IP: Lets Get Our Priorities Straight -- by David Brin

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

For the record, John Barlow's Declaration was NOT from EFF. It was from John
and DOES NOT NECESSARILY reflect the opinions of anyone else. djf




David Brin is a well-known science fiction writer who has
written "Earth", "Startide Rising", and many other best sellers.
He was interviewed in the current issue of "Wired" about a
book he is working on called "Blinding Fog".


  brin () cts com


Lets Get Our Priorities Straight -- by David Brin


A few days ago, John Perry Barlow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
published on the net a manifesto called A CYBERSPACE INDEPENDENCE
DECLARATION -- his  response to recent passage of the Telecommunations
Reform Act.  Typically, he and others have long portrayed themselves in
melodramatic terms as heroic defenders of freedom, manning the ramparts
against such horrid and direct threats to freedom as the "V-Chip",
which will enable parents to program their TVs, setting maximum
acceptable thresholds to sexual program content, or violence.


I have stated elsewhere my amused affection for Barlow and his
associates, whose basic instincts are correct (that the Net represents
a fundamental enhancement of human freedom and potential worth
defending) but whose enflamed righteousness often blinds them to one
fundamental fact -- that the United States and Western Civ are right
now pretty damn free, and that our institutions nearly all seem
favorably disposed to the growth and promulgation of this new commons
called the Net, this new vehicle for independence by sovereign
individuals.  To see in the V Chip anything more than a convenient
mechanism for TV owners to exercise sovereign market decisions in a
more efficient manner is not only over-wrought. It is also insultingly
patronizing toward the American public...  and to the kids who will
inevitably have the skill to bypass the V-Chip anyway.  I hereby offer
a $100 bet to Barlow, that we shall see in the chip's wake an increase
in the variety of material available, rather than a decrease.


Of course, Barlow and others (e.g. Mike Godwin, Tim May, Eric Hughes,
and the so-called Cypherpunks) are only behaving as they have been
trained to, by several generations of American propaganda.  Go through
the popular films and novels of the last 40 years and you'll find  one
unifying theme -- Suspicion of Authority.  You'd be hard pressed to
find more than half a dozen first-ranked films in which even one
government institution is depicted as doing its job honestly or well.
Generally, public institutions are depicted as flat-out evil, since
this makes it trivial for Hollywood directors to keep their
protagonists in jeopardy for 90 minutes.


Make no mistake that I generally approve of this mythos (suspicion of
authority), in comparison to the We're-Great/Don't-Question-the Elders
message preached by past cultures. Despite the occasional silly
posturing of Barlow and others, I feel much better knowing the EFF
exists.  If it did not, I would feel obliged to go invent it.


But this failure of perspective is starting to grow tedious, especially
as they persist in showing a lack of proportion or perspective.  In the
west, it is not government that threatens to fence-off vast realms of
cyberspace -- as in the enclosures of Common Land several centuries ago
-- but mega- commercial interests.  Even there, however, the threat at
this time seems pathetic compared to the onrush of new opportunities,
capabilities and freedoms.


If there is a threat worth truly worrying about, note another news
item, buried deep below lurid stories about the Telecommunications Act
(which despite its flaws will increase competition and
routing-diversity, the core of Net independence.)  This separate story,
wedged on back pages, had the following headline.


CHINA ORDERS NET USERS TO REGISTER WITH POLICE.


This should be sending us all shouting to the ramparts!  It is not only
a threat to Net freedom, and denial of the future to over a billion
people, it could very well manifest danger to our very lives.


Forget communism.  Tyrannical regimes follow very routine and standard
patterns of behavior by whatever ruling clique is in charge.  Criticism
is the only known antidote to error, and the Net provides criticism
a-plenty... but ruling cliques care much more about their own power
than about error-avoidance or fostering the free-speech that will help
their nations thrive.  In other words, old-fashioned tyrants MUST act
to suppress criticism. It is basic human nature.   Moreover, the
Chinese leadership is well aware that, once unleashed, net-access
cannot be controlled.  They must limit  actual tie-ins or lose the
struggle.


Put it in terms of memes.  Our meme of openness will win, if it is
allowed to infect the Chinese populace.  So the Beijing leaders
rationalize that they must "protect" their people against this
infection.  We, in turn, as loyal carriers of the openness meme, are
duty bound to push it into China, whatever the self-declared guardians
of the Great Wall say about it.


But there is a more powerful reason why we should all oppose this
knee-jerk, spasmodic measure on the part of the Chinese old guard --
the growing danger of war.


Yes physical, old-fashioned war.  China is buying up Russian arms and
arms technologies at a furious rate.  They seem anxious to take up the
adversarial number two slot in world affairs that was abdicated after
the breakup of the USSR.  In a few years, we may see rising arms
budgets in the US -- a natural reaction -- plus calls for "secrurity
and secrecy". Real brinksmanship may follow, with a return to US cities
being targetted by an angry foreign power.


Worse yet, dictatorships are notorious for making fantastic
miscalculations and strategic blunders (witness the days leading to
WWI, or the German-USSR non-aggression treaty).  This is because ruling
cliques operate in near isolation, suppressing any voice that might
point out flaws in their enthusiastic decisions.


In other words, suppression of criticism has always been a principal
condition leading to war.


I will be far less worried about a China that is fully enmeshed in the
Net.  Democracy will inevitably seep into its institutions.  Moreover,
their society will acquire the sort of transparency that  makes sudden,
impulsive aggressive acts less likely, and far more accountable.  Nor
will the CIA be able to talk us into unneeded defense buildups, if they
lack a monopoly on information about Chinese military capabilities.
Rather, we'd all have access to the data on which to base informed
self-interest decisions.


THEREFORE  it is moral, it is just, and it is in our own fundamental
best interests to fight this calamity, any way we can.


Mind you, the Electronic Frontier guys should be happy with my
proposal.  They can look at it as good practice. The techniques
developed, in helping get the Internet into China, will  be useful if
ever freedom seems under threat here, as well.  John Perry Barlow and
his friends are welcome to imagine they are preparing for guerilla war
against irredentist Washington power-mongers, if it makes them happy.


The important thing is to get our priorities right.  Let's worry about
getting the world wired first,  preventing nuclear war and promulgating
the cantankerous habits of mutual-accountability so they spread
throughout a maturing Terran Civilization.


In contrast, it's really rather tedious to hear all this screeching and
complaining that the sky is falling, just because parents might
actually get to program filters on their own TVs, as sovereign adults,
instead of having to monitor the damned things in person, day and
night.


I guess it's all a matter of priorities.


IAAMOAC*


------------------------------------------


*  I Am A Member Of A Civilization  --  Try saying it aloud, sometime.
It is a mantra against the modern self-doped drug of
self-righteousness.  Compared to anything else human beings have done,
it is the best civilization ever.  It's fun. It created the Net.  It's
earned your loyalty a thousand times over.