Jeff Mogul: So. I’m already run­ning a lit­tle late. I’d like to now intro­duce our keynote speak­er. And let me start by explain­ing that our keynote speak­er, John Perry Barlow, has a some­what unusu­al career for a com­put­er sci­ence con­fer­ence keynote speak­er. He start­ed as a cat­tle ranch­er in Wyoming. He’s been the Republican Party coun­ty chair of his area in Wyoming. He also has been a lyri­cist for the Grateful Dead. More recent­ly he’s one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And he’s been active writ­ing about civ­il lib­er­ties issues in cyber­space. He has a col­umn in CACM, Mondo 2000, Wired…he was in mag­a­zines that I’ve lost track of. 

He’s a very inter­est­ing speak­er and I think we should just give him the next hour and ten min­utes or so of our time. We will by the way tak­ing ques­tions from peo­ple in the MBONE. Unfortunately we did­n’t set this up quite far enough in advance so we’ll have to have you mail your ques­tions to mbone@​usenix.​org for John and we will [indis­tinct] those, put them on paper, and read some of the ques­tions lat­er on. But with­out fur­ther ado, I’d like to intro­duce John Perry Barlow.

John Perry Barlow: Over the last four or five years since I left the cat­tle busi­ness, I’ve start­ed to feel like my life has turned into a Thomas Pynchon nov­el. And weird expe­ri­ences are so numer­ous that I don’t even keep track of them any­more but I’ve got to say, for some­body who spent most of his work­ing career push­ing cows around this is a very weird audi­ence for me to be address­ing. [laugh­ter]

You peo­ple are great, though. I hon­est­ly believe with­out hyper­bole that peo­ple in this room are doing things which will change the world more than any­thing since the cap­ture of fire, in terms of what it is to be a human being. And I’ll jus­ti­fy that very broad state­ment here as I go along. 

But I’m not entire­ly unqual­i­fied to think and talk about wild places. I come from a part of Wyoming which is… The coun­ty I live in is larg­er than the Netherlands and has a pop­u­la­tion of thirty-five hun­dred at the moment. And is the focal point of the his­to­ry of the fur trade. And the fur trade was an eco­nom­ic man­i­fes­ta­tion that came into the West in the 1820s and 30s. And many of its con­stituents would be famil­iar to you. They were kind of a frac­tious lot of mis­fits. Opinionated lon­ers. They were some­what irreg­u­lar in their…both their eat­ing habits and their per­son­al hygiene. [laugh­ter] They were hairy and anar­chis­tic. They were smart. They cre­at­ed a soci­ety which was large­ly self-organizing. And they were explor­ing unmapped ter­ri­to­ry using tools that they devel­oped them­selves for get­ting around. And I would to try to draw a close par­al­lel between them and the peo­ple in this room but I think that will be unnecessary. 

So, when I first start­ed to put my head into cyber­space it was not as unfa­mil­iar to me as it is to a lot of folks who are now get­ting into that area, because it had a lot of the char­ac­ter­is­tics that still remain cul­tur­al­ly in my odd lit­tle part of the world. And I could see that a num­ber of things were going to go on in there, one of which if his­to­ry was to be any guide was that after a very free soci­ety had devel­oped nat­u­ral­ly in a very pret­ty place, then anoth­er soci­ety would come and try to make mon­ey off of it. And in the course of try­ing to make mon­ey off of it would impose an awful lot of control. 

There has been a lot of unfor­tu­nate talk about the nation­al infor­ma­tion infra­struc­ture being a data superhighway—this is large­ly an arti­fact of the fact that Al Gore’s father was instru­men­tal in cre­at­ing the inter­state high­way sys­tem. And it’s no mis­take that Al Gore likes that metaphor. But in fact what has been going on late­ly reminds me a lot more of the devel­op­ment of the rail­road in this coun­try. It is not a data super­high­way so much as a data rail­road sys­tem that we seem to be devel­op­ing. And there is a cau­tion­ary tale in there because the folks, Jay Gould and his fel­low bar­bar­ians who cre­at­ed the rail­way sys­tem in the West, knew that if they owned the roadbed and the area around it, they also essen­tial­ly owned the soci­ety that was going to devel­op there because they could tear up what­ev­er prod­ucts were cre­at­ed in that soci­ety on the basis of their own whim. 

And the West today is still try­ing to get out from under­neath the bur­den of reg­u­la­tion and legal stan­dard­iza­tion that was cre­at­ed in those ear­ly days by the rail­road barons. It was almost impos­si­ble for farm­ers in the upper Midwest to make a liv­ing for a while even though the Northern Pacific Railroad had asked them to come in there and set­tle for noth­ing and had giv­en them land. As soon as they got estab­lished on that land, they were charged usu­ri­ous rates for trans­port­ing their their prod­uct to mar­ket. And I think if we look at the his­to­ry of the rail­road we can see exact­ly what kind of dam­age occurs when you give too few peo­ple con­trol over too much of the economy. 

Actually I real­ly think that it’s far more use­ful to look at the devel­op­ment of the Internet in bio­log­i­cal rather than struc­tur­al terms. The Internet to me seems very much like a life­form. It has all those char­ac­ter­is­tics. It is self-organizing. It adapts itself read­i­ly into the pos­si­bil­i­ty space that it finds. It is being cre­at­ed in an inter­ac­tive way, out at the mar­gins rather than in the cen­ter. I’ve heard Unix described as a virus from out­er space. But it’s very much like a virus, I think. But it’s more a virus from inner space, the space inside the cere­bral cav­i­ties of many of the peo­ple in this room. 

Among the notable char­ac­ter­is­tics of the Internet, out­side of explo­sive growth, is the extent to which it can nat­u­ral­ly route itself around prob­lems. John Gilmore, who may be here and is prob­a­bly known to many of you, said some­thing pro­found when he said that the Internet deals with cen­sor­ship as a mal­func­tion. And it real­ly does. You see peo­ple try­ing to stop the traf­fic in cer­tain kinds of intel­lec­tu­al mate­r­i­al on the Internet, and it sim­ply routes itself around it and gets that mate­r­i­al dis­trib­uted by some oth­er pathway.

Unfortunately, the folks who are now enter­ing into the game, and to a more pre­cise extent the orga­ni­za­tions and insti­tu­tions that are now enter­ing into the game, are very dif­fer­ent from what has pre­vi­ous­ly char­ac­ter­ized the devel­op­ment of net­works in the world. And they come at this with a dif­fer­ent par­a­digm of how the world works, and how to cre­ate order. They came at it with the notion that order is some­thing that you impose and not some­thing that emerges. They come at it think­ing about their prod­ucts as being some­thing that are focused and cen­tral­ized, require large amounts of cap­i­tal to cre­ate, and then broad­cast in a one-to-many medium. 

I don’t think that these are nec­es­sar­i­ly bad peo­ple. But they have a very hard time get­ting it. Most of the folks that I talk to from the tele­vi­sion indus­try think that inter­ac­tive tele­vi­sion con­sists of putting a buy” but­ton on your chan­nel click­er. [laugh­ter] I’m not kid­ding. I wish I were. 

And they fail to under­stand that there is a pro­found dif­fer­ence between infor­ma­tion and expe­ri­ence. And they are try­ing to sell non-inter­ac­tive, stored infor­ma­tion as though it were expe­ri­ence. And I think they actu­al­ly believe that they’re accom­plish­ing that task. 

