468 BOOK REVIEWS

of any particular approach to computation. Computer science and its associateddisciplines provide philosophy with profound problems and extraordinary oppor-tunities. Philosophers should be encouraged to solve these problems and to exploitthese opportunities. Philosophy and AI is a step in the right direction.

References

Dennett, Daniel C. (1971), ‘Intentional Systems’, Journal of Philosophy 68, pp. 87–106; reprinted inDaniel C. Dennett, Brainstorms, Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books, pp. 3–22.

Thagard, Paul (1992), Conceptual Revolutions, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Department of Philosophy, ERIC STEINHARTHofstra University,Hempstead, NY 11550, U.S.A.esteinha@ix.netcom.com

Peter Ludlow, ed., High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues inCyberspace, Digital Communication series, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996,xxii + 536 pp., $30.00 (paper), ISBN 0-262-62103-7.

I am pleased to be able to recommend Peter Ludlow’s collection of essays toanyone who is looking to teach a political science or sociology course regardingcomputers. It is at least a comprehensive collection of essays concerning many ofthe political and social issues surrounding computers and the Internet. However,as a philosopher and a lawyer who practices in this area, I was disappointed withthe work as a whole.

Two of the greatest disservices to a rigorous and rational analysis of computersand the Internet are: (1) Marshall McLuhan’s catch-phrase cum philosophy – “TheMedium is the Message” – and (2) the word ‘cyberspace’. I admit abusing thelatter term but pride myself on refusing to give credence to the former. I amtrying to mend my ways regarding the use of the word ‘cyberspace’ as well. PeterLudlow’s compendium is replete with selections by authors who abuse each. Thisseems hopelessly unavoidable in the field of study (such as it is) of computer-mediated phenomena. This is a trend that, as evidenced by many of the works inthis collection, must be put to a merciful end.

The first section of High Noon is devoted to one of the major conundrumsregarding computer-mediated phenomena, that is, the nature of intellectual propertyrights relating to computer-mediated phenomena. Part of the reason this is such apuzzle is that computers are a very flexible medium that combine virtues of nearlyevery other media yet developed into one neat box. Unfortunately, another reasonfor the puzzlement is authors such as John Perry Barlow – Grateful Dead lyricist and

Minds and Machines 7: 468–471, 1997.

latex; mind MATHKAPmindr247.tex; 11/09/1997; 17:34; v.6; p.36

BOOK REVIEWS 469

co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“Selling Wine without Bottles:The Economy of Mind on the Global Net”). Barlow is, or fancies himself, apioneer of the electronic frontier. Like so many others who staked out this territoryfirst, he assumes without serious question that computer-mediated phenomenaare fundamentally different from phenomena occurring by means of other media.Evidence of this ungrounded belief is his (and others’) insistence that “cyberspace”and things “in” it are not physical and thus must be treated in a wholly uniquefashion. This how the McLuhanism “the medium is the message” is taken to itsliteral and ridiculous extreme. Barlow’s articles largely fail for assuming too muchand justifying too little. He states blithely: “Humanity now seems bent on creatinga world economy primarily based on goods that take no material form” (p.14). YetBarlow offers no support for the assumption that expressions, whether pictorial,textual, or digital, are not somehow material objects. How is text different whenit exists by means of a computer? Why are digital graphics not representationsof the same type that charcoal sketches are? No good justification is given fortreating expressions in digital media differently from expressions in any othermedia. While it is certain that digital media are practically different from others(easier to reproduce, manipulate, etc.), there is no theoretical basis for assumingthat digital media are different in kind.

More promising are the articles by Mike Godwin (staff counsel for the Electron-ic Frontier Foundation), including “Problems in a Computer Crime Prosecution”.This essay offers a good outline of the applicable law, but does not address the over-arching problem of acquiring jurisdiction in such prosecutions for acts committedon the Internet. The question of jurisdiction on the Internet arises in instances suchas the recent case involving the Thomas family of California, who were prosecut-ed in Tennessee under obscenity charges. Ordinarily, to acquire jurisdiction oversomeone from another state, a court must find that the perpetrator has committedan act purposely directed toward the forum state.1 In the case of the Thomases,a bulletin-board system (BBS) located in California, accessible to anyone witha phone line, was sufficient justification for the Tennessee court to find jurisdic-tion. This decision indicates clearly the confusion that courts face in dealing withcomputer-mediated phenomena. This confusion can be attributed to the confusionfaced by the “digerati” as well. Those who so blithely state that the Internet makesits user “present” everywhere must face the legal consequences of such proclama-tions. As the case of the Thomases makes clear, not only are these assertions false,but they are dangerous and will, if taken literally, stifle use of this medium. A webpage is simply not present everywhere. It exists on the server machine, though itmay be reproduced on the machines of those who browse that page. Moreover,web pages cannot be said to “act purposely” at all, and questions of jurisdictionmust still be analyzed by the purposeful acts of those who use the Internet.

Sections II and III of High Noon (“How Should We Respond to ExploratoryHacking/Cracking/Phreaking?” and “Encryption, Privacy, and Crypto-Anarchism”,respectively) address concerns about hacking, cracking, phreaking, and encryp-

latex; mind MATHKAPmindr247.tex; 11/09/1997; 17:34; v.6; p.37

470 BOOK REVIEWS

tion. These sections will be interesting to systems administrators confronted withethical dilemmas regarding security. It is the unfortunate truth that security andprivacy problems abound in the relatively open medium of the Internet. Here, “TheDenning-Barlow Clipper Chip Debate” between Barlow and Dorothy Denning(“The Clipper Chick”, as she has come to be known) highlights the two extremesin the ongoing argument between extremists from both camps. Absent from thisdebate, however, is some representative of the middle ground between radical lib-ertarianism and paranoia. This absence is perhaps reflective of the same void inthe popular discussion of such acts as the Communication Decency Act, whichwas recently overturned by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Section VI con-cerns censorship of cyberspace and is noteworthy for its absence of any materialregarding the Communication Decency Act. However, Godwin’s contributions tothis section (“Virtual Community Standards: BBS Obscenity Case Raises NewLegal Issues” and “Sex and the Single Sysadmin: The Risks of Carrying GraphicSexual Materials”) are excellent synopses of the law as it is being applied to onlineservices.

Finally, Section V deals with questions surrounding the “Self and CommunityOnline”. The best selection here is by “humdog” and is entitled “pandora’s vox: oncommunity in cyberspace”. It was a pleasure to read an essay by someone who wasnot chirping the usual Net-hype so frequently spouted by most of the contributorsto Ludlow’s collection. Rather, humdog speaks humbly of her experiences on theNet and how, in the end, it is a “mostly silent place” (p. 438). Most accurately,she points out that “people can talk about cyberspace as a utopian communityonly because it is literature, and therefore subject to editorial revision” (p. 443).She seems to be the only contributor to this collection who truly understands theimportance of this point – or who makes this point at all.

The Appendices offer compelling accounts of recent crackdowns on “computercriminals”: Operation Sundevil, recounted by Barlow (“Crime and Puzzlement”);and “Hardware 1: The Italian Hacker Crackdown”, by Ludlow. These accounts arewell told and historically important. As well, they serve as warnings that govern-ments seem ill-prepared and somewhat hysterical when presented with potentialcomputer-related crime: Unfortunately, this hysteria is fueled in part by the sort ofcliquey, elitist rhetoric of many of the contributors to this compendium.

Ultimately, this collection is short on technical depth, which may be a strengthor a weakness depending upon whether accessibility is an evaluative criterion.Nowhere are the big questions about computer-mediated phenomena tackled. Whatand where is cyberspace? Is intellectual property law applicable to all computer-mediated phenonema? In which form? As is the case with almost all of the literaturein this young field, basic assumptions (e.g., cyberspace is not a place, or it is notphysical) are made without thought or question. Still, Ludlow has preserved asnapshot of the various debates, such as they are at this time, and the collection isinteresting for this reason alone. It is time, however, to move beyond the swelling

latex; mind MATHKAPmindr247.tex; 11/09/1997; 17:34; v.6; p.38

BOOK REVIEWS 471

rhetoric and broad assumptions that permeate this field and to begin a rational andcritical inquiry into computer-mediated phenomena.

William Gibson, who coined the regrettable term ‘cyberspace’, has himselfstepped back from the term. It has contributed to the ill-founded regard of computer-mediated phenomena as existing in some parallel realm, apart from the ordinaryworld of objects. Recently, however, he stated: “It’s not [a question of the line]between real and unreal – it’s between real and real. The only reason we see thatdichotomy [between real and ‘virtual’] is because we are old” (Wall Street Journal,Sept. 26, 1996, p. B6). Gibson is 48.

Soon, all media will converge in computer-mediated phenomena and, with thatconvergence, absent a reasoned ontology of computer-mediated phenomena, theungrounded biases and assumptions that mark the discussion in High Noon willonly further confuse the developing law in this area and stifle its growth.

Note1 A “forum” state is the state in which a legal action is sought to be commenced.

Department of Philosophy, DAVID R. KOEPSELLState University of New York at Buffalo,Buffalo, NY 14260, U.S.A.koepsell@acsu.buffalo.edu

latex; mind MATHKAPmindr247.tex; 11/09/1997; 17:34; v.6; p.39