[Nettime-bold] RE: <nettime> What is "Internet accountability"?

["Amy Wohl" <amy@wohl.com>]

I read the report of this study with some amusement.  I think you're
right.  This is a question of you get answers based on the questions you
asked.  I don't think this study considered the global nature of the
Internet at all.  It seems inordinately preoccupied with issues like
will people shop on the Internet?  My answer to that is on some level
Who Cares? And another level they will if it's the right value
proposition.

I read this immediately before reading the Industry Standard's report on
the use of the web at work and at home in June compared to last year and
the prior month.  Usage of the Internet at work is up enormously -- in
the US it's 43 million people or 39%.  They use the Internet at work
about 22 hours per month.  You will discover there that people visit
Amazon more often (by about 3x) than they visit Google.  I doubt that
they use Amazon as a search engine (although I find it a convenient
research tool on occasion). 

I think we ought to refuse to allow the government to regulate the
Internet on the grounds that it can't manage anything that moves faster
than its ability to understand it.  I've spent my time trying to explain
technology to Congressmen; it's not a winning proposition.

Amy Wohl 

Editor
Amy D. Wohl's Opinions
Wohl Associates
915 Montgomery Avenue
Narberth, PA 19072
(610) 667-4842
amy@wohl.com
www.wohl.com 

subscribe to our weekly Opinions newsletter FREE by clicking here
www.wohl.com/signup.htm





-----Original Message-----
From: nettime-l-request@bbs.thing.net
[mailto:nettime-l-request@bbs.thing.net] On Behalf Of geert lovink
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:21 PM
To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net
Subject: <nettime> What is "Internet accountability"?



[My first read of the outcome of the Markle Internet research is an
ambiguous (US) audience, dazed and confused over where this medium is
heading. They are praising complexity, it is said. Yes, we want
self-regulation, but we also want more government involvement. A bit of
everything. Sound like third way Euros, a middle of the road consensus
policy, Internet corporatism, with all parties sitting on the round
table, talking through the issues in a rational matter, hiding their
'real' interests. Who's table are we talking about here? As classic
political theory on agenda building tells us it is important to
carefully study who is defining the terms, such a "Internet
accountability." One things seems
certain: the dominance of cyber libertarianism over the Internet
discourse seems a thing of the past. I will do another try to download
the .pdf document later on. The Markle servers might be overloaded. One
thing stroke me in the readings of the articles below is that the
international dimension of the Net seems to be left out in this study.
OK. It's a US audience study. Anyway. It is remarkable that there is no
reference to the fact that the 'global' Internet and the US American
part of the Internet might be two different things. Perhaps they are
not? /geert]

Press release from the Markle Foundation:

Markle Releases Major Study On Governing The Internet

AMERICAN PUBLIC FAVORS NEW APPROACHES TO PROVIDE GREATER ONLINE
PROTECTIONS AND RESPONSIVENESS

64% of the public feels government should develop rules to protect
Internet users, even if it means some regulation; The public feels
industry has a key role to play but 58% indicates it does not want
industry self-regulation alone; 70% feels non-profits should have a
significant role in making rules for Internet

Study shows American public wants reliable and predictable problem
solving mechanisms for their online life

July 10, 2001, Washington, DC - At a time of intense debate over key
Internet policy issues, ranging from antitrust to privacy regulation,
open access and taxation of online commerce, a new body of opinion
research sponsored by the Markle Foundation shows that the American
public wants a broad range of perspectives and interests involved in
decisions about the Internet. Although the public has an overwhelmingly
favorable view of the medium, about half of the public also views the
Internet as a "source of worry" due to an array of concerns - ranging
from on-line pornography and violence, to privacy violations, to
unresponsive providers and lack of trustworthiness of online
information. But in looking for solutions, they want to go beyond such
black and white choices as "government regulation" or "industry
self-regulation" to fashion approaches that involve government,
industry, technical experts, non-profit organizations and the public
itself.

