Re: [h2o-discuss] deep linking

["Jon Garfunkel" <garf@look.boston.ma.us>]

Eric Eldred wrote:
>> Though I recall that Prof. Lessig was none-too-happy about embedding
values
>> into the PICS architecture.
>
>This is an intriguing point that I don't quite grasp--Jon, can you explain
it at more
>length in relation to deep linking?

Surely the canon of publications by BCIS people should be fair game for the
discussions on the list. Whereas I am not familiar with the papers published
in legal journals, I do keep track of their positions stated through the
mainstream press.

Call the technology to do the "referral-site-based blocking" as [X]. It
won't be standardized by any consortium such as the W3C, but it could be a
de facto standard used by sites.

Obviously [X] causes value disagreeable fallout, "control of information."
Call that [Y].
Question (1): Would Lawrence Lessig say this about X, Y as defined above?

"However, no technology is truly neutral, and [X] will have an effect. The
[X] filter can be imposed at any level of the distribution chain... As part
of the Web's infrastructure, [X] will be an extremely versatile and robust
[Y] tool. [X] makes [Y] easy because it embeds the tools of [Y] into the
root architecture of online publishing. Laws affect the pace of
technological change, but the strictures of software can do even more to
curtail freedom. In the long run, the shackles built by programmers may well
constrain us most."

Lessig has in fact written this about {X= "PICS"; Y="censorship"}
http://www.wired.com/wired/5.07/cyber_rights.html (5/7/1997) It's linked
from his web page.

I don't agree with his argument for both {X::Y} pairings. I wonder what he
would answer to question (1).

You might counter that standard (de facto != de jure). But
{X="referral-site-based blocking"} has its foundations in the WWW
architecture, in the form of the HTTP_REFERER value which is sent with each
HTTP GET.

So if Lessig doesn't like the PICS architecture because of its adverse
affects, he wouldn't like HTTP_REFERER because of its effects. Rather than
allowing to build this into the Web architecture, we have the legal system
handle the problems on a case-by-case basis. And that's assuming a legal
system based on individual freedom.

You might cast my argument as the "value-ignorant technologist"-- similar to
the well-worn "guns don't kill, people kill". My response is: The government
can outlaw Tec-9's, but it can't outlaw the 9mm standard for bullets used by
those guns.

>The courts ought to encourage petitioners to use those [software] methods
>instead of appealing to the courts.

Is that the job of the courts, or of progressive-thinking institutions like
the Berkman Center?

>Still, isn't it always a good policy to ask permission first?  You don't
legally have
>to do so, before making a link anywhere, I think,
>but it makes friends rather than enemies.

Surely, you should, if you think your speech is not protected-- for libel,
slander. I suppose many people could recognize a slanderous statement in a
grammatically written sentence, but might be ill-prepared when dealing with
the grammar of multimedia spaces.

Jon Garfunkel
Software Engineer
Route 128, Mass.