Dear FRONTLINE,
I seriously wonder how Frontline can take itself seriously
when it engages in such biased and misrepresentative reporting.
It seemed to me that in the past objectivity was Frontline's
hallmark, but their most recent episode, "High Stakes in Cyberspace,"
makes me wonder. Yes, Frontline, there is advertising on the
World Wide Web, but there is advertising everywhere ... it
is no more agressive on the net than it is in the mail or on
television. Even PBS has advertising. I believe they are imagining
a greater danger than there is in a classical reactionary pose.
There was no attempt to, out of a sense of fair play, describe
any of the thousands of important beneficial changes that
the internet has brought to the individual as well as to the
corporate and educational world. In the end I felt that this
episode was like chicken little, warning us of an imaginary
doom, when in fact Frontline may be ignorant about the real
importance of the internet.
Shannon Starr
sstarr@uclink2.berkeley.edu
Dear FRONTLINE,
What a great program. Since I am in the business of designing in and selling the
technologies(I work for an electronics distributor)I found the show both
fascinating and a little frightening. The Stargazer segment was part of the
frightening portion. Its a shame the mother in the family that you talked to was
so naive about what the information on her family's watching habits was really
going to be used for. Thanks for the excellent programming...see you in
cyberspace.
Darin Lakso
BLBU39A@prodigy.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your show was quite enjoyable to watch. However, I thought that
I would send this e-mail to point out some information that was
inaccurately relayed to the viewers.
In discussing web pages, and more specifically the "Buick" site there was a comment about the information that the Web Server can obtain from you. It was stated that the length of time that the user viewed the page can be monitored. This will be possible in the future but unfortunately for us web designers, this tool is not presently available. A web server simply delivers documents (web pages) as requested and does not maintain a connection with the user.
Also, detailed information such as the user's e-mail address, cannot be obtained in the background. All that can be obtained is the user's domain. This is due to the dynamic IP addressing which is common place with most ISPs. However, there is a javascript application that will extract an e-mail address from a browser. This "feature" occurred in Netscape 2.0 and was fixed with the 2.01 upgrade.
Keep up the great work and I look forward to watching PBS
for more information on this information wave that many are riding but few are doing
it well.
Mike Hendley
Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you for a very informative show. As a new computer owner I have
many concerns about my usage and the information that is stored in
unknown places and
seen by unknown persons who may or may not have my best interest at
heart.
However, being an African-American female I wanted to enter the next
millenium being
computer literate. Now I am armed and fore-warned and very meticulous
with my computer usage.
A.D.S.
Dear FRONTLINE,
Isn't it a tiny bit ironic that your website
offers to link people to the companies featured
in the program? The program emphasized the dangers of
the web as a direct-marketing tool, and even you,
a non-profit agency, help that process along.
Do the words, "self-fulfilling prophecy" mean anything
to you?
L. Smith
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your show was very interesting and probing. My own personal experience; alot of
hype; much show and no go!!!
I've find the Net to be SLOW to the point of falling asleep. (I have a 28.8 modem).
The ramping up of web sites by adding large size images, pictures, sound, video and special effects is premature. This stuff is useless if it takes half the day to get it up on the screen.
I say keep it simple and to the point until the bandwidth and website performance picks up; and the average user has access to an inexpensive ISDN line. What's really appauling is when someone demonstrates the Net it's usually from previously captured pages; giving a false impression of performance. TALK ABOUT FALSE ADVERTISING.
I predict it will be another 4 years before we see any real meaningful growth on the Net; when we get some performance and get past the digit heads who dominate the web at this time. Until we get the average man on the street on the Net; or until the Internet is as pervasive as the telephone and TV; it's not going anywhere! We've got to make it a lot cheaper to access and easier to use; plus, stop wasting user's time waiting.
Right now I see a lot of hype and money being spent but no solid, "verifiable"
results from a good cross section of users with varied backgrounds. I'm sure the
people who rushed in with the big-bucks to setup sites are going to have to stick
it out to for a number of years before they start seeing any real paybacks. Right
now the Net makes for great sensationalized news copy...
Best Regards,
Bob Horn
Dear FRONTLINE,
I can't even begin to express my disappointment in your
cyberspace show. You desperately need to have future
presentations reviewed by someone competent in the subject
matter. What a business can expect from the Internet and
the information that can be gathered on a consumer, were
very misleading and in some cases flat WRONG!
Come on folks, PBS certainly can do better than this. The
program had all the sensationalism of a supermarket tabloid.
If you're not willing to do the proper research, please
don't feed the fires of misinformation that already exists.
I have always counted on your programming to help educate
my family and myself on topics that we have little
familiarity with. Now that I've seen a program, on a topic
that I know quite a bit about, we will always question your
accuracy. Are times that tough, that you feel the need to
resort to sound bite journalism. With the information you
provided, you have influenced many people to make incorrect
"cyberspace" decisions.
Scott Zelk
scott@pcslink.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
Being relatively new to the information super highway, I am treading with
caution through what seems to be an increasing flood of technology. I was
riveted to the program from start to finish. I was, at one time convinced that
the computer revolution was a wondrous new tool, but now I am not so sure.
In the past wondrous innovations like asbestos or DDT quickly saw widespread
usage before the damage they cause was discovered years later. It seems to me
that the potential monetary rewards are forcing the development of the
cybersales agents and their associated needs without looking at the future
misuse of the information we innocently provide. I wonder if the rush of
subscribers to these services would still be so interested if they were
advised of all the potential areas where personal information can be used to
harm, harass or discriminate against an uninformed public.
I think I will leave my computer unplugged for a while an see where this flood
is headed.
Sincerely,
J.M.
Hamilton, Ontario
Dear FRONTLINE,
I find it incredible that PBS would produce this Frontline
warning us all about the internet's impending threat to
privacy, while at the same time producing other internet
specials warning about "Cyber Secrets," cyptography, and
on-line anonymity. A cursory examination of your own
programming will tell you that the same technology
enabling us all to be tracked, monitored, and identified,
also enables us all to be encrypted, anonymous, and more
private than we've ever been before.
You could easily have offered some indication of the many
pro-privacy technologies available. Digital cash,
anonymous re-mailers, PGP, and firewalls are all topics
available from your own web site. At the very least, the
combination of enabling and disabling technologies needs
to be considered together.
Vernon Imrich
vimrich@percussion.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
Nice, well balanced program. I like the convenience high
speed data communications brings us as well as all the
other positive benefits. However, I also believe we can
too easily forget the potential adverse affects; particulary
the privacy issue. It is disconcerning to find out how much
others know about you, moreover what they may do with that
information without your knowledge!
Thanks again for the program, and I look forward to any
follow up.
Pete McGovern
Dear FRONTLINE,
I thought Frontline was about reporting facts and truth, not
uninformed media hype and rhetoric. I felt that this edition
was poorly done, and had little informational value. The next
time you want to report on a budding technology that will affect
our lives, please get someone who knows what they are talking
about. I'm really ashamed that this show got aired the
first time, let alone RE-aired! There goes MY PBS donation!
Tim McQueen
Dear FRONTLINE,
What a very compelling story as to the high cost of interacting with
cyberspace. I really got the sense that businesses were cowboys and we
the people, potential customers were cattle. Felt we should all have a
binary numbers stapled our ear. As congenial as all the business
people interviewed were I felt we serve only one purpose which is
revenue for others. They don't care about me or my privacy, in fact
they would like to know my dreams so they can use that as a leverage to
separate me from my money.
We would like to say that high tech has brought us as a people closer together and in one sense that is true, but the reality is we are more impersonal towards each other because our desires are satisfied in seconds rather than days, so if that overnite delivery isn't here in the morning, we become outraged.
Your program was kind regarding what could result from the misuses
of information collected about us. That information could be used
against us in ways not yet dreamt of. Let's say I know all your
relatives and I know your vacation schedule. I could contact your
relatives over the internet pretending I were you in needed of medical
help. People would leave their home and I was free to burglarize them
or their home. Maybe I'll just changed a few numeric values around on
your charge account, when companies look at their data they swear by it.
You'll have to prove you don't owe this amount, I wonder how long that
will take!
L.F.
Modesto, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
It's too bad that your season is ended after tonight's broadcast. I've been
on the Internet for four years now, and have made it a huge part of my life.
Just as the automobile and the telephone made the Earth "smaller", so too,
has the Internet allowed me to leep in touch with old friends and has let
me travel the world from the comforts of home. The Internet is truly the
most important and yet most dangerous communications forum the world will
have ever known. My hope is, though, that we do not create a void in our
younger generation between the "have"s and the "have not"s.
F.W.P.
Dear FRONTLINE,
I thoroughly enjoyed the Frontline segment entitled "High Stakes in Cyberspace".
This program was able to clearly present the most pronicious issues confronting our
society and the tremendous implications inherent in a global electronic community.
People should not underestimate the potential (good and bad) for these emerging
technologies. Your feature beautifully identified and articulated the potential
benefits and pitfalls that are within the relm of possibilities. As in a science
fiction film once again we find that technology is at the hands of humanity. As
long as we let humanity temper our lust for more, better, cheaper, faster-- I have
faith the benefits will truely outweigh the relative costs in dollars and loss of
privacy. A lesson should be learned the credit reporting industry which has
exploited and abused the priveledge of being guardians of consumers credit
histories. I urge our industry and consumers to take heed. As we more foward we
should always stop and ask these questions: "What are the true gains of this
information or technology?", What is the true cost of these gains?" and "Do we
really need this?" Focus on what these things do to advance the cause of human
acheivement and the lives of all mankind.
I would be most interested in seeing this excellent segment again. Would you please
advise as to possible reairing dates.
Craig C. Rose
mediargt@netzone.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
The free market is, as always, driving technological advancement beyond any
reasonable expectation. Our world will be both more amazing and more terrifying
than any of us can imagine, and we have the free market to thank for it.
Socialism could never have produced the information revolution.
However, we as consumers and entrepreneurs have to measure what we are willing to pay for our successes. Anything we create will be misused, usually by our governments, but also by other individuals and businesses who use the regulatory state to their advantage. A profit can be made -- and it =should= be made, because that's what drives our advancement as a society and and as individuals -- but we have to keep a keen eye to ensure that what we create is not used against us.
We receive the government we deserve. We must take responsibility for that, and make our choices wisely (and hope others do the same, because we have no right to make their choices for them).
With that in mind, there are tools available to us that we choose not to use. We have credit cards -- we don't use them: we have them for emergencies. We don't use ATMs, and we use cash as much as possible. We don't use cellular phones. We use PGP (when we can convince those with whom we correspond to do the same). We don't give out our Social Security number to private businesses that request it; if that means we take our business elsewhere, so be it.
All of these things sometimes inconvenience us, but the alternative is to
voluntarily submit to being tracked, numbered, filed, and monitored. Tracked we
will certainly be, but we aren't going to make it any easier than we have to.
B.B.& S.B.
Portsmouth, VA
Dear FRONTLINE,
I watched this program the first time it was on (October 31, 1995). At the time I
barely knew how to use email. While watching the program, I took note of all the
things possible on the internet and by the end of the week, I had found many of the
news groups and mailing lists that I am still following today! I decided to watch
this show again (after I saw the schedule) because I wanted to see exactly how far
I've gotten and if I could pick up anything else. It was then when I realised that
this program was similiar to a series of movies shown to us in my Computer Science
class 1010 (an intro class I took for my psychology major requirements). However,
I found this program to be even more interesting than the ones I watched in class
and even more personable. I love your show and truely enjoy the information I get
from it. I am in my fourth year of college here at the University of Minnesota,
Duluth and have always learned so much from PBS (even in the early childhood
years). Keep up the good work!
