The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud458.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 49.5 KB | 910 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun Nov 15, 1992   Volume 4 : Issue 58

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail])
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
       Coop Eidolator: Etaion Shrdlu, Junior

CONTENTS, #4.58 (Nov 15, 1992)
File 1--Special Issue: A Computer & Information Technologies Platform

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost from [e-mail]. The editors may be
contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax [phone]) or U.S. mail at:
Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115.

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM; on Genie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under
"computing newsletters;" on the PC-EXEC BBS at [phone]; in
Europe from the ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893; and using
anonymous FTP on the Internet from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in
/pub/cud, red.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.91) in /cud, halcyon.com
(192.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud, and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2)
in /pub/text/CuD.
European readers can access the ftp site at: nic.funet.fi pub/doc/cud.
Back issues also may be obtained from the mail
server at [e-mail].
European distributor: ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893.

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.  CuD material may  be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited.  Some authors do copyright their material, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission.  It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified.  Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication.  Articles are
preferred to short responses.  Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 22:00:03 -0800
From: James I. Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--A Computer & Information Technologies Platform

((MODERATORS' NOTE: The potential of computer technology to liberate
also carries with it the potential to repress. Computer applications
contain the risks of intruding on privacy, increasing our
vulnerability to crime, and altering the social sphere by revising
laws, class structure, and power/control systems. The consequences of
computer technology are *social* and affect us all. Responsibility for
recognizing the impact of expanding technology is not something that
should be left to others--to "experts"--but that should be
aggressively confronted by all of us.

This special issue presents a platform statement drafted by the
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility's Berkeley chapter as
one way to begin recognizing the *political* implications of computer
technology. We invite responses to it with the intent of sharpening
the debates over the issues it raises.

The bibliography has been deleted because of spatial constraints.
Those interested can obtain the complete text, including biblio, from
the CuD ftp site (ftp.eff.org)).

+++++++++++++

A COMPUTER AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES PLATFORM

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Berkeley Chapter
Peace and Justice Working Group

*****************************************************************

INTRODUCTION

As computer and information technologies become all pervasive, they
touch more and more on the lives of everyone. Even so, their
development and deployment remains unruly, undemocratic and
unconcerned with the basic needs of humanity. Over the past 20 years,
new technologies have dramatically enhanced our ability to collect and
share information, to improve the quality of work, and to solve
pressing problems like hunger, homelessness and disease.  Yet over the
same period we have witnessed a growing set of problems which are
eroding the quality of life in our country. We have seen the virtual
collapse of our public education system.  Privacy has evaporated.
Workplace monitoring has increased in parallel with the de-skilling or
outright disappearance of work.  Homelessness has reached new heights.
Dangerous chemicals poison our environment. And our health is
threatened by the growing pandemic of AIDS along with the resurgence
of 19th century diseases like cholera and tuberculosis.

As a society, we possess the technical know-how to resolve
homelessness, illiteracy, the absence of privacy, the skewed
distribution of information and knowledge, the lack of health care,
environmental damage, and poverty. These problems persist only because
of the way we prioritize research and development, implement
technologies, and distribute our social wealth.  Determining social
priorities for research, development, implementation and distribution
is a political problem.

Political problems require political solutions. These are, of course,
everyone's responsibility. As human beings, we have tried to examine
these problems, and consider possible solutions. As people who design,
create, study, and use computer and information technologies, we have
taken the initiative to develop a political platform for these
technologies. This platform describes a plausible, possible program
for research, development, and implementation of computer and
information technologies that will move towards resolving our most
pressing social needs. This document also unites many groups and
voices behind a common call for change in the emphasis and application
of these technologies.

This platform addresses Computer and Information Technologies, because
we work with those technologies, and we are most familiar with the
issues and concerns related to those technologies. We do not address
other key technologies like bioengineering or materials science,
although some issues, for example, intellectual property rights or
research priorities, apply equally well to those areas. We would like
to see people familiar with those fields develop platforms as well.

Finally, we do not expect that this platform will ever be "finished."
The rate of scientific and technical development continues to
accelerate, and new issues will certainly emerge.  Likewise, our
understanding of the issues outlined here will evolve and deepen. Your
comments are necessary for this document to be a relevant and useful
effort.

We encourage candidates, organizations and individuals to adopt the
provisions in this platform, and to take concrete steps towards making
them a reality.

Peace and Justice Working Group Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility, Berkeley Chapter

August, 1992

*****************************************************************

PLATFORM GOALS

The goals of this platform are:

*  To promote the use of Computer and Information Technologies to
improve the quality of human life and maximize human potential.

