or intellectual property or the way people treat each other, break out, they
tended to clutter the place people went to get a quick sense of what is
happening outside their neighborhoods. So the Policy conference was born.
But then the WELL grew larger and it wasn't just policy but governance and
social issues like political correctness or the right of users to determine
the social rules of the system. Several years and six thousand more users
after the fission of the News and Policy conferences, another conference
split off News - "MetaWELL," a conference was created strictly to
discussions about the WELL itself, its nature, its situation (often dire),
its future.
Grabbing attention in the Commons is a powerful act. Some people seem
drawn to performing there; others burst out there in acts of desperation,
after one history of frustration or another. Dealing with people who are so
consistently off-topic or apparently deeply grooved into incoherence,
long-windedness, scatology, is one of the events that challenges a community
to decide what its values really are, or ought to be.
Something is happening here. I'm not sure anybody understands it yet. I
know that the WELL and the net is an important part of my life and I have to
decide for myself whether this is a new way to make genuine commitments to
other human beings, or a silicon-induced illusion of community. I urge others
to help pursue that question in a variety of ways, while we have the time.
The political dimensions of CMC might lead to situations that would pre-empt
questions of other social effects; responses to the need for understanding
the power-relationships inherent in CMC are well represented by the
Electronic Frontier Foundation and others. We need to learn a lot more, very
quickly, about what kind of place our minds are homesteading.
The future of virtual communities is connected to the future of everything
else, starting with the most precious thing people have to gain or lose -
political freedom. The part played by communication technologies in the
disintegration of communism, the way broadcast television pre-empted the
American electoral process, the power of fax and CMC networks during times of
political repression like Tienamen Square and the Soviet Coup attempt, the
power of citizen electronic journalism, the power-maneuvering of law
enforcement and intelligence agencies to restrict rights of citizen access
and expression in cyberspace, all point to the future of CMC as a close
correlate of future political scenarios. More important than civilizing
cyberspace is ensuring its freedom as a citizen-to-citizen communication and
publication medium; laws that infringe equity of access to and freedom of
expression in cyberspace could transform today's populist empowerment into
yet another instrument of manipulation. Will "electronic democracy" be an
accurate description of political empowerment that grows out of the screen of
a computer? Or will it become a brilliant piece of disinfotainment, another
means of manipulating emotions and manufacturing public opinion in the
service of power.
Who controls what kinds of information is communicated in the
international networks where virtual communities live? Who censors, and what
is censored? Who safeguards the privacy of individuals in the face of
technologies that make it possible to amass and retrieve detailed personal
information about every member of a large population? The answers to these
political questions might make moot any more abstract questions about
cultures in cyberspace. Democracy itself depends on the relatively free flow
of communications. The following words by James Madison are carved in marble
at the United States Library of Congress: "A popular government without
popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a
farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance,
and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the
power which knowledge gives." It is time for people to arm themselves with
power about the future of CMC technology.
Who controls the market for relationships? Will the world's increasingly
interlinked, increasingly powerful, decreasingly costly communications
infrastructure be controlled by a small number of very large companies? Will
cyberspace be privatized and parceled out to those who can afford to buy into
the auction? If political forces do not seize the high ground and end today's
freewheeling exchange of ideas, it is still possible for a more benevolent
form of economic control to stunt the evolution of virtual communities, if a
small number of companies gain the power to put up toll-roads in the
information networks, and smaller companies are not able to compete with them.
Or will there be an open market, in which newcomers like Apple or
Microsoft can become industry leaders? The playing field in the global
telecommunications industry will never be level, but the degree of individual
freedom available through telecommunication technologies in the future may
depend upon whether the market for goods and services in cyberspace remains
open for new companies to create new uses for CMC.
I present these observations as a set of questions, not as answers. I
believe that we need to try to understand the nature of CMC, cyberspace, and
virtual communities in every important context - politically, economically,
socially, culturally, cognitively. Each different perspective reveals
something that the other perspectives do not reveal. Each different
discipline fails to see something that another discipline sees very well. We
need to think as teams here, across boundaries of academic discipline,
industrial affiliation, nation, to understand, and thus perhaps regain
control of, the way human communities are being transformed by communication
technologies. We can't do this solely as dispassionate observers, although
there is certainly a huge need for the detached assessment of social science.
But community is a matter of the heart and the gut as well as the head. Some
of the most important learning will always have to be done by jumping into
one corner or another of cyberspace, living there, and getting up to your
elbows in the problems that virtual communities face.
====
Howard Rheingold (1985) "Tools for Thought" New York, NY.
Howard Reingold (1991) "Virtual Reality" New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Howard Rheingold (1993) "The Virtual Community: Homesteading On The
Electronic Frontier" Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
*"Everybody's got somewhere they call home."*
-- Roger Waters
*"All's WELL that ends WELL."*
-- Shakespeare
********************************************
By *Bruce Sterling* (1)
(Reprinted from SCIENCE FICTION EYE #10 with permission of the author.)
I just wrote my first nonfiction book. It's called THE HACKER CRACKDOWN:
LAW AND DISORDER ON THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER. Writing this book has required
me to spend much of the past year and a half in the company of hackers, cops,
and civil libertarians.
I've spent much time listening to arguments over what's legal, what's
illegal, what's right and wrong, what's decent and what's despicable, what's
moral and immoral, in the world of computers and civil liberties. My various
informants were knowledgeable people who cared passionately about these
issues, and most of them seemed well- intentioned. Considered as a whole,
however, their opinions were a baffling mess of contradictions.
When I started this project, my ignorance of the issues involved was
genuine and profound. I'd never knowingly met anyone from the computer
underground. I'd never logged-on to an underground bulletin-board or read a
semi-legal hacker magazine. Although I did care a great deal about the issue
of freedom of expression, I knew sadly little about the history of civil
rights in America or the legal doctrines that surround freedom of the press,
freedom of speech, and freedom of association. My relations with the police
were firmly based on the stratagem of avoiding personal contact with police
to the greatest extent possible.
I didn't go looking for this project. This project came looking for me. I
became inextricably involved when agents of the United States Secret Service,
acting under the guidance of federal attorneys from Chicago, came to my home
town of Austin on March 1, 1990, and confiscated the computers of a local
science fiction gaming publisher. STEVE JACKSON Games, Inc., of Austin, was
about to publish a gaming- book called GURPS Cyberpunk.
When the federal law-enforcement agents discovered the electronic
manuscript of CYBERPUNK on the computers they had seized from Mr. Jackson's
offices, they expressed grave shock and alarm. They declared that CYBERPUNK
was "a manual for computer crime."
It's not my intention to reprise the story of the Jackson case in this
column. I've done that to the best of my ability in THE HACKER CRACKDOWN; and
in any case the ramifications of March 1 are far from over. Mr. Jackson was
never charged with any crime. His civil suit against the raiders is still in
federal court as I write this.
I don't want to repeat here what some cops believe, what some hackers
believe, or what some civil libertarians believe. Instead, I want to discuss
my own moral beliefs as a science fiction writer - such as they are. As an SF
writer, I want to attempt a personal statement of principle.
It has not escaped my attention that there are many people who believe
that anyone called a "cyberpunk" must be, almost by definition, entirely
devoid of principle. I offer as evidence an excerpt from BUCK BLOOMBECKER's
1990 book, SPECTACULAR COMPUTER CRIMES. On page 53, in a chapter titled "Who
Are The Computer Criminals?", Mr. BloomBecker introduces the formal
classification of "cyberpunk" criminality.
"In the last few years, a new genre of science fiction has arisen under
the evocative name of 'cyberpunk.' Introduced in the work of WILLIAM GIBSON,
particularly in his prize-winning novel NEUROMANCER, cyberpunk takes an
apocalyptic view of the technological future. In NEUROMANCER, the protagonist
is a futuristic hacker who must use the most sophisticated computer
strategies to commit crimes for people who offer him enough money to buy the
biological creations he needs to survive. His life is one of cynical
despair, fueled by the desire to avoid death. Though none of the virus cases
actually seen so far have been so devastating, this book certainly represents
an attitude that should be watched for when we find new cases of computer
virus and try to understand the motivations behind them.
"The New York Times's JOHN MARKOFF, one of the more perceptive and
accomplished writers in the field, has written than a number of computer
criminals demonstrate new levels of meanness. He characterizes them, as do I,
as cyberpunks."
Those of us who have read Gibson's NEUROMANCER closely will be aware of
certain factual inaccuracies in Mr. BloomBecker's brief review. NEUROMANCER
is not "apocalyptic." The chief conspirator in NEUROMANCER forces Case's
loyalty, not by buying his services, but by planting poison-sacs in his
brain. Case is "fueled" not by his greed for money or "biological creations,"
or even by the cynical "desire to avoid death," but rather by his burning
desire to hack cyberspace. And so forth.
However, I don't think this misreading of NEUROMANCER is based on
carelessness or malice. The rest of Mr. BloomBecker's book generally is
informative, well-organized, and thoughtful. Instead, I feel that Mr.
BloomBecker manfully absorbed as much of NEUROMANCER as he could without
suffering a mental toxic reaction. This report of his is what he actually
*saw* when reading the novel.
NEUROMANCER has won quite a following in the world of computer crime
investigation. A prominent law enforcement official once told me that police
unfailingly conclude the worst when they find a teenager with a computer and
a copy of NEUROMANCER. When I declared that I too was a "cyberpunk" writer,
she asked me if I would print the recipe for a pipe-bomb in my works. I was
astonished by this question, which struck me as bizarre rhetorical excess at
the time. That was before I had actually examined bulletin-boards in the
computer underground, which I found to be chock-a-block with recipes for
pipe-bombs, and worse. (I didn't have the heart to tell her that my friend
and colleague WALTER JON WILLIAMS had once written and published an SF story
closely describing explosives derived from simple household chemicals.)
Cyberpunk SF (along with SF in general) has, in fact, permeated the
computer underground. I have met young underground hackers who use the
aliases "Neuromancer," "Wintermute" and "Count Zero." The Legion of Doom, the
absolute bete noire of computer law-enforcement, used to congregate on a
bulletin-board called "Black Ice."
In the past, I didn't know much about anyone in the underground, but they
certainly knew about me. Since that time, I've had people express sincere
admiration for my novels, and then, in almost the same breath, brag to me
about breaking into hospital computers to chortle over confidential medical
reports about herpes victims.
The single most stinging example of this syndrome is "PENGO," a member of
the German hacker-group that broke into Internet computers while in the pay
of the KGB. He told German police, and the judge at the trial of his
co-conspirators, that he was inspired by NEUROMANCER and JOHN BRUNNER's
SHOCKWAVE RIDER.
I didn't write NEUROMANCER. I did, however, read it in manuscript and
offered many purportedly helpful comments. I praised the book publicly and
repeatedly and at length. I've done everything I can to get people to read
this book.
I don't recall cautioning Gibson that his novel might lead to anarchist
hackers selling their expertise to the ferocious and repulsive apparat that
gave the world the Lubyanka and the Gulag Archipelago. I don't think I could
have issued any such caution, even if I'd felt the danger of such a
possibility, which I didn't. I still don't know in what fashion Gibson might
have changed his book to avoid inciting evildoers, while still retaining the
integrity of his vision - the very quality about the book that makes it
compelling and worthwhile.
*This leads me to my first statements of moral principle.*
As a "cyberpunk" SF writer, I am not responsible for every act committed
by a Bohemian with a computer. I don't own the word "cyberpunk" and cannot
help where it is bestowed, or who uses it, or to what ends.
As a science fiction writer, it is not my business to make people behave.
It is my business to make people imagine. I cannot control other people's
imaginations - any more than I would allow them to control mine.
I am, however, morally obliged to speak out when acts of evil are
committed that use my ideas or my rhetoric, however distantly, as a
justification.
Pengo and his friends committed a grave crime that was worthy of
condemnation and punishment. They were clever, but treacherously clever.
They were imaginative, but it was imagination in a bad cause. They were
technically accomplished, but they abused their expertise for illicit profit
and to feed their egos. They may be "cyberpunks" - according to many, they
may deserve that title far more than I do - but they're no friends of mine.
What is "crime"? What is a moral offense? What actions are evil and
dishonorable? I find these extraordinarily difficult questions. I have no
special status that should allow me to speak with authority on such subjects.
Quite the contrary. As a writer in a scorned popular literature and a
self-professed eccentric Bohemian, I have next to no authority of any kind.
I'm not a moralist, philosopher, or prophet. I've always considered my
"moral role," such as it is, to be that of a court jester - a person
sometimes allowed to speak the unspeakable, to explore ideas and issues in a
format where they can be treated as games, thought-experiments, or metaphors,
not as prescriptions, laws, or sermons.
I have no religion, no sacred scripture to guide my actions and provide an
infallible moral bedrock. I'm not seeking political responsibilities or the
power of public office. I habitually question any pronouncement of authority,
and entertain the liveliest skepticism about the processes of law and
justice. I feel no urge to conform to the behavior of the majority of my
fellow citizens. I'm a pain in the neck.
My behavior is far from flawless. I lived and thrived in Austin, Texas in
the 1970s and 1980s, in a festering milieu of arty crypto-intellectual
hippies. I've committed countless "crimes," like millions of other people in
my generation. These crimes were of the glamorous "victimless" variety, but
they would surely have served to put me in prison had I done them, say, in
front of the State Legislature.
Had I lived a hundred years ago as I live today, I would probably have
been lynched by outraged fellow Texans as a moral abomination. If I lived in
Iran today and wrote and thought as I do, I would probably be tried and
executed.
As far as I can tell, moral relativism is a fact of life. I think it might
be possible to outwardly conform to every jot and tittle of the taboos of
one's society, while feeling no emotional or intellectual commitment to them.
I understand that certain philosophers have argued that this is morally
proper behavior for a good citizen. But I can't live that life. I feel,
sincerely, that my society is engaged in many actions which are foolish and
shortsighted and likely to lead to our destruction. I feel that our society
must change, and change radically, in a process that will cause great damage
to our present system of values. This doesn't excuse my own failings, which I
regret, but it does explain, I hope, why my lifestyle and my actions are not
likely to make authority feel entirely comfortable.
Knowledge is power. The rise of computer networking, of the Information
Society, is doing strange and disruptive things to the processes by which
power and knowledge are currently distributed. Knowledge and information,
supplied through these new conduits, are highly corrosive to the status quo.
People living in the midst of technological revolution are living outside the
law: not necessarily because they mean to break laws, but because the laws
are vague, obsolete, overbroad, draconian, or unenforceable. Hackers break
laws as a matter of course, and some have been punished unduly for relatively
minor infractions not motivated by malice. Even computer police, seeking
earnestly to apprehend and punish wrongdoers, have been accused of abuse of
their offices, and of violation of the Constitution and the civil statutes.
These police may indeed have committed these "crimes." Some officials have
already suffered grave damage to their reputations and careers - all the time
convinced that they were morally in the right; and, like the hackers they
pursued, never feeling any genuine sense of shame, remorse, or guilt.
I have lived, and still live, in a counterculture, with its own system of
values. Counterculture - Bohemia - is never far from criminality. "To live
outside the law you must be honest" was Bob Dylan's classic hippie motto. A
Bohemian finds romance in the notion that "his clothes are dirty but his
hands are clean." But there's danger in setting aside the strictures of the
law to linchpin one's honor on one's personal integrity. If you throw away
the rulebook to rely on your individual conscience you will be put in the way
of temptation.
And temptation is a burden. It hurts. It is grotesquely easy to justify,
to rationalize, an action of which one should properly be ashamed. In
investigating the milieu of computer-crime I have come into contact with a
world of temptation formerly closed to me. Nowadays, it would take no great
effort on my part to break into computers, to steal long-distance telephone
service, to ingratiate myself with people who would merrily supply me with
huge amounts of illicitly copied software. I could even build pipe-bombs. I
haven't done these things, and disapprove of them; in fact, having come to
know these practices better than I cared to, I feel sincere revulsion for
them now. But this knowledge is a kind of power, and power is tempting.
Journalistic objectivity, or the urge to play with ideas, cannot entirely
protect you. Temptation clings to the mind like a series of small but nagging
weights. Carrying these weights may make you stronger. Or they may drag you
down.
"His clothes are dirty but his hands are clean." It's a fine ideal, when
you can live up to it. Like a lot of Bohemians, I've gazed with a fine
disdain on certain people in power whose clothes were clean but their hands
conspicuously dirty. But I've also met a few people eager to pat me on the
back, whose clothes were dirty and their hands as well. They're not pleasant
company.
Somehow one must draw a line. I'm not very good at drawing lines. When
other people have drawn me a line, I've generally been quite anxious to have
a good long contemplative look at the other side. I don't feel much
confidence in my ability to draw these lines. But I feel that I should. The
world won't wait. It only took a few guys with pool cues and switchblades to
turn Woodstock Nation into Altamont. Haight-Ashbury was once full of people
who could trust anyone they'd smoked grass with and love anyone they'd
dropped acid with - for about six months. Soon the place was aswarm with
speed-freaks and junkies, and heaven help us if they didn't look just like
the love-bead dudes from the League of Spiritual Discovery. Corruption
exists, temptation exists. Some people fall. And the temptation is there for
all of us, all the time.
I've come to draw a line at money. It's not a good line, but it's
something. There are certain activities that are unorthodox, dubious, illegal
or quasi-legal, but they might perhaps be justified by an honest person with
unconventional standards. But in my opinion, when you're making a commercial
living from breaking the law, you're beyond the pale. I find it hard to
accept your countercultural sincerity when you're grinning and pocketing the
cash, compadre.
