Let us not forget that this new media source is by no means universal yet. Sure, it's important and influential, but remember that not everyone is there yet, and it will take some time before we are.
Internet media is not so much interactive as it is the expansion of choice: I can go to fifty different pages for news about a particular set of events, or I can watch one of the three regular networks for news. (Aside: broadcast news is still important because it is more widespread than most other media outlets. How many people don't have a TV?)
As a result of this, depth of coverage becomes an issue. I can go to fifty different pages, but if forty nine of them are repeating one, then I haven't gained much. Online news is growing, and it is important, but it is not prime time yet. All too often, people who work in the online news biz just copy their stories from the latest AP or Reuters wire.
Weblogs? Sure, weblogs allow interactivity and discussion of an issue, but as we've all seen here before, it also allows a lot of noise and a fair amount of uninformed balderdash. The maxim, "don't believe everything you read" is just as true today as it was twenty years ago. All too often, the community spawned by a weblog will become political in nature, in so far as there is an understood party line, and those who deviate from it are ignored or castigated (see Slashdot for a good example of this).
Technology will not save us. More media will not save us. The ability to think critically, though, is priceless, and it is an ability that has atrophied in much of the United States' populace. Why? Why think when you can have your opinions handed to you. It is easier for us, worn out from another 80 hour week and poor diet, to become vegetables before the unblinking eye of the television or the computer.
Lots of people much smarter than me believe technology could be used to make democracy work[...]
No amount of technology can make up for an ill-informed and apathetic populace. The public school system in the United States, coupled with the socialization of children as consumers first, creates an atmosphere in which it is not in the short-term best interests of the powers that be to have an informed, motivated populace of voters.
Until we can stem the tide of apathy and get people to consider what things are really all about, then technology cannot save us. Look at what giving the vote to 18 year olds did: nothing. Voter turnout has been declining for years, even though we have more people who are eligible to vote than ever. We made voting so easy that few people want to have anything to do with it.
Technology will not save us, Jon. The Founding Fathers gave us a federal republic instead of a democracy for a reason.
Once again, Katz has decided to strike a blow against ethical behavior. By declaring that no one is free of corporate influence, he has tried to cast doubt upon the integrity of any institution.
This is the wrong path to take. Certainly, the influence of large organizations spreads far and wide--such is the nature of power. But universities deciding that they want to turn a profit for their research does not automatically strip them of all credibility and ethical steadfastness. Instead, it reflects the age-old desire for individuals and organizations to pay the bills.
How else are universities supposed to pay for their research, Jon? Money doesn't grow on trees. Most individuals can't be bothered to donate to academia because they can't see any immediate (or even long-term) impact in their lives. Since so few are willing to act in the interests of academics, they must act in their own self-interest, lest they wither and die. Would you prefer that institutions of higher learning fall, just to maintain your puerile notions of ethical superiority? "The university closed, but it didn't sell out!" What good is a closed university to anyone?
Think before you write these things, Jon. Your masturbatory exercises here are not changing anything for the better.
We should have been expecting this for a long time. Knowledge is power indeed, and the powers that be have known this for millenia.
It won't stop here, you know. The bill calls for the restriction of "objectionable" content. Objectionable is a fairly broad word; it can mean anything from hardcore sex to an opinion you don't agree with. Do we really need to give the government that kind of power?
What about large organizations? The GOP, Nike, and lots of other bodies of people no doubt have large lists of things that they find "objectionable." What happens when they can dictate what sites get filtered due to "objectionable" content?
This particular battle may already be lost. It might not be possible to turn back the tide and make the Web available to everyone in its raw, uncensored form. If that is the case, then we need to start planning now for the day when opinions that you and I hold valuable are banned, when it is no longer possible for anyone to access the Web and see what someone else thinks is questionable or objectionable.
Samizdat may be the only way to go on this. We will each of us be a lone voice crying in the desert, but better that than to be gagged in public view.
Watching Microsoft commercials again, Katz? Do you get paid a nickel every time someone writes or says "innovation"?
Enough sniping. The governments we're dealing with here are far from ignorant. They appear to be so because it suits them. In reality, if you look at the gradual encroachment on privacy and individual citizen's rights, you can see that the government is not ignorant and certainly is not stupid. Rather, they are motivated by their own self-interests, and are slowly clenching us in an iron fist.
I've written about this time and time again: the government is not your friend. Large corporations are not your friend. Yet we routinely hand these organizations incredible amounts of power and expect them to use it to help us? Forget it. They are parasites, interested in keeping the host alive and nothing more.
The ignorance comes from pseudo-pundits who can't understand that this is the case. Their confused writings can only interfere with the clarity of our vision; rarely can they illuminate, rather than obscure.
I am not frequently given to attacking individuals; I find ad hominem responses to statements distasteful. That said, I must say that I think Jon Katz is the sort of person who would be a rabble-rouser if he had anything in the way of common sense, real intelligence, or willpower. To regard his opinions in this matter as having any significant weight is probably a mistake. Katz is a good example of everything that academia should not be: far removed from the real world, unable to make clear, decisive statements (or even, seemingly, form opinions based on some sort of ethical sense), and able to use fifty words where five would suffice.
In other words, Katz, you're a blowhard.
This case is not solely about people trying to stick it to the man (in the form of record companies? Please. There are more important battles to be fought.), nor is it about the future of an individual's ability to express an idea. Yes, large corporations act in their own best interests. No, those interests do not always line up with our best interests. Is this a bad thing? Yes. Is it the end of free speech and life as we know it? No.
Katz is a blowhard, but more than that, he is the worst sort of person to have espousing your cause. Through his ignorance of the real issues and his inability to do anything other than talk about talking about an issue, he manages to so diffuse any effort expended in discussing or dealing with important topics that anyone who wants to change things for the better has a harder time of it. By wasting our time with his drivel, he has made it that much easier for the powers that be to maintain their hold over our society.
Perhaps Katz is in their employ. We know he's a writer, and that he is (by trade) a cog in the media machines that try to tell us what to think and how to feel. Katz' job is that of manipulation, and we would do well to remember that when looking at his screeds.
