Thursday, February 19, 2009
JZ says Internet needs Fixing
Jonathan Zittrain, who I mercilessly straw-dog here, has blogged an essay that says, circumspectly, on its bottom line, [A new, fixed Internet] "is the change we've been waiting for."
A couple of brief observations on JZ's essay (why stop straw-dogging now?):
He uses several rhetorical tricks that I can't wait for a chance to apply to my own rhetoric.
First he characterizes the threat his opponants see in minimal terms. He says we're afraid of, "anti-libertarian control freaks and mercenary security vendors [and others] who benefit from rejecting [the Internet's] generative premise." Of course, these others who [wish they could] reject the Internet's generative premise include telephone companies, cable companies, publishers of books, records and movies, repressive governments and agencies of government, conservative wings of just about every major religion, et cetera, et cetera.
Then he frames the question so his opposition gets to say, "No," while he says "Yes." Excellent. From now on, the question is not "Does the Internet need to be fixed?" The new question is, "Is Internet 1.0 worth keeping?" Then I say, "Yes." He'll say goodbye, and I'll say hello.
Then he puts words in Farber IP List contributor Gene Spafford's mouth by saying, "As Gene says, the issue is not only with networks that are not secure, but also the endpoints," and I don't think Spafford said that in the letter JZ cites. I don't think Spafford sees that the main problem is with insecure networks. Spafford says the Stanford work is laudable, and I agree too, but NOT because I think the old Internet should be replaced. Here's Spafford's entire letter:
Then JZ mis-casts and minimizes my description of my own experience thus:
I could go on, but I have other fish to fry this morning. What's that lawyer aphorism, "When the facts aren't with you, go after the man?" Or woman, I guess. JZ is a most excellent lawyer. He got a standing O when he taught torts at Stanford. I'd want him on my side should I ever need to appear in court.
Plus I REALLY like JZ. He's smart, always willing to step back from his own positions, always willing to engage. None of the above means I don't like him. We agree on many, many things, many more things than we disagree on. We do disagree on this one, however, and on a couple of others. Thank goodness, the world is a richer place for it.
A couple of brief observations on JZ's essay (why stop straw-dogging now?):
He uses several rhetorical tricks that I can't wait for a chance to apply to my own rhetoric.
First he characterizes the threat his opponants see in minimal terms. He says we're afraid of, "anti-libertarian control freaks and mercenary security vendors [and others] who benefit from rejecting [the Internet's] generative premise." Of course, these others who [wish they could] reject the Internet's generative premise include telephone companies, cable companies, publishers of books, records and movies, repressive governments and agencies of government, conservative wings of just about every major religion, et cetera, et cetera.
Then he frames the question so his opposition gets to say, "No," while he says "Yes." Excellent. From now on, the question is not "Does the Internet need to be fixed?" The new question is, "Is Internet 1.0 worth keeping?" Then I say, "Yes." He'll say goodbye, and I'll say hello.
Then he puts words in Farber IP List contributor Gene Spafford's mouth by saying, "As Gene says, the issue is not only with networks that are not secure, but also the endpoints," and I don't think Spafford said that in the letter JZ cites. I don't think Spafford sees that the main problem is with insecure networks. Spafford says the Stanford work is laudable, and I agree too, but NOT because I think the old Internet should be replaced. Here's Spafford's entire letter:
Needless to say, I agree with David Akin.What do you think?
Furthermore, the Stanford effort is laudable but won't be enough even
if it succeeds. We continue to run weak systems at the endpoints.
It harkens back to my oft-quoted analogy about armored cars and park
benches -- secured transport is not sufficient if the endpoints are
weak. Actually, securing the transport can make things worse by
making the operators of the end-points think they are better off than
they are!
Then JZ mis-casts and minimizes my description of my own experience thus:
"Well, *I* don’t have problems with viruses; it’s just losers who don’t know how to protect their machines. Let them have a playpen, then.”I never said anything like that. I have been a naturalist observing my own Internet usage for some 25 years. Former tech reporter David Akin's experience matches mine. So, apparently, do the three commentators here. When you gather enough expert observations, it starts to look like quantitative data. JZ doesn't say what his experience teaches him.
I could go on, but I have other fish to fry this morning. What's that lawyer aphorism, "When the facts aren't with you, go after the man?" Or woman, I guess. JZ is a most excellent lawyer. He got a standing O when he taught torts at Stanford. I'd want him on my side should I ever need to appear in court.
Plus I REALLY like JZ. He's smart, always willing to step back from his own positions, always willing to engage. None of the above means I don't like him. We agree on many, many things, many more things than we disagree on. We do disagree on this one, however, and on a couple of others. Thank goodness, the world is a richer place for it.
Technorati Tags: End-to-End, JonathanZittrain
Comments:
Post a Comment