In an innovative and extended research effort that included telephone
and on-line polling and focus groups of the general public and Internet
experts, the Markle Foundation research found that 63 percent of all
Americans, and a remarkable 83 percent of those who go on-line have a
positive view of the Internet. The research finds that the public
identifies the Internet primarily as a source of information - with 45
percent saying their dominant image of the Internet is that of a
"library" as opposed to 17 percent who compare it to a "shopping mall"
or "banking and investment office."

Yet, despite the Internet's popularity, nearly half of all Americans (45
percent) see the Internet as a source of worry, and 70 percent of the
public says, "you have to question most things you read on the
Internet." By a margin of 54-36 percent, the public believes it does not
enjoy the same rights and protections on-line than it has in the
off-line world, and 59 percent say they don't know who they would turn
to if they had a problem on-line. "The Internet is an increasingly
important part of the lives of the American people," said Zoë Baird,
President of the Markle Foundation, at a press conference at the
National Press Club. "This research shows that they have an appreciation
for the complexities involved in tackling the critical questions that
will affect decisions about the Internet. They want the full range of
voices and interests to be heard - from the private sector and
government, to non-profit organizations and the public itself."

By a 60-37 percent margin, the public says that "rules for governing the
Internet should be mostly developed and enforced by organizations other
than the government, such as Internet related companies and non-profit
groups." But by 58-35 percent, the public indicates that it does not
want to rely on industry self-regulation alone. Although it is skeptical
about government, it still sees a clear place for government - by 64-32
percent (57 to 35 in a retest in June 2001) - "government should develop
rules to protect people when they are on the Internet, even if it
requires some regulation of the Internet." This desire for a government
role stems, in part, from the public 's wish for "institutions with
teeth" which can also include effective private sector solutions, such
as the role of credit card companies in protecting the consumer against
fraud and defective merchandise.

The public also values the involvement of non-profit organizations. When
asked to rate how much of a role ten different groups or institutions
should have in making rules for the Internet, the public gives the most
favorable ratings to non-profit organizations, with 70 percent feeling
positively about non-profits having a significant role. More than half,
55 percent, says the public itself should have a significant voice, even
though the public has doubts about its own lack of expertise on these
issues.

More generally, the public appears to look to its off-line experiences
in setting its expectations and hopes for the Internet. Some of the most
frequently mentioned shortcomings of the Internet were the lack of a
real person and a real place to go to when the public encounters
problems. On the hotly debated issue of Internet taxation, a clear
majority (60-34%) believes that on-line purchases should be taxed the
same as off-line items.

Although the economic downturn and the failure of many Internet
start-ups have dented the share of those who see the Internet as "an
engine of economic growth", which declined slightly from 82 percent in
October 2000 to 75 percent in June 2001, there has been no significant
change in the share of the public that has a positive view of the
Internet, or in the public's views about accountability on-line.

The Markle Foundation's research, one of the broadest efforts yet
conducted on opinions regarding decisions about the Internet, was
conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, through a series of
national telephone interviews, online surveys, conventional and on-line
focus groups, and one-on-one interviews with the public and Internet
experts. It was designed to examine multiple aspects of the public's and
the experts' views on the governance of the Internet, and whether the
public believes more needs to be done to provide protections and give
them greater control on-line. In turn, it examined whom they trust to
make Internet policy.

(You can download the .pdf document from www.markle.org)

---

Some voices from the press:

thestandard.com's media grok:

What We Think About When We Think About the Net

Flash: Americans still think the Internet is pretty nifty. This is one
conclusion the press pulled out from the Markle Foundation's year-long
study, the results of which were released today. The newspapers of
record assigned reporters to the story but everybody else ignored it.
Maybe the conclusion was too upbeat for the current mood of Net gloom?

The Wall Street Journal stressed the public's view of the Internet as an
information source, not primarily as a venue for e-shopping. But the
Journal's reporters cautioned that 70 percent of those who were asked
considered information found on the Internet to be unreliable.

The New York Times and the Washington Post both wrote about Markle's
exercise of asking focus groups who should govern the Internet. The
Times led with the standouts in such a hypothetical body: the Pope, Bill
Gates and Oprah Winfrey. Add Madonna or Justin Timberlake and you might
have something.