Maria Struthers
mstruthe@d.umn.edu
Dear FRONTLINE,
In enabling us to do things quicker and more efficiently one may argue that, in
essence, more time is being created for more enjoyable pursuits. But, the time
created is filled with doing more things quicker and more efficiently. But,
wasting time is extremely important; it ofte ndefines who an individual is and
their place in society. As more and better tools become available to do work more
quickly and efficiently, the homoginization of socieyt becomes more inevitable.
Please, masters of the web, allow us time to waste time.
Yours truly,
Ted Bryant
bryant@accessone.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
As usual, Frontline has presented a quality, informative program.
As an avid Internet user, I guess I knew that this information was available to be used in the opposite direction, but after viewing your program I will be more careful about what pages I load. My privacy is important to me and although I know that it is at risk everytime I log on, I want to maintain as much control as I can. The marketing hounds intrustions are not welcome as far as I am concerned.
Thank you for your quality programming.
Matt White
Dear FRONTLINE,
I watched your show "High Stakes in Cyberspace" from my home
in Toronto on June 18th. Although the host sounded niave
about the abilities of the internet, the show did prove that
being computer literate will be incredibly important to us
folks in the modem/modern world.
I liked the idea of marketers directing their efforts to me
personally by knowing exactly what I'm interested in because
it'll eliminate the repetitiveness of today's commercials
most of which (99%) I have no interest. Tommorrows
commercials will say "Hey 'Alex,' need one of these..."
I like that idea.
As for the privacy issue, it's only an issue once you've
given it up.
Alex Abarca
Dear FRONTLINE,
I enjoyed your program very much. The program could grab the attention of the most
experienced computer enthusiast to the computer illiterate. I especially
appreciated the information regarding Stargazer. I think this will be the
entertainment of the near future. I look forward to that product being available
to the entire world. This is the first time I have had a chance to view FrontLine.
I was thoroughly impressed with the show.
Steven J. Ober
StevenO510@aol.com
Lancaster, PA
Dear FRONTLINE,
I wonder where we would be if Christopher and Eric decided that information about
their lives was more improtant than getting the funding for their explorations.
Cyberspace DOES mean less privacy. Are we kidding, what privacy? I see evidence almost everyday that Geraldo and Bill can find out whatever they want about me and you for $39.95 plus $10.00 handling fee.
Please let us consider that we in the U.S. as well as anywhere else, are open books to those who wish to know.
The price we pay for goods and services would be less if we didn't fight the false gods of privacy.
I'm flattered that Zima and Diet Pepsi think that I might be worth a free vending machine or a fun time to find out I don't drink their products.
I'll give up the free vending machine, though, for a 5 chuckle, five flavors, five cents, again.
I would love for someone to come to fix my air conditioner without me making fourteen calls and waiting at home for 7.5 hours.
Lighten up on the scare tactics and welcome boldly the future.
I guess you already know about me so please feel free to print my name and address (email and local) for those that would like to discuss this phenomenon of info-mania.
Sned me my free prize if I've won.
Russ Siebecker
russ7518@mtvernonl.accessus.net
Southaven, MS
Dear FRONTLINE,
High Stakes in Cyperspace helped to confirm my darkest
fears. The "Information Superhighway" runs primarily in one
direction--from consumers to marketers. Of course, for one
who has spent any time at all "surfing the net" it is clear
that the World Wide Web is primarily a marketing tool. The
vast majority of the information available on the Web seems
to be advertising of one sort or another. It is a
relatively rare find to stumble onto a site that is
dedicated to providing information without a sales pitch
attached.
One of the most troubling parts of that program was the segment on the on-line newspaper. Advertising and editorial content were indistinguishable. The reader could read a book review, read a sample of the book and order the book all in one operation. How can you now ever be sure that the book review you are reading is not prepared by the book publisher? Is the on-line newspaper ever going to publish a review on a book when it has no advertising or sales relationship with the publisher?
In the cyberspace world, to distinguish the marketing from the information will be "virtually" impossible. Or is the problem that in cyberspace, information is nothing more than marketing.
High Stakes in Cyberspace was provocative as are most
your programs. Keep up the good work.
Tom Lane
Dear FRONTLINE,
The program pointed out the very real loss of privacy that
comes with the convenience of pervasive digital
communications networks. Yes, more information about you
will be "out there" than ever before. Almost everyone
says this and stops, assuming that we all agree that this
is a very bad thing. I never hear any arguments that this
is bad. What is privacy good for anyway? What's so bad
about people knowing the truth about me? What dire
consequences do I face, that I should even consider giving
up the incredible convenience that the net will provide?
Adam Costello
amc@cs.wustl.edu
Dear FRONTLINE,
"High Stakes in Cyberspace" did a fine job of highlighting one of the central
conflicts that accompanies the information revolution, that between convenience and
privacy. For every efficiency the computer revolution promises--and to some degree
has delivered on--there exists the possibility that it may impinge upon our
national heritage of privacy and autonomy for individuals. If we do not wish to
awaken one day to find privacy a thing of the past, we would do well to engage the
issue directly, deciding actively rather than by default what we will accept. Some
of the trade-offs we may accept as a people, some we may reject, but if we do not
consider them in advance, we may find ourselves closing the proverbial barn door
after the horses have run out. Who has rights to the information that accumulates
in cyberspace? Who controls it? How is it to be protected? The answers to these
questions will have a profound impact upon our society, and we owe it to ourselves
and our children to try to address them effectively.
