Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Issues for the Internet Society 132

Posted by michael from the if-only-enough-people-cared dept.
DenOfEarth writes "The Economist has published a series of articles detailing some of the issues facing our current society and the technological leaps and bounds that are leading to the future internet society. They include: Protection of Privacy, Constant internet connectivity, Copyright 's Role in the Future, Technology-based Democratic Process, Government Authority, and Social and Political Ramifications. There's a good deal of information to waste one's time with here, but some good discussion is bound to come out of it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Issues for the Internet Society More

Issues for the Internet Society

Comments Filter:

  • Environmental Issues (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:12PM (#5153747)
    How about environmental issues? I'm rethinking my future career in Computer Science since I heard that a single microchip takes 2 pounds of oil and 1 pound of toxic chemicals to create. Obviously most of that is going to the environment as waste byproducts, since chips don't weigh three pounds.

    Also what about the issue of disposal of old computer equipment. All these toxic chemicals are dangerous, and old monitors contain large amounts of lead and some radioactive components.

    We really need to deal with these environmental problems before we can continue along the path of technology in good conscience.
    • "I heard that a single microchip takes 2 pounds of oil and 1 pound of toxic chemicals to create.."

      Wouldn't microchips be more expensive if that were the case? Besides, they don't make one chip at a time, they make a plate of them.

      • Re:Environmental Issues (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Not at all. Consider that good people are about to be sent to their deaths to keep the price of fossil fuels down. There was a similar study some time back that found that, on average, each megabyte of data sent over the Internet (meaning, beyond local networks) consumes the equivalent energy to burning ten pounds of coal (note that in a majority of cases this energy really does come from burning coal). These points aren't really that interesting in themselves - the more salient point is that people are surprised.

        Consider what it takes to refine a chemical in a lab (those who've suffered through post-secondary chem can relate). The public hears that some substance has been isolated or synthesised, and it sounds very simple. In reality there are often tens or even hundreds of intermediate steps, all of which are variously inefficient, involving large investments of energy and solvents and the subsequent disposal of these as waste. These sort of studies merely point out the origin of things that people have come to take for granted, but which are unsustainable. Most people would be pretty surprised if they knew how the composition of an aluminum pop can compares to their monthly electric bill, for instance.

        Mass-production methods are taken into account, of course. No one makes one microchip, or moves one meg of data then dismantles the Internet. It's a running average.

    • Re:Environmental Issues (Score:5, Insightful)

      by knobmaker ( 523595 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:42PM (#5153900) Homepage Journal

      The environmental damage of any new technology needs to be balanced against the environmental damage of the technology it supplants.

      For example, the damage done by cars had to be balanced against the damage done by horses. In that case, the tradeoff wasn't so good, because horse manure is biodegradeable. Still, at the time cars began to replace horses, many citizens hailed the newly clean streets, and were pleased that the exhaust of cars blew away on the wind, unlike the exhaust of horses.

      In the case of chips, I think their impact has to be weighed against the savings in fuel and other resources that such technologies as just-in-time manufacturing, telecommuting (I know, hasn't happened yet) online shopping and paperless archiving (ditto). Consider that a robot with a screw gun doesn't have to drive an SUV to work, and the usual trip to work burns a lot more than a couple pounds of oil.

      Of course, there will be human costs associated with these environmental savings, namely unemployment among former screw gun operators.

      • I was going to make a similar point.

        The amount of fossil fuels that go into the electrics of my car save me MUCH more than 2 kgs worth of crude oil thats processed into gasoline. Over the lifetime of the car, those chips have a much greater overall benefit to the environment.

        Likewise a fancy new digitally controlled oil furnace, compared to my 30 year old piece of shit that breaks down right in the middle of a fucking cold spell and I freeze my ass off i mean christ sakes who heard of a fucking furnace that doesnt fucking work if its too fucking cold out?

        Ranting notwithstanding, computer technology in general has many environmental benefits.

        If not for computers we wouldnt be able to as accurately model the environmental effects of computers.

      • Robot with a screw gun (Score:5, Funny)

        by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@TOKYOemail.com minus city> on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:55PM (#5153968)
        Oh my god! Robots with screw guns know how to drive SUVs? Now where will we hide? My cabin on the mountain would be easily accessible by SUV, and they can unscrew the access bolts to the secret lab. I guess it will have to be the caves. The dampness should impede their functioning, and the SUVs won't fit. And of course, there is nowhere to plug in/recharge the screw guns. Damn! Whose idea was it to teach the screw gun using robots how to drive anyway? Is there no self-preservation instinct in you people at all?

      • Re:Environmental Issues (Score:4, Funny)

        by Ashran ( 107876 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:59PM (#5153985) Homepage
        > paperless archiving
        Actually paper use has gone up dramatically since the invention of computers.
        Printers make it possible to print out everything without a lot of troubles.