*  To provide broad and equal access to Computers and Information
Technology tools.

*  To raise consciousness about the effects of Computer and
Information Technologies among the community of people who create and
implement these technologies.

*  To educate the general public about the effects Computers

and Information Technologies have on them.

*  To focus public attention on the political agenda that determines
what gets researched, funded, developed and distributed in Computer
and Information Technologies.

*  To democratize (that is, enhance the public participation in) the
process by which Computer and Information Technologies do or do not
get researched, funded, developed and distributed.


*****************************************************************

PLATFORM SUMMARY

A.  ACCESS TO INFORMATION and INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

  1.  Universal access to education
  2.  Elimination of barriers to access to public information
  3.  An open National Data Traffic System
  4.  Expansion of the public library system
  5.  Expansion of public information treasury
  6.  Freedom of access to government data
  7.  Preservation of public information as a resource
  8.  Restoration of information as public property

B.  CIVIL LIBERTIES and PRIVACY

  1.  Education on civil liberties, privacy, and the implications
      of new technologies
  2.  Preservation of constitutional civil liberties
  3.  Right to privacy and the technology to ensure it
  4.  Community control of police and their technology


C.  WORK, HEALTH and SAFETY

  1.  Guaranteed income for displaced workers
  2.  Improved quality of work through worker control of it
  3.  Emphasis on health and safety
  4.  Equal opportunity to work
  5.  Protection for the homeworker
  6.  Retraining for new technologies


D.  THE ENVIRONMENT

  1.  Environmentally safe manufacturing
  2.  Planning for disposal or re-use of new products
  3.  Reclamation of the cultural environment as public space


E.  INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

  1.  Replacement of "national competitiveness" with "global
      cooperation"
  2.  Global distribution of technical wealth
  3.  An end to the waste of technical resources embodied in the
      international arms trade
  4.  A new international information order
  5.  Equitable international division of labor


F. RESPONSIBLE USE OF COMPUTERS and INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

  1.  New emphasis in technical research priorities
  2.  Conversion to a peacetime economy
  3.  Socially responsible engineering and science

*****************************************************************
THE PLATFORM
*****************************************************************

A. ACCESS TO INFORMATION and INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

The body of human knowledge is a social treasure collectively
assembled through history. It belongs to no one person, company, or
country. As a public treasure everyone must be guaranteed access to
its riches. We must move beyond the division between information
"consumer" and "provider" -- new information technologies enable each
of us to contribute to the social treasury as well. An active
democracy requires a well-informed citizenry with equal access to any
tools that facilitate democratic decision-making. This platform calls
for:

1. UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION: "23 Million adult Americans cannot
read above fifth-grade level."[1] We reaffirm that quality education
is a basic human right. We call for full funding for education through
the university level to insure that everyone obtains the education
they need to participate in and contribute to the "Information Age."
Education must remain a public resource.  Training and retraining to
keep skills current with technology, and ease transition from old
technologies to new technologies must be readily available. All people
must have sufficient access to technology to ensure that there is no
"information elite" in this society. Computers should be seen as tools
to accomplish tasks, not ends in themselves. The public education
system must provide students with access to computers, as well as the
critical and analytical tools necessary to understand, evaluate and
use new technologies. Staffed and funded computer learning centers
should be set up in low-income urban and rural areas to provide such
access and education to adults as well as children. Teachers require
an understanding of the technology to use it effectively, and to
communicate its benefits and limitations to students. These skills
must be an integral part of the teacher training curriculum, and must
also be available for teachers to continue to upgrade their skills as
new tools become available. Finally, to learn, children need a
nurturing environment, including a home, an adequate diet, and quality
health care. Pitting "welfare" versus "education" is a vicious
prescription for social failure. We call for adequate social services
to ensure that our children have the environment in which they can
benefit from their education.

2. ELIMINATION OF BARRIERS TO ACCESS TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY:
Democracy requires an informed public, with generous access to
information. However, access to information increasingly requires
tools such as a computer and a modem, while only 13% of Americans own
a personal computer, and of them, only 10% own a modem.[2] In
addition, requiring fees to access databases locks out those without
money. We must assure access to needed technology via methods such as
a subsidized equipment program that can make basic computer and
information technologies available to all. We call for the
nationalization of research and public information databases, with
access fees kept to a minimum to ensure access to the data. In many
cases, the technology itself is a barrier to use of new technologies.
We strongly encourage the research and development of non-proprietary
interfaces and standards that simplify the use of new technology.

3. AN OPEN NATIONAL DATA TRAFFIC SYSTEM: An Information Society
generates and uses massive amounts of information. It requires an
infrastructure capable of handling that information. It also
determines how we communicate with each other, how we disseminate our
ideas, and how we learn from each other. The character of this system
will have profound effects on everyone. The openness and accessibility
of this network will determine the breadth and depth of the community
we can create.

We call for a "National Data Traffic System" that can accommodate all
traffic, not just corporate and large academic institution traffic, so
that everyone has access to public information, and has the ability to
add to the public information. This traffic system must be accessible
to all. The traffic system will include a "highway" component, major
information arteries connecting the country. We propose that the
highway adopt a model similar to the federal highway system -- that
is, a system built by and maintained publicly, as opposed to the
"railroad" model, where the government subsidizes private corporations
to build, maintain and control the system. The "highway model" will
guarantee that the system serves the public interest. At the local
level, the existing telephone and cable television systems can provide
the "feeder roads", the "streets" and the "alleys" and the "dirt
roads" of the data network through the adoption of an Integrated
Services Digital Network (ISDN) system, along the lines proposed by
the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The features proposed by EFF
include affordable, ubiquitous ISDN; breaking the private monopoly
control of the existing communication networks; short of public
takeover of the networks, affirmation of "common carrier" principles;
ease of use; a guarantee of personal privacy; and a guarantee of
equitable access to communications media.[3]

4. EXPANSION OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM: The public library system
represents a public commitment to equal access to information,
supported by community resources. Yet libraries, in the era of
Computer and Information Technologies, are having their funding cut.
We call for adequate funding of public libraries and an extension of
the library system into neighborhoods. Librarians are the trained
facilitators of information access. As such, librarians have a unique,
strategic role to play in the "information society." We call for an
expansion of library training programs, for an increase in the number
of librarians, and for additional training for librarians so that they
can maximize the use of new information-retrieval technology by the
general public. Every public library must have, and provide to their
clientele, access to the national data highway.

5. EXPANSION OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION TREASURY: A market economy
encourages the production of those commodities that the largest market
wants. As information becomes a commodity, information that serves a
small or specialized audience is in danger of not being collected, and
not being available. For example, the president of commercial database
vendor Dialog was quoted in 1986 as saying "We can't afford an
investment in databases that are not going to earn their keep and pay
back their development costs." When asked what areas were not paying
their development costs, he answered, "Humanities."[4] Information
collection should pro-actively meet broad social goals of equality and
democracy. We must ensure that the widest possible kinds of social
information are collected (not just those that have a ready and
substantial market), while ensuring that the privacy of the individual
is protected.

6. FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA: Public records and economic
data are public resources. We must ensure that the principles of
"Freedom of Information" laws remain in place.  Government agencies
must comply with these laws, and should be punished for
non-compliance. Government records that are kept in a digital format
must be available electronically to the general public, provided that
adequate guarantees are in place to protect the individual.

7. PROTECTION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION RESOURCES: Recently, we have seen
a dangerous trend in which the Federal government sells off or
licenses away rights to information collected at public expense, which
is then sold back to the public at a profit. Access to public data now
often requires paying an information-broker look-up fees.[5] Public
resources must be public. We call for a halt to the privatization of
public data.

8. RESTORATION OF INFORMATION AS PUBLIC PROPERTY: "Since new
information technology includes easy ways of reproducing information,
the existence of these [intellectual property] laws effectively
curtails the widest possible spread of this new form of wealth. Unlike
material objects, information can be shared widely without running
out."[6] The constitutional rationale for intellectual property rights
is to promote progress and creativity. The current mechanisms -- the
patent system and the copyright system -- are not required to ensure
progress. Other models exist for organizing and rewarding intellectual
work, that do not require proprietary title to the results. For
example, substantial and important research has been carried out by
government institutions and state-supported university research. A
rich library of public domain and "freeware" software exists. Peer or
public recognition, awards, altruism, the urge to create or
self-satisfaction in technical achievement are equally motivators for
creative activity.

Authors and inventors must be supported and rewarded for their work,
but the copyright and patent system per se does not ensure that. Most
patents, for example, are granted to corporations or to employees who
have had to sign agreements to turn the ownership over to the employer
through work-for-hire or other employment contracts as a condition of
employment. The company, not the creating team, owns the patent. In
addition, in many ways, patents and copyrights inhibit the development
and implementation of new technology. For example, proprietary
research is not shared, but is kept secret and needlessly duplicated
by competing companies or countries. Companies sue each other over
ownership of interfaces, with the consumer ultimately footing the
bill. Software developers must "code around" proprietary algorithms,
so as not to violate known patents; and they still run the risk of
violating patents they don't know about. We call for a moratorium on
software patents. We call for the abolition of property rights in
knowledge, including algorithms and designs. We call for social
funding of research and development, and the implementation of new
systems, such as public competitions, to spur development of socially
needed technology.

