THE FREEDOM TO COMPUTE        Mike Guffey
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Professor Loren  Graham  of  M.I.T.  recently  wrote  an  article
     entitled  "The  Kremlin and the Computer".  He depicted life with
     state controlled computing.  His observation that  George  Orwell
     had  it  all backwards in "1984" is shrewd.  He noted that Orwell
     thought technology would allow "Big Brother" to maintain control.
     Who would have guessed the Soviet Union would turn the tables and
     retain control  by  the  suppression  of  technology,  especially
     computer technology?

     If   America's   government  relied  on  keeping  the  population
     uninformed to retain power and control, things would be different
     today.  What if your government didn't permit computer access  to
     large amounts of accurate data,  didn't permit free communication
     between computer users?  What if your government would not  allow
     widespread   use   of  personal  computers  for  fear  of  losing
     "control"?  How long could your government hope to genuinely keep
     pace in the information age?

     These were questions Graham explored in his article.  He  painted
     a  grim  picture of what might be called "retrograde technology".
     He points out some democratic traditions indicating an edge  over
     communist [and third world] nations:

       A  tradition  of  successful technology developed under private
       ownership and control.

       Close relationships between creators,  buyers  and  sellers  of
       technology

       A  tradition  of free access to and creation of massive amounts
       of reliable information about most topics.

       Excellent communications facilities  necessary  for  access  to
       diverse and far-flung data bases.

       A tradition of entrepreneurial and innovative freedom .

     Graham   goes  on  to  say,   "So  far  the  pattern  [of  Soviet
     authorities] seems  to  be  to  require  that  all  computers  be
     institutionally  housed  and controlled.  But what [they] may not
     have realized is that they will pay a stiff price...  by severely
     limiting  the rapidity of the growth of the computer culture,  by
     hampering the spread of computer  literacy  among  young  people,
     ...by  watching the West become a true 'information society' they
     will be doomed to follow..." Graham also calls the  Soviet  Union
     "the  most  secretive  industrialized power in the world".  These
     observations are based on  a  recent  visit  to  Moscow  and  his
     background in the history of science.

     There  is  no  known "hacker-culture" in the Soviet Union and its
     youth is missing out on the experiences available to millions  of
     American  schoolkids,  hobbyists  and  average  business computer
     users.  Nor does the Soviet Union's educational system  emphasize
     hands-on  experience  with high-technology hardware.  Even typing
     is not widely taught.

     Graham's article raises the question about how  long  the  Soviet
     Union can retain a genuinely international status with a decaying
     economy  that  can  neither heal itself with accurate information
     nor give its children a legacy of competition in an  increasingly
     computer-aided  world.  Surely a disturbing question for an aging
     leadership.

     So what about your most taken-for-granted freedom?  How important
     is it to you?  What are you planning to do to protect it?  Unlike
     the gun control or right-to-life issues,  the freedoms you  enjoy
     in accessing as much (or as little) information as you desire are
     seldom  regarded  as  burning  issues.  Are you to allowing it to
     slip away as the communications giants gradually make  the  price
     of information prohibitive?

     In  earlier  times,  free  enterprise  aviation developed rapidly
     because suffocating regulation had not yet  arrived  and  no  one
     thought  to make air corridors into tollways.  Later,  after long
     years of gradually instituted legislation,  many industry  giants
     couldn't  survive  their  emancipation.  Today  our  situation is
     reversed.  We have started out on overcrowded highways controlled
     by one giant.  Let us hope the giant remains benevolent.  Let  us
     hope  the  giant  doesn't team up with the federal bureaucracy to
     act on our behalf without our consent.

     Just where does one suggest a constitutional amendment?

     Arlen Fletcher
     Fido 138/0