Talk:Politics and Technology of Control I: Introduction
From Technologies and Politics of Control
I am not sure that this is the correct place for those people who are joining the class after the first meeting, and who have watched the videos, are to comment. If this is not the correct place, please move my comments and let me know where I should post.
You can call me Bob. I have been using and developing the Internet and its predecessors for a number of years. I was there for John Perry Barlow's Declaration if Internet Independence in 1996, and while I was encouraged by his declaration to to first the good fight, I felt as though he had no business in writing it, as the Internet and its governance belonged to the techies who made it possible (and counted myself among that elite). Upon reading it again today, I am less of a techie elitist but even more embarrassed by the naivete of Barlow. The rabble-rousing he was attempting was not useful. The loud, young, and not very important contingent he was calling 'we', was not well received by Washington or other lawmakers. An anecdote passed onto me from a congressional staffer, was that email was not read. Neither were form letters. Personal, hand-written letters showing adult sophistication were the only thing that staffers would generally pass onto their boss, as it was well known that thee people were the type who voted. The large number of online petitions, fax campaigns, and the rest were counter productive as the Internet users thought they were making themselves heard through efficient, modern means and therefore did not write, even though they might have been a letter-writer in the past. The problem is that the Internet made mass communications too easy, and that the commitment and strong feelings expressed by the fact of a hand-written letter were the opposite of the 'click here' web petition. This is born out by the continuing failure of the Internet community to score any wins from politicians in Washington. The courts were what had the CDA of 96 struck down. It is the continual failure of the majority of the population to understand how the Internet and its evolution affect society which have created the current situation where private corporations and special interest groups hold much more sway in the formation of Internet policy that the users, i.e. the people as a whole. The ignorance and hubris heard from Senators and Stevens is famous, but they the norm rather than the exception.
There's so much more I'd like to address, but I have to give the topics their proper time! But I will address one more comment from hour one, which caused my face to redden: That is the defense of corporate bullying in the case of domain names. There are many people and organizations which have the initials and trade names of NBA, and that the National Basketball Association has no more right to the domain than the Newark Bowling Alley. It is the entity which first registers the domain that has the right to use it; domain names are not governed by trade name law and practice. I am particularly sensitive on this due to a domain I used to own for a web site I ran which contained information on reprogramming and experimenting with cellular phones, called 'radiophone'. I registered radiophone.com, and was sued by Blaupunkt in a German court for trade name infringement, as they had decided to name a product line 'radiophone' - but had done this a year after my registration of the domain! I had to spend several hundred dollars to defend my name against a bully corporation, and one in a foreign country!
BobKeyes 13:57, 31 January 2008 (EST)