Think for yourselves, ladies and gentlemen. Don't let pseudo-pundits like Katz dictate your worldview, or deceive you into thinking that talking about a problem is the same as doing something about it.
Well. Katz managed to slip in a little more of his standard "geek alienation" rhetoric, but that's not really surprising.
The facts are simple: many of the people who used Napster were either doing so with the intent to break the law, or believed that fair use would protect their use of the software. The courts seem to have ruled that this is not the case.
Now, I don't like large music companies. I don't like RIAA asking people to spend $20 or more for music that isn't particularly good. But no one is putting a gun to anyone's head. No one is forcing anyone to buy RIAA-sponsored music. We have lost no fundamental rights here, and it is ridiculous to suppose that we have.
Granted, Napster was a potential channel for independent artists everywhere, a distribution means that was not controlled by RIAA, was not horrifically expensive, and ensured that your music would get out to a wider audience. Guess what? So is a common web page. So is IRC. So are plenty of other distribution channels (not all of them Internet-based) that were completely untouched by this ruling.
I don't like RIAA. I think that they're a powerful force working for the cheapening of society for a few extra dollars. Spawn of hell that it is, though, they did have a point: many of the people who used this software were doing so to break the law. And while it pains me that it is that much harder for an independent to have a widely-heard voice, consider this: most of the music traded on Napster was from RIAA-sponsored bands.
Let's not be hypocritical, ladies and gentlemen. Let's realize that RIAA may be pandering to the lowest common denominator, but many people who cry out against RIAA were listening to music that they'd not have heard without it.
If you really want things to change, then you'll have to start with yourself. Eschew all RIAA products, whether you bought them or stole them or borrowed them. The more you give your minds over to them, the harder they will be to beat in the long run.
Broadly speaking, the FBI is responsible for monitoring domestic events and the CIA for foreign events; the two are restricted to those arenas.
Does the NSA monitor everything (domestic and foreign)? In other words, is the NSA the central organization for monitoring everything that goes on anywhere?
Genetic engineering is just another tool, really. Like all tools, it can be used for good or for ill. Since we know that many of the entities involved in advancing the state of genetic engineering are not in it for our betterment (or are simply dupes), then we can expect to see it used more often for evil purposes than good ones.
Imagine a world in which most of the crops grown have terminator genes--they can't make their own seeds, and they tend to wipe out other plants. Think of it: you no longer have to pollute the water table with herbicides trying to get rid of unwanted plants. Instead, your own crops do the killing for you. Great idea, right?
Wrong. You don't have a seed stock any longer, so you can't plant your own crop. You have to keep buying these genetically modified seeds from someone else (possibly a large corporation, maybe from your local government). That person now has the power of life and death over you. Congratulations! By accepting the way in which this new technology is used, you've just forged another link for the chains that bind you.
Or how about this: a government decides that sooner or later, its citizens will start to wise up to the fact that it's up to no good and only wants to exploit them. Therefore, said government embarks on a long-ranging plan to slowly dull the population (just a few IQ points, really, you won't miss them) and introduce sequences that are linked to more tractable behavior. After fifty or sixty years, you have a population that isn't very sharp and is rather sheeplike in mentality. For the sake of your government, you make sure that at least some individuals aren't modified in this way, so that your regime has a supply of fresh talent. All it takes is a retrovirus slipped into a popular soft drink or a modified rhinovirus.
Of course it sounds like something out of a bad science fiction movie. Of course it sounds ridiculous. Who would do such a thing, after all? You must remember, ladies and gentlemen, that I am speaking of organizations that will stop at nothing to see their ends met, that will resort to the basest of actions and the cleverest of schemes to bring about their vision.
Be on your guard. Have a clear understanding of where your food and water comes from.
Katz isn't saying anything new, but that should hardly be a surprise by now.
We have known for some time--practically since the end of the Second World War (and to a certain extent before)--that the cloak of privacy is shrinking, and eventually it will be gone.
Already, the powers that be are training the public for the day when anyone can turn on a television or go to a website and watch the daily activities of a total stranger. Witness the success of shows like "Big Brother." The groundwork was laid years ago, and though people deride their banality, soi-disant "reality shows" like "Cops" and even (dare I say it) "The Real World" have been preparing people for this for years. Voyeur shows like "Big Brother" were simply the next logical step.
Eventually, the common citizen will have to conduct his or her life under the unblinking stare of the camera, not knowing who will be watching or when. I suspect that eventually, everyone will be watching everyone else. We will all be the stars of our own little Truman Shows.
And when this is in place, then they will have won. Intelligence agencies such as the FBI and NSA can be dealt, however ineffectually, because they can only do so much. The scenario I describe is akin to what's going on with distributed computing processes: you don't need just the best or the brightest to work on the problem. Every extra set of eyes helps.
We know that large segments of a population can be stirred up by mentioning a few key issues. How hard would it be for a fundamentalist figure to convince conservatives to spy on one another (and others) for evidence of sin? How hard would it be for some government official to say, "It's for the good of the children"? When you have a large body of motivated people working towards a common goal, little can stand against them. It is up to us, those who know and can see what is going on, to make sure that they act for the good of all, rather than for ill.
Fight the Power. Close your blinds and stay out of others' business.
If the government has a technique that can decrease crime, prevent terrorism, and save lives, how can you be opposed to it?
I like my privacy, and I want my government to respect it. I don't care for being watched all the time. I don't like being treated as a potential suspect. I don't like the entire "guilty until proven innocent" air that this entire mess has.
Does this decrease crime? Perhaps--only government officials will be authorized to harass and kill innocent people now. Does it save lives? Sure--if people are afraid to kill other people because the men with guns will kill anyone at the drop of a hat, it certainly will. Aren't a few lives lost to clerical errors worth that? Does it prevent terrorism? Absolutely not! It gives our government free license to act like armed hoodlums. Bullies with guns who can destroy lives on a whim.
Is your safety and that of your family worth so little?
I see no reason for unnecesary paranoia.
Nor do I. This isn't paranoia: it's a genuine, well-founded fear. There's nothing irrational about being afraid and distrustful of people who will pry into your private life just because it suits their fancy.
The article says that less than one hundred cases have involved evidence gathered from Internet wiretapping.