        Can't count the times I've printed something out just to read it on my way home (subway) and throw it away when done.
        I know this isnt very environment friendly - but atleast I dont own a car :)
        • There has been a post on Slashdot about this but I couldnt find it.
          Even Google wasnt my friend at first but after refining the search a few times google finally came up with this [216.239.39.100]
          Google cache only as I can't reach the site :(
        • Wow.

          My paper usage has gone through the FLOOR over the past few years...

          Nearly all my "written" communication is e-mail, I seldom travel, (mostly work at home, and communicate with clients by phone) and about the only thing my now aging inkjet is used for is invoices to be faxed.

          That's about it.

          -Ben
        • damn, I guess I'm just a bastard...I do that and I DO drive a car.

    • Re:Environmental Issues (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sweetooth ( 21075 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:45PM (#5153915) Homepage
      Let me get this straight.

      You think that by not entering the technology sector that sector will end up producing products that are less environementally unfriendly?

      If you want to see a change become an Electrical Engineer instead (or related field) and WORK on producing processes that are better.

      Using your logic you shouldn't become a doctor either because of the hazards of biomedical waste. I can't think of a profession that isn't environmentally unfriendly in some way. Daily life is environmentally unfriendly. If you think there is a problem do something proactive. Not getting a degree in CS because the tools of the trade are produced in an environment unfriedly way doesn't solve the problem or really make any differance at all.
    • How about environmental issues? I'm rethinking my future career in Computer Science since I heard that a single microchip takes 2 pounds of oil and 1 pound of toxic chemicals to create.

      I've got news for you - your "Won't somebody think of the trees" rant probably wasted way more resources just to type up, send across the line, and get posted on the server.

      I'm not saying that these issues don't need to be dealt with, but you can't get all worried about the use of resources, and at the same time waste even more of them by happily typing along on your computer 20 hours a day.

      If you are that concerned, then please feel free to unplug. I think Ted Kaczynski has a place for sale in Montana.

    • you should see yesterday's post, about how dirty it is to make DRAM chips. But look, once you condone laws to govern that, you are condoning the government to control a business aspect that isn't trust-related. I'll keep my opinions on government's business involvement to myself, but are you sure you want to shout about environmentalism when there's that other side of the coin to consider?
    • Do you realize that your American / Canadian / European / Australian / Japanese lifestyle requires the yearly burning of oil and generation of toxic waste in sums that dwarf those you just quoted. Unless your seriously thinking of a of a "career" in sustenance farming, I wouldn't sweat it too much.

    • Re:Environmental Issues (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Since you obviously care deeply about these issues, and you're also presumably interested in working with computing technology, you're probably exactly the person who should enter the field. There are more than enough people there who are too lazy or dumb to care. Maybe you can enter a stream where you look into new chip fab methods instead of programming them, for instance. Nothing ever changes until clever passionate people cause it to.
    • I'm rethinking my future career in Computer Science since I heard that a single microchip takes 2 pounds of oil and 1 pound of toxic chemicals to create.

      Then, that's why you should go into the Industry. Find out ways to fabricate chips without such things.

      It's not as if we're going to give up computers.
    • Check out the work of architecht and industrial designer William McDonough [mcdonough.com], who has great ideas and several cool projects that use cutting edge technology to rethink the entire production process. Check out his new book Cradle to Cradle, written with chemist Michael Braungart,
      "is a manifesto calling for the transformation of human industry through ecologically intelligent design. Through historical sketches on the roots of the industrial revolution; commentary on science, nature and society; descriptions of key design principles; and compelling examples of innovative products and business strategies already reshaping the marketplace, McDonough and Braungart make the case that an industrial system that 'takes, makes and wastes' can become a creator of goods and services that generate ecological, social and economic value."

      This recent slashdot post [slashdot.org] talked about his firm's ideas for a recyclable car.

      annmariabell.com [annmariabell.com]

    • If you want to make a difference in the cause of a greener economy and technology, then you need to be in the belly of the beast.

      As our technology has grown, we have become aware of the problems our technology has caused. We now include environmental impact as a part of product development. We seek to minimize the harm to the rest of the world along with minizing the cost. The system is not 100%, because there are still people in the world who DO NOT CARE about the environment as much as they care about that extra nickle a pound.

      Slowly, like generations turning, the attitudes change. Be apart of the changes in a positive manner by supporting green technologies when you can.

      Just because a lot of dangerous chemicals are involved in the manufacture of computer chips does not mean that those chemicals are dumped into the enviroment. People go to jail for things like that.

