- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

really hiding encrypted data
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, the output of an additive knapsack encryption has a normal distribution. More precisely, if you encrypt many input values with the same public key, the resulting output values will follow a normal distribution. This is because you're adding up a set of large numbers with an apparent uniform-random distribution. Not quite you what you asked, I realize. --Steve Bellovin

1 0

Disruptive members
by Andy Wilson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 17:10:48 PST From: lefty(a)apple.com (Lefty) >I have seen a man arrested ostensibly for "disturbing the peace", who was >actually just giving a speech. The charges were thrown out. If you don't >like free speech, don't log in. The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration >of Independence state very clearly that our form of government is based on >the recognition of human rights, not responsibilities. You might be able >to find a system more to your liking in China or North Korea for a little >while longer. There is little I less enjoy seeing than the spectacle of someone who has never actually bothered to find out what the Bill of Rights says and what it means blathering about "free speech". I am aware of what the Bill of Rights says, but I am not required by the political philosophy cops to make sure my own notion of free speech is isomorphic to it's, thank you just so much. Mr. Wilson: does my right to free speech entitle me to come into your living room and demand that you provide me with a podium and a megaphone in furtherance of my expressing my opinion? Nope. But you can send me unsolicited mail as long as it doesn't contain bombs, threats or frauds. That's all Detweiler is doing to me. I can turn him off just like I can turn off junk snail mail, if I take the appropriate steps. Not a big deal at all. Just like turnin' off a TV channel I find particularly asinine. Technically cypherpunks is private since it is administered from a private site, but it is freely accessible. I don't think excluding someone from the list should be illegal, I just think it's misguided, like trying to fix a leaky faucet with a revolver. If you think it doesn't, then you have no cause for complaint. If, on the other hand, you think it _does_, then I've done you a grave misservice by mistaking you for nothing more than an uninformed chowderhead. You would constitute, at the very least, a full-blown loon. >After all the speech criminals are rounded up, what next? Got any ethnic >groups in mind? That's low. Or, to be more precise, on a par with the rest of your little screed. Not any lower than the groteseque bastardization of the word "rape" I was responding to. I don't have much tolerance for that kind of P.C. doggerel. I was alarmed by the control-freak strategy of the poster I was responding to. Excluding "disruptive members" is a non-solution. They'll just come back with a different account if they really want to. What particularly incensed me was the crap about "rights without responsibilities". It's not anyone's responsiblity to make sure that their posts are entertaining to everyone. That's what kill files are for. As for ignoring people not being a solution because it interferes with "outreach", the members of this list, and the Extropians list, include some of the most atrocious examples of "outreach" I've encountered. Perhaps Mr. Detweiler wouldn't have gone off the deep end if he hadn't received death threats. But then again perhaps he's just a dadaist... or another one Tim May's pranks... Andy -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

better than Oceania
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

'punksters, Far more interesting than Oceania is the Millennial Project. It is not only in it's second revised edition, but has a very active BBS and hopes to be a list on the net soon (there looking for an assist with this so anyone who can help them out, would be appreciated) They have also had two national gatherings, and the group has numerous engineers running various planning committees, and they have downloadable spreadsheets on various aspects. It is a definate breath of fresh air from all the doomsayers out there. They also have a healthy respect for privacy and encryption. The book is available at any good bookstore. "The Millennial Project" seven easy steps to colonizing the Galaxy by Marshall Savage. Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot "Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced communication is indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham "Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government? YOU WILL and the company that'll bring it to you.... AT&T" --James Speth

1 0

time to acknowledge, move on
by jdblair＠nextsrv.cas.muohio.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OK, so the reputation of the list has been screwed up. So what? It is all just information, and we're here to explore how the metaphores the information represents evolve in cyberspace. As cheesy as that word has become, if memory serves right, one possible definition for cyberspace is a "consensually agreed upon metaphore for certain aspects of reality." I'm sure I will get corrected for that, and that is good- that's why I said it: to test my hypothesis. I think the coffee house metaphore makes sense, but we have to deal with the fact that this coffee house isn't exactly like normal coffee houses. You can't spoof a person, in person, in reality, short of incredible acting ability and plastic surgery. Real James Bond stuff. I think most of us believe that cyberspace can serve as a useful addition to reality, and some of us probably see it as a possible replacement for reality. One simply needs to know one MOO addict to believe that (an acquaintence of mine once spent 18 hours straight on-line.) So we're working out the kinks in the metaphore, and learning where the metaphore breaks down. So sometimes we get burned. So what!! By the way, some of us have built a metaphorical workshop onto the back of this metaphorical coffee house. Discussion is going reallly slowly right now, I think because most of use are really more software people than hardware people. Myself definately included. I laid the foundation for the workshop because I thought there was still a lot of hard information I could learn from the Cypherpunks, like how following this list turned my understanding of cryptography from virtually zilch to getting into an argument with someone from the NSA that I led into the mountains in one of my real-world personalities, a summer backpacking guide. He was freaked out to find that this outdoorsy guy understood public key cryptography, and had an opinion about the clipper chip. There's the main purpose of the list, right? To educate. It educated me, and it threw a real-world NSA employee for a loop. So, we've all been educated about spoofing, and the dangers inherent in the privacy we advocate. If I wasn't ready to have my views challenged, I wouldn't follow the list, and I certainly wouldn't post. Of anybody, we should understand that a name on the net is just a label. We have a certain assumed level of trust that label = real person. We're the ones that have been emphasizing that a public key can only be trusted if you trust a real person somewhere in the web of trust you build to verify it. We all knew that its elementary to spoof someone (or pseudospoof, I mean). We just assumed that no one would break our trust, do more than just a few harmless pranks. Oh my god, I here people shout, label != person? We deserve it. So, y'all, chill out. I think L.D. taught us all a BIG lesson that we can all take through the rest of our cyperspace lives (or metaverse lives, depending on one's jargon persuasion). The net isn't the real world. Stop pretending it is, and treat it as the net. -john <jdblair(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Insert cool signature file that makes a trendy, yet bold and original statement about my cyberspace proficiency, then mentions that I'll send you my public key if you want it, and you trust that I'm me.

1 0

Eric Hughes
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, I've been thinking that the GWELST (Guess Which Eminent Leader Said This) may be in poor taste and violate the privacy of a co-conspirator, the latter the #1 psychopunk crime. So, regarding the `There is no movement. Get this delusion out of your head. There is only software' quote, I won't say which Eminent Leader is the originator of this. I just wanted to share this inspirational message with everyone, hopefully no harm done. I had some other ideas for the GWELSTing game. As I said, I didn't have a whole lot of material for this, mostly due to the amazing rock-hard wall the Eminent Leaders have erected around certain topics, such as their own involvement in pseudospoofing conspiracies or quasi-criminal activities. Again, I wouldn't want to violate the privacy of a criminal, so I will just list this new inspirational quote without attribution, and let everyone here speculate on its author. The background behind this was that I had been concerned by leaks or `crossings' by tentacles of very personal knowledge of my personal habits and financial transactions -- something that likely could only have come from stealing my credit card report transactions. I was also concerned about an Eminent Leader's ties to credit organizations and credit databases. So, I asked in a message entitled `dirty secrets' -- `Have you ever poked around in a credit database?' The background on the other question was that I had heard references to a Secret Mailing list by both identified Medusa's Snakes and Medusa Sisters. The mailing list was supposedly for `project development' free of `paranoid ranters'! Well, if there was any overlap in `paranoid ranters' an tentacles, I would certainly like to sign up! I have been trying to find a single place on the Internet dedicated to project development and free of Cryptoanarchists, psychopunks, Medusa's snakes and sisters for many weeks now! Actually, I always thought that *this* list was dedicated to serious project development, but boy do I know better! It's a testing ground for Cryptoanarchist brainwashing and refining tentacle software of course. Anyway, the second question was -- `is there a secret mailing list?' * * * The $64K answer from the Eminent leader was rather terse and cryptic (ha, ha!), as he usually is. ``Your questions do not allow other than an incriminating answer.'' I asked him what he meant by that, I think, but he didn't elaborate. It's strange how none of the Eminent Leaders answers specifically any of my questions on various subjects like Pseudospoofing, Conspiracies, and Deception. The same leader, in response to a long list of my queries on the subjects, said `I deny it all'. Oh well. Maybe the list moderator and Cypherpunk movement founder E.Hughes (hughes(a)ah.com) would be the person to ask about infiltrating credit databases, a secret mailing list, pseudospoofing, conspiracies, and deception. Again, though, I won't reveal the Eminent Cypherpunk Leader who I quote to Protect Privacy. Just consider me a patriotic Cypherpunk to the end!

1 0

The REAL Conspiracy
by cman＠caffeine.io.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We at Illuminati Online have finally gotten to the bottom of l'affaire Detweiler. It began with the simple statement, "This moron is *everywhere*, no one person could be churning out all this fantastic babble of..." And then it hit us. Of course! The REAL Medusa is L.Detweiler and S.Boxx and The Executioner and The Pervert, a pseudopool with STRINGENT stylistic REQUIREMENTS about how to disrupt, discourage and defame cypherpunks. We're onto you now... even now, agents are converging on your secret headquarters... -- ---------------- /\ Douglas Barnes cman(a)illuminati.io.com / \ Chief Wizard (512) 447-8950 (d), 447-7866 (v) / () \ Illuminati Online metaverse.io.com 7777 /______\

1 0

Eric Hughes & the Cypherpunks Movement
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was an interesting article in RISKS 15.28x on pseudoanonymity by E.Hughes. Comments on pseudospoofing and pseudoanonymity by leading Cypherpunks are *extremely* rare, and we have to prize every one! I have asked many times and in many variations for more of these precious gold nuggets, but results have been unrewarding over the past few weeks. There has been a lot of commotion on the list lately on the subject of pseudospoofing, and maybe if the Eminent Leaders came out with a public statement on their personal knowledge, opinion, and involvement in pseudospoofing many people would be less upset, and the noise would die down! Just a hypothetical speculation, of course! They must have excellent reasons for withholding one for this long, even in the face of tremendous public and private pressure! (If anyone knows what those reasons are, could you tell me?) Anyway, on to this letter. The most interesting aspect of it is its brevity. Many interesting implications were raised in RISKS 15.25 and 15.27 about the cryptoanarchist movement in black marketeering, tax evasion, and sabotage of governments, and whether Cypherpunks == Cryptoanarchists. There was also insinuations of a secret mailing list, manipulation of others, widespread deception of the media and a massive hoax and conspiracy, a rampant pseudospoofing effort by the leadership behind the scenes, even involving customized software, a Cult Religion of Pseudoanonymity, etc. (You all know the black, sordid story!) Unfortunately, much to my disappointment, the Eminent Leader did not comment on any of these issues. But nevertheless I would like to analyze what little was available. The major point to make about this person is that everything he writes is extremely carefully crafted to have a precise, intended effect. I imagine that he spent a very large amount of time on this short posting, making sure that it did not contain any incriminating statements. It is a masterpiece of a deceptive and evasive message that supposedly appears to `set the record straight' while actually being completely, utterly empty of any true reassurances or denials. >L. Detweiler's recent article on the RISKS of confusing an online >identity with a potentially knowable physical one are quite >interesting, if hypothetical. Interesting the phrasing of `if hypothetical'. There is no indication of any personal knowledge of the veracity of any of the hypothetical situations. But! At the same time there is cleverly no statement in the form, `I am not aware of any' or `I can assure you that they do not exist' despite that this person would be in a position to issue a statement of this sort, and that exactly such a statement is what is called for. >I would be interested in hearing of situations where this practice >has actually occurred. If any RISKS members know of any such >incidents from first-hand experience, please share them with the >readership. This is another extremely clever method of evading any personal association, accountability, or responsibility for the issues raised. This eminent leader is personally aware of a massive pseudospoofing framework, namely his own, yet makes it appear he has no knowledge of any by requesting information from others. Quite ingenious! This was very