To read one person's e-mail, the FBI requires a separate machine in a locked cage co-located at the ISP. Why?
The FBI came forward asking for assistance in developing eavesdropping standards, when they have technical people in house who can do this sort of thing. Why broadcast the existence of this system?
Perhaps we are witnessing a schism between the FBI and other agencies. Imagine this:
You're an ISP. One day, you get a call from someone claiming to be a FBI agent and saying that they need to install a machine and eavesdropping equipment at your ISP to gather evidence for prosecution. Now, being a technically savvy person, you realize that most criminals that the FBI would be interested in don't write each other e-mail detailing their crimes. The few that do are mostly white-collar types who are involved in insider trading or some other form of high-dollar business crime. Reluctantly, you agree.
Agents with FBI credentials show up and install the machine. You have no way of knowing what it's grabbing, but you bite the bullet and hope for the best. Here's the kicker: the agents were installed by someone else--CIA, perhaps, or NSA--an agency whose charters explicitly forbid spying on US citizens inside US borders. They want the ability to spy on domestic citizens, so they set this up and pretend to be the FBI, hoping that ISPs will be so cowed by government agents that they won't follow up the matter.
The FBI gets wind of this somehow and spills the beans in an "accidentally-on-purpose" sort of way. The competing agency, whoever it is, is incensed by this and the FBI gets to reclaim its turf. Then, because the FBI is so clearly and visibly involved in this, they get to keep the machines, figure out how to get the data from them, and use them as if nothing were wrong. They have denied another agency a means of control.
Far-fetched, admittedly, but it is a possibility.
Still, I must say that I am saddened by the further erosion of our rights. What next? Radio collars?
Interesting posts, thank..I wonder exactly what the consequences of unplugging are? Do people lose their jobs? fall behind? Miss lots of important advances?
Yes, to all of the above. Else why would technical people feel so enslaved to their work? Working on an exciting project is a lot of fun, but it isn't your life.
Granted, a significant portion of the technical community enjoys working on their work. But that portion is not enough to explain people like my roommate, who recently quit his job because he was spending too much time on the road and too much time at work. Working late every now and again is one thing; not being home for days at a time because you're stuck working on something in a building half a mile away is quite another matter.
There are consequences. People do fall behind, miss important things, and eventually get fired. But not every tech company is like that. The intelligent ones with good management realize that people are people, not machines and certainly not a limitless resource. When you burn out one person so completely that they cannot get out of bed in the morning, you can't always go to the local headhunting agency and get another in their place.
In some ways, this new "Information Revolution" that I hear about from time to time is not much different from the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century. A valuable resource (technical knowledge) has been discovered and is being exploited. It will be a while (or maybe not much longer--one can never tell for certain) before things reach a state of equilibrium in which employees enjoy their work and employers don't run their people into the ground.
Sure, maybe we are "stressed" these days, and feel tied to jobs from which we can't escape -- but think about how great it is that these technologies allow us to have careers where we don't have to shovel coal 22 hours a day.
Or hunter-gatherers, who have to work maybe four hours per day to ensure their survival.
Goodness, Jon, no one has ever suggested that our emphasis on technological trinkets robs of leisure time! How insightful of you!
I've covered this before, but here it is again:
The United States of America has a strong streak of consumerism at the core of its cultural values. We think that we must buy the latest doodads to keep up with the Joneses. This impulse contributes to our self-esteem and the granting of esteem by our peers.
Look at some of the sociological studies done with regards to clothing and other items with large, obvious logos. Most of them are bought by lower class and lower middle class people to show that they have the money to spend on these things. Those in what is traditionally regarded as the upper class, if they have been raised in that lifestyle, do not buy such things because they and their peers can recognize "quality" when they see it and don't need logos. You can see the same thing in many rural areas--I cannot count the number of times I've passed a trailer home or a little shanty with a satellite dish or an outrageously customized automobile outside.
We are taught that we must buy everything we can. Combine this with a government that takes between twenty and forty percent of the average person's yearly wages (or more), and add in the fact that a quality education (which most parents want for their children) is increasingly expensive and hard to find, and you have the formula that makes both parents work overtime in salary jobs because they can't afford not to.
The American Dream used to be the chance of success. Now the American Dream is two mortgages, heavy credit card bills and functionally illiterate children who refuse to have anything to do with their hapless parents.
What does technology have to do with all of this?
In most cases, technological items are simply more gizmos to be hawked to the unwary. When was the last time you really needed to spend over a thousand dollars on a stereo system? The items we buy are being packaged with more and more "features," each more incomprehensible than the last, in an effort to pander to the lowest common denominator. "Look, honey! It's got 89 settings, it must be better than this one with 32!"
Since companies can charge more for these gizmos, we have to work harder to buy them. We have to buy them to maintain our self-esteem (without which you're in bad shape and, in extreme cases, driven to cull yourself from the gene pool).
Ergo, the corporate and government interests that run significant portions of our society have condemned millions of people to a lifetime of wage slavery. The sad thing is that these people don't always fully realize what is happening until it's too late.
Note the destabilizing influence of the US government's mere possible intent to build a regional missile defence. What happens when you've got countries launching hundreds of military satellites a year? All you're going to get are insane levels of paranoia and an arms race, and then most likely another Cold War.
Yes and no. While it is true that paranoia levels will rise and another arms race may well come about, it is also true that spillover effects might make launching technologies cheaper and more efficient. If such a race did occur, is it not possible that governments would seek methods other than the traditional multi-stage booster to lift their payloads?
Governments, though they sometimes behave stupidly, are not generally stupid. They realize when money can be saved, and if the demand is great enough, or the need pressing enough, then they will find other ways to do it.
Putting weapons in space is an old idea, and it is really only a matter of time before someone decides to do it. The real question here is what else they have up there, or will have.
We've been heading in this direction for several years now. It took some time for large companies (and even small ones) to build up enough influence to pull this off, but it is now obvious that people are being treated as commodities once again.
The last time they did this in the United States of America, it was called slavery and eventually it was outlawed; it seems that it was seen as illegal to treat people as property.
