thank you for your post Lee. i am aware that the net has always been .mil, beginning with its origins with ARPANET. but what i am refering to is a) the very recent history of the net and digital technologies and b) developments that have taken place within this recent history within the US. i would, however, question this line:
despite some obvious surface difficulties, war is good for the economy.
and, more to the point of my original post, is war good for academia? as the field of internet studies works towards academic legitimacy, especially within the US, what does it mean when this process of legitimacy takes place within a national economy run by war, threats of terrorism, and homeland security. put another way, where will the money for US-based academic internet studies come from and should this be something we consider as the field matures? david On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Lee Salter wrote:
Well, yes... almost. You seem to be saying that the commercial Internet has turned into the military Internet, whereas in fact it was vice-versa. Compare, for example, RFC 3271 with RFC 1087. We see a clear agenda to "roll out" the Internet, which was at least influenced by the need to cheapen such technologies by reducing the unit-cost. This only really makes sense when one is aware that the ultimate control of the Internet shifted from the Department of Defense to the Department of Commerce in the 1990s - which the movement from IANA to ICANN seems to illustrate (see also the /Image Online Design v. IANA, et al./ case). I wouldn't, therefore, agree that the Internet has moved from .com to .mil, but vice versa, with the proviso that .com is far from antithetical to .mil. This shouldn't, however, surprise us. Michael Kirdon (Permanent Arms Economy) and C Wright Mills (The Power Elite) are two of many examples of writers who inform us that capitalism is on a permanent war footing - despite some obvious surface difficulties, war is good for the economy. Brian Winston (Media, Technology, and Society) has applied this sort of dynamic to media technologies very well (we should of course remember the role of war in the car, aeroplane, radio, food technologies... etc.).
David and all others,
despite some obvious surface difficulties, war is good for the economy.
and, more to the point of my original post, is war good for academia?
in terms of research as put forward here by some posters it seems to be good for academia, at least the money is coming in and the funding is on some quite cutting edge stuff... in technological terms
as the field of internet studies works towards academic legitimacy, especially within the US, what does it mean when this process of legitimacy takes place within a national economy run by war, threats of terrorism, and homeland security. put another way, where will the money for US-based academic internet studies come from and should this be something we consider as the field matures?
i cannot see your qustion David, .. of course this should be condered for the future of Internet studies... which leads to the point to ask in which direction you (and others) want Internet studiies to go... technology or critical studies on techno-social issues (for lack of a better phrase) or what else... I, as a European am worried about the current focus and funding policy of the military and would urge scientists and cholars to think twice about such money, or at least reflect on this in their work and the impact this work might have ... what it might be used to.... To take a look to where the money for research is coming from might be part of the political economy of Internet studies and should be an integral part of it anyway, wether it be .com .mil or other... best wishes from Germany nilz -- Dr. Nils Zurawski Universität Hamburg Inst. für kriminologische Sozialforschung Allendeplatz 1 20146 Hamburg Germany tel. +49 (0) 40 42838 6185 fax. +49 (0) 40 42838 2328 Projekt zu Videoüberwachung: http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/zurawski/ueberwachung
participants (2)
-
david silver -
Nils Zurawski