Privacy, Freedom, Regulation Friday, May 9, 1997

Moderator: Linda K. Fuller teaches Communications at Worcester State College in Massachusetts. She is the author of Community Television In The United States, among numerous other publications.

Pavel Curtis was a member of the research community at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center from 1983 through 1996. The founder of the Network Places project, he was the creator of LambdaMOO, one of the most popular recreational/social sites on the Internet. He in Principal Architect and co-founder of PlaceWare, Inc.

Tim Berners-Lee is a Principal Research Scientist in the Laboratory for Computer Science at MIT and the inventor of the World Wide Web.

Jock Gill is President and founder of Penfield Gill, Inc., a consulting firm specializing in new media communications, marketing and strategic planning. From 1993-1995 he was Director of Special Projects in the Office of Media Affairs in the White House, where he played a key role in establishing an e-mail system and a web site for the White House.

Pavel Curtis opened by asking whether the effort of countries such as China, Singapore, and India to control the flow of information in their countries was significant to the future of the Internet. In Curtis’s view these attempts to regulate information flow resemble the "decency acts" introduced by governments in various time periods to impose censorship on political or moral grounds. He cited a recent case in which the state of Tennessee attempted to prosecute a pornographer in California for enabling Tennessee residents to download sexually explicit material on the Internet. Efforts at regulation will ultimately fail, according to Curtis, for the simple reason that any attempt at "blockage" must be total. The dissemination of information can continue as long as the sender finds any route to a target and today channels are expanding faster than attempts to close them down. More disturbing, Curtis says, is the private sector’s collection of Internet addresses and the practice of placing "cookies" on Internet sites to target them for the reception of material whether or not it has been solicited. The lingering question will be that of "ownership," and how this is defined. Mr. Curtis believes that ninety percent of the information on the Internet is of dubious value, though the useful material that does appear gives the Internet its vitality. Some of his favorite instruments in the battle against regulation are the Electronics Freedom Frontier (EFF); PICS, software which allows a user selective choice of what material will be received; IPWG/P3, which ensures privacy over information both sent and received; and the PGP, or "cookie cutter," which can prevent a site from being targeted for unwanted material.

Tim Berners-Lee foresees a world where privacy on the Internet can be maintained without extensive government regulation. The Web can be a place of stimulation and excitement, and ultimately offer an efficient exchange of information once its use is more extensive. And the computer itself can ultimately help solve the problems of privacy, regulation, and ownership. The main advantage of the World Wide Web is that it places the user (the seeker of information) in control of the transaction. Berners-Lee compared this to walking into a shoe store and not only specifying a certain make and model of shoe, but also being able to certify the solvency of the store’s bank and its credit history, and its reputation as a retail distributor before making a purchase. In this case it is an empowering device to "consumers" of information. Berners-Lee extended his comparison to everyday consumerism in describing further advantages of the Internet. The new technology is the means by which "transactions"--the exchange of information-- can be accomplished, with PICS providing a way for the "consumer" to determine the quality of the information, or "product." The user can also browse anonymously, much like window-shopping, ultimately using labels as guides to determine the value and reliability of information, just as we trust labeling codes on packaging to warrant product quality and to help determine our purchases, freeing us from the need to "read the fine print" on every product.

Jock Gill offered a short history of the newspaper and previous information infrastructures. A story is a kind of map, and the development of the Internet is a map in the process of being created which will tell the story of how we address the issues of privacy, freedom, regulation, and security. It is important that we participate in the story telling and not find ourselves excluded from the process, or it will have negative consequences for society. First of all, we need to ask if we share a common definition of the Internet. Gill offered some questions which could help determine this: What is its dimension? Does it offer a higher dimensionality than former forms of media? Is non-interactive media too one-dimensional, corresponding to "flat land?" Are communications to be seen as encoding systems, like DNA, that can be programmed to deliver information, and if so, are there better options than the Internet? Finally, "if the Internet does indeed offer superior information encoding...will it change not only the HOW of communications, but also the WHAT as well as the STRUCTURE of the host society?" Gill looked to the eighteenth century to find a parallel. The origins of the modern newspaper can actually be traced to seventeenth-century Japan, where information was both sold and read after being reproduced by means of tile-block printing. In early seventeenth-century Europe, from 1605-1609, the production of informal newsletters eventually graduated to the publication of the newspaper. However, the trend suffered a backlash in the American colonies in 1690, when the governor of Massachusetts suppressed the publication of newspapers as "rags." Nevertheless, a year later improvements in the postal service in England made daily publication possible. Regulation of the content of information appeared as early as 1712 with the introduction of the Stamp Act, which imposed, in essence, a tax on the dissemination of knowledge and limits on the power of the press. Until the nineteenth century, censorship constrained the freedom of the press in Europe, and not until 1766, in Sweden, were the first freedom of the press laws passed.

The first "official" newspaper in the United States appeared in Boston in 1704, and in 1721 the New England Courant became the first independent newspaper. In 1783 the first conversion of a weekly to daily publication occurred; the invention of the steam press in England in 1814 enabled printers to produce 5,000 copies an hour. The eighteenth century witnessed the flowering of political thought, resulting in the appearance of 37 newspapers in the American colonies by 1775, where literacy was highest in the Western world, with a copy of a newspaper available for every twenty potential readers. Besides the growth of print media, the tavern functioned as a vehicle for the spread of information and communication, establishing both as valuable assets in our early social and political capital. The founding fathers belief that an informed citizenry was needed for the spread of democracy, and that equal access to information was essential, created an atmosphere that allowed newspapers to flourish. These beliefs culminated in the First Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech. The twentieth century saw a greater exploitation of various forms of media, through FDR’s use of radio and John F. Kennedy’s appearances on television. However, we have witnessed a loss of social participation--the equivalent of the eighteenth-century tavern--with information now largely flowing one way. This decline in the practice of information exchange as a participatory experience has harmed our politics. Gill then presented the problem of trying to define the relevant terms of privacy, freedom, and security in our day. Privacy, he says, is freedom from the intrusions of observation and disclosure, but both privacy and freedom require security, a more difficult concept to come to terms with. Security, first of all, can be a matter of degree, and there is the question of what should be protected--money? technology? information? All three? And who or what requires security? In addition, threats to security can come in a variety of ways, from simple thievery, such as the misdirection of transactions, to more anonymous electronic "terrorism," but all of these result in a diminished trust, and the erosion of our "social capital." Regulation is inevitable. Governments always impose regulations. The more fundamental questions are: How extensive should regulations be? And, what social benefits should result? Today we may not face a Stamp Act to regulate, or limit, the flow of information, but issues of security and privacy must be considered. The preservation of the status quo is often understood as the task of regulation. In conclusion, Gill stated that new political views will definitely determine the story of the Internet; our old concepts of national identity are essentially outdated, and backwards-looking. Eventually, even higher-dimensional communications systems will generate additional conflict over the questions of privacy, freedom, regulation, and security, but these remain key elements of our social capital that must be preserved.

Discussion: Susan Douglas wondered if the panel wasn’t being too sanguine in its trust of regulations, given the history of censorship and political control of information. She also worried that access to new technologies would be unavailable to the poor and less privileged members of society. Gill responded that wide access to the Internet could be achieved through an extensive effort to wire schools and other institutions that reach broad populations, much like the campaign that brought telephone service to rural America in the 1930s. Les Duryea also wondered if the panel wasn’t too optimistic in its characterization of freedom and privacy issues. Jock Gill used the example of the interstate highway system to show again how an extensive network designed for one purpose--the movement of troops and military hardware in time of war--could eventually become the asset to society that it is today.