Now, people are being treated as property again, virtually if not actually. A company can cover itself by saying, "We are only selling information, not the person!" but the truth of the matter is that in our day and age, information about a person can be a valuable asset in putting that person's resources at your disposal.
Forget about blackmail--that's a naive idea. The real money lies in being able to analyze people according to their purchasing and surfing patterns, and tailoring ads to individuals that are nearly irresistable.
For more than fifty years, citizens of the United States of America have been conditioned to believe that they must buy next year's model, that they must keep up with the Joneses, that every penny that isn't being spent on keeping them alive or sheltered must be spent on buying things that mysteriously fail to increase our quality of life. We are being taught to buy junk, and then we are forced to work longer hours so we can buy more junk.
It is time to stop this nonsense. It is time to say, "No more!" Are you willing to trade your freedom for a few cheap trinkets?
Katz is really making too much out of a simple issue. The "open media" revolution of which he speaks is really nothing more than millions of people in the industrialized world speaking their minds.
Katz talks about the impact of "open media", but only mentions en passant that its impact is limited to those who have regular access to the Internet and who seek out such sources. Many people are content to go no farther than their radio or TV for news. In developing countries (and still, in many developed ones), some people go no farther than friends and family for current news.
No strangleholds on information access are being broken. Many major news sites on the Web are related in some way to real-world news providers that are in turn owned by larger conglomerates. Unsurprisingly, the corporations that hoodwink and confound us in the real world are trying to do so in the virtual one. The only difference in this regard is that in the virtual world, it's much easier to hear an individual's opinion.
The virtual world can be likened to a vast, long street lined with shops. Billboards and salesmen are everywhere, hawking their wares much as they do in reality. Large media companies dispense the news as normal, and the politicians make their presence felt by regulating the way the street operates, even though few of them have yet ventured onto it.
Also on this street, jostling passersby and one another, are millions of people wearing sandwich boards and ranting about their topics of choice. Some of those people have formed enclaves (some more exclusive than others), where favorite topics are bandied about, flame wars started, and inside jokes kept alive.
Jon, the virtual world is really not that different from the real world. If there is such a thing as "open media", the only reason it is more visible in the virtual world is because it's easier to self-publish there.
This isn't revolutionary. In the long run, it may not even be important. But it is interesting, and it is useful.
Katz' article says nothing new. It is, in fact, a rehash of most of what has been said about genetic engineering (from an editorial point of view) for the past few decades.
Perhaps Katz was simply trying to provoke discussion. He has been known to do that, after all. In so doing, though, Katz missed the opportunity to make good, genuine points about a technology that we should be wary of.
This is not about a battle between the haves and have-nots. This is not a Frankenstein fantasy, nor is it the introduction to a brave new world. Instead, as we have already seen with Montesanto's terminator seeds, it is another tool of oppression.
Imagine a future in which your food supply is dominated by one or two companies. Those companies, then would wield incredible power, beyond what most governments can manage, even though those governments are usually backed by people with guns.
In truth, genetic engineering can and probably will be used as a means of oppression, much as several other dual-purpose technologies have been.
As far as I can tell, buying a CD of a band's music is not forbidden right now. In fact, it's ridiculously easy, unlike trying to get a copy of Gulag Archipelago in Vladivostok in 1974. If you don't want to pay the record industry's inflated prices, just say so. Don't use "freedom" as a justifcation for your greed.
I'm not. Nowhere in my original message did I mention MP3s or pirated music. They are not my concern.
My concern is that a small number of powerful individuals and organizations can, through the use of their influence, close channels of communication, simply because they don't like what is being transmitted. That information can be MP3s, texts describing how to build a nuclear weapon, information on disease, anything.
I could not care less whether MP3s are actually pirated music. Theft of that sort is wrong, to be sure, but I have other, more pressing problems--like the gradual erosion of human rights to keep power concentrated in the hands of a few people who will exploit us.
For the last year at least, we have seen that corporations, large monied organizations, and governments have all realized what the Internet actually is:
A communications channel that could relay any data nearly anywhere in the world more or less instantaneously.
Naturally, the powers that be want to make sure that only offical, approved information that reflects and protects their interests is disseminated. Many average citizens are content to let this happen, either unable or unwilling to understand the ramifications of this trend.
Others, myself among them, realize that if only approved, sanitized, doesn't-upset-those-in-charge data is to be sent, then the real message will just have to go out anyway--just in a more quiet fashion.
During the heyday of the Soviet Union, when mimeographs were sensitive technology and every document that was printed or copied was examined for ideas that did not conform to the Party line, there were individuals who, through ingenuity and boldness, managed to draft and circulate information that was priceless because it was the truth. Information distributed in this way came to be known as samizdat.
I suggest that we get busy accumulating samizdat. When the time is right (and let us hope, and work to ensure, that it never is), then we must distribute it. Information may not care whether it is free, but people have the right not to be bamboozled and hoodwinked into submission.
Unfortunately, it it NOT like this in the US. There is no national referendum process, and only certain states have any type of state initiative program.
I believe that the Constitution allows for a national referendum, provided that three-fourths of the population votes for such a referendum.
In essence, though, I agree with you; the issue seems never to have come up in United States history, and I don't think that an actual process (by which I mean logistics, allowing for the establishment of the referendum, et cetera) exists.
I mean, when you allow technology like this, which the public does not understand, to become central to the democratic process, you empower a small technological elite who understands the technology and its limitations.
The digital signature initiative will not replace traditional poll voting and other methods of creating citizen referendums; it is intended as a supplementary measure.
As it happens, I agree with you with regards to your point on technological elitism. But that isn't the real reason to worry about this. The real reason is that we in the United States are finding that this wonderful medium of communication (the Internet) is becoming increasingly monitored and invaded by government influence. While ARPANET and the original connections that would later become the Internet were the result of government funding, the work was done mainly by educational types. Students.
How does one verify a digital signature? There are lots of ways, to be sure, but I think that for so important a part of the political process, the United States government will want something a little more solid--tying each signature to an IP address, for instance (IPv6 will make it possible for everyone on the planet to have a unique IP. We know what happens when people are assigned a unique number: it is used for ID). As a result, the government has a brand new way to keep track of its citizens, all in the guise of giving them more power.
