish because we recognized it all too recently in human history: that people who create things deserve to earn from their creativity, in the same way that a farmer or bricklayer should earn from his labor.
What is the one thing Katz proposes? This:
In other words, Congress (which he just accused of screwing up copyright law) should stick its hands in copyright law AGAIN, presumably after they become "rational." Fortunately, Congress is designed to be a slow-moving, deliberative body, unresponsive to minor gusts of political wind. Let us hope that they do not take the advice of Katz and others who demand more governmental meddling. Instead, let's allow the process to develop slowly, over time. Strong case law and protracted public committment to technology are better protections than legislative interference.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Interesting proposal, and quite intricate, but I seriously disagree with your suggestion of charging five thousand dollars for the opportunity to dispute a patent. If an impoverished programmer wants to dispute a patent claim (perhaps because he had the idea first), he should have priority and protection whether he can pony up the five-K or not.
I certainly agree with the crux of your proposal - that patent expiration dates "would be based on the dynamicity of the technology." I'm not sure what "dynamicity" means, but I assume it means something like "the pace of change." If so, your idea and mine are at heart motivated by the same wish: for a patent system that reflects that long-term monopolies of discovery or innovation can stifle (instead of encouraging) progress in fast-moving fields.
A. Keiper
That's actually a really good analogy, thanks. From my point of view, the people who create music or compile databases are providing a product or service akin to creating the bridge, and therefore deserve to charge tolls. But you're quite right to say that their actions have been more than a little trollish, thuggish and nasty.
Incidentally, if you are interested in reading other articles about the genome patent controversy, we have a collection on our Biotechnology page.
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
But the larger question is whether the private firms will be forced to relinquish their data. The CNN story says nothing about that.
Someone else mentioned Celera, and quoted a story from Wired's website. Celera is, by far, not the only company pursuing patents on genomic data. Other companies (with thousands more patents applied for) include HGS, Incyte and Athersys. (You can read about their efforts on our Biotech page.)
My proposal: Create a new class of patent with a shorter lifespan that will allow these companies to rightly profit from their research (which has helped the public project immensely). This is rather like Jeff Bezos's proposal for Amazon patents; a new category with fewer years of monopoly so innovators can still benefit from their work and their investments, while the public will still benefit in the not-too-distant future.
Is that fair? I know many here on /. don't buy the notion of compromise (ever), but lots of you are eminently fair-minded. Is my proposal unreasonable?
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society