      But, then not always. The NY Times ran a series of articles on the McWane Cast Iron Pipe Empire and all of the atrocities they commit. Thousands of OSHA and EPA violations every year. They make the pipes that carry the water you drink. They make them cheaply by killing, maiming, and poluting, just like they did back in the early part of the 1900's. They're doing this in the USA not in some dingy, corrupt, third world country. (Sorry the article is in the archives and the NYT wants money for it)

      If you're going to rethink you career based upon the adverse impact of technology on the environment, you'll be very surprised at what technologies harm the environment most.
  • if they had put the articles on separate servers, instead of just in separate articles.

  • Another point of interest for the future... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:17PM (#5153777)
    How to deal with the random internet outages caused by Slashdot?

  • Anyone else see the S-curve in Internet usership? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ThePackager ( 562279 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:19PM (#5153782)
    I also have a problem with the Great Lumping Together of Internet Users. People use it for widely different purposes. And how it affects society? I think it mostly wastes a lot of our time which we could be using to better purposes. Don't get me wrong, I find a lot of information really fast on it, but did anyone ever think that having a copy of the Yellow Pages would "Change Society?"

    • Re:Anyone else see the S-curve in Internet usershi (Score:5, Insightful)

      by krazor84 ( 602198 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @06:17PM (#5154094)
      but did anyone ever think that having a copy of the Yellow Pages would "Change Society?"

      No, but the internet is quite diffrent from the Yellow Pages...
      Ok, general information aside, here is what I could do, if I wanted to, from my computer on the internet right now.
      1)Order all my groceries and have them delivered to my door (if I use the right companies).
      2)Read all the news I want to and look at all of opions from editiors, experts, slashdot users, etc. i want to. Most of it's free too.
      3)Buy all the books, CD's, antiques, DVD's, video's, comics, etc. I want and have it delivered to my door.
      4) With a microphone I can effectively call people anywhere in the world for no interntaional call charges. Or I can chat to them online in chat rooms, instant messaging and so on.
      5) I can send my reports to work/university/wherever without having to pay postage.
      How do these things change society? like this...
      1)No more need for supermarkets or checkouts, o people running them... just a few big warehouses arount the area to deal with demand.
      2)No more need for newspapers or magazines, or the newsagents who sell them.
      3)No more need for most of the high street.
      4)I pay less money to my phone operators and as I'm on a flat rate for my internet connection anyway I don't care how many people I call.
      5) No more need for offices.
      If everyone were to use the internet to it's full capability, and order everything they could exclusively through it, then society would change a lot. Our city's would have no need for malls or supermarkets, which seeing as we've used a place like that to shop for at least 2000 years, (think markets, then shops... and so on) it would be a huge change from the past.
      Obviously shopping is an extreme example, but it shows well how having the ability to view everything you need (almost) in one central place (the screen on my desk) could have a huge effect on society.
      • "4) With a microphone I can effectively call people anywhere in the world for no interntaional call charges. Or I can chat to them online in chat rooms, instant messaging and so on."
        :
        :
        "4)I pay less money to my phone operators and as I'm on a flat rate for my internet connection anyway I don't care how many people I call."

        I take your point here, but this is as nothing compared to the ability to chat directly with people from all over the world you would not otherwise have been able to communicate with.

        And when you can do that, you can find out about their lives and cultures, and find out that people are basically the same the whole world over.

        You may find that most people from certain countries you have heard a lot about are, in fact, human beings, and not an unthinking part of some "evil society" that other media sources may have been trying to portray them as.

        Alternatively, you may find the opposite is the case.

        But the point is - you can find out for yourself.

    • Re:Anyone else see the S-curve in Internet usershi (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Khomar ( 529552 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @06:26PM (#5154146) Journal

      I think it mostly wastes a lot of our time which we could be using to better purposes.

      You bring up an interesting point here that is in itself worthy of discussion. While there are certainly good uses for the Internet for gathering information, it seems most of the time spent with it is actually entertainment oriented. Furthermore, this entertainment is inherently anti-social. While multiplayer gaming networks and chat rooms abound, these relationships are often very shallow. They can never replace relationships built with direct interaction with other people. On of the most profound impacts on society is the generation of a perceived unity in the world even as it isolates the individual from strong, close relationships.

      Another impact is taking an already entertainment driven society and expanding the problem. When you look at the new developments in the Internet, nearly all of them are driven by the demand for improved entertainment. What kind of impact is this having on our society? One could argue, as in the case with computers, that the improvements made in computer hardware to support the gaming industry also enabled work to be more efficiently performed due to GUI interfaces and more powerful applications. However, as the Internet continues to build, are we really seeing major productivity boosts as a result? When I consider the time I spend reading Slashdot, I sometimes wonder if the opposite may be true. We (and I mean we) spend so much time entertaining ourselves that we lose sight of real issues and problems that need to be addressed (poverty, pollution, abuse, etc.). The Internet may actually prove to be more of a curse than a blessing when all is said and done if we simply entertain ourselves while Rome burns to the ground.