Ted Chance
tchance@one.net
Cincinnati, OH
Dear FRONTLINE,
I'm not afraid of the information super-highway and it's implications. I believe we
are fortunate to have a medium by which we can access and utilize information
within seconds of desiring it. For instance, within 30 seconds of watching your
program, I sent you this message. Knowledge is power. Use it.
Bob Hornsby
bobhornsby@earthlink.net
Dear FRONTLINE,
As an active participant in the computer revolution and also an observer we
have many challenges ahead. Computers are truly fascinating and with the
Internet we now have easy access to untold information. That is the good
news. However, the fact that a company, government or other organization can
and will know every movie and show we watch, know every purchase that we
made and advertise to us based all of this knowledge is frankly a little scary.
The analogy that I have heard is to a book store. Of course they can track what your book purchases are but with "big brother" watching they will even know the ones that you "picked off" the shelf to look at.
Yes the conveniences we now experience because of computer technology are fabulous. Is it just possible technology has outpaced what the human can socially and psychologically adapt to?
Yes, living with technology will definitely be the challenge of the next century.
Wishing You Net Speed.
K.L.
Dear FRONTLINE,
I was very impressed by your coverage of those sensitive issues. It is
disconcerting to see just how many people do not realize how much information
is known about them by corporations. Many people don't realize the dangers
that can come from this knowledge. Most people fear what the FBI knows about
them, but fail to consider that since "the end of big government is over"
other sources will pick up the slack.
Monitoring of employees is not a new concept. Henry Ford used to send people to his employees houses to check up on them--their drinking habits, maritol habits, if they were good church going folk. But now, even though the methods are less obvoius, they are far more scary. Unfortunately, people are unknowingly making this more obvoius. Ordinary office gossip that used to take place around water coolers is now sent out over e-mail, which is read by employers--their supreme court-upheld constitutional right. People used their "savers" card at the grocery card to get cheaper prices at the checkout, but their whole purchase history is then for sale by God knows who.
The true problem though, is what people who see this problem tend to do about
it. People who do not see technology as a panacea are few and far between to
begin with and tend not to express their views effectively. Who in Congress
stands up about this issue? There are legislators banning things transporting
around the internet--but none are banning the sale of personal information by
corporations. And who in the private sector is talking about these things?
Ted Kaczinski? Hardly a poster-boy for the digital counter-revolution.
Hopefully America will realize the potential evil of unchecked conversion to
the church of technology.
A.B.
Chicago, IL
Dear FRONTLINE,
I just happened to be channel surfing while downloading some files
on the Internet when I came across your program on "The Internet" and the up
and coming technology. I have spent many hours "surfing the net" and
discovering its capabilities. All of this time has been a wonderous
experience for a "gadget" lover like me. I have found many things through
the Internet that I would have never been aware of if it were not for this
network. I have also been able to use sevices such as "Yahoo" to help locate
information on such topics as sleep apnea which my father suffers from.
Because of this new access to information many parts of my life have been
changed-positive and negative.
The positive side is the ability to access just about anything you like from games to health updates. The negative is the time spent. This time "surfing" can grow to be a habitual time waster. This country and the world have enough problems with anti-social behaviors without technology such as the Internet adding to the lack of one-on-one human interaction. As much as I feel positive about this technology I also have the growing concern that it will change how societies relate to and interact with each other in the next generations. Will this draw us closer with access to anyone anywhere or will it change us all into hermit like techno-addicts?
With the world literally growing together and land masses seeming to shrink because of overpopulation, will we have any resemblance of privacy in the future? Your show brought up several interesting concepts that I had never really considered until now. Although the concept of "Big Brother" has been around for many years it has always been assumed that the government would be the entity probing our lives. This has always bothered me but the thought of advertisers taking over this roll really gets under my skin. It was mentioned in the show that up to this point people have seemed to be more than willing to offer personal information about themselves. I feel that as this laboratory experiment matures individuals will grow tired of having their lives and actions monitored and long for ways to regain their privacy. This will bring in the next wave of technology - encryption or masking.
Where will all of this end? I do not think anyone has any idea. At
this point all we can do is enjoy the technology for what it currently is
and be proactive in deciding what it will become. The question needing to be
decided is "What is the Information superhighway - a wonderful tool for
communications or a seed for future personal intrusions"?
R.E.
Ft. Collins, CO
Dear FRONTLINE,
I just happened to be channel surfing while downloading some files
on the Internet when I came across your program on "The Internet" and the up
and coming technology. I have spent many hours "surfing the net" and
discovering its capabilities. All of this time has been a wonderous
experience for a "gadget" lover like me. I have found many things through
the Internet that I would have never been aware of if it were not for this
network. I have also been able to use sevices such as "Yahoo" to help locate
information on such topics as sleep apnea which my father suffers from.
Because of this new access to information many parts of my life have been
changed-positive and negative.
The positive side is the ability to access just about anything you like from games to health updates. The negative is the time spent. This time "surfing" can grow to be a habitual time waster. This country and the world have enough problems with anti-social behaviors without technology such as the Internet adding to the lack of one-on-one human interaction. As much as I feel positive about this technology I also have the growing concern that it will change how societies relate to and interact with each other in the next generations. Will this draw us closer with access to anyone anywhere or will it change us all into hermit like techno-addicts?
With the world literally growing together and land masses seeming to shrink because of overpopulation, will we have any resemblance of privacy in the future? Your show brought up several interesting concepts that I had never really considered until now. Although the concept of "Big Brother" has been around for many years it has always been assumed that the government would be the entity probing our lives. This has always bothered me but the thought of advertisers taking over this roll really gets under my skin. It was mentioned in the show that up to this point people have seemed to be more than willing to offer personal information about themselves. I feel that as this laboratory experiment matures individuals will grow tired of having their lives and actions monitored and long for ways to regain their privacy. This will bring in the next wave of technology - encryption or masking.
