John Perry Barlow: I dis­cov­ered the Internet, or came to find out that it exist­ed, in 1985 I believe it was. No, per­haps 84. I mean I actu­al­ly got online in 85. And this was because I had been writ­ing songs for a band in the United States called the Grateful Dead, and also because I was think­ing about the future of com­mu­ni­ty in America. Because I came from a small agri­cul­tur­al town that…was a real com­mu­ni­ty. I mean when peo­ple even use the word now they don’t know what it means I think in many cas­es. But this was a place where every­body real­ly lit­er­al­ly count­ed on one anoth­er in a life and death kind of way. And I thought well you, know this kind of place is going to go away. Because it’s so heav­i­ly depen­dent on fam­i­ly ranch­ing and farm­ing. And I think that it offers kind of spir­i­tu­al nutri­tion that peo­ple need. So what’s gonna replace this? 

And I was look­ing at the fol­low­ers of the Grateful Dead who had a…a community-like thing. I mean it actu­al­ly resem­bled some of the aspects of life in my lit­tle town the way they count­ed on each oth­er and the way they inter­act­ed ran­dom­ly and knew each oth­er. And I want­ed to study them and see how they real­ly oper­at­ed in a more rig­or­ous­ly anthro­po­log­i­cal way. 

But the prob­lem was that I was kind of a deal as far as they were con­cerned. They had a some­what mis­placed, slight­ly reli­gious view of who we in the band or the cre­ative end of things were. And so I’d come around them try­ing to find out what things were like with them, and imme­di­ate­ly alter the thing that I was look­ing at. And I had a friend who was the founder of the com­put­er music lab at Stanford who said, Well one way you could prob­a­bly study the Deadheads with­out them notic­ing would be to watch them on the Internet.”

And I said, What do you mean watch them on the Internet?”

And she said, Well, there are news­groups on the Internet where they gath­er. And they’re con­tin­u­ous. They’re sort of the vil­lage square that they use for con­tin­u­ous inter­ac­tion. You were won­der­ing where that was, well that’s where it is.”

So, I had a com­put­er which I was using most­ly because I was writ­ing screen­plays and it was a much bet­ter form of white-out. If you rewrite a screen­play you have to retype the entire damn thing all over again. And also I was a run­ning cat­tle ranch and I had some of the ranch account­ing that I was doing on it. And I got myself a 300 baud modem, which had a suc­tion cup that fit on a tele­phone receiv­er. Didn’t have any­thing that could eas­i­ly be called an own­er’s man­u­al, it just had a bunch of Hayes com­mand terms that you were sup­posed to fig­ure out how to enter with your computer. 

So it took me a while to get this thing to con­nect to the TimeNet num­ber that I’d been giv­en to con­nect to the Internet—and she’d giv­en me an Internet account at Stanford. And I got online and you know, strug­gled my way to the Grateful Dead news­group. But in the process…I had this I think gen­uine­ly reli­gious expe­ri­ence of feel­ing, sens­ing, see­ing, that what I was look­ing at, thin as it was…just reduced to these lit­tle glow­ing char­ac­ters on a screen, was this infinitely-expansive social space that every human being on the plan­et would be in at some point. We would all be there togeth­er, simultaneously. 

And it res­onat­ed with me for anoth­er rea­son because I’d been a big fan in col­lege of the works of a French the­olo­gian named Teilhard de Chardin who had writ­ten in the 30s I believe…it was­n’t pub­lished until the 50s, a set of the­or— He was an evo­lu­tion­ary the­o­rist and a pale­on­tol­o­gist and a Jesuit priest and a num­ber of things. And he’d writ­ten this notion that evo­lu­tion had this tele­o­log­i­cal thrust, where things were get­ting more and more advanced, and com­plex, and sophis­ti­cat­ed. Which you know, seems some­what evi­dent if you com­pare us to single-cell organ­isms. But his idea was that very short­ly the evo­lu­tion­ary process would take leave of phys­i­cal mat­ter and become a thing that was evolv­ing out of thought itself. And we would have the next lay­er of evo­lu­tion be some­thing he called the noos­phere (N O O). And that would be made out of thought and consciousness. 

