-Caveat Lector-

 From: Gary Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999
 Subj: L.A. Times column, 7/5/99

 Monday, July 5, 1999
 DIGITAL NATION

 Troubling Implications of Internet's Ubiquity

 By Gary Chapman
 Copyright 1999, The Los Angeles Times

 Early last month, institutions around the world were crippled
 for several days by a new computer virus called the
 ExploreZip Trojan horse.  A Trojan horse, in computer jargon,
 is a nasty software program that hides inside a file a user
 is likely to want to see or open.

 The ExploreZip virus -- more accurately, a computer "worm,"
 which spreads more automatically than a virus -- affected
 machines running Microsoft's Windows operating system and
 Windows application software.  Computers throughout the world
 were shut down, including some at Microsoft and other large
 corporations as well as the Pentagon.

 The ExploreZip worm was a more debilitating version of the
 Melissa virus that struck Windows machines earlier this year.
 Because of the apparent vulnerability of Windows-based
 machines, some computer experts have started to use the
 metaphor of a "monoculture" to describe our current computing
 predicament.

 The word "monoculture" comes from ecology and biology,
 another example of the merging of biological terms with
 computer jargon, like "virus" and "worm."  In ecology,
 monoculture refers to the dominance or exclusive prevalence
 of a single species or genetic type in an ecological system
 -- a state typically regarded as pathological and dangerous.
 Agricultural monocultures, for example, are highly
 susceptible to blight, soil depletion, disease and other
 disasters.

 In computing, the recent use of the term has referred to the
 widespread dominance of Microsoft products.  But we may want
 to extend the metaphor further and contemplate whether we're
 developing a universal digital monoculture, one with a
 troubling potential for negative side effects.  Think of it
 as the perils of digital convergence.

 By now, nearly everyone assumes that almost everything we do
 will be absorbed into the digital "infosphere" -- as in IBM's
 advertising phrase "Connecting everything to everything."
 It's only a matter of time before television, radio, music,
 games, commerce and politics are assimilated into the
 Internet.

 This phenomenon is growing every day.  We're about to step
 into the so-called "post-PC" era, when networked computing
 will permeate our homes and everyday objects such as
 refrigerators, telephones, cars and stereos.  This model is
 known as "ubiquitous" or "pervasive" computing, when the
 Internet will be present in everything and everywhere.

 But few people stop to think of the vulnerabilities this
 might entail.

 Recently there's been a controversy on the Internet over a
 new product called Third Voice (http://www.thirdvoice.com),
 from a company of the same name based in Redwood City, Calif.
 Third Voice is a free browser plug-in (currently it only
 works with Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0) that
 allows users to create and see notes or messages attached to
 Web pages by other, independent users.

 The messages attached to pages are listed in a small menu bar
 on the left of the browser screen.  When the list is clicked,
 the messages pop up over the Web page like digital Post-It
 notes.  Third Voice advertises its product as a way for users
 to have their own say about Web content.  Others have called
 it, pejoratively, "Web graffiti."

 The controversy was generated by Web masters and Web
 designers who don't like having their pages "defaced" by this
 product -- it puts the appearance of their pages beyond their
 control, and, some of them argue, it may be a copyright
 violation.

 The interesting thing about Third Voice, however, is how it
 works.  The content of the Web page it modifies is not
 altered on the originating server.  The messages are simply
 stored on Third Voice's own computers and merged with the Web
 page when a Third Voice user requests the page.  The messages
 then become a kind of "overlay" on the original content,
 which is otherwise unaltered and available for viewing by
 other users in its original form.

 It will be interesting to see if this product provokes
 litigation and if so, how that unfolds.  But the real impact
 of Third Voice, along with the recent viruses we've seen,
 is their demonstration of the malleability of digital data,
 especially given their common format on the Internet.

 As we embed the Internet into everything we do and use,
 it's as if we're building a global nervous system that can
 be tweaked or twitched in infinite, unexpected and perhaps
 unpleasant ways by anyone clever enough and using the right
 tools.

 One could use the examples of Third Voice, viruses and the
 hundreds of automated network "agents," or "bots" -- software
 programs that roam the Internet and perform tasks specified
 by their users -- to speculate on mind-boggling scenarios for
 the future.

 Financial data, for example, could be manipulated in truly
 scary ways that might not be detectable before serious damage
 is done.  Digital products might alter the appearance of
 videos or images or the content of sound recordings.
 Companies could use digital copyright management schemes that
 would allow automated network searches for and prosecution of
 people holding unauthorized material.  "Smart" electrical
 power grids could be tempting targets for hackers and virus
 programmers.

 There was a case involving a pair of Armenian activists who
 programmed a bot to replace the word "Turkey" with the word
 "genocide" in all Usenet newsgroup postings (unwittingly
 producing some odd online recipes for genocide).  When two
 Arizona attorneys introduced the first case of commercial
 spam by broadcasting e-mail that advertised their firm, one
 programmer threatened to retaliate by whipping up a "kill
 bot" that would seek out and delete any future e-mail from
 the firm.

 In other words, a digital monoculture makes us vulnerable
 to all sorts of manipulations that have not been possible
 before.  The more ubiquitous this monoculture becomes, the
 more vulnerable we will be.  The year 2000 bug is probably
 the best example, but it's only the tip of the proverbial
 iceberg.

 The real problem is our unreflective rush into a digital
 monoculture, a new kind of ecological hazard, using systems
 so complex, malleable and unpredictable that almost no one
 understands the danger looming.


  Gary Chapman is director of the 21st Century Project at
 the University of Texas at Austin.  He can be reached at
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]






DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to