[governance] ITU participation by CS (was: IG questions ...)

[Dan Krimm]

At 10:53 PM -0500 12/13/07, KovenRonald at aol.com wrote:
>Dear All --
>
>I find this pessimistic account of the end of freedom pf scientific
>inquiry and on the I'net to be shortsightedly deterministic. Most likely
>there will be a basic change in American administrations after the next
>election, and the rejection of the Enlightenment and the desire to
>institute central political controls will fade away, along with the good
>folks who gave us the Iraq fiasco.
>
>Rony Koven


I would love to be more optimistic, and I do believe a change in USG
administrations will be incrementally for the better (hard to see how it
could be much worse, even if another Republican is elected).

However, even among Democrats (though it would be foolish to count their
chickens just yet, even with a clear popular sentiment in that direction at
the moment), various lobbies hold much influence, and will continue to hold
much influence.

The Dems, remember, gave us the 1996 Telecom Act, which had a lot of nasty
stuff in it for the public and a lot of nice stuff for the IP biz and some
nice deregulation for the cable and telecom and broadcast industries.  And
we got the DMCA in 1998, with anti-circumvention laws, a flawed compulsory
license for music webcasting, etc.

The pressure on legislators to adhere to industry lobbies will not go away,
the revolving door will not go away, and for all the Dems' talk of cleaning
up the ethics of Congress, such measures will be, well, measured.  Just
think of Rep. Howard Berman of CA (Hollywood constituency) as a
long-standing warning sign that even Dems can be captured by special
industry interests.

If a Dem gets elected, all this stuff doesn't just go away, even though it
would be likely to become somewhat less acute.  There is really no reason
to be sanguine about this, even in the best of circumstances.

The IP lobby has a long-standing global strategy, and one individual
national government, even one as powerful as the USG, will not change that
agenda or the resources marshalled on its behalf.  The telecom and cable
and broadcaster lobbies will remain powerful and influential, and they will
continue to put as much pressure on government in their narrow interests as
they can, because they believe it is their duty under the fiduciary
obligations of limited liability corporations to do anything that is legal
to serve those narrow interests.

The fiction of "corporate social responsibility" is an illusion of
corporate response to explicit regulation and changing market demand (i.e.,
the customer preference for "green" goods, for example, was created by long
term efforts of the environmental faction of CS, as was much of the
regulatory regime that is being rolled back in recent years).  In the
absence of regulation (and in the presence of substantial market power,
such as last-mile broadband connectivity services), industry leaders will
try to consolidate as much power as they can, because they feel it is their
moral duty to do so.

Bottom line:  In the US, we will have to keep a sharp eye on the USG even
(and especially) if a Dem president is elected and majorities in House and
Senate are maintained.  The influence of wealth on politics is somewhat
more subtle for the Dems than the Reps, but it by no means absent.  And
there is still no guarantee that we will succeed in electing a Dem, in
which case that influence will continue to be rather more explicit.

Remember also that "it took Nixon to go to China" -- in policy terms, only
a leader who had credentials opposing "caving in" to the Communist regime
had the political cover to negotiate detente with The Enemy.  With Dems in
control, they would have some political cover to negotiate continued or
further erosions of civil liberties.

There is no scenario that I can see in which "all of our problems just go
away."  Such a vision is only viewable through rose-colored glasses, and in
my view *that* is what is "shortsighted" in this discussion, if we are
going to throw around epithets.

As a politico in the techie/politico conversation (thought not exactly a
"diplomat" -- I'm of course an advocate), I must insist on realism when
evaluating political dynamics.  While I am optimistic that with sufficient
attention we can push back effectively at "the wrong thing" it would be
dangerous to think that "the right thing" will emerge of its own accord
without the application of explicit political force (mostly by CS).  We
must keep our eyes on the prize, or else someone else will surely take it
from us while we're not looking.

The "consensus in the middle" is becoming extremely scarce in political
venues, and I don't really see that changing dramatically in the
foreseeable future.  Even in the best case, it will take us some time to
work our way out of the current Gilded Age of plutocracy.  We have a long
climb still ahead, and any change in USG administration is just the
beginning, not the end of it.  There will continue to be many people in
positions of influence (both public and private) who wish to "institute
central political controls" and they will not fade away quickly, if at all.
Whatever they can't get in the light of day they will try to get under the
table and in the back room, and they will do their utmost to distract "the
masses" to look elsewhere.  It would be a mistake to underestimate their
power, resources, or determination to get their way in whatever manner they
can, even if it requires "weapons of mass distraction."

Dan
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance