Report from Berlin (10/17-10/19/2001)(1) by Jay Hauben jrh@ais.org In 1992, Michael Hauben began research about what was then still called the Net (the Internet, Usenet, FidoNet, Bitnet, etc.). Not only was his research about the Net, it was conducted on the Net. This research led him and Ronda Hauben to write the book Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet.(2) The essence of Netizens is the prediction that the impact on society of the Net could be overwhelmingly positive. The authors examine the effect the Net was beginning to have on people's lives, on politics, the press, publishing, democratic decision making, etc. They envision a participatory democratic future made possible by the Net. But throughout their analysis they raise the possibility of derailment of this vision if the Net loses government protection or if an unregulated commercialism is allowed to impose its agenda on the development of the Net. For a long time, in the US at least, the questions of social impact and regulating commercialization raised in Netizens were only minimally discussed. The situation now seems to be changing. An Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) is growing with a strong component of sociologists and others concerned with social impact. Universities and colleges are beginning to introduce Internet Studies degrees, with social impact being a key question. In Europe, it is beginning to be realized that the project of European unification will be profoundly affected by the social impact of the new technologies -- especially those of information and communication. An indication of the importance being given to considerations of the vision and precautions presented in Netizens was an international conference, "Innovations for an e-Society: Challenges for Technology Assessment" held in Germany in October 2001.(3) On October 17 to 19, about 200 researchers participated in this conference in Berlin. The language of the conference was English with participants from Germany and many other countries present. The focus of the conference was the impact on society which will result because of recent technological developments, especially the Internet. The assumption of the organizers was that the new technologies are bound to cause profound societal changes. The sum total of these changes the conference called "e-society". The question for the conference was what will or what should e-society look like? The conference was organized on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The Ministry has written of its commitment to a broad-based societal dialogue about how to shape the future.(4) This conference seemed intended to serve that purpose at least in that it invited participation from researchers in many fields from the academic, public and commercial sectors, and from many countries. The participants were welcomed by Edelgard Bulmahn, the German Federal Minister for Education and Research.(5) She outlined the challenge: for there to be social justice in the future, there must be social purpose given to the e-society that is emerging. Detectable in her welcome was a sense that perhaps the current direction of e-society might be problematic. The goals of e- society research should be "that everyone benefit and no one be marginalized." For this to occur the Minister said there must be social discussion of what in the past guides us to decide what path society wants to follow. To have this discussion citizens need information about science and technology and scientists need a sense of society's needs. She concluded that the increasingly rapid distribution of new information and communication technologies requires an international dialogue on these questions and wished the participants a fruitful exchange of experiences. Next, Armin Grunwald, director of the organizing Institute for Technology and Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) set the goal of the conference. He raised a question: Can technological developments be influenced according to society's goals or does technological development follow its own or a market dynamic? This question for the conference was in the context of the fear that that the current direction might be toward deepening the social divides digitally rather than toward a globally networked civil society. Dr. Grunwald was optimistic that society as a whole could, with real effort, shape the emerging e-society according to societal goals and values and that was the reason for the conference.(6) The spectrum of research and opinion at the conference demonstrated an opening up of the questions for a broader than usual participation. It is not uncommon in current discussions of the changes that are expected in society due to new technologies to mention the need for transparency, for the protection of privacy, for life-long learning and for worker mobility in the new Europe. At this conference these were mentioned but they were also challenged. A keynote speaker from the commercial sector described in positive terms a Lifelong Learning project as a backbone for advanced education and training.(7) His presentation was questioned by a participant: "Do people really want to spend their lives being retrained for new jobs as their old ones are made obsolete or would quality of life require something else?" Lifelong learning was seen from this point of view as a substitute for a commitment to a shorter work week or fewer hours of work per day and other advantages for workers from the new technology. The narrow need for a constantly retrained workforce was countered by the criteria of a higher quality of stable and secure life for all. Similarly, the projection of a mobile work force as part of the goal of a "Mobile Europe"(8) was questioned by a participant(9): "Have you asked people if they want the Mobile Europe you are planning?" The implication being there may be more than one vision of Mobile Europe. The goal of the unimpeded flow of ideas and people across all borders both internal and external versus the goal of the easy flow from job to job. The former was proposed as socially desirable. The latter was criticized as also too narrow. Privacy was raised as a universal concern. But in the E-Health sessions it was reported that more than 80% of people polled in Iceland favored the gathering of medical data for open medical research even if that required relinquishing the confidentiality of medical records.(10) Iclanders apparently felt the social value of making their medical records available overrode the personal value championed by some doctors of keeping them private. Besides this difference over the importance of privacy, there was a difference over the need for transparency. There was much talk at the conference of the need for transparency and openness as necessary for the social success of the e-society. But it was argued in one of the presentations that transparency in nature is achieved by looking through a glass or crystal. Transparency implies something can be watched, but the goal of social shaping more requires broad participation and influence on the process not merely more open disclosure about the process.(11) At most conferences in the US, privacy, transparency, life-long learning and representative democracy are mainly discussed. Differences like those above suggest that this conference had participants from a broader than usual spectrum of society. One conference preprint article notes there is a view that e-governance relates to the performance of government services including the delivery of information to the public via information and communication technologies (ICT). But these researchers comment that this view is too narrow. They see the citizens of European countries as being "less prone to accept experts' opinions and regulators' decisions without having a say. They suggest governance needs to be "a more broad and creative idea . . . extending the participation of civil society in the decision process that concerns all citizens." (12) They argue that social "safety can follow only from an open dialogue, early extended participation and a negotiated partnership among a multiplicity of parties." The conference itself was perhaps based on this later view. The conference organizers raised the need for social shaping of the emerging e-society not mere adaptation to it. Among the researchers there were some who understood that such social shaping requires actual guidance based on the values and principles of the citizens of the future Europe. One set of researchers reported about citizen cells or panels that they convened.(13) The citizen panels they described seemed more than a research tool. They seemed like a possible prototypic form for citizen participation. Randomly chosen citizens were invited to attend the panels to answer the question, do people want Internet access and for what purposes? Since their wages would be paid to them, release from their jobs would be arranged and an honorarium offered, enough people could attend to make the panels a good cross section of the citizens. The participants knew that their deliberations and opinions would be reported back to the government body that sponsored the study. But still a consensus developed in all the panels that universal access to the Internet would be valuable. But valuable for what? The researchers reported that the consensus on that question was valuable for watching over the politicians and political structures about which the citizens had much skepticism. The citizen panels and research reported on by the German researchers can be compared with the research reported on by an American researcher. The American had asked with his research, did the new media help to increase the number of voters, ie, to get out the vote? He reported, "My survey research shows ... the Internet to have no effect on voter turnout".(14) His question and answer exposed a different understanding of participation than that of the German researchers discussed above. Participation for the American researcher meant voting. In the German research it meant serving on a citizen panel. In Germany and in Europe in general, low voter turnout is considered an indicator of the breakdown of the political process and the need for a reexamination of the process. In America low voter turn out is often ascribed to citizen contentment with the status quo. The observation by Michael Hauben that the net makes possible "... a revitalization of society, the frameworks ... being redesigned from the bottom up [and] a new more democratic world ... becoming possible"(15) was reflected in the German research but not the American. The questions of this conference and its goals suggested a desire for revitalization and even some from the bottom up. The citizen panel research echoed Hauben's observation that "the common people have a unique voice that is now being aired in a new way."(16) Another question that surfaced at the conference concerned the effect on European unity of corporate globalization or marketization. The Federal Minister raised the goal of reconciling innovation (marketization of technology) and social justice. She thought the reconciliation was only possible if the debate over shaping the future or setting goals was broadened to hear from all sectors of society. Two European Commission researchers who were looking at the future Europe 10 years and 20 years from now(17) reported they were surprised by the broad anti-corporate globalization demonstrations and the criticism of global marketization in Seattle (Nov. 1999) and after especially in Genoa (June 2001). In response other conference participants pointed out that a narrow economic agenda not under social or governmental regulation is bound to produce social tension and protest. The corporate agenda of privatization and diminished governmental services and standards, and for the expansion of the private sector at the expense of the public sector, seemed to some to cloud the chance for social cohesion and thus endangering the chances for a more integrated or united Europe. These participants echoed the warning JCR Licklider and Robert Taylor made when they envisioned the Internet in 1968. "For the society, the impact will be good or bad depending mainly on the question: Will 'to be on line' be a privilege or a right? If only a favored segment of the population gets a chance to enjoy the advantage of 'intelligence amplification,' the network may exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual opportunity."(18) Armin Grunwald presented the conference wrap up. He suggested that a proper summary of the conference was that after decades of deregulation there was a need for reregulation. Only then he implied could the social shaping of the future that the conference was aiming for be achieved. It was not, he argued, to return to hierarchical decision making but to engage in social dialogues with broad participation from all sectors. That would require allowing enough time for broad deliberation and careful assessment. Then a normative framework based on rule of law and respect for human rights could emerge. The conference seemed carefully planned so that its events would contribute to the work it was to accomplish. The welcome to Berlin included the recognition that a vibrant Berlin required an advanced technological base. That theme was reinforced by the banquet dinner speaker historian Hubert Laitko. His speech may have been too long for a dinner speech but was valuable for the detailed telling of the importance of scientific research in the last 150 years in the development of industry and technology in Berlin. In spite of wars, Nazism and the division of Berlin for 44 years, a tradition of pure scientific research and networks of creative activity continues in Berlin based he said on open intellectual communication and exchange among institutions and researchers.(19) As if to prove this last point, it was a special treat to have so many scholars from the former East Germany add their spirit and expertise to this conference. Even the bus ride to the banquet was made into a guided tour narrated by an architect although some Berliners on the bus disagreed with some of his narrative. To this reporter from the US, the conference seemed different from the US norm. For the US government and researchers the dominant Internet question since at least 1991 has been privatization and commercialization. Now in Europe, or at least at this conference called by the German government, the dual questions of the book Netizens, the great social potential of the Internet and great danger of the commercialization and privatization were being taken up. To me the work of this conference was a positive development in the direction pioneered by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben. -------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 1. This report is written for the memorial issue of the Amateur Computerist honoring the life and work of Michael Hauben. The reporter attended the conference as a press guest. 2. Online since January 1994. Now at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/netbook/. In hard cover edition since 1997 from the IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. Hereafter, Netizens. 3. Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment. Sponsored by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Germany. See http://www.itas.fzk.de/e-society/ See also Innovations for an e-Society. Challenges for Technology Assessment, Congress Pre-Prints, ISBN 3-89750-0973. Hereafter Pre-Prints. 4. Report of the Federal Government on Research 2000, BMBF, Bonn, no date, pages 10 and 46. 5. "Welcome Address", handout at the conference. 6. "Technology Assessment for Shaping the e-Society", copy provided by the author. 7. Joachim Schaper, "E-Learning as a Chance and Challenge for Lifelong Learning", presented at Plenary Session III. 8. Karsten Weber. His presentation at the conference, "Who should have access to which information?" can be seen at http://www.phil.euv-frankfurt-o.de/download/Access.pdf 9. Mathias Weber and J.C. Burgelman, "Mobile Europe: Balancing Technological Change and Europe's Socio-Economic Objectives." See Pre-Prints, Section 8. 10. Janine Morgall and Ingunn Bjornsdottir, "Confidentiality an issue for whom?". See Pre-Prints, Session 4. 11. B. De Marchi, S. Functowicz and A. Guimaraes Pereira, "e2-Governance: electronic and extended". Pre-Prints, Session 3. 12. Ibid. 13 Hans Kastenholz and Elmar Wienhofer, "Civic Participation and the Internet. Opportunities and Limits of Electronic Democracy". Pre-Prints, Session 3. 14. Bruce Bimber, "Information Technology and the "New" Politics: Lessons from the American Experience". Pre-Prints, Session 3. 15. Netizens, page 3. 16. Ibid., page 10. 17. K. Mathias Weber and J.C. Burgelman, participants in the European Commission's Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) Futures Project. 18. "The Computer as a Communication Device." In Science and Technology: For the Technical Men in Management. No 76. April, 1968. Pages 21-31. Also reprinted in In Memoriam: J.C.R. Licklider: 1915-1990. Report 61. Systems Research Center. Digital Equipment Corporation. Palo Alto, California. August 7, 1990. Pages 21-41. 19. Unfortunately only an abstract of his talk was included among the preprints and the talk is not yet available electronically.