Let's think about this one a bit before we accept it.
Every time I read about the courts over-turning some insidious, obviously unconstitutional law, my first thought is "Good. Things are still right in the world, and someone is acting to preserve the ideas our country was founded on."
The powers that be are willing to take a few public defeats to disguise the fact that their plans are proceeding nicely outside the public view.
As a rule, the general public is gullible, short-sighted and distractible. With a little legislative sleight-of-hand and a few well-timed scandals, it would be possible to pass the most egregious violations of civil liberties under the guise of "protecting the children" or "putting drug dealers behind bars."
The next thought that comes to mind, however, is "Why does it take the COURTS to do this?" Why don't the law-makers, the elected officials whom we have (theoretically) chosen to create the rules best suited to serve our society, care about the constitution?
Because the United States has a large population of easily bamboozled, apathetic people who are eligible to vote, and only half (or less) of them bother to do so. In a federal republic with a democratic foundation, the populace gets the government it deserves. If the people vote for candidates based on a few touchstone "issues" and media presence, rather than on overall, meaningful views, then nearly anyone who knows how to lie effectively could get to be in office.
Granted, the fact that so many in the United States are apathetic and incapable of critical thought is not entirely their fault; a number of societal factors (from breaking up the nuclear family, to forcing parents to work long hours to keep food on the table and separating them from their children, to the use of the television as a babysitter, to the increasingly poor quality of public schooling, to name but a few) contribute to what is essentially the stupification of the citizenry.
However, that is no excuse. These factors are only contributors; they cannot succeed if we recognize them for what they are and are prepared to take action against them. It's a hard world, and raising children and raising them well is the hardest thing that most of us will ever do. We owe it to them, and to ourselves, and to future generations, to make that effort, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Internet media is not so much interactive as it is the expansion of choice: I can go to fifty different pages for news about a particular set of events, or I can watch one of the three regular networks for news. (Aside: broadcast news is still important because it is more widespread than most other media outlets. How many people don't have a TV?)
As a result of this, depth of coverage becomes an issue. I can go to fifty different pages, but if forty nine of them are repeating one, then I haven't gained much. Online news is growing, and it is important, but it is not prime time yet. All too often, people who work in the online news biz just copy their stories from the latest AP or Reuters wire.
Weblogs? Sure, weblogs allow interactivity and discussion of an issue, but as we've all seen here before, it also allows a lot of noise and a fair amount of uninformed balderdash. The maxim, "don't believe everything you read" is just as true today as it was twenty years ago. All too often, the community spawned by a weblog will become political in nature, in so far as there is an understood party line, and those who deviate from it are ignored or castigated (see Slashdot for a good example of this).
Technology will not save us. More media will not save us. The ability to think critically, though, is priceless, and it is an ability that has atrophied in much of the United States' populace. Why? Why think when you can have your opinions handed to you. It is easier for us, worn out from another 80 hour week and poor diet, to become vegetables before the unblinking eye of the television or the computer.
Think.
No amount of technology can make up for an ill-informed and apathetic populace. The public school system in the United States, coupled with the socialization of children as consumers first, creates an atmosphere in which it is not in the short-term best interests of the powers that be to have an informed, motivated populace of voters.
Until we can stem the tide of apathy and get people to consider what things are really all about, then technology cannot save us. Look at what giving the vote to 18 year olds did: nothing. Voter turnout has been declining for years, even though we have more people who are eligible to vote than ever. We made voting so easy that few people want to have anything to do with it.
Technology will not save us, Jon. The Founding Fathers gave us a federal republic instead of a democracy for a reason.
This is the wrong path to take. Certainly, the influence of large organizations spreads far and wide--such is the nature of power. But universities deciding that they want to turn a profit for their research does not automatically strip them of all credibility and ethical steadfastness. Instead, it reflects the age-old desire for individuals and organizations to pay the bills.
How else are universities supposed to pay for their research, Jon? Money doesn't grow on trees. Most individuals can't be bothered to donate to academia because they can't see any immediate (or even long-term) impact in their lives. Since so few are willing to act in the interests of academics, they must act in their own self-interest, lest they wither and die. Would you prefer that institutions of higher learning fall, just to maintain your puerile notions of ethical superiority? "The university closed, but it didn't sell out!" What good is a closed university to anyone?
Think before you write these things, Jon. Your masturbatory exercises here are not changing anything for the better.
It won't stop here, you know. The bill calls for the restriction of "objectionable" content. Objectionable is a fairly broad word; it can mean anything from hardcore sex to an opinion you don't agree with. Do we really need to give the government that kind of power?
What about large organizations? The GOP, Nike, and lots of other bodies of people no doubt have large lists of things that they find "objectionable." What happens when they can dictate what sites get filtered due to "objectionable" content?
This particular battle may already be lost. It might not be possible to turn back the tide and make the Web available to everyone in its raw, uncensored form. If that is the case, then we need to start planning now for the day when opinions that you and I hold valuable are banned, when it is no longer possible for anyone to access the Web and see what someone else thinks is questionable or objectionable.
Samizdat may be the only way to go on this. We will each of us be a lone voice crying in the desert, but better that than to be gagged in public view.
Enough sniping. The governments we're dealing with here are far from ignorant. They appear to be so because it suits them. In reality, if you look at the gradual encroachment on privacy and individual citizen's rights, you can see that the government is not ignorant and certainly is not stupid. Rather, they are motivated by their own self-interests, and are slowly clenching us in an iron fist.
I've written about this time and time again: the government is not your friend. Large corporations are not your friend. Yet we routinely hand these organizations incredible amounts of power and expect them to use it to help us? Forget it. They are parasites, interested in keeping the host alive and nothing more.
The ignorance comes from pseudo-pundits who can't understand that this is the case. Their confused writings can only interfere with the clarity of our vision; rarely can they illuminate, rather than obscure.
Fight the Power.
In other words, Katz, you're a blowhard.
This case is not solely about people trying to stick it to the man (in the form of record companies? Please. There are more important battles to be fought.), nor is it about the future of an individual's ability to express an idea. Yes, large corporations act in their own best interests. No, those interests do not always line up with our best interests. Is this a bad thing? Yes. Is it the end of free speech and life as we know it? No.
