ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Cross-Check

Cross-Check


Critical views of science in the news
Cross-Check Home

Historian of Technology Cruelly Crushes Internet Myths

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



As readers of this blog know, since 2005 I’ve been teaching at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey. One of the best parts of being an academic is hanging out with cool (compared to me), young (compared to me), up-and-coming scholars, some of whom know far more about the history of science and technology than I do. Take, for example, Andrew L. Russell, who joined Stevens in 2008 and is now assistant professor of history and director of the Program in Science and Technology Studies in the Stevens College of Arts & Letters. (See his website here.) Andy is the author of a new book, Open Standards and the Digital Age: History, Ideology, and Networks, published by Cambridge University Press, that challenges myths about the origins of digital technologies, including the Internet. (No less an authority than Vinton Cerf, a creator of the Internet, calls Andy’s book “remarkable” and gives it a five-star review on Amazon.) Andy’s historical perspective, in turn, informs his understanding of the Snowden affair, net neutrality and other current controversies. To get a taste of Andy’s outlook, check out his recent articles for Slate and IEEE Spectrum and—even better–read the following Q&A.

Horgan: You’re on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and he asks you to sum up your book in a few sentences. What do you say?

Russell: My book is a history of American information networks–telegraph, telephone, and computer networks. The main characters in my story are engineers you’ve never heard of, such as Bancroft Gherardi, Charles Bachman, and Louis Pouzin, who made technical standards that tied telephones and computers into networks.  I’m fascinated by these engineers because they didn’t only focus on technical details; they also promoted distinctive visions of politics, business, and society that often flew in the face of the status quo.  Once you understand what these engineers were trying to accomplish, you’ll have a much better sense for why the Internet is such a big deal in the broad sweep of history.

Horgan: I thought the Internet was created by hippy geeks who envisioned a world with more peace, love, happiness and bandwidth. Are you telling me I was wrong?

Russell: Yes!  The core technologies that define the Internet–the TCP/IP standards–were sponsored by the US Department of Defense.  It’s true that a small number of the people that worked on these defense grants had hippie sensibilities.  I suppose that angle has gotten a lot of press and popular attention – hence your misconception.  But your version leaves out an important detail: all of the people who built TCP/IP were, by definition, defense contractors.  As I say in my book, I think the best term to describe the early stages of the Internet’s growth is “autocratic design.” It was overseen by arm-twisting Defense Department managers, not by a decentralized community of hippies!

Horgan: Have you gotten any blowback from the Internet Illuminati?

Russell: No–those folks keep doing new things, and tend not to be too interested in looking backwards.  More to the point, most of my book is not about the Internet itself.  In most of the chapters in the book, I show how some of the core concepts that we now associate with the Internet–such as “openness” and “consensus”–have deep roots in mechanical engineering in the late 1800s, trade associations in the early 1900s, and telecom and computer networks in the mid-1900s.  If anyone is going to be upset, it will be journalists or law professors who have built their reputations on a mythologized version of the Internet’s history.

Horgan: What’s net neutrality, and what’s your view on it?

Russell: “Net neutrality” is a term coined by Tim Wu, who teaches at Columbia Law School.  The animating spirit behind “net neutrality” is the concern that network operators and ISPs could – for whatever reason – slow down or block Internet traffic that they don’t like.  I’m sympathetic, of course, but the nice slogan “net neutrality” obscures the complicated underlying issues.  I’m skeptical about the remedies that net neutrality advocates are promoting, since they call on Congress and/or the FCC to create new regulations around the Internet.  Regulation in itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing–I’m no libertarian–but, to be honest, I’ve never met anyone who thinks that our current crop of representatives in Congress are capable of writing a good law in this area.  And any rules the FCC passes are certain to be tied up for years in appeals litigation.  Internet and telecom companies have lots of lawyers and lobbyists, and both sides of the debate are investing heavily in their public relations and legal campaigns.

Horgan: Do you think the potential of the Internet to foster freedom outweighs its potential to enable oppression?

Russell: My goodness, I hope so!  But let’s remember: like all technologies, the Internet is a tool that humans created and use.  It doesn’t exist outside of human societies.  So, your real question is: “Does the potential of humanity to foster freedom outweigh its potential to enable oppression?”

Horgan: Do you think Edward Snowden should be tried for treason or given a medal?

Russell: Jeez, nobody will accuse you of throwing me softballs.  I’m an historian, and we tend to be most effective when we can use a long-term perspective before passing judgment.  So, my instinct is to wait and see.  I’m sure the story will have more twists, and with these cloak-and-dagger things there is always a lot more going on that we don’t know about.  In any case, he won’t be tried for treason as long as he stays in Russia!

Horgan: How did a nice guy like you get interested in history of technology?

Russell: It seemed like the shortest path to fame and fortune, which I’m sure is right around the corner.  Right?  The short version is that after I graduated from college (I was a history major at Vassar), I found a job at the Harvard Kennedy School working for a group called the “Information Infrastructure Project.” This was the late 1990s.  I thought the subject sounded boring–the job I really wanted was in the Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics, and Public Policy–but I had student loans to pay and I couldn’t afford to be picky.  It didn’t take me long to realize that this whole Internet thing was pretty interesting!  After I worked for a couple of years, and learned a lot, I decided to go to grad school to study American history and focus on the Internet’s history.  I started at the University of Colorado at Boulder, but when I finished my MA I moved to Johns Hopkins to complete my PhD in a more focused program in the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine.  My friend and colleague Jim McClellan wrote a great article–“Accident, Luck, and Serendipity in Historical Research”–that sums up my story very well.  [Horgan note: I recently did a Q&A with McClellan about his latest book.]

Horgan: I hear you’re starting a new program in science and technology studies at Stevens. What’s the point? I mean, the goal?

Russell: Yes, it’s two years old!  We have a great group of faculty, and we offer two majors: Science, Technology & Society (STS), and Science Communication.  Our goal is to nurture a community of students, faculty, and staff at Stevens and in Hoboken who think in deep and broad terms about the issues that matter most to us: environmental sustainability and resilience; the future of medicine and healthcare; Internet security and privacy; and directing innovation toward social justice.  The best way to confront these issues is to draw on the wisdom and creativity that our humanistic traditions can inspire, and to blend those humanistic sensibilities with scientific and technical know-how.  We have a nice diversity of really smart students, and several of them are combining their STS or Science Communication major with another major at Stevens.  [Horgan note: See my post on the science communication program here.] This is producing some really cool combinations, for example, STS and Chemical Biology; Science Communication and Biomedical Engineering; and STS and Visual Arts & Technology.  Like I said–these students are really smart!

John Horgan About the Author: Every week, hockey-playing science writer John Horgan takes a puckish, provocative look at breaking science. A teacher at Stevens Institute of Technology, Horgan is the author of four books, including The End of Science (Addison Wesley, 1996) and The End of War (McSweeney's, 2012). Follow on Twitter @Horganism.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 6 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Chryses 6:39 pm 07/1/2014

    That book looks to be a good read, perhaps my next one. I hope Dr. Russell’s efforts bear fruit.

    Link to this
  2. 2. rshoff2 2:00 am 07/2/2014

    Russell hit the bull’s eye in his answer: “So, your real question is: “Does the potential of humanity to foster freedom outweigh its potential to enable oppression?” “. This is true in all human tools and systems. What a wonderful thing to ‘see’ written so concisly.

    Also, he made a great point about freedom of the internet and government regulation being contradictions in terms.

    Thanks John for another interesting blog.

    Link to this
  3. 3. John-sensei 9:06 am 07/2/2014

    While it is technically true that the Internet was created by defense contractors, this is perhaps a bit misleading. These were not makers of guns and bombs. The majority were researchers at universities, “spin-off” companies, and other research labs. While most were not “flower children”, they tended to have attitudes more academic than military. Free communication and human progress were core values.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Laroquod 9:56 am 07/2/2014

    Hey check out this fascinating interview with a historian. His historical perspective informs his understanding of the Snowden affair! Historian, from your historical perspective, is Snowden a hero or a traitor?

    Historian: I don’t know. Only the future can tell.

    Link to this
  5. 5. mfidelman 10:44 am 07/4/2014

    Wow, if this:
    “I think the best term to describe the early stages of the Internet’s growth is “autocratic design.” It was overseen by arm-twisting Defense Department managers, not by a decentralized community of hippies!”
    is Horgan’s idea of historical insight, how can anything he writes be trusted or taken seriously.

    Yes, Defense Department managers (and DoE, and NASA, and a few other agencies) twisted arms – but it was to create a bottom up, experimental, culture and approach within the development communities involved, and a cooperative governance model within the network operations community. Loosely managed anarchy, enforced by the application of dollars, is a far more accurate portrayal of the times.

    Miles Fidelman, BBN 1985-1992, I was there, this guy obviously wasn’t.

    Link to this
  6. 6. hkraznodar 3:56 pm 07/11/2014

    @mfidelman: Most of the core of the internet was established before 1985. You may also try and remember that this is a 2 person conversation being relayed. That quote isn’t from Horgan, it is from the guy that Vint Cerf says did a remarkable job of describing the entire evolution of communication infrastructure up through the development of the internet.

    In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s the atmosphere was a might bit different. It wasn’t until the 1980s that hippies and criminals began to be idolized by the general public in regards to technology. That shift in perception, driven by Hollywood is the mythology that the book author is talking about.

    I’ve worked with military and non-military and there is a very real difference between the two mind sets. Interestingly, the old school military seem to have a broom handle spine while the current military are a lot more flexible.

    So you worked for BBN for 7 years. Big deal. Most people have never heard