Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!husc6!soi!chip
From: chip@soi.UUCP (Chip Morris)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: NIMC, Cyberspace, and the dangers of info control
Message-ID: <chip.654873670@soi>
Date: 2 Oct 90 13:21:10 GMT
References: <182@netsys.NETSYS.COM> <1990Oct01.194237.5002@looking.on.ca>
Organization: Software Options Inc.,  Cambridge,  Mass.
Lines: 31

brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:

>The network must be owned and run by a variety of private interests for the
>society to remain free.

I agree.  The Internet appears to be an exception, but the state of
grace is temporary.  When resources get scarce, as they inevitably
will, or when a deep controversy arises, we will see the same kind of
fighting as we see in the NEA or state education.

>Note that this is not censorship.  Censorship, which is the use of force
>to stop the flow of information, can only be done by governmental and
>quasi-governmental authorities.  If I were a Prodigy user, I would
>dislike it, but I would recognize Prodigy's right to not provide
>information on competitors in their databases.

To use Marvin Minsky's phrase, our networks should be "small, cheap
and out of control".  If we insist on ONE BIG NETWORK, public or
private, we are inviting bureaucratic and political control.  

To appreciate the difference between state cencorship and private
restraint, consider the recent FBI operation agains "hackers".  If I
don't like PRODIGY, I am free to set up my own BBS (and there are many
alternatives).  But if the FBI and I have a disagreement, they point
their guns at my head and steal my equipment.

There is a PROFOUND difference, and people need to recognize it!
-- 
Chip Morris, Senior Engineer
Software Options, Inc., 22 Hilliard St., Cambridge MA 02138  (617) 497-5054
chip@soi.com