They are going to try, in many ways, some of them overt, some of them unknown even to them­selves, to impose their cul­ture and their their metaphors in this envi­ron­ment. And there are all sorts of ways in which their immune response sys­tem is already work­ing and I’ll give you just one example. 

I was recent­ly talk­ing to some­body from Viacom about the impor­tance of cre­at­ing inter­op­er­abil­i­ty between what­ev­er set-top box­es Viacom was spon­sor­ing and oth­er kinds of net­work­ing, specif­i­cal­ly the Internet. And I talked about TCP/IP with this fel­low from Viacom. And he said, Well, we would love to be able to incor­po­rate TCP/IP but real­ly it’s just too slow. The pack­ets are just too big. It can’t be made to be isochro­nous. We real­ly don’t think that it has a place on top of your tele­vi­sion set.”

And while that may seem like an irrel­e­vant fac­tor to many of you who prob­a­bly don’t even own a tele­vi­sion set, if we are to cre­ate a soci­ety on the Internet that is gen­uine­ly inclu­sive and does­n’t con­sist of its present sort of large band of wild geese, we are going to have to make it so that you can get Internet con­nec­tion from that elec­tron­ic device which is your prin­ci­ple access point into cyber­space and that is liable to be that set-top box. 

The folks in the tele­vi­sion and enter­tain­ment busi­ness are also intrigued by the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the rail­road­ers first con­front­ed, which is that they are going to build the roadbed, essen­tial­ly, and they’re also going to be in the infor­ma­tion busi­ness. And it’s not lost on them that if you own the rails and are also ship­ping the car­go that you get a real­ly good deal on your rates. And that oth­er peo­ple may not get a very good deal, espe­cial­ly if you feel them to be in com­pe­ti­tion with you. 

This has giv­en rise to a whole set of con­cerns and prob­lems which the Electronic Frontier Foundation is now deal­ing with. You know, EFF did not start out to be some kind of a traf­fic cop on the data super­high­way. That was­n’t our objec­tive. A the time that Mitchell Kapor and I start­ed EFF, we had a very nar­row set of con­cerns. We just thought that there were actions tak­ing place on the part of the gov­ern­ment that made it clear that they did­n’t quite real­ize that speech was speech, whether it was expressed in bits or ink on the page. And we felt like real­ly all we were going to have to do was to hire a few real­ly scary civ­il lib­er­ties attor­neys in New York and kick hell out of the Secret Service, and dust our hands off in sat­is­fac­tion and go back to what­ev­er it was we were doing. 

But, we had­n’t been at this very long before I got some elec­tron­ic mail from a young fel­low who was in what at that time was still the Soviet Union say­ing, Well, I applaud what you and Mr. Kapor are doing in try­ing to assure the appli­ca­tion of the First Amendment to cyber­space, but you should real­ize that in cyber­space the First Amendment is a local ordinance.” 

And that was a rev­e­la­tion to me. And also to Mitch and we start­ed think­ing about what had to be done, on a struc­tur­al rather than legal lev­el, to make cer­tain that peo­ple who con­nect­ed to one anoth­er elec­tron­i­cal­ly were able to do so with­out fear of reprisal for the things that they might think and say. Mitch said some­thing pro­found at one point, which is that archi­tec­ture is pol­i­tics. And when I say that to some­thing like the TV Academy, they don’t have the slight­est idea what I’m talk­ing about, but I’ll bet the peo­ple in this room know that very well. And it’s a mes­sage that I think you need to start car­ry­ing to the world in a much more for­ward and proac­tive way than is your nat­ur­al bend. I know that when I’ve talked to com­put­er audi­ences at times in the past, I’ve had a con­tin­u­ous ques­tion and com­plaint from peo­ple in the room who say, Well you know, you want me to behave as though I were a social philoso­pher, and actu­al­ly what I do is bus architecture.” 

Well…exactly. [laugh­ter; applause] And I don’t think that you can expect the social philoso­phers to under­stand bus archi­tec­ture very very well for a while, either. So the job falls to you and the peo­ple who under­stand the basic nature of this very very dif­fer­ent terrain. 

When I was down in Los Angeles last week I went to some­thing that some of you may have heard about, which was the Superhighway Super Summit. You nev­er saw such self-importance in your life. It was unbe­liev­able. This has noth­ing to do with any­thing except it’s more evi­dence that I’m in a Thomas Pynchon nov­el. As a guest of the White House I had a packed which includ­ed a dis­crete lit­tle card said that Those per­sons who will be accom­pa­nied by a per­son­al secu­ri­ty assis­tant are remind­ed that their assis­tant may not car­ry his weapon while in the build­ing.” And there were also two park­ing pass­es, one for reg­u­lar cars and one for lim­ou­sines. So, they knew a fair amount about the cul­ture that they were pitch­ing to down there. 

And the idea that this par­tic­u­lar set of hooli­gans was going to be in charge was ter­ri­fy­ing to me. In spite of the fact that to my sur­prise and sat­is­fac­tion, I found peo­ple like John Malone say­ing all the right things. And it was very grat­i­fy­ing to see that the things that EFF was pret­ty much alone in say­ing two years ago are now polit­i­cal­ly cor­rect. But there’s a great dis­tance between being able to mouth the polit­i­cal­ly cor­rect thing and actu­al­ly hav­ing the kind of con­scious­ness that will pro­mote those goals in a seri­ous way. These folks are in busi­ness. They’re not in it for their health. 

And I looked around that audi­ence, and I real­ized that what I was look­ing at was per­haps the ulti­mate expres­sion of con­tem­po­rary civ­i­liza­tion. Which made me start to think that…you know, while Mitch and I had always talked about the job of EFF as being sym­bol­iz­ing the elec­tron­ic fron­tier, I think that our job and your job increas­ing­ly is going to be frontier-izing civ­i­liza­tion. [applause] Because I believe that as a species we have gone just about as far as we can go by design. If we’re going to try to design soci­ety from the top, we will con­tin­ue to have the sort of results that they had in the Soviet Union, and at IBM. [laugh­ter; applause] The world is sim­ply too com­plex a place to fig­ure out. It’s pret­ty good at fig­ur­ing itself out, as long as you have an extreme­ly open archi­tec­ture, basi­cal­ly an ecol­o­gy or ecosys­tem, which sup­ports ideas in a flu­id and nutri­tious kind of way. And that’s one of the great genius­es of Unix. I mean, I have a NeXT machine— (I expect a boo” or two.) That’s as close to Unix as I’ve been able to get, and that’s kind of like Unix with train­ing wheels by Armani. [laugh­ter; applause]

I have no per­son­al aspi­ra­tions to you know, write a lot of shell scripts and I still kind of feel like C++ must be just an excep­tion­al­ly excep­tion­al­ly mediocre report card [inaudi­ble due to audi­ence laugh­ter]. But Unix, if you look at the devel­op­ment of Unix over the course of its exis­tence it’s real­ly tru­ly remark­able how this crit­ter has grown. I think of it some­times as being the 1990s equiv­a­lent of Chartres Cathedral, where thou­sands of peo­ple worked for many years cre­at­ing some­thing that was amaz­ing­ly com­plex, and yet some­how worked rather ele­gant­ly to the pur­pos­es for which it had been cre­at­ed. I look at Unix as it con­tin­ues to devel­op and I think that it will con­tin­ue for a long time to be the genet­ic code of cyber­space. And you have to approach your work, I think, with that in mind. Of course the gov­ern­ment and the large enter­tain­ment and tele­vi­sion bod­ies that are now get­ting into this real­ly don’t have a sense of how impor­tant it is to have an adap­tive organ­ism as your sub­strate. They are not approach­ing it from that angle. 

But you know, I am pleased to say that among the things that Al Gore announced down in Los Angeles the oth­er day, had to do with open­ing up infor­ma­tion infra­struc­ture to com­pe­ti­tion. In the past as you know, most of the infor­ma­tion infra­struc­ture of the United States was designed on the basis of a reg­u­lat­ed monop­oly. And so we had for many years a stran­gle­hold on the part of AT&T, which up until very recent­ly would still require you to fill out a whole bunch of forms in order to put a suc­tion cup on your tele­phone. And I’m very grate­ful to Judge Greene, who took a lot of flak at the time, for hav­ing the insight to see that this stuff was going to devel­op much more rapid­ly and much more open­ly in the hands of a lot of dif­fer­ent com­pa­nies rather than one. 

And the same thing is now start­ing to hap­pen with regard to the impend­ing train­wreck between the cable indus­try and the tel­cos and the the wire­less indus­try. These var­i­ous indus­tries have been reg­u­lat­ed in the past by com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent regimes orig­i­nat­ing in com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent places. Most of the broad­cast­ers have been reg­u­lat­ed by the FCC—and poor­ly, I might add. Most tele­phone com­pa­nies are reg­u­lat­ed by state pub­lic util­i­ties com­mis­sions. And most cable oper­a­tors are reg­u­lat­ed by municipalities. 

What they’re try­ing to do is to cre­ate a sys­tem where­by all these dif­fer­ent media can come into direct com­pe­ti­tion with one anoth­er so that the path by which bits can get into your home or office is so rep­e­ti­tious and so open that com­pe­ti­tion brings down prices and cre­ates band­width. And there’s going to be, as you folks know well, an enor­mous desire for band­width that it’s going to take a lot of dif­fer­ent agen­cies to pro­duce. I mean band­width is one of those things kind of like mon­ey and sex. You know, the more you’ve got the short­er it feels. [laugh­ter]

And as soon as we start mov­ing away from text, as I hope we will since I per­son­al­ly have a text aller­gy at this point. I get a kind of ASCII glaze at the end of the week after five days of 100 to 150 email mes­sages a day. Each one of which I have to read in order to under­stand whether or not it’s impor­tant to me. And I want to see a lot of rich­er data that has a kind of semi­otic for­mat that tells me right away whether or not I want to mess with it. But it’s gonna take a lot of band­width to do that. 

In any case, there are sev­er­al bills already in Congress which the EFF has been a pret­ty involved in help­ing cre­ate. There’s the Markey bill, which is HR3636, the National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act of 1994, which would make it pos­si­ble for cable com­pa­nies to pro­vide tel­co ser­vices and vice ver­sa. And also make it pos­si­ble for the nation­al long-distance car­ri­ers to com­pete with the RBOCs in InterLATA telecommunications. 

There’s anoth­er fair­ly sim­i­lar bill in the Senate, the Telecommunications Infrastructure Act, which is being pro­mot­ed by Inoue and Danforth. 

And as Vice President Gore announced on Tuesday, the admin­is­tra­tion is cur­rent­ly draft­ing an amend­ment to the Communications Act which would include a whole new sec­tion of code called Title 7. And Title 7 essen­tial­ly does some­thing pret­ty enlight­ened. It’s a pro­mo­tion of a lot of the prin­ci­ples that EFF has been talk­ing about in open plat­form. And it essen­tial­ly would make it pos­si­ble for telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions providers to enter into a fair­ly non-regulated regime if they were will­ing to assure com­plete open­ness of what­ev­er chan­nel they were cre­at­ing to what­ev­er ser­vice or serv­er might wish to attach itself to it. And there is a lot of empha­sis being placed on mak­ing cer­tain that the data super­high­way is not 500 lanes one direc­tion and a foot­path the other. 

I can’t tell you how impor­tant it is that these design prin­ci­ples are full duplex. This does not res­onate with their cul­ture. They don’t know very much about get­ting that bit back from the con­sumer. They real­ly don’t. And they are under­stand­ably a lit­tle afraid of what will hap­pen when the couch pota­toes actu­al­ly start to speak up about what has been smoth­er­ing them, from their glass tubes all these years. It may turn out that they don’t real­ly like this stuff very much, and that they are not going to be pleased by 500 ver­sions of the Hair Channel For Men [laugh­ter] or the abil­i­ty to watch My Mother the Car at any hour of the day or night. 

In spite of these fair­ly enlight­ened activ­i­ties, I think that you will see that Congress is even more inclined than ever to act in loco par­en­tis. And there are pend­ing bills which would impose the neces­si­ty of hav­ing some kind of tech­no­log­i­cal switch on your set-top box that sensed violence…and would just cir­cum­vent its entry into your home. This is obvi­ous­ly pret­ty bone­head­ed but these are the kinds of things that we have to deal with. We have to make Congress and the var­i­ous com­mu­ni­ca­tions providers rec­og­nize that the best way to assure fam­i­ly val­ues for what­ev­er fam­i­ly might be hav­ing those val­ues is to tag infor­ma­tion in ways so that they can make their own choic­es. And there are ways to do that that’re not par­tic­u­lar­ly demand­ing from a tech­ni­cal lev­el. But we do not need a soci­ety which pro­tects us from our own words. [applause]

You know one of the great things about talk­ing to you guys is I don’t real­ly feel like I have to go through a very detailed his­to­ry of EFF or what we’re doing. But I know that many of you who had a nat­ur­al affin­i­ty for the work that we did in defend­ing free­dom of speech in the very begin­ning were baf­fled when we sud­den­ly became some­thing that looked like a tel­co trade orga­ni­za­tion and start­ed push­ing ISDN and deal­ing with telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions reg­u­la­tion. And as I say, I think that we did that for good and suf­fi­cient rea­sons, even if they did­n’t com­mu­ni­cate very well to the oth­er side. And I want to run down some of the fun­da­men­tal aspects of open platform. 

We are try­ing to pro­mote the idea that there needs to be com­mon car­riage, much as there has been through­out the his­to­ry of the tele­phone sys­tem, where the phone com­pa­ny cer­tain­ly did­n’t try to reg­u­late con­tent over its lines. The prob­lem here is that com­mon car­riage under the tele­phone mod­el was pro­tect­ed by a reg­u­la­to­ry regime which essen­tial­ly gave a monopoly…the right to go on being a monop­oly and a lot of incen­tive to go on being a monop­oly, if they would keep those lines open. And now it’s a whole new ball­game. Trying to come up with a mod­el for com­mon car­riage which does not involve a reg­u­la­to­ry over­bur­den or monop­o­lis­tic prac­tice is going to be a very sig­nif­i­cant chal­lenge and we don’t have all the answers by any means. [record­ing cuts out]

…is a hard-wired ver­sion of the radio spec­trum, in which they are broad­cast­ing through­out these wires but they are not receiv­ing any­thing from the oth­er end. We have to make cer­tain that the Vail notion of uni­ver­sal ser­vice con­tin­ues to pre­vail even in cul­tures that may not find that so amenable. We have to work on inter­con­nec­tion and inter­op­er­abil­i­ty. I mean, when the fel­la from Viacom told me that TCP/IP had too much over­head, as a non Unix wee­nie, I did­n’t have a good response to him except I said that it sound­ed to me faint­ly like a reli­gious rather than tech­no­log­i­cal state­ment. Which I think it is. But the peo­ple who know that and have sound evi­dence to prove it need to be speak­ing to the peo­ple who think that that is a canon of their faith. 