I can understand a kid swiping phone service when he's broke, powerless,
and dying to explore the new world of the networks. I don't approve of this,
but I can understand it. I scorn to do this myself, and I never have; but I
don't find it so heinous that it deserves pitiless repression. But if you're
stealing phone service and selling it - if you've made yourself a miniature
phone company and you're pimping off the energy of others just to line your
own pockets - you're a thief. When the heat comes to put you away, don't
come crying "brother" to me.
If you're creating software and giving it away, you're a fine human being.
If you're writing software and letting other people copy it and try it out as
shareware, I appreciate your sense of trust, and if I like your work, I'll
pay you. If you're copying other people's software and giving it away, you're
damaging other people's interests, and should be ashamed, even if you're
posing as a glamorous info-liberating subversive. But if you're copying other
people's software and selling it, you're a crook and I despise you.
Writing and spreading viruses is a vile, hurtful, and shameful activity
that I unreservedly condemn.
There's something wrong with the Information Society. There's something
wrong with the idea that "information" is a commodity like a desk or a chair.
There's something wrong with patenting software algorithms. There's
something direly mean spirited and ungenerous about inventing a language and
then renting it out to other people to speak. There's something unprecedented
and sinister in this process of creeping commodification of data and
knowledge. A computer is something too close to the human brain for me to
rest entirely content with someone patenting or copyrighting the process of
its thought. There's something sick and unworkable about an economic system
which has already spewed forth such a vast black market. I don't think
democracy will thrive in a milieu where vast empires of data are encrypted,
restricted, proprietary, confidential, top secret, and sensitive. I fear for
the stability of a society that builds sand castles out of databits and tries
to stop a real-world tide with royal commands.
Whole societies can fall. In Eastern Europe we have seen whole nations
collapse in a slough of corruption. In pursuit of their unworkable economic
doctrine, the Marxists doubled and redoubled their efforts at social control,
while losing all sight of the values that make life worth living. At last the
entire power structure was so discredited that the last remaining shred of
moral integrity could only be found in Bohemia: in dissidents and dramatists
and their illegal samizdat underground fanzines. Their clothes were dirty but
their hands were clean. The only agitprop poster Vaclav Havel needed was a
sign saying *Vaclav Havel Guarantees Free Elections.* He'd never held power,
but people believed him, and they believed his Velvet Revolution friends.
I wish there were people in the Computer Revolution who could inspire, and
deserved to inspire, that level of trust. I wish there were people in the
Electronic Frontier whose moral integrity unquestionably matched the
unleashed power of those digital machines. A society is in dire straits when
it puts its Bohemia in power. I tremble for my country when I contemplate
this prospect. And yet it's possible. If dire straits come, it can even be
the last best hope.
The issues that enmeshed me in 1990 are not going to go away. I became
involved as a writer and journalist, because I felt it was right. Having
made that decision, I intend to stand by my commitment. I expect to stay
involved in these issues, in this debate, for the rest of my life. These are
timeless issues: civil rights, knowledge, power, freedom and privacy, the
necessary steps that a civilized society must take to protect itself from
criminals. There is no finality in politics; it creates itself anew, it must
be dealt with every day.
The future is a dark road and our speed is headlong. I didn't ask for
power or responsibility. I'm a science fiction writer, I only wanted to play
with Big Ideas in my cheerfully lunatic sandbox. What little benefit I myself
can contribute to society would likely be best employed in writing better SF
novels. I intend to write those better novels, if I can. But in the meantime
I seem to have accumulated a few odd shreds of influence. It's a very minor
kind of power, and doubtless more than I deserve; but power without
responsibility is a monstrous thing.
In writing HACKER CRACKDOWN, I tried to describe the truth as other people
saw it. I see it too, with my own eyes, but I can't yet pretend to understand
what I'm seeing. The best I can do, it seems to me, is to try to approach the
situation as an open-minded person of goodwill. I therefore offer the
following final set of principles, which I hope will guide me in the days to
come.
* I'll listen to anybody, and I'll try to imagine myself in their
situation.
* I'll assume goodwill on the part of others until they fully earn my
distrust.
* I won't cherish grudges. I'll forgive those who change their minds and
actions, just as I reserve the right to change my own mind and actions.
* I'll look hard for the disadvantages to others, in the things that give
me advantage. I won't assume that the way I live today is the natural
order of the universe, just because I happen to be benefiting from it at
the moment.
And while I don't plan to give up making money from my ethically dubious
cyberpunk activities, I hope to temper my impropriety by giving more work
away for no money at all.
---------- Footnotes ----------
(1) Copyright (C) 1992 by Bruce Sterling. All rights reserved.
FYI:
====
Bruce Sterling (1992) "Free as Air, Free as Water, Free as Knowledge"
Speech to the Library Information Technology Association, June 1992. San
Francisco, CA.
Bruce Sterling (1992) "The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder at the
Electronic Frontier", Viking, London, England.
Bruce Sterling & William Gibson (1993) "Literary Freeware -- Not for
Commercial Use" Speeches to National Academy of Sciences Convocation on
Technology and Education, May 10, 1993, Washington, D.C.: Computer
Underground Digest #5.54.
Bruce Sterling (1992-1993) "Agitprop disk: Literary Freeware -- Not for
Commercial Use" Contains various SF magazine columns, texts of speeches, etc.
Available via anonymous FTP from `ftp.eff.org' in directory `/pub/agitprop'.
Or use Gopher at `gopher.well.sf.ca.us', and see under `Bruce Sterling/'.
*"...and the silicon chip inside her head,
has turned to overload."*
-- Bob Geldof, "I don't like Mondays"
**************************************************
By *Greg Chartrand* (1)
National Science Foundation Develops a National Super Highway
GREG CHARTRAND
3/11/93
"I just returned from a network meeting in San Diego today and though you
would be interested in my interpretation of what NSF proposes for the
National Education and Research Network (NREN). Rather than comment
specifically, I decided it would be interesting to write a *parody*
which relates the NREN to the construction of a national super highway.
Doing so removes the highly technical aspects of the overall planned
functions the NREN. Please excuse this style, but I think its the only
way to explain my understanding of their plan in a way that does not
immediately get very technical. It may be flawed, but the information is
based upon Hans-Werner Braun's presentation.... as I understood it."
The National Science foundation is in the process of developing plans to
build a national super highway that will advance transportation technology in
our country. The super highway proposed will replace the existing interstate
highway system and allow speeds of at least 240 MPH. the following interview
with NSF developers explores their current plans.
*
ME: I understand you are building a new Super national highway(2) to serve
the purposes of advancing ground transportation throughout our county.
NSF: Yes we are, as a part of an earlier initiative sponsored by the then
Senator Gore. We are very excited about the technology that will allow
transportation speeds of 240 MPH(3) across the country.
ME: That sounds exciting, how will it be built?
NSF: Well, we will have this super highway designed to allow the high speed
travel(4) and it will have six entrance/exit ramps.(5)
ME: Ahh.... that doesn't sound like very many ramps, where will they be
located?
NSF: Well, several years ago we funded the establishment of six gourmet
restaurants(6) scattered across the country, we are going to fund the building
of the super highway and access ramps at the restaurant locations. We are
however allowing the ramp contractor(7) to build as many ramps as he wishes,
at his own expense.
ME: I assume then the contractor for the highway(8) builds ramps where
ever it makes sense to optimize access.
NSF: Well, not exactly. We are separating the contracts for the ramps and
the highway so the bidders can be very competitive.
ME: I see. How to you plan to connect the rest of the interstate highway
system(9) to your super national highway?
NSF: Well actually, its not part of our plan. We are having the highway and
access ramps built for us, its up to the states or other government agencies
to provide the highways to the access ramps. We will however fund a few
temporary roads(10) to connect parts of the existing interstate highway
system, but don't intend to make them permanent. Did I forget to mention that
we will be shutting down the existing interstate highway system?(11)
ME: You mean I will no longer be able to drive across the existing
interstate highway system?
NSF: Yes, it will be destroyed.
ME: OK, lets see If I understand. I have a state highway system for
example, and I put in a connecting highway to your super highway, and I can
now travel on it, right?
NSF: Well, no you can't. The super highway will only be used for vehicles
that can run 240 MPH(12) and we must approve every vehicle, destination, and
trip the vehicle takes.(13) We don't want our super highway clogged with
vehicles which can only travel 70 MPH!(14)
ME: I'm confused. You mean you want my state for example, to build an
access road to a super highway it can't generally use?
NSF: Well, yes and no. You see we also want to encourage development of
toll roads in our country.(15) Our six high speed access ramps are wide
enough to allow parallel toll roads to be accessed as well as our super
highway. Private road builders will be able to put in toll roads between our
access ramps, for a fee.
ME: So there will no longer be a "free" interstate highway system?
NSF: Right!
ME: Lets see if I got this straight. You build a national super highway
that has six access ramps located where you once established gourmet
restaurants and you destroy the interstate highway system. There are no plans
to replicate the functionality of the interstate highway systems, but you
will allow private toll road builders to use your wide access ramps and
develop parallel toll roads to your super highway. My state or the government
has to build the roads that lead to the super highway, but once there, cannot
travel on it unless the specific vehicle can run at 240 MPH and has specific
permission from you to travel on it.
