Date: Fri, 28 Oct 94 15:42:53 PDT
From: RISKS Forum <risks@csl.sri.com>
Subject: RISKS DIGEST 16.51

RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest  Friday 28 October 1994  Volume 16 : Issue 51

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 12:48:17 -0700
From: Phil Agre <pagre@ucsd.edu>
Subject: Orwell was off by 499 channels, and what to do about it

The NYT has an article about Bell Atlantic's video plans:

  Edmund L. Andrews, A launching pad for a video revolution, New York Times,
  27 October 1994, pages C1, C6 [business section].

The point of the article is that BA wants to deliver video to customers, and
is teaming up with Hollywood types to obtain the content.  The main focus for
Risks, though, is probably the privacy aspects of the scheme.  A few quotes
will probably give the idea:

  "Company executives, convinced that they must distinguish themselves from
  today's established cable programmers [and so they plan to] offer more
  customized entertainment and shopping.

  "Thus, the company has tied together a computer system that could, almost
  like Orwell's Big Brother, monitor the movies that a person orders and then
  suggest others with the same actors or themes.

  "Going a step further, the system would enable advertisers to send
  commercials directly to customers known to have bought particular kinds
  of merchandise.  Thus, people who bought camping equipment from a video
  catalogue might start seeing commercials for outdoor clothing."
  
  ... "The scale of the new center ... makes clear how serious Bell Atlantic
  is about this venture."

If this sort of thing is really what people want, of course, then that's 
their perfect right.  But advocates for other visions of technology can do
plenty to ensure that people make informed choices.  One is to inform people
(in honest but vivid terms) that their program selections and purchases are
being recorded, kept, and used for secondary purposes.  Another is to keep on
building things like the Internet and community networks, and redouble efforts
to publicize them by telling clear, powerful stories about them.  The point is
to show that privacy-enhancing and *genuinely* interactive technologies exist,
and that they are useful, accessible, democratic, entertaining and convenient.

As my colleague Francois Bar emphasizes, this sort of end-user experimentation
is crucial for defining the architectures of the future.  Bell Atlantic and
its brethren are creating top-down, privacy-invasive, 500-channel visions 
of the future -- even though they haven't worked very well in pilot tests 
in carefully selected communities -- because that's the business model 
they know.  We can try to suppress the Risks associated with this model, but 
that's like shoveling the tide back into the ocean -- a lot of work.  Another
approach to pursue in parallel is to create alternatives that offer *both*
democratic values *and* a lucrative business model for the people who can
supply the necessary infrastructure.

This process starts with experimentation and continues with public relations.
Here's a plan.  If you're doing something terrific with networks, volunteer 
to demonstrate it in your local school.  Have great stories ready to tell
about it.  Ask the kids to tell their parents.  Then write a press release.
Send it to all the newspapers and TV stations in your area -- especially the
small ones.  And make it available on the net as a model for others to follow.

Phil Agre, UCSD

------------------------------

End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 16.51 
************************



Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 15:48:04 -0800
From: Phil Agre <pagre@ucsd.edu>
To: telecomreg@relay.adp.wisc.edu
Subject: Orwell2 was off by 499 channels, and what to do about it
cc: moon@gdc.com

[Dave Moon asked me to send this to telecomreg -- it's a revised version of a
message that I originally sent to Risks and Communet. -- PA]

The NYT has an article about Bell Atlantic's video plans:

  Edmund L. Andrews, A launching pad for a video revolution, New York Times,
  27 October 1994, pages C1, C6 [business section].

The point of the article is that BA wants to deliver video to customers, and
is teaming up with people from Hollywood to obtain the content.  An important
issue for us, though, is the privacy aspects of the scheme.  A few quotes will
probably give the idea:

  "Company executives, convinced that they must distinguish themselves from
  today's established cable programmers [and so they plan to] offer more
  customized entertainment and shopping.

  "Thus, the company has tied together a computer system that could, almost
  like Orwell's Big Brother, monitor the movies that a person orders and then
  suggest others with the same actors or themes.

  "Going a step further, the system would enable advertisers to send
  commercials directly to customers known to have bought particular kinds
  of merchandise.  Thus, people who bought camping equipment from a video
  catalogue might start seeing commercials for outdoor clothing."
  
  ... "The scale of the new center ... makes clear how serious Bell Atlantic
  is about this venture."

If this sort of thing is really what people want, of course, then that's 
their perfect right.  But advocates for other visions of technology can do
plenty to ensure that people make informed choices.  One is to inform people
(in honest but vivid terms) that their program selections and purchases 
are being recorded, kept, and used for secondary purposes -- and that this
practice is central to the business.  Another is to keep on building things
like the Internet and community networks -- and redouble efforts to publicize
them by telling clear, powerful stories about them.  The point is to show 
that privacy-enhancing and *genuinely* interactive technologies exist, and
that they are useful, accessible, democratic, entertaining and convenient.

As my colleague Francois Bar emphasizes, this sort of end-user experimentation
is crucial for defining the architectures of the future.  Bell Atlantic and
its brethren are creating top-down, privacy-invasive, 500-channel visions 
of the future -- even though they haven't worked very well in pilot tests in
real communities -- because that's the business model they know.  We can try
to suppress the Risks associated with this model, but that's like shoveling
the tide back into the ocean -- a lot of work.  Another approach to pursue 
in parallel is to create alternatives that offer *both* democratic values
*and* a lucrative business model for the people who can supply the necessary
infrastructure.  BA et alia have heard of computer networking, of course --
the point is to create mass demand for it.

This process starts with experimentation and continues with public relations.
Here's a plan.  If you're doing something terrific with networks, volunteer 
to demonstrate it in your local school.  Get some great stories ready to tell
about it.  Invent some great buzzwords and sound bites.  Then write a press
release about the upcoming demo.  Include some of the stories in it.  Make 
the press release quote you as uttering your great sound bites.  Mail or fax
it to all the newspapers and TV stations in your area -- especially the small
ones.  (Or, if you have a bit of money, call up PR Newswire's 800 number and
get them to do it for you.)  And make it available on the net as a model for
others to follow.

Phil Agre, UCSD