{back from break--Issues At Hand logo, dissolve to TAPE #GA9623111321}

{caption:}

Brian Dinsmore
Political Consultant

To be perfectly blunt, sir, this legislation as currently worded will make public, and will make completely accessible the records of every elected official's campaign contributions? Every donation--by whom, to whom, in what denomination. One has to conclude that it invades the privacy of every contributor....

Sen. John Ackerman
R-North Dakota

{glowering}

If I read you right, you're saying you think we're opening up a big can of ugly worms.

I'm sure you're right about that. I believe those worms are there. And if this legislation passes, someone out there will figure out some computer game that will match up donations, the interests of the donators, and the official's votes. And statistically point out a few quid pro quos, isn't that right, point out a few out-and-out bribes. Is that your concern, Mr. Dinsmore?

Dinsmore:

{red, rattled, angry}

Ackerman:

{outraged:}

In fact it's damn wrong. And it must not happen again.

{cut to:}

{RICHARD. Behind, graphics of Information Highway map of US, glowing, pulsing}

The nuts and bolts of the Information Highway--the paving, if you will--is intricate indeed. Distributed processing, data nodes, packet switching, error checking, software protocols, software packages--all of these have demanded the highest level of technological skill. While much of this tends to create in the average person the MEGO effect--"my eyes glaze over"--the skills and expertise required is worthy of attention.

The Information Highway system, in its infancy, exclusively used existing expertise and equipment from the telecommunications community. As it developed, many of the finest minds stayed on to perfect what was clearly becoming the most advanced data transmission system in the world.

{GRAPHIC shows data lines in different colors, "communicating."}

RICHARD:

The Window subsystem, with its interconnected software packages and uniform protocols, took the commitment of thousands of dedicated programmers.

{GRAPHIC: images of first Programmer's Consortium conference, May 1993.}

RICHARD:

Williams found the base for this programmer's community in such organizations as Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Programmers for Peace, and other information-technology idealists. The organizations were loosely knit, but were nonetheless in close communication through some of the two hundred such systems as the Internet, Bitnet, Prodigy, GEnie, CompuServe, Senior Net, and the rest.

These were the people who were not only excited by what Williams was proposing, but also had the skills to make it happen. In his eighth speech in February, he made an open request for programmers, technicians, and people with both skills and vision to apply those skills to making the Information Highway and the Window systems a reality.

{dissolve to:}

{caption:}

I believe there are people willing to take part in this grand project, not just because of the challenge, not just because of the potentially huge professional advantages, but because they want to help make a better world. Most computer professionals know that their skills can make a tangible difference, and are interested in doing more than just making a fast buck. Those programmers and computer cognoscenti who I've talked with are excited with the idea of the Highway, of the Window, of a national information web. And already many have volunteered to take part in the hard work of making such a vision a reality.

I'm making a public plea for more of those same sort of people--programmers, communications technologists, information industry specialists who can take a leave of absence for this project of national consequence. Your pay will be equivalent to what you have been recieving, but the satisfaction is likely to be much, much greater.

{GRAPHICS of trucks laying wires, emplacing satellite links, of exploring post offices, of groups of nerdy folk huddling together, TAPE #GA963213-202}

Roughly seven thousand men and women answered the call that first week, with another ten thousand responding during the following months. After two months of discussions between major manufacturers, software engineers, and developers, work was initiated on two primary fronts: the technical front, which mobilized the industrial sector for emplacing the high-capacity cabling and local nodes in communities nationwide, and the programming front, whose job it was to make the technical end workable for the casual user.

{more construction GRAPHICS of trucks bringing heavy equipment to post offices, computer emplacements, etc. TAPE #GA963213-206}

Though some featherbedding, bidrigging, and overcharging by private industry put some stains on the image of a cooperative system, nonetheless the backbone of the system was able to use existing phone lines while the high-speed, high-volume information system was being put into place.

On the programming front, many programmers were flown to centralized locales where they could work in groups of twenty or more on particular smaller projects.