And I had been very intrigued by that notion, it felt right to me. And when I saw the Internet at I thought ha. Here we are. This is the ner­vous sys­tem of the col­lec­tive organ­ism of mind, already under­way in its devel­op­ment. And I decid­ed almost imme­di­ate­ly that this was some­thing that I want­ed to facil­i­tate in any way that could be open to me, because it just seemed like the great work that human­i­ty was about to embark on, or already had embarked on. 

And at that point I don’t sup­pose there were 200,000 peo­ple in the world with an email address. But it already been going on for a while. I mean the Internet had been in exis­tence since 1969, and this was 85 so you know. It was­n’t like a brand new thing, but it was… I would say it was new enough so that there were—I was the only cat­tle ranch­er on it. [laughs]. Just about every­body on it was com­ing from a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent angle. Which enabled me to per­ceive things about it that I think were lit­tle hard­er for some of the folks that were using it at that point to see. Since a lot of them were still just try­ing to get a pack­et to go from A to B and try­ing to fig­ure out why it would­n’t a lot of the time and deal­ing with the tech­ni­cal issues and not ful­ly per­ceiv­ing just how huge this was. I mean I felt then I con­tin­ue to feel and have tak­en a cer­tain mea­sure of crap for say­ing that this is the most impor­tant tech­no­log­i­cal event in the his­to­ry of human­i­ty since the cap­ture of fire. 

And you could real­ly say that it’s been going on for longer than peo­ple think it has. I mean I would mark the begin­ning of this—whatever we call this—the Internet, to be that point—and I think it was…1837 when Samuel F.B. Morse tapped out What Hath God Wrought?” in Washington, DC and some­one read it simul­ta­ne­ous­ly in Baltimore. As soon as you could com­mu­ni­cate instan­ta­neous­ly at a dis­tance like that, then every­thing changed. And changes more and more all the time. 

But that was what got me inter­est­ed in it to begin with and you know, I did­n’t… For a long time I did­n’t know what it was that I was going to be able to do that would be use­ful out­side of learn every­thing I pos­si­bly could about it—how it worked and what was going on it and that kind of thing. But I did depart the cat­tle busi­ness in 1988 and was look­ing around for what I want­ed to do next, and I thought that the most impor­tant thing that I could do would be to start think­ing and writ­ing about the Internet in terms of the social and polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic and philo­soph­i­cal and even reli­gious aspects of what this might do in the world, because I could eas­i­ly imag­ine it chang­ing every­thing. I mean, I could eas­i­ly imag­ine it caus­ing there to be a fun­da­men­tal rene­go­ti­a­tion of all the exist­ing pow­er rela­tion­ships on the plan­et, in a rel­a­tive­ly short time. And nobody seemed to be writ­ing or talk­ing about that and so you know, I did­n’t have any cre­den­tials to speak of. I thought well, I can prob­a­bly know as much about this as the next guy pret­ty quickly. 

And I got to know the peo­ple who had been work­ing on it. Spent a lot of time around them real­ly real­ly appre­ci­at­ing how blessed we had been with the qual­i­ty of those peo­ple who actu­al­ly were very aware in many cas­es of what it was that they were doing. And maybe they weren’t writ­ing about it nec­es­sar­i­ly, but they were cer­tain­ly think­ing about it. 

And then, in late 89… By that time I’d got­ten onto some­thing called The WELL, which was­n’t con­nect­ed to the Internet, it was a bul­letin board. And it had been start­ed by Stewart Brand and Kevin Kelly. Stewart Brand had writ­ten done the Whole Earth Catalog, had Whole Earth Review mag­a­zine, and Kevin Kelly even­tu­al­ly became the edi­tor of Wired. But they’d put togeth­er a com­put­er bul­letin board that was real­ly the dig­i­tal salon of its time. I mean there were a lot of extreme­ly artic­u­late, thought­ful, lit­er­ary peo­ple on the WELL. And there was a con­tin­u­ous set of dis­cus­sions going on there that was very fruit­ful to be part of. 

And Harper’s Magazine— And you know, to this day I don’t know what inspired those guys to do this, but there were a cou­ple of edi­tors at Harper’s, one of them named Paul Tough and the oth­er one named Jack Hitt— Completely mis­named peo­ple. I mean…not at all vio­lent. But they had this idea that they want­ed to do a Harper’s forum on a bunch of items that were very per­ti­nent par­tic­u­lar­ly at the moment about what is for­bid­den knowl­edge, what is a secret, what is hack­ing, when is it wrong…you know, how do we define bar­ri­ers for infor­ma­tion and dig­i­tal envi­ron­ments. A whole bunch of these kinds of issues. And they asked me and sev­er­al oth­er peo­ple to be a part of this forum on the WELL

And there were these kids. They were phone phreaks, or ear­ly phone sys­tem hack­ers; what they real­ly were doing was break­ing into the tele­phone sys­tem and try­ing to cre­ate their own Internet because they did­n’t have access to the real thing. They were all like 14 years old. And they had these fear­some names like Phiber Optik—P H I B E R, O P T I K, and Acid Phreak, and Scorpion. They had an orga­ni­za­tion called the Legion of Doom. And they spent an awful lot of time strut­ting around like they were pret­ty dangerous. 

And they were irri­tat­ing, espe­cial­ly to an old hip­pie. And at one point I made some slight­ly insult­ing remark about how if some­body took away their modems and gave them skate­boards it would­n’t make a damn bit of dif­fer­ence. And this being true it real­ly irri­tat­ed them. So they down­loaded my entire cred­it record file into the con­fer­ence and said that they could change it at will if they felt like it. Which they could­n’t; they were brag­ging. But the fact remained, it scared me. Because you know, if you don’t have any cred­it in America you might as well be broke. 

So I said, Look. I think we’ve just exceed­ed the band­width of this medi­um. I would appre­ci­ate it if you’d give me a call and I won’t insult your intel­li­gence by giv­ing you my phone num­ber.” Which was list­ed any­way but they did­n’t know that. And imme­di­ate­ly I get this phone call from like six dif­fer­ent kids on dif­fer­ent phone booths in New York. They’ve all para­chut­ed in through the phone sys­tem. And their voic­es haven’t even changed yet. I mean they’re just kids. And I’m think­ing well. Oh I know where these kids are at. I mean they’re like I was when I was that age. They just want to vio­late the for­bid­den. And the for­bid­den they real­ly want to vio­late you know, is the usu­al one that teenage boys want to vio­late, but they haven’t come up with access to that yet so they’re doing stuff to the phone system. 

So I got to know em pret­ty well. I just an affin­i­ty for em. I mean the next thing I knew I was kind of like the scout mas­ter to the Legion of Doom. And then one day, one of em comes home and finds that his 12 year-old sis­ter has been held at gun­point for quite awhile by sev­er­al large men from the Secret Service while they remove every sin­gle elec­tron­ic item from his house. Like his clock radio and his Metallica tapes. I mean they’re just tak­ing it all.

And then I find that sev­er­al of them have had rough­ly the same expe­ri­ence. And I’m think­ing well maybe these kids are much worse than I thought. I mean this sounds like they must be doing some­thing pret­ty…bad or they would­n’t be get­ting such acute gov­ern­ment action all over em.

And it was about that time that I got a phone call from Special Agent Richard Baxter from the Rock Springs, Wyoming field office of the FBI. Who was a fel­la that I knew because he inves­ti­gat­ed live­stock theft and I’d had some cat­tle stolen at one point. He was pret­ty good on that stuff. And he was ner­vous as a cat in a room­ful of rock­ing chairs. He was just anx­ious and I… He said he want­ed to come up and talk to me but he could­n’t tell me what it was about on the phone. 

