informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud1033.txt

771 lines
34 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

Computer underground Digest Sun Jun 7, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 33
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #10.33 (Sun, Jun 7, 1998)
File 1--TELECOM Digest V18 #80
File 2--SLAC Bulletin for June 1, 1998
File 3--EFF ROCKS THE FILLMORE v.2.0 -- June 26
File 4--GLAAD response to AFA.net being blocked
File 5--FRC comments on Cyber Patrol's block of AFA.net (fwd)
File 6--Fan-wrttien Star Trek Book Sued for $22 Million
File 7--Online activism comes of age in India
File 8--REVIEW: "Digital Literacy", Paul Gilster
File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998)
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ApPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 21:11:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@TELECOM-DIGEST.ORG
Subject: File 1--TELECOM Digest V18 #80
Source - TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 May 98 Volume 18 : Issue 80
((MODERATORS' NOTE: For those not familiar with Pat Townson's
TELECOM DIGEST, it's an exceptional resource. From the header
of TcD:
"TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but
not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is
circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various
telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and
networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also
gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to
qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell
us how you qualify:
* ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * ======" ))
==================
This is just an update on the 'Internet Kidnapping' case which was
first reported here in the Digest on Wednesday March 20, 1996 (in
volume 16, issue 131 'Youngster Kidnapped by Internet Chat Companion')
and on Friday, April 5, 1996 (in volume 16, issue 163 'Internet Kidnap
Suspect Pleads Not Guilty').
Richard Romero, believed to be 39, a native of Brazil and resident of
Jacksonville, Florida in 1996 was a frequent user of Internet Relay
Chat, and in several sessions on line, he posed as a fifteen year old
boy named 'Kyle'. During those sessions he chatted frequently with
another fifteen year old boy in Mt. Prospect, IL, a northwestern
suburb of Chicago. He and the boy exchanged photos (he had a photo of
some child who became 'Kyle' for his purposes) and at some point in
their various conversations on line, he became himself, and began to
talk with the Chicago-area boy on a regular basis via telephone.
After several phone conversations and online chats, the boy decided to
run away from home, and go live with Romero in Florida.
At some point in their various conversations, the boy's mother found
out about the online/telephone relationship and asked her son to
break it off immediatly and have no further contact with Romero.
Romero came to Mt. Prospect on March 18, 1996 and checked into a
motel in the community where the boy met him the next day. From
there, they went to the Greyhound Bus Station in Skokie, IL where
they boarded a bus bound (eventually) for Jacksonville, FL. leaving
at 9:15 AM.
When the boy failed to appear in school that day at the regular time,
school authorities contacted his mother. His mother went immediatly
to check the boy's room, where she found he had packed many of his
clothes in a duffle bag which was missing. He had also packed his
computer into a backpack. The mother reviewed her phone bills and
other items in the boy's room and found Romero's address and telephone
number in Jacksonville. The rest was easy ...
Police were able to detirmine that a boy matching the description of
her son and Romero -- whose picture she had seen earlier when she
confronted her son about his online companion -- had been seen boarding
a bus for Florida that morning at the Greyhound Station in Chicago.
The bus would be stopping for a dinner break just a couple hours
later in Louisville, KY at about 6:00 PM. FBI agents in Louisville
met the bus when it pulled in to the station there, and placed Romero
under arrest.
On April 5, 1996, the story in the Digest reported that Romero had
chosen to remain silent in court. He appeared without an attorney and
the judge (a) appointed an attorney to represent him and (b) entered
a plea of not guilty.
Since that point, Romero has had two trials. His first trial actually
ended as a mistrial, with a jury which could not reach a decision.
His second trial, which was concluded late last year, resulted in
a finding of guilty by the jury on charges of kidnapping, and transport-
ing a minor with the intent to engage in sexual activity.
At his sentencing on Thursday, May 21, 1998, Romero was sentenced to
34 years in federal prison. US District Court Judge Charles Kocoras
in Chicago stated that, "Richard Romero's crimes represented the worst
thing anyone can imagine," and that "Romero created a nightmare for
the family, for which there is no comparable dimension in the course
of human experience."
Virginia Kendall, the assistant US attorney handling the case, said
that Romero was the nation's first convicted 'Internet kidnapper'.
(Quote marks around 'Internet kidnapper' inserted by TELECOM Digest
Editor.)
And that concludes still another chapter in the history of the net.