B. CIVIL LIBERTIES and PRIVACY

Advances in Computer and Information Technologies have facilitated
communications and the accumulation, storage and processing of data.
These same advances may be used to enlighten, empower and equalize but
also to monitor, invade and control. Alarmingly, we witness more
instances of the latter rather than of the former.  This platform
calls for:

1. EDUCATION ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, PRIVACY, AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF NEW
TECHNOLOGIES: New technologies raise new opportunities and new
challenges to existing civil liberties. In the absence of
understanding and information about these technologies, dangerous
policies can take root. For example, police agencies and the news
media have portrayed certain computer users (often called "hackers")
as "pirates" out to damage and infect all networks.  While some
computer crime of this sort does take place, such a demonization of
computer users overlooks actual practice and statistics. This
perception has led to an atmosphere of hysteria, opening the door to
fundamental challenges to civil liberties.  Homes have been raided,
property has been confiscated, businesses have been shut down, all
without due process. Technology skills have taken on the quality of
"forbidden knowledge", where the possession of certain kinds of
information is considered a crime.  In the case of "hackers", this is
largely due to a lack of understanding of the actual threat that
"hackers" pose. We must ensure that legislators, law-enforcement
agencies, the news media, and the general public understand Computer
and Information Technologies instead of striking out blindly at any
perceived threat. We must also ensure that policy caters to the
general public and not just corporate and government security
concerns.

2. PRESERVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIL LIBERTIES: The U.S.
Constitution provides an admirable model for guaranteeing rights and
protections essential for a democratic society in the 18th century.
Although the new worlds opened up by Computer and Information
Technologies may require new interpretations and legislations, the
freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights must continue no matter what
the technological method or medium. Steps must be taken to ensure that
the guarantees of the Constitution and its amendments are extended to
encompass the new technologies.  For example, electronic transmission
or computer communications must be considered as a form of speech; and
information distributed on networked computers or other electronic
forms must be considered a form of publishing (thereby covered by
freedom of the press). The owner or operator of a computer or
electronic or telecommunications facility should be held harmless for
the content of information distributed by users of that facility,
except as the owner or operator may, by contract, control information
content. Those who author statements and those who have contractual
authority to control content shall be the parties singularly
responsible for such content. Freedom of assembly should be
automatically extended to computer-based electronic conferencing.
Search and seizure protections should be fully applicable to
electronic mail, computerized information and personal computer
systems.

3. RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND THE TECHNOLOGY TO ENSURE IT: Because Computer
and Information Technologies make data collection, processing and
manipulation easier, guaranteeing citizen privacy rights becomes
problematic. Computer and Information Technology make the job of those
who use data en-masse -- marketing firms, police, private data
collection firms -- easier. We need to develop policies that control
what, where, whom and for what reasons data is collected on an
individual. Institutions that collect data on individuals must be
responsible for the accuracy of the data they keep and must state how
the information they obtain will be used and to whom it will be made
available.  Furthermore, we must establish penalties for
non-compliance with these provisions. Systems should be in place to
make it easy for individuals to know who has information about them,
and what that information is.

We must ensure that there is no implementation of any technological
means of tracking individuals in this country through their everyday
interactions. Technology exists that can ensure that electronic
transactions are not used to track individuals. Encrypted digital
keys, for example, provide the technical means to achieve anonymity in
electronic transactions while avoiding a universal identifier. Where
government financial assistance is now provided electronically, we
must ensure that these mechanisms help empower the recipient, and do
not become sophisticated means of tracking and policing behavior
(e.g., by tracking what is bought, when it is bought, where it is
bought, etc.).

The technology to effectively ensure private communications is
currently available. The adoption of a state-of-the-art standard has
been held up while the government pushes for mandatory "back-doors" so
that it can monitor communication. (Computer technology is treated
differently here; for example, we do not legislate how complex a lock
can be.) We must ensure that personal communication remains private by
adopting an effective, readily available, de-militarized encryption
standard.

4. COMMUNITY CONTROL OF POLICE AND THEIR TECHNOLOGY: New technologies
have expanded the ability of police departments to maintain control
over communities. The Los Angeles Police Department is perhaps an
extreme example: they have compiled massive databases on
African-American and Latino youth through "anti-gang" mass
detainments. These databases are augmented by FBI video and photo
analysis techniques. "But the real threat of these massive new
databases and information technologies is... their application on a
macro scale in the management of a criminalized population."[7] With
new satellite navigational technology, "we shall soon see police
departments with the technology to put the equivalent of an electronic
bracelet on entire social groups."[8] We call for rigorous community
control of police departments to protect the civil liberties of all
residents.

C. WORK, HEALTH and SAFETY

Computer and Information Technologies are having a dramatic effect on
work. New technologies are forcing a reorganization of work.  The
changes affect millions of workers, and are of the same level and
magnitude as the Industrial Revolution 150 years ago. The effects have
been disastrous -- the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, a fall
in wages over the past 15 years, the lengthening of the work week for
those who do have jobs, a rise in poverty and homelessness. Employed
Americans now work more hours each week that at any time since 1966,
while at this writing 9.5 million workers in the "official" workforce
are unemployed, and millions more have given up hope of ever finding
work.[9] Too often, products and profitability are given priority over
the needs and health of the workers who produce both. For example,
research is done on such matters as how humans contaminate the clean
room process,[10] not on how the chemicals used in chip manufacturing
poison the handlers. Or new technologies are implemented before
adequate research is carried out on how they will affect the worker.
This misplaced emphasis is wrong. This platform calls for:

1. GUARANTEED INCOME FOR DISPLACED WORKERS: New technologies mean an
end to scarcity. Producing goods to meet our needs is a conscious
human activity. Such production has been and is currently organized
with specific goals in mind, namely the generation of the greatest
possible profit for those who own the means of production. We can
re-organize production.

With production for private profit, corporations have implemented
robotics and computer systems to cut labor costs, primarily through
the elimination of jobs. Over the last ten years alone, one million
manufacturing jobs have disappeared in the U.S. Workers at the jobs
that remain are pressured to take wage and benefits cuts, to "compete"
in the global labor market made possible by digital telecommunications
and modern manufacturing techniques. Most new jobs have been created
in the low-pay service sector. As a result, earnings for most workers
have been falling.[11] The corporate transfer of jobs to low-wage
areas, including overseas, affects not only low-skill assembly line
work or data entry, but also computer programming and data analysis.

Wages and benefits must be preserved in the face of automation or
capital flight. Remaining work can be spread about by shortening the
work week while maintaining the weekly wage rate. At the same time,
steps must be taken to acknowledge that the nature of work is
changing. In the face of the new technologies' ever-increasing
productivity utilizing fewer and fewer workers, the distribution of
necessities can no longer be tied to work. We must provide for workers
who have lost their jobs due to automation or job flight, even if no
work is available, by guaranteeing a livable income and retraining
opportunities (see #6 below).

2. IMPROVED QUALITY OF WORK THROUGH WORKER CONTROL OF IT: Millions
work boring, undignified jobs as a direct result of computer and
information technology. Work is often degraded due to de-skilling,
made possible by robotics and crude artificial intelligence
technology; or by job-monitoring, made simple by digital technology.
(Two-thirds of all workers are monitored as they work.[12]) Workers
face greater difficulties in organizing to protect their rights.
Technologies are often foisted on the workers, ignoring the obvious
contributions the workers can make to the design process. The
resulting designs further deprive the worker of control over the work
process. In principle, tools should serve the workers, rather than the
workers serving the tools.

But new technologies could relieve humans of boring or dangerous work.
Technology enables us to expand the scope of human activity.  We could
create the possibility of "work" becoming leisure. We call for the
removal of all barriers to labor organizing as the first step toward
giving workers the power to improve the quality of their work. Workers
must be protected from intrusive monitoring and the stress that
accompanies it. We must ensure worker involvement in the design
process. We must also improve the design of user interfaces so that
users can make full use of the power of the technology.

Furthermore, it is not enough just to "participate" in the design
process -- worker involvement must correspond with increased control
over the work process, goals, etc. In other words, we must ensure that
there is "no participation without power." Computer and Information
Technologies facilitate peer-to-peer work relationships and the
organization of work in new and challenging ways. Too often, though,
in practice we see a tightening of control, with management taking
more and more direct control over details on the shop floor. We must
ensure that new technologies improve rather than degrade the nature of
work.

3. EMPHASIS ON HEALTH AND SAFETY: Technologies are often developed
with little or no concern for their effect on the workers who
manufacture or use them.

Electronics manufacturing uses many toxic chemicals. These chemicals
are known to cause health problems such as cancer, birth defects and
immune system disorders. Workers are entitled to a safe working
environment, and must have the right to refuse unsafe work without
fear of penalty. Workers have the right to know what chemicals and
processes they work with and what their effects are.  We call for
increased research into developing safe manufacturing processes. We
call for increased research into the effects of existing manufacturing
processes on workers, and increased funding for occupational safety
and health regulation enforcement.

The rate of repetitive motion disorders has risen with the
introduction of computers in the workplace -- they now account for
half of all occupational injuries, up from 18% in 1981.[13]
Musculo-skeletal disorders, eyestrain and stress are commonly
associated with computer use. There is still no conclusive study on
the harmful effects of VDT extremely low frequency (ELF) and very low
frequency (VLF) electromagnetic field emissions.[14] Together these
occupational health tragedies point to a failure by manufacturers,
employers and government to adequately research or implement policies
that protect workers. We call for funding of major studies on the
effects of computers in the workplace. We call for the immediate
adoption of ergonomic standards that protect the worker. We must
ensure that pro-active standards exist before new technologies are put
in place. Manufacturers and employers should pay now for research and
worker environment improvement rather than later, after the damage has
been done, in lawsuits and disability claims. We must ensure that
worker safety always comes first, not short-sighted, short-term
profits that blindly overlook future suffering, disabilities and
millions in medical bills.

4. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO WORK: Computer and Information Technology
institutions are overwhelmingly dominated by white males. Programs
must be adopted to increase the direct participation of
under-represented groups in the Computer and Information Technology
industries.

5. PROTECTION FOR THE HOMEWORKER: Computer and Information
Technologies have enabled new patterns of working. "Telecommuting" may
be preferred by many workers, it may expand opportunities for workers
who are homebound, and it would reduce the wastefulness of commuting.
At the same time, homework has traditionally increased the
exploitation of workers, deprived them of organizing opportunities,
and hidden them from the protection of health and safety regulations.
We must guarantee that crimes of the past do not reappear in an
electronic disguise. Computer and Information Technologies make
possible new forms of organization for work beyond homework, such as
neighborhood work centers: common spaces where people who work for
different enterprises can work from the same facility. Such
alternative structures should be supported.

6. RETRAINING FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES: As new technologies develop, new
skills are required to utilize them. Workers are often expected to pay
for their own training and years of schooling at no cost to the
employer. Training workers in new skills must be a priority, the cost
of which must be shared by employers and the government, and not the
sole responsibility of the worker.

D. THE ENVIRONMENT

We share one planet. While our understanding of the environment
increases, and the impact of previous technologies and neglect become
more and more apparent, too little attention is paid to the effects of
new technologies, including Computer and Information Technologies, on
the environment, both physical and cultural. The creation of a global
sustainable economy must be a priority. This platform calls for:

1. ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE MANUFACTURING: The manufacture of electronics
technology is among the most unhealthy and profoundly toxic human
enterprises ever undertaken.[15] The computer and information
technology industries must be cleaned up.  Manufacturers cannot
continue their destruction of our environment for their profit. They
must be made to pay the actual cost of production, factoring in
environmental cleanup costs for manufacturing methods and products
that are environmentally unsafe. Priority must be placed on developing
and implementing new manufacturing techniques that are environmentally
safe, such as the "no-clean" systems which eliminate ozone-shredding
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from the production of electronic circuit
boards.[16] We must ensure that these standards are adopted globally,
to prohibit unsafe technologies from migrating to other countries with
lax or non-existent environmental protection laws. No manufacturing
technique should be implemented unless it can be proven to be
environmentally safe. We must ensure industry's responsiveness to the
communities (and countries) in which they are located. Neighborhoods
and countries must participate in the planning process, and must be
informed of the environmental consequences of the industries that
surround them.  They must have the right to shut down an enterprise or
require the enterprise to cleanup or change their manufacturing
processes.

2. PLANNING FOR DISPOSAL OR RE-USE OF NEW PRODUCTS: As new
technologies become commodities with a finite life-cycle, new
questions loom as to what happens to them when they are discarded.
Little is known about what happens to these products when they hit the
landfill. We must ensure that manufacturers and designers include
recycling and/or disposal in the design and distribution of their
products. Manufacturers must be responsible for the disposal of
commodities once their usefulness is exhausted.  Manufacturers must
make every effort to ensure longevity and re-use of equipment. For
example, product specifications might be made public after a specified
period of time so that future users could continue to find support for
their systems. Or manufacturers might be responsible for ensuring that
spare parts continue to be available after a product is no longer
manufactured. Manufacturers could sponsor reclamation projects to
strip discarded systems and utilize the components for training
projects or new products, or they could facilitate getting old
equipment to people who can use it.

3. RECLAMATION OF THE CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT AS PUBLIC SPACE: We live
not only in a natural environment, but also in a cultural environment.
"The cultural environment is the system of stories and images that
cultivates much of who we are, what we think, what we do, and how we
conduct our affairs. Until recently, it was primarily hand-crafted,
home-made, community-inspired. It is that no longer."[17] Computers
and information technologies have facilitated a transformation so that
our culture is taken and then sold back to us via a media that is
dominated by a handful of corporations. At the same time, new
technologies promise new opportunities for creativity, and new
opportunities for reaching specific audiences. But both older (e.g.,
book and newspaper publishing) and newer (e.g., cable television and
computer games) media throughout the world are controlled by the same
multi-national corporations. We advocate computer and information
technology that fights the commodification of culture and nurtures and
protects diversity. This is only possible with a rigorous public
support for production and distribution of culture. We must use new
technologies to ensure the diverse points of view that are necessary
for a healthy society. We must ensure a media that is responsive to
the needs of the entire population. We must ensure true debate on
issues of importance to our communities. We must ensure that our
multi-faceted creativity has access to an audience. And we must also
recognize that in many cultural instances computer and information
technology tools are intrusive and inappropriate.[18]


*****************************************************************

E. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Historically, information flow around the world has tended to be
one-way, and technology transfer from developed countries to
underdeveloped countries has been restricted. These policies have
reinforced the dependency of underdeveloped countries on the U.S.,
Japan and Western Europe. As international competition for markets and
resources intensifies, "national competitiveness" has become a
negative driving consideration in technology policy. This platform
calls for:

1. REPLACEMENT OF "NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS" WITH "GLOBAL
COOPERATION": The most popular rationale for investing in high
technology in the United States is "national competitiveness." This is
an inappropriate rhetoric around which to organize technology policy.
It ignores the fact that the largest economic enterprises in the world
today are international, not national.  "National competitiveness" is
also inappropriate in a world of increasing and accelerating global
interdependence and a detailed division of labor that now routinely
takes in the entire planet's workforce. Finally, "national
competitiveness" is inappropriate in a world in which two-thirds of
the world's population lives in abject poverty and environmental
collapse -- the rhetoric of "national competitiveness" should be
replaced by a rhetoric of "global cooperative development."

2. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF TECHNICAL WEALTH: The global division of
labor is fostering a "brain drain" of scientists and engineers,
transferring badly-needed expertise from the developing world to the
industrialized world. Fully 40% of the engineering graduate students
in American universities are from foreign countries, typically from
countries with little or no advanced technological infrastructure. A
large majority of these graduate students stay in the U.S. when they
complete their studies. American immigration laws also favor
immigrants with advanced scientific or technical education. This
intensifies the disparity between the advanced countries and those
with widespread poverty. This concentration of technical expertise
reinforces a global hierarchy and dependence.  Expertise on questions
of international import, such as global warming, toxic dumping, acid
rain, and protection of genetic diversity becomes the exclusive domain
of the developed countries.  With so much of the world's scientific
and technical expertise located in the monoculture of the
industrialized world, the developing world has the disadvantage not
only of meager financial resources and dependence on foreign capital,
but the added disadvantage of living under the technical domination of
the rich countries. This platform calls for a conscious policy of
distributing scientific and technical talent around the world. For
example, incentives can be given to encourage emigration to countries
in need of technological talent.

3. AN END TO THE WASTE OF TECHNICAL RESOURCES EMBODIED IN THE
INTERNATIONAL ARMS TRADE: The world currently spends about $1 trillion
annually on weapons. This is a massive transfer of wealth to
arms-producing countries, and especially the United States, the
world's largest arms exporting nation.[19] Weapons of interest to all
countries are increasingly high tech, so a continuing disproportion of
international investments in high technology will be in weapons
systems. Weapons sales not only increase international tensions and
the likelihood of war, but they also reinforce authoritarian regimes,
deter democratic reform, support the abuse of human rights, divert
critical resources from urgent problems of human and environmental
need, and continue the accelerating disparity between rich and poor
nations. We call for a complete and permanent dismantling of the
global arms market.

4. A NEW INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION ORDER: The growing disparity
between "information rich" and "information poor" is by no means
limited to the U.S. Disparities within industrialized countries are
dwarfed by international disparities between the industrialized
countries and the developing world. A global telecommunications regime
has developed that favors the rich over the poor, and the gap is
growing steadily. As a simple example, rich countries are able to
deploy and use space-based technologies such as earth-surveillance
satellites and microwave telecommunications links to gather
intelligence and distribute information all over the globe. The
concentration of information power in single countries is even more
advanced when viewed internationally. We call for the placement of
international information collection and distribution under
international control.

5. EQUITABLE INTERNATIONAL DIVISION OF LABOR: Improved communication
and coordination made possible by Computer and Information
Technologies has accelerated the development of a new global division
of labor where dirty manufacturing industries are moved to developing
countries, and "clean" knowledge industries are promoted in the
developed countries. This pattern of development ensures that
underdeveloped countries remain underdeveloped and turns them into
environmental wastelands. We must ensure a truly new world order that
equitably distributes work, and ends the destruction and enforced
underdevelopment of vast sections of the world's population.

F. RESPONSIBLE USE OF COMPUTERS and INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

Computer and Information Technologies were born of the military and to
this day are profoundly influenced by the military. People often talk
of the "trickle down" or "spin-off" effect, in which money spent on
military applications yields technology for general, non-military
applications. This makes little sense when the military pursues absurd
or irrelevant technology such as computer chips that will survive a
nuclear war. There are very few, if any, cases of military technology
producing tangible commercial breakthroughs. At the same time, various
studies have shown that money invested in non-military programs
creates more jobs than money invested in military hardware. Also, new
technologies are developed with little or no public discussion as to
their social consequences. Technologies are developed, and then their
developers go in search of problems for their technology to solve.
Pressing social needs are neglected, while elite debates about
technology focus on military applications or consumer devices like
high definition television (HDTV). Or pressing social problems are
approached as "technical" problems, fixable by new or better
technology. This platform calls for:

1. NEW EMPHASIS IN TECHNICAL RESEARCH PRIORITIES: Current research
planning is either in private hands, or closely controlled by
government agencies. As a result, research priorities are often
shielded from public discussion or even knowledge. New technologies
are often developed as "tools looking for uses, means looking for
ends"[20] or to serve destructive rather than constructive goals. HDTV
and the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) are examples. Substantial
university research on new technologies is still financed and
controlled by the Department of Defense. While military-based research
has occasionally led to inventions which were of general use, this
effect has been mostly coincidental, and the gap between the interests
of military research and the needs of society has widened to the point
that even such coincidental "public good" from military controlled
technology research now seems unlikely. These misguided research
priorities not only waste financial resources, but drain away the
intellectual resources of the scientific community from pressing
social problems where new technological research might be particularly
useful such as in the area of the environment. We must ensure that
Computer and Information Technology research is problem-driven and is
under the control of the people it will affect. We must ensure that
new technologies will not be harmful to humans or the environment. We
must ensure that human and social needs are given priority, as opposed
to support for military or police programs. We must ensure that
technical research is directed toward problems which have a realistic
chance of being solved technically rather than blindly seeking
technical solutions for problems which ought to be addressed by other
means.

2. CONVERSION TO A PEACETIME ECONOMY: There is no justification for
the power the Pentagon holds over this country, particularly in light
of recent international developments. We must dismantle our dependency
on military programs. We must realign our budget priorities to focus
on social problems rather than on exaggerated military threats. The
released research and development monies should be redirected toward
solving pressing social and environmental problems. We must move
towards the goal of the elimination of the international market in
weapons. Job re-training in socially useful skills must become a
priority.

3. SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE: "Proposed
technological projects should be closely examined to reveal the covert
political conditions and artifact/ideas their making would entail. It
is especially important for engineers and technical professionals
whose wonderful creativity is often accompanied by appalling
narrow-mindedness. The education of engineers ought to prepare them to
evaluate the kinds of political contexts, political ideas, political
arguments and political consequences involved in their work."[21] To
this list we can add developing an appreciation for the
interconnectedness of the environments -- the natural, social and
cultural -- we work in. We call for an increased emphasis on training
in social education in the engineering and science departments of our
schools and universities, public and private research laboratories and
manufacturing and development facilities in order to meet these goals.
Engineers must be exposed to the social impact of their work. This
could be done through work-study projects or special fellowships. We
need to also expand the body of people who "can do technology", that
is, not only "humanize the hacker", but "hackerize the humanist" or
"engineerize the worker."

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

End of Computer Underground Digest #4.58
************************************