And I though oh God… I mean, I’m writ­ing songs for the Grateful Dead, I don’t want to have a vis­it from the FBI where he won’t tell me what it’s about, right. It just… It makes you uneasy. 

So he comes up and he’s very ner­vous and he has a ter­ri­ble time explain­ing to me what it is that he’s inves­ti­gat­ing. Cause he does­n’t under­stand it very well him­self, but grad­u­al­ly I under­stand that some­body has tak­en some of the source code from the ROM chip on the Macintosh. All that source code that dealt with the ear­ly ver­sion of QuickTime. And has sent var­i­ous bits of it out on flop­py disks to peo­ple in a protest against Apple’s closed archi­tec­ture. And has threat­ened to release the entire body of the source code. And Apple has freaked out and has told the FBI that some­body’s about to go out there giv­ing away the pre­cious Macintosh recipe. And in no time at all they’ll be mak­ing em in Taiwan and that’ll be the end of it. 

All of which is just non­sense, right. But he’s con­vinced that there’s a major eco­nom­ic crime about to take place, being per­pe­trat­ed by some­thing that he keeps call­ing the New Prosthesis League. It’s actu­al name was the New Prometheus League. But I mean that was just part of what he had wrong—he had every­thing wrong. 

And it was a really…disturbing expe­ri­ence. I mean you nev­er like to see real­ly inse­cure, highly-armed peo­ple in author­i­ty wan­der­ing around in places they don’t under­stand. Because trou­ble will come. And I felt you know, that what I was see­ing was the same thing that my friends from the Legion of Doom had been see­ing. And I’d also in the mean­time, I’d heard about some oth­er stuff like this going on. There’d been a role-playing game com­pa­ny in Austin, Texas that had had these Secret Service come in and just take every­thing in their office because they were doing a game called [Cyberpunk] that the Secret Service had decid­ed was a hand­book for com­put­er crime. 

And there was a kid in Indiana—or Illinois I guess it was, who was pub­lish­ing an online mag­a­zine called Phrack where he’d pub­lished a stolen doc­u­ment from the phone com­pa­ny about the 911 sys­tem. I mean you could buy this doc­u­ment from Bell Corp for twelve bucks but this was just sort of a tro­phy that he’d put up as being some­thing that he’d hacked out of the sys­tem. And he was being charged with the theft of $200,000 in property. 

And so…it was like that, you know. And I wrote some­thing about this, which I put on the WELL, called Crime and Puzzlement about the whole expe­ri­ence. And two days lat­er I got a phone call from Mitch Kapor, who had cre­at­ed Lotus 123. At that time it was the dom­i­nant spread­sheet soft­ware and it was kind of…Lotus as a com­pa­ny was kind of like Microsoft. I mean, for micro­com­put­ers it was a very big deal. And he was fly­ing his pri­vate jet over the United States and he had also had a vis­it from the FBI that he had­n’t told any­body about. And he’d read my piece. And so sud­den­ly he had a sup­port net­work, kind of. And he want­ed to just basi­cal­ly drop out of the sky and come talk to me about this, which he did. And we spent the after­noon and I told him every­thing I knew about Steve Jackson Games, and the Legion of Doom, etc. And we decid­ed that what we would do was get some civ­il lib­er­ties firm involved, since he could afford that, and reestab­lish the Constitution in what I had start­ed call­ing cyber­space” in that ini­tial piece. I mean, up to that point it did­n’t have a name, and I just bor­rowed Bill Gibson’s name for it and start­ed refer­ring to it is as that—I think that’s the first time any­body start­ed talk­ing about this as that. 

And so, we brought suit in sev­er­al cas­es. We start­ed to get some pub­lic­i­ty. And there were sud­den­ly a lot of peo­ple that want­ed to get involved. Steve Wozniak came for­ward and gave us a hun­dred grand. John Gilmore who is still very much an inte­gral part of EFF came for­ward. He sent me an email and he… I did­n’t know him very well. He sent me an email and he said like, I don’t have the kind of mon­ey that Mitch has but would $100,000 help?” That was all it said. I said yes. [laughs]

But you know, we had­n’t been at this very long before we start­ed to real­ize that we were… This was not just gonna be a sim­ple mat­ter of clar­i­fy­ing the appli­ca­tion of the First Amendment to bits. Or the Fourth Amendment to com­put­er files. And in fact at one point after we’d made a lit­tle pub­lic­i­ty, I got an email from some kid who had crawled across the bor­der into Finland from what was still the Soviet Union in order to send me an email say­ing, Well that’s all great, but what about us? We don’t even have a First Amendment or a Fourth Amendment.”

And I real­ized that you know, it was anoth­er one of those sort of come-to-Jesus moments where I real­ized that in cyber­space nobody had a First Amendment, real­ly. And nev­er would. Because the thing is, all rights derive nat­u­ral­ly from the abil­i­ty to deny rights. All rights are the flip side of coer­cive. And you know, if you’ve got an envi­ron­ment where it’s very dif­fi­cult to impose your­self on human beings, which it is there…I mean for all of their efforts to make it so…it’s very dif­fi­cult to con­vey the oppo­site of that impo­si­tion as well. 

So we knew that what we could do for a while was to use the law, espe­cial­ly in places like the United States where there was one that we could apply. But ulti­mate­ly the real thing was going to have to be influ­enc­ing the archi­tec­ture of the Internet, as it grew, so that it went on hav­ing those inter­est­ing char­ac­ter­is­tics of lead­er­less­ness and prac­ti­cal anar­chy that it had had since it was born. And that would con­vey, to some extent, a lot of those rights. And we also were very aware that the Internet was prob­a­bly going to grow into some­thing that would be like the most sophis­ti­cat­ed tool for sur­veil­lance that human beings had ever derived, and we’re now see­ing just how true that is. 

But we had this faith that if the archi­tec­ture were pre­served in its open state, that it was con­ceiv­able to us that the Internet would even­tu­al­ly be some­thing where anybody anywhere could say what­ev­er they want­ed. And nobody would be in a posi­tion to stop them. And that any­body any­where could learn as much as could then be known about any­thing that peo­ple stud­ied. And that that, from the stand­point of Teilhard de Chardin’s glob­al organ­ism of mind, would be a pret­ty sig­nif­i­cant human development. 

So that’s what EFF has done, what I have done, in the twenty-some-odd years since that, is to be con­tin­u­ous­ly at work on keep­ing choke­points from form­ing around the Internet. Keeping legal con­trols from being imposed. Minding the archi­tec­ture a lot. I mean I’ve spent a huge amount of time… I real­ized in about 1993 that the most like­ly way in which the pow­ers that had been would be able to con­trol infor­ma­tion on the Internet was going to be through intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty law. The claim that one could own speech would be the means by which peo­ple would be able to stop its flow because they would say, No, that’s my speech. That can’t flow.” Or expres­sion of what­ev­er sort it might be. 

So I wrote a piece called The Economy of Ideas for Wired in 93, and that was, you know… I will immod­est­ly say that I think that was one of the most impor­tant things any­body said at that point about the Internet because nobody was think­ing about it in those terms. Nobody real­ized yet that there was…that it— If you had an envi­ron­ment where you could repro­duce any­thing that a human being could cre­ate with this mind, infi­nite­ly at zero cost, and dis­trib­uted infi­nite­ly at zero cost, the whole notion of copy­right was just out the win­dow. And besides, copy­right exist­ed in the first place to pro­tect this man­u­fac­tur­ing process that had to be there in order to spread ideas since you did­n’t have anoth­er way to do it besides embed­ding them in a phys­i­cal object which was man­u­fac­tured and had to be— And that cost mon­ey and you had to ship the thing around, and that cost mon­ey. And so you need­ed some­thing to pro­tect to peo­ple that were mak­ing those objects. 

But sud­den­ly you did­n’t. And the peo­ple who’d been mak­ing those objects thought that what they were real­ly sell­ing was the wine and not the bot­tles. They were real­ly in the bot­tling because, they did­n’t know any­thing about the wine busi­ness. And they were gonna get very aggres­sive about try­ing to main­tain their busi­ness mod­el as it became com­plete­ly irrel­e­vant. Which it has.

And so that’s been a big part of what we’ve done. I mean at the time that I wrote that I think I might’ve been one of four peo­ple on plan­et Earth that thought this was a prob­lem. Now I would say I’ve got entire armies of peo­ple who agree with me on this. 

What else? I mean I at a cer­tain point popped off and wrote a doc­u­ment called the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace which I real­ly did not intend to become some canon­i­cal doc­u­ment. I mean, I’d been to the World Economic Forum and I’d seen all this sort of strut­ting around in the twi­light of the nation-state. And the United States gov­ern­ment had just signed into law some­thing called the Communications Decency Act which made it a felony to say fuck” online. And giv­en the fact that I’d heard many of those words that were now felo­nious to speak in dig­i­tal media in the Senate din­ing room, I knew this was­n’t going to go very well. 

And so I dashed this thing off in the mid­dle of a par­ty, real­ly. And sent it out to my friends, and it became— I don’t know. I think you can prob­a­bly find it on sev­er­al hun­dred thou­sand web sites. 

And peo­ple now pay more atten­tion— And it goes through peri­ods of being laughed at and then tak­en seri­ous­ly. There was a time there where peo­ple real­ly thought well, gov­ern­ments real­ly are going to…you know, they’re gonna win this thing, they’re going to real­ly take over. But I still have no strong rea­son to believe that sov­er­eign­ty in the sense that the nation-state thinks of it is going to ever be suc­cess­ful­ly imposed on cyber­space. And in fact I would say that more and more peo­ple are wak­ing up to the fact that the nation-state does­n’t have a ter­ri­bly good rea­son to go on exist­ing, because the main thing that it does is make war. 

Intertitle: Describe one of the break­through moments or move­ments of the Internet in which you have been a key participant.

Barlow: Well I mean there were… I think there were you know, quite a num­ber of moments. There was the time that EFF was try­ing to deal with the fact that they were try­ing to basi­cal­ly— Well they had suc­ceed­ed essen­tial­ly in out­law­ing strong cryp­tog­ra­phy by mak­ing cryp­to­graph­ic algo­rithms the equiv­a­lent of machine guns as far as the inter­na­tion­al trade in arms was con­cerned. So you could­n’t export the strong cryp­to piece of strong cryp­to soft­ware, or hard­ware that con­tained strong cryp­to. Which essen­tial­ly meant that there was no busi­ness for the peo­ple that would actu­al­ly be cre­at­ing such stuff. 

And we had this real­ly incred­i­bly clever insight that an encryp­tion algo­rithm was a form of speech. And that what they were essen­tial­ly doing was impos­ing pri­or restraint on speech, and that was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al, they could­n’t do that. And we man­aged to get some­thing called the Bernstein Decision and that stopped the con­trol of strong cryp­to, which I think was extreme­ly impor­tant because if it had­n’t been for that you would­n’t have any busi­ness going on on the net. It’d be impos­si­ble to do all the eco­nom­ic stuff that is rou­tine­ly done if you could­n’t have encrypt­ed things, as the NSA and the FBI want­ed it to be. Since they were much more wor­ried about con­trol­ling ter­ror­ism and child pornog­ra­phy than they were about cre­at­ing the future. And that’s…always the case. 