NSF: You've got it!
ME: Well then you must have a very interesting reason to put this highway
and the access ramps at these restaurant locations.
NSF: Well, you see, the gourmet food business isn't what it used to be.
Fast food has really taken over in our country, we really need to preserve the
gourmet food business.(16) High quality restaurants should be located right
off of classy high speed highways. We really would like to encourage
restaurant patrons to use the super highway so they can have breakfast in San
Diego and dinner in Champaign Illinois. We will be looking for patrons who
can afford to eat at multiple restaurants and we will let them ride the
highway for free! Of course they must have a vehicle that can go 240 MPH.(17)
ME: I'm even more confused. How will I get across the country?
NSF: Well, if your state puts in an access road to one of our access ramps
you take it, and then exit-off on to one of the toll roads that will be built
parallel to our super highway.
ME: How fast will I be able to go?(18)
NSF: What ever the speed limit is on the toll road.
ME: What will it cost me to ride on it?
NSF: What ever the toll is. You see, we expect that several toll roads
will be developed. Competition! It should keep the price down.
ME: When the super highway is empty, how will it be used?
NSF: Well, we are telling the gourmet restaurants that they should work
together even though they will be competing with each other for customers.(19)
You know, they could develop plans to send trash to each other so they can
demonstrate how fast the transportation is on the super highway, it would be
in their best interest.(20)
ME: Aren't there plans for development of high speed toll roads already in
progress by several toll road builders? What makes you think they will put
their roads in-between your access ramps?(21)
NSF: F.O.D.
ME: What?
NSF: Field Of Dreams. If we build it they will come.
ME: So again, tell me who pays for what?
NSF: The government funds the super highway and six access ramps. The toll
road providers build their own roads and pays an access fee for the ramps. The
states and other government agencies pay for any roads necessary to get to the
access ramps. When you get on a toll road and pay what ever the price is.
ME: And the only one's allowed to ride on the super highway are those
persons who have special vehicles that can go 240 MPH with your specific
permission, or those who can afford to frequent the gourmet restaurants and
travel at 240 MPH. Everyone else takes the toll roads.
NSF: Right, but don't forget the trash runs between restaurants!
ME: Oh, how silly of me! Hmmmm. I wonder if this is really what Senator
Gore had in mind?
*"If we do not succeed, then we face the risk of failure."*
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
*"What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind.
Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is."*
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
(winning friends while peaking to the United Negro College Fund)
---------- Footnotes ----------
(1) Copyright (C) 1993 by Greg Chartrand. All rights reserved.
(2) NSFnet backbone project
(3) 155 megabit
(4) high speed data transfer
(5) Network Access Points (NAP's)
(6) NSF sponsored super computer centers
(7) The contractor providing the NAP's.
(8) The contractor to provide the backbone telecommunications services
(9) The Existing internet, regional, state, and other networks
(10) NSF plans to provide interim funding for NSF regionals to connect to
the NAP's. State networks and other government agencies are on their own.
(11) The existing NSFnet will be turned off at some point after the new
"arrangement" is in place.
(12) The Very High Speed Backbone Service (VBNS) is reserved for
applications and purposes where a demonstrated need for high speed/capacity
transmission is needed.
(13) NSF will require approval.
(14) NSF does not wish to clog the VBNS with low speed aggregate traffic
unless additions are made to the network. 70 MPH = 45 MBS.
(15) The NSF expects commercial providers like AT&T, MCI to put networking
between NAP's. Most of the existing NSFnet traffic would go over these
commercial networks which would have to be paid for by the users.
(16) The usefulness of super computer systems has been grossly reduced by
the technological advances associated with very powerful Unix work stations.
Super computers fill a diminishing niche in science and industry.
(17) NSF is looking for potential users that can use more than one super
computer center and use the VBNS to make the application work. Applications of
this nature are a bit obscure.
(18) There are no specifications for commercial providers.
(19) NSF super computer centers are no longer funded by NSF so they
compete for commercial and non-commercial business.
(20) NSF is asking the NSF super computer centers to develop demonstration
applications which show how the network might be used. These applications
would demonstrate, and not necessarly do anything useful.
(21) The major telecommunications suppliers will be selling similar
services this year without the complications of the NAP's. The NAP's primary
function would allow communications between commercial vendors which would be
very useful, but it is unclear if the telecommunications suppliers will "buy"
into this concept.
Lingo
*****
This glossary is only a tiny subset of all of the various terms and other
things that people regularly use on The Net. For a more complete (and more
entertaining) reference, get a copy of "The New Hacker's Dictionary", which
is based on a VERY large text file called the Jargon File, edited by Eric
Raymond. It is available from the MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02142; its ISBN number is `0-262-68069-6'. The
up-to-date version of the Jargon File "The on-line hacker Jargon File,
version 3.0, 29 July 1993", is kept on various FTP servers (e.g. from
`ftp.gnu.ai.mit.edu' as file `/pub/gnu/jarg300.txt.gz').
`:-)': This odd symbol is one of the ways a person can portray "mood" in
the very flat medium of computers--by using "smilies." This is
`metacommunication', and there are literally hundreds of them, from the
obvious to the obscure. This particular example expresses "happiness."
Don't see it? Tilt your head to the left 90 degrees. Smilies are also used
to denote sarcasm.
ASCII: Has two meanings. ASCII is a universal computer code for English
letters and characters. Computers store all information as binary numbers.
In ASCII, the letter "A" is stored as 1000001, whether the computer is made
by IBM, Apple or Commodore. ASCII also refers to a method, or protocol, for
copying files from one computer to another over a network, in which neither
computer checks for any errors that might have been caused by static or other
problems.
ANSI: Computers use several different methods for deciding how to put
information on your screen and how your keyboard interacts with the screen.
ANSI is one of these "terminal emulation" methods. Although most popular on
PC-based bulletin-board systems, it can also be found on some Net sites. To
use it properly, you will first have to turn it on, or enable it, in your
communications software.
ARPANet: A predecessor of the Internet. Started in 1969 with funds from
the Defense Department's Advanced Projects Research Agency.
Backbone: A high-speed network that connects several powerful computers.
In the U.S., the backbone of the Internet is often considered the NSFNet, a
government funded link between a handful of supercomputer sites across the
country.
Baud: The speed at which modems transfer data. One baud is roughly equal
to one bit per second. It takes eight bits to make up one letter or
character. Modems rarely transfer data at exactly the same speed as their
listed baud rate because of static or computer problems. More expensive
modems use systems, such as Microcom Network Protocol (MNP), which can
correct for these errors or which "compress" data to speed up transmission.
BITNet: Another, academically oriented, international computer network,
which uses a different set of computer instructions to move data. It is
easily accessible to Internet users through e-mail, and provides a large
number of conferences and databases. Its name comes from "Because It's Time."
Bounce: What your e-mail does when it cannot get to its recipient - it
bounces back to you.
Command line: On Unix host systems, this is where you tell the machine
what you want it to do, by entering commands.
Communications software: A program that tells a modem how to work.
Daemon: An otherwise harmless Unix program that normally works out of
sight of the user. On the Internet, you'll most likely encounter it only when
your e-mail is not delivered to your recipient - you'll get back your
original message plus an ugly message from a "mailer daemon."
Distribution: A way to limit where your Usenet postings go. Handy for
such things as "for sale" messages or discussions of regional politics.
Domain: The last part of an Internet address, such as "news.com."
Dot: When you want to impress the net veterans you meet at parties, say
"dot" instead of "period," for example: "My address is john at site dot
domain dot com."
Dot file: A file on a Unix public-access system that alters the way you or
your messages interact with that system. For example, your .login file
contains various parameters for such things as the text editor you get when
you send a message. When you do an ls command, these files do not appear in
the directory listing; do `ls -a' to list them.
Down: When a public-access site runs into technical trouble, and you can
no longer gain access to it, it's down.
Download: Copy a file from a host system to your computer. There are
several different methods, or protocols, for downloading files, most of which
periodically check the file as it is being copied to ensure no information is
inadvertently destroyed or damaged during the process. Some, such as XMODEM,
only let you download one file at a time. Others, such as batch-YMODEM and
ZMODEM, let you type in the names of several files at once, which are then
automatically downloaded.
EMACS: From Editing MACroS. A standard Unix text editor that beginners
hate, and hackers adore.
E-mail: Electronic mail - a way to send a private message to somebody else
on the Net. Used as both noun and verb.
Emoticon: A smiley. See `:-)'.
F2F: Face to Face. When you actually meet those people you been
corresponding with/flaming.
FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions. A compilation of answers to these. Many
Usenet newsgroups have these files, which are posted once a month or so for
beginners.
FYI: For Your Interest.
Film at 11: One reaction to an overwrought argument: "Imminent death of
the Net predicted. Film at 11."
