Netizens-Digest Tuesday, February 18 2003 Volume 01 : Number 416 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] demonstration Re: [netz] demonstration [netz] Back to internet [netz] Re: Back to internet Re: [netz] Back to internet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:30:38 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] demonstration At 12:30 PM -0500 2/17/03, lindeman@bard.edu wrote: >I've enjoyed Howard's thoughtful and multifaceted contributions. Although I >wouldn't want the Netizens list to become "all politics, all the time," there >are some interesting twists to this conversation that I wouldn't know how to >find anywhere else. I've especially valued the parts dealing with China, >although I have nothing to add myself. As for the link between "netizenship" >and engagement in global political crises -- well, I'd certainly be >unnerved if >there were only one view of the matter. Thanks for the response. My feeling is that the role of the Netizens list vis-a-vis politics is to deal with the potential tools of education, political communication, etc., which are independent of the specific political issue. Understanding the decisionmaking structure is equally important to those that believe gun control means a total ban and those that believe it means steadying the gun with both hands! Another aspect of this is pure technical and economic feasibility of the proposed communications methods. I am a participant in the IETF/IRTF efforts on Internet scalability. While we aren't quite at the critical point, the current routing architecture can't scale indefinitely. With "Hactivism", things become even more of a challenge. Let me not limit it to hactivism, but to random crackers and script kiddies, as well as spammers. Any of these can interfere with network operation, independent of the issue. Network security also gets deeply into network survivability, as well as the issues of privacy and of getting information in and out of totalitarian states. There are huge issues with balancing privacy and accountability. Spammers use anonymity to steal services and, especially in countries where people pay by the minute for access, make it harder to use the net for communications. > >It's true that mass demonstrations tend to motivate activists; I think Howard >may underestimate their effect on U.S. policy, but of course it's very hard to >tell. [It seems likely to me, for instance, that the Earth Day >rallies in 1970 >helped to bring about the landmark U.S. environmental legislation of the early >1970s -- and, dare I say it, helped to foster something of a global >consciousness.] I should probably modify my evaluation to say that single day demonstrations may not have (or should have) major policy effects, but a pattern of demonstrations, especially that come across as non-crazed, do have an effect. Certainly, this was part of the Civil Rights Movement, and I tend to think of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech as the crescendo of a swelling tide. The series of anti-Viet Nam demonstrations certainly had an impact. Living in Washington in that era, occasionally doing news reporting but usually just trying to go to work, brings back lots of memories. I joke "I love the smell of tear gas in the morning," but I actually found that being JUST on the edge often cleaned out my sinuses rather nicely! > For what it's worth, plenty of focused lobbying is happening, >too, and I doubt that the demos count as a distraction from more tedious but >more effective modes of political activity. I would wonder how many of the demonstrators did, in some manner, communicate their position to their elected representatives and to appropriate committees and executive departments. My own experience on the Hill is that generic communications, individually, don't have a huge effect, but the count of such communications does. My Hill experience was before email was widely available, and indeed when fax was rare. In general, however, the rule of thumb was to treat a phone call as having impact 1 and a letter having impact 10. These days, I'd put a letter at 100 and an email or fax at 10. These are communications to the member. Communications to the appropriate staffer, with focused commentary, often has a much greater effect. Unfortunately, while the Congress has print and online directories of members, the Congressional/Federal/Judicial Staff Directories are commercial products by the respected Congressional Quarterly, with an online version through Lexis/Nexis. These are the fastest way to find staffers, although I often knew the structure well enough to find the right person after an hour on the phone. I don't fault CQ for charging for their product, especially since it started as a printed book. But this is the sort of reference material that I'd love to see generally available. A Netizen project, indeed, might be to prepare an equivalent database from public records, and make it available. I like such an idea because it is issue-independent. > > >If anything, Howard may be taking Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon too >seriously. Not that I take them seriously politically, but note the news coverage, often leading with them. The only specific speakers I know of at the New York demonstration mentioned were Streisand, Sarandon, and Desmond Tutu. There might have been speakers with solid diplomatic or military credentials, but they didn't get coverage. I suppose it's quite un-PC of me to say that I didn't even take Jane Fonda's antics in Hanoi nearly as seriously as her role in Barbarella. >Actually, I wasn't aware that they spoke. I don't know anyone who >takes his or her political views from celebrities. But I think that many >people would rather cheer for like-minded celebrities than like-minded >politicians, perhaps because they consider the celebrities more honest. >Personally (and I suppose I can say professionally as a political >scientist), I >think that politicians tend to get a bum rap, but I can't say that there are >many I feel like giving a full-throated cheer for, either. I agree with you. Our civics classes don't teach that politics is the art of the possible. The old chestnut that people don't want to know how either sausage or laws are made still holds. But I recognize, especially in the legislative branch, that the representative has to do a balancing act to keep leverage on multiple issues. I don't necessarily hold that term limits are necessary, because some legislators are reelected because they are excellent at presenting their constituents' position. Admittedly, constituent service and pure pork help as well. > >> In an earlier message that may have gotten lost, I mentioned that the >> US is NOT a democracy, nor is it intended to be. It is a republic. >> Large numbers of people demonstrating for a position do not and >> should not directly influence policy. Indeed, one can speak of a >> million-attendee demonstration as quite large, but a million people >> is a small minority of the electorate. > >The "democracy vs. republic" distinction is actually somewhat murky, in part >because there was and is no universally accepted definition of either term. I >do agree that demonstrations shouldn't directly influence policy; nor should >lobbying, which I think Howard prefers as a mode of political participation. Purely on pragmatic grounds. It's been my experience that competent lobbying gets more done, followed by focused constituent message campaigns. >The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the "right of the people >peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of >grievances." So, if lobbying is a form of petition, I suppose that >demonstrations and lobbying are equally embraced in the U.S. political system. One problem I do tend to have with the more recent demonstration is that they don't seem to have a terribly specific point. I'm thinking, in particular, of the World Bank demonstrations. There were a lot of people upset, but there didn't seem to be much consensus on what the World Bank/IMF actually should _do_. The message also became clouded with a vicious circle between a small number of violent demonstrators and the police response. It might not be as emotionally satisfying to large numbers, but, for example, I could easily see a group of recognized academics, industrial and financial executives, etc., meeting to prepare specific proposals. A credible strategy for debt relief is hard to brush away as "radical". > >Best, >Mark Lindeman >Bard College ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:28:10 -0500 (EST) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] demonstration Howard, A few points among many... > Thanks for the response. My feeling is that the role of the Netizens > list vis-a-vis politics is to deal with the potential tools of > education, political communication, etc., which are independent of > the specific political issue.[...] I basically agree -- although at this time, at least, I wouldn't want to enforce the line too strictly. I won't bother to echo all your other comments in this vein. > I would wonder how many of the demonstrators did, in some manner, > communicate their position to their elected representatives and to > appropriate committees and executive departments. I wonder too. My rough guess is "many, many, though not nearly enough." ;) Your "insider analysis" is helpful here. A netizen-related connection: MoveOn.org (an organization I was somehow viscerally predisposed to dislike) has organized a wide range of communications with Congress and the White House, including a day of office visits. [WRT demonstration speakers, most participants at most rallies of my experience have no idea what the speakers are saying. In the NY Times story, the speakers weren't even mentioned by name until the 17th graf; the Times was much more interested in who was demonstrating. For better or worse, anti-war activists around here are most likely to quote Scott Ritter and, recently, General Zinni. None of this to discount your points, just to illustrate my difference in emphasis.] [WRT demonstrations vs. lobbying:] > Purely on pragmatic grounds. It's been my experience that competent > lobbying gets more done, followed by focused constituent message > campaigns. Again, we differ in emphasis. I'm basically a policy wonk, and I don't think that demonstrations _alone_ are ever likely to do much good. But perhaps your discussion of the civil rights movement indicates the benefits of sometimes going beyond competent lobbying and focused constituent message campaigns. (I agree with your point there that it helps for demonstrators to (1) appear sane [grin -- OK, those are my words] and (2) show some staying power; I think the current anti-war movement scores pretty well on those criteria.) > One problem I do tend to have with the more recent demonstration is > that they don't seem to have a terribly specific point. I'm thinking, > in particular, of the World Bank demonstrations. There were a lot of > people upset, but there didn't seem to be much consensus on what the > World Bank/IMF actually should _do_. The message also became clouded > with a vicious circle between a small number of violent demonstrators > and the police response. I happily concede the last point, with the caveat that in Seattle, the police apparently started spraying pepper spray in people's eyes (etc.) even before the anarchists started smashing windows. (I don't think that proves much about politics in general, but folks who were there tend to be pretty bitter about it.) As to the rest, I think it's true, but it doesn't trouble me so much in context. In the nature of the case, mass movements or organizations aren't well suited to agree on multiple-point action plans. The "anti-globalization movement" does seem to have some agreement about the problems -- and a fair number of smart people who are poised to participate in savvy lobbying. Whoops, I went on too long. OK, back to work. Mark Lindeman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:05:30 +0100 From: Dan Duris Subject: [netz] Back to internet Maybe it would be nice to get back to topic of this mailing list. I have some questions for you since as I have already mentioned I am working on my Master Thesis on internet and its influence on democratization of political systems. I am trying to figure out if there is any correlation between internet and democracy rating and my research is based on 6 countries - starting with totalitarian countries (Cuba and China), going through Mexico, Serbia and Estonia and ending with "undemocratic democracy", Japan. Do you think that internet undermines government's power (in totalitarian states) and helps with democratization in any way? If yes, what conditions have to be fulfilled? Any other comments or ideas on what to include or what could be a good paper to read? Thanks, dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- drop the taxes, liberate citizens -* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:10:25 -0500 (EST) From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben) Subject: [netz] Re: Back to internet Yvonne Liu submitted this to the netizens list: Curious, how do you define democracy? What is figured into this index rating? Dan Duris wrote: > Maybe it would be nice to get back to topic of this mailing list. > > I have some questions for you since as I have already mentioned I am > working on my Master Thesis on internet and its influence on > democratization of political systems. I am trying to figure out if > there is any correlation between internet and democracy rating and my > research is based on 6 countries - starting with totalitarian > countries (Cuba and China), going through Mexico, Serbia and Estonia > and ending with "undemocratic democracy", Japan. > > Do you think that internet undermines government's power (in > totalitarian states) and helps with democratization in any way? > > If yes, what conditions have to be fulfilled? > > Any other comments or ideas on what to include or what could be a good > paper to read? > > Thanks, > > dan > -------------------------- > email: dusoft@staznosti.sk > ICQ: 17932727 > > *- drop the taxes, liberate citizens -* .......................................................................... yvonne liu | yvonne at people-link dot org | aim: whyloo .......................................................................... And as for Saddam having "weapons of mass destruction" (or mass diversion as some critics say) The US has these weapons. So do Israel, South Africa, Germany, France, Italy, England, Russia, and now China, India, Pakistan. How is it the US and its allies (except the Chinese) can have such weapons, but no one else can. The answer to that, of course, is White Supremacy and Imperialism. And what should be the growing understanding by the American people and the democratic people of the world, is what the far right Bush coven wants is a military dictatorship of the world. - -- Amiri Baraka, The ADL Smear Campaign Against Me: I Will Not Resign, I Will Not Apologize (Oct. 7, 2002) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:31:29 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Back to internet At 2:05 AM +0100 2/18/03, Dan Duris wrote: >Maybe it would be nice to get back to topic of this mailing list. > >I have some questions for you since as I have already mentioned I am >working on my Master Thesis on internet One of the beginning points is how you define "internet". The generic, lower-case term refers to independently administered networks interconnected with the Internet Protocol (IP) [1]. Subsets of this are: -- intranets: networks not open to the public and operated by one organization. These range from routine corporate networks (typically using many of the same tools, such as Web browsers, as the public Internet), to high-security networks (e.g., internal hospital or utility). -- extranets: networks using IP, not open to the public, but linking independent organizations. Think credit card authorization and other financial networks, just-in-time ordering, or military networks. -- Internet: the set of interconnected public networks that conform to a common naming and addressing plan, and exchange routing (topology) information through the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). [1] While people often refer to TCP/IP, IP or the "Internet Protocol Stack" or "Internet Architecture" is more correct. TCP is not used in all IP-based applications. Now, where does something like a totalitarian country's network, that controls at least connectivity outside the country, fit here? If public Internet access is heavily controlled, is it closer to an extranet? >and its influence on >democratization of political systems. I am trying to figure out if >there is any correlation between internet and democracy rating and my >research is based on 6 countries - starting with totalitarian >countries (Cuba and China), going through Mexico, Serbia and Estonia >and ending with "undemocratic democracy", Japan. A couple of things might confound your model. In the electronic age, Japan historically has been an early adopter of networking, in part because computers and computer networks are much more friendly to their system of writing (Kanji and Hiragana). This is also an attraction for China, at least for internal use. There may also be a variable for network entry* due to a lack of older telephony infrastructure. Many Eastern European countries are going directly to cellular phones rather than wiring houses (other than with broadband), since it's cheaper and faster to implement. As far as I can tell, this is China's basic assumption on improving its telephone plant, while Japan has an excellent telephone system. IP based telephony is also more resource-conservative than conventional telephones, although an IP telephone is more complex than a dial/pulse phone. > >Do you think that internet undermines government's power (in >totalitarian states) and helps with democratization in any way? Is there an example of a totalitarian government that allows unrestricted Internet access? Would that not be a prerequisite to saying that the (upper case) Internet can affect democratization? While, for example, there is a good deal of Chinese cooperation in international scientific and engineering forums, the Chinese government has tolerated to encouraged activities hostile to the operation of the global Internet. These include attacking sites that criticize Chinese policy, to being a haven for spammers. South Korea has been a spammer haven, but the government has been pushing responsible behavior. It might be a good reference point, as it also deals with the special problem of an ideographic language. India has relatively widespread and open Internet access, but to those who can afford it. They do face the problem of over 100 internal languages, although most educated Indians are fluent in English. It might be close to the Japan end of the spectrum. > >If yes, what conditions have to be fulfilled? > >Any other comments or ideas on what to include or what could be a good >paper to read? > >Thanks, > >dan >-------------------------- >email: dusoft@staznosti.sk >ICQ: 17932727 > >*- drop the taxes, liberate citizens -* ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #416 ******************************