You know, I would say… I mean there’ve been some moments late­ly doing… Well set­ting up an orga­ni­za­tion which I recent­ly did with Daniel Ellsberg and John Cusack and sev­er­al oth­ers to see to the fund­ing of WikiLeaks and to work­ing out ways of keep­ing Mr. Snowden out of har­m’s way. Which I think has been— And also encour­ag­ing him and oth­ers like him to come for­ward. I mean, set­ting this thing up as being some­thing that would be pro­tec­tive for peo­ple like that. So when he decid­ed to come for­ward he con­tact­ed two peo­ple from this orga­ni­za­tion that is only sev­en or eight months old, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and got Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras to come and take his state­ment. So I mean that’s a more recent thing that’s sort of tied into the first thing. 

Oh gosh, what else. I mean Dave Farber, who you’re prob­a­bly also talk­ing to, and I were instru­men­tal in get­ting China on the Internet. Which was kind of a big moment. The Chinese Academy of Sciences had us come to Beijing in 93 to talk about the Internet along with Mitch Kapor. And we thought that was inter­est­ing. I mean we did­n’t know that they knew any­thing about it, real­ly. But there were five major research uni­ver­si­ties in China that were using TCP/IP as their inter­net­work­ing pro­to­col. And so we talked about how it was here, and we gave kind of an aca­d­e­m­ic talk. We did­n’t feel like China was like­ly to be very inter­est­ed in get­ting con­nect­ed to it. 

And then there was a din­ner after­wards where was seat­ed with this extra­or­di­nary woman named Madame Hu. ([chuck­les] Who’s on first?) And she was the vice chair of the acad­e­my of sci­ences and the per­son who was in charge of the Chinese com­put­er net­works. And is still the Chinese rep­re­sen­ta­tive in the Internet Society to this day. And we were hav­ing all these toasts and it was get­ting hard­er and hard­er to think. And I said, Before we have anoth­er toast, Madame Hu, I wan­na talk to you about the Internet.”

And she said, That’s good, that’s why you’re here.”

And I said, Well, I’ll just cut to the chase. I want China to be con­nect­ed to the Internet.”

And she said, That’s good, that’s why you’re here.”

And I said, China wants to be con­nect­ed to the Internet?”

She said, Of course we do.”

And I said, Well why aren’t you, then?”

And she said, Because your Department of Energy has the idea that if we get con­nect­ed to the Internet we’ll steal all your nuclear secrets.”

And I said, Well I woul­da thought 10,000 grad stu­dents could do a per­fect­ly fine job of that.”

And she said, Of course they could, and besides you don’t have that many.” 

You know, nuclear weapons are most­ly about hav­ing the indus­tri­al capac­i­ty to make that much weapons-grade ura­ni­um. And I said, Well alright. Surely there are some peo­ple in your gov­ern­ment that—” This was not that long after Tiananmen Square. I said, Surely there are some peo­ple in your gov­ern­ment that would be a lit­tle uncom­fort­able about hav­ing every stu­dent China have a glob­al print­ing press.”

And she said, Of course there are, but they would­n’t know that that was what this is. And I’ve always felt it’s bet­ter to apol­o­gize than ask permission.”

So we went back and talked to the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy and backed them down and got China connected. 

Intertitle: Describe the state of the Internet today with a weath­er anal­o­gy and explain why.

Barlow: Well I would say that it is as it almost always is, with a huge thun­der­head tak­ing up half the sky on one side and a glo­ri­ous blue sky on the oth­er, and dif­fi­cult to fig­ure out which direc­tion the wind’s mov­ing. But you know, the inter­est­ing thing about the Internet, and I’ve been fight­ing these bat­tles all along between the pow­ers of the past and the pow­ers of the future—and this real­ly is the entire indus­tri­al peri­od and even…you know, you can even say the entire peri­od of monothe­ism itself—up against the future. 

But so far it’s been what I would call a stale­mate. You get more and more and more and more peo­ple involved, big­ger and big­ger and big­ger forces engaged. But so far I’d say we’ve been beat­in’ em pret­ty much to a draw. Which will suf­fice, you know. And even­tu­al­ly, I would say that we can take some heart in the idea that most of the peo­ple who feel the way I do about this, are young. And most of the peo­ple who feel the way that they do about this, are old you know. And some day all you guys will be alive when they’re dead. And then I think the future can tru­ly get underway. 

Intertitle: What are your great­est hopes and fears for the future of the Internet?

Barlow: Well they haven’t changed all that much. I mean, my great­est hope, and the thing I’ve been work­ing for most of my life now, is that it will real­ize itself as being some­thing that makes it pos­si­ble for any­body to know any­thing that they’re capa­ble of know­ing. Which I think is a won­der­ful thought. Or that it will make it pos­si­ble for any­body that has some­thing impor­tant that oth­er peo­ple should hear to say it, with­out any fear of being shut up or coerced or that sort of thing. 

And my fear I think is probably…you know, deeply con­nect­ed with all of the things that I hope for in the sense that you know, human beings are flawed crea­tures. And a lot of what we want to say is real­ly kind of awful. And you know, we have eco­nom­ic ambi­tions that are find­ing all kinds of ugly new ways to man­i­fest them­selves and I think that’s a pity. And it cer­tain­ly becomes pos­si­ble to see prac­ti­cal­ly every­thing in peo­ple’s lives when you’re reel­ing out this dig­i­tal slime trail all the time now that can be rolled up, you know, and turned into you. 

And there’s almost no help for that, ulti­mate­ly. Now I don’t mind that but— I mean because I come from a small town where every­body knew every­thing about me any­way. But what’s got­ta hap­pen in order for this to be a safe state is that the insti­tu­tions have to become as trans­par­ent as the indi­vid­u­als. We can’t go on hav­ing greater and greater secre­cy in our insti­tu­tions and less and less pri­va­cy as peo­ple. And so that’s I think the biggest ques­tion of the moment right now. And if we don’t win that one, I can imag­ine a very grim future. I think we will. 

I mean you know, we are down to— Look at what’s going on with Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden. I mean that’s the tip of the ice­berg. There’s gonna be a lot more of that. Because you know, the gov­ern­ments and the great pow­ers of the indus­tri­al peri­od have done a lot of crum­my stuff, that is at min­i­mum embar­rass­ing. And they don’t want peo­ple to know about this. And sud­den­ly it’s gonna be very dif­fi­cult to keep peo­ple from know­ing about this unless they just go out and, you know, tor­ture to death every­body does some­thing about it. So it’s going to be pret­ty rough on the peo­ple that’re try­ing to change it for a while. 

Intertitle: Is there action that should be tak­en to ensure the best pos­si­ble future?

Barlow: What needs to hap­pen now is that every­body who knows any­thing that ought to be known by the rest of human­i­ty should reveal it. As hard as that will be. What needs to hap­pen now is that every­body should real­ize that we have, as a human right, the right to know, about every­thing that is human­ly applic­a­ble in any larg­er sense. About our gov­ern­ment, about sci­ence, about any­thing. That this is some­thing that has nev­er been pro­mul­gat­ed before because it was nev­er before pos­si­ble but it is now pos­si­ble. And it’s a right that we need to devel­op and assert. That’s the most impor­tant thing for us to be doing, I think. 

Intertitle: Is there any­thing else you would like to add?

Barlow: Well you know, I ful­ly expect that it’s gonna go on being basi­cal­ly the same con­test for quite a while. Like you know, it’s been the same con­test as long as I’ve been engaged in it. And it will go on being that con­test. And maybe that’s just the human con­test, is you know, the…control freaks ver­sus the anar­chists. Or the Apollonians ver­sus the Dionysians. It’s peo­ple who love lib­er­ty ver­sus peo­ple who fear it. It may just be actu­al­ly love ver­sus fear, in the final analysis. 

So there will always be that sort of thing. It’s a very pow­er­ful thing, the Internet. It’s cer­tain­ly capa­ble of doing a lot of harm and good at the same time. I mean, I like to say that I’ve been deal­ing with the Internet now long enough so that has actu­al­ly real­ized all of my dreams, and with them my worst nightmares.

Further Reference

John Perry Barlow pro­file, Internet Hall of Fame 2013

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.