Return-Path: <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6TFvuf26282; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <v03007805b789dfe21242@[192.168.1.13]> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: David Reinking <dreinkin@coe.uga.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:1949] Re: Opening questions for David X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: O Content-Length: 2690 Lines: 56 Steve and others, I share your concern about privacy and manipulation, but almost every powerful technology is a two-edged sword (e.g., nuclear power) that has potential for great harm or good. In relation to the internet, though, I take some comfort in Winston Churchill's comment that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. The essential democratic nature of the internet is one of our biggest protection against abuse I think. It creates a balance of power that contains the seeds of retribution for those who attempt to abuse its power. In the case of privacy, if you can find out something about me, I can find out something about you (individually or corporately) on line, including that you're not respecting my privacy. This may not be the highest motivation for civility, but it may be effective. A good example of the possibilities for guerilla warfare on the web is r(registered trademark symbol)-mark, which has created pseudo web sites for George Bush (during the campaign), Shell Oil, and MacDonalds. (Sorry, don't have it book marked on this computer and couldn't find it quickly. I'll try to post the url later.) The open-endedness of digital technologies also is important I think. There are often technological solutions to instantiating our values (or undermining them, and there's the rub). For example, last year I read about an approach to posting information on the internet where it guarantees that the source of the posting cannot be found and equally consequential that the text cannot be changed (in Scientific American, but I don't have the reference handy). I don't understand the technical details but it has something to do with storing the information on multiple servers that make it virtually impossible to trace or change the information. In the short term, if not ultimately, the issues you raise are cultural and political. However, as has been shown repeatedly, it is difficult to impose political and cultural values on internet communication that has no borders. So, short of rejecting technology altogether as you suggest is one reaction, it may be every man, woman, and child for themselves in choosing the extent to which they value their privacy and how they go about protecting the degree to which they value it. I would really be interested in hearing how others feel about this. Thanks for bringing it up. David ********************* David Reinking Professor and Department Head Editor: Journal of Literacy Research University of Georgia Department of Reading Education 309 Aderhold Hall Athens, GA 30602 Voice:706-542-4623 FAX: 706-542-3817 *********************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:31:21 EST