Posted by rdom on February 24, 1998 at 10:55:09:
The Usenet Blockade
The Usenet Death Penalty (UDP) is a misnomer because it is not a form of
virtual capital punishment--at least not in the short-term. It is more akin
to a blockade or a seige. A Usenet Blockade may be an effective means of
coercing the Netcom leadership to better address the antisocial activities
originating from the base camp of spammers located within its borders.
Primarily an economic attack, blockades have been used throughout history to
help meatspace governments align their priorities with their neighbors.
Since Usenet consists of several sovereignties, it can be useful to apply
much of what we know about international relations, that is, the theories
relating to national actors interacting in an ungoverned space. As an
ungoverned space, Usenet is learning how to self-govern by way of coalitions
which is the primary way actors move out of the state of nature into
relative civilization.
Competing Illiberalisms
There is no doubt that spam is a major annoyance for the Usenet world, and
for some there is a real economic cost. As a result, users have turned to
their leaders for solutions. These solutions range from personal defense
systems (filtering software), to isolationism (closed systems), to blockades
(the Usenet death penality). Unfortunately, all three categories of
solutions pose serious challenges to the concept of free speech and the free
movement of information--arguably an ideology foundational to Usenet. The
challenge is to determine which solution is less illiberal and to determine
who ought to make this determination.
Analysis of the Competition: Defense systems may be end-user based,
ISP-based, or network-based.
End-User based
1. In the event of bombing (Usenet "spamming" in this example), end-users
may purchase among the many competing brands of poor, mediocre, and barely
satisfactory personal filtering systems on the open market. A functioning,
Reaganesque "Star Wars Defense" system has not yet appeared in the
state-of-the-art efforts--not only do the defense systems screen out
incoming missiles, they often screen out rain, sunlight, and other useful
things causing the otherwise vivacious virtual environment to wilt, dry up,
and become dull.
2. Frustratingly, they also fail in their primary mission and let a lot of
missiles through with varying degrees of casualties reputedly ranging from
exposing children to naked adults and exposing adults to naked children.
This is something that software may never be able to dress/address.
3. There is a lot of political controversy over these inadequacies. Leaders
of various end-user communities have met with representatives of the
moral-military-industrial complex in an attempt to either make better
personal defense systems or eliminate their use altogether. As Bruce
Sterling in Austin observed at last week's Conference on Computers, Freedom
and Privacy, the resolution seemingly lies beyond the grasp of even the
White House Office of Science and Technology which finds it simpler to
tackle the problems posed by theoretical physics and space exploration.
Needless to say, the resolution is out there--way, way, out there--creating
a vacuum of indecision and an opportunity for ad hocractic power.
ISP-based
4. Some ISPs in the past have attempted to close their borders and restrict
the flow of traffic in and out. This has also been frowned upon by many of
the same leaders of end-user communities. Fundamentally, isolationism is an
ostrich approach to making "foreign policy" among CISPs. The Usenet world
continues to spin and the people with their heads in holes just end up
missing out on lots of interesting events.
5. As a result, lots of disgruntled netizens flee from closed systems to
freer systems. Geo-economics has forced many "virtual countries" to loosen
up their border controls. Naturally, this makes them susceptible to bombing
attacks.
Network-based
6. Virtual countries which are loathe to close their borders because that
policy is inherently illiberal are forced to choose between establishing
network-level blockades or placing the burden of defense on the end-users by
way of personal filtering systems--most of which have also been considered
illiberal.
7. Blockading, fundamentally an ad hoc economic attack, has been identified
as a means of coercing a virtual country into policing the activities within
its borders so that its national digital output (NDO) falls within the
bounds of systemically acceptable end-user behavior. The Leviathan rears
its ugly head.
Who decides?
Should Usenet "global" policy be set by individuals, their virtual
communities, isolated ISPs, coalitions of ISPs (CISP), or national
governments? The logic of collective action in Usenet is governed by a set
of social laws which are elusive but as reliable as many physical laws when
properly understood. As a board member of Electronic Frontiers-Texas
(formerly EFF-Austin), I have been participating in the drafting our
position statement on the Usenet Death Penalty and Netcom. My understanding
of the social laws of ungoverned interaction is that any policy
recommendation to the coalition of ISPs requires as strong an element of
coercion if it is going to get their attention. Otherwise, the ad hoc UDP
CISP will continue to pursue its interest and what it perceives is the
interest of its constituents. The coalition wielding the most coercive
power has the most influence over the ungoverned decisionmaking process.
Who decides?
Should Usenet "global" policy be set by individuals, their virtual
communities, isolated ISPs, coalitions of ISPs (CISP), or national
governments? The logic of collective action in Usenet is governed by a set
of social laws which are elusive but as reliable as many physical laws when
properly understood. As a board member of Electronic Frontiers-Texas
(formerly EFF-Austin), I have been participating in the drafting our
position statement on the Usenet Death Penalty and Netcom. My understanding
of the social laws of ungoverned interaction is that any policy
recommendation to the coalition of ISPs requires as strong an element of
coercion if it is going to get their attention. Otherwise, the ad hoc UDP
CISP will continue to pursue its interest and what it perceives is the
interest of its constituents. The coalition wielding the most coercive
power has the most influence over the ungoverned decisionmaking process.
1. The weakest statement:
"We the people of I like and support this statement, but my understanding of the social 2. One might write a statement as follows: "We the people of I like this statement better because it uses the logic of the blockade 3. Or one could write a statement like this: "We the people of This is the strongest statement because it shows conviction. While most of user@netcom.com, formerly user@MAIN.Org This third statement accompanied by such a list, when presented to the CISP --Richard MacKinnon (http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~spartan), author of
Usenet Death Penalty" on Netcom because it infringes on the liberties of
Netcom's end-users--liberties and rights which we hold dear and inalienable.
What happens to Netcom today could happen to us tomorrow."
physics is that it is anemic and although it may get some media play, it
will have little actual influence on the play of events. It's an example of
critique without action.
Usenet Death Penalty" on Netcom because it infringes on the liberties of the
Netcom end-users--liberties and rights which we hold dear and inalienable.
What happens to Netcom today could happen to us tomorrow." Therefore, we
are calling for a general strike against all ISPs which intend to
participate in this egregious and illiberal curtailment of free speech. On
February XX, we are encouraging everyone to close their accounts on these
systems and move to ISPs who refuse to participate in the UDP."
(economic coercion) against the CISP and it carries the satisfaction of
praxis--theory plus action.
Usenet Death Penalty" on Netcom because it infringes on the liberties of the
Netcom end-users--liberties and rights which we hold dear and inalienable.
What happens to Netcom today could happen to us tomorrow." Therefore, we
are calling for a general strike against all ISPs which intend to
participate in this egregious and illiberal curtailment of free speech. On
February XX, we are encouraging everyone to close their accounts on these
systems and move to Netcom in an act of solidarity."
us have privately condemned Netcom for permitting the spamming, this
statement underlies our belief that the classification of what is spam and
what it isn't is a dangerous and suspect activity. Further, it shows that
we are willing to give up our own access to Usenet in the fight to guarantee
access to everyone. A long roll-call of voluntary conversions would get the
attention and action need to have an effect. In other words, the statement
should be accompanied with a list that looks something like this:
user@netcom.com, formerly user@unforgettable.com
user@netcom.com, formerly user@mail.utexas.edu
user@netcom.com, formerly user@actlab.utexas.edu
...and thousands of others formerly from everywhere.anywhere
will carry the political and moral weight necessary to work with the laws of
social physics, not against them.
"Searching for the Leviathan in Usenet" and "Punishing the Persona:
Correctional Strategies for the Virtual Offender."