Where will all of this end? I do not think anyone has any idea. At
this point all we can do is enjoy the technology for what it currently is
and be proactive in deciding what it will become. The question needing to be
decided is "What is the Information superhighway - a wonderful tool for
communications or a seed for future personal intrusions"?
R.E.
Ft. Collins, CO
Dear FRONTLINE,
I found your show on the Internet and Cyberspace most interesting and as
usual very well done. Unfortunately I also found it extremely frightening!
Where can we escape to. How can we hide from the government or big
business. As I sit infront of my computer that I can hardly figure out how
to work, I realize that this is not what any sane person would hope to do
with their time all day, all night. I feel sorry for childeren who have a
computer and a tv to live with.
Where are the flowers and trees, if you
can find any that the lumber and cattle companies haven't destroyed yet.
What about live theatre, the ballet, music, opera. You can never have a
greater experience of art then in a live performance. Nothing a computer
can do can equal it! I urge everyone to shut down their internet
connections and games and go see a ballet or an opera before they to vanish
from the face of the earth like the Passenger Pigeon. I personally do not
wish to have a corporation or government know every move I make. This
seems to be pushing us into the Orwellian world of 1984 more and more. Any
person who has read that book should be able to see the similarities to
that frightning world. Computers are here to stay, but are we?
Marcus Galante
Dear FRONTLINE,
I watched "High Stakes in Cyberspace" tonight. Their definition of
"cyberspace" is pretty loose. They talked about the Web and
interactive TV that is in test phase right now. One topic they
spent a lot of time on was people's willingness to surrender
privacy. And they had various voices who said with some vigor,
"Don't do it!"
Now some people simply shrug off that issue by calling it already decided. "There is no privacy". Those of us who've experienced targeted marketing have some reason to wonder. Yet, we also have reason to wonder why the government courts adverse reactions by asking to install stuff in networks to catch offenders. If there is NO PRIVACY, is this just one more example of somebody in the government too dumb to use what is there? Well, maybe what is there is too expensive. Uh-huh, but a global "upgrade" of all computers or networks is "cheap"? So, I'm inclined to believe that a lot of people are telling us things about privacy based on fears or political agenda, not actual research. "Why should I research when Rush Limbaugh doesn't?"
So, the interesting part of this discussion was the linkage of the desire to do things without travel to the willingness to open up more and more doors to outsiders. They pointed out how card readers in grocery stores and ATM booths can harvest information, and people didn't ever COMPLAIN about them because banks don't stay open all hours; and shopping for groceries with cash is a challenge. I sometimes look at what I've bought with my cards at the grocery store: lunchmeat, frozen OJ (what's cheap), lo-fat margarine, generic everything. What would my "profile" be? "Cheap SOB" Am *I* gonna get bombarded with offers for goods where they hope for a profit margin? Also, it seems to me that this places me in a category shared by tens of millions of shoppers. Not some neat, tidy, tiny mini-market that somebody can exploit. Even so, I've switched back to cash. In part, it has to do with a religious infatuation with a vigorous life. Sometimes going somewhere is a GOOD thing. Sometimes checking the cash first is a GOOD thing. Sometimes toting up the purchases is a GOOD thing. In fact, is a changing lifestyle part of why so few people vote nowadays?
I woulda loved it if Frontline had addressed that issue. Are these technological trends producing a population totally incapable of controlling its own government? And I don't mean spying, I mean ALL of its behavior. I'm going to sound Luddite, but this is really a different kind of issue. Sometimes all of a person's life can be measured against the part he likes best. If getting in front of a PC and living an entire day on it is "what life should be", will that person vote or demonstrate, neither of which can be done there? And would the government change things so he COULD do it there? And is that really a good thing? Jefferson wanted rebellious Sons of Liberty. People who would water the Tree with blood. You get a lot of people who TALK that way in cyberspace, but aren't they mostly disgruntled loners who'll never be anything but hit-and-run terrorists?
As I said, good program, but could have been better with these
issues on the agenda.
J.M.
Dear FRONTLINE:
From: Gene Smilgiewicz
Great show! Nice blend of humor and information.
However, you could have spent more time on the almost
unabashedly positive aspects of InterNet-working like
telecommuting, SIG communities, ...
As usual, RK was terrific -- I loved the bit with the
JumboCam in Times Square.
Dear FRONTLINE:
From: Bob Welsh
I much enjoyed watching Frontline recently regarding Cyberspace.I think it
is very important that we think about the effect that the digital
revoloution will have on all of us. It is unstopable, but it can be
directed or guided.I believe one significant outcome of this revolution
will be to increase "one-to-many" communications. This is the first time
(with the limited exception of Ham radio) that an average person can create
and distribute his/her thoughts to the entire world cheaply and instantly.
This will help all see that the emperor really has no clothes, (ie. the
folks running the show, both in government and in corporations) in general
are not the great folks we think them to be. Rather, the great folks are
those who have NOT committed the unacceptable acts it usually takes to get
to the top of any large organization. Keep up the good work in bringing up
these important social issues.
Dear FRONTLINE:
Of course, after watching the show, why wouldn't I just log on and submit
my feedback? Isn't technology wonderful? If only you had spent a bit more
time on those few dissenting voices who raised concern about what is going
on and how neutral technologies
can be turned to good... to improve society, democracy, and make as all
better people. The one with the most toys, not knowledge, it seems does
indeed win in today's world.
Dear FRONTLINE:
From: K. Michael Young
Having watched you very well produced program, and perused some of the
messages left before me, I am concerned for two reasons. One---some of the
comments tried to explain away the negative aspects of targeted
advertising, and the collection of private (???) information. Two, the
apparent lack of concern, it seems, of people in general of the seriousness
nature of losing privacy. Let's face it, most, if not all corporations are
comitted to one thing, making money. I think, that in the near future,
technology and ignorance are going to collide. Keep up the good work.