The Times and Post also mentioned the study's conclusion that Americans
favor taxing Net e-commerce transactions. This one will result in
midnight oil consumption in Washington and in state capitals. The Times
got a comment from Esther Dyson, the former chair of ICANN, who knows a
thing or two about Internet governance: "I've found people want
democracy, but they're often unwilling to do the work." - Keith Dawson

Net Is Still Popular, But Not to Shop
http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,27780,00.html

Internet Is Valued as Information Source Rather Than for Commerce, Study
Finds http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB994719699537850611.htm

Survey About Accountability Online
http://www.nyt.com/2001/07/10/technology/10MARK.html

Survey Shows Support for Internet Rules
http://www.washtech.com/news/media/11045-1.html

---
         http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38828-2001Jul9

  Tuesday, July 10, 2001; Page A10

Survey Shows Support for Internet Rules

By Jonathan Krim
Washington Post Staff Writer

 Americans are conflicted about the Internet, enthusiastically embracing
it even as they worry about privacy, misinformation and sexual or
violent  content, according to a study to be released today.

 Aimed at stimulating public policy debate as the medium becomes more
integral to daily life, the extensive survey of typical users and
Internet experts conducted for the New York-based Markle Foundation
found  Americans concerned about their rights and wrestling with several
key
 issues:

 ** Although wary of government regulation for the Internet, for
example,  a majority want some rules to protect their privacy when they
are online,  and they even see a government role in such areas as
Internet service  problems and the cost of connections.

 ** By an overwhelming margin of 70 percent to 23 percent, respondents
said they question the truthfulness of most things they read on the
Internet.

 ** By a slim but growing plurality, respondents believe the Internet is
disturbingly resistant to accountability, both on the part of
individuals  for their actions or words online and on the part of
private and public  institutions that govern its use.

 Nearly half of the Internet experts surveyed said that existing
institutions are doing a fair or poor job of reflecting the public's
interest.

 The concerns are not scaring users away, however, and the survey
reflects  a growing sophistication about the risks of the Internet and a
desire for  more public involvement in policymaking. Yet a majority of
respondents  also said they do not know enough to participate in a
meaningful way.

 "The public appears to be looking for a pluralistic model of Internet
governance," according to a copy of the study obtained by The Washington
Post. "They see specific strengths, but also drawbacks, to the
involvement of the government, the private sector and non-profit
organizations."

 At one point in the year-plus study, focus groups were asked to provide
nominees for a hypothetical national commission on Internet rulemaking,
and the array of names offered included Bill Gates of Microsoft, Oprah
Winfrey, Interpol and the pope.

 The study also shows Americans as viewing the Internet primarily as a
giant library rather than a place to shop or use financial services. And
in the finding likely to stir the most political controversy, a strong
60  percent believe it is wrong to exempt online commerce from taxation.

 Extending the federal moratorium on Internet taxes -- which expires in
October -- has broad support on Capitol Hill. But governors are seeking
the opportunity to develop a long-term, uniform plan that would enable
easy Internet tax collection. Representatives of the bipartisan
Congressional Internet Caucus will begin examining the study today.

 The more than 2,000 respondents in both random phone surveys and focus
groups in several U.S. cities gave pointed answers on their top concerns
and suggestions to ease the frustrations of online life.

 Topping the list of concerns are pornography and violence, protecting
children, and ensuring individual privacy. Among the top suggestions for
improvement is a 24-hour, toll-free number providing help with online
problems, consumer complaints and privacy issues. Users also favor
privacy policies that are "opt-in," meaning that they have to actively
direct a site to capture personal information, as opposed to "opt-out,"
in which such data is collected unless users specifically ask that it
not  be.

 The Markle study is unique among surveys of its kind in its focus on
how  Internet public policy should develop. And many of the respondents,
especially Internet experts, worry that such policymaking won't be
proactive.

 "Ultimately, most of the experts expect that major changes in rules and
institutions for online accountability are unlikely to change until some
kind of disaster occurs," the report says. Officials of the Markle
Foundation, which studies and provides grants on the social impact of
technology, declined to comment until its formal release.

