[1488] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: So what is the answer?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abernathy)
Thu Oct 10 18:20:59 1991
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 91 17:02:58 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: uunet!tenet.edu!Connie.Stout@uunet.UU.NET
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org,
Connie Stout writes:
I read, with great interest, Joe's recent posting to the Internet
world and have reached some conclusions. It is apparent that Joe
does not know very much about TENET.
That's not much of a surprise. In several attempts at communication,
I've encountered nothing but straight-ahead hostility and stonewalling
from you, Connie. Why? Is our government no longer accountable
to the public?
Students have not been denied access to their own account.
Two weeks ago, one of your associates said to a direct question that
"only classroom accounts will be allowed, at least until we get the
teachers up to speed and they understand the nature of what they're
dealing with."
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Abernathy has not reviewed the
materials that have been developed as part of the implementation
of TENET. Three courses have been developed: a users'
guide, a moderators' guide, and a curriculum integration guide.
Since you have thus far refused to provide these materials or an
account for the Chronicle, that's not a surprise either.
I want to address Joe's incorrect statement regarding what he calls
the "major porno incident." The "Texas Incident," as Tom Grundner
referred to it, was hardly "major." Neither is it true that it
occurred within two days of the network's startup. Further,
contrary to Joe's "reporting," it is not true that students were
denied accounts as a result. Oddly enough, Mr. Abernathy failed or
declined to ask any official administrator of TENET any questions
about what he assumed was an "incident" in order the clarify the or
confirm what actually happened.
Not so, Connie. I have indeed spoken with such a person, and I'm
now engaged in protecting their identity on the presumption that
your hostility would translate to them for having been honest with
me. And please don't confuse what's being done here with reporting.
This is usually :-) a much more forgiving medium than print. The
reason I opened this discussion was to build on a set of hazy facts
and ask the most educated audience available to express their opinions.
Had he asked he would have learned that in the implementation of
TENET we had a committee of forty "Master Trainers" who utilized
a prototype system during the summer -- prior to the opening of
TENET on Aug. 26, 1991.
I'm aware of this. I found them to be incredibly energetic
people, and came away from the recent Texas Computer Education
Association meeting full of hope about what networking holds for
our children.
As members of the community of users
(teachers, administrators, school board members, parents, etc.)
they viewed various Internet resources. A decision had been made
to use the public domain Usenet software to building our Texas
specific conferences and they learned about Usenet while reading
many posting on the Usenet groups. Among the newsgroups, they
read the communication/dialogue on K12net. Upon reading the
offending posting by the university student on K12net, they
collaborative decided, as responsible members of the online
community with a sincere interest in assuring TENET's success, to
initially exclude K12net as one of the "official" and sanctioned
resources of TENET.
Yet one of the "official" and sanctioned resources of TENET is
a fully functional Unix command shell. Am I missing something,
or have you just put your finger in the dike?
As most of you know, the posting in question
was of considerable concern to K12net and steps were considered to
safeguard against such occurrences in the future. The Texas group
decided to put K12net "on hold" and await further developments.
Here it is again. Why are public people discussing public affairs in
riddles? Why not say what happened and exactly what was done?
It wasn't more than two months ago that you told me -- gave me
as much as a guarantee -- that there was no way that
your implementation of the Internet could be used to bring
controversial material into the schools.
In any event, it is inaccurate to say that the network "shut down
the news feeds." We did not. The postings in question took place
prior to the opening of TENET.
It does seems that Joe is considerably more interested in bringing
attention to himself -- using sex and pornography as his vehicles
-- than in addressing or contributing to serious questions. In
fact, his "questions" are difficult to find amongst his
sensationalist statements, partial quotes, and references to
anonymous sources. Finally, I am as concerned, perhaps more so,
about irresponsible rumor-mongering that puts the inherent risks
of networking -- or any other form of open communication -- out of
all perspective and, thus, is potentially more dangerous than the
material he is citing.
This reads from here like a fairly low-grade attempt to redirect
the issues away from the public schools of Texas to my coverage of
them. You will find me fairly resistant to such attempts.
If you want a real issue, let's talk about the fact that I was
reduced by the state of Texas to taking this approach to my
fact-gathering. It's not pretty, no it isn't, but if there is blame
to be assigned, assign it where it belongs.
I hope the foregoing clarifies the situation within TENET for you.
No, not at all. How many users does it have? What precise oversight
mechanisms are in place? What is its physical implementation? Why
are you unwilling to provide direct access to the press?
I can't resist adding some personal observations and reactions,
however.
Joe writes:
>...the oft-touted comparison of Internet to a library also has
>problems when held up against daylight. No matter what one
>argues, libraries outside of San Francisco usually do not carry
>material as explicit as that found in alt.sex.bondage or Modern
>Primitives, for instance. In test after court test, it has been decided
>that media which circulate in Peoria, Kansas, have to meet the
>community standards of Peoria. Or wherever.
True. And if the community of users within TENET determine that
they do not want to circulate alt.sex.bondage, that is their
decision. The community of users within TENET has every intention
to be responsive to its audience and responsible to its community.
I'm left with the question: what was Joe Abernathy's purpose?
My purpose is to report accurately and fully on the situation
concerning computer networking in the school system of the state
of Texas.
I'm
still not sure. My concern is that he has made what have to be
considered abusive statements concerning a statewide network that
is under close observation. To those familiar with computer
networks, Abernathy's articles will probably be laughed at for what,
in fact, they are. But to a community that is sensitive to their
children and totally unfamiliar with the Internet, this can have a
serious and detrimental impact that could negatively affect hundreds
of thousands of teachers and students.
If you want better quality of coverage of what you're doing, the only
way to get it is to provide me with better information. That begins
with you and me sitting down and having a rational, personal
discussion, as you've been unwilling to do thus far, despite my
jumping through hoops to try to make contact with you. Say the word,
though, and I'll be on the phone or on my way to Austin Monday morning.
Everyone I've spoken with regards you as an incredible person.
So far, I've found you an incredibly difficult person, but I'd
sure like to have a reason to join the former camp.
I am quite honestly prepared to shout your accomplishments from
the figurative rooftops, given a chance. But it's gonna have
to start with a lot more candidness than you've provided to date.
Connie Stout (512) 463-9091: voice
Texas Education Agency (512) 463-9090: fax
1701 N. Congress Ave. Connie.Stout@tenet.edu
Austin, TX 78701
Joe Abernathy edtjda@chron.com
Special Projects P.O. Box 4260
The Houston Chronicle Houston, Texas 77210
(800) 735-3820 (713) 526-9711
