RE: rights in cyberspace <warning: long commentary>

[Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>]

tmp:

The point of the nation's bill of rights was to deal with the fear that 
the federal governing body would not understand sufficiently the 
principles in the Constitution, if these were not more precisely 
spelled out.  The philosophically capable founders & writers of the 
Constitution & nation were able to think in terms of wide principles, 
but this was not expected so much from those who would follow after 
them.  The intent of trying to codify guarantees was to try to present 
to their more limited successors the definite, specific crucial 
elements of the freedom to action which otherwise would be ignored.  
They were aimed at the government, because it was being created and 
because it was new & different, and because the people at that time 
were very familiar with what it meant to be insignificantly considered 
by a ruling class.  They were trying to uphold their dignity as 
individuals whose manifested existence they thought should not be 
overlooked or easily mistreated by those to whom so much power had been 
entrusted.

They were looking to a government to both be a tool for upholding and 
preventing the destruction of the values which they all were aiming 
for.  They were looking to the government because that is all that they 
had at the time to think about, in terms of a means to achieve their 
goals.  But that was a long time ago, and since then everyone has 
learned much about what is possible to the individual, as well as what 
is possible to a 'free' government and to a collective body of any 
group of people.   Many concepts have been clarified, developed, 
refined.   Some people have developed other ideas of how to live which 
do not require the use of an elected class to guard things which they 
(the elected) do not themselves actually value or know how to defend.  
We have many more tools now by which to exist more independently than 
ever, and some of us are prepared to use the opportunity to advance in 
that direction.

You might have noticed that the 'cypherpunk ideology' has much to do 
with tools.  I can't speak for the others on this list, especially 
those who set it up, but this is what I think:  'Tis a better thing to 
use a tool than to use another person.  It permits of a different kind 
of association; it opens pu the possibility of conceiving another 
person more in terms of friendship and similar interests, compared to 
what exists in a community where people will gather for comfort against 
fear, or primarily for the utilitarian benefits the group can provide.  
There develops a change of proportion in what the 'community' 
represents to those who consort with each other.

Considering how successful the bill of rights has been so far at 
creating a more perfect government, it is difficult to accept that 
another set of commandments would accomplish anymore than they ever 
have.   Success does not depend solely upon what has been stated, but 
upon what has been understood; nay, further, upon the ability to 
understand the statement; and better yet, upon the ability to act in 
regard of it.  To have to wait for recognition or for permission is too 
dependent upon the mercy of another.  It is better to move forward into 
efficacy than to wait for the generosity of strangers, especially when 
it is for your own benefit.

Where was the access to the internet before there were private 
companies?  Where was the internet before it was constructed?  What if 
no one had conceived of the idea at this time yet?  We would all be 
effectively censored from cyberspace simply from the absence of a place 
to go!   How does the existence of a government and a codified 
community relate to the existence of an electronic means to commune?  I 
wouldn't expect that a bunch of, say, poets, just milling around, would 
result spontaneously in a network made up of wires and cables and 
hardware and software and . . . . things that make up what comprises 
the net, just from having the freedom to speak and assemble.  Yet once 
each of these things had been created, and once the idea to use them in 
this speciallized way had occurred to some bright person, it is 
expected by many that they suddenly should have the right to use that 
system, as though they owned these strangers who happened to have a 
practical idea, and had therefore the right to use the results of their 
creativity.

Codified behavior is useful to people when they are not prepared to 
make their own decisions about what they will do or in what manner they 
will carry out those actions to success.   It is not useful to those 
who are venturing out into new territories or who wish to be creative 
and self-composed.  It is not agreeable to those who wish to act from 
their own authority and take up the responsibility for their actions, 
because coding does not require thought, it only requires obedience; it 
doesn't require understanding, it only requires following, 
accomplishable simply by imitation; it doesn't require conscious & 
studied agreement, it only requires complicity.   Codified behavior 
assures minimum expectations, but it does necessarily allow for 
enlarged perspective or insight.  I personally would not want to fall 
into the category of those who need codified behavior in order to meet 
a minimum standard of normal social interaction.  I would not wish to 
be a part of such a 'community', as I would be operating in a realm far 
beyond their expectations and ability to deal with.

Individuals who go out into the sunless world of cyberspace should 
realize that it is an abstract atmosphere, where often little more than 
heat (vs light) is to be expected.  How much can you care about digital 
data, how seriously can you consider it, how much will you allow it to 
affect you or push you out of shape?  It could be more the money, the 
expense vs the reward, which could be anything to really worry about.  
Lions and Tigers and Bears!  Oh, My!  You could do a little 
cost/benefit analysis of your involvements on the net and calculate 
that you might be more free by staying off than by staying involved or 
hanging on.

But if you *are* so interested in the subject of codified rights, you 
should enter into a conversation with Dorothy Denning, as she also 
pursues the same vision of rights and laws as yourself.  She would 
probably not only agree with you, but perhaps offer additional ideas as well.

Blanc