When this story first appeared in the Digest in March, 1996, I
received mail from a couple readers who objected to the use of the
word 'Internet' as an adjective for 'kidnapper', however, since the
very beginning of this saga, the accounts which have appeared in
the print media -- most noticably the {Chicago Sun-Times} have
routinely used the phrase when discussing Romero. I've sent written
objections to the newspaper about that description, but to no avail.
PAT
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:12:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: jw@bway.net
Subject: File 2--SLAC Bulletin for June 1, 1998
SLAC Bulletin, June 1, 1998
-----------------------------
The SLAC Bulletin is a low-volume mailer (1-5 messages per month)
on Internet freedom of speech issues from Jonathan Wallace,
co-author of Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (Henry Holt 1996) and
publisher of The Ethical Spectacle (http://www.spectacle.org). To
add or delete yourself:
http://www.greenspun.com/spam/home.tcl?domain=SLAC
Free Speech as a Tragedy of the Commons
by Jonathan Wallace jw@bway.net
Can free speech cause a tragedy of the commons? In other words,
can there be too much speech?
In the original parable of "The Tragedy of the Commons", each
villager has the right to keep as many sheep as he wants on the
commons shared by the village, and each has an incentive to add at
least one more sheep. If everyone acts accordingly, the commons
will be ruined. The author, Garrett Hardin, later said that he
should have titled his work, "The Tragedy of the Unregulated
Commons".
Users of Usenet and unmoderated mailing lists experience a
phenomenon which feels like a tragedy of the commons. Someone
shriller and angrier than the average user begins posting an
endless series of intemperate rants; soon more reasonable users
unsubscribe from the group and the "polluter" is left alone.
Is this really a tragedy of the commons? A public mailing list
certainly feels like a "commons", available to everyone. If it is
not policed by a list moderator, every user is free to add one
more comment--one more insulting or intemperate posting--polluting
the virtual commons as surely as the sheep pollute the real one.
The analogy breaks down when we examine the list phenomenon more
closely. A list is "push" technology: once you subscribe, all the
messages arrive automatically; you do not do anything more to
select or request them. The inevitable death of an open mailing
list is dictated by the fact that you are purchasing a package of
things-- messages--which arrive together. Since anyone is free to
include a poison message in the lot, at some point the content of
the entire list will lose interest, the good content outweighed by
the bad.
But whatever tragedy is experienced in the death of a mailing list
bears no relationship to speech delivered via "pull"
technology--in a bookstore or on the World Wide Web. As long as
the speech I want is available and I am free not to select the
speech I don't, there can be no tragedy of the commons. The
existence of a disfavored sheep somewhere is not a tragedy of the
commons unless its consequences are the wrongful death of my
sheep. In a world where speech is delivered via "pull", my sheep
and yours can co-exist.
If a Usenet mailing list is a commons, it is only by virtue of the
peculiarity of its technological means of delivery as an
indivisible object. (I am oversimplifying and ignoring the
possible application of filters or killfiles to exclude the speech
I don't want.) However, a list lacks something which most commonly
understood "commons" share: necessity. There may be only one
green outside town on which to graze your sheep, but there are a
myriad mailing lists, and this one is being pushed at you only
because you requested it. If you're not happy with it, choose
another, or start your own. Similarly, the collection of all
Usenet mailing lists is not a commons, because you are not
required to subscribe to any other list and nothing that happens
on another list can affect yours. Similarly, seen vaguely from a
distance, the set of all movies playing in my city may seem to be
a commons. You may complain of the predominance of Hollywood
action adventures. Nevertheless, movies are a pull technology,
and you may choose to see only the most literary foreign films
shown in revival houses.
Looked at this way, a commons is something pushed upon us and
which we do not have the option to reject. The air we breathe is a
commons, but the airwaves are not, as we decide whether to have a
television in the house and choose the programs we watch.
Under this approach, no medium of communications is a commons with
the possible exception of certain verbal and visual speech in
public places. Books, movies, web pages are not push technology.
Television programming and Usenet email are pushed at us only as
the result of a choice we made.
This "push/choice" analysis justifies very limited speech
regulation, of a type that has already been found valid under the
First Amendment: reasonable time, place and manner restrictions
of bullhorns, public speaking and billboards, all of which are
unavoidable push technology in public places.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 00:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
Subject: File 3--EFF ROCKS THE FILLMORE v.2.0 -- June 26
EFF ROCKS THE FILLMORE v.2.0 -- JUNE 26
Yes, it's back! Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Event
Co-Chairs Esther Dyson and John Perry Barlow for EFF Rocks the Fillmore v.
2.0!
The Electronic Frontier Foundation invites you to join us on Friday, June
26 at 7:00pm for a raucous night of partying, rock & roll and the finest
digerati schmoozing this side of the Microsoft hearings -- all in the name
of freedom of speech, privacy, and security online!
Since 1991, the EFF has been working to ensure that the Internet remains
the world's first truly global vehicle for free speech, and that the
privacy and security of all online communication be preserved.
Help us keep up the fight! Tickets are only $10, and are available
through
BASS:
In California: 510-762-2277
Out of State: 800-225-2277
VIP tickets, entitling you with a backstage pass, admission to the
exclusive VIP lounge, a hosted bar, and stellar nibbles start at a
tax-deductible $250 apiece.
To order VIP tickets, call 436-9333, #106.
Remember: Your freedom to speak freely and your online privacy are under
attack constantly. As you read this, there are members of Congress trying
to resurrect the Communications Decency Act, to enact encryption "key
recovery" surveillance systems, to mandate that libraries censor Internet
access (even for adults) to criminalize the use of encryption, to tax
Internet usage, and to strip the public of its fair use rights to
copyrighted online materials and raw information in databases.
It's up to you to help us fight them!
EFF is a not-for-profit, member-supported organization. We are only as
strong as our membership is generous. Do your part now to protect the
electronic frontier!
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 07:33:04 -0700
From: Bennett Haselton <bennett@peacefire.org>
Subject: File 4--GLAAD response to AFA.net being blocked
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
[Give credit to GLAAD for reacting this way.]
http://www.glaad.org/glaad/glaad-lines/980601/03.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
June 1, 1998--
GLAAD INVITES AFA TO JOIN IFS CRITICISM: The religious political extremist
group, The American Family Association (AFA) announced that the
Cyberpatrol, the popular Internet filtering software (IFS) has blocked its
Website due to the fact that the AFA violates filter guidelines on
"Intolerance." Until the AFA's site had been blocked, the group had been a
vocal advocate for of filtering software and had assisted in the marketing
of another IFS, X-STOP. GLAAD, on the otherhand, has long been a staunch
advocate for free speech on the Internet and has once more challenged IFS
in its recent groundbreaking report "Access Denied." GLAAD Interactive
Media Director, Loren Javier said, "Perhaps now the AFA understands the
value of free speech for all on the Internet. GLAAD hopes the AFA will
combat Internet censorship and oppose all policies requiring IFS use by
schools and libraries." For more information contact Loren Javier, GLAAD
Interactive Media Director at (510) 831-1092 or javier@glaad.org.
bennett@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 22:19:17 -0700
From: Bennett Haselton <bennett@peacefire.org
Subject: File 5--FRC comments on Cyber Patrol's block of AFA.net (fwd)
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Date--Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:18:14 -07--
From--"Loren R. Javier" <javier@glaad.org
Subject--AFA, GLAAD and Internet Filtering Software
This is what the Family Research Council reported on our GLAADLine item
inviting the AFA to join us in speaking out against filtering software.
Loren
culturefacts A Publication of Family Research Council
June 3, 1998
> Filtering Out Decency
>
> Cyber Patrol, a popular Internet filtering software package, has
> decided to block the American Family Association (AFA) website
> because the AFA violates Cyber Patrol's filter guidelines on
> "intolerance," according to an AFA press release. It's no wonder.
> CultureFacts has learned that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against
> Defamation (GLAAD) is a charter member of Cyber Patrol's oversight
> committee.
>
> GLAAD is a homosexual media group that promotes transgenderism,
> childhood anti-"homophobia" education, and tolerance for
> sadomasochists, as well as other bizarre sexual behaviors. AFA
> has been a vocal advocate for filtering software and has assisted in
> the marketing of another filtering program, X-STOP.
>
> In response to AFA's announcement, GLAAD called on the AFA - which it
> characterized as a "religious political extremist group" - to join it
> to combat "Internet censorship and oppose all policies requiring
> [Internet filtering software] use by schools and libraries." GLAAD
> has been an outspoken opponent of internet filtering software,
> because most of them block homosexual-oriented sites.