You also need to be think­ing about set-top box and video archi­tec­ture pro­to­cols that will make it very easy for the tel­cos and the infor­ma­tion ser­vices to pro­vide video in a fair­ly cheap bandwidth-wise and order­ly fash­ion. And I think there prob­a­bly is some truth that it’s hard to do under the cur­rent sys­tem. I saw what hap­pened to the Internet as soon as Mosaic got out there. And I’m some­what con­cerned that if a lot more of this goes on it’s going to be very dif­fi­cult to get traf­fic across the Internet. There are some seri­ous tech­ni­cal challenges. 

There’s a new ini­tia­tive which EFF is just start­ing to open up that you maybe inter­est­ed in, try­ing to work with the com­pa­nies them­selves, and these include some of the new Internet-based com­pa­nies, to con­vince them that there is a busi­ness advan­tage to allow­ing those peo­ple who con­nect to their sys­tem to use those con­nec­tions for what­ev­er pur­pose. And I don’t want to pick on Rick Adams, who I assume is here, but I think it’s unfor­tu­nate that AlterNet and PSI, and oth­er com­mer­cial Internet providers have for­bade those peo­ple who con­nect through them to use their facil­i­ties for such com­mer­cial ser­vices as bul­letin boards. And this is a debate that’s going to have to be car­ried on among you folks who are on the Internet and use those providers. And it may well be that you have to start look­ing to oth­er providers that are will­ing to open up their lines to real com­mu­ni­ca­tion and not impose unnec­es­sar­i­ly restric­tive bar­ri­ers to com­pe­ti­tion. [applause]

There are anoth­er set of issues that I think are going to be par­tic­u­lar­ly trou­bling, and dif­fi­cult to solve. And the gov­ern­ment is real­ly not even on the chart with this yet. I…more Thomas Pynchon. I had a real­ly weird expe­ri­ence the oth­er day. I man­aged to schmooze myself onto Air Force Two and ride back up here with Al Gore. A…surreal sense of unre­al­i­ty per­vad­ed that expe­ri­ence for me. But Al Gore’s a good guy and a smart guy, but he has been very focused on those issues around reg­u­la­tion and com­pe­ti­tion and has not thought about some oth­er issues very hard, and one of these is cryptography. 

When I start­ed to to talk to him about cryp­tog­ra­phy he said, Well, you know, we have nation­al secu­ri­ty inter­ests at stake.” And I think that we need to think long and hard about whether or not our nation­al secu­ri­ty inter­ests are actu­al­ly addressed by try­ing to impose export embar­goes on cryp­to­graph­ic code. This strikes me as being like try­ing to impose export embar­goes on wind, first and fore­most. I mean, you can get MacPGP or PGP from FTP sites all over the world in sec­onds, so I’m not quite sure what they’re accom­plish­ing, except that they are accom­plish­ing a chill­ing effect on the abil­i­ty of American cor­po­ra­tions to incor­po­rate robust cryp­tog­ra­phy into soft­ware and hard­ware which they might design. Because obvi­ous­ly it does­n’t make a lot of sense to build a sys­tem that puts in cryp­to­graph­ic stan­dards that the NSA is not going to allow you to ship over­seas. You don’t want to have to build one sys­tem for the United States, and anoth­er sys­tem for over­seas sales, espe­cial­ly in a busi­ness that exports as much of its prod­uct as we do in the hard­ware and soft­ware industries.

So we have to get the gov­ern­ment to rec­og­nize the futil­i­ty of cryp­to embar­go. It would be nice if they could rec­og­nize that the Cold War is over. But that may take some time. And even when they do rec­og­nize that we still have to deal with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: kid­die pornog­ra­phers; drug lords; ter­ror­ists; and unnamed for­eign ene­mies. And these mon­sters are rat­tled out every time I sug­gest that maybe it would be a good idea to free up cryp­tog­ra­phy. I think they are all fair­ly illu­so­ry beasts at this moment. Assuming that we have to shut down pri­va­cy in America because of ter­ror­ists does­n’t make a lot of sense to me when we only lost six of our cit­i­zens to ter­ror­ism last year. This is not quite the threat that the gov­ern­ment would por­tray it to be.

And real­ly what we’ve got going on I think is the NSA act­ing as a stalk­ing horse for the FBI and oth­er domes­tic law enforce­ment inter­ests, who are scared to death they’re going to lose their abil­i­ty to wire­tap as ana­log com­mu­ni­ca­tions becomes some kind of dig­i­tal fruit sal­ad. And they don’t see—and there may be a for­tu­nate qual­i­ty to this—they don’t see yet the tech­no­log­i­cal oppor­tu­ni­ties that dig­i­ti­za­tion will present them. And I think we need to see that and deal with it accord­ing­ly. We may be hurtling toward a future in which every sin­gle thing we do will be vis­i­ble to the gov­ern­ment. And as it is right now, any time you make a finan­cial trans­ac­tion you smear your fin­ger­prints all over cyber­space. This does not need to be the case. But it’s going to take a lot of chang­ing con­scious­ness to have it be oth­er­wise. And I was talk­ing to Gore the oth­er day, he was boast­ing about how gov­ern­ment ser­vices were going to be a lot more effi­cient as a result of a cen­tral­ized card that peo­ple could use to get any mon­ey that was owed them by the gov­ern­ment in dis­abil­i­ty pay­ments, social secu­ri­ty pay­ments, or what­ev­er. They could sim­ply go to a kiosk and insert their card and get their pay­ments. And I asked him if there weren’t some pri­va­cy con­sid­er­a­tions that went along with this and I drew a com­plete blank. So we have a seri­ous problem.

There are also seri­ous prob­lems that have to be reck­oned with in giv­ing cryp­tog­ra­phy to every­body. I mean I’m not cer­tain that I’m com­plete­ly san­guine with the idea that the advent of dig­i­tal cash may cre­ate an econ­o­my in which tax­es become vol­un­tary. You know, at first blush that seems immense­ly appeal­ing to me. [laugh­ter] And I’m sure it does to you, too. But the prob­lem with sim­ply buy­ing the gov­ern­ment that you think you need is that the peo­ple who can afford gov­ern­ment get it and the peo­ple who can’t don’t get it, and you see what’s hap­pen­ing already in the deliv­ery of a lot of vital services.

Education has become pri­va­tized at the top. Mail has become pri­va­tized at the top. I mean I don’t know any­one with an income over 50,000 that use the Postal Service when they want to send a pack­age. They use Federal Express or UPS.

Even the police ser­vices. If you go down to Los Angeles, which I guess you won’t be able to do for a few days, you will find that in the wealth­i­er parts of Los Angeles, the local estab­lished government-supported police force is not a major ele­ment. The real police come from WESTEC. It’s kind of like out of Snow Crash. I don’t know how many of you have read that but I mean…we’re talk­ing about a future in which Don’s Police Company will be more impor­tant than the local police. And in fact be the local police.

