ri
ghts groups laid siege to the law. And fortunately, there are reports that Clinton's administration will not vigorously oppose efforts to challenge the CDA in court.
So with any luck, the anti-CDA portion of this column will be obsolete by the time you read it. But even if the law is judged unconstitutional, we all have to be aware that February 8, 1996, marks the beginning--not the end--of what must become a crusade for free speech and privacy in telecommunications. When it comes to privacy and free expression, the marvelous tools that we cover in BYTE, are, in fact, as dangerous as the CDA. And I'm afraid my first choice for a topic this month (the Java chip) is part of the problem.
Put three of the key tenets of the Telecommunications Act into a blender along with the technologies of the Java chip and the new cable modems, and what you've got is a cocktail almost guaranteed to knock free expression right off its feet. It all comes together in what will likely be the platform
of choice for browsing the Internet in the latter part of this decade: The TV set.
First of all, the Telecommunications Act dramatically eases restrictions on the types of services that telecommunications companies can offer. Your cable company will be able to sell you phone service. The telcos might offer video over their wires. And everybody, of course, will be selling Internet access. A huge number of people will get this access on their TV through cable modems, a technology now under test in several markets.
Next, the CDA requires that "obscene" content be made inaccessible to minors through technological protective measures. On Internet sites with CDA-questionable content, this will mean registration records. On TVs, it means the "V-chip," a technology that parents can employ to block out programming they do not wish their children to see.
The Java chip is the final piece of the puzzle (see
"Java Chips Boost Applet Speed"
in News & Views). These Internet CPUs will be finding
their way into consumer products of all sorts--some predict they will appear in cellular phones. I predict they'll appear in TV sets.
Put it all together: We've built a super-TV set, one that receives broadcast, cable, and Internet transmissions. It knows what you watch. It can tell what programs you block--and which ones you don't. And it can report back to the Net. With a Java processor running in your TV all the time, and with a cable modem in constant contact with the Internet, you have no assurances of anonymity when browsing either the cable network or the Internet.
And make no mistake: Anonymity is not a convenience; it is not a refuge simply for terrorists and pedophiles. It is, as the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, "a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hands of an intolerant society."
But there is hope. It appears that these early attempts to censor the Net are purely reactionary--no more than a technological Band-Aid slapped on a gaping wound that technology created in the first place.
What about the future? At an MIT seminar I went to a few months ago, I asked several computer-science students--the next generation of inventors--what they thought of all the technological wonders being discussed. One graduate student summed it up perfectly. He said, "It's all very cool, but I wonder what it really means."
I hope his question can reach beyond the MIT campus. The people who make our laws need to ask it, too.
Raphael Needleman, Editor in Chief
But Sir, I Have No Pornograph!