>
> It was pressure by GLAAD that turned Cyber Patrol around. According
> to press releases from the GLAAD website, the Northhampton,
> Massachusetts, company Cyber Patrol formerly blocked
> homosexual-oriented sites. However, following criticism from the
> homosexual community in late 1995, Cyber Patrol formed an oversight
> committee comprising representatives "from diverse areas of expertise
> and experience." In February 1996, GLAAD joined Cyber Patrol's
> oversight committee as a charter member. GLAAD Director of
> Information Services Loren Javier says, "This gesture demonstrates
> their understanding that gay men and lesbians are a very important
> part of the internet community."
>
> Cyber Patrol (www.cyberpatrol.com) does not filter out homosexual
> groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay & Lesbian
> Task Force and, of course, GLAAD.
>
> - KLE
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Loren R. Javier
> Interactive Media Director
> GLAAD
> Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
> javier@glaad.org2244
> fax: 415.861.4893
>
> GLAAD is a national organization that promotes fair, accurate and inclusive
> representation as a means of challenging discrimination based on sexual
> orientation or identity.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 15:17:51 +0200
From: Luca Sambucci <luca@SAMBUCCI.COM>
Subject: File 6--Fan-wrttien Star Trek Book Sued for $22 Million
Online Freedom Federation
http://www.off-hq.org
June 02, 1998
For immediate release
Set Phasers on Sue -- Fan-written Star Trek Book is the Target of
$22 Million Lawsuit
Reversing a 30 year practice, Paramount Pictures has sued Star
Trek fan Samuel Ramer and his publishing company in federal court
in New York for writing an unauthorized book about the world of
Star Trek fandom.
Ramer is the author of The Joy of Trek: How to Enhance Your
Relationship with a Star Trek Fan. Thirty-four year old Ramer, a
self-proclaimed loyal "Trekster" since the age of 6, dedicated the
book to his wife and intended it as a humorous guide to help
"non-fans" like her understand the fierce devotion fans hold for
Star Trek in all its incarnations.
Paramount, represented by the Manhattan law firm of Richards &
O'Neil, argues that the book violates the copyrights of 220 Star
Trek episodes, and is seeking civil damages in the amount of $22
million, as well as an order banning sales of the book.
At the outset, lawyers for Ramer and his publishing company have
raised a number of compelling arguments in defense of the book.
Most notably, they illustrate how for 30 years Paramount tolerated
and even encouraged fans to engage in technically unauthorized
activities in order to maintain interest and enthusiasm for the
then-struggling franchise. They point to over 100 unauthorized
books, including the famous Star Trek Concordance by Bjo Trimble.
Trimble, who was instrumental in the letter-writing campaigns to
save the original series from extinction, wrote the beloved
Concordance as a comprehensive encyclopedia and episode guide.
Had Paramount adopted the same stance with Trimble as it has done
with Ramer, Star Trek would have been an obscure footnote in
entertainment history, rather than the unparalleled success that
it has become today.
Sadly, with Gene Roddenberry gone and Paramount swallowed up by
monolithic Viacom Corporation, appreciation and respect for fans
has given way to litigation and disdain, as Viacom continues its
misguided campaign to eliminate interactive fan participation in
the Star Trek universe.
OFF expresses its full support for Samuel Ramer and his publisher,
and will continue to post updates on the case.
Meanwhile, OFF supporters are encouraged to write to Viacom with
their concerns. As always, be polite and articulate in order to
be taken seriously.
---
The Online Freedom Federation is a non-profit organization
dedicated to the preservation of freedom of speech on the
Internet. Its executive council can be reached at
<executives@off-hq.org>. Representatives of the various presses
can contact OFF's Public Relations council at to more quickly
arrange to speak with OFF representatives. Local presses will be
deferred to their local representative for official comment.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 11:35:44 -0400
From: Udhay Shankar N <udhay@pobox.com>
Subject: File 7--Online activism comes of age in India
Online activism
===============
Online activism comes of age in India
------------------------------------
The net, they say, is a perfect place for activism to happen. How
else can people from all over the world keep in touch with each
other, almost in real time, independent of time zones, all for
the price of a local call ?
Better still, activists also have Gilmore's Law on their side:
The net treats censorship as damage and routes around it.
In India, however, the story is a little different. The people who
would be most effective at activism - voluntary organisations and
individuals - usually weren't aware of what the net could do for
them, even if they had access to it, which they usually didn't.
But that is beginning to change.
The Background
--------------
In the bad old days, there was only ERNET. And net access was
restricted to the lucky few who could beg, borrow or steal an
account on it. So, the online scene was mainly confined to the
BBSes - and what a vibrant and rollicking atmosphere it was !