      On the other hand, one could argue that the Internet is merely a tool, and the problems mentioned above are purely a result of our society. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

      • Re: Entertaining (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DenOfEarth ( 162699 )
        Your point about people simply entertaining themselves while rome is burning around them is kind of interesting. Although, all of this entertainment does bring us together in some ways.

        As an example, I know many people who seem to be able to "hit it off" with other people quite easily due to the fact that they watch the same television shows on a regular basis. Eliminate the common entertainment experience(which, I assume, they enjoy), and they might not be able to interact in as quick a fashion. Similarly, I can assume that there are a large bunch of like-minded indivduals who I can discuss things like this with over long distances. Also, in the days before all of this internet enabled entertainment were we surrounded by people to a larger degree, or for a longer period of time? I'm not totally sure about that one.

        The second thing I'd like to bring up is the idea that everyone is too busy having fun to realize that things around them are bad. While I would guess that for a large chunk of the technologically enabled population this would be true, there are still going to be people trying to keep the flames down, not because that's what they love to do with their time, but because a stable society means a profitable society which means that these people will get paid to be the fire legion, in whatever form that may take.

        Just my two cents.

      • For further reading on the subject of our society becoming ever more entertainment-centric, I commend to you Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. He argues logically from explicitly stated assumptions (something I always appreciate) and surprised me in several instances by bringing to my attention disturbing things to which, living in the culture I do, I had been desensitized.

  • constant access (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sczimme ( 603413 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:21PM (#5153793)

    From the article:

    Maybe his father has the right idea. Dick hardly sees the old man these days because he always seems to have his video image and live-communicator access blocked. Blocking access is considered rude, even suspicious, but Dick wonders if he shouldn't do the same.

    Find - or make - time to unplug. Don't be a Dick.
    • The Party doesn't allow you to block the viewscreen. That's a double plus ungood thing. By the way, the chocolate rations have been increased to 5 units this month.
      • The Party doesn't allow you to block the viewscreen.
        Speaking of viewscreens, I noticed a certain item mentioned in recent newsreports from North Korea -- inside every residential home is an audio speaker that announces messages from the Party, 24/7.

        I mean, it's already the most nightmarish State on the planet, but the fact that they actually have a poor-state's version of the 1984 viewscreens... I find that quite frightening.

        • Links? Links please? This sounds like a total exageration or downright anti-communist propaganda. Are you sure your source wasn't the onion.com? This is something that if true I would be very interested in.
      • Yup. Orwell never quite comes true (thank lowercase-g-god) but never goes out of relevance, either.

        that being said, the Economist is STILL one of the few publications that is actually "fair and balanced" without being either a crypt-leftist affair or a vast right-wing fox-spiracy. witness:

        If content industries get their way, the critics say, content providers will gain unprecedented control over consumers. It is impossible to view or listen to digital content without making a copy of it, so even this simple activity could be subject to a payment.
        Simple, fair, balanced, accurate, and sufficiently non-technical for anyone to understand. And yet clear enough to understand how the Orlando brownshirts plan to hit you up like a two-dollar whore looking for an up-sell, only with NORAD aiming the fucking bomb between your eyebrows.
        e. In her book "Digital Copyright", Jessica Litman argues that any attempt to regulate copying should be abandoned. Instead, the law should give creators the exclusive right of commercial exploitation of their works. Most of the public, she maintains, believe that copyright laws already incorporate that distinction.
        Again, cut through all the bullshit and get to the common-sense understanding. To arrest someone for making a copy of music for their friends is even more stupid than arresting people for pre-marital sex. Sex for money: in most places illegal. Being a slut: illegal only in places no one smarter than a sea cucumber wants to live in. No one in Congress or a major media company's lobby whore orgs will support this idea openly, but it's obvious and morally fair: non-commercial sharing shouldn't be illegal, while commercial sharing should be illegal. Works for sex, and that's more complicated than music. Anyone who can't accept this is a fucking retard. "Share" privately, fine; share commerically, not fine.

        Sure, some people who really, really want free music/content will get it without paying for it, just as sex outside of marriage has continued, yet in 50,000 years has failed to destroy the institution. Big fucking deal Most of us settle for the security, pay for it, and that's enough to keep the institution going even in complete absence of rules. The rules are there only to make sure your account gets debited every time you even fucking dream of mickey mouse. May Sonny Bono rot in hell.

  • there just isn't enough porn on the 'net.... this needs to be fixed immediately.

  • My that's a long list (Score:5, Funny)

    by Amsterdam Vallon ( 639622 ) <amsterdamvallon2003@yahoo.com> on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:24PM (#5153811) Homepage
    How 'bout they just tell us what the Internet's not fucking up? ;-)

    Check out *nix.org [qhcf.net], a dynamic, informative, and fun portal for fans of BSD, Linux, OS X, & Solaris!

  • In the future, eberything is just hunky dorey. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Syncdata ( 596941 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:26PM (#5153826) Journal
    A few objections to Constant interntet connectivity.
    so she briefs herself on politics and votes on some of the half-dozen referendums held every day.
    First off, if we ever get to the point where government is producing more than a half dozen referendums every day, I'm finding another country. Enough garbage gets out with elections "only" once a year as it is.

    Also, Terrorism eliminated just because of security cameras? As though a security camera can stop someone intent on, say, blowing themselves up. I suppose, on the bright side, you would be able to identify him, after he had blown himself up.

    And traffic, a thing of the past, thanks to the hand-held portable and 3d image viewer. I don't see working from home ever happening on the scale it's been touted. It is far more efficient to have your employees at the same place at the same time, rather than off at the opera, supposedly working "on the go". But back to the article, there are plenty of people who's business it is to drive for a living. There will always be traffic in a moderately large city.
    I guess my problem with articles like this is that they make it sound like with just a few more GHZs and MBs, we'll somehow eliminate all the problems of modern society. A toast to foolhardy optimism!

  • don't you think... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Machine9 ( 627913 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:33PM (#5153864) Homepage
    ... that the internet is self-regulating in a way?

    Sure it's been going to hell in a handbasket for a while now, with the US govt and their corporate lackeys out to kill freedom of expression and all.

    But when enough people get sick of it, won't they just build something else?

    Who's up for internet 2.0?

    • Except for the politicians nasty habit of using overly broad verbage so that thier fancy new laws cover any new technology that might work in an even slightly similar manner as the current tech.

      Rather than giving up our rights and allowing bad laws to stand unchallenged we need to take a proactive approach. If we don't the time could come when it is illegal to build that something else.

      • Re:don't you think... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Machine9 ( 627913 )
        You make a good point,

        the thing that infuriates me about this, is how (for some reason) all of these decisions get to be made by the US. why the collective governments of the world aren't getting their undies into knots eludes me...
        it's probably because they're too old and foolish (and self-involved and...) to even KNOW what internet is.

        Somebody HELP, we, the users of internet ARE being OPPRESSED!

        ...not too mention that Palladium has (so far) barely been mentioned in Europe.

        Europeans, asians, save ALL the netizens, SEND THE PALLADIUM FAQ TO YOUR TELEVISION CHANNELS.

        now all I can do is:
        1)hope someone stops internet from going from 99% crap to 100% crap -and you don't get to see it all.
        or:
        2)hope someone figures out a way to make an inet 2.0 that is government free.

    • I agree wholeheartedly. It's about moving on, changing things as we need them instead of trying to pre-emptively guess a future benefit.
    • But when enough people get sick of it, won't they just build something else?

      Sorta like China's doing? The adage about the bird in the hand comes to mind.
    • Internet 2.0 will be much like the current internet, but will have no connections. It will be entirely wireless.

      The "Operation System" of Internet 2.0 will not reside on a single machine, or anywhere in particular.

      It's already common for a single software package to run on multiple machines.

      It'll take a while, but it'll happen.

  • content providers ahead on encryption barriers? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:34PM (#5153866)
    From the article:
    Conversely, what would happen if copyright were to be abolished entirely, as many cyber-libertarians advocate? Again, this might not prove as liberating as they hope, at least in the short term. Content industries would be unlikely to realise their threat to withhold their products from the digital marketplace. Instead, they might digitise everything as fast as possible, but rely more than ever on technological rather than legal protection. In any race with hackers trying to break through encryption barriers, the media companies would probably stay far enough ahead to suppress most piracy.
    I don't know what the writer was thinking. The media companies are so far behind that the major obstacle to copyright infringement is bandwidth, followed by contamination of P2P networks with bad files. As long as there is no hardware base DRM involved, the "hackers" will always catch up within days.

    • Re:content providers ahead on encryption barriers? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      From the article:
      If content industries overplay their hand, they could end up alienating and losing much of their audience

      I've been a member of the alienated/lost audience for years now. Direct outlay of money for film and audio from me is about $100.00 a year.

      That $100.00 is directly tied to how much quality films/music I find interesting enough to buy/watch at the movie theatre.
    • As long as there is no hardware base DRM involved, the "hackers" will always catch up within days.

      And that's the key phrase. What makes you think there won't be hardware based DRM in your no-copyright world? Even if you don't choose to buy a Palladium equipped PC, that doesn't mean that the entertainment industry won't release their content for Palladium-only hardware. The Slashdot crowd may shun and boycott the technology, but the general public will buy whatever they need to, in order to watch the latest movies in high-definition digital television.

    • As long as there is no hardware base DRM involved, the "hackers" will always catch up within days.

      Exactly. And much as I hate to say it, this is why such hardware is inevitable. That's not to say that there won't be a thriving underground of hardware and software hackers who will work around most every DRM techniue that comes down the line; consider Satellite TV, for a contemporary example. But by the end of the decade hardware-based DRM will be nearly universal.

      The RIAA and MPAA haven't produced enough solid evidence of economic loss to justify the enormous costs of the change to DRM hardware. But it's only a matter of time before such evidence is found -- or manufactured. And although I don't expect many people here to follow along, as more and more content is released in DRM-protected form, John Q. Public will eventually cave and acquire the necessary hardware (the cost of which will probably be subsidized by a "tax" on the exclusive content).

      -Ed

  • the answers (Score:2, Funny)

    by pahpabut ( 634183 )
    Protection of Privacy,
    Lawyers already own government, so they will let government go to war over it with its own constituents.
    Constant internet connectivity
    Jam it up the butt. Voila. Instant Cable
    Copyright 's Role in the Future
    Copyright is and will be like oil. An enough reason to start wars.
    Technology-based Democratic Process
    The tried-and-tested Military Technology Democrazy I guess.
    Government Authority
    Government of certain 'lawridden' nations of federal states will kill, plunder and hinder peoples of other nations. Authorically enough.
    and Social and Political Ramifications.
    A certain nation of federastic states will try to start the fourth reich. So everyone else will have to stop them. Everything goes to Detroit.

  • Soliloquy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EEgopher ( 527984 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:43PM (#5153907) Homepage
    We cannot hope, in our endeavors with such legal decisions, which are in themselves very similar to unsolvable philosophical problems, that we would ever achieve an answer that really pleased or was even intrinsically correct (morally and/or practically) to everyone. What matters more is this: knowing how to change things afterward.
    Look at prohibition. It didn't work in this country. Granted, it took crime, death, and scandal to prove, but prove it did, and here we are. This may seem like a gloomy way to perceive the future, but to try perceiving the future is quite futile past a certain expunging of efforts, anyhow.
    With tricky issues, the ugly-halves cannot be permanently concealed; somebody will get burned, no matter what the final vote decrees. What is so much more important (and infinately more effective) is that we pay attention to the situation that is Right Now, and deal with it, affecting change (which is highly necessary and extremely possible) as soon as need be.
    To worry about not-yet-defined internet rights, taxes, government policies is an overrated endeavor. Why? Because it keeps us focused on the future, which is full of unreal imagery.
    You counter with this: "let's make the right decisions now, because to affect change in the government takes so much time, lobbyist dollars, and a scattering of bi-annual elections". This is where my decree fits in precicely: we CAN'T make the right decisions now; we don't know what the right decision will be.
    Let's use our vote for the purpose for which it was invented: to cast our selection of what we individually want. Do that first, don't vote for a group or with a group. Vote for what you want, and it will all be sorted out afterwards; just like Prohibition, just like 55 m.p.h. speed limits, just like government's involvement with business, just like segregation, just like woman's suffrage, just like anything that has mattered so far in our history. None of those issues were ever decided "correctly" when they were first made law. It took dilligent change (albeit human suffering, which is unavoidable) after the fact.
    • First I'd like to thank you for your well-thought out and insightful post. Unfortunately, I'm actually about to scale up the pessimism of your post to dangerously-depressing levels.
      Look at prohibition. It didn't work in this country. Granted, it took crime, death, and scandal to prove, but prove it did, and here we are.
      Yes, the failure of Prohibition was proved, and where are we? In almost the exact same situation, as we have been now for more than a half-century.

      I'm referring, of course, to the web of draconian and unconstitutional laws that criminalize the use of drugs by consenting adults in this country. (Ordinarily, I also incorporate gambling, prostitution, etc., in these posts, but I'll remain focused on drugs.)

      Congress was finally forced to repeal the XVIIIth Amendment 14 years after it took effect, but they were forced into it by the upheaval of American society in the intervening years -- no one's thoughts on the matter had changed. It was simply that those in power were unable to force Prohibition down the throats of the general populace. Today, even with the example of Prohibition staring us in the face, the same fascist elements in the government continue to blindly fight to keep the intolerable status quo on drugs. They decry the problems of crime they associate with drugs, that are in truth caused only by the illegality of drugs.

      But even with exploding prison populations, and the increasing numbers of medical marijuana laws being passed by local jurisdictions, the anti-drug establishment in this country will stop at no lengths to keep themselves in power -- even to the point of arresting citizens using marijuana legally in accordance with the laws passed in their locality. Instead of communicating with the jurisdictions responsible for the laws, which groups like the Drug Enforcement Administration claim are superseded by federal law, these jack-booted thugs attack individuals, continuing their practice of tactics of fear and intimidation to perpetuate their unwinnable "War on Drugs".

      So we can see that, as you say, "it will all be sorted out afterwards" -- afterwards, time and time again, on issues that change infinitesimably from cycle to cycle. Nothing is ever solved.

  • Welcome to Slashdot.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Em Emalb ( 452530 ) <ememalb@nOsPAm.gmail.com> on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:48PM (#5153933) Homepage Journal
    "There's a good deal of information to waste one's time with here, but some good discussion is bound to come out of it."

    Hi, you must be new here. Welcome to /.
    • Thanks. I'll try and contribute as best I can...although my prediction of good discussion for this topic doesn't really seem to have happened to the degree that it has happened on some other stories, but what the hay...it's my first posted story...

  • Didn't Sony already develop the x-ray camera? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by martone66 ( 643104 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @05:51PM (#5153948) Journal
    From the privacy article:

    Engineers are now developing cameras that employ low-level radiation to "see" through clothing, walls or cars.

    Wasn't there a Sony camcorder out a couple of years ago which could see through clothing in night vision mode with a special filter?

  • IP6 (Score:2)

    by bfree ( 113420 )
    From the first link:
    implanted into everything from humans to milk cartons, recording and transmitting real-time medical data or serving as a form of inventory control. Sensors of every kind, including video cameras, should also become much smaller and cheaper. Forrester Research, a technology consultancy, predicts that 14 billion such devices will be connected to the internet by 2010.
    Guess that means we'll have to have IP6 by 2010! That's to go with our 12GHz processors, Debian 5.0 and Linux 4.0!

  • Voter apathy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by benjiboo ( 640195 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @06:18PM (#5154096)
    A subject im interested in:

    Eventually, people would vote directly from the comfort of their own homes. The political apathy which has spread through western countries in recent decades would be reversed.

    Why is it assumed that making it possible to vote online etc, is a cure for voter apathy? Sure, for a while we might see increased turnout by people who are considering venturing out to cast their vote, and the easy option swings it, BUT the reasons for voter apathy still exist & it will continue to increase, whilst people feel so disjoined by it all....

    One of democracy's greatest virtues is its flexibility, but the changes about to be wrought by new communication technologies will stretch the adaptive abilities of western democracies to their limit.

    But will it? How do these advances change the process of democracy? Will it make our governemnts more acountable, as suggested in the article? Though we like to complain in the west about corruption & spin, I like to think that the media do a good job of holding our politicians to account. Will it renew our ailing interest in politics? Maybe not - the nature of the web is that you have to go looking in the first place.

    Interesting articles though...

    • Why is it assumed that making it possible to vote online etc, is a cure for voter apathy?

      Good point. I have several intelligent friends who refuse to vote. I cannot say that I understand them, and I certainly don't agree with them, but I am quite certain that being able to vote by internet will not change their minds. They are adamant about not voting.

      One of these friends has a bumper sticker that says: If god had intended us to vote, he would've given us candidates.

    • Re:Voter apathy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Telex4 ( 265980 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @06:34PM (#5154189) Homepage
      It won't at all. You're quite right. Access and laziness simply cannot be the reasons for low voter turnout, otherwise every country in the world would have the problem to the same degree as the USA. The problem is collossal, but one element of it can be drawn out with interesting comparisons to the Internet:

      In the early days of the US, civil participation was an important aspect of political life, and everybody was meant to be actively following and participating in political life. The same occurs o nthe 'Net now, which promotes participation by several mechanisms, mostly social but also some technological The very idea of getting onto the 'Net and not getting involved in some project or discussion is absurd (and I'm talking about the 'Net, not AOL or some similarly media-blinkered version too many people use).

      Politics in the US, and increasingly in European countries (i.e. the "old" democracies) involves less and less participation. Politicians actively *discourage* it - whenever citizens try to participate, they're damned. Participation is anethma to politics today. We exercise no real power over our governments because we only get the opportunity of one legitimate vote every two/four/five years (unless your government doesn't like you, like ethnic minorities in Florida). We exercise no real power over how they carry out their duties, nor over thier agenda, nor over how the agenda and results are published and perceived.

      In a system where citizens have no power, and no part to play, it's no wonder they don't vote.

      • Re:Voter apathy (Score:4, Interesting)

        by veddermatic ( 143964 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @08:01PM (#5154608) Homepage
        I agree and disagree, yes, people don't vote because they don't care, *but* at the same time, if you are "just throwing your vote away" on a third pary, there is little incentive to make the effort to going to your polling place.

        I feel that internet voting would increase greatly 3rd party voting. Would that affect *overall* turnout, probably some, but if it can get a thrid party matching fund votes, it would be a GREAT force in American politics.

