Netizens-Digest Saturday, March 8 2003 Volume 01 : Number 427
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq
[netz] "Equiaccessibility" of access
Re: [netz] Representation (was: Thirty Year Itch...)
Re: [netz] Representation (was: Thirty Year Itch...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 10:41:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> In a message dated 3/5/03 8:54:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, ronda@panix.com
> >> writes:
(...)
> >B
> >
> >That seems to assume that the legislators would respond to better
> >communication.
>
> My direct experience with US legislators, over a period of 30 years
> or so, is they do -- IF the communication is formed in a way they
> find useful. "Useful" can range from ensuring reelection, to helping
> them support their own legislative positions, to arming them better
> in debate.
>
I don't disagree that it is appropriate and useful to work with
US legislators when that is possible. I have tried and had both
total failure and some minimal success.
I am glad to keep trying.
I also worked with others on another mailing list and we were able
to send testimony into the hearing record on issues connected with
ICANN and the Domain Name, Internet Infrastructure, issue.
And we were asked for questions for the legislators to ask during
the hearing, and they actually asked some of our questions.
This was something useful. Several of us even went to the hearing
in Washington D.C. and sat through the hearing.
And I asked some of the staffers to talk with me about the issues,
but didn't succeed very well there.
Also through efforts on the same mailing list and others and
with some online publications, we helped to influence legislators
who asked for an investigation of ICANN by the GAO (General Accounting
Office). It is the investigative office for the US Congress.
And a few of us involved in these online efforts were able to
get the GAO to interview us and to let us send in documents
to the GAO for their investigation.
Later I met one of those who interviewed me in person, when both
she and I were at the National Academy of Science in the audience
for the first meeting of a committee set up there to study some of
the issues involved with the Internet's infrastructure.
I spoke with her there and she told me that they realized that
the Internet was different from many other entities, in that it
was created under government.
That has been the focus of lots of my research, to document the
nature of good government activity regarding the origins and
development of the Internet.
And there was a helpful footnote in the GAO report, that said
that if the US government privatizes or gives away public property,
it must go through constitutionally mandated processes. It can't,
for example, just turn over the domain name system and IP numbering
system and other public aspects of the Internet to ICANN, to a
private entity. The means the US government seemed to be using
to do this, was to write purchase orders and give ICANN control
of these functions saying that this would save the US government
money (while giving away priceless public assets).
The GAO report acknowledged that there was not a means for the
US Dept of Commerce to give away public property via the activity
it was doing with ICANN.
So I very much agree that it is important to work with government
officials whenever that is possible, and to see how the Internet
can help make that possible. That is an important area of
research.
I hope to respond further to Howard's and Larry's points later.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:48:57 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] "Equiaccessibility" of access
>"LOBBY" TO FACILITATE CONSTITUENT ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT:
>
>>In a message dated 3/5/03 11:07:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >hcb@gettcomm.com writes:
>
>
>H>
>H>I think we are in violent agreement. As I trailed off on my previous
>H>paragraph, I've also observed that people in office remember
>H>well-reasoned opposition. While it's certainly not universal, you can
>H>build credibility with information that doesn't help on a specific
>H>issue. The next time, or the time after that, the policy staffer may
>H>remember that you've been coherent on the last couple of issues, and
>H>read much more carefully what you've written each time. The closer
>H>your desired goals get to theirs, the chances of favorable action
>H>increase when you try to influence each successive issue.
>H>
Larry responded,
>
>This model of 'legitimacy refinement' that you have described above
>is so realistic.
>
>H>That the issues are not necessarily related isn't a problem, as long
>H>as you develop a reputation of making sense. I have, for example
>H>started out with communicating with my representative on some
>H>more-or-less-local issues of Federal taxation. I've then
>H>communicated, as a recognized expert [1], in communications policy.
>H>Now, if I were to communicate on military policy, I believe my
>H>arguments would be less likely to receive a form-letter response.
>
>H>[Note 1] Creative database use can reveal that your locality may just
>H>happen to contain a recognized expert, who is willing to have their
>H>name and/or expertise used for a specific, not broad-front, position.
>
>This 'constituent lobby concept' is quite interesting and needs to
>be investigated further. Hmm... a Database of local specialists
>that are authenticated as such by both parties. The employment of
>such specialists by the local constituency makes for a more
>persuasive effort in terms of influencing policy.
>
>You have solved the problem of intelligent polemic. Now when a case
>is brought to the attention of the politician it is guaranteed to be
>prepared by an expert regarding that issue. Then the populous can
>hopefully expect an intelligent solution, given, in a perfect world,
>that all relevant information necessary to the debate is
>'equiaccessible' to the parties. The last qualification is another
>issue.
>
The matter of accessibility to experts, and their appropriate use,
might also lead to thinking about something about which I don't have
a good name -- indepenent review, democracy-by-proxy, etc.
Here's the underlying issue. Getting deeply into some issues simply
requires substantial background. Even if large numbers of people
disagree with some position, in the words of Scotty from the original
Star Trek, "Ye canna ignore the laws of physics."
Let's look at several issues, some of which engender more conspiracy
theories than others. If someone presents their position in a manner
that is internally inconsistent, I tend to discount it. One thing
that pops into my mind is a discussion about anthrax opened by
someone who calls it a virus.
Simple Matters of Apparent Knowledge Level
- ------------------------------------------
Bacillus anthracis, the cause of anthrax, is not a virus. It's a
bacterium. This is such a basic concept in microbiology that if it's
not understood, there's no point in discussion. It's not even an
academic point in talking about biological warfare, in that bacteria
and viruses are grown and dispersed with different techniques. Close
on the heels of this sort of misinformation is suggesting that any BW
program was caused by some country selling the cultures to the BW
developer.
There happen to be fairly simple ways to get most cultures even if no
one will provide them, there are perfectly legitimate medical or
veterinary reasons for public health authorities or researchers to
have them, and having the culture is the least difficult part of
getting to weapons.
Dealing with Secrecy
- --------------------
Let's say the matter of immediate concern is whether Iraq has WMD, an
issue separable from whether military action is a solution. On the
one hand, there is a legitimate concern on the parts of government
that if they reveal all of their "sources and methods," as well as
"raw data," they will irreparably damage the future utility of those
sources and methods.
Yet relatively few source technologies are unknown to a broad range
of people. If I, for example, can contact someone on the Joint
Committee on Intelligence, someone with a good reputation for
independence, I can help them by giving them a good list of questions
to ask. I don't myself need to see the detailed answers, but I can
give enough searching questions to someone with raw access that they
can assess the plausibility of the claim.
For example, if I were dealing with chemical weapons, I could give a
list of chemical ingredients to search for in trade records. I could
describe the typical characteristics of a manufacturing facility,
often recognizable through the protective garments of the staff. I
could discuss how air sampling and free-space laser spectroscopy
could be used to detect leaks. My trusted representative might not
know these were important questions to ask.
Shades of Gray
- --------------
I happen to have a substantial amount of medical background, some
learned while involved in research, others from 30-plus years of
systematic and occasionally guided/continuing medical education.
Officially, however, I'm only certified in basic first aid and CPR.
Now, let's assume some Netizens decide to get away from the net for a
week, and go on a camping trip. They get to a remote location, to
which it might take 24-48 hours to get paramedic-level rescue.
Someone falls while rock-climbing, and slams their chest into rocks,
going into serious respiratory difficulty.
It happens that I examine them, and recognize they have a potentially
fatal air leak in their chest. I've done the basic first aid things
of putting an airtight dressing over the wound, but it clearly isn't
enough.
Let's assume I have a few more things in my pack, beyond the normal
first aid range -- hey, let's even say someone could airdrop them. I
can look at the patient and say "yes, they have a standard
pneumothorax. They will probably die in hours without advanced care."
Now, in that situation, what are the ethics of my noncertified sense
inserting a large bore needle in the second intercostal space, run it
to appropriate drainage tubing, get volunteers to suck on a rubber
tube to provide vacuum, etc.?
Substitute a different case. Now you don't have someone with you
that might not be properly certified, but could plausibly claim,
under good samaritan law, they know what they are doing. Instead,
you have a wireless web connection to a site that describes the
procedure, but you have no one that's ever handled a large chest
needle. What is appropriate? Do nothing, or go with the person that
seems best to understand the website? The site itself might give you
the impression that the patient has an 80% chance of dying without
decompression, but there is a 30% of killing the patient with an
incorrectly performed chest tube insertion.
So we have several cases:
-- the authority has the knowledge and is trusted to apply it.
-- a trusted person may not have the knowledge
>>> the trusted person may use a list of questions to the people
with the real information. The trusted person can share full
information.
>>> the trusted person may use a list of questions to the people
with the real information. The trusted person cannot share full
information.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:47:34 -0500 (EST)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Representation (was: Thirty Year Itch...)
Ronda,
Thanks, the excerpt from Michael is helpful.
> This is not what Michael was saying, Michael was discussing
> "democracy" and how to achieve it given the limitations in the
> time of Rousseau and then James Mill's time, and comparing that
> to what is possible now.
>
> So the issue was "democracy" rather than "representation".
