From: G.Livraghi@agora.stm.it
Subject: "Cassandra"
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 22:51:41 GMT
===================================================================
"Cassandra"
-----------
Can we really relax?
Here's who, I think, will not leave us in peace
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a widespread perception, among users of the net, that
after all there is not much to worry about. The net is free,
anarchic, chaotic, complex, nobody will ever be able to dominate
it or restrict our freedom.
The attempts of "censorship" based on "pornography" are
so ridiculous that they will die out...
The American "decency act" has already been declared
unconstitutional, it will have no effect...
There are still pressures from the authorities, bureaucratical
repression, seizures of computers and equipment, but they are
less frequent; no more "crackdowns" like the one in the USA in
1990 and the one in Italy in 1994...
The proposed laws and norms for repression, censorship, taxation,
restrictions, strangling bureaucracy, so far have come to nothing...
Hacker scandals make headlines but die out quickly...
Monopolies, sooner or later, will be broken by market competition
or anti-trust regulation...
So... why worry?
* * *
Before I get to the point, I would like to talk about Cassandra.
She is known in history (or legend) as a witch, a soothsayer,
a bearer of bad omen.
She was just a bright girl who said "Please, before we bring
in that strange gift from those tricky Greeks, why don't we take a
look at what's inside?" They didn't listen; and then they blamed her.
It's happened to me at times to be in Cassandra's role; at other
times, I was the stupid Trojan.
Both get rather badly hurt. So I hope, this time, to be neither
one, nor the other.
But the fact is that there are good reasons to worry.
* * *
Luckily, it's true that the "decency act" in the USA didn't work.
My impression is that it was never meant to work.
A political trick, an appeasement of the censors and bigots and
their powerful lobbies, issued knowing that it would turn out to be
unconstitutional and void.
But Bill Clinton and Al Gore did not consider the consequences
that that act could (and in fact did) have outside of the United
States: we had recent examples in Australia, France, etc.
* * *
Let's ask ourselves: who wants repression?
First of all, political parties. All of them. Because they don't
like the idea of a free exchange of opinion outside the familiar and
controllable channels. Not only within one country or community,
but, even worse, worldwide...
We should not trust politicians, or others, who talk about helping
and protecting us. No, thank you, we don't need your protection or
supervision.
The tendency of all Powers, and especially political power, is
to treat us like clumsy children that can't take care of themselves.
The bib they are offering can easily turn into a gag.
And it's not just the Parties... I've had a chance to discuss this
subject with the Trade Unions. They feel lost when they face the idea
of flexible work, unable to untangle themselves from their hierarchical,
"tayloristic" structure, unable to understand in practice how electronic
communication can be put to the service of citizens...
* * *
And... public administration and bureaucracy, who can't stand
something that isn't subject to their forms, stamps, controls,
tricks and muddles. In my country they are trying to turn into
a bureaucratic monster even a law intended to protect the privacy
of personal data.
There is a great deal of talk about reform of the administration,
reduction of red tape, public offices at the service of citizens
and not vice versa. There are a few examples of better organization.
But generally, even if the stated "good intentions" torn into facts,
it will take several years; and in the meantime it is a real danger
that bureaucracy will interfere in many ways not only with providers
(especially the small ones) but also with users.
* * *
There are also companies and organizations that sell security, and
have every right to promote their services, but often exaggerate
in spreading fear and obsession.
* * *
We are all aware, I think, of the poor information, the "cultural
illiteracy" of most mass media when they are dealing with the net.
Newspapers, television, etcetera, as well as books: of which there are
too many, often written by people who don't know what they are talking
about. There are many examples. A fellow I know just published a book
about "new media". I met him by chance and asked him for his e-mail
address. "I don't have one, he said, but I guess one day I should try".
There are many like him that are considered "authorities" on the subject.
But it's not only ignorance. There are people who do have some
experience, but still write things that are quite ridiculous and
generally hostile, or embarrassed, or repressive.
Why?
Owners of traditional media are afraid of information out of their
control, that could reduce their power.
We have found also that some of them, absurd as that may be,
fear that they may lose money because of "competition" from the net.
Some of them are trying to get into the internet and gain positions
of "hegemony". Many others know that they will not be able to do so.
The first, if they had a clear vision, should be strongly on the side
of freedom; but it is not much of a burden for them to "appease" the
scared ones by allowing limitations and controls which would do little
or no harm to the large operators while bogging down the smaller ones
and all independent initiative.
* * *
Also the dominating forces in "culture" and education appear quite
often suspicious and uncomfortable. Many "intellectuals" hate the idea
of losing their privileges as "masters of thought", as the "source" of
knowledge and opinion.
I have attended countless conventions and conferences in which
self-appointed "experts" preach about the net, while it is obvious
from what they say that they don't know the difference between a
modem and a cd-rom. And they are scared of both.
* * *
Journalists... there are some, of course, that know the net well,
are not scared of it and discuss it intelligently.
But they are still a small minority.
Last year I attended a journalists' conference on the net at the
"Circolo della Stampa" - the sumptuous Press Club in Milan.
The atmosphere was impregnated with fear.
How am I going to survive in a world were readers can check my sources?
Shall I lose my privilege as the source of information? Shall I have to
re-learn my trade from scratch? I hope to wake up tomorrow morning and
find that it was only a bad dream.
Those journalists that have understood, or will understand, will not
only continue to do their job, but learn to do it better. But many are
still scared.
* * *
We can not look at this in the perspective of any one country. Ideas
travel quickly; and bad ideas seem to travel even faster.
In Europe, we have an added problem: regulation from the European Union.
Recently (shortly after the "decency act" was declared unconstitutional
in the United States) they promised publicly not to interfere with freedom
on the net.
I don't believe them.
In spite of that statement, they are working on all sorts of
regulations,
controls and censorship, lead especially by the French.
We know at least some of the areas in which they intend to act.
Systems of electronic payment (as if they weren't already solved);
protection of copyright (what they really mean is the interests of large
software suppliers, or publishers, or the entertainment industry);
the fight against crime and "terrorism" in networks (that can lead to
all sorts of repression of innocent people while doing very little
about organized crime); "pornography" (and we have seen what that can
lead to). Also privacy of personal data, which indeed should be
protected; but we have seen how even that cam become the excuse for
unnecessary, ineffective and repressive bureaucracy. Etcetera...
* * *
There is a lot of discussion about "commercial interests".
I don't think there is anything wrong with trade and business per se.
Not all commercial or business interests are "enemies" of net freedom.
Many of them could be allies.
But the "enemies" do exist, and they can be quite dangerous.
Some large commercial interests (not all) are afraid that markets
may open up to smaller traders and they could lose the leverage
they have now by controlling large-scale distribution, promotion
and communication. (I don't mean just companies in information
technology, but in all sorts of industries, including consumer goods).
I have heard "spokesmen" for such interests declare publicly
that the net needs to be regulated and brought under control before
it becomes a tool for small businesses who might compete with the
giants (what an awful thought) by offering goods at a better price
or with better service.
One of them said to me with a sneer: "Wait and see, in six months
the internet will collapse and they will need us to put it back
together". I hope he is wrong...
* * *
There are also attempts that may appear bizarre but are not to
be underestimated. Traditional carriers of information (including
post offices and telephone companies) are asking central and local
governments to tax the net before it becomes too competitive.
Attempts in some places (United States, Canada) so far have failed.
But is the threat gone? I don't think so. And how long can it take
for ideas like that to travel to other parts of the world, including
Europe?
* * *
And then... there are the "rule maniacs".
A certain type of law experts and legislators, who (even in
a place like Italy, already plagued with 100.000 more laws than
it can possibly need) want to increase at all times the number
of rules and regulations, and make them as complicated as possible
(also generating an increasing number of cumbersome and inefficient
regulatory bodies, which provide jobs for their proteges and
sources of power and corruption). For no good reason other than
their own private interest.
It is this type of people that keeps spreading the concept
of society at risk, of a net dominated by hackers and pirates,
or (isn't that terrible!) invaded by independent and uncontrolled
information and opinion. Society is at risk, they say, when
minorities have a voice, differences of opinion travel out of
control, information falls into the hands of those "common people"
who so far had to come kneeling to the shrines of Law and Order.
(If someone thinks there is a difference in these attitudes
between "right" and "left", "liberal" or "conservative", or any
part of the political spectrum, the answer is very simple: there
isn't. Though I have met some younger judges, who are not, or
not yet, part of the establishment, that are more open-minded).
Let's be careful... especially in my country, but (I guess)
all over the world, there are laws that start from a principle
and apply the opposite. Such as a law against child abuse that
in article 47/35/d contains some obscure prescriptions which,
once decoded, indicate how many times one must be flogged for
each specific disobedience. The example is imaginary, but very
similar to a number of real cases.
* * *
There are also, of course, the large producers of software, who
inspired the grotesque crackdown in Italy in 1994.
But they seem to have learnt that such actions are as useless
as they are unpopular, so I hope they may have become less dangerous.
But... there are large operators who are trying to turn the net
into a big show, a sort of Hollywood or Disneyland, with lots of
technique and little content. This would turn the net, or part of
it, into a poor imitation of traditional media, and keep large
numbers of users away from interactive communication and exchange
of opinions. With a large use of fashionable catchwords such as
"multimedia" or "virtual", they are trying to sell us old culture
in a new uniform (as well as much heavier software and hardware
than we really need).
In my country (as elsewhere) there are TV shows and other media
that concentrate exclusively on appearance and technique, giving a
false impression and distracting newcomers from the real human,
social, cultural values of the net. There is also too much talk
about the "Internet" (meaning the Web, and just as a means of
"looking at pictures") ignoring altogether the vast and important
world of BBSs, community networks, etcetera.
* * *
Strangely enough, the one I fear less (I hope I am right)
is the Police. At least, in my country. It is "public knowledge"
that the Police has been on the net for years, knows it well, knows
where and how to listen, is not in the least "scared" of it; and
therefore does not want any censorship or repression, unless it is
forced to do so by other interests.
There are public statements by the head of the "computer
crime" central police unit saying clearly that no major
violations have been found.
However in the last few months there were a few arrests, and
half-a-dozen people are now under trial, for "hacker" activities
which did not cause any major damage. Why?
I think (or I hope?) that these are just warnings. "Kids, they
appear to be saying, we know were you are, we know you are no big
threat, but don't exaggerate because we have more important things
to do and some real crooks could follow in your tracks". This is
not my imagination. Senior police officials said so, in public.
The investigation took two years. On the whole the police
behaved quite well. Very few people who were not involved in the
"hackering" were visited or interrogated. There were, indeed,
a few illegal seizures of equipment; but nothing even remotely
to be compared with the savage crackdown of 1994. Unless something
awful and unexpected happens tomorrow, I think the police and
the judges have learnt a lot about how to investigate assumed
"computer crimes" without unnecessary interference in the life
and work of innocent people. They were certainly aware of our
protest, and maybe they listened.
* * *
I don't think we can put too much hope in "public opinion".
With all the bad information running around, there is a vast
majority of citizens who would probably be quite happy to see
some "controls" on these mysterious brain-eating machines that
can destroy the minds of their children and are spreading pornography,
pedophilia, strange behavior, undiscipline, criminality, alienation,
obsession, violence, crime and all of the horrors that one sees
in science fiction movies.
A lot remains to be done to inform and educate public opinion
(and the media).
* * *
Probably none of these "hostile forces", by itself, can really
limit the freedom of networks, that have natural defenses in their
own complexity - as well as (let's hope) some support by business
and political forces that take a wider view and see the value and
potential of our freedom and independence.
But the different repressive forces can combine in the oddest
ways, sometimes by design, sometimes by unexpected coincidence.
And they can all be fueled and multiplied by the most terrible
of all destructive forces: the enormous power of human stupidity.
(If anyone is interested in more on that subject... see
http://www.panix.com/~clocke/EGR/stupidity.html)
* * *
So... I think we should stay on alert. The road to a real culture
and full freedom of nets (the more there are, the better) is still uphill;
also full of obstacles. The ones we can see, and others that now may be
unpredictable. The path of innovation is never linear, and always bumpy.
Giancarlo Livraghi (g.livraghi@stm.it) June 1996
--
Stanton McCandlish
mech@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Online Activist