Finger: An Internet program that lets you get some bit of information
tended to clutter the place people went to get a quick sense of what is
happening outside their neighborhoods. So the Policy conference was born.
But then the WELL grew larger and it wasn't just policy but governance and
social issues like political correctness or the right of users to determine
the social rules of the system. Several years and six thousand more users
after the fission of the News and Policy conferences, another conference
split off News - "MetaWELL," a conference was created strictly to
discussions about the WELL itself, its nature, its situation (often dire),
its future.
Grabbing attention in the Commons is a powerful act. Some people seem
drawn to performing there; others burst out there in acts of desperation,
after one history of frustration or another. Dealing with people who are so
consistently off-topic or apparently deeply grooved into incoherence,
long-windedness, scatology, is one of the events that challenges a community
to decide what its values really are, or ought to be.
Something is happening here. I'm not sure anybody understands it yet. I
know that the WELL and the net is an important part of my life and I have to
decide for myself whether this is a new way to make genuine commitments to
other human beings, or a silicon-induced illusion of community. I urge others
to help pursue that question in a variety of ways, while we have the time.
The political dimensions of CMC might lead to situations that would pre-empt
questions of other social effects; responses to the need for understanding
the power-relationships inherent in CMC are well represented by the
Electronic Frontier Foundation and others. We need to learn a lot more, very
quickly, about what kind of place our minds are homesteading.
The future of virtual communities is connected to the future of everything
else, starting with the most precious thing people have to gain or lose -
political freedom. The part played by communication technologies in the
disintegration of communism, the way broadcast television pre-empted the
American electoral process, the power of fax and CMC networks during times of
political repression like Tienamen Square and the Soviet Coup attempt, the
power of citizen electronic journalism, the power-maneuvering of law
enforcement and intelligence agencies to restrict rights of citizen access
and expression in cyberspace, all point to the future of CMC as a close
correlate of future political scenarios. More important than civilizing
cyberspace is ensuring its freedom as a citizen-to-citizen communication and
publication medium; laws that infringe equity of access to and freedom of
expression in cyberspace could transform today's populist empowerment into
yet another instrument of manipulation. Will "electronic democracy" be an
accurate description of political empowerment that grows out of the screen of
a computer? Or will it become a brilliant piece of disinfotainment, another
means of manipulating emotions and manufacturing public opinion in the
service of power.
Who controls what kinds of information is communicated in the
international networks where virtual communities live? Who censors, and what
is censored? Who safeguards the privacy of individuals in the face of
technologies that make it possible to amass and retrieve detailed personal
information about every member of a large population? The answers to these
political questions might make moot any more abstract questions about
cultures in cyberspace. Democracy itself depends on the relatively free flow
of communications. The following words by James Madison are carved in marble
at the United States Library of Congress: "A popular government without
popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a
farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance,
and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the
power which knowledge gives." It is time for people to arm themselves with
power about the future of CMC technology.
Who controls the market for relationships? Will the world's increasingly
interlinked, increasingly powerful, decreasingly costly communications
infrastructure be controlled by a small number of very large companies? Will
cyberspace be privatized and parceled out to those who can afford to buy into
the auction? If political forces do not seize the high ground and end today's
freewheeling exchange of ideas, it is still possible for a more benevolent
form of economic control to stunt the evolution of virtual communities, if a
small number of companies gain the power to put up toll-roads in the
information networks, and smaller companies are not able to compete with them.
Or will there be an open market, in which newcomers like Apple or
Microsoft can become industry leaders? The playing field in the global
telecommunications industry will never be level, but the degree of individual
freedom available through telecommunication technologies in the future may
depend upon whether the market for goods and services in cyberspace remains
open for new companies to create new uses for CMC.
I present these observations as a set of questions, not as answers. I
believe that we need to try to understand the nature of CMC, cyberspace, and
virtual communities in every important context - politically, economically,
socially, culturally, cognitively. Each different perspective reveals
something that the other perspectives do not reveal. Each different
discipline fails to see something that another discipline sees very well. We
need to think as teams here, across boundaries of academic discipline,
industrial affiliation, nation, to understand, and thus perhaps regain
control of, the way human communities are being transformed by communication
technologies. We can't do this solely as dispassionate observers, although
there is certainly a huge need for the detached assessment of social science.
But community is a matter of the heart and the gut as well as the head. Some
of the most important learning will always have to be done by jumping into
one corner or another of cyberspace, living there, and getting up to your
elbows in the problems that virtual communities face.
====
Howard Rheingold (1985) "Tools for Thought" New York, NY.
Howard Reingold (1991) "Virtual Reality" New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Howard Rheingold (1993) "The Virtual Community: Homesteading On The
Electronic Frontier" Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
*"Everybody's got somewhere they call home."*
-- Roger Waters
*"All's WELL that ends WELL."*
-- Shakespeare
********************************************
By *Bruce Sterling* (1)
(Reprinted from SCIENCE FICTION EYE #10 with permission of the author.)
I just wrote my first nonfiction book. It's called THE HACKER CRACKDOWN:
LAW AND DISORDER ON THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER. Writing this book has required
me to spend much of the past year and a half in the company of hackers, cops,
and civil libertarians.
I've spent much time listening to arguments over what's legal, what's
illegal, what's right and wrong, what's decent and what's despicable, what's
moral and immoral, in the world of computers and civil liberties. My various
informants were knowledgeable people who cared passionately about these
issues, and most of them seemed well- intentioned. Considered as a whole,
however, their opinions were a baffling mess of contradictions.
When I started this project, my ignorance of the issues involved was
genuine and profound. I'd never knowingly met anyone from the computer
underground. I'd never logged-on to an underground bulletin-board or read a
semi-legal hacker magazine. Although I did care a great deal about the issue
of freedom of expression, I knew sadly little about the history of civil
rights in America or the legal doctrines that surround freedom of the press,
freedom of speech, and freedom of association. My relations with the police
were firmly based on the stratagem of avoiding personal contact with police
to the greatest extent possible.
I didn't go looking for this project. This project came looking for me. I
became inextricably involved when agents of the United States Secret Service,
acting under the guidance of federal attorneys from Chicago, came to my home
town of Austin on March 1, 1990, and confiscated the computers of a local
science fiction gaming publisher. STEVE JACKSON Games, Inc., of Austin, was
about to publish a gaming- book called GURPS Cyberpunk.
When the federal law-enforcement agents discovered the electronic
manuscript of CYBERPUNK on the computers they had seized from Mr. Jackson's
offices, they expressed grave shock and alarm. They declared that CYBERPUNK
was "a manual for computer crime."
It's not my intention to reprise the story of the Jackson case in this
column. I've done that to the best of my ability in THE HACKER CRACKDOWN; and
in any case the ramifications of March 1 are far from over. Mr. Jackson was
never charged with any crime. His civil suit against the raiders is still in
federal court as I write this.
I don't want to repeat here what some cops believe, what some hackers
believe, or what some civil libertarians believe. Instead, I want to discuss
my own moral beliefs as a science fiction writer - such as they are. As an SF
writer, I want to attempt a personal statement of principle.
It has not escaped my attention that there are many people who believe
that anyone called a "cyberpunk" must be, almost by definition, entirely
devoid of principle. I offer as evidence an excerpt from BUCK BLOOMBECKER's
1990 book, SPECTACULAR COMPUTER CRIMES. On page 53, in a chapter titled "Who
Are The Computer Criminals?", Mr. BloomBecker introduces the formal
classification of "cyberpunk" criminality.
"In the last few years, a new genre of science fiction has arisen under
the evocative name of 'cyberpunk.' Introduced in the work of WILLIAM GIBSON,
particularly in his prize-winning novel NEUROMANCER, cyberpunk takes an
apocalyptic view of the technological future. In NEUROMANCER, the protagonist
is a futuristic hacker who must use the most sophisticated computer
strategies to commit crimes for people who offer him enough money to buy the
biological creations he needs to survive. His life is one of cynical
despair, fueled by the desire to avoid death. Though none of the virus cases
actually seen so far have been so devastating, this book certainly represents
an attitude that should be watched for when we find new cases of computer
virus and try to understand the motivations behind them.
"The New York Times's JOHN MARKOFF, one of the more perceptive and
accomplished writers in the field, has written than a number of computer
criminals demonstrate new levels of meanness. He characterizes them, as do I,
as cyberpunks."
Those of us who have read Gibson's NEUROMANCER closely will be aware of
certain factual inaccuracies in Mr. BloomBecker's brief review. NEUROMANCER
is not "apocalyptic." The chief conspirator in NEUROMANCER forces Case's
loyalty, not by buying his services, but by planting poison-sacs in his
brain. Case is "fueled" not by his greed for money or "biological creations,"
or even by the cynical "desire to avoid death," but rather by his burning
desire to hack cyberspace. And so forth.
However, I don't think this misreading of NEUROMANCER is based on
carelessness or malice. The rest of Mr. BloomBecker's book generally is
informative, well-organized, and thoughtful. Instead, I feel that Mr.
BloomBecker manfully absorbed as much of NEUROMANCER as he could without
suffering a mental toxic reaction. This report of his is what he actually
*saw* when reading the novel.
NEUROMANCER has won quite a following in the world of computer crime
investigation. A prominent law enforcement official once told me that police
unfailingly conclude the worst when they find a teenager with a computer and
a copy of NEUROMANCER. When I declared that I too was a "cyberpunk" writer,
she asked me if I would print the recipe for a pipe-bomb in my works. I was
astonished by this question, which struck me as bizarre rhetorical excess at
the time. That was before I had actually examined bulletin-boards in the
computer underground, which I found to be chock-a-block with recipes for
pipe-bombs, and worse. (I didn't have the heart to tell her that my friend
and colleague WALTER JON WILLIAMS had once written and published an SF story
closely describing explosives derived from simple household chemicals.)
Cyberpunk SF (along with SF in general) has, in fact, permeated the
computer underground. I have met young underground hackers who use the
aliases "Neuromancer," "Wintermute" and "Count Zero." The Legion of Doom, the
absolute bete noire of computer law-enforcement, used to congregate on a
bulletin-board called "Black Ice."
In the past, I didn't know much about anyone in the underground, but they
certainly knew about me. Since that time, I've had people express sincere
admiration for my novels, and then, in almost the same breath, brag to me
about breaking into hospital computers to chortle over confidential medical
reports about herpes victims.
The single most stinging example of this syndrome is "PENGO," a member of
the German hacker-group that broke into Internet computers while in the pay
of the KGB. He told German police, and the judge at the trial of his
co-conspirators, that he was inspired by NEUROMANCER and JOHN BRUNNER's
SHOCKWAVE RIDER.
I didn't write NEUROMANCER. I did, however, read it in manuscript and
offered many purportedly helpful comments. I praised the book publicly and
repeatedly and at length. I've done everything I can to get people to read
this book.
I don't recall cautioning Gibson that his novel might lead to anarchist
hackers selling their expertise to the ferocious and repulsive apparat that
gave the world the Lubyanka and the Gulag Archipelago. I don't think I could
have issued any such caution, even if I'd felt the danger of such a
possibility, which I didn't. I still don't know in what fashion Gibson might
have changed his book to avoid inciting evildoers, while still retaining the
integrity of his vision - the very quality about the book that makes it
compelling and worthwhile.
*This leads me to my first statements of moral principle.*
As a "cyberpunk" SF writer, I am not responsible for every act committed
by a Bohemian with a computer. I don't own the word "cyberpunk" and cannot
help where it is bestowed, or who uses it, or to what ends.
As a science fiction writer, it is not my business to make people behave.
It is my business to make people imagine. I cannot control other people's
imaginations - any more than I would allow them to control mine.
I am, however, morally obliged to speak out when acts of evil are
committed that use my ideas or my rhetoric, however distantly, as a
justification.
Pengo and his friends committed a grave crime that was worthy of
condemnation and punishment. They were clever, but treacherously clever.
They were imaginative, but it was imagination in a bad cause. They were
technically accomplished, but they abused their expertise for illicit profit
and to feed their egos. They may be "cyberpunks" - according to many, they
may deserve that title far more than I do - but they're no friends of mine.
What is "crime"? What is a moral offense? What actions are evil and
dishonorable? I find these extraordinarily difficult questions. I have no
special status that should allow me to speak with authority on such subjects.
Quite the contrary. As a writer in a scorned popular literature and a
self-professed eccentric Bohemian, I have next to no authority of any kind.
I'm not a moralist, philosopher, or prophet. I've always considered my
"moral role," such as it is, to be that of a court jester - a person
sometimes allowed to speak the unspeakable, to explore ideas and issues in a
format where they can be treated as games, thought-experiments, or metaphors,
not as prescriptions, laws, or sermons.
I have no religion, no sacred scripture to guide my actions and provide an
infallible moral bedrock. I'm not seeking political responsibilities or the
power of public office. I habitually question any pronouncement of authority,
and entertain the liveliest skepticism about the processes of law and
justice. I feel no urge to conform to the behavior of the majority of my
fellow citizens. I'm a pain in the neck.
My behavior is far from flawless. I lived and thrived in Austin, Texas in
the 1970s and 1980s, in a festering milieu of arty crypto-intellectual
hippies. I've committed countless "crimes," like millions of other people in
my generation. These crimes were of the glamorous "victimless" variety, but
they would surely have served to put me in prison had I done them, say, in
front of the State Legislature.
Had I lived a hundred years ago as I live today, I would probably have
been lynched by outraged fellow Texans as a moral abomination. If I lived in
Iran today and wrote and thought as I do, I would probably be tried and
executed.
As far as I can tell, moral relativism is a fact of life. I think it might
be possible to outwardly conform to every jot and tittle of the taboos of
one's society, while feeling no emotional or intellectual commitment to them.
I understand that certain philosophers have argued that this is morally
proper behavior for a good citizen. But I can't live that life. I feel,
sincerely, that my society is engaged in many actions which are foolish and
shortsighted and likely to lead to our destruction. I feel that our society
must change, and change radically, in a process that will cause great damage
to our present system of values. This doesn't excuse my own failings, which I
regret, but it does explain, I hope, why my lifestyle and my actions are not
likely to make authority feel entirely comfortable.
Knowledge is power. The rise of computer networking, of the Information
Society, is doing strange and disruptive things to the processes by which
power and knowledge are currently distributed. Knowledge and information,
supplied through these new conduits, are highly corrosive to the status quo.
People living in the midst of technological revolution are living outside the
law: not necessarily because they mean to break laws, but because the laws
are vague, obsolete, overbroad, draconian, or unenforceable. Hackers break
laws as a matter of course, and some have been punished unduly for relatively
minor infractions not motivated by malice. Even computer police, seeking
earnestly to apprehend and punish wrongdoers, have been accused of abuse of
their offices, and of violation of the Constitution and the civil statutes.
These police may indeed have committed these "crimes." Some officials have
already suffered grave damage to their reputations and careers - all the time
convinced that they were morally in the right; and, like the hackers they
pursued, never feeling any genuine sense of shame, remorse, or guilt.
I have lived, and still live, in a counterculture, with its own system of
values. Counterculture - Bohemia - is never far from criminality. "To live
outside the law you must be honest" was Bob Dylan's classic hippie motto. A
Bohemian finds romance in the notion that "his clothes are dirty but his
hands are clean." But there's danger in setting aside the strictures of the
law to linchpin one's honor on one's personal integrity. If you throw away
the rulebook to rely on your individual conscience you will be put in the way
of temptation.
And temptation is a burden. It hurts. It is grotesquely easy to justify,
to rationalize, an action of which one should properly be ashamed. In
investigating the milieu of computer-crime I have come into contact with a
world of temptation formerly closed to me. Nowadays, it would take no great
effort on my part to break into computers, to steal long-distance telephone
service, to ingratiate myself with people who would merrily supply me with
huge amounts of illicitly copied software. I could even build pipe-bombs. I
haven't done these things, and disapprove of them; in fact, having come to
know these practices better than I cared to, I feel sincere revulsion for
them now. But this knowledge is a kind of power, and power is tempting.
Journalistic objectivity, or the urge to play with ideas, cannot entirely
protect you. Temptation clings to the mind like a series of small but nagging
weights. Carrying these weights may make you stronger. Or they may drag you
down.
"His clothes are dirty but his hands are clean." It's a fine ideal, when
you can live up to it. Like a lot of Bohemians, I've gazed with a fine
disdain on certain people in power whose clothes were clean but their hands
conspicuously dirty. But I've also met a few people eager to pat me on the
back, whose clothes were dirty and their hands as well. They're not pleasant
company.
Somehow one must draw a line. I'm not very good at drawing lines. When
other people have drawn me a line, I've generally been quite anxious to have
a good long contemplative look at the other side. I don't feel much
confidence in my ability to draw these lines. But I feel that I should. The
world won't wait. It only took a few guys with pool cues and switchblades to
turn Woodstock Nation into Altamont. Haight-Ashbury was once full of people
who could trust anyone they'd smoked grass with and love anyone they'd
dropped acid with - for about six months. Soon the place was aswarm with
speed-freaks and junkies, and heaven help us if they didn't look just like
the love-bead dudes from the League of Spiritual Discovery. Corruption
exists, temptation exists. Some people fall. And the temptation is there for
all of us, all the time.
I've come to draw a line at money. It's not a good line, but it's
something. There are certain activities that are unorthodox, dubious, illegal
or quasi-legal, but they might perhaps be justified by an honest person with
unconventional standards. But in my opinion, when you're making a commercial
living from breaking the law, you're beyond the pale. I find it hard to
accept your countercultural sincerity when you're grinning and pocketing the
cash, compadre.
I can understand a kid swiping phone service when he's broke, powerless,
and dying to explore the new world of the networks. I don't approve of this,
but I can understand it. I scorn to do this myself, and I never have; but I
don't find it so heinous that it deserves pitiless repression. But if you're
stealing phone service and selling it - if you've made yourself a miniature
phone company and you're pimping off the energy of others just to line your
own pockets - you're a thief. When the heat comes to put you away, don't
come crying "brother" to me.
If you're creating software and giving it away, you're a fine human being.
If you're writing software and letting other people copy it and try it out as
shareware, I appreciate your sense of trust, and if I like your work, I'll
pay you. If you're copying other people's software and giving it away, you're
damaging other people's interests, and should be ashamed, even if you're
posing as a glamorous info-liberating subversive. But if you're copying other
people's software and selling it, you're a crook and I despise you.
Writing and spreading viruses is a vile, hurtful, and shameful activity
that I unreservedly condemn.
There's something wrong with the Information Society. There's something
wrong with the idea that "information" is a commodity like a desk or a chair.
There's something wrong with patenting software algorithms. There's
something direly mean spirited and ungenerous about inventing a language and
then renting it out to other people to speak. There's something unprecedented
and sinister in this process of creeping commodification of data and
knowledge. A computer is something too close to the human brain for me to
rest entirely content with someone patenting or copyrighting the process of
its thought. There's something sick and unworkable about an economic system
which has already spewed forth such a vast black market. I don't think
democracy will thrive in a milieu where vast empires of data are encrypted,
restricted, proprietary, confidential, top secret, and sensitive. I fear for
the stability of a society that builds sand castles out of databits and tries
to stop a real-world tide with royal commands.
Whole societies can fall. In Eastern Europe we have seen whole nations
collapse in a slough of corruption. In pursuit of their unworkable economic
doctrine, the Marxists doubled and redoubled their efforts at social control,
while losing all sight of the values that make life worth living. At last the
entire power structure was so discredited that the last remaining shred of
moral integrity could only be found in Bohemia: in dissidents and dramatists
and their illegal samizdat underground fanzines. Their clothes were dirty but
their hands were clean. The only agitprop poster Vaclav Havel needed was a
sign saying *Vaclav Havel Guarantees Free Elections.* He'd never held power,
but people believed him, and they believed his Velvet Revolution friends.
I wish there were people in the Computer Revolution who could inspire, and
deserved to inspire, that level of trust. I wish there were people in the
Electronic Frontier whose moral integrity unquestionably matched the
unleashed power of those digital machines. A society is in dire straits when
it puts its Bohemia in power. I tremble for my country when I contemplate
this prospect. And yet it's possible. If dire straits come, it can even be
the last best hope.
The issues that enmeshed me in 1990 are not going to go away. I became
involved as a writer and journalist, because I felt it was right. Having
made that decision, I intend to stand by my commitment. I expect to stay
involved in these issues, in this debate, for the rest of my life. These are
timeless issues: civil rights, knowledge, power, freedom and privacy, the
necessary steps that a civilized society must take to protect itself from
criminals. There is no finality in politics; it creates itself anew, it must
be dealt with every day.
The future is a dark road and our speed is headlong. I didn't ask for
power or responsibility. I'm a science fiction writer, I only wanted to play
with Big Ideas in my cheerfully lunatic sandbox. What little benefit I myself
can contribute to society would likely be best employed in writing better SF
novels. I intend to write those better novels, if I can. But in the meantime
I seem to have accumulated a few odd shreds of influence. It's a very minor
kind of power, and doubtless more than I deserve; but power without
responsibility is a monstrous thing.
In writing HACKER CRACKDOWN, I tried to describe the truth as other people
saw it. I see it too, with my own eyes, but I can't yet pretend to understand
what I'm seeing. The best I can do, it seems to me, is to try to approach the
situation as an open-minded person of goodwill. I therefore offer the
following final set of principles, which I hope will guide me in the days to
come.
* I'll listen to anybody, and I'll try to imagine myself in their
situation.
* I'll assume goodwill on the part of others until they fully earn my
distrust.
* I won't cherish grudges. I'll forgive those who change their minds and
actions, just as I reserve the right to change my own mind and actions.
* I'll look hard for the disadvantages to others, in the things that give
me advantage. I won't assume that the way I live today is the natural
order of the universe, just because I happen to be benefiting from it at
the moment.
And while I don't plan to give up making money from my ethically dubious
cyberpunk activities, I hope to temper my impropriety by giving more work
away for no money at all.
---------- Footnotes ----------
(1) Copyright (C) 1992 by Bruce Sterling. All rights reserved.
FYI:
====
Bruce Sterling (1992) "Free as Air, Free as Water, Free as Knowledge"
Speech to the Library Information Technology Association, June 1992. San
Francisco, CA.
Bruce Sterling (1992) "The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder at the
Electronic Frontier", Viking, London, England.
Bruce Sterling & William Gibson (1993) "Literary Freeware -- Not for
Commercial Use" Speeches to National Academy of Sciences Convocation on
Technology and Education, May 10, 1993, Washington, D.C.: Computer
Underground Digest #5.54.
Bruce Sterling (1992-1993) "Agitprop disk: Literary Freeware -- Not for
Commercial Use" Contains various SF magazine columns, texts of speeches, etc.
Available via anonymous FTP from `ftp.eff.org' in directory `/pub/agitprop'.
Or use Gopher at `gopher.well.sf.ca.us', and see under `Bruce Sterling/'.
*"...and the silicon chip inside her head,
has turned to overload."*
-- Bob Geldof, "I don't like Mondays"
**************************************************
By *Greg Chartrand* (1)
National Science Foundation Develops a National Super Highway
GREG CHARTRAND
3/11/93
"I just returned from a network meeting in San Diego today and though you
would be interested in my interpretation of what NSF proposes for the
National Education and Research Network (NREN). Rather than comment
specifically, I decided it would be interesting to write a *parody*
which relates the NREN to the construction of a national super highway.
Doing so removes the highly technical aspects of the overall planned
functions the NREN. Please excuse this style, but I think its the only
way to explain my understanding of their plan in a way that does not
immediately get very technical. It may be flawed, but the information is
based upon Hans-Werner Braun's presentation.... as I understood it."
The National Science foundation is in the process of developing plans to
build a national super highway that will advance transportation technology in
our country. The super highway proposed will replace the existing interstate
highway system and allow speeds of at least 240 MPH. the following interview
with NSF developers explores their current plans.
*
ME: I understand you are building a new Super national highway(2) to serve
the purposes of advancing ground transportation throughout our county.
NSF: Yes we are, as a part of an earlier initiative sponsored by the then
Senator Gore. We are very excited about the technology that will allow
transportation speeds of 240 MPH(3) across the country.
ME: That sounds exciting, how will it be built?
NSF: Well, we will have this super highway designed to allow the high speed
travel(4) and it will have six entrance/exit ramps.(5)
ME: Ahh.... that doesn't sound like very many ramps, where will they be
located?
NSF: Well, several years ago we funded the establishment of six gourmet
restaurants(6) scattered across the country, we are going to fund the building
of the super highway and access ramps at the restaurant locations. We are
however allowing the ramp contractor(7) to build as many ramps as he wishes,
at his own expense.
ME: I assume then the contractor for the highway(8) builds ramps where
ever it makes sense to optimize access.
NSF: Well, not exactly. We are separating the contracts for the ramps and
the highway so the bidders can be very competitive.
ME: I see. How to you plan to connect the rest of the interstate highway
system(9) to your super national highway?
NSF: Well actually, its not part of our plan. We are having the highway and
access ramps built for us, its up to the states or other government agencies
to provide the highways to the access ramps. We will however fund a few
temporary roads(10) to connect parts of the existing interstate highway
system, but don't intend to make them permanent. Did I forget to mention that
we will be shutting down the existing interstate highway system?(11)
ME: You mean I will no longer be able to drive across the existing
interstate highway system?
NSF: Yes, it will be destroyed.
ME: OK, lets see If I understand. I have a state highway system for
example, and I put in a connecting highway to your super highway, and I can
now travel on it, right?
NSF: Well, no you can't. The super highway will only be used for vehicles
that can run 240 MPH(12) and we must approve every vehicle, destination, and
trip the vehicle takes.(13) We don't want our super highway clogged with
vehicles which can only travel 70 MPH!(14)
ME: I'm confused. You mean you want my state for example, to build an
access road to a super highway it can't generally use?
NSF: Well, yes and no. You see we also want to encourage development of
toll roads in our country.(15) Our six high speed access ramps are wide
enough to allow parallel toll roads to be accessed as well as our super
highway. Private road builders will be able to put in toll roads between our
access ramps, for a fee.
ME: So there will no longer be a "free" interstate highway system?
NSF: Right!
ME: Lets see if I got this straight. You build a national super highway
that has six access ramps located where you once established gourmet
restaurants and you destroy the interstate highway system. There are no plans
to replicate the functionality of the interstate highway systems, but you
will allow private toll road builders to use your wide access ramps and
develop parallel toll roads to your super highway. My state or the government
has to build the roads that lead to the super highway, but once there, cannot
travel on it unless the specific vehicle can run at 240 MPH and has specific
permission from you to travel on it.