similar to N.Szabo asking others for `pseudospoofing tools' and `posting sites'. The entire problem with pseudospoofing, of course, is that in the well-conceived cases only the practitioner has the kind of `first hand experience' the eminent leader requests. >Unfortunately, I think he really believes that the cypherpunks mailing >list has been dominated by a small cabal who have been using multiple >identities who talk with each other on the list in order to enforce >concensus and to suppress disagreeing positions, namely his. This is a clever method of (1) attempting to discredit L.Detweiler as someone who believes that all people who disagree with him are co-conspirators, and (2) not specifically mentioning those positions, and (3) reformulating the many issues of RISKS 15.25 which are extremely wide-encompassing, into a simple question of `a small cabal on the list' who `disagrees with L.Detweiler'. These are all quite ingenious ways of `begging the question' so to speak. >It just ain't so. Despite the exchange of probably over a hundred messages in my cypherpunk lifetime with this eminent leader, and reading dozens of his public postings, I've never seen this eminent leader use a colloquialism like `ain't' and its appearance, especially in this context, is quite curious! Notice how he doesn't actually state *what* isn't so, like `there is no cabal' or `I have no personal knowledge of anyone posting under fake identities.' Overall this is another meaningless statement that does not actually imply anything whatsoever. >Therefore, to set the record straight I feel I ought to make the >following public statement: Note that this statement below does not `set the record straight' on many of the issues raised, in particular the eminent leader's personal knowledge of pseudospoofing. >I, Eric Hughes, have never posted or communicated in any name other >than my own. Frankly, I think this is a baldfaced lie. The eminent leader would be implying, if it were to be taken literally and exactly, that he has never used the anon.penet.fi server or any account other than one with his name. What precisely does he *mean* by this statement? How are we to be sure? We need a direct answer to the question, ``What accounts have you posted from, and how were they identified?'' I have many examples of a Medusa claiming `I, Medusa, have never posted or mailed under any other name than Medusa.' This is because under the fanatic religion of pseudospoofing, the cultists actually maintain that the different `personalities' under the assorted `nyms' of a person actually constitute *different* *people*! This, of course, is a blasphemous abomination of the English language, warped to their own ends of deceit, very much like the use of the term `true anonymity' by N.Szabo or `pseudonym' by J.Gilmore. >I can personally testify that I am not the same as any >of the other people listed at the end of L. Detweiler's post, and I >can testify from personal experience that Arthur Chandler, Hal Finney, >Tim C. May, and Nick Szabo are all different people. This is an interesting statement. Again, I think it is a baldfaced lie. Notice that the eminent leader writes previously that `I have never communicated under any name other than Eric Hughes.' All of these statements would be superflous under that statement, if it were true. But he finds it necessary to be more specific, for some curious reason. The question in cyberspace is not about `people', but computer accounts, as in, `Have you ever posted a message from any of these accounts'? For example, if E.Hughes sent me mail that ``I have never been the originator of a message from the G.Broiles site goldenbear.com'' I would take that as authoritative. But he has never answered any of my questions in any specific form. Even questions like `How many pseudoanonymous identities are you using' he (and T.C.May) refuses to answer. >I also decline to answer, point by point, the numerous defamatory >innuendos made by L. Detweiler against the members of the cypherpunks >mailing list. Hee, hee, `defamatory innuendos' is a clever term. He does not actually point to any specific `defamatory innuendo' as defamatory! They are only defamatory if you can state they are false! Also, many of the comments are not directed at `members of the cypherpunks list' but at the *leadership*. But we have another ingenious diversion. The eminent leader implies that a `point by point' statement would be tedious and unjustified. I assure you, I would prize it beyond anything in my ~3,500 message collection of cypherpunk archives. > Might I also observe that none of the statements are >specific enough to actually count as accusation, but merely as general >slander? Another rather silly statement. Eminent leader E. Hughes, after many weeks of my trouble, has never answered *either* my `defamatory innuendoes' or my `specific accusations'. Imagine the sheer artillery that would be for your hordes of cultists who continue to assault me, Mr. Hughes! ``Mr. Hughes answered all your charges. Go to hell.'' * * * Why do I persist at this? Because the Cypherpunks wish to pretend that they are a respectable organization on the level of EFF or CPSR, with leaders on par with say, Barlow, Sobel, or Kapor or Godwin. The simple fact is that they are an obnoxious, arrogant, pathetic, repulsive bunch of cyber-guerrilas, pseudospoofers, and quasi-criminals who have no unity other than a Internet mailing list, which itself is used as a testbed for pseudospoofing perversions on unsuspecting and unwilling participants and cryptoanarchist disinformation and brainwashing. Oh, how I have given you the benefit of the doubt, and gone to great lengths to respect you! But your leaders are either undoubtedly corrupt or accomplices, with more interest in secret conspiracies, pseudoanonymity perversions, trust embezzlement, manipulation, and predation, privacy invasion, pornography, ego assuagement, elitist clique parties, and aquiring and dazzling their personality worshippers than anything substantial, such as Internet project development, that involves things upon which you urinate, like cooperation and openness. You cling to your elaborate fantasies with gripping white knuckles. Cypherpunks are blind to the ashes of their arson. `The Tyrant is not that bad!' `Hell is not such a bad place!' `Look how much we have accomplished'! You have nothing but gimmicks, trinkets and playthings, not a `foundation' but deadly quicksand traps. The only observation is that everything substantial accomplished by others you have done a great deal to simultaneously take credit for and maliciously sabotage, and everything you have accomplished is not substantial, and never will be, as long as you wallow in your gutter. But you are not content to wallow alone! You must drag the Current Internet and Future Cyberspace into your filth. I think that real leaders such as Zimmermann, Chaum, Card, and Sterling should have the sense to not only distance themselves but to condemn your parties of freakshow perversions. The cypherpunks list is a magnet for criminal apologists, moral relativists, libertarian extremists, demogogues, poseurs, and hypocrites. Frankly, I'm quite upset that respectable journals, like Wired, NYT, and RISKS have been subtly twisted and corrupted with the depraved Cypherpunk fantasies and lies. These knotty deceptions take an extraordinary amount of energy to untangle, and there is enough here to keep historians busy for decades. I'm grotesquely ashamed to have ever been associated with this sham, this mockery, this farce, that masquerades as a `group' or a `movement'. I have even lended credibility to tentacles by quoting them in my FAQs and in RISKS, oh how that makes me want to vomit. `Anonymity on the Internet' -- more like Disinformation, Brainwashing, and Lies by Tentacles. The cypherpunks list does not deserve to be advertised *anywhere* except as a dark pit to be avoided at all costs, the cypherpunks Movement is no more meaningful than graffiti spraypainted on a wall. It was only an infinitesimal whit better when it was just spread by word of mouth among the conspiring CA slime. Please, go back to your dark holes where you came from, and take your odious `movement' with you. Oh, what insidious despicable poison.

1 0

Chaos Communications Congress 1993 (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: bkr(a)drdhh.hanse.de (Bjoern Kriews) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc Subject: Chaos Communication Congress 1993 Date: 26 Nov 1993 08:10:08 +0100 Organization: Digital Island Message-ID: <bkr.754297770@drdhh> NNTP-Posting-Host: drdhh.hanse.de [Sorry for crossposting this to so many groups - last year I received complaints that people didn't find the announcement] "Ten years after Orwell" 10th Chaos Communication Congress, Hamburg, Germany The Chaos Computer Club invites the global community to participate in the Chaos Communication Congress in Hamburg and celebrates the tenth anniversary of this convention. This hackers' meeting, taking place annually at the end of December, has become a traditional event which is characterized by a colorful mixture of absolute chaos, serious discussion and detailed presentation. Computer enthusiasts, scientists from well-known institutions, lawyers, politicians, artists and, of course, hackers as well as data-travellers and Internauts from many countries are going to meet at the 'Eidelstedter Buergerhaus' on December 27th-29th for an interdisciplinary exchange of data and other experience. Not only concentrating on technical topics, political and social issues will be focal points of discussion this year. After ten years of creative future concepts the time has come to look for achieved goals and new visions for the future. This year's list of topics: The so-called "great peep attack" (a proposed law reform allowing state authorities to listen in, even in private rooms, in order to fight organized crime) affects every german citizen and is considered one of the most important issues of the year. - What is technically possible? - What is planned and/or wanted politically? - How do the right of privacy and ban of encryption software fit together? Well-informed speakers talk about state-of-the-art technology and legal limits. Public discussion forums invite you to form your own opinion. Money always serves for interesting talk: - How can we improve Electronic Cash? - How to print your own money - How to wash it if it's dirty - How to open electronic cash machines without damaging them It's up to you to add to this list... Hardly noticed by the public, the female part of the hacker scene is growing. Female hackers' activities have become a regular part of the congress, the workshop on feminine computer handling is one of the key events. For the first time, there will be a Women Only room with lots of equipment to try out, opportunity to ask and learn as well as to discuss and create. Other highlights: Discussions and workshops on - citizen networks and electronic democracy - ISDN, MODACOM (german mobile radio data network) and Beepers - Bluebox versus Telekom - Electronic Warfare - Chip- and other cards - inventory differences - underground radio stations - Computer recycling - lockpicking - MIME and *ostscript viruses - copyright law and the GNU generation. Furthermore: the Hackcenter, the Chaos Cafe, the Chaos Archive, the movie theatre (among others: educational propaganda films by the former East German Ministry of State Security), a Zerberus BBS, the Internet-FreePort and lots of other things we forgot to mention. Feel free to contribute more interesting topics, workshops or presentations. Anyway, the hottest news for computer enthusiasts and hackers will be those you won't find in the press. What: 10th Chaos Communication Congress When: December 27th - 29th 1993 Cost: DM 42,- Three-day-ticket Where: Eidelstedter Buergerhaus Alte Elbgaustr. 12 D-22523 Hamburg +49-40-5710523 Contact: Chaos Computer Club Schwenckestr. 85 D-20255 Hamburg Germany Phone: +49-40-4903757 Fax: +49-40-4917689 E-Mail: ccc93(a)t42.ccc.de Press contact: Phone: +49-161-2447146 (european afternoon, please) For reservations in an inexpensive hotel (approx. DM 30,-/night), mail to: sleep(a)drdhh.hanse.de #!/bin/thanks to P. Kane for the word 'InterNaut'. -- bkr(a)drdhh.hanse.de - Bjoern Kriews - Stormsweg 6 - D-22085 Hamburg [76] - FRG By definition, a properly functioning kernel doesn't allow user programs to make it crash unless they say "please". (Richard Stallman)

1 0

EFF Op-Ed from the NY Times
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: mech(a)eff.org (Stanton McCandlish) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: EFF Op-Ed from the NY Times Date: 30 Nov 1993 11:38:52 -0500 Organization: EFF mail-news gateway Message-ID: <199311301632.LAA28210(a)eff.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: eff.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From the New York Times Op-Ed Page, Wednesday, November 24, 1993 A Superhighway Through the Wasteland? By Mitchell Kapor and Jerry Berman Mitchell Kapor is chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group that promotes civil liberties in digital media. He was a founder of the Lotus Development Corporation, from which he resigned in 1986. Jerry Berman is executive director of the foundation. (Washington) Telecommunications and cable TV executives, seeking to allay concerns over their proposed megamergers, insist that the coming electronic superhighway will be an educational and informational tool as well as a cornucopia of interactive entertainment. Allow the marriage between entertainment and communications giants, we are told, and they will connect students with learning resources, provide a forum for political discourse, increase economic competitiveness and speed us into the multimedia information age. Both broadcast and cable TV were introduced with similar fanfare. The results have been disappointing. Because of regulatory failure and the limits of the technology, they failed to be saviors of education or political life. We love the tube but recognize that it is largely a cultural wasteland. For the Government to break this cycle of promise and disappointment, communications mergers should be approved or barred based on detailed, enforceable commitments that the electronic superhighway will meet public goals. The amount of electronic material the superhighway can carry is dizzying compared to the relatively narrow range of broadcast TV and the limited number of cable channels. Properly constructed and regulated, it could be open to all who wish to speak, publish and communicate. None of the interactive services will be possible, however, if we have an eight-lane data superhighway rushing into every home and only a narrow footpath coming back out. Instead of settling for a multimedia version of the same entertainment that is increasingly dissatisfying on today's TV, we need a superhighway that encourages the production and distribution of a broader, more diverse range of programming. The superhighway should be required to provide so-called open platform services. In today's channel-based cable TV system, program producers must negotiate for channel space with cable companies around the country. In an open platform network, we would avoid that bottleneck. Every person would have access to the entire superhighway, so programmers could distribute information directly to consumers. Consumers would become producers: individuals and small organizations could create and distribute programs to anyone on the highway who wants them. Open platform services will spur diversity in the electronic media, just as low production and distribution costs make possible a wide variety of newspapers and magazines. To prevent abuses by media giants that because of recent Federal court decisions will control the pipeline into the home and much of the content delivered over it, we need new laws. Like today's phone companies, the companies controlling the superhighway must be required to carry other programmers' content, just as phone companies must provide service to anyone who is willing to pay for it. We must guarantee that anyone who, say, wants to start an alternative news network or a forum for political discussion is given an outlet to do so. Americans will come to depend on the superhighway even more than they need the telephone. The guarantee of universal telephone service must be expanded to include universal access to the superhighway. Although market forces will help keep the new technology affordable, we need laws to protect consumers when competition fails. And because several companies will operate the highway, each must be required to interconnect with the others. Likewise, the new computers that will give us access to the superhighway should be built according to commonly accepted standards. Also, even an open, competitive market will leave out organizations with limited resources such as schools and libraries. To compensate for market oversights, we must insure that money -- whether through Federal support or a tax on the companies that will control the superhighway -- is made available to these institutions. Finally, people won't use the new technology unless they feel that their privacy is protected. Technical means, such as recently developed encryption techniques, must be made available to all users. And clear legal guidelines for individual control over access to and reuse of personal information must be established. Companies that sell entertainment services will have a record of what their customers' interests are; these records must remain confidential. Bell Atlantic, T.C.I., Time-Warner, U.S. West and other companies involved in proposed mergers have promised to allow the public full access to the superhighway. But they are asking policy makers to trust that, profits aside, they will use their new positions for the public good. Rather than opposing mergers or blindly trusting competition to shape the data highways, Congress should make the mergers hinge on detailed commitments to provide affordable services to all Americans. Some legislators, led by Representative Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, are working to enact similar requirements; these efforts deserve support. The best approach would be to amend these requirements to the Communications Act of 1934. Still the central law on open access, an updated Communications Act would codify the terms of a new social contract between the the telecommunications industry and the American people. Copyright 1993 The New York Times Company

1 0

Unsubscribe
by Louis Cypher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please unsubscribe me. It was ok when I owned my own system, but now that I sold it, I cannot keep up with all the traffic. It was fun.

1 0