Katz is a blowhard, but more than that, he is the worst sort of person to have espousing your cause. Through his ignorance of the real issues and his inability to do anything other than talk about talking about an issue, he manages to so diffuse any effort expended in discussing or dealing with important topics that anyone who wants to change things for the better has a harder time of it. By wasting our time with his drivel, he has made it that much easier for the powers that be to maintain their hold over our society.
Perhaps Katz is in their employ. We know he's a writer, and that he is (by trade) a cog in the media machines that try to tell us what to think and how to feel. Katz' job is that of manipulation, and we would do well to remember that when looking at his screeds.
Think for yourselves, ladies and gentlemen. Don't let pseudo-pundits like Katz dictate your worldview, or deceive you into thinking that talking about a problem is the same as doing something about it.
Fight the Power.
The facts are simple: many of the people who used Napster were either doing so with the intent to break the law, or believed that fair use would protect their use of the software. The courts seem to have ruled that this is not the case.
Now, I don't like large music companies. I don't like RIAA asking people to spend $20 or more for music that isn't particularly good. But no one is putting a gun to anyone's head. No one is forcing anyone to buy RIAA-sponsored music. We have lost no fundamental rights here, and it is ridiculous to suppose that we have.
Granted, Napster was a potential channel for independent artists everywhere, a distribution means that was not controlled by RIAA, was not horrifically expensive, and ensured that your music would get out to a wider audience. Guess what? So is a common web page. So is IRC. So are plenty of other distribution channels (not all of them Internet-based) that were completely untouched by this ruling.
I don't like RIAA. I think that they're a powerful force working for the cheapening of society for a few extra dollars. Spawn of hell that it is, though, they did have a point: many of the people who used this software were doing so to break the law. And while it pains me that it is that much harder for an independent to have a widely-heard voice, consider this: most of the music traded on Napster was from RIAA-sponsored bands.
Let's not be hypocritical, ladies and gentlemen. Let's realize that RIAA may be pandering to the lowest common denominator, but many people who cry out against RIAA were listening to music that they'd not have heard without it.
If you really want things to change, then you'll have to start with yourself. Eschew all RIAA products, whether you bought them or stole them or borrowed them. The more you give your minds over to them, the harder they will be to beat in the long run.
Fight the Power.
Does the NSA monitor everything (domestic and foreign)? In other words, is the NSA the central organization for monitoring everything that goes on anywhere?
What, exactly, was the USS Liberty doing near Israel in the first place? Presumably, it was assigned to SIGINT, but who was the subject and why?
Imagine a world in which most of the crops grown have terminator genes--they can't make their own seeds, and they tend to wipe out other plants. Think of it: you no longer have to pollute the water table with herbicides trying to get rid of unwanted plants. Instead, your own crops do the killing for you. Great idea, right?
Wrong. You don't have a seed stock any longer, so you can't plant your own crop. You have to keep buying these genetically modified seeds from someone else (possibly a large corporation, maybe from your local government). That person now has the power of life and death over you. Congratulations! By accepting the way in which this new technology is used, you've just forged another link for the chains that bind you.
Or how about this: a government decides that sooner or later, its citizens will start to wise up to the fact that it's up to no good and only wants to exploit them. Therefore, said government embarks on a long-ranging plan to slowly dull the population (just a few IQ points, really, you won't miss them) and introduce sequences that are linked to more tractable behavior. After fifty or sixty years, you have a population that isn't very sharp and is rather sheeplike in mentality. For the sake of your government, you make sure that at least some individuals aren't modified in this way, so that your regime has a supply of fresh talent. All it takes is a retrovirus slipped into a popular soft drink or a modified rhinovirus.
Of course it sounds like something out of a bad science fiction movie. Of course it sounds ridiculous. Who would do such a thing, after all? You must remember, ladies and gentlemen, that I am speaking of organizations that will stop at nothing to see their ends met, that will resort to the basest of actions and the cleverest of schemes to bring about their vision.
Be on your guard. Have a clear understanding of where your food and water comes from.
We have known for some time--practically since the end of the Second World War (and to a certain extent before)--that the cloak of privacy is shrinking, and eventually it will be gone.
Already, the powers that be are training the public for the day when anyone can turn on a television or go to a website and watch the daily activities of a total stranger. Witness the success of shows like "Big Brother." The groundwork was laid years ago, and though people deride their banality, soi-disant "reality shows" like "Cops" and even (dare I say it) "The Real World" have been preparing people for this for years. Voyeur shows like "Big Brother" were simply the next logical step.
Eventually, the common citizen will have to conduct his or her life under the unblinking stare of the camera, not knowing who will be watching or when. I suspect that eventually, everyone will be watching everyone else. We will all be the stars of our own little Truman Shows.
And when this is in place, then they will have won. Intelligence agencies such as the FBI and NSA can be dealt, however ineffectually, because they can only do so much. The scenario I describe is akin to what's going on with distributed computing processes: you don't need just the best or the brightest to work on the problem. Every extra set of eyes helps.
We know that large segments of a population can be stirred up by mentioning a few key issues. How hard would it be for a fundamentalist figure to convince conservatives to spy on one another (and others) for evidence of sin? How hard would it be for some government official to say, "It's for the good of the children"? When you have a large body of motivated people working towards a common goal, little can stand against them. It is up to us, those who know and can see what is going on, to make sure that they act for the good of all, rather than for ill.
Fight the Power. Close your blinds and stay out of others' business.
I like my privacy, and I want my government to respect it. I don't care for being watched all the time. I don't like being treated as a potential suspect. I don't like the entire "guilty until proven innocent" air that this entire mess has.
Does this decrease crime? Perhaps--only government officials will be authorized to harass and kill innocent people now. Does it save lives? Sure--if people are afraid to kill other people because the men with guns will kill anyone at the drop of a hat, it certainly will. Aren't a few lives lost to clerical errors worth that? Does it prevent terrorism? Absolutely not! It gives our government free license to act like armed hoodlums. Bullies with guns who can destroy lives on a whim.
Is your safety and that of your family worth so little?
I see no reason for unnecesary paranoia.
Nor do I. This isn't paranoia: it's a genuine, well-founded fear. There's nothing irrational about being afraid and distrustful of people who will pry into your private life just because it suits their fancy.
Fight the Power.
To read one person's e-mail, the FBI requires a separate machine in a locked cage co-located at the ISP. Why?
The FBI came forward asking for assistance in developing eavesdropping standards, when they have technical people in house who can do this sort of thing. Why broadcast the existence of this system?
Perhaps we are witnessing a schism between the FBI and other agencies. Imagine this:
You're an ISP. One day, you get a call from someone claiming to be a FBI agent and saying that they need to install a machine and eavesdropping equipment at your ISP to gather evidence for prosecution. Now, being a technically savvy person, you realize that most criminals that the FBI would be interested in don't write each other e-mail detailing their crimes. The few that do are mostly white-collar types who are involved in insider trading or some other form of high-dollar business crime. Reluctantly, you agree.
Agents with FBI credentials show up and install the machine. You have no way of knowing what it's grabbing, but you bite the bullet and hope for the best. Here's the kicker: the agents were installed by someone else--CIA, perhaps, or NSA--an agency whose charters explicitly forbid spying on US citizens inside US borders. They want the ability to spy on domestic citizens, so they set this up and pretend to be the FBI, hoping that ISPs will be so cowed by government agents that they won't follow up the matter.
The FBI gets wind of this somehow and spills the beans in an "accidentally-on-purpose" sort of way. The competing agency, whoever it is, is incensed by this and the FBI gets to reclaim its turf. Then, because the FBI is so clearly and visibly involved in this, they get to keep the machines, figure out how to get the data from them, and use them as if nothing were wrong. They have denied another agency a means of control.
Far-fetched, admittedly, but it is a possibility.
Still, I must say that I am saddened by the further erosion of our rights. What next? Radio collars?
Yes, to all of the above. Else why would technical people feel so enslaved to their work? Working on an exciting project is a lot of fun, but it isn't your life.
Granted, a significant portion of the technical community enjoys working on their work. But that portion is not enough to explain people like my roommate, who recently quit his job because he was spending too much time on the road and too much time at work. Working late every now and again is one thing; not being home for days at a time because you're stuck working on something in a building half a mile away is quite another matter.
There are consequences. People do fall behind, miss important things, and eventually get fired. But not every tech company is like that. The intelligent ones with good management realize that people are people, not machines and certainly not a limitless resource. When you burn out one person so completely that they cannot get out of bed in the morning, you can't always go to the local headhunting agency and get another in their place.
In some ways, this new "Information Revolution" that I hear about from time to time is not much different from the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century. A valuable resource (technical knowledge) has been discovered and is being exploited. It will be a while (or maybe not much longer--one can never tell for certain) before things reach a state of equilibrium in which employees enjoy their work and employers don't run their people into the ground.
Or hunter-gatherers, who have to work maybe four hours per day to ensure their survival.
I've covered this before, but here it is again:
The United States of America has a strong streak of consumerism at the core of its cultural values. We think that we must buy the latest doodads to keep up with the Joneses. This impulse contributes to our self-esteem and the granting of esteem by our peers.
Look at some of the sociological studies done with regards to clothing and other items with large, obvious logos. Most of them are bought by lower class and lower middle class people to show that they have the money to spend on these things. Those in what is traditionally regarded as the upper class, if they have been raised in that lifestyle, do not buy such things because they and their peers can recognize "quality" when they see it and don't need logos. You can see the same thing in many rural areas--I cannot count the number of times I've passed a trailer home or a little shanty with a satellite dish or an outrageously customized automobile outside.
We are taught that we must buy everything we can. Combine this with a government that takes between twenty and forty percent of the average person's yearly wages (or more), and add in the fact that a quality education (which most parents want for their children) is increasingly expensive and hard to find, and you have the formula that makes both parents work overtime in salary jobs because they can't afford not to.
The American Dream used to be the chance of success. Now the American Dream is two mortgages, heavy credit card bills and functionally illiterate children who refuse to have anything to do with their hapless parents.
What does technology have to do with all of this?
In most cases, technological items are simply more gizmos to be hawked to the unwary. When was the last time you really needed to spend over a thousand dollars on a stereo system? The items we buy are being packaged with more and more "features," each more incomprehensible than the last, in an effort to pander to the lowest common denominator. "Look, honey! It's got 89 settings, it must be better than this one with 32!"
Since companies can charge more for these gizmos, we have to work harder to buy them. We have to buy them to maintain our self-esteem (without which you're in bad shape and, in extreme cases, driven to cull yourself from the gene pool).
Ergo, the corporate and government interests that run significant portions of our society have condemned millions of people to a lifetime of wage slavery. The sad thing is that these people don't always fully realize what is happening until it's too late.
Fight the Power.
Yes and no. While it is true that paranoia levels will rise and another arms race may well come about, it is also true that spillover effects might make launching technologies cheaper and more efficient. If such a race did occur, is it not possible that governments would seek methods other than the traditional multi-stage booster to lift their payloads?
Governments, though they sometimes behave stupidly, are not generally stupid. They realize when money can be saved, and if the demand is great enough, or the need pressing enough, then they will find other ways to do it.
Putting weapons in space is an old idea, and it is really only a matter of time before someone decides to do it. The real question here is what else they have up there, or will have.
The last time they did this in the United States of America, it was called slavery and eventually it was outlawed; it seems that it was seen as illegal to treat people as property.
Now, people are being treated as property again, virtually if not actually. A company can cover itself by saying, "We are only selling information, not the person!" but the truth of the matter is that in our day and age, information about a person can be a valuable asset in putting that person's resources at your disposal.
Forget about blackmail--that's a naive idea. The real money lies in being able to analyze people according to their purchasing and surfing patterns, and tailoring ads to individuals that are nearly irresistable.
For more than fifty years, citizens of the United States of America have been conditioned to believe that they must buy next year's model, that they must keep up with the Joneses, that every penny that isn't being spent on keeping them alive or sheltered must be spent on buying things that mysteriously fail to increase our quality of life. We are being taught to buy junk, and then we are forced to work longer hours so we can buy more junk.
It is time to stop this nonsense. It is time to say, "No more!" Are you willing to trade your freedom for a few cheap trinkets?
Katz talks about the impact of "open media", but only mentions en passant that its impact is limited to those who have regular access to the Internet and who seek out such sources. Many people are content to go no farther than their radio or TV for news. In developing countries (and still, in many developed ones), some people go no farther than friends and family for current news.
No strangleholds on information access are being broken. Many major news sites on the Web are related in some way to real-world news providers that are in turn owned by larger conglomerates. Unsurprisingly, the corporations that hoodwink and confound us in the real world are trying to do so in the virtual one. The only difference in this regard is that in the virtual world, it's much easier to hear an individual's opinion.
The virtual world can be likened to a vast, long street lined with shops. Billboards and salesmen are everywhere, hawking their wares much as they do in reality. Large media companies dispense the news as normal, and the politicians make their presence felt by regulating the way the street operates, even though few of them have yet ventured onto it.
Also on this street, jostling passersby and one another, are millions of people wearing sandwich boards and ranting about their topics of choice. Some of those people have formed enclaves (some more exclusive than others), where favorite topics are bandied about, flame wars started, and inside jokes kept alive.
Jon, the virtual world is really not that different from the real world. If there is such a thing as "open media", the only reason it is more visible in the virtual world is because it's easier to self-publish there.
This isn't revolutionary. In the long run, it may not even be important. But it is interesting, and it is useful.
Perhaps Katz was simply trying to provoke discussion. He has been known to do that, after all. In so doing, though, Katz missed the opportunity to make good, genuine points about a technology that we should be wary of.
This is not about a battle between the haves and have-nots. This is not a Frankenstein fantasy, nor is it the introduction to a brave new world. Instead, as we have already seen with Montesanto's terminator seeds, it is another tool of oppression.
Imagine a future in which your food supply is dominated by one or two companies. Those companies, then would wield incredible power, beyond what most governments can manage, even though those governments are usually backed by people with guns.
In truth, genetic engineering can and probably will be used as a means of oppression, much as several other dual-purpose technologies have been.
I'm not. Nowhere in my original message did I mention MP3s or pirated music. They are not my concern.
My concern is that a small number of powerful individuals and organizations can, through the use of their influence, close channels of communication, simply because they don't like what is being transmitted. That information can be MP3s, texts describing how to build a nuclear weapon, information on disease, anything.
I could not care less whether MP3s are actually pirated music. Theft of that sort is wrong, to be sure, but I have other, more pressing problems--like the gradual erosion of human rights to keep power concentrated in the hands of a few people who will exploit us.
A communications channel that could relay any data nearly anywhere in the world more or less instantaneously.
Naturally, the powers that be want to make sure that only offical, approved information that reflects and protects their interests is disseminated. Many average citizens are content to let this happen, either unable or unwilling to understand the ramifications of this trend.
Others, myself among them, realize that if only approved, sanitized, doesn't-upset-those-in-charge data is to be sent, then the real message will just have to go out anyway--just in a more quiet fashion.
During the heyday of the Soviet Union, when mimeographs were sensitive technology and every document that was printed or copied was examined for ideas that did not conform to the Party line, there were individuals who, through ingenuity and boldness, managed to draft and circulate information that was priceless because it was the truth. Information distributed in this way came to be known as samizdat.
I suggest that we get busy accumulating samizdat. When the time is right (and let us hope, and work to ensure, that it never is), then we must distribute it. Information may not care whether it is free, but people have the right not to be bamboozled and hoodwinked into submission.
I believe that the Constitution allows for a national referendum, provided that three-fourths of the population votes for such a referendum.
In essence, though, I agree with you; the issue seems never to have come up in United States history, and I don't think that an actual process (by which I mean logistics, allowing for the establishment of the referendum, et cetera) exists.
The digital signature initiative will not replace traditional poll voting and other methods of creating citizen referendums; it is intended as a supplementary measure.
As it happens, I agree with you with regards to your point on technological elitism. But that isn't the real reason to worry about this. The real reason is that we in the United States are finding that this wonderful medium of communication (the Internet) is becoming increasingly monitored and invaded by government influence. While ARPANET and the original connections that would later become the Internet were the result of government funding, the work was done mainly by educational types. Students.
How does one verify a digital signature? There are lots of ways, to be sure, but I think that for so important a part of the political process, the United States government will want something a little more solid--tying each signature to an IP address, for instance (IPv6 will make it possible for everyone on the planet to have a unique IP. We know what happens when people are assigned a unique number: it is used for ID). As a result, the government has a brand new way to keep track of its citizens, all in the guise of giving them more power.
Let's think about this one a bit before we accept it.
The powers that be are willing to take a few public defeats to disguise the fact that their plans are proceeding nicely outside the public view.
As a rule, the general public is gullible, short-sighted and distractible. With a little legislative sleight-of-hand and a few well-timed scandals, it would be possible to pass the most egregious violations of civil liberties under the guise of "protecting the children" or "putting drug dealers behind bars."
The next thought that comes to mind, however, is "Why does it take the COURTS to do this?" Why don't the law-makers, the elected officials whom we have (theoretically) chosen to create the rules best suited to serve our society, care about the constitution?
Because the United States has a large population of easily bamboozled, apathetic people who are eligible to vote, and only half (or less) of them bother to do so. In a federal republic with a democratic foundation, the populace gets the government it deserves. If the people vote for candidates based on a few touchstone "issues" and media presence, rather than on overall, meaningful views, then nearly anyone who knows how to lie effectively could get to be in office.
Granted, the fact that so many in the United States are apathetic and incapable of critical thought is not entirely their fault; a number of societal factors (from breaking up the nuclear family, to forcing parents to work long hours to keep food on the table and separating them from their children, to the use of the television as a babysitter, to the increasingly poor quality of public schooling, to name but a few) contribute to what is essentially the stupification of the citizenry.
However, that is no excuse. These factors are only contributors; they cannot succeed if we recognize them for what they are and are prepared to take action against them. It's a hard world, and raising children and raising them well is the hardest thing that most of us will ever do. We owe it to them, and to ourselves, and to future generations, to make that effort, though.
Fight the Power.