A MESSAGE TO NEW INTERNET USERS by Gerald M. Phillips (Copyright 1993 USA. All rights reserved. No re-posting of this publication is permitted. Fair use permits quoting limited and select portions for purposes of review and documentation. Any other use is prohibited unless explicitly approved in writing by the author.) INTRODUCTION So you want to use this new fangled medium of communication called "internet." You think it will make you part of the "Star Wars" generation. You may also think that all it takes is a good command of technology and jargon. Not so! There is a great deal more that you must consider. Internet is new and growing, and as it gets larger and must accommodate more people, it will become subject to a number of controls. Right now, you can express yourself pretty much as you please, call other people names, offer misinformation and downright lies and even disguise your identity and sometimes your address, although there is some question about the legality of these actions. NSFNET started the movement toward the internet in 1986. It was basically designed for researchers to use to keep contact with each other, but once it was in place, it was not possible, nor desirable to restrict its use. It quite rapidly began to expand into a great number of uses its founders did not anticipate. Connections were made to foreign networks and within 5 years, internet became a veritable spider web of communication connections, materially reducing the size of the globe. One authority estimates there are more than 5000 networks now linking nearly one million computers in universities, government agencies, and private citizens through their commercial networks. While this is a very small minority, it is made up of highly influential people. While there is no way to count the number of people who actually use the system, estimates range from five to fifteen million. However, this still constitutes an "elite." The average citizen does not use the internet. Government agencies and bureaus are still not accessible. Other countries offer a more participatory model. For example, in France, all citizens can subscribe to a version of internet, through their phone company. They can use the system to exchange messages, pay bills, access airline and theater schedules and other mundane business. On the other hand, though it is accessible to all, there is a cost associated with it, and a great number of Frenchmen do not choose to use it. At present, users in the U.S. can access complicated data bases, speak directly with experts on virtually every subject, engage in productive discussions with your peers, lobby for your political point of view, make friends, write books, receive and give instruction, and maintain complex files of information important to you. This powerful technology, though relatively new, has already become a powerful force is business, education, science, and social action. It has spawned new academic disciplines like cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and informatics. Its future is virtually unlimited. Just prior to leaving office, Senator Gore proposed a bill which would put every government agency and bureau on line and make their archives available. Many libraries are working getting their more popular works and journals into shape so they are available via this medium. There are several medical networks that already provide this service in conjunction with FAX technology. The power latent in CMC is so great that it could transform the face of American society by dividing us into users and drones. Those who are comfortable with the technology will have the world at their fingertips, and those who have no access or who will not learn will be locked out like the "Proles" in Huxley's Brave New World. GAINING ACCESS Gaining access to computer networks becomes a real issue. Some are barred from access because they cannot buy the equipment; others because they cannot learn to operate it. The computer manufacturers devote a sizable share of their development budgets to the design of easier ways to acquire access. Some communities are developing their own networks which allow locals to have access to communications, if they desire it. Major organizations are becoming preoccupied with the issue of access, e.g. EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation and CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility). Many public schools are trying very hard to make people generally "computer literate. However, it is still a personal issue for users. The internet is still pretty much unregulated. There are conventions which are observed by individuals when it is convenient to do so. But given that it is publicly funded with access available to all, it is only a matter of time before the government becomes interested in managing it. Just before Senator Gore embarked on his campaign for the vice-presidency, he offered a bill relevant to the internet and its relationship to government agencies. This was a first step toward the inevitable. Your own interest in the internet depends on your need to use it and the purposes you use it for. When people discovered that they could not "live" in society without a car, they learned to drive and they budgeted for their cars. Most people, however, have not yet discovered what they can gain from participation in the "computer generation." They may buy the equipment, but not know what to do with it when they get it. The bulk of home users employ them as expensive typewriters. For many people, computers are magic. They do not want to expend the amount of effort they must put into learning how to use their equipment and run their software. They are often not prepared to pay for what they want, and worse, they may not even know what they want. But the "computer generation" is no longer a fad. People are using it both for work and pleasure and there are huge sums of money involved. Bill Gates, the new American billionaire, made his fortune by devising a convenient and accessible operating system. The entrepreneurs who founded Macintosh did not invent a wheel; they gave us a simple method of using one. The net effect is that computers are now available to everyone who can afford them, to be used for whatever they think valuable. Not only do they process words, but they can be used to keep books and inventories, calculate and do complicated statistics, assist in basic scientific research and literary analysis, store and retrieve information, and communicate. Public access networks are available for a price and operations like Compuserve, The Source, and Prodigy are obviously profitable. On the other hand, it is that we have reached the limit of interest. Marketing hardware and software is a fragile enterprise. Those who want and need computers already have them. Others resist them, unwilling to assume the cost. As a result, hardware manufacturers are at war and major companies are in a state of collapse. The recent demise of a pioneer like Wang and the disintegration of IBM indicate that the industry may have hit the wall. They can innovate and manufacture, but they are having a hard time selling. The number of closeouts of computer companies in wholesaler catalogs indicate that there are often high hopes and dashed dreams. But there is no question that those who know how to use their computers, especially for information exchange, have power. It ranges from their ability to have private libraries in CD-Rom to access to public libraries and direct contact with experts through various forms of computer mediated communication. With power comes responsibility. When CMC was a fad, it was easy to trivialize it. No one much cared what the few "freaks, nerds, and hackers" were doing on their own time. Now that it is a national phenomenon, it is time to examine the issues that must be resolved before it becomes a major force in our lives. We are not talking about technological issues. It is only a matter of time til every technology is "available." The question of whether they will be used, however, must be resolved. We must also consider whether using it will be useful to us as individuals and to society, in general. This paper will introduce you to those and other questions by raising some of the issues that are currently being debated on the system. We will take no stand on these issues; we will merely raise and explain them. The answers lie with you, the first generation of users to come into the wonderful world of CMC. WHAT COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS CAN INTERNET SOLVE? We must call your attention to a salient fact of life. Computer technology is a solution to a problem. But it is often difficult to find the problem the technology is supposed to solve and for whom. High speed equipment is useful only to people for whom speed of operation is a problem. Complicated storage and retrieval systems are germane only to certain specialists engaged in research that requires such capability. Most people, however, are urgent for simple systems that enable them to do what they want and need to do without requiring them to alter their professional and personal lives to become computer experts. Matching solution to problem is one of the critical problems today. We will use that premise as a jumping off point for the rest of this essay. We are about to consider several categories of problems raised by the growing use of computer technology to mediate communication. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is rapidly expanding. The internet has unified the global village. It is brought us all together in virtual space and asynchronous time. But, with power comes problems. We will examine some of the more serious ones. TECHNICAL STANDARDS What technical standards must be imposed so messages can be received by a diverse aggregate of equipment? Is there a least common denominator? Right now there is a patchwork quilt of equipment available to users of the Internet. Some are connected to state-of-the-art systems like the one you are using. Others work with primitive equipment out of their homes. Some are constrained by the operating systems they use. Only advanced systems can combine the features of disparate systems like DOS and UNIX, for example. The question is how to make computer mediated communication systems and all their facilities available to the most people. Is there some minimal standard that can be applied to all technology so that we all have the opportunity to send and receive messages and access data bases, or exchange communications across systems like Compuserve and Fidonet? If there is such a minimum standard, how can we make sure everyone adheres to it? Will it be an impediment to technical progress, if we go to standardized systems? Is there a point where feasible technology is no longer practical technology (like, there is a major differences in a Lexus and a Geo, but it is not possible to ensure that everyone can afford a Lexus.) To get this in perspective, think of the difference between a 286 and a 486 computer. Says the experts, "a 486 is faster!" Faster at what? Are the things that a 486 can do valuable enough to a particular user (you for example), to warrant scrapping one to buy the other. Those who specialize in technology revel in creating new designs to perform ever more esoteric tasks. But on the other end of the continuum are naive users limping along with the things they know, fearful that innovation will be beyond their grasp. It is not easy to learn how to use computer technology. In the final crunch, that is why so few people use it to its capacity. The bulk of users are the clerks at the airline ticket counter and the checkers at the supermarkets who use computers to perform routine and repetitive tasks. They must work with them without really thinking. In fact, most do not even know they are using computers at all. For those involved in computer-mediated communication, there is a serious technical question relevant to getting the message to the maximum audience. There is a least common denominator in the form of ASCII, but there are many more things that can be done in a UNIX format. (Question: can you enumerate them? Is it possible for you as an educated layman why it is that UNIX users advocate so strongly for their system? Chances are, you will discover that it is because it can do tasks you will never want to do.) People have their own preferences. Unfortunately, the more sophisticated those preferences, the harder it is to disseminate the message to the greatest number of interested parties. Given that you may believe technology should be taken to its limits, one of its limits is standardization. Where do we draw the line? Right now, people communicate as they are constrained by the equipment and documentation available. Consequently, some can work with graphics and charts, others are confined to a simple vanilla exchange of information in words. Should there be a national minimal standard of communication capability set and only those facilities able to meet it be allowed to participate in internet activities. Eventually, it appears, it will come to this, just like the railroads had the standardize their gauge in order to span the continent and Western Union had to proclaim Morse Code as the only code eligible for transmission on their lines. We are confronted with immediate questions. How can we standardized book titles if we cannot transmit italics electronically? What do we do with foreign languages like Greek, Hebrew, and the Cyrillic that do not use English letters and for which there are no standardized transliteration schemes? How do we use the growing body of symbols which display emotion, the so- called "smileys?" How do we deal with graphics, sound, animation, and multi-media? These are technical questions, of course, but they will not be resolved until the end users agree on what they want to be able to exchange, retrieve, and store. What may be essential information to some users is irrelevant to others. For example, if scientific journals are to be transmitted electronically, it will be necessary to establish a convenient protocol for charts and tables. Literary journals, on the other hand, rely entirely on the alphabet and can work with the least complicated systems. Exactly as software companies had to come up with special packages for writers who needed chemical symbols or wrote in Russian and Japanese, the users of the network will have to come up with convenient ways to accommodate users with unusual needs. But it is not enough to have the capacity to make a variety of symbols. It is a bit harder to comprehend what is read on a screen than what is printed in a book. Book manufacturers have had more than 1500 years to practice with page layouts and literary styles. Those who attempt to communicate on the networks must adjust themselves to the needs of their users. All one need do is browse netnews with a mental red pencil in mind to discover the low level of literacy in messages replete with solecisms, syntactical ambiguities, and fault grammar, spelling, and punctuation. While such messages may be cathartic for those who send them, they are often confusing and offensive to those who attempt to read them. What are the standards of simple literacy to which a message writer must adhere to insure that the measure will be understood by readers? What is the role of jargon, acronyms, technical references, etc.? A browser on the various lists will encounter a number of levels of communication ranging from vulgar to highly technical. There are texts and sub-texts in most communications and much of what is exchanged seems arcane or irrelevant to the bulk of users. We need to know how widely E-communications are read. (You might find it interesting, for example, that in print journals, the average scholarly article is read by only 4-1/3 people.) To what extent are contributors to lists really talking to one or two other people? How can we control for this? Certainly allowing public channels to be used for public socialization will create overload. For one who uses the networks often, it can often take half a day to sort out and dispose of irrelevant messages. The question of screen readability is also an issue. The denizens of Biosphere have been complaining about how hard it is to read a computer screen. They have no books. They complain that it is not possible to read and enjoy a novel on screen. Does the use of the computer to mediate communication automatically exclude the novelist and the poet? Is the medium really an more oral than literate? Is CMC anything more than