Pre-Ramble
The body politic of the Internet is as unpredictably perverse as Marv Albert after a fifth of Scotch. Er... that doesn't sound right. What we really
mean to say is that in a random poll previous to the 1996 Election, Netizens
selected the Libertarian candidate as their President, and Ralph Nader came
in second. We feel that The Revolution offers up a political choice that
combines the best of the Libertarians and St. Ralph, with a dash of centrist
policy techno-wonk Newt Gore. We have therefor arrogantly presumed the
mantel of Political Party of the Internet.
Unlike the technolibertarians, we feel that a wee bit of Government
intervention can be groovy!... but only if WE are the Government. Unlike
the Neo-Luddites, we're rather fond of the microchips that FEMA secretly
planted up our butts. Unlike the Technorealists, we're not as boring as an
Amish rock festival.
Aside from having a sense of humor, these are our Internet/High Tech Policy
Points.
- No Censorship
The Revolution opposes all censorship, but we're particularly strident about
our opposition to censorship on the Net. The Net makes public "speech" and
"publishing" as spontaneous as using the telephone. To apply standards of
other media, or even publishing, to this technology is like legislating and
policing neighborhood gossip.
Obviously, some things fall under necessarily existing laws. You
can't solicit for murder at the neighborhood bar or on the net. And you
can't show pornography to children on the street. On the other hand, if the
children sneak off into the bushes after nipping some of your porn, most
sane people won't hold you responsible.
We believe in protecting kids. The question is, how? By keeping
them in a playpen until they have to hit the streets? Or by preparing them,
arming them with skills to cope with an adult world?
We suggest full disclosure. Freedom of information for kids. New
media is ubiquitous. And it's ephemeral, like the air--integrating into the
social sphere as a seamless environment where we spend a goodly portion of
our lives. We are ultimately faced with the choice of censoring all our
media till it's safe for children, or teaching our children to cope with the
media. We're not suggesting forcing horrible and perverse materials on
kids, but we do suggest that we let the kids access all the information
they're going to need for surviving in a crazy world, one in which all of
the stuff of the human psyche, both brilliant and grotesque, is on full
display. Protecting children from content might actually be viewed as a
DISservice--the opposite of education.
- Universal Access
The net is the site of our global conversation and a potential
site for participatory democracy. Those without access are disenfranchised.
Therefore we suggest a 3 year program for universal access, accomplished by
the free distribution of inexpensive, Internet-ready boxes, as well as a
continued and redoubled effort to get net access into all Libraries,
Schools, and many other public areas across America.
- Privacy
We are for full free access to encryption technology, and will encourage its
use as something that will help resolve problems of identity theft and other
online rip-offs. We support all social and technological solutions that
acknowledge the individuals ownership of his or her own information. A
great example of this is the Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P): The
goal of P3P is to enable Web sites to express their privacy practices and
enable users to exercise preferences over those practices. P3P products will
allow users to be informed of site practices (in both machine and human
readable formats), to delegate decisions to their computer when appropriate, and allow users to tailor their relationship to specific sites. (from the P3P FAQ at
http://www.w3.org/P3P/P3FAQ.htm).
We would make the collection and sale of individual private data for
commercial purposes without permission completely illegal. We would
enforce this vigorously.
- Copyright
Digital and other technologies have made it difficult to enforce copyright
protection for media and software creations. The entertainment industry,
which largely controls the Democratic Party, has responded by redoubling its
effort to create ever more draconian copyright restrictions. You now can't
legally walk into a copy shop and Xerox a chapter out of a book. Recent
attempts to pass legislation that would have made it technically illegal to
download materials off the Web and print them without explicit permission
did not succeed. However, excessive copyright, trademark, and libel
restrictions already feed an army of hungry lawyers and restrict freedom of
speech (in the broad sense that includes all media) and research.
The Revolution supports the continued existence of copyright. Creators
should have the right to own and benefit from the products of their minds.
It is also economically necessary, under current conditions, that they
continue to do so. We believe, however, that copyright protection must be
rewritten to be more flexible in light of current realities. The concept of
fair use must be supported and expanded in an increasingly mediated
environment.
- Consumer Advocacy
The federal government should set up a special consumer affairs division
aimed solely at the computer/net industry. The atrocious behavior of this
industry towards consumers must be stopped. Because computers and computer
networks are a new frontier for commerce, vendors and service providers have
managed to get away with selling faulty product, oversubscribing networks
till they no longer serve the consumer's needs, engaging in standards wars
that are disruptive to service and stability, etc. If
government agencies are good for anything, it's for ensuring that consumers
aren't victims of malevolent business practices.
Relatedly, we believe the federal government should punish Microsoft
severely enough so that it hurts for its sleazy monopolistic practices.
But separating Explorer from Windows just doesn't make any damn sense.
Packing them together really IS the natural thing to do.