But I also think that we have to detach finan­cial trans­ac­tion from iden­ti­ty or we are going to be in a seri­ous mess. I think that the cur­rent gov­ern­ment we’ve got, for all of its inep­ti­tude, is rel­a­tive­ly benign. But as Lord Acton said, Absolute pow­er cor­rupts absolute­ly,” and when the gov­ern­ment can see every sin­gle thing we’re up to, I think that con­veys to them a lev­el of pow­er that I’m not going to be com­fort­able with their hav­ing. And I don’t think you should be.

There is also a whole set of extreme­ly knot­ty ques­tions about intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty. And again, I’m pleased that I don’t have to explain to this audi­ence that the dig­i­ti­za­tion of every­thing presents us with cer­tain intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty chal­lenges. You know a lot about this. Believe me, the peo­ple in tra­di­tion­al media do not. And we are enter­ing a sit­u­a­tion where the pri­ma­ry arti­cle of com­merce looks a hell of a lot like speech. And giv­en the ambi­gu­i­ty of prop­er­ty law in this area, I think it’s almost impos­si­ble for us to say that free speech is assured when pro­pri­etary inter­ests will try to con­trol its trans­port, in their own eco­nom­ic regard. There is going to be a lot of that, there already is a lot of that. There are oth­er aspects of this that are more incon­ve­nient than threat­en­ing but I don’t see how we’re going to avoid a com­plete col­lapse of tech­no­log­i­cal progress if we con­tin­ue do things like put patents on things like cur­sors. [applause]

But, I’m sure that many of you work for com­pa­nies that now feel oblig­at­ed to patent every thought that hap­pens to gel up in your heads. And I think you have to think about how you can serve Caesar, and at the same time serve the col­lec­tive good of human­i­ty. Because I am con­vinced that a lot of those thoughts real­ly are the col­lec­tive prop­er­ty of human­i­ty. Somebody once said that art is what hap­pens when God speaks through a human being. And I think there is some­thing bold and arro­gant about think­ing that you own what­ev­er hap­pens in your head. I think it’s there for every­one. That’s my own per­son­al belief and I’m sure I can get a good argu­ment out of some of you on that point.

But when I dis­cussed the intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty dilem­ma with Gore on the plane the oth­er day he said, Well, you’re a song­writer and you must know that there is already a sys­tem oper­at­ing that deals in intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty that does­n’t have some phys­i­cal man­i­fes­ta­tion, and that is BMI and ASCAP.”

And I said, Well I’m a mem­ber of ASCAP. And if you think that’s the solu­tion, I invite you to write some songs.” [laugh­ter] Because ASCAP and BMI have a sys­tem for extract­ing roy­al­ty pay­ments from radio and tele­vi­sion sta­tions and dis­trib­ut­ing to their mem­bers which is so dis­or­ga­nized and dis­or­ga­ni­z­able that I look at ASCAP pay­ments as being man­na. I mean, when I get a check from ASCAP I think, Well that’s nice. I won­der if it reflects any­thing real about radio play and tele­vi­sion broad­casts.” I sus­pect not, because what they real­ly do is they’ve got peo­ple walk­ing around streets with randomly-selected tapes of radio broad­casts, lis­ten­ing to them on their Walkmans, and writ­ing down every song they hear and com­ing up with some kind of very crude sta­tis­ti­cal reck­on­ing of what that means in terms of actu­al air­play. And this is a slop­py system.

But I think there are going to be oth­er sys­tems of intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty pro­tec­tion which evolve, prob­a­bly based on some­thing more like a per­for­mance mod­el or a ser­vice mod­el, than instan­ti­a­tion in some phys­i­cal wid­get, whether it’s a book, or a tape, or what­ev­er. Those things are all going to go away, and we have to fig­ure out how to sell the wine with­out any bot­tles. And I think that we prob­a­bly will. I can’t imag­ine that we’re going into the infor­ma­tion age with­out any way of get­ting paid for the work that we do with our minds. But we’re just going to have to change our sense of what that work is from own­er­ship, to per­for­mance and ser­vice. We’re going to have to look at our­selves in a con­tin­u­ous rela­tion­ship with the peo­ple who use our work rather than say­ing, Alright, well I’ve put my work in this box, and I’m going to give you this box and the next time it’s going to be a whole new transaction.”

But, these are going to involve some fair­ly pro­found eco­nom­ic and social changes. About the only thing I’m will­ing to say about them from here is that any­thing I say about them at this point is liable to look ridicu­lous in ten years. Everything is going to change very much. I real­ly feel that what we are essen­tial­ly doing here is rough­ly like what the French the­olo­gian and philoso­pher Teilhard de Chardin was talk­ing about when he start­ed to write in the 30s about the Omega Point, or that point at which human beings became so good at com­mu­ni­cat­ing with one anoth­er that they cre­at­ed what amount­ed to the col­lec­tive organ­ism of mind. We are going to become a crea­ture. In a sense maybe we already are. And that will be a very dif­fer­ent kind of crea­ture than has ever been seen in the uni­verse before. It will be enor­mous­ly pow­er­ful. And you folks are help­ing it be born. I want to take some ques­tions and answers, but thank you very much.

John Perry Barlow: Could I have some light in here? I like it a lot bet­ter when I’m talk­ing to peo­ple I can see. Yes, go ahead.

Audience 1: Okay. In the past, even though the Internet has had fund­ing from the gov­ern­ment, I think there’s been more sweat equi­ty from some of us, and more local mon­ey put into the Internet com­pared to the gov­ern­men­t’s con­tri­bu­tion. With the advent of the super­high­way, this ratio may change and there­fore the gov­ern­men­t’s con­trol of the Internet may also increase. Do you have any com­ments on that? 

Barlow: Well, you know, fortunately…you’d nev­er guess it from hear­ing their pub­lic state­ments but the gov­ern­ment has no inten­tion of build­ing the nation­al data super­high­way. They know that that’s not some­thing that they can afford or some­thing that they should be doing. What they are doing instead is try­ing to cre­ate the right eco­nom­ic envi­ron­ment in which that thing can be built by pri­vate indus­try. And that’s real­ly the appro­pri­ate approach, as long as you can put in place cer­tain stan­dards for behav­ior that will help pri­vate indus­try act in a democ­ra­tiz­ing rather than plu­to-crati­ciz­ing kind of way. 

The gov­ern­ment is also doing the right thing in the sense that they are try­ing to stim­u­late inter­net use by pro­vid­ing grants to schools and oth­er oth­er pub­lic inter­est bod­ies for Internet con­nec­tion. And they’re also inter­est­ed in cre­at­ing appli­ca­tions which will become strong­ly sup­port­ive of pub­lic use of the Internet. 

So, I think that when­ev­er gov­ern­ment gets involved in any­thing you’ve got to be vig­i­lant. But I’m very pleased with the over­all approach they’re tak­ing to build­ing this thing. They’re not set­ting out to try to pour con­crete. Or in this case lay fiber. They know enough to know that there’s an awful lot of dark fiber already out there and what they need to stim­u­late are the on-ramps and the coun­try roads. Because the main routes have already been built. 

Audience 2: In yes­ter­day’s Chronicle, Michael Schrage is a colum­nist, he wrote that all the talk about infor­ma­tion haves and have-nots is cre­at­ing a wel­fare eth­ic in cyber­space, and goes on to say that the real prob­lems are not pover­ty or wealth in a mon­e­tary sense but how illit­er­ate or lit­er­ate peo­ple are. I’d like to know your thoughts about that. 

Barlow: Well, I don’t think Michael Schrage gets it. He also in the same col­umn talks about what this is all for is for tele­vi­sion, essen­tial­ly. He does­n’t seem to under­stand that peo­ple want to inter­act with each oth­er over this. And he also does­n’t under­stand some­thing an Andrew Carnegie under­stood very well. I’ve got a great quote in here which I could read you if my bat­tery had­n’t gone flat on me. [laugh­ter; applause] I don’t know about these things. …from Andrew Carnegie, who said that he gave his mon­ey to libraries because he felt that libraries were one of the great tools for achiev­ing social equi­ty and jus­tice. They did not pau­per­ize peo­ple. They did­n’t make them depen­dent. They give them the tools that were nec­es­sary for them to pull them­selves up by their own boot­straps. And real­ly what we’re talk­ing about is the con­struc­tion of a great meta library. And I can’t believe that giv­ing peo­ple access to a sys­tem on which all the world’s infor­ma­tion is going to reside will have a tru­ly dele­te­ri­ous effect on the abil­i­ty of peo­ple to get information. 

There are prob­lems, and they’re pri­mar­i­ly cul­tur­al rather than eco­nom­ic prob­lems. You folks have cre­at­ed an inter­face, if we can call it that [laugh­ter], which is high­ly exclu­sive. It’s con­ge­nial to peo­ple like you. And there aren’t a lot of peo­ple like you, as you may have noticed. [laugh­ter] It is not par­tic­u­lar­ly con­ge­nial to peo­ple like my moth­er, or a 13 year-old from Harlem. Or, I might, add most women. Just take a look at the num­bers in this room. There are women here but you are a spe­cial lot. There aren’t enough of you here. [applause] And I think that we can’t real­ly set­tle cyber­space until we can make it safe for the women and chil­dren, and it isn’t. [laugh­ter; applause]

And I don’t blame you guys this. I mean, Brenda Laurel and I were at a con­fer­ence a few years ago talk­ing about why there aren’t more women in dig­i­tal media, and whether it was a process of active exclu­sion or what. And a young, pale man got up in the back of the room and he said, Well, you have to under­stand that I got in the com­put­er sci­ence because I was scared of girls. [laugh­ter] And there weren’t any there.” 

So you know, I think that there are a lot of prob­lems that have to be addressed with regard to access, but they’re most­ly prob­lems with mak­ing the tools easy for peo­ple to use. Because I don’t think that the tech­nol­o­gy itself is going to be very expen­sive for very long. I mean I’ve seen 286’s as doorstops and paper­weights. And they’re still per­fect­ly good for access­ing the Internet. We need to get that machin­ery out into the com­mu­ni­ty that can’t afford it. And you need to make cer­tain that the infor­ma­tion providers and infra­struc­ture providers feel some sense of social respon­si­bil­i­ty about putting access points at low cost into every home in America. But Schrage’s argu­ment that this is all for the rich I think is a lit­tle misleading. 

I am…you know, I am a bit con­cerned about what I’m afraid is going to break down in the library mod­el. I mean, in the library mod­el you come to the library and get books free. The con­tents of those books did­n’t cost you any­thing, it had already been paid for when the library bought the book. And now I’m afraid we’re going to a sys­tem where an awful lot of infor­ma­tion is going to cost every­one who uses it. And I don’t know the answer to that ques­tion. I hope that the col­lec­tive men­tal horse­pow­er of the peo­ple in this room can turn them­selves to that because it’s going to be a tough question. 

Audience 3: I had a some­what more prac­ti­cal ques­tion about open­ness. You men­tioned a desire to make sure there are mul­ti­ple wires to the house. But one of the prob­lems I’m see­ing is that the local munic­i­pal­i­ties own the con­duits. And this is actu­al­ly becom­ing a tremen­dous dif­fi­cul­ty for exam­ple in get­ting rights to get conduit—look at the [MCLI?] deal that made sure they could install stuff in New York City. 

Similarly, I mean you know, if I can get to a rail­road line, for exam­ple, almost any­where in the country—railroad lines being an inter­est­ing sit­u­a­tion because you can put fiber along them very cheap­ly. I mean for exam­ple to wire the entire penin­su­la could cost a few thou­sand bucks to go down the Caltrain line here. But get­ting from one house to Caltrain means you have to go through the local munic­i­pal­i­ty to get per­mis­sion to put some­thing in the con­duit, which means huge amounts of mon­ey and dif­fi­cul­ty of access. Is there any­thing one can do to try to encour­age com­pe­ti­tion in the con­duit sort of space?

Barlow: Well this is essen­tial­ly what EFF is try­ing to get done in Congress, and in work­ing with the var­i­ous con­gress­men and with the admin­is­tra­tion. You know, that’s been Priority A, is mak­ing cer­tain that there are a lot of com­peti­tors who are oper­at­ing on a lev­el play­ing field in get­ting those bits to you. And I think that the bills that’re present­ly pend­ing are head­ed the right direc­tion. I strong­ly recommend…you know, tedious as it may be, that you make your­self famil­iar with that legislation. 

And I would also rec­om­mend you know, EFF as being a good way to do that. If there are a lot of you who have not joined EFF I’m going to be per­fect­ly self-serving now in say­ing that I think you real­ly ought to. And if you don’t feel like join­ing us, at least try to check in on our news groups, which are…um… I did­n’t get enough sleep last night. comp​.org​.eff​.talk and eff-news. But the best way to get infor­ma­tion from us is to write eff@​eff.​org and ask to be put on our mail­ing list. And also if you’re inter­est­ed in get­ting paper for those friends of yours that may not be digitally-connected, you can request that paper mate­ri­als be sent to you. We will try to keep you extreme­ly up-to-date on what’s going on in Washington, where we have the dis­mal chore of keep­ing track of it. 

We’ll do that for you so you don’t have to, but you need to be some­what aware. You need to know that there are going to be moments where it becomes crit­i­cal to write your con­gress­man. And you need to try to make your friends aware of what’s going on here. Because peo­ple are in a seri­ous state of con­fu­sion. Most folks are dif­fer­ent­ly clued from your­self, and you need to help them out a lit­tle bit. 

Audience 4: You seem to be advo­cat­ing two things that at least at first blush seem like they might be at least some­what mutu­al­ly contradictory.

Barlow: I hope so. 

Audience 5: One is let­ting com­pe­ti­tion in a lev­el play­ing field get things going. The oth­er is uni­ver­sal access as a type of of…that the tele­phone com­pa­nies have sub­si­dized local access to get as their quid pro quo for reg­u­lat­ed monop­oly. This seems to be a stick­ing point in the var­i­ous bills in Congress. What is the best position?

Barlow: Well this is a tough prob­lem. I tend to think, though, that if I’m not in the pres­ence of irony and para­dox I must not be in the pres­ence of the truth. And you know, the way in which the Vail mod­el worked was by the impo­si­tion of the tele­phone com­pa­ny as a reg­u­lat­ed monop­oly which was in a posi­tion to charge some of its cus­tomers a lot more in order to sub­si­dize oth­er of its cus­tomers who could­n’t afford those rates. And we don’t want to go to that regime, and there’s no enthu­si­asm any­where in the indus­try for doing that. Too many years of deal­ing with the FCC has hard­ened every­body against regulation. 

But I think that the answer to that is that there is some­thing about real com­pe­ti­tion, and not the kind of bogus com­pe­ti­tion you get between two or three agen­cies, that is going to have an enor­mous­ly dis­trib­u­tive effect, nat­u­ral­ly. If it’s real com­pe­ti­tion, it’s in their best inter­est to get those con­nec­tions to every­body. Because they’re also going to be in the busi­ness of sell­ing the stuff that comes over that wire, and if they can’t get that wire to you they can’t sell that stuff to you. I’ve had that expe­ri­ence from a num­ber of peo­ple in places like Bell Atlantic and TCI and I tend to believe them. I think they see it as being in their self-interest to get every­thing connected. 

But you know, I don’t feel some sense of great secu­ri­ty in that, I feel like we have to be con­tin­u­ous­ly vig­i­lant. And you know, it’s one thing to say that we want open com­pe­ti­tion, it’s anoth­er thing to come up with an appro­pri­ate mech­a­nism for assur­ing it and God is in the details. And there’s going to be a lot of hard work in work­ing out those details. 

By the way I have a ques­tion from the net here, which is Will a record­ing of this speech be avail­able after­wards?” and I guess the answer is yes though I don’t know…

Jeff Mogul: The answer to that is that Carl Malamud who runs Internet Talk Radio will be giv­en the tape of this and he’ll make it avail­able via his usu­al techniques. 

Barlow: Right. 

Audience 5: Yes, I had a ques­tion. Amongst this audi­ence I—and I mean to insult no one—you usu­al­ly use the word pol­i­tics” to describe any social phe­nom­e­non you don’t under­stand. [Barlow laughs] And in my expe­ri­ence, I come from the actu­al precinct in which Tip O’Neill lived, and his famous dic­tum about all pol­i­tics being local I think prob­a­bly holds here. The only thing I guess I would I would ask you is if you could com­ment on the degree to which pol­i­tics is about voice. And in my expe­ri­ence on the local lev­el, it has always been that those who are frankly allied on the side of good­ness are those who are doing it out of love and in their spare time. And the oppo­site num­ber is paid to do it and arrive in vast mul­ti­tudes in pro­por­tion to the amount of mon­ey to be made. The descrip­tions you were giv­ing ear­li­er sound like an ever-greater Goliath for us sundry Davids in the audi­ence. I won­dered how you might address the inequity.

Barlow: Well at least that ought to get you out of bed in the morn­ing. Or at night­fall when­ev­er you get up. [laugh­ter; applause] But you know, I think we need to look at the Internet itself, which is one of the great­est vol­un­teer projects of all time. And is dou­bling in size annu­al­ly in spite of the fact that there does­n’t seem to be any mon­ey in it any­where that any­body can— [laugh­ter] People from the phys­i­cal world keep ask­ing me about how the Internet gets paid for and I…you know… I don’t know. [laugh­ter]

Audience 5: Time Warner does. 

Barlow: Uh…no Time Warner def­i­nite­ly does­n’t, I assure you. They real­ly don’t. They’re try­ing hard to fig­ure that out. 

But you know, you’re absolute­ly right. All sen­si­ble pol­i­tics are local, for sure. And that’s one of the great genius­es of dis­trib­uted com­mu­ni­ca­tion sys­tems. Because the sort of macro deci­sions, the meta deci­sions that get made about the Internet emerge from lit­tle col­lec­tive deci­sions that are made all over its out­er bound­aries. I think there’s some­thing enor­mous­ly democ­ra­tiz­ing about this. And I think that it is a very, very pow­er­ful sys­tem that the old struc­tur­al meth­ods are going to have a dif­fi­cult time com­pet­ing with. In spite of the fact that they have a lot of mon­ey behind them, they don’t have the same kind of pas­sion. They don’t have the same sense of per­son­al invest­ment and involve­ment in what they’re doing that peo­ple who are build­ing the Internet do. And I…I think, you know there are times when I feel like this thing is just going to spread of its own accord, at the present rate which is some­times 20% growth per month, until some­time before the turn of the mil­len­ni­um every man, woman, and child on the plan­et has an email address. But you know, I think we can also expect to see that curve go asymp­tot­ic at some point and… You know, I’m not com­plete­ly san­guine about about our chances but I’m very opti­mistic. We just have to stay on it. 

Audience 6: My ques­tion is, when I think about the ques­tion of main­tain­ing qual­i­ty on the net, you know I’m not sure that all thought [flame?] is any bet­ter than Geraldo. And unfortunately—

Barlow: At least you don’t have to see them. [laugh­ter]

Audience 6: Unfortunately, qual­i­ty in things like this con­fer­ence and on the net has relied tra­di­tion­al­ly on unpaid pro­gram com­mit­tee mem­bers and mod­er­a­tors. And as every­one of the busi­ness­es involved in this starts say­ing, We don’t do any­thing unless we see the return,” I’m wor­ried about the sus­tain­ing vol­un­teer effort to cre­ate the basic infor­ma­tion, ie., writ­ing the first copy when you can’t usu­al­ly charge peo­ple who’re mak­ing more copies, and sort­ing the out good infor­ma­tion from the bad. And I hope that the gov­ern­ment will try to arrange the pol­i­tics so that there is a reward in that part of the busi­ness in what would tra­di­tion­al­ly be the librar­i­an ref­er­ee­ing busi­ness once the print­ing busi­ness is no longer throw­ing up the sur­plus to sup­port it. 

Barlow: Well, I don’t think that the gov­ern­ment needs to do very much along those lines. Because I think that one of the great­est prob­lems that we face cit­ing data shock. I mean, cer­tain­ly our polit­i­cal sys­tem is already reel­ing under the effects of too much infor­ma­tion. The aver­age con­gress­man has got an atten­tion span of about five sec­onds. And I per­son­al­ly don’t spend a lot of time read­ing Usenet any­more because I just don’t have the time or the ener­gy to sort out per­son­al­ly the signal-to-noise ratio. Which is lousy. 

And fur­ther­more I’m hav­ing to do it you know, with…the human I/O is worse than a cheat modem. For text. I mean it’s great for expe­ri­ence. I mean we’re get­ting giga­bits per sec­ond of infor­ma­tion about our envi­ron­ment. But with text it’s not very high. So I think that there are a cou­ple of solu­tions to the prob­lem, one of which is gonna be rich­er media. But also I think that there’s going to be a nat­ur­al devel­op­ment of a lot of peo­ple who make their liv­ing by try­ing to sort out rel­e­vance for a spe­cif­ic audi­ence that con­tracts with them. You know, at this point I would be will­ing to pay a cer­tain amount to quite a num­ber of peo­ple to iden­ti­fy what I real­ly want to know about and flag the stuff that’s out there on the Internet, to bring it to my atten­tion so I don’t have to read the whole damn thing to get the stuff that is impor­tant. [applause]

And I think that’s already start­ing to hap­pen, and will will hap­pen a lot. I mean I real­ly see that there are two great eco­nom­ic oppor­tu­ni­ties here. One is for vir­tu­al edit­ing and the oth­er one is for vir­tu­al com­mu­ni­ty and ways in which you can bring peo­ple togeth­er and pro­vide them a rich medi­um in which to inter­act with one anoth­er. I think they’re going to be very suc­cess­ful busi­ness mod­els and they’re going to be small sort of machete and loincloth-style busi­ness­es. They’re not the sort of thing that Bell Atlantic is ever going to know very much about running. 

Audience 7: What about sys­tems like the French Minitel? Do you think these are mod­els that we should look at for the infor­ma­tion superhighway?

Barlow: Well, first of all I can’t imag­ine that Jesse Helms would be very appre­cia­tive of most of the con­tent on Minitel. But you know, if any­thing I’ve had deal­ings with the French about try­ing to get the Minitel sys­tem con­nect­ed to the net. And there’s an enor­mous amount of cul­tur­al immune response there. As you would imag­ine, their being French and all. [laugh­ter]

Interestingly enough you know, you run into the same prob­lem in Japan. I mean, they rec­og­nize that…you know, their cul­ture is very impor­tant to them and they rec­og­nize that there is some­thing enor­mous­ly infec­tious about this. They hate the fact that it’s in English. Gore was say­ing the oth­er day that he had been talk­ing to the pres­i­dent of Kazakhstan and this fel­low’s son had said that he want­ed to learn English because that was the lan­guage that the com­put­er spoke. This is the sort of state­ment that chills a lot of Frenchmen. 

But I’m pleased to say that they’re start­ing to come around on this. I know that they have recent­ly con­tract­ed with a Silicon Valley com­pa­ny that is in the PDA busi­ness to start con­nect­ing Minitel to a larg­er net­work. They’ve got some seri­ous tech­ni­cal prob­lems. I mean, Minitel was amaz­ing­ly advanced when it was cre­at­ed. I don’t think you could say that of it now. But I think there’s a lot of there’s suc­tion in the online world that even­tu­al­ly is going to attract every­thing that pro­duces elec­tron­ic information. 

Audience 8: This is kind of on a more mun­dane plane. What kind of con­nec­tiv­i­ty do you expect to have at your ranch in Wyoming in the next decade, say?

Barlow: Well, I’m real­ly hope­ful that I’m not stuck at 19.2 for­ev­er. But I think that that again is is an area where I have plen­ty of rea­son for opti­mism. There are a num­ber of com­pa­nies that are work­ing on satel­lite tech­nol­o­gy. And I think that there’s going to be an econ­o­my of scale devel­oped there fair­ly rapid­ly for those those kinds of extreme­ly rur­al areas where run­ning in tra­di­tion­al net­works may be prohibitive. 

But you know, actu­al­ly the lit­tle com­pa­nies, lit­tle tele­phone providers in places like I live have been con­sis­tent­ly a lot more advanced than than the RBOCs. US West, which serves most of the area around me, is sell­ing off a lot of its small ten­drils rather than put in dig­i­tal switch­ing, where­as the pri­vate com­pa­nies in those small areas have had dig­i­tal switch­ing for a long time, includ­ing one in my lit­tle town. Tnd they’re present­ly run­ning a fiber optic cable forty-five miles from Big Piney to Pinedale. I think it’ll be a while before they start run­ning fiber around Pinedale, but they’re going to have ISDN there next year. [applause]

So again, it falls to a large extent to folks like you to go to your local tele­phone provider and say, I want to get ISDN ser­vice, how can I do that?” I mean that’s real­ly impor­tant. Because a lot of these folks don’t know that there’s a real desire on the part of the pub­lic, that there’s a mar­ket for this kind of product. 

Have you been…?

Audience 9: I’ve been stand­ing here in the middle. 

Barlow: Okay, who’s been there the longest? I haven’t the slight­est idea. Okay, go ahead.

Audience 10: I have, yes. To go on with this par­tic­u­lar dis­cus­sion, I live up in the moun­tains of New Mexico way up away from every­where and I have a PageSAT satel­lite receiv­er. And that is one way, as you point­ed out. The prob­lem I’m hav­ing there is to get back to the Internet I need to feed back through an FCC-controlled spec­trum. And the FCC is not quite com­ing around as fast as you seem to think the tele­phone com­pa­ny is, although I’m just total­ly get­ting around the tele­phone com­pa­ny. I real­ly haven’t had a phone for three or four years. I just recent­ly got one because I bought a new house and it had a phone in it. But it will go away after a while. 

Barlow: Well every­body knows that the FCC is a prob­lem. That’s the good news. I mean even the FTC knows that. And I think that as Title 7 gets draft­ed, we’re going to see some fun­da­men­tal changes in the way in which the FCC oper­ates. Because the FCC has been doing some­thing very dif­fer­ent in the past from what it’s about to start doing. 

There’s also final­ly an aware­ness that radio spec­trum is not quite the same thing as real estate. That it has an infi­nite­ly divis­i­ble qual­i­ty. And it’s not quite nec­es­sary with present day tech­nol­o­gy to pro­tect so much of the side­band as it has been in the past. So I think we’re going to see some real changes in FCC pol­i­cy. Again, you’re going to have to help make those changes hap­pen. I mean these orga­ni­za­tions do not change because they want to. They change because they have to. 

Audience 10: Well, the thing that I see that’s got me scared is that I’ve a satel­lite receiv­er for like fif­teen years. And the changes that went into effect when Time Warner turned the skies dark are just ter­ri­fy­ing. Because as soon as there was a mar­ket, as soon as there were enough satel­lite receivers out there, then Time Warner decid­ed that they would only send their satel­lite pro­gram­ming to those peo­ple who scram­bled their sig­nal so that the home satel­lite receiv­er could not receive it. And they had instant mar­ket at that point. And so that’s why I sup­port the cryp­tog­ra­phy thing. I’m against the Clipper chip. I’m all of those things just because it’s already hap­pened and you guys weren’t even aware of it.

Barlow: Well you know, I don’t want to be too enthu­si­as­tic about these peo­ple but anoth­er great mar­ket devel­oped at that point which was in pirate decod­ing chips, and those peo­ple are amaz­ing.

Audience 10: But the Time Warner peo­ple have defeat­ed that mar­ket, too. They replace the video cipher almost every year.

Barlow: Yeah.

Audience 10: They’re up to video cipher three and four tech­nol­o­gy at this point. As soon as you start to beat them or start to come even, then they replaced the hardware.

Barlow: And so march­es tech­nol­o­gy. I’m afraid I’m out of time, folks. If you want imme­di­ate mate­ri­als on EFF I think there’s some out here on a table. I thank you all very much. I’m hon­ored to be able to speak to you.

Mogul: Thank you John. Apparently we had about sev­en­ty peo­ple from the Internet lis­ten­ing in at 1 point or another—I don’t think all at the same time. And I’d like to thank every­body. We have a break ses­sion and then at eleven o’clock sharp we’ll be start­ing the first ses­sion of ref­er­eed papers in here and the first invit­ed talk ses­sion I guess on the oth­er side of the divider.

Further Reference

This record­ing at archive​.org

A ver­sion of this speech, minus Q&A, is pub­lished at the EFF web site, titled Stopping the Information Railroad”. It is marked as hav­ing been tran­scribed, though there are dif­fer­ences from the record­ing above.

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.