chitchat redacted to printed prose projected through pixels? There is a genuine argument going on among literary critics about whether information communicated through this medium is primarily oral, or whether this medium can be subjected to the criteria used to evaluate literate prose? Those of us who are writers manage to produce our books on screen and edit them on-line, but eventually they become printed pages and are marketed with a set of expectations for use that differ drastically from those of prose transmitted on screen. Messages on the computer screen are eminently disposable. Books can be stored, fondled, read intermittently. On the other hand, CMC offers a great number of storage and archiving systems associated, and unbelievable capacity to search and retrieve, but is it possible to savor literacy with it, as one can in the library? Computer people have their own language. The techies know a lot more than ordinary users, but sometimes they act as if they expect ordinary users to give up their occupations and learn what they know. They speak in technical terms like bytes and baud rates and use acronyms like LAN and WAIS. They know what they mean, but unfortunately lay persons really can't follow them. As a result, it is very difficult for users to master some of their innovations. We are told that they are "simple," but the word "simple" is used as simple means to them, not to us. The minimalist nature of the art of computer programming has little compatibility with the redundancy required to make written messages intelligible. We have the phrase "user friendly." It is an important phrase. Right now, computer manufacturers who produce equipment that is easy to use are storming the market. Our question is how we can get appropriate translations of technological messages, instructions on how to use this and that, and explanations of what a particular system is used for. If you have ever seen ordinary documentation, you know what the problem is. On CMC, sometimes the documentation is so complex that even computer professionals scream in pain. Is there any way that users can be made more computer literate and professionals taught how to reach their audience? Popular word processing programs are a case in point. Although they come with extensive documentation manuals, most have generated several books that purport to simplify the programs. We introduced you above to a major issue that perplexes internet users; how to use pictures and graphics. The technology is in place to share such information with each other, but it is complex and difficult to use. It is also expensive to install in places where even maintaining the barest computer facilities is economically challenging. How much money, time, and effort do we want to put into simplifying these systems and making them available to low end users. A great many high tech specialists take it for granted that the ordinary end user is capable of handling specialized technology like that required for graphics. The sometimes get a bit testy when they are told such technology is not within the grasp of most users. If the problems limiting the use of graphics were overcome, to what extent to you think graphics would be used? Are there ways to show nonverbal cues other than the ubiquitous "smileys?" How can we show italics, boldface, underline etc., or use diverse typefaces to make our messages more effective? Is this kind of technology even available? You can partly answer that questions by inquiring how sophisticated you are in word processing. Do you use macro programs? Are you dependent on the mouse? Do you know how to use multiple type faces or integrate graphics into your work as in desk top publishing? Are you able to use any of the many editing programs that are available to word processors? We could ask similar questions about your use of data bases? If you are sophisticated in your use of ordinary programming, chances are you might be able to struggle through some of the technical problems that presently affect sophisticated displays in CMC. On the other hand, if you knowledge of word processing is primitive, chances are you would not be willing and able to master the new technology. Keep in mind that end users tend to think in terms of the familiar. That is, they will think about WordPerfect, and not about the generic problem of efficient creation and editing of text. When they talk about their problems, they often are preoccupied with difficulties they are having with a particular program, not with the methodology itself. On the internet, this focus causes a great deal of misunderstanding. People will give instructions to others based on the operation of their indigenous system. They will not take into account that other users have their own systems, codes, and idiosyncratic operations. Thus, there is no real attempt at finding a lingua franca or common code for communication. Finally, it is important to make a compromise among and between media. Television, books, telephones, and computers each has a niche in the communication market. What we are seeking is a balance where each medium performs the function for which it is best suited. It may present an intriguing challenge for one medium to encroach on the logical turf of another, but even when successful, it does little to resolve the confusion of end users. You as a user of communication media must decide on what you want to accomplish and select the medium most effecting at doing it. To attempt to make one medium into a "one size fits all" will only add to the confusion that already exists. EFFECTIVE RHETORIC One way to approach the problem of making the most effective use of a medium is through "rhetoric." Rhetoric is the art of effective communication; sending and receiving intelligible messages. In the final analysis, we need to understand how to make computer-mediated messages effective. The burden lies entirely on the sender. Start with the assumption that no one is obligated to read what you write. Your question is how to get and hold their attention. What is an "effective" message anyway? What are the various motivations of message writers? Are messages for catharsis, argument, information exchange and sharing, asking and answering questions, etc.? To what extent are purely personal messages permissible, in good taste, whatever, on a public network? To what extent should public band width be used for the exchange of purely personal messages, given that the network is publicly funded? Right now, the internet is used to exchange a great many types of messages. Some people carry on innocent flirtations, others do heavy breathing. Some use it to exchange insults or rail against their enemies. The internet is used by environmental activists and nazis to disseminate their messages. There are a great many people who argue that this is desirable. They invoke the First Amendment to justify their claim that the internet ought to be open to everybody and everything. There are others who argue that the internet is a public access highway for information and that certain irrelevant and dangerous messages ought to be barred just like unsafe cars are banned from the turnpike and speed laws enforced. They use the analogy of the federal highway system which cannot be used to transport nuclear materials and which has speed limits and other rules imposed. Those who advocate free use advocate the mail system as a model, pointing out that first class mail is not subject to regulation. The opponents argue that people pay for the privilege of using first class mail whereas they pay nothing for the use of the internet. Those who gain access to the internet through commercial companies still pay nothing for the use of the internet, they pay for the privilege of access. On the other hand, someone pays for the internet. It is part public and part private, and the fundamental rule of financing is "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Who should set the rules? The argument is offered that much of the internet is supported by the government and therefore should be entirely free and open. The counter-argument is that if the government pays, the government not only has the right, but is obligated to make rules. Whoever pays, however, a great number of citizens are denied access. But many could have it, if