{GRAPHIC of small group, TAPE #GA9623317-441; later, GRAPHIC of SGML-coded document, IH2-18/I328 then of USWP, the national word processor for electronic-text enrichment, See IH2-18/I329}

RICHARD, overdub:

Because the software systems being developed were all object-oriented, the thousands of small parts--objects--could be worked on individually, and then could be tested in larger and larger compilations. Much of the preliminary work had been achieved in the previous years in other contexts--

SGML coding, for example, a generic markup language, was an already established electronic text coding system that the military complex already used.

What the Programmer's Consortium did was create software package add-ons that allowed government workers to easily categorize their own electronic texts. Other aspects such as the Window indexing schemes, the distributed processing, the search subroutines, and the like also had ancestors in earlier computer systems.

{GRAPHIC of Great Pyramid, #GA9623137-119}

The monumental task of building the great Pyramid, as it were, could be and was broken down into the smaller parts for the workgroups, who then broke their own tasks into even smaller parts. This allowed the immense task to be achieved in an astonishingly short amount of time, and at surprisingly little expense. Six billion dollars, while while no pocket change was still much less than the critics had supposed--established the satellite trunk linkages, the information nodes in the post offices, and began to subsidize some primary cabling in local communities.

{GRAPHIC showing nine-month span of development on bar chart, IH2-18/I316}

This by no means meant that private industry was out of the picture. In the last three years, thousands of value-added software and hardware packages have been patented and marketed--for improved access and use of the Information Highway and the Window system, for sending compressed data over the lines, for blending or merging voice and data, even for long-distance real-time video. Many of the earlier packages have since been purchased by the government to improve its own base system. In this way, the private and the public sector have helped spur each other on.

The Window technology is made simpler by its read-only form. Since one is only accessing data, there need not be the same error-checking protocols that are necessary on full-service networks. The value-added packages that have been developed recently--often by former participants in the Programmer's Consortium--have been "pushing the envelope."

One of our technology correspondents, Mandy Mitchell, has been researching the ways in which that envelope is being pushed by both public and private enterprises. The first shows some of the ways the envelope shouldn't be pushed.

{MANDY MITCHELL stands in front of an ordinary suburban townhouse.}

MANDY:

Over the last few years all governmental data--from the most intimate to the most mundane--have become accessible to everyone via the Window. But who is monitoring this virtual avalanche of activity, some of which is destined to have a profound effect on you and me? Actually hundreds of citizen watchdog groups, funded privately or publically, have sprung up to assist and monitor activities on the Window.

I am standing in front of the residence of two members of Citizen Alert, one such group. These individuals have specifically concerned themselves with the surveillance of government and corporate activity relating to the use of the Window itself.

{CUT to interior; the camera pans the apartment: computer magazines, bookshelves filled with documents, binders and dirty coffee cups are neatly scattered through the room.

The camera shows Neil looking concerned while working at his 3 x 4' Window terminal. these guys are hardcore nerds, and their house is just what you'd expect}

Neil Backman
Investigator, Citizen Alert

{over hunched shoulder; he's engrossed in his task}

Gary, look at this. Looks like we were right about Data Gentry. Still, start a search for them on the business line, would you? We need to be certain.

{Shift to Gary, who goes to the Window's business profile line and begins to examine the business profile information on DataGentry.

{Cut & dissolve; resolve on Gary, who turns to the camera and explains, while waiting on the business data:}

Gary Rochester
Investigator, Citizen Alert

{he's prematurely grey, hollow-eyed}

Neil, get in touch with Glenda and see if she'll examine the fed line for today's entries. And show her what we're looking at.

{While CAMERA focuses on Gary as he makes a rapid key strokes, MANDY overdub:}

Gary and Neil worked for the Programmer's Consortium at its inception, and have a three-year grant to investigate questionable uses of patents in its relation to the Information Highway and Window use.

{OVERDUB ends, go back to realtime}

Neil:

About three years ago, when the Window was still in development, Glenda wrote a series of articles detailing the logic behind "Search and Seizure," a search algorithm for the infant Window system. Glenda was also a member of the PC, and it seemed clear to her that S&S would need to be developed. At the time she was an idealistic grad student and felt very strongly about the Window.

