[9764] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Drafting Legislation [Yes, He *Is* a Bit Spooky]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Rothman)
Thu Jan 20 17:14:41 1994
In-Reply-To: <199401201224.EAA25335@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 14:59:51 -0400
To: "Robert David Steele" <steeler@well.sf.ca.us>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, cosndisc@bitnic.BITNET, cpsr-members@eff.org,
From: "David Rothman" <rothman@netcom.com>
Reply-To: rothman@netcom.com
Oh, I see you *are* an intelligence consultant. A newsgroup posting (as
reproduced on alt.activism.d and/or misc.activism.progressive, September
24, 1993) says you "run annual conferences for the world's intelligence
community." Reportedly you're "seeking a billion dollar allocation from
the U.S. intelligence budget to prove" your information theories.
Hmmm. As I recall, folks like the CIA have a little experience in the
*dis*information area. Going "open" is not the solution. CIA interests
and libraries' are not always the same. Old habits persist.
I say this, by the way, as a believer in the need for a strong,
competent intelligence agency, so the United States can monitor
third-world dictators who'd love to nuke us. I just wish the CIA would
stick to its mission; there is enough real work to be done here, and in
perhaps in newer areas such as protection of U.S. industrial secrets.
Needless to say, it would be very appropriate for the real CIA to go
online and assure us citizen-taxpayers that it is not part of your plan,
either openly or secretly. Perhaps a congressional committe somewhere
will want an unequivocal denial from Langley.
I don't think you've claimed official support from The Company, but it
would still be mighty fitting of the CIA to say that you're not lobbying
for it--and are not receiving Agency funds directly or indirectly for
your project. A few laws might be involved here. Last I knew, the Hill
was not thrilled about Company involvement in domestic matters. At the
very least I trust that you're not getting CIA-related money for one
ostensible purpose and then diverting it to Open Source Solution.
Let's have a denial for the record.
What's more, I hope that if the association representing former
intelligence officers has not taken a stand already, it will pass a
resolution *again* your plan.
You are actually harming the CIA by justifying the worst fears of its
critics.
The real way to spread knowledge and promote openness is for Washington
to fund the Internet much more generously and encourage our library
system to go online in a massive way, as I've suggested in my TeleRead
proposal (175K, available to all via e-mail to me, rothman@netcom.com).
If the CIA hopes to monitor relevant public postings on the 'Net from
all over, or to retrieve books from a National Library online? Terrific.
Langley should indeed stay alert. But, please, that's not the same thing
as having the CIA or intelligence consultants influence America's
information system for the rest of us.
**************************************************************************
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
rothman@netcom.com the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
I *encourage* online reproduction of my public postings.
Permission hereby granted--implicit, explicit, whatever. Down
with unnecessary restrictions on the flow of knowledge!
**************************************************************************