they wanted it. They are denied access because they do not have the equipment, or the interest. In the final crunch, the network is a privilege made available by government and eleemosynary institutions. Theoretically, access can be limited and the uses made restricted. There are disclaimers from Penn State -- you see them when you log on and you are advised that the use of the network is restricted to authorized PSU business. While "PSU business" may be a loosely defined category, it still defines an authority, ergo, a responsible party. The question, of course, is who can be sued for libel/slander or held accountable at law for copyright violation. Some legal decisions have held individuals culpable, but at least one decision has gone against Compuserve. It held that Compuserve was responsible for regulating its use so that illegal purposes were not served by those who use it. It is for this reason that you are advised against using the network for commercial purposes and you are so often advised to observe network codes of conduct. There is, at present, a major case in Manitoba involving "alt.sex." The University of Manitoba banned this news group and various civil liberties groups are complaining bitterly. This issue is clearly far from resolved. In the absence of federal law to the contrary, however, judges have been applying the same standards of libel/slander, decency conforming to acceptable norms in the community, and the common law on copyrights to electronic networks. It would be a good idea for users of the internet to be informed about those laws so that they do not inadvertently find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Finally there are those who argue that band width is limited and therefore the kinds of messages transmitted should be limited. Their opponents claim that technology is bringing us unlimited band width and thus personal interchanges should not only be permitted but encouraged on the grounds that a free exchange of information is desirable. RESTRICTION OF INFORMATION This raises the knotty questions of "what is information?" Given that not all the messages exchanged are factual, accurate, relevant and timely, how is one to judge the validity of a given message. Users of the internet are not required to display credentials. Consequently it is hard to know with whom you are communicating. Recently, a qualified physician examined an evening's worth of medical messages exchanged on public bulletin boards on the internet. He discovered 18 that contained advice that was, at best, wrong, and at worst, potentially lethal. On the other hand, advocates of free use argue that the internet is a "leveller." Undergraduates and truck drivers, they argue, can exchange ideas with professors and pundits without credentials creating an insurmountable barrier. The result of this interchange, however, is often an exchange of flames, insults shot back and forth in public with no effort whatsoever to achieve conciliation or consensus. Although network etiquette forbids it, there is really no way to control it. Those committed to democratic principles argue that excessive rules limiting content restrict network use to an elite. The idea is that it is advantageous for people to argue based on the merit of the ideas without prestige and position influencing credibility. On the other hand, it is often impossible to discover the merit of an idea unless the credentials of the advocate are examined. In print publishing, careful editorial review by panels of experts is interposed between the author of a text and its final publication. Were this standard generally applied to the networks today, there would be very little information exchanged. A great many contributions to internet discussions are anonymous. They are not signed and it is not easy to trace down their source. This kind of anonymity impairs evaluation of credibility and documentation. It has been proposed that anonymous posts be barred from the internet. Others argue and absolute right of every participant to say his or her piece. Clearly, there must be a viable compromise between ordinary discussion and dissemination of qualified information. This compromise is, to some extent, coming along nicely. Some discussion groups and lists are carefully moderated and refereed and discussion confined only to approved topics. Other lists are quite open to any and all discussion and those who participate do so at their own risk. PARTICIPATION AT YOUR OWN RISK There is one other consideration implied in "participation at your own risk." There is very little privacy available in the ether. It is very difficult to conceal identity and location, and although many contributors dissemble as they disclose about themselves, responsibility is easy to fix. A student claiming to be a professor can be tracked down and exposed, and charlatans can be easily identified and sanctioned. Furthermore, there is nothing to protect you from "flames" by those you may offend. There is no question that this means of communication is less private than the telephone (which is not really private at all). First class surface mail, in fact, provides the legal guarantee of privacy. Although every attempt is made to protect your privacy by issuing passwords and strict rules about their use, it is not hard to steal a password, invade your files and hence, your privacy. In an attempt to control the exchange of dangerous, erroneous, slanderous, or irrelevant materials, some networks are "moderated." A person called a "list owner" serves as a central exchange for messages and has the right to exclude messages that are not in harmony with the purposes of the list or which violate the codes of network etiquette. The dark side of this is that these moderators can often impose their own point of view on the messages and literally deny free speech to people who dissent from their message. Furthermore, even the best moderators must be on duty all the time, and with busy networks, this is sometimes a full time job for which they earn no pay and which required them to take time from their regular duties and obligations. The list moderator actually plays the same role as an editor in a print publishing house. As any aspiring author knows, not everything written gets published. In fact, the success rate for manuscripts runs about one in seventeen submitted ever seeing the light of day. Those who control the publishing houses have the right to print what they choose based on whatever criteria they think apply. That, perhaps, explains why there are so few successful authors. Not everything published is read. It is not easy to be a list moderator. The task is simplified on those networks that are very strict in their definition of the topics considered. Those moderators who insist on seeing and approving all submitted material, maintain absolute control on the nature and direction of discussion. It is not possible, at present, to demand open access. By subscribing to the list, you either tacitly or explicitly agree to its rules and you recognize the authority of those who enforce them. But consider that when a list is moderated, it runs at the convenience of the moderator. He or she chooses when to read messages and there is no appear from decisions to "broadcast or publish" them, or to discard them and keep them from ever seeing the light of day. Some have suggested that network moderators be accredited. Right now, anyone who has the technical skill to run a listserve can become a moderator and his or her authority is protected by consensus. When people become annoyed with the moderator's activity or bored with the contents of submissions, they either fall silent or drop off the list. In the final sense, total power is in the hands of list users, since all list use is voluntary. No one is obligated to participate. No one is required to read any message. There is a great deal of futility on the internet, much of which can be ascribed to personal misuse. People write badly, insult each other, violate the missions of the various networks, fail to document their assertions, and otherwise take liberties with other people's time. None of this can be remedied by legislation. However, if you are interested in being personally effective in your use of the internet, it is useful to pay attention