For the Window to reach its full potential, she said, we would have to devise search routines that would assist all users in retrieving data across multiple Window arenas.

Let me give you an example. Suppose that you are a farmer checking the agricultural board for current data on uses and dangers of pesticides. Well, you normally would go and search the Pesticide line of the USDA's line, opening a window into that area of the public information base. But that might miss publically available data from, say, Dow.

"Search and Seizure" would allow you to check not just the USDA line, but every other subsystem that's currently available on the Window whose index might show the primary keywords in proximity. The patent office, say, or the HealthLine data, or whatever.

This means that anybody, no matter what type of Window manuverability skill they possess, would be able to access information from any point on the system. For the casual Window user this could be a considerable tool, while for those dependent on the Window for their livelihood this could be the best thing since sliced bread.

Last we heard, Glenda was still perfecting the system.

That's why we're nonplussed about this DataGentry offering.

{Camera moves to Gary as he begins to read to Neil about DataGentry.

Gary:

Here it is, Neil. DataGentry, founded two years ago with seed money from IMM. They seem to have hired some programmers from the Consortium Window development team--see these names? It says here that they produced a couple of interesting electronic mail features that the Agency bought, and made some nice improvements to the speed of the Windows' primary search routine--mostly private sales for that.

Standard infotech stock offerings, and corporate subdivision data. Nothing updated yet about the Search & Seizure offering. I'm going to call Glenda.

Mandy:

It's clear that you both think this is very important. Why?

Gary:

Since those first days in the Consortium, we've known that constant vigilance was necessary. We're some of the vigilant ones. The Window, or the Highway, the software that makes it all go--these are vital to the continued success of the system, and the continued success of the Information Agenda.

Mandy:

But what does that have to do with this pending patent?

Gary:

Think about this. Patents mean money. Big patents mean big money. You can't just use something when somebody has controlling interest in the product, technique or tool. If DataGentry successfully patents this, and they're using the same base system that Glenda is using--and she's the one who originated it, remember--then Glenda will be unable to provide it publically. DataGentry will "own" it. They may sell versions of it to corporate information officers, sell other versions to small business, and will sell yet another version to the Government. Or they may even sell their services without the software.

What I'm afraid we're seeing is a well-funded company trying to get a major edge on the information market. This looks like a play that will give an elite group of individuals massive control of information services.

Mandy:

If the other programmer did the work, what happened?

Gary:

Search & Seizure was not an easy task to accomplish. Nearly every major piece that ends up on the Window is the culmination of massive amounts of programming talent and plenty of Federal--and often venture--capital.

DataGentry, in this case, may have taken someone else's work and put their name on it. They want it all. Nobody else is allowed to play.

{CUT to Neil, ear to phone, hands on keyboard}

Neil:

Glenda is floored. DataGentry is a splinter organization set up by IMM to propagate their hold of the market. They hired her for a few months, and then she resigned over policy issues and got a grant to develop Search & Seizure herself. DataGentry is to be trying to steal her thunder.

Gary:

I think we can throw a wrench into their pretty little scam.

We'll contact the patent office, and inform them of the history of Search & Seizure before they even begin their patent consideration.

Neil:

Great--and let's get as much documentation as possible on Glenda's development of the project. If I know Glenda, she has binders of notes, that never leave her side, and megabytes of past work, rough drafts, and the like.. I remember her last visit--the backseat of her Toyota was filled with papers and folders and, well, everything. Her compulsiveness may really pay off now.

{Gary & Neil laugh, while Gary sits down at his Window. They dive into the tasks at hand, clearly forgetting the presence of the reporter and film crew.

{Mandy, facing camera:}

This is Mandy Mitchell, CBC News.

{cut to:}

This is a licensed freedom I practice. It's akin to security clearance that the government gives me. My investigations themselves are monitored by another individual who I never know nor see. It's as part of the contract. I've also got someone that I monitor, who I don't know--nor am likely to find out.

When I first heard about that, it seemed pretty intrusive. But look. It's not when I'm logged on as a person that I'm monitored the most precisely. And me as an individual just ain't gonna attract enough interest for much monitoring.

But when I'm logged in at work, as an abuse investigator, then my Window connections are in essence recorded, with their descriptions, and the amount of time I spent in certain areas, doing what... And that other monitor has access to those records.

But back to your original question about what my job is, and how investigations like ours operate: there are patterns. The patterns of information access that are involved with various abuses of the system are recognizable by computer systems. I have my system and the web working on it while I sleep, having my software tools and government-owned software tools analyzing trends in certain companies, and from certain individuals.

There are also limits to our investigation. Because of privacy issues, the Window--as a highway--polices only its use as such, rather than policing the content. But the Window has, in essence, a speed limit: there is only supposed to be point-to-point communication, not broadcast information. You call an information base. You access somebody else's computer. You send e-mail to an individual.

But the only way to get a broad audience is to put up a sign--something like the tall gas station logos on the Interstate. No one's allowed to set up shop along the shoulder of the interstate.

And in truth it's very difficult to broadcast on the web. But smart programmers or rogue former members of the Programmer's Consortium sometimes find backdoors and ways of access the highway in broadcastable ways. So people like me have to try to keep abreast of those folks.

So that sort of monitoring isn't really intrusive. It's sort of a radar trap. The investigations we do that are intrusive are no different than a wiretap: each one demands a court order to proceed. I have to have been given a court order to investigate an individual's data transmission. But that's when the hairy part starts.

Let's say that somebody is masquerading as a lot of people. That's a standard technique. Since there's only allowed one login per person--one road to you and away from you--some shysters try to get around the system by using electronic hardware for micropulse divisions that fool the system into thinking that lots of people are logged in. The company can then feed the datalines together. They've then got a rake instead of a hook.

That gives that business an advantage. And that kind of advantage isn't not allowed, unregulated. What it's designed to foster is employment and community formation. Groups of people working together can research a more than one can.

But there are lots of people with logins they don't use. A lot of winos will sell their login names to somebody for a night in exchange for a bottle of wine--which is certainly cheaper than the stiff fees the government charges for extra login lines.

But back to your question: see, there are patterns of information usage that are triggers for us. While I can't give out any trade secrets, the simplest manner is to test the online operator's keystroke rate, pacing, and rhythm.

Computer software, unless randomizing systems are used, have a very recognizable pattern of behavior, which can be recognized.

Without extra assistance from software and hardware, it's difficult to have effective multiuser cheating without getting caught. Eventually it can even become apparent to the information provider--in this case, the United States Information Service, and the Internal Revenue Service.

{cut to:}

But it's not only professionals who are doing the hot-dog watchdogging. A man in Nebraska shows us a good example of a phenomenon happening all over the country--the actively engaged citizen.

{cut to:}

{Richard--this guy is a perfect example of the Public Citizen. Upstanding, like the Marlboro man, but a little more slender}

Listen, there are things the Window can do that boggle the mind. Really slick stuff that's all to the public good.

You've got to compliment the Consortium for their work on the search systems for the various databases of information.

I'm pretty much a novice on the Window. I've had one for about a year, I guess. I've used it for the normal things, and though I knew there was more, all I've really done is use the e-mail stuff and the news and encyclopedias.

But five months ago I was watching C-Span, and something that a witness said got me thinking, and that thinking got me wondering, and that wondering caught me a thief. Or at least a liar. This lawyer for the Acher Baker Midway said that the land values in one particular part of rural Nebraska had declined by 32%, which meant that the value of ABM's range land had decreased so dramatically that the company had to completely reevaluate its investment in the region, and sell off its holdings to local farmers.

It struck me as all wrong that ABM was using a decrease in land value as a justification for selling off its holding because I just didn't believe those values had decreased all that much.

I knew certain counties had a problem, but that was because the land had been appraised high in the '70s as crop land. But that land couldn't sustain row crops through dry years without irrigation and couldn't yield enough to be profitable without heavy doses of petro-based chemicals.

After the brouhaha in the Middle East, it just became too expensive to work and treat and irrigate that land. It's not crop land, it's ranch land, prairie. Land meant to sustain a very different kind of production.

So I used the Window, over the course of a few nights, to satisfy my curiosity. Up till then I hadn't really pushed any of the retrieval software available on the Window, but I tried out a few and settled in with Search Sleuth, whose description said it was particularly good at property value searches, especially on state records. I figure that it's a very popular program among certain groups--real estate agents, for example.

Anyway, I searched not only state records of land valuation for tax purposes--which is only a rough gauge, because they happen only once every decade in that part of the country--but also sales records of land over the last five years. Five years is as far back as those records go, which didn't surprise me. In fact, having the data go back even five years was a surprise. I understand most cities are up to eight years back, but out here things move a little more slowly. Three years, or four at the most is the norm.

Overall, the property values in the counties that ABM attorney had been talking about on the witness stand had stayed within an inflation-adjusted range of about 8%.

Which meant that he had either misrepresented the facts, misinterpreted the facts, or had made up the facts, any of which demanded action.

So I 'mailed my representatives. Told them that there was some stink afoot. Explained what the lawyer had said as a witness, what the truth was as I saw it, and asked that something be done. I know they get a lot of mail, but it was still important to do.

And I kept on poking around the records, trying to find out what was going on. I began by searching out connections with those counties--trying USDA stats, and Federal demographic data--now remember, I'd never really done this before, and while I'd heard about statistics, I'd never taken a class or anything. The Help systems of the Window are just very, very good. They helped me through every step.

And it helped particularly having the comments of other users who had worked through the system. Apparently the Help system is constantly being updated. I even 'mailed them a few suggestions.

Anyway, I finally chose the EPA line. I crossreferenced the region involved, the counties, ABM, and/or legislation regarding ranching and/or agribusiness. And I only used the system the EPA includes--I guess the Programmer's Consortium paid particular attention to the EPA's data, because that particular search software seemed to handle anything I threw at it.

What I got back was gold. Varied bits of information, sometimes in legalese, sometimes in government-report-speech, and often just numbers in context. But a pattern emerged, a pattern that the system helped me isolate.

I then did some searches of the local newspapers' databases. About half of them turn their stories in to the Web. What turned up was this: the EPA's damage tax arm had been poking around the area, and there had been agitation to address the problem of feedlots, meat processing plants, and the runoff into the Platte River. There was some serious land damage and groundwater contamination. By getting rid of its holdings, ABM was hoping to evade any after-the-fact taxes for the environmental damage it had done over the years.

That sort of damage--traceable to a single source and repairable--can now be easily assessed and taxed. Then you've got a direct infusion of capital back into the region from the company that took the value out in the first place.

Several dozen jobs would be created, for example, by establishing with ABM damage-tax funds a cleanup and maintainence crew.

But if the land and the facilities are sold to local farmers, the infusion of outside capitol evaporates and there's no new cleanup jobs, or jobs of any kind. Instead, general tax revenues are used for any cleanup that's actually done, a much less fair approach.

So ABM, by pulling back from those areas of commerce, was hoping to escape responsibility for its longstanding air, water, and soil pollution. By declaring that the land values had declined, ABM could justify selling the land at very low, and thus attractive, prices.

I put this information, too, along with pointers to the proper location--and I was happy that the Help window showed me how to record locations on the fly--into my next set of 'mails to my representatives.

And I got action then. Each of them said that they had read my previous mail, but had been unable to respond. They thanked me. They said they would investigate my allegations.

And within a week I saw on C-Span that same witness in front of a different panel, and one of our reps asked him, quietly and smoothly, what had happened in the previous hearing.

The lawyer was completely flustered. And I was completely satisfied. One of my congressmen--I think it was Exon--'mailed me a note three months later, with a reference to a government document, which, when I called it up, was a judicial hearing chastizing the lawyer for his misrepresentation even as they recommended a quick damage tax for ABM meat that was to be applied toward cleanup of the area.

That was really satisfying. And it taught me a lot about the power of the Window system. There are some really smart people working on making these information highways pothole-free. I'd never come close to doing what I did over that two week period. Nothing close to it. But there I was, finding connections in unconnected information. Finding out something completely new.

{dissolve to:}

"The truth" is vital to the ongoing stability of the Window.

If people felt that they couldn't trust the information they're receiving, or felt that they would be taken advantage of by Window entrepreneurs, then they would stop using many of the aspects of the Window that are the most appealing to businesses.

Consequently many preexisting consumer groups modified their services for the online world. Consumer Reports, Public Citizen, and others created information bases to be accessed through the Window. More direct information about businesses on the Highway can be found by asking the B-5 group.

An arm of the Better Business Bureau, this online system is a partner of the Information Agency; they keep track of consumer responses, as Aretha Nazall explains:

{cut to:}

{caption:}

The Better Business Bureau Bulletin Board, or B-5 Group, is designed to provide a record of both problems, solutions, and improvements in businesses accessible through the Window.

For those of you who don't know what the B-5 Group is, you can access it via the BBB line, or through the Business Window, or B-5 on Prodigy, CompuServ, and GEnie. What it does is give reportage on as many public and private businesses as we have data.

If you have a particular complaint, then key a report for us. E-mail will work, although we prefer having you fill out one of our complaint forms accessible through the Window. We have a record already of 5 million forms. Each comment can be responded to by the the company in question, of course, and the confrontations can get pretty lively. But on the whole what we are able to do is provide a "consensus credit report."

Admittedly, for the most part we're dealing with the absence of negative as a positive, much like consumer credit. And there's the potential for whitemail as well as credit-report blackmail. Nontheless, it's working. You can retrieve records on any business you're considering working with, and find out what other people might have said, and how the company responded.

It's fostering attention to customer-centered details, which we approve of. And informing those who want to know whether or not to be suspicious. So far, there have been a few legal challenges; our position is that it isn't slander, because we're not passing judgement. We are only a file folder for holding complaints from all over the country, and allowing others to rummage in our drawers.

{cut to:}

The people who programmed so many of the Window tools, and who structured the interrelated elements of the Highway, were members of the famous Programmer's Consortium. But the PC, as it's known among the programmers themselves, was not just an act of idealism. There was also the promise of money.

{cut to:}

{caption}

Don't get me wrong--it's not just altruism operating on the part of the Programmer's Consortium. Sure, we wanted to help make the system as flexible as possible, and make our programs interconnected, and useful, and helpful, and help make the world a better place, and all that.

But what Williams' administration had done was allocate future money for the programmers. That is, it was in the contract we all signed that we would receive a minuscule percentage of a penny per hour of program use per person as a royalty, and/or that same percentage per use of a program, neither to exceed $60,000 per year for the life of the program or its derivatives.

That may not sound like much, or it may sound like a lot, but when the numbers rolled around, if you participate in one of the Programmer's Projects--and there were hundreds of them even then--and helped make even a mildly nifty package, or program, or process, you were likely to recieve a nice bonus check at the end of the year. You were semi-contractually bound to not reveal a few particulars about the projects, but otherwise you were free to do whatever you want.

For being on the team that developed a widely used package--say the EPA's search and analysis engine--then you were guaranteed a living wage for the foreseeable future.

And because that money was a per-project royalty, the first crop of consumer favorites had a high rate of recidivism--they reenlisted into the Consortium again, to work on a new project.

It was a way for Uncle Sam to have all this great talent stay directed at the public good. And look what it's gotten us--a lot of public good. I've got two max-out checks and a third small check that are now just part of my life. I get a powerful sense of satisfaction, working on projects that make everyone's life better, and I get a reasonable amount of wealth as well. And the government's assistance to its public is made tangible, effective, and cheap.

{dissolve to:}

We look at how these programs helped weld our United States' information web into an international commodity, after this.

{ad break, 120 seconds}

Go to next section of The Information Agenda
Go back to The Information Agenda home page
Back to Michael Jensen's home page