NSF: You've got it!
ME: Well then you must have a very interesting reason to put this highway
and the access ramps at these restaurant locations.
NSF: Well, you see, the gourmet food business isn't what it used to be.
Fast food has really taken over in our country, we really need to preserve the
gourmet food business.(16) High quality restaurants should be located right
off of classy high speed highways. We really would like to encourage
restaurant patrons to use the super highway so they can have breakfast in San
Diego and dinner in Champaign Illinois. We will be looking for patrons who
can afford to eat at multiple restaurants and we will let them ride the
highway for free! Of course they must have a vehicle that can go 240 MPH.(17)
ME: I'm even more confused. How will I get across the country?
NSF: Well, if your state puts in an access road to one of our access ramps
you take it, and then exit-off on to one of the toll roads that will be built
parallel to our super highway.
ME: How fast will I be able to go?(18)
NSF: What ever the speed limit is on the toll road.
ME: What will it cost me to ride on it?
NSF: What ever the toll is. You see, we expect that several toll roads
will be developed. Competition! It should keep the price down.
ME: When the super highway is empty, how will it be used?
NSF: Well, we are telling the gourmet restaurants that they should work
together even though they will be competing with each other for customers.(19)
You know, they could develop plans to send trash to each other so they can
demonstrate how fast the transportation is on the super highway, it would be
in their best interest.(20)
ME: Aren't there plans for development of high speed toll roads already in
progress by several toll road builders? What makes you think they will put
their roads in-between your access ramps?(21)
NSF: F.O.D.
ME: What?
NSF: Field Of Dreams. If we build it they will come.
ME: So again, tell me who pays for what?
NSF: The government funds the super highway and six access ramps. The toll
road providers build their own roads and pays an access fee for the ramps. The
states and other government agencies pay for any roads necessary to get to the
access ramps. When you get on a toll road and pay what ever the price is.
ME: And the only one's allowed to ride on the super highway are those
persons who have special vehicles that can go 240 MPH with your specific
permission, or those who can afford to frequent the gourmet restaurants and
travel at 240 MPH. Everyone else takes the toll roads.
NSF: Right, but don't forget the trash runs between restaurants!
ME: Oh, how silly of me! Hmmmm. I wonder if this is really what Senator
Gore had in mind?
*"If we do not succeed, then we face the risk of failure."*
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
*"What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind.
Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is."*
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
(winning friends while peaking to the United Negro College Fund)
---------- Footnotes ----------
(1) Copyright (C) 1993 by Greg Chartrand. All rights reserved.
(2) NSFnet backbone project
(3) 155 megabit
(4) high speed data transfer
(5) Network Access Points (NAP's)
(6) NSF sponsored super computer centers
(7) The contractor providing the NAP's.
(8) The contractor to provide the backbone telecommunications services
(9) The Existing internet, regional, state, and other networks
(10) NSF plans to provide interim funding for NSF regionals to connect to
the NAP's. State networks and other government agencies are on their own.
(11) The existing NSFnet will be turned off at some point after the new
"arrangement" is in place.
(12) The Very High Speed Backbone Service (VBNS) is reserved for
applications and purposes where a demonstrated need for high speed/capacity
transmission is needed.
(13) NSF will require approval.
(14) NSF does not wish to clog the VBNS with low speed aggregate traffic
unless additions are made to the network. 70 MPH = 45 MBS.
(15) The NSF expects commercial providers like AT&T, MCI to put networking
between NAP's. Most of the existing NSFnet traffic would go over these
commercial networks which would have to be paid for by the users.
(16) The usefulness of super computer systems has been grossly reduced by
the technological advances associated with very powerful Unix work stations.
Super computers fill a diminishing niche in science and industry.
(17) NSF is looking for potential users that can use more than one super
computer center and use the VBNS to make the application work. Applications of
this nature are a bit obscure.
(18) There are no specifications for commercial providers.
(19) NSF super computer centers are no longer funded by NSF so they
compete for commercial and non-commercial business.
(20) NSF is asking the NSF super computer centers to develop demonstration
applications which show how the network might be used. These applications
would demonstrate, and not necessarly do anything useful.
(21) The major telecommunications suppliers will be selling similar
services this year without the complications of the NAP's. The NAP's primary
function would allow communications between commercial vendors which would be
very useful, but it is unclear if the telecommunications suppliers will "buy"
into this concept.
Lingo
*****
This glossary is only a tiny subset of all of the various terms and other
things that people regularly use on The Net. For a more complete (and more
entertaining) reference, get a copy of "The New Hacker's Dictionary", which
is based on a VERY large text file called the Jargon File, edited by Eric
Raymond
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02142; its ISBN number is `0-262-68069-6'. The
up-to-date version of the Jargon File "The on-line hacker Jargon File,
version 3.0, 29 July 1993", is kept on various FTP servers (e.g. from
`ftp.gnu.ai.mit.edu' as file `/pub/gnu/jarg300.txt.gz').
`:-)': This odd symbol is one of the ways a person can portray "mood" in
the very flat medium of computers--by using "smilies." This is
`metacommunication', and there are literally hundreds of them, from the
obvious to the obscure. This particular example expresses "happiness."
Don't see it? Tilt your head to the left 90 degrees. Smilies are also used
to denote sarcasm.
ASCII: Has two meanings. ASCII is a universal computer code for English
letters and characters. Computers store all information as binary numbers.
In ASCII, the letter "A" is stored as 1000001, whether the computer is made
by IBM, Apple or Commodore. ASCII also refers to a method, or protocol, for
copying files from one computer to another over a network, in which neither
computer checks for any errors that might have been caused by static or other
problems.
ANSI: Computers use several different methods for deciding how to put
information on your screen and how your keyboard interacts with the screen.
ANSI is one of these "terminal emulation" methods. Although most popular on
PC-based bulletin-board systems, it can also be found on some Net sites. To
use it properly, you will first have to turn it on, or enable it, in your
communications software.
ARPANet: A predecessor of the Internet. Started in 1969 with funds from
the Defense Department's Advanced Projects Research Agency.
Backbone: A high-speed network that connects several powerful computers.
In the U.S., the backbone of the Internet is often considered the NSFNet, a
government funded link between a handful of supercomputer sites across the
country.
Baud: The speed at which modems transfer data. One baud is roughly equal
to one bit per second. It takes eight bits to make up one letter or
character. Modems rarely transfer data at exactly the same speed as their
listed baud rate because of static or computer problems. More expensive
modems use systems, such as Microcom Network Protocol (MNP), which can
correct for these errors or which "compress" data to speed up transmission.
BITNet: Another, academically oriented, international computer network,
which uses a different set of computer instructions to move data. It is
easily accessible to Internet users through e-mail, and provides a large
number of conferences and databases. Its name comes from "Because It's Time."
Bounce: What your e-mail does when it cannot get to its recipient - it
bounces back to you.
Command line: On Unix host systems, this is where you tell the machine
what you want it to do, by entering commands.
Communications software: A program that tells a modem how to work.
Daemon: An otherwise harmless Unix program that normally works out of
sight of the user. On the Internet, you'll most likely encounter it only when
your e-mail is not delivered to your recipient - you'll get back your
original message plus an ugly message from a "mailer daemon."
Distribution: A way to limit where your Usenet postings go. Handy for
such things as "for sale" messages or discussions of regional politics.
Domain: The last part of an Internet address, such as "news.com."
Dot: When you want to impress the net veterans you meet at parties, say
"dot" instead of "period," for example: "My address is john at site dot
domain dot com."
Dot file: A file on a Unix public-access system that alters the way you or
your messages interact with that system. For example, your .login file
contains various parameters for such things as the text editor you get when
you send a message. When you do an ls command, these files do not appear in
the directory listing; do `ls -a' to list them.
Down: When a public-access site runs into technical trouble, and you can
no longer gain access to it, it's down.
Download: Copy a file from a host system to your computer. There are
several different methods, or protocols, for downloading files, most of which
periodically check the file as it is being copied to ensure no information is
inadvertently destroyed or damaged during the process. Some, such as XMODEM,
only let you download one file at a time. Others, such as batch-YMODEM and
ZMODEM, let you type in the names of several files at once, which are then
automatically downloaded.
EMACS: From Editing MACroS. A standard Unix text editor that beginners
hate, and hackers adore.
E-mail: Electronic mail - a way to send a private message to somebody else
on the Net. Used as both noun and verb.
Emoticon: A smiley. See `:-)'.
F2F: Face to Face. When you actually meet those people you been
corresponding with/flaming.
FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions. A compilation of answers to these. Many
Usenet newsgroups have these files, which are posted once a month or so for
beginners.
FYI: For Your Interest.
Film at 11: One reaction to an overwrought argument: "Imminent death of
the Net predicted. Film at 11."
Finger: An Internet program that lets you get some bit of information