to some of the principles of network etiquette. ETIQUETTE Let us examine the concept of network etiquette. What standards of good taste should be applied to public messages? Are there enforceable standards of etiquette? How are these to be enforced? Community agreement? Consensus? What is the role of self policing by network moderators? By list owners? By institutions hosting the networks? By institutions receiving the networks? It would be the best of all possible worlds if everyone's behavior would meet the standards of good taste and mutual respect. But it doesn't happen. Among the hundreds of thousands of people who use the internet in one way or another are many who want to cathart, insult, advocate for their point of view, insult individuals and groups, and waste band width with the exchange of personal messages that have no interest for the majority of users. Often, these users are so vociferous and obvious that they give the internet a bad name in the eyes of administrators and threaten the privilege of free use of the system. It is one thing when people pay for the privilege of using a system. Thus, users of Compuserve are pretty much free to do as they like, so long as they stay within the constraints imposed by Compuserve. The administrators of Compuserve assume the obligation of policing their own network. But when those users break through into a publicly funded network open to all, the rules change. Privileges must necessarily be limited so that all can enjoy a minimum of useful service from the internet. Thus, what appears to be a simple matter of etiquette for people of goodwill, becomes an issue of control of some for the good of all. The question of what kinds of messages violate the good of the order must be considered and decisions must be made. Should people be allowed to declare that the holocaust did not happen, that the world is flat, that the president is a traitor, or that child molesting is an "alternate form" of sexual behavior? If not, where is the line to be drawn. How do we decide what is acceptable and what is not and furthermore, how is one to enforce those decisions without violating a basic right to privacy. These issues have already arisen and been considered in other forms of media. To use an analogy, conversation on the internet ranges from that similar to random chitchat with strangers in a bar to the formal scholarly discussion of abstruse topics by qualified experts. There is a personal obligation to propriety. It is the user's obligation to conform to the norms of the discussion in which he or she is participating. If it is a wide open flaming brawl, than anything goes. On the other hand, inserting crude and offensive or excessively personal material in a scholarly discussion is a gross violation of standards of propriety. Etiquette is an abstract topic. It has something to do with consideration and polity as social norms, which have something to do with consensus and voluntary social agreements. The Supreme Court refers to this as "community norms and standards." What might be perfectly natural behavior in one electronic community may be offensive in another (just as magazines acceptable in mid-town Manhattan may offend residents of Colorado Springs. Consider the "flame." On some lists, simple disagreement is regarded as flaming, while on other lists, there is a bare knuckle kind of attitude and everyone "publishes" at his or her own risk. For the nonce, the best advice is to pay attention to what has been going on before you contribute to a conversation. Your own sense of what is acceptable may effectively guide you in electronic communication as in life. Other simple advisories might include: 1. Limit your messages so that they are conveniently readable by others. 2. Try to give references and sources when you make a statement of fact. 3. Give other people a fair chance to answer. And be sure to read what they say before you try to answer it. 4. Avoid profanity, blasphemy, and ad hominem out of respect for other readers. If you must confront, it is considerate to do so off the networks. Norms will ossify into rules over time. Meanwhile, good sense and self protection mandate that you take care with what you say and how, when, and where you say it. LEGAL ISSUES What legal issues affect network posts? Copyright protection? Fair use privilege? Freedom of expression under the First Amendment? The common law and public statute as they affect libel and slander? In the case of a lawsuit, who is to be sued? Does the largest responsible agency assume umbrella responsibility? Do users of electronic communication systems have a right to remain anonymous? Are they entitled to a guarantee that their files will not be read/ The question of whether electronic communication qualifies as written or oral, and in either case whether telephone, letter writing or personal conversation represents the best analogy is not clear. One thing is clear --- people own the copyright to their own letters. There are many written archives waiting for the touch of a scholar that cannot be examined because the original owner copyrighted and protected them for a given number of years. The letters of Sigmund Freud are a case in point. The legal presumption at the moment is that contributors to electronic bulletin boards, lists, or networks own their contributions and they cannot be re-posted without expressed approval of the original writer. On the other hand, the doctrine of "fair use" as embedded in print copyright law, also applies. A person may quote a certain number of lines so long as proper credit is given. A person may run a single copy for professional use. Libraries may copy and retain for examination unless such usages are specifically restricted by the owner of the copyright. Authors, in the early stages of a work, will often protect their documents with the state "no portion of this document may be quoted or cited without permission in writing from....." Such caveats have been noted in electronic postings, especially in the hard sciences. The concept of a global network community with free access to all and free expression guaranteed to all is an interesting ideal or goal, but at the present moment there are complex and serious legal questions that must be ironed out. One may behave as they choose in electronic communication, but simple prudence suggests that attention to paid to existing law, especially the common law as it applies to publishing. This holds both in posting your work and in using the work of others. The question of legal issues is not trivial. On the most responsible end of network exchange, scholarly journals are being published and disseminated. This is a genuine boon to the academy. For one thing, scholars with something worthwhile to say have an additional forum in which to say it. Electronic journals can be disseminated at little cost, and individual articles can be sent to those who are interested. Even librarians are optimistic about the possibility of having an index of electronic journals available to people all over the world. It is an exciting prospect. There is also a personal quality to internet. Using it, friends and family can stay in connection in ways heretofore impossible. But sadly, because of the ambiguity of the medium, it is hard to tell whether individuals using the internet for private communication are still bound by public law. Once they had sent a message, can they prevent others from quoting it. Furthermore, the capability users have to alter and cut messages makes the reliability of transmitted material somewhat suspect. There are so many grey areas that it is like to take a generation of lawsuits to clarify what is legal and what is not. COPYRIGHT AND FAIR USE There is also an international copyright convention. Copyright law is very complex, the result of legislative enactment and international treaties. In general, the purpose of copyright is to protect authors from economic exploitation. People who write works have an inalienable right to profit from them or to waive those profits as they choose. For example, in print publishing, the author generally waives the copyright to the publisher in exchange for the act of publication plus a specified profit to be earned from the same of the book. The owner of the copyright has the privilege of restricting how much can be used of a given work, although there is a provision for fair use. Fair use is defined (Leonard D. DuBoff, The Law (in Plain English) for Writers, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley, 1992) as "The reasonable use of a copyrighted work that does not require the permission of the copyright holder..." (pg.245). Notice how carefully we cited the source of this quote. This is required under "fair use." Fair use says that academics can make one copy of an article, but not a book, for use by their classes. It does not include xeroxing of course packets for sale or dissemination unless permission is given by the copyright owner. Fair use permits quotation of brief passages of a work in reviews. The important thing is that "fair use" demands permission by the copyright owner. The question of who owns copyrights on electronic information is yet to be resolved. For the moment, conservative editors of electronic journals apply the same provisions as in print publishing. Others advocate a complete abandonment of fair use with the argument that contributors to electronic publications should simply understand that they are public domain to be shared by all. LIBEL AND SLANDER But this concept of sharing does not hold up when we consider the issue of libel and slander. Libel is a written defamatory statement. Slander is a spoken defamation. It is not clear whether defamatory language disseminated through electronic media is libel or slander, nor has it been determined who is technically liable for financial damage. Until the issue is resolved, most legal authorities hold the "internet" or whoever is responsible for it, responsible. We should note here that in private correspondence, libel and slander does not apply to first class mail unless the owner of the mail chooses to make it public. Then they are confronted with the ambiguity of whether the person who wrote the libel is responsible, or the person who owned the letter and made it public. Thus, if A sends a letter to B in which he insults C and B chooses to make it public, it is not clear who C is qualified to sue. Issues like these characterize internet correspondence. It is very likely, as electronic publishing becomes more common, that electronic journal editors and contributors to them will be held to account in a court of law. We cannot predict how the decisions will go, but it is inevitable that unless there is legislation about financially liability, there will be a case before the Supreme Court within the next few years. Until then, the technical freedom granted by the First Amendment must be considered in the context of the possibly of being held to account for expression of that opinion. People who post information that is wrong, dangerous, defamatory, or treasonous to electronic networks can be expected to be held to account. Most institutions that facilitate access to electronic communication publish disclaimers about material that passes through their gateways. On the other hand, disclaimers of responsibility in no way excuse them from responsibility. Until decisions are made by the court, it is prudent for universities and corporations to assume they will be held to account and to exert control over what gets exchanged on their networks. While this may violate the right to freedom of expression and privacy, it is entirely legal for institutions and companies to make it a condition of use of their facilities to surrender the right to privacy and confer the right to monitor all electronic exchanges and to bar users who violate the "rules" by posting dangerous, slanderous, or treasonous material. At the present time, the amount of scholarly information exchanged electronically is negligible when compared to the more than 70,000 scholarly print journals published today. A major scientific publisher has noted the suspicion in which hard scientists hold electronic publishing for the simple reason that their work is too easy to pirate. We might also note that university Promotion and Tenure Committees tend to ignore electronic publishing entirely. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION We might ask the question: Can a publicly funded system tolerate complete freedom of expression and no restriction of purpose? Is such free expression inimicable to responsible scientific exchange? To answer this questions means to consider the interests and concerns of system users with those of system sponsors. System sponsors assume the obligation of providing and maintaining technical facilities. Often, as in universities, these facilities are made available to users at no charge. This implies that such use is a privilege and therefore amenable to restriction by those who provide it, rather than a right to be demanded and assumed by those who wish to use it. This is not a trivial issue and it cannot be disposed with a wave of the hand. The First Amendment is a powerful protection, but the right embodied under "he who pays the piper calls the tune," a primary principle of the Common Law cannot be ignored. Those who are more libertarian may ask the counter question: How can we afford not to uphold freedom of expression especially at public academic institutions? The question cannot be answered simply. In the first place, free expression is not an absolute right. As Justice Holmes explained it, no one has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Further, federal law on pornography defines out expression which is patently against prevailing norms of good taste. Thus dissemination of "kiddy porn" cannot be protected under the First Amendment. Furthermore, the concept of academic freedom also has its limits. A mathematics professor exceeds his or her rights when attempting to teach political science. A political science teacher may take a stand, but may not suppress responsible responses. On the other hand, no one has appropriately defined the word "responsible. But there are other needs that must be met in electronic communication. The overpowering demand is for effective interchange of ideas and the maintenance of records of same. This raises the question of editorial standards. EDITORIAL CONTROL What editorial standards should be imposed on posts? Do network moderators hold editorial control? What stylebook standards should be imposed on scholarly exchanges? What standards must be observed to meet the needs of librarians, archivists, indexers, etc.? How have medical informatics systems handled this issue? The popularity of electronic journals brings up a number of other possible restrictions. At the moment, diversity in technology makes electronic communication very much like the early railroads in America. Different companies used different gauges, and it was not possible to go from one end of the country to the other without changing trains. Now each institution uses its own technology, its own "language" to operate those systems. Some systems are very simple permitting only exchange of messages and file transfer. Others are complex and permit the exchange of visuals and complex operations like telnet and ftp. In order for electronic journals to be universally useful, they must be constructed to the least common denominator of systems. But to do so, means to surrender the use of some extremely powerful technology. How can technology be extended without overtaxing the fiscal capabilities of those agencies who provide the networks? There are small schools, small companies, private nodes, minuscule local networks all involved in essentially the same processes as the consortium of educational institutions in BITNET or commercial services like Compuserve. Innovations in technology are not available to everyone. There are a small number of technicians eager to extend the capabilities of the internet. They propose methods to transmit visuals, variable type fonts, complex methods of storage and retrieval. But down the road, as libraries will be major consumers of internet information. Consistency is very important for libraries. In essence they must all use the same storage and retrieval code. Most libraries have their card catalogues computerized, even small local libraries. A major technological innovation would demand a complete and simultaneous change by libraries that participate on the internet. And without libraries, electronic publishing on the internet is doomed to failure. There is no commercial possibility in electronic publishing with present technology. New technology may be rejected, if it is too expensive or too complicated to keep information accessible. In the print industry, computerization has made it easier to publish books, but the end product is salable. Unless computer networks can sell their products, there is no point in restricting the ability of users to receive information. It is entirely feasible that information services could sell their product to institutions at a high price. There are, right now, large medical networks that make indexes, journal articles, and interlibrary service available on-line. They can transmit and receive cardiograms and other complex data; they can keep clinical records and facilitate clinical trials. But the cost would be prohibitive for the individual user. When the A.M.A. attempted to provide universal CMC service to physicians, the system failed for want of enough users to make it economically feasible. These economic considerations are crucial in the context of great economic considerations. One small problem is compartmentalization. Most of us locate ourselves in cyberspace and communicate only with like-minded people. Consequently, we are often unfamiliar with technical innovations generated by other specialists. Librarians are especially involved in information exchange and archiving. Physicians are very concerned with access to current information and clinical reports. Both groups are developing remarkable storage and search technologies which may be interesting to the rest of us. Would a central technological clearing house issuing regular bulletins be generally useful? If so, who should run it and how should it be run? How can people be informed about it? On a very fundamental level, there is a listserve at Kent State University that sends out periodic announcements about new networks and updates lists of networks. There is also the issue of standardization in "product." Articles and papers disseminated electronically must conform to some style book. There are those who advocate no controls whatsoever but without consistent controls indexing, searching, and retrieval is impossible. Standardized systems like A.P.A. and M.L.A. may not be ideally suited for electronic scholarly and technical publishing but they would bring such publishing in line with the traditional types of publication and make it possible to index information jointly. Scientists who currently exchange information tend to conform to a standard system of indexing based on the biostatistical style sheets. Agreement on a system would not be difficult, once there is agreement that there should be a system. Librarians are well organized on this matter. They will, for example, access only electronic journals with ISSN numbers. Those journals must conform to some standard style sheet. The interests of librarians are tended to by the American Library Association. For those interested in these matters, make contact with ALAWON, the on line news bulletin of the ALA. The issue of editing must be considered. Editors of journals must impose constraints on presentational style. Those who advocate a totally free internet demand the right to present their ideas untrammeled by the strictures of grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Those who wish to control information systematically note that it is impossible to include illiterate appearing material as legitimate publications and demand that electronic editors have control similar to that long the prerogative of print editors. RHETORICAL ISSUES There are also rhetorical issues to consider when contemplating the future of the internet. Those who seek to disseminate messages must take into account the competency of their readers. A message is virtually worthless if it is unintelligible to those who receive it. Users of the internet have total control over what they read. They can, most of them, with the punch of a single key, discard a message. Presentation in techno-jargon or street argot both fail to find the audience the author seeks. There is no way to demand attention on the internet. People can do what they choose with the messages they receive. Thus, every sender has the obligation to consider carefully who will be the target of the messages. The burden of intelligibility lies squarely on the writer. You earn a reputation when you commit yourself to writing. Sloppy prose, bad spelling and punctuation, excessive use of technical jargon, excessively long contribution will make you known. Just as book readers can close their book any time they are bored or offended, your network readers can turn you off with a touch of the "discard" key. There is a great deal of illiterate prose available in network exchanges, but if you observe the byplay carefully, you will find that some writers are responded and others are ignored. You can learn what represents a minimum rhetorical standard by attending to the fate of other contributors. It is not unusual for a network to invite sententious, offensive, and boring contributors to depart. COMMERCIALIZATION That brings us to the rock bottom question of commercialism. Should advertisers be allowed access to the internet. Should those who control the internet allow commercial corporations to purchase the right to send messages to internet users across the country? It would be a productive way to make money to sustain the system. On the other hand, we could easily contemplate a system like commercial television or junk mail, where the advertisers literally control the content and quality of material transmitted on the medium. But what of the individual who has a "product" to sell. Should the internet be available for authors to tout their works; journal editors to call for articles; organizers of conventions to advertise and seek registration? Should individuals be allowed to seek subscriptions to short courses and distance education? It would be facile to give blanket permission to use the internet for private commercial purposes. Even those who advocate free use seem to draw the line at commercial use before they would ban pornography (which, of course, will eventually become an issue as well.) There is a serious argument about ownership of the internet. Some content that because it is basically supported by tax moneys, everyone ought to have unlimited access. Others argue that access should be limited to "approved" activities. The big question is about the meaning of the word "approved." For example, is an announcement to be considered advertising. If John Doe announces he wrote a book about computers and it is available at your local bookstore, how does this differ from a formal advertisement by the publisher. Should Doe have a right to advertise himself? The same issue applies to the announcement of new products, hardware and software. We may want to know about these products, but we must inquire at what point product information becomes advertisement. The internet is now being used to the dissemination of E- journals. Some believe that access to E-journals should be unlimited, i.e. that any article by anyone should be "published." Editors argue they must have the right to editorial control as in any journal. In any case, the cost of publishing a journal could be considerable. Editors spend much time, need the help of clerks and typists and the use of band width occasions some expense. Given the old adage, "he who pays the piper calls the tune," should sponsoring institutions have the right to control contents? If a journal is the product of an interest group, do they have the right to establish editorial boards? What kind of control should be exerted to control for responsible information. The analogy has been made between internet and the federal highway system. One group alleges that the highway system is open to all. But that is not true. Toxic wastes are routed around it. Contraband cannot be carried on it. Super trucks are excluded from most of it, and the highways are patrolled to control for violation of speed limits and other safe driving laws. Should the internet be controlled? If it is, wouldn't this violate the right to privacy inherent in the Constitution. Americans, in other aspects of their lives, are protected from "unreasonable searches and seizures," but most institutions sponsoring internet connections reserve the right to invade communication and files. Users are told that no guarantees are given for confidentiality and protection from intrusion. They are, furthermore, instructed that their use of the system is contingent on their using it in the interests of the sponsoring institution. To expand the internet concept to its limits might require contributions from commercial enterprises. If they contribute do they have a right to demand preferential access, especially for advertisement of their product? And even if the financing is entirely public, there are many examples of public funding of agencies that are not open to all. A college student cannot get a free lunch at a senior center. Wouldn't it be in the interest of intellectual progress to confine the internet to intellectual use? Finally, the internet is frequently used by people with an "axe to grind." Should we maintain a doctrine of "equal time." If an advocate uses band width to argue a case for "right to life," shouldn't "pro choice" advocates be given equal space to provide balanced argument. What do we do with advocates for obscene causes like nazis, ku klux klan, proponents of bigotry and racism, etc.? MATTERS OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY The following section deals with more personal issues affecting use of the internet. Most of these issues is a matter of personal judgment, although, the issue of computer crime is clearly a legal issue. There are a number of criminal behaviors available to internet users. Most obvious is the implanting of viruses. A great deal of information is exchanged over the internet. Many are dependent on their mainframes for archiving service and access to information. Furthermore, they may have their local systems connected. Very often malicious and irresponsible people interfere with the rights of access of others. They may embed viruses in programs they exchange over the internet. They may play little "jokes" which appear harmless to them, but which can seriously inconvenience others. The courts have been quite harsh on these kinds of violations. They have been especially hard on those who violate the privacy of others by accessing files to which they are not entitled. There have been cases, for example, of hackers entering the files of credit card companies and stealing cards numbers. In other cases, highly sensitive records have been destroyed by violators. Although most of these cases have been prosecuted based on existing law, as use of the internet becomes more popular, we can expect codes of legislation affecting the behavior of users and the rights to security users have. We can expect such legislation to deal with the issue of libel and slander discussed above. There are also issues of equitable access to consider. At the moment, the internet is relatively open. Traffic is not so heavy that anyone need be denied. But when used to the maximum, it may be necessary to have to decide who has priority for network use. At a given university, for example, there may be a limited number of modems by which phone-in users can access the system. Given that limitation, should there be a priority code for scholars and researchers that gives them advantage over casual users, or should access be on a first come, first served basis. Some institutions limit the amount of time a user can stay on line. Cleveland Freenet, for example, limits ordinary users to one hour of internet access time. At some places, usage is monitored and if no activity is detected in a given time period, the user is wiped off line. Who should use the internet and under what circumstances? Should internet use be confined to specific purposes and to authorized users or should it be open to all? If the former, don't we risk a society of "haves" and "have-nots?" If the latter, don't we risk being buried in a mound of irresponsible communication, unable to sort out the useful material. One way proposed to sort out users is by their perspective. Some users of the internet are rank beginners. They use band width to experiment and learn. Internet is a powerful teaching tool. On the other hand, following Gresham's Law, "bad" use drives out "good." Should we provide separate networks for learners and authorize access to the main internet only to those sophisticated enough to take advantage of all its possibilities. And when you consider this questions, do not forget that a great many institutions do not have the technology to permit full use of the internet. Should they be barred until they acquire the proper equipment and sophistication in its use? On the other hand, it should be noted that the internet is used by a wide range of people. Some are end users, specialists in their own disciplines who have neither the time or inclination to learn computer technology. Others are highly sophisticated technologists, experts in the computer who often demand that the internet be primarily devoted to their needs and wants. Some balance needs to be maintained. By the same token, high tech personnel should keep in mind that their dreams of a techno-world can be thwarted by the simple fact that the majority of users cannot understand many innovations and see no use for them in their own vocational and personal worlds. There seems to be consensus on the view that children should be made as sophisticated as possible so that as they grow they can take advantage of all network features to facilitate learning and advance their vocational careers. Special arrangements may have to be made, at considerable cost, to provide access to these learners. Many users of the internet do not understand that what they post on the internet is actually published, and what they say may later come back to incriminate them. Irresponsible material disseminated by youngsters can be used to interfere with a career later on. How can people be trained to use the internet responsibly? Conversely, doesn't this kind of pressure to be "responsible" inhibit free expression and impose a kind of stultifying self censorship? CONCLUSION At the moment, you are the master of your fate on the internet. As you use it and learn more about it, you will assume more responsibility, both for the way it is used and the way it is governed. We have attempted to give you an overview of the issues you will have to face. You will often be called on to decide, to take a stand. We recognize that we have not covered all the issues with which you have been confronted, and all of us will count on you to recognize and call to our attention problems that all of us must consider. We have introduced you to the following issues. 1. The impact of the internet on society. 2. Technical standards for communication on the internet.. 3. Employing effective rhetoric to improve your use of the system. 4. Etiquette and respecting the rights of others. 5. Legal issues e.g. copyright, libel and slander. 6. Editorial control of information and opinion on the internet. 7. Commercialization of the internet and problems attendant thereunto. 8. Personal responsibility including equitable access, perspective and computer crime. As a consumer of internet services, you have an inherent responsibility to be aware of these issues and make informed choices. You may also wish to contact your legislative representative and let him or her know how you feel about the internet and the legal and logistic issues that pertain to it. There are a number of organizations concerned with these and other internet issues. They include the Electronic Freedom Foundation, Software Publishers Association, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Educom, American Library Association, Coalition for Networked Information, and National Public Telecomputing Network, among others. As you become more sophisticated with internet use, you may want to inquire about the positions taken by these organizations and decide on which are worthy of your support or demand your opposition. Copyright 1993 USA. No reposting of this publication is permitted. Fair use permits quoting limited and select portions for purposes of review and documentation. Any other use is prohibited unless explicitly approved in writing by the author.