---
         http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/10/technology/10MARK.html

  July 10, 2001

SURVEY ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY ONLINE

By AMY HARMON

 If the American public could elect a governing body for the Internet,
candidates would include the Pope, William H. Gates, Oprah Winfrey,
teachers, ex-hackers and "regular folks," according to the first major
study of public attitudes about accountability on the Internet, to be
released today by the Markle Foundation, a nonprofit group that focuses
on public policy and technology.

 The ever-expanding citizenry of the Internet -- 63 percent of American
adults now go online, up from 39 percent in 1998, according to the
report -- is not likely to have that opportunity anytime soon. But
Markle's yearlong inquiry found that Americans would like to have
significantly more say into the rules that govern the Internet. Not only
that, but they would like a variety of people and institutions to pitch
in, and members of focus groups suggested a range of participants in a
hypothetical national commission.

 "There is a strong desire on the part of the public to have their
values  respected as the technology developed and some markers laid out
as to  what those values are," Markle's president, Zoë Baird, said.
"People are  looking for more democratic decision-making in a medium
that has such  widespread consequences for our personal and civic
lives."

 That may mean finding a way to wield public influence in decisions
about  privacy, the quality of information and consumer protection,
power now  typically left to business executives and technologists who
design  software, Ms. Baird said, because in many ways, technology has
replaced  government as the main regulator of online behavior.

 Markle's study, which included telephone and online polling and focus
groups of the public and of Internet experts, found enormous enthusiasm
for the Internet, with 83 percent of those who use it having a positive
view and 79 percent saying it had made their lives easier.

 But the zeal was tempered by the view of about half of those surveyed
that the Internet is a "source of worry" because of concerns that
include  pornography, privacy violations and poor connection speeds.
Fifty-nine  percent of those polled said they did not know who they
would turn to if  they had a problem.

 Many focus-group participants wished for the equivalent of the safety
net  that exists for credit card fraud, a phone number they can call
when  their card is stolen or there is a billing error. Seventy percent
said  users have to question what they read on the Internet, and more
than  half -- 54 percent -- said they did not believe they had the same
rights  and protections online as off.

 To some extent, the frustrations are a reflection of the impersonal
nature of the Internet. It is hard to imagine a single help line for the
myriad problems one can encounter. Among the experts on the focus
groups,  a common view was that individual rights carried over to the
Internet,  but that traditional safeguards, like the ability to size up
a store by  its location and appearance, do not exist.

 The desire to make the Internet more closely mirror the world off- line
was underscored by the response to the much-debated issue of taxation,
where 60 percent said that online purchases should be taxed, despite the
efforts of some lawmakers and Web sites to keep the Internet tax free.

 Still, the sharp frustrations amid the general embrace of the Internet
raise the concern that the medium may not live up to its potential
unless  the public has a sense of more control over its choices, Ms.
Baird said.  Although 60 percent of those surveyed said rules for
governing the  Internet should be mostly developed and enforced by the
private sector,  64 percent also said that "government should develop
rules to protect  people" on the Internet.

 Ms. Baird, who has been working with standards-making bodies and world
governments to establish forums in which companies, governments,
nonprofit groups and public representatives could be heard on questions
of Internet policy, said the report reinforced the need to build that
constituency before an "online oil spill" alienates the public.

 But not everyone agrees that the Internet needs more regulation. Esther
Dyson, the former chairman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names  and Numbers, or Icann, the agency that controls the Internet
address  system, said that users, and not a governing body, could better
govern  the Internet through which Web sites they visit and what goods
they buy.

 "I've found people want democracy, but they're often unwilling to do
the  work, whether it's looking at voting records or taking the most
basic  measures to protect their own privacy," said Ms. Dyson, who
serves on a  committee that is trying to increase public representation
in Icann.  "Frankly sometimes you don't need democracy, you need a
market where  people understand what's being offered and choose what
they want."

 Still, both positions could be heard in the response of a young focus-
group participant from Syosset, N.Y., when asked who should make the
rules that govern the Internet. "We should," the participant said. "The
people."



#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission #
<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, #
collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets #  more
info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body #
archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold