Keynote Speaker: Dr. Ursula Franklin Mitchell Beer introduced Dr. Ursula Franklin, retired professor at the University of Toronto, as keynote speaker for the luncheon. Describing herself as "chronologically challenged", Dr. Franklin told the audience that she approached this "technology of the young" with some hesitation. Her remarks focussed on those community groups dedicated to "affecting the life of their community or country" in such areas as the environment or justice. In effect, she said, these groups are "an extra- parliamentary opposition", made necessary because the stance of parliamentary opposition members is extremely variable once they attain power, and because so many fundamental issues are given only lip-service in parliamentary circles. She pointed out that it is this extra-parliamentary opposition which has historically "shaped the discourse" around all new technologies. The central questions around emerging technologies said Dr. Franklin, are: "What it can do for us, and what it can prevent us from doing?" Inevitably, some traditional behaviours or resources are lost as a result of technological change. Community groups deal with constituencies, Dr. Franklin said. Society might be compared to a cake in which constituencies are regular, "vertical" slices. Each "slice" has a definable physical or "geographic" position; each has neighbours with which it shares boundaries and common "experiences". Most of the structure of society and theories of communication which one takes for granted are derived from this "vertical-slice" model. Parliamentary ridings, cities, and school board districts, for example, are geographically determined, and communication within them is vertical. Those "resident in the icing" talk to - or at - those lodged in the crumbs at the bottom. But today, Dr. Franklin pointed out, technology has cut across these slices, putting horizontal "cuts in the cake" that facilitate horizontal communication across the barriers of space and time. That, she said, is essentially what is new about the Internet. In the past, horizontal movement has been largely physical, involving, for example, the migration of people and goods. Despite the increased ease of modern travel, said Dr. Franklin, there are still strong barriers to the horizontal movement of people, "as anyone who works with immigrants or refugees can attest." But the horizontal movement of money, on the other hand, has become devastatingly easy. Once a difficult physical proposition, transfers of funds "from New York to Tokyo" now take place faster than the hands of a clock can travel to compensate for the differences in local times. This facilitates global financial speculation and world trade. Today, goods in the Canadian marketplace are as likely as not to come from very distant sources; but the cycle of use and disuse inexorably moves these goods to their final destination, the overburdened local landfill. This situation illustrates one characteristic problem caused by the "peculiar mixing" of a horizontally- and vertically-sliced world. While vertical movements are characteristically subject to very stringent regulation, legislation surrounding horizontal movement is much more "loose". The "uncontrolled and uncontrollable" state of horizontal traffic means that nobody can be found to take responsibility for such horizontally-distributed problems as pollution. Thus the difference between the horizontal and vertical modes of communication, subtle as it may seem, in fact affects us profoundly. One might think, Dr. Franklin said, that the Internet will be a gateway to a more perfect world by providing quick and easy "horizontal" access to the best available information, which can then be used "vertically" to solve local problems. But this is a naive view, she pointed out. One must contend with others who have different motives, and must also be mindful of "the place and nature of what we call information." She invited participants to consider the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, which shocked the world 50 years ago. When Germans were asked about their individual responsibility for the horrors which had been instituted in their name by their government, the typical response was: "We didn't know." The success of this response "as an explanation and excuse for lack of action", Dr. Franklin noted, results from the simple faith that knowledge would necessarily have led to action. Today, she stressed, such claims of ignorance are no longer credible. In the face of modern horrors such as environmental disasters, the genocide in Rwanda, civil rights violations, the crisis in unemployment, and even the situation of the homeless people we encounter every day in our cities, we can no longer claim "we didn't know." This acknowledgement, she said, inevitably brings one to a "horrifying realization": that knowledge is a necessary - but not sufficient - condition for action. For change to take place, there must also be "channels to power that are not blocked and responsive agencies of power that act and will make the changes". Dr. Franklin noted that crusades for change often begin with the assumption that "those in power are well-intentioned but ill-informed". All too often, she said, she has found that many of them "are very well-informed, but ill-intentioned". To mitigate problems, Dr. Franklin asserted that one must seek out another kind of knowledge: an understanding of the mechanisms which prevent "the right, the decent, the appropriate thing" from being done. In discussing access to information via the Internet, she said, one is discussing "only the first act of the play;" the real problem is what to do "after you've taken a dim view". Dr. Franklin cautioned the group to beware of the misuse of information- seeking. The claim that "further study is needed" is a classic way to defuse unrest and delay action, she said. She spoke of one struggle she had some years ago as a committee member attempting to convince her university to divest its interests in South Africa. Pressed by the university president to gather more and more data and warned to consider "both sides" of the issue, she asked him to "please explain to me - what is the other side of justice?" Research can be continued long past the point of productivity, she said, becoming "occupational therapy for the opposition - doing pushups on the Internet". Secondly, the sheer volume of information available, most of which is quite "irrelevant to anything - civic landfill", poses a danger. "If you want to change conditions," she stressed, "you need a certain amount of information and no more." Once the necessary facts have been gathered, the priority becomes an understanding of the structure of power, the "pushes and pulls", the interests and interactions that lead to a final result. Then, and only then, said Dr. Franklin, is it possible to decide "what we can do about this process" in order to inaugurate constructive change. She stressed that it is also essential to recognize that there are intelligent people who make wrong decisions in the full knowledge that they are wrong. It is important not to "gloss over, hide or excuse" this fact, she said; it must be dealt with as "part of the landscape." Dr. Franklin advised participants to remember that the Internet is a public medium. Dissenters are exposed and visible, an easy target for surveillance which can be used to curtail individual freedom. Surveillance, like the current trend toward government consultation with community groups, is primarily done in an effort to map out and avoid trouble spots rather than "to do the right thing". She also urged the group to remember that "every tool shapes the task." Once a kitchen acquires a Cuisinart, suddenly every dish calls for speedy "slicing and dicing" and the cook sets aside old recipes. Similarly, a laboratory with a new electron microscope is apt to find that everything must now be viewed at maximum power. Learning about the tool is important, she said; but the crucial next step is to "keep your head clear and go back to your goal". While the new technology may help to achieve it, traditional tools will sometimes be of more tangible benefit. Dr. Franklin shared with the audience two particular fears she has about technological change. The first is the restructuring of work, which has already had devastating consequences: people are losing their jobs and young people are finding it more and more difficult to find "any meaningful work". Secondly, she said, the Internet tempts people to get "hooked" on the pursuit of idiosyncratic interests, like "growing cacti from seeds and sighting the Virgin Mary". This "optimization of the private", she said, can detract from "public space" and jeopardize "our most treasured possession þ the notion of the common good". There is a danger that cyberspace, belonging to everybody and nobody like the oceans of the world, could share the same fate: being used as a "global dump". It is essential, she said, to preserve and cherish the concept of the common good, so that labour activists are not the only ones worrying about unemployment or environmentalists about pollution. Private pursuits must not be cultivated "at the expense of a society that essentially promotes justice". While it is impossible to predict whether the information highway will improve things or make them worse, Dr. Franklin concluded that people would do well to bear in mind some classic advice to help children deal with all roads and highways: Look right, look left before you cross the street; Use your eyes and ears before you use your feet.