Well, what I meant was, roughly, "representation may have been a necessary
compromise in the past, but with today's communication technologies we can move
toward/to direct democracy." Which does seem to be something like what Michael
meant, although in this excerpt I don't find a specific claim about how far we
can move toward direct democracy. I believe that we still can't have democracy
without representation. But it would have been better for me to put the
emphasis on democracy, not representation.
I've snipped freely, but without malice. Folks should refer back to the
original to check the context.
> Democracy is a desirable form of government, but Mill found it
> to be impossible to maintain. Mill lists two practical obstacles in
> his essay. First, he finds it impossible for the whole people to
> assemble to perform the duties of government.[...]
> Second, Mill argues that an assembled body of differing
> interests would find it impossible to come to any agreements. Mill
> speaks to this point in his essay:
>
> "In an assembly, every thing must be done by speaking and
> assenting. But where the assembly is numerous, so many persons
> desire
> to speak, and feelings, by mutual inflammation, become so violent,
> that calm and effectual deliberation is impossible."(2)
So, arguably the Internet allows us to overcome both these obstacles:
> The Net allows for a
> meeting which takes place on each person's own time, rather than all at
> one time.(7) [...]
Yes, this is a great boon of the Net. [I'll skip the "on the other hand," lest
I sound needlessly snarky.]
> Mill's second observation was that people would not be able to
> communicate peacefully after assembling. Online discussions do not have
> the same characteristics as in-person meetings. As people connect to the
> discussion forum when they wish, and when they have time, they can be
> thoughtful in their responses to the discussion. Whereas in a traditional
> meeting, participants have to think quickly to respond. In addition,
> online discussions allow everyone to have a say, whereas finite length
> meetings only allow a certain number of people to have their say. Online
> meetings allow everyone to contribute their thoughts in a message, which
> is then accessible to whomever else is reading and
> participating in the discussion.
I would suggest that the Net technically allows many people to speak, without
altogether overcoming the real obstacle to effective deliberation inherent in
numbers. The Net allows millions of people to speak on any given issue, but it
doesn't allow me to listen to all of them. Truly complicated conversations
_may_ be more peaceable on the Net, but they aren't much more efficient.
I'm not sure they're more peaceable, either; I've seen many flame wars that I
don't think would've happened in person. However, the Net does help give folks
like me (who tend to be shy in groups) more voice, and it lets people converse
about issues who otherwise never would have, either because they live far apart
or for any of the other reasons that people often don't address controversial
topics.
> In society where people live
> together, it is important for people to communicate with each other
> about their situations to best understand the world from the broadest
> possible viewpoint.
Absolutely.
> Public and open discussions and debates are grass-roots,
> bottom-up development which enable people to participate in democracy
> with enthusiasm and interest more so than the current system of secret
> ballots allows. Of course, at some point or other, votes might be
> taken, but only after time has been given to air an issue in the
> commons.
OK. So, how do we organize votes that give everybody a say on every aspect of
legislation? It's when we actually get down to decisionmaking that I start to
suspect big limitations in the Internet revolution. (But the revolution is
young, and my imagination is not the largest.)
I'll stop here for now....
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 20:46:06 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Representation (was: Thirty Year Itch...)
>Ronda,
>
>Thanks, the excerpt from Michael is helpful.
>
>> This is not what Michael was saying, Michael was discussing
>> "democracy" and how to achieve it given the limitations in the
>> time of Rousseau and then James Mill's time, and comparing that
>> to what is possible now.
>>
>> So the issue was "democracy" rather than "representation".
>
>Well, what I meant was, roughly, "representation may have been a necessary
>compromise in the past, but with today's communication technologies
>we can move
>toward/to direct democracy." Which does seem to be something like
>what Michael
>meant, although in this excerpt I don't find a specific claim about how far we
>can move toward direct democracy. I believe that we still can't
>have democracy
>without representation.
To follow up on this, and trusting to memory, a US congressional
district may contain 200,000-500,000 voters. Let's assume every one
of these people expresses an opinion, and it takes 1 minute to figure
out the basic position. I'll assume 360,000 voters because it makes
some calculations easier.
360,000 voter statements take 250 24-hour days to read and note,
ignoring any supplemental information sent with them. Even if the
issue is critical, how much time can the representative give to
reading the comments? Assuming 8 hour days of doing nothing else, the
representative is going to take slightly over 2 years to read them.
No time to think about issues, propose compromises, vote, reply, etc.
What? Have staff read them and summarize? A possibility. First,
there may not be enough office staff funded to cut the time
significantly. Second, we've now delegated some part of
decisionmaking to the staff.
Another option is to form ad hoc coalitions, in a TRUSTED manner
(i.e., with voting that can be authenticated), and provide coalition
positions to the representative.
You could go to sampling, with its potential inaccuracies.
My point is that one-man-one-vote pure democracy doesn't scale to
work in large governmental systems, without imposing some
compromises. While the net may have removed Mill's concern about the
impossibility of assembling the whole people, an assembled people
sending email may be no more manageable.
Of course, if all of those people simply send messages to the
representative, there's no real opportunity for lateral discussion
among the electorate.
>But it would have been better for me to put the
>emphasis on democracy, not representation.
>
>I've snipped freely, but without malice. Folks should refer back to the
>original to check the context.
>
>> Democracy is a desirable form of government, but Mill found it
>> to be impossible to maintain. Mill lists two practical obstacles in
>> his essay. First, he finds it impossible for the whole people to
>> assemble to perform the duties of government.[...]
>> Second, Mill argues that an assembled body of differing
>> interests would find it impossible to come to any agreements. Mill
>> speaks to this point in his essay:
>>
>> "In an assembly, every thing must be done by speaking and
>> assenting. But where the assembly is numerous, so many persons
>> desire
>> to speak, and feelings, by mutual inflammation, become so violent,
>> that calm and effectual deliberation is impossible."(2)
>
>So, arguably the Internet allows us to overcome both these obstacles:
>
>> The Net allows for a
>> meeting which takes place on each person's own time, rather than all at
>> one time.(7) [...]
>
>Yes, this is a great boon of the Net. [I'll skip the "on the other
>hand," lest
>I sound needlessly snarky.]
>
>> Mill's second observation was that people would not be able to
>> communicate peacefully after assembling. Online discussions do not have
>> the same characteristics as in-person meetings. As people connect to the
>> discussion forum when they wish, and when they have time, they can be
>> thoughtful in their responses to the discussion. Whereas in a traditional
> > meeting, participants have to think quickly to respond. In addition,
>> online discussions allow everyone to have a say, whereas finite length
>> meetings only allow a certain number of people to have their say. Online
>> meetings allow everyone to contribute their thoughts in a message, which
>> is then accessible to whomever else is reading and
>> participating in the discussion.
>
>I would suggest that the Net technically allows many people to speak, without
>altogether overcoming the real obstacle to effective deliberation inherent in
>numbers. The Net allows millions of people to speak on any given
>issue, but it
>doesn't allow me to listen to all of them. Truly complicated conversations
>_may_ be more peaceable on the Net, but they aren't much more efficient.
One of the ways individuals can be especially effective is to make
points on issues where huge numbers of people aren't involved. An
example I might use, and something I haven't followed up on, involves
US tax and medical reimbursement law.
Social Security tax is collected up to a certain ceiling. In most
recent years, I meet that ceiling sometime in September.
I have participated in various Medical Savings Account programs that
let me set aside pre-tax income for medical expenses, but all claims
for it must be made by the end of the first quarter of the next
calendar year.
Medical expense cash flow tends to be especially painful in the first
quarter, since the deductible for private insurance retriggers on
January 1. If the medical savings account year could slip by one
quarter, it would improve consumer cash flow by providing funds to
even out the deductible. It would help medical efficiency by avoiding
the incentive to force medical care into the calendar year last
quarter, and the possible inadequacies of care in the subsequent
first quarter. Overall, I think this would be revenue-neutral.
Unexpended savings are forfeit and neither benefit the consumer nor
the medical industry.
Changing these dates in the tax code is something that I can propose
to my representative as potentially important to his constituents, as
well as giving him an opportunity to be visible sponsoring some
creative legislation. This, to me, is win-win influence on the
legislative process.
>
>I'm not sure they're more peaceable, either; I've seen many flame wars that I
>don't think would've happened in person. However, the Net does help
>give folks
>like me (who tend to be shy in groups) more voice, and it lets people converse
>about issues who otherwise never would have, either because they
>live far apart
>or for any of the other reasons that people often don't address controversial
>topics.
>
>> In society where people live
>> together, it is important for people to communicate with each other
>> about their situations to best understand the world from the broadest
>> possible viewpoint.
>
>Absolutely.
>
>> Public and open discussions and debates are grass-roots,
>> bottom-up development which enable people to participate in democracy
>> with enthusiasm and interest more so than the current system of secret
>> ballots allows. Of course, at some point or other, votes might be
>> taken, but only after time has been given to air an issue in the
>> commons.
>
>OK. So, how do we organize votes that give everybody a say on every aspect of
>legislation? It's when we actually get down to decisionmaking that I start to
>suspect big limitations in the Internet revolution. (But the revolution is
>young, and my imagination is not the largest.)
>
>I'll stop here for now....
>
>Mark
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #427
******************************