        Instant runoff would have a similar, or greater affect, and the both together might actually make people think thier vote matters and we'd see bigger turnouts.

        Then again, I can be really stupid at times =)

  • Just like all the other advances... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by I am the blob ( 239590 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @06:45PM (#5154258) Homepage
    From the article:


    The vast increases in productivity over the past decade mean that Jane has a lot of free time.


    Yeah. As opposed to using the vast increases in productivity to allow our corporate masters to extract more productivity from us in the same (or more) amount of time.

    Just like all the other technological advances have.

    --blob
  • Issues for the Internet Society [economist.com] is an editorial bit associated with this survey, which also deals with the battle over copyright extension and also with piracy. Practical upshot. Unlimited file swapping bad. Copyright limitations (on copyright holders, not consumers, ie copyright expires after 14 years, renewable once) good.
  • Do they mean the Internet Society [isoc.org] or the Internet society in general?
  • Over the www there is an unpresedented wealth of knowledge that can be used to educate the next generation far more eficiently than our current methods (or it can be used to augment the current methods of course) But a new way of searching through this ocean of data will be required. I have come to believe that the www as it is has a serious problem of scaling that will (or has already) present itself in the near future. The google is of course a very usefull tool that has grown so much because of the need people have to search fast and reliably throughout the net. But it is not panacea. There are limitations in what it can do and of course it is centralized (whatever advantage or disadvantage this means).Perhaps a new breed of overlay-network that would use a semantic approach to indexing and searching instead of the crude substring match methods we use today, would do the jobs. Now how about that? an e-mule client that uses ontology to clasify its contents! Yes! so the RIAA could not fill it up with random garbage as they intend to do.

  • Freedom of the Printing Press (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Phoenix666 ( 184391 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @07:41PM (#5154510)
    In a large sense, government to date has been about information control. They've able to control the information that the public receives. It was somewhat diluted by the revolutionary right to the freedom of the press. But even that was limited because it meant that "freedom of the press" was granted to everyone who owned a printing press, and no one else.

    Now you have the rise of a medium that grants equal rights to anyone who can formulate a written argument. Thus the recent journalistic navel-gazing over the effect of bloggers and their role in the unmasking of Trent Lott.

    Well, I see that as a good thing. Most of those who enjoy the "freedom of the press" have that right because they work for for-profit corporations. Which means that in reality their freedom of the press is limited by the need for profit. Therefore the right to "freedom of the press" has never been truly free until now.

    The Internet has de-legitimized the claim of the traditional press to authoritative speech. That scares media outlets and governments to death, because they know that the time when they could control the public message is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

    This is exactly why the Framers of the Constitution placed so much emphasis on the freedom of thought and expression. Without it, you have a citizenry that is enslaved because they are not allowed to think as free beings. After all, how can you act as a free citizen if you cannot think as a free citizen?

    Therefore, if we as citizens can resist government/corporative efforts to limit our natural rights, we will see true freedom in our lifetimes. Free thought is ours by birth. Free culture is ours by birth. So resist the drive by government and corporations to enslave your thoughts and culture under the guise of "property." Teach the corporations and governments of the world that if the choice comes down to freedom of thought or them, they go.
  • Where are the decent jobs that pay enough to live on?
  • whatever the future holds...I'm sure Al Gore invented it

  • The ironic thing is... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bcwengerter ( 416056 ) on Friday January 24, 2003 @09:36PM (#5154955) Homepage
    ...before I even started reading the article entitled, "No hiding place", Economist.com set five cookies and insight.com tried to set one. Then I read the first three sentences of the article:
    THE next time you are on the internet, try an experiment. Change the default setting for "cookies" in your web browser from "accept" to "prompt", or "warn", or whatever equivalent is offered, then browse the web for a few minutes. You will soon be bombarded with messages telling you that almost every website you visit is trying to plant cookies--small text files that collect information about your browsing habits--on your computer.
    Coincidence? I wonder.
  • Economist magazine seems to be wondering too much into political issues rather than deal more with economics itself. They should change their name if they continue this trend.

    Taking up the possible decline of first-world tech jobs as they go the way of factory labor (overseas) would be a more suitable topic for an "economics" magazine IMO. Sure, everything affects economics, but they should deal more with things that directly and clearly affect jobs and money. Internet voting is a topic that is way out there.
  • What I see around me is that people think that their social environment gets bigger and bigger because they know people from all over the world, but in fact they just stick to people of their kind. By now it's easier to log on to the internet and have a chat with someone far away who's just like you, then to go to your neigbour and complain about issues that are more important in daily life.

    More and more people can't stand each other while living in the same street or town, and that's a bad thing. If you have an opinion about something like politics, you'll always find people on the internet who think just like you. And that's far easier than to complain about it with people in your town.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.

Close