Dear FRONTLINE:
From: Joe Pitkin
Thank you for publicizing the dangers that this
new advertizing presents to individual privacy.
Watching your program, I came to feel that
ordinary people might combat this trend of "interactive
advertising." Though I'm no computer genius, I think
it would be relatively simple to develop software
that could quickly set up bogus internet accounts
(perhaps through large university and community servers).
Such a program might then access selected corporate
homepages, filling their questionaires with random
information and hopefully making their overall survey
data less useful. Without responding in some way to
this trend, it seems we are only telling marketers the ways
in which we can be most easily manipulated.
Dear FRONTLINE:
From: Pat Barnes
Your piece was so disappointing. What puffery. You did a great disservice
to your viewers. You mentioned briefly what the internet could be but never
bothered to explore it. You never bothered to say that one man virtually
controls cyberspace, Bill Gates, and he hasn't hesitated to use
monopolistic practices that promise to affect all consumers. You barely
touched the surface in what was more like a Mr. Rogers trip through a
futuristic neighborhood. Come on, Frontline, Newt doesn't own you yet.
Dear FRONTLINE:
From: Stephen Epstein
I thought your show was an excellent overview
of the promises and perils of cyberspace. I would hope
you might follow up on the privacy issue in a future
show. A discussion of Pretty Good Privacy, encryption,
and how to keep information secure in cyberspace is
information that the public needs to know.
Dear FRONTLINE:
I appreciate the treatment of the Internet presented in your recent program.
It was fair and balanced. My opinion is that, within limits, I am willing
to provide some general information for myself particularly if others are
willing to subsidize cyberspace for everyone by indirectly increasing
network traffic which will require higher bandwidth at lower cost for
everyone in the world.
Like any technology, the only value is assigned by the values that people
bring it. I prefer the value of the Internet to lie in its ability to bridge
groups of people and bring us all closer together.
From
Neil Krandall
From: Kyle
This the first time I have ever seen your show and was very pleased to see
a show for everybody that showed both the sells people as well as the
consumer;I am not sure what most people feel about all that was descussed
on the show.
In my opinon the companies that create these adds are just doing their job,
but at the same time us being the consumer should have our privacy as well.
I suppose what my over all view of Advertising is that it as its place but
should
not reveal things about us then is absolutely necessary for purchasing
items realy isn't that a all they need to find more about us anyway.
Thanks,
( skm@onramp.net )
From: Jim Combs
Thank you for such an informative and balanced program on our industry.
As the producer for Stargazer's shopping applications, I was happy to
see the work of TELE-TV designer Roberta Morcone (JC Penney menus) shown so
prominently.
I should point out that those of us creating these brave new worlds of
interactive media
are also consumers, parents, workers, etc. Multimedia is very much a
collaborative
realm and the ideas, morals and philosophies of all parties are weighed
when making
decisions about what the interactive world will be.
It may not be pretty, but it is very much HUMAN.
From: Liam Wescott
Dear Frontline:I was struck by the tone of Mr. Krulwich's reporting.He
seemed agog at as he contemplated all the possibilities of cyberspace.I
have to remind him that we science fiction writers and fans have been
talking about cyberspace and virtual reality for years. We were wondering
if he and the rest of you would ever catch on. I think the whole hoopla
surrounding the Brave New World ofCyberspace will blow over soon and we
will go back to business as usual, more or less.
Sincerely, Liam Wescott
From: Frank Vanella
I am a professional involved in media production (Audio/Video/Computers) as
well as working as a columnist for a couple of industry pubs. As per usual,
Frontline's documentaries are bay far and away the most effective and
informative being produced today and the Cyberspace piece was no exception.
I want to convey to the staff of writers, producers and technicians my
highest compliments on bringing this topic into a perspective that is
interesting and informative for a wide spectrum audience.
From: John Weersing
You did an excellent job in presenting a technical subject to a mass TV
audience. However, the camera techniques detracted from the presentation
of your well written material. Buy your director/camera person a tripod
and make them use it. Or can't you afford two cameras to record both sides
of an interview? I actually got dizzy from the cameramerson running around
a sofa in one shot to get both sides of an interview. Your program doesn't
need to compete with MTV or commercials lasting 20 seconds. The jerky
camera motions are noty necessary for a documentary; the script is the
show, not a visual panoply of jerk and shoot.
John Weersing
Temecula, California
From: Frank Koughan
This message is in response to the message from Richard Rand.
At no time did Frontline say that internet services can identify specific
users, but you are right to point out that we did not make the distinction
between that and hits. There were two reasons for this: (1) The average
viewer doesn't understand the difference anyway, and we would only confuse
things further by trying to explain it; (2) it was not an important
distinction as far as what we were trying to say. We made clear that the
information being gathered was more akin to market research than to
database marketing. The aggregate info has greater value. If the user
self identifies, well, then the marketer can start a database, too. All
neat and tidy. Our intention was to make the viewer understand he process
by which information is gathered about then, either in the specific, or as
part of a broad group of customers. Judging from some of the reaction we've
gotten, this is news to an awful lot of people.
It was interesting to see you use the current state of Internet technology
as proof of your argument. A few years back, it was impossible to identify
a telephone caller before you picked up the phone. Am I to understand, Mr.
Rand, that the evolution of digital technology has at long last come to an
end? No further advances are possible? Maybe we really did miss the big
story.
Frank Koughan
Co-Producer, High Stakes in Cyberspace.
From Richard Rands:
The program on marketing in cyberspace was very well done. It was clever,
thorough, and thought provoking. But, it was also disturbing in its
inaccuracy regarding privacy and the Internet. Much of the latter portion of
the program focused on privacy and how users perceive their control of
personal information. While it is quite true that point-of-sale
transactions, ATM card transactions, video on demand, and on-line shopping
allow the software to capture a person's ID and therefore link the
transactions to marketing databases, that is currently not the case with
Internet activities. When I use a browser such as Netscape or Mosaic to look
at your web page, the only information you can gather about me is the IP
address assigned to my session by my Internet provider. That number will be
different every time I log on, and is not unique to me. The only way you can
identify me is to ask me to identify myself using some form of voluntary
registration. There were oblique references in your program to "hits" as
opposed to unique users, but you know as well as I do that the general viewer
would not understand that distinction. Your program did a huge disservice in
promulgating a perceived fear of invasion of privacy from Internet usage.
Richard Rands
Executive Vice President
Computers for Marketing Corp.
San Francisco
From George Wentzler:
Loved Robert's style (as usual)but missed him wryly observing:
= InterNet interactivity looks suspiciously like the airwaves of CB
radio in the '70s
= Premature obits to the contrary, newspapers and TV continue to give
advertisers their best cost/thousand
= HOW WWW lists differ from the way marketeers sell magazine subscriber
(or warantee) lists today (where quantity pays)
= Despite all the claims of market sophistication and refinement, the
"moved" and "deceased" still keep getting solicitations and catalogues.
From: John A. Hadden:
Your report on CyberSpace correctly warns us of greatest
downside of the on-line universe: the loss of privacy and
the ethical ramifications of too much personal information
in the hands of advertisers and corporations; however, you
gave short shrift to perhaps the biggest upside that
CyberSpace has to offer: the "communities" that form within
the framework of on-line discussions and the sharing of
experience. I've experienced both--the blatant
ad-cum-cool-Web-site like the Zima Home Page you visited,
and the delightful and informative discussions of topics
ranging from OJ jokes to education to Parenting issues.
There's good content out there--one only need have the
patience to go looking for it!
John A. Hadden
Huntington, Vermont
71052.1614@compuserve.com
From Glenn Sweet 71234.3100@compuserve.com:
When I log into the net I feel I AM Magellan, or Columbus charting unexplored waters. Sure there are inherent dangers but that is true of any form of exploration.....
From Marbouro Man Onramp@nbn.com:
With all the increasing hoopla about the information Super-highway, one
seems to forget sometimes that ones'experience of life needs to be taken no
farther than getting out into the world and interacting with real live
people. This technology is now upon us, and whether it's perceived as good
or bad will be determined by us . . . the INDIVIDUALS who use it in an
integrated, not obsessive manner! Many Regards & Thanks, Marbouro Man
From Geoff Gordon (ggordon@cs.tufts.edu)
I really enjoyed the entire episode on cyberspace. I use
the internet almost everyday. I even work for Tufts
University, hooking students up from their dorm rooms.
The attachment to the "net" seems to be growing at an
alarming rate. In the coming years, the information
superhighway will control the everyday lives of all people.
I am in a Sociology class on mass media and popular culture.
I would love to let my professor see this episode. He uses
his computer to present his lectures to us. I would love a class
solely on the internet, but I don't know how to go about
starting one. Thanks for the interesting episode.
From Hans von Steiger-- hvs@ix.netcom.com
I am surprised you did not delve into the disparity that
will result between the information have's and have not's.
In the work place those at the low end of the pay scale,
e. g. hourly employees will be under the greatest monitoring
and scrutiny. However, these same individuals, do to their
limited financial resources, will have the least access
to information.
From: June Thomas juniot@ix.netcom.com
I fit a profile your program makers apparently didn't conceive of - an
intelligent viewer.
I usually enjoy Frontline, but I found last night's show to be shockingly
unquestioning and superficial.
Why did you use a narrator who was as naive and credulous as an unfrozen
caveman.
Frontline is usually critical and informed, but the narrator of this show
swallowed whole whatever the marketing men told him.
I don't wish to offend admen (and they were all men I note) but they aren't
exactly known for their objective truth telling.
The whole show was crammed with unsubstantiated claims and a level of
discussion far below that which I have come to expect from Frontline.
From: Maureen Kenney mkenney@bearcomp.com
Thanks for a well-balanced presentation about emerging technology. After a
day spent surfing the net, it was fun to see what I had missed! So I am
back again today to check out a few of those links!
From: Bob Michie michie@laser.net
Don't discount the individual! There may be thousands of
advertisers out there but there are *hundreds of thousands*
of consumers on the Infobahn, too, and we all have computers!
If the advertisers get out of line, it shouldn't be too
difficult to throw up "firewalls" to protect ourselves.
We can then explore the Internet by launching "webcrawler"
applets (aka "'bots") that collect information and leave
very small "footprints" behind. Your 10-year-old business
kids could perhaps create a new "gaming tool" for us: a
combination firewall and webcrawler called the "Virtual
Bogus Consumer."
Whattheheck - such a product might force marketeers to bring
back the door-to-door salesman!
From: Bruce Bloy bruceb@ix.netcom.com
From: Sandy Schaffell
Date: 10/31/95 10:35 PM
Date: 11/1/95 9:22 AM
From Brian Brennan:
Date: 10/31/95 10:30 PM
Date: 10/31/95 11:06 PM
From: John Young
From: Alan Duvall:
From Lisa Fischer:
Enjoyed the show very much although I found some of the early sections
attempting to explain the net somewhat glib.
I'm in the printing business (I run a mac) and can see that in all
likelihood I'm going to have to retrain again.
Another bravura performance from R. Krulwich. As usual what we've come to
expect from Mr. K. Privacy is such an important issue I hope we can look
forward to more reports on that subject from Frontline. An answer for
those of us along the highway is -- as N. Reagan said of another subject
not dear to her heart -- Just Say No. We, after all, hold the key to what
doors the advertisers can open. They don't hold it, we viewers do. It
seems to me easier to look out a real window than the grim, so called
interactive one that many of us seem to spend to much time before. Keep up
the good work, Mr. K.
To: Frontline
From: ldev@ns.mcsp.com
From: Larry De Vore, Jr.
I want to applaud your efforts in trying to reveal the"mystery" of the
information superhighway. Since I am an owner of a small internet services
company, it was a pleasureto see some objective insight into the
information industry. The episode covered a lot of territory that even I
was surprised at what's coming in the near future. I hopeFrontline does a
regular episode, from time to time, to keep the American public abreast of
the changing and fast-paced information superhighway.
To: Frontline
From: pmutalik@p400.sequoia.com
From: Praveen Mutalik
As one who frequently travels the Information super highway
I was impressed with your program. Just one comment about
this superhighway.
The problem, as I see it, is that we as a society are becoming
increasingly satisfied with information. We are not turning
that information into knowledge. As a result we are fast
becoming a society that is wonderfully well informed but
at the same time woefully ignorant about the rest of our
world.
Yours Sincerely
Praveen Mutalik
Thanks for an entertaining program and an extremely well organized web
site. I enjoyed reading the full interviews and checking out the reading
materials available. This approach is a great supplement to your
programming!
To: Frontline
From: 72557@griffin.wgbh.org
From: James Michael Moulton
As a reader of ComputerWorld, PCMag, Whole Earth Review & other mags, I try
to keep up with the way the world is changing. It is not enough.
Robert Krulwitch(sp?) once again informs entertainingly. He supplied what
I have been looking for. I wish I was a better writer, so that I could
express just how welcome this program was.
The difficulty with controlling private information is discovering its
presense and location. Computerworld, Oct 30, 95, pp122, "oops.we.give"
shows that unwelcome use can be discouraged.
To: Frontline
From: koconnor@iaf.net
From: Kevin O'Connor
Very good program and very accurate, however you tended to focus
too much on the negative aspects of targeted advertising and technology.
First, most of us work for companies who advertise and we would not
have jobs if our company did not sell products.
Second, aren't targeted ads better than non-targeted ads? I would
think that people would want ads that are at least related to their
interests.
On the whole, "Highstakes in Cyberspace" was an excellent
overview of what's ahead in communications.
But I came away with the distinct feeling that Frontline
was pandering to people's inherent distrust of technology.
Perhaps to add a little controversy and sensationalism?
Privacy is a very important and sensitive issue but you
painted a very insiduous image of the misuse of tracking
information. The scenario of a Big Brother marketing demon
is mostly nonsense. The big picture is about a fundamental
change in the way we communicate and consume. The transition
from broadcasting to "narrowcasting" empowers the viewer
with all the controls of when and what they see. Similar to
the desktop publishing revolution of the 80's, we are now
witnessing "network publishing" where everyone has an equal
opportunity to be heard and seen.
Many ad agencies would still prefer to throw expansive and
vacant messages across tv and print. That's the way business
has been done for the last fifty years. But fifty years ago,
ad agencies were resisting new communication technology
based on a cathode ray tube delivering a poor quality
5" b&w image that crashed even more than a present day
computer -- tv. We all know that those who fought change
were quickly left behind.
The information highway phenomenon is entirely consumer
driven. Online collaborative environments build virtual
communities around people's interests. People go online
because they are empowered with a global voice. Marketers
did not bring people online. Marketers are online because
people are abandoning their tv sets for a more compelling
medium. Intrusive advertising is rapidly on the way out.
So is image advertising that speaks to the lowest common
demoninator. Online advertising requires a higher degree
of truth, usefulness and depth.
The New Media is about people defining what they want
through technology. The task of publishers, broadcasters
and advertisers is to fulfill that need. If they fail to
deliver, as Ray Smith said "people can always pull the plug".
John Young
VP/Director of New Media
Greenberg Seronick and Partners
Advertising Marketing Public Relations
855 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
617 267 4949
e-mail: gsandp@tiac.net
web: http://www.tiac.net/users/gsandp
BRAVO FRONTLINE for High Stakes in Cyberspace!
Thank you for the very informative view into the new social
and technical advances in which advertisers will use to get
into my wallet. Your program enlightened me to the some of
the tactics being used to get my attention in cyberspace.
Now that I am aware of what advertisers are doing, I have
thought up of several countermeasures to their techniques
including the most powerful one of turning off the computer
and TV.
Although some people feel that we are losing our privacy,
I do not feel this way. Instead, the advertisers and
consumers are communicating at a more intelligent level.
However, the consumer is ultimately in control because the
information is very volatile and not always true. I am
sure that advertisers are very much aware of this
vulnerability of their cyberspace advertisements and surveys.
I am very interested to know what they do about it.
Can you follow up this program? Can you get more people to
talk about thier cyberspace plans? Already I am thinking of
how to invest in this future.
Keep up the good work and tell us more about cyberspace
please! If programs like this continue on PBS, then I vote
for more federal funding for PBS. Thankyou very much.
Alan Duvall
Huntsville, Alabama
While there is much to be said about the benefits of technology, the
sociological consequences have yet to be measured. To me, the most
frightening aspect is not the lack of privacy per se but the dehumanizing
effect caused by reducing interpersonal relationships to a series of
electronically transmitted info-bites.
I recently visited one of the "new" decentralized companies - decentralized
meaning a reduction in employees and an increase in technology for the
remaining workers. Most of the employees work from a computer at home and
only come to the office for meetings or supplies. This eliminates the
"informal organization", isolates the individual, and increases stress by
making work an even more inescapable compononet of daily life. I
personally found it psychologically traumatic. It seems that if we are
building a global workplace where tolerance, understanding, and cooperation
are required, the reliance that many have on technology to overcome
barriers needs to take second place to humanistic values. I hope that
strangers can regard me as more than a collection of data records.