Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lsicom2!netsys!daemon
From: niu.bitnet!TK0JUT2@netsys.NETSYS.COM
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: NIMC, Cyberspace, and the dangers of info control
Message-ID: <182@netsys.NETSYS.COM>
Date: 1 Oct 90 11:42:46 GMT
Sender: daemon@netsys.NETSYS.COM
Lines: 36

The recent note indicating how Sears/IBM censors GEnie may provide a warning
for the dangers when corporate interests control information flow. "Research"
is a broad term, and networking, maintaining or establishing contacts, or
simply a courtesy note to say "hi" is a legitimate part of the total research
enterprise. There are legitimate problems of over-use that can disrupt the
activities of all users, and there are clearly abuses (e.g., hate mail,
advertisements). The former can be alleviated with expansion of net resources,
a political decision, and one that should be aggressively pursued. The latter
is a small price to pay for increased communicative activity, analogous to
junk mail, and much easier (and neater) to trash.

A free and open democracy depends on unrestrained communication flow. If GEnie
is, in fact, engaging in censorship, they might state this in their t.v.
ads--"we're pretty cool for what we do, but we *do* engage in censorship and
will tell you what's good for you!" Personal mail to friends certainly seems a
legitimate use of resources, especially given the problems of snail-mail and
the costs of long-distance calling. The various bitnet hotlines are hardly
research, but they provide an element of socialization and interaction crucial
to an academic community. Newslines such as this can hardly be considered
research in the strictest sense of the term, but many of us have benefitted
from the dialogues and comments, and this adds to our own knowledge that we
apply in our own way.

We should resist any attempts to limit access to the nets, and a frightening
question is: Who shall determine what counts as research? Does "monitoring"
mean that my communications will be read? Will the net police cut off my
account if they disapprove of my research?

I may be missing something, but recent notes seem to have frightening
implications. Rather than criticize Abernathy, who has, after all, provided
some useful information (I hadn't seen the information in either Chicago paper
or the NYT), perhaps we could entice him to do a follow-up story on the
implications of it all?

At stake seems to be the current tendency to control cyberspace,
and we might take even potential threats quite seriously.