Everybody knew everybody else, it seemed, and the air was thick
with ideas, jokes and (usually friendly) insults. Quite the
collegial atmosphere. Ideal breeding ground for activism, should
it be needed.
And quite suddenly, it was needed.
The BBSes, which were run by enthusiasts in their spare time using
funds from their own pocket, were suddenly deemed to be
profit-making corporate entites worthy of taxation. And the DoT
doesn't believe in half-measures. They wanted Rs1.5 MILLION
annually from each BBS operator as "license fee". Obviously, no
operator could afford to pay that kind of money. There was an
uproar, and a group called FREE was formed. They won. The license
fee was withdrawn. You can read about it at
http://www.eff.org/pub/Groups/FREE/. From their letter to the
Sectretary, DoT, released 3 August '94 :
Given the increasing importance of data communications, FREE is
hereby founded as a body dedicated to protecting the rights and
representing the interests of the electronic community in India
vis-a-vis various policy-forming bodies within the Indian
government, with a view to preserving and enhancing our
fundamental rights in the electronic domain. FREE is the 'Forum
for Rights to Electronic Expression', India's telecom watchdog.
And this was India's first brush with online activism.
That isn't my story, though. I want to talk about what happened
later. What's happening now, in fact. India's next great brush
with online activism, and why it's different this time.
Reach out and touch someone
---------------------------
Ever since VSNL opened its doors to the public as India's one and
only ISP in 1995, response has been good. Braving lack of dial-in
lines, lack of infrastructure and lack of technical knowledge of
the support staff, the Indian public has been sampling what the
net has to offer at an ever growing rate. And one of the "killer
apps" on the net has been net telephony. The ability to call
people anywhere in the world, using your net connection. Even if
they don't have a net connection. For the price of a local call.
In fact, the telecom consultancy Frost and Sullivan (Mountain
View, Calif.) projects that the IP phone market will balloon to
nearly $1.9 billion worldwide by 2001.
Naturally, VSNL as the monopoly provider of overseas telecom
service, isn't happy about this. In fact, they insert a clause
into their terms of service banning this. But they're on shaky
legal ground here. And it's probably unenforcable technically
too. Besides, everybody's doing it.
And there it stood. People were checking out Voice on the net, and
VSNL was quietly fuming in the background.
Until recently. When they decided to do something about it, and
block access to some of the popular websites promoting voice on
the net. They did this by configuring their hardware to report
that these sites were "inaccessible", whenever anyone tried to go
to these sites on the web.
As of 21/04/98, these were the sites known to be blocked, all
related to internet telephony -
Vocaltec (http://www.vocaltec.com/)
WebPhone (http://www.NetSpeak.com/).
Net2Phone (http://www.Net2phone.com)
The online community reacted with outrage. And they're doing
something about it. A petition has been filed by a private
citizen, Dr. Arun Mehta of Delhi with the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India (TRAI) to overturn the "ban", and to make VSNL
cease and desist from such "bans" in future.
What is interesting, however, is that this time, the activism
seems to be qualitatively different.
Activism ? Huh ?
----------------
The BBS license issue never really made national headlines. It was
fought and won in obscurity, and mostly by techies. The man on the
street never heard of it, and wouldn't have cared if he did. Now,
however, the following factors have come into play:
o The number of internet users in India is reaching critical mass.
o There exists a watchdog body in the form of the TRAI
o Private ISPs are just around the corner
o The non-techie is willing to get involved, this time.
Online activism looks like entering a vibrant phase in India. This is going to
be interesting. Stay tuned.
==============
Udhay Shankar N <udhay@arachnis.com> is a net.consultant based in Bangalore and
helps run the internet strategy consultancy, Arachnis. More details at
http://www.arachnis.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 08:23:11 -0800
From: "Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor" <rslade@sprint.ca>
Subject: File 8--REVIEW: "Digital Literacy", Paul Gilster
BKDGTLIT.RVW 980322
"Digital Literacy", Paul Gilster, 1997, 0-471-24952-1, U$12.95/C$18.50
%A Paul Gilster gilster@mindspring.com
%C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8
%D 1997
%G 0-471-24952-1
%I Wiley
%O U$12.95/C$18.50 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448
%P 276 p.
%T "Digital Literacy"
Having said many unkind things about the hype surrounding the World
Wide Web, I *do* acknowledge that the Web is useful. It's value,
however, lies not in graphics or a WIMP (Windows, Icon, Mouse,
Pointer) interface, but in the invention of the URL: the Uniform
Resource Locator. Text based dinosaur that I am, I find URLs in mail
messages to be more useful than almost any approach to the Xanadu of
hypertext. Utility lies in informational substance and ease of access
thereto, not in multimedia style.
As a card carrying propellorhead, therefore, I greatly appreciate
Gilster's avowed non-technical approach to the net. "The Internet
Navigator" (cf. BKINTNAV.RVW), despite the efforts of literally
hundreds of authors, is still the most mature general guide to the
Internet. "Finding it on the Internet" (cf. BKFNDINT.RVW) stands
alone after all this time as the only solid answer to the second
question every net novice asks. Now, in this present work, Gilster
once again draws back the unnoticed curtain behind the smoke and noise
to reveal that which we truly need to make the Internet work: critical
analysis. (I should note that it is not quite present: this is a
reissue, for some reason, of a book I somehow missed two years ago.
In responding to the draft of this review, Gilster has said that he
would have made some additions if he had been given the opportunity.)
The first chapter introduces digital literacy as a new skill made
necessary by a new type of information utility: the computer, and more
particularly the computer network. The text briefly looks at the
changes in style and even substance of data in the new medium, and at
those who use, do not use, praise, and decry the net. Yet this is
mere introduction, for all that it covers the total contents of most
"information superhighway" books. Chapter two develops a definition
of this new literacy. Drawing upon the historical changes from speech
to phonetic writing, from scrolls to codex, and from hand copying to
moveable type, Gilster demonstrates that it is the interaction with
content that changes. And, whereas in the immediately previous media
information could not be questioned, on the net, information not only
can be critiqued, but must be. Chapter three seems to be somewhat of
a digression as Gilster describes a day using the Internet. It does,
however, give a quick and realistic picture of what information use on
the net is like in reality right now. In one sense, though, it does a
minor disservice to the book. All of the information Gilster obtains
is deemed to be trustworthy. There is little mention of spam and
other junk, nor of the ubiquitous "404" indicator of abandoned sites
on the Web, nor of the assessment, in terms of a Usenet news posting,
of whether this shrill electronic cry is a vital warning or an ill-
tempered complaint. While some evaluation is done, the critical
analysis promoted in the first two chapters is missing.
Chapter four, however, takes up the slack. Most of the details here;
and the chapter is very detailed; are concerned with determining the
identity, background, and credentials of providers of content on the
net. Even when all the information is available on the Internet,
chapter five notes that perception can be distorted by presentation.
Web pages linked to supporting materials lend credibility to proposals
that may very well be built on thin air, or at least badly lopsided
foundations.
Chapter six is an examination of the various models of libraries,
traditional, online commercial, and Internet, that are developing in
the current environment. Ultimately Gilster proposes a design that
may not be fully supported by either the installed base of technology
nor social will, but the discussion is a definite wakeup call for many
information providers. But it is chapter seven that demonstrates the
real strength of the net: the multiplicity of voices that can be
accessed in any situation. This strength carries the inevitable
downside and caveat: the reader/user is fully responsible for pursuing
and judging the data. The price of being informed is eternal
searching.
As a singular book on a vital topic, this work is not written to the
excellent standard of "Finding it on the Internet." A number of
resources for analysis and information gathering are either missed, or
mentioned only briefly. Time, of course, is one of the most
important. Contrary to popular impression, the Internet is not
necessarily a source of instant or ready answers. Development of
resources is indispensable. While note was made of the need for
search engines to check material presented on Web pages, the DejaNews
and Rendezvous sites are useful as search engines on another matter:
the determination of the history, interests, expertise, and biases of
individuals. Mailing list archives can be another source of similar
information. The last, best resource any seasoned netizen has is a
circle of acquaintances; personal contacts with a range of experts in
a variety of fields that would astound the literati of any pre-digital
age.
Gilster's look to the future, in chapter eight, is disappointing in
light of the insightful work that preceded it. While fair and
balanced, avoiding both the rose coloured digital crystal ball and the
mechanized cyberpunk dystopia, this final piece in the book does not
travel much beyond a generally informed look at short range futures in
technology. Still, while the tag end does not provide you with any
last minute advice or guidance, the book overall gives much useful
advice on developing the new literacy of the digitally networked age.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKDGTLIT.RVW 980322
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1998 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 25 Apr, 1998)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
CuD is readily accessible from the Net:
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #10.33
************************************
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink