FINS VOL. 2, ISSUE NO. 4 (fwd)
Michael Zeitlin
mzeitlin at unixg.ubc.ca
Tue Feb 22 11:13:06 CST 1994
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 16:29:05 EST
From: Jay Jaroslav <jaroslav at artdata.win.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list PSYART <PSYART%NERVM.BITNET at uga.cc.uga.edu>
Subject: FINS VOL. 2, ISSUE NO. 4 (fwd)
This is an important message for anyone using the Internet. Read recent
newspaper articles for the evils of the Clipper Chip. --Norm
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
FORWARDED MAIL -------
From: witch!access.digex.net!fins (Vigdor Schreibman - FINS)
Date: 12 Feb 94
Originally To: Multiple recipients of list <roundtable at cni.org>
----------------Original Message Posted in Multiple Lists-----------------
------------------------Republication Authorized--------------------------
READ THIS ISSUE OF FINS TO CONSIDER:
* The "One-Eyed Prophets" of Virtual Reality
* The Threat of Totalitarian Technology
=========================================================================
FINS: Communicating the Emerging Philosophy of The Information Age
FEDERAL INFORMATION NEWS SYNDICATE
Vol II, Issue No. 4 (117 lines) Monday, February 14, 1994
CLOSING THE "VALUES-GAP":
The Politics of "Technopoly" Online
By Vigdor Schreibman
It is accepted wisdom that the new world of virtual reality will have
an ecological impact that will change our civilization totally. Nevertheless,
as Neil Postman, a noted educator and authority on mass media warns in his
book "Technopoly" (1992), "there is only a dull and even stupid awareness"
of just what that ecological impact will be. Moreover, the media is filed
with the utterances of what Postman describes as "zealous one-eyed prophets
who see only what new technologies can do and are incapable of imagining what
they will undue." Postman suggests that we might call these people,
"Technophiles":
They gaze on technology as a lover does on his beloved, seeing it
as without blemish and entertaining no apprehension for the future.
They are therefore dangerous and are to be approached cautiously.
Some indication of these dangers can be discerned from the fact that
broadcast television was introduced as a boon for education but, instead,
governed by the profit-centered model of business provided us mainly with a
"wasteland" predicated upon manipulative infotainment, exploitive sex, and
gratuitous violence. Cable television was introduced with the wisdom of
similar "zealous one-eyed prophets," and governed by the same market-centered
ethic delivered a new order of the same old "wasteland." Now we are promised
the wondrous world of virtual reality that can--if we are not very careful--
exacerbate the decadent propensities of the market system, and the same "one-
eyed prophets" are telling us that this too will be good for America.
We can plainly see that for all its drama and promise, virtual
reality cannot replace the touch of a child, the passionate embrace of a
lover, or the comradery of family and friends gathered around the
household. Nor can it replace each person's childhood and all their dreams
of life that form the master plan for their existence. In short, virtual
reality cannot replace the paramount reality of the everyday lives that
people live and the sacred relationships between citizens and the human,
social, and ecological environment that provides meaning in their lives.
Moreover, the most serious problems that confront this Nation--the most
inequitable distribution of wealth among developed nations, rampant
racism, crime, family breakup, homelessness, and urban disintegration
(along with many others)--are not caused by inadequate information but by
a lack of enlightened good will of the "artificial aristocracies" who now
rule this Nation by raw power alone.
The electronic dissemination of information may move great volumes of
information at high-speed but there can be no disputing the fact that the
primary beneficiaries of this technology are large-scale organizations who
conduct their affairs to maximize their profits at the expense of society-
at-large. Indeed, Al Gore's "information superhighways" will establish a new
reign of "knowledge monopolies" exercising a greater degree of social control
precisely in the way Aldous Huxley outlined in "Brave New World." Postman
described the dynamics of what he has called "technopoly" that can lead to
totalitarianism. He writes that this totalitarian state is achieved simply
by eliminating alternatives to itself.
It does not make them illegal. It does not make them immoral. It
does not even make them unpopular. It makes them invisible and
therefore irrelevant. And it does so by redefining what we mean
by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth,
by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fit its new
requirements. Technopoly, in other words, is totalitarian.
The politics of technopoly is not a mere academic fantasy. The White
House decided on Feb 4, 1994 to endorse a "back door" surveillance system
(the "Clipper chip") to be installed in the new information highway. This
system, which was developed in secret by the National Security Agency, would
facilitate wiretapping by government agents to provide ready access to
telephone conversations between private citizens, even from remote sites.
It would treat the whole population of the country as though we were criminal
suspects, ostensibly as a tool to combat crime and anything that may be
claimed to be a threat to national security.
Public and private groups have expressed almost unanimous opposition to
the plan since it was first proposed in April 1993. Computer Professionals
For Social Responsibility is the recognized national leader in the fight
against the "Clipper chip." Marc Rotenberg, Director of the CPSR Washington
Office, has warned that the Clipper proposal is "more compatible with the
practices of telephone surveillance in the former East Germany than it is
with the narrowly limited circumstances that wire surveillance has been
allowed in the United States." Moreover, far from helping to combat crime,
the General Services Administration warned (in an internal memorandum) that
the Clipper chip would "make it easier for criminals, terrorists, foreign
intelligence (spies) and computer hackers to electronically penetrate the
phone network and pry into areas previously not open to snooping."
Nevertheless, the White House has arbitrarily brushed aside such findings.
These are a few of the attributes of the emerging technopoly. At
the same time, this situation presents a dramatic opportunity to
demonstrate the aspirations of networkers to sustain the democratic
mission of cyberspace by joining CPSR in opposing the "Clipper chip." For
more information about CPSR and Clipper, see the annexed announcement.
----------
Federal Information News Syndicate, Vigdor Schreibman, Editor & Publisher,
18 - 9th Street NE #206, Washington, DC 20002-6042. Copyright 1994 FINS.
Internet: fins at access.digex.net. Fins InfoAge Lib located at the University
of Maryland is available by CapAccess "All the Gopher Servers in the World";
and by anonymous FTP to info.umd.edu. FINS news columns are in the directory:
Educational_Resources/United_States/Government/FINS. Public policy papers
are located in the directory: Educational_Resources/Computers_and_Society,
and 4 subdirectories: Public_Information, Information_Resource_Mgt,
Information_Infrastructure, and Telecommunications_Infrastructure.
===============================================
Electronic Petition to Oppose Clipper
*Please Distribute Widely*
On January 24, many of the nation's leading experts in cryptography
and computer security wrote President Clinton and asked him to
withdraw the Clipper proposal.
The public response to the letter has been extremely favorable,
including coverage in the New York Times and numerous computer and
security trade magazines.
Many people have expressed interest in adding their names to the
letter. In response to these requests, CPSR is organizing an
Internet petition drive to oppose the Clipper proposal. We will
deliver the signed petition to the White House, complete with the
names of all the people who oppose Clipper.
To sign on to the letter, send a message to:
Clipper.petition at cpsr.org
with the message "I oppose Clipper" (no quotes)
You will receive a return message confirming your vote.
Please distribute this announcement so that others may also express
their opposition to the Clipper proposal.
CPSR is a membership-based public interest organization. For
membership information, please email cpsr at cpsr.org. For more
information about Clipper, please consult the CPSR Internet Library -
FTP/WAIS/Gopher CPSR.ORG /cpsr/privacy/crypto/clipper
=====================================================================
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to you regarding the "Clipper" escrowed encryption
proposal now under consideration by the White House. We wish to
express our concern about this plan and similar technical standards
that may be proposed for the nation's communications infrastructure.
The current proposal was developed in secret by federal agencies
primarily concerned about electronic surveillance, not privacy
protection. Critical aspects of the plan remain classified and thus
beyond public review.
The private sector and the public have expressed nearly unanimous
opposition to Clipper. In the formal request for comments conducted
by the Department of Commerce last year, less than a handful of
respondents supported the plan. Several hundred opposed it.
If the plan goes forward, commercial firms that hope to develop
new products will face extensive government obstacles. Cryptographers
who wish to develop new privacy enhancing technologies will be
discouraged. Citizens who anticipate that the progress of technology
will enhance personal privacy will find their expectations
unfulfilled.
Some have proposed that Clipper be adopted on a voluntary basis
and suggest that other technical approaches will remain viable. The
government, however, exerts enormous influence in the marketplace, and
the likelihood that competing standards would survive is small. Few
in the user community believe that the proposal would be truly
voluntary.
The Clipper proposal should not be adopted. We believe that if
this proposal and the associated standards go forward, even on a
voluntary basis, privacy protection will be diminished, innovation
will be slowed, government accountability will be lessened, and the
openness necessary to ensure the successful development of the
nation's communications infrastructure will be threatened.
We respectfully ask the White House to withdraw the Clipper
proposal.
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Jaroslav, Director jaroslav at artdata.win.net
CENTER FOR ART RESEARCH
241 A Street Boston, MA voice: (617) 451-8030
02210-1302 USA fax: (617) 451-1196
--------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list