Extended Commentary: 1) While the most likely possibility is that the Net will simply mirror current society, a Net of this [mirror] structure would fail to realize its potential as an agent of social change. COMMENT: That is, supposing that the net was designed to be an "agent for social change". I have not read where it was designed to exist for that specific purpose. A social effect which is not intentioned is simply a by-product of the fact that many people have found an avenue or tool useful for the satisfaction of their own particular purposes. Since communication itself is a medium for the accomplishment of most purposes which involve others; it is not exceptional, therefore, that the net should have become such a popular tool, it being so easy to use compared to the other means available. The important thing which I see about the net is not that it serves "social purposes", but that it helps individuals to achieve their *own* purposes. This sounds like only a difference in wording, but the difference is in what is judged as a 'good' purpose, or which end of the telescope you are using to view the situation: why is the end of having a collective 'good' better than the activity of simply achieving one's own ideal (of goodness, happiness, propriety, etc.). What is so unsubstantial about the uncounted individual that only a large number of them can be considered worthy of consideration. 3) Current arguments for regulation of cryptography by government agencies depend on the argument [that] they are maintaining their current abilities in the brave new world of cyberspace. I argue that even if this were the case, we have a responsibility to do more than simply maintain the status quo. . . . . COMMENT: What responsibility? (Irresponsible Unit wants to know) If the government centralizes responsibility, there will be none for the rest of us to comprehend. 4) It is the responsibility of the information haves to spread their knowledge to the information have-nots. ......... Knowledge which is not of a personal nature should be freely accessible. COMMENT: The library is full of information which many people do not take advantage of, and it's "free". Many wise people have written much that they wished to share with others, yet many 'havenots' do not avail themselves of it (at least, not the ones who seem to need it). 1) how much intellectual support does everyone need, anyway; 2) access to information does not replace having the incentive to appreciate it or the ability to understand it; 3) where does all this information come from, anyway? How did it become "information"; what was it before it was converted into an abstract form (carbon-based or electronic)? If it is moral to have information, and immoral *not* to have it, then many people are guilty of criminal negligence for not using their faculties of observation & thought in regard of all the data which exists all around them in an immediately accessible form. 6) ... People cannot participate in a democratic society if they are not educated to a minimal level required for functioning in that society. This is the crux of our societal problems, as well as the crux of possible problems with the Net. COMMENT: They should all understand the purpose of "society". Is it to be social, or to be free to be themselves, or what. If the purpose is more clearly stated and understood (and communicated to its members) then they each can decide whether, or how much, they wish to participate in its "goals". Societies are complex mixtures of people with all sorts of motives. At least on the net, it is easy to leave when your motives are in conflict, especially if your subscription is up. 7) ... one human has an enormous capacity to injure and exploit another human. We must decide which ability we wish to empower, and judge which we actually do. COMMENT: If everyone were equally able to injure & exploit others, people would become sensitive to what kind of effect they intended to achieve (upon others), and become more acutely attuned to the possible consequences. But if everyone was much more respectable & honorable than they presently are, there would be fewer reasons to attempt to bring harm to them; admiration itself would serve to prevent thoughts of evil deeds against those whose qualities one valued. You could as easily say that those who wish to be treated kindly should cultivate noble qualities and character, so that others will not be easily inspired to hit them over the head. 8) . . . My hope is that this restructuring will create a better society than the one I know. COMMENT: It would be possible to make society better, if people were not always changing their mind, developing new ideas, learning new things about themselves and the world, attempting to adjust to changing circumstances, and generally getting in each other's way as they accomplish all of these things. Pehaps if there were more space between people (like on the net), where they could engage in these activities without easily affecting others, this in itself could "improve" "society". But they always seem to want to grow up in each other's company, instead of doing their homework in private. 9) My beliefs are [hopelessly] utopian. . This faith must not be confused with [certainty]. . We must be satisfied with [approximations]. . I have faith in democratic principles to [shape society] . . . . . It is impossible to [predict the shape] of the society . . . . A few risks are of the [tyranny of the majority], ...... . The will of the people is [impossible to define], ..... COMMENT: I re-arranged your paragraphs to associate the meanings which I saw in them, and they do appear to be in conflict. 10) All actions have moral implications. Ignoring these implications is irresponsible and, yes... immoral. COMMENT: Se la vie'. Therefore what. Final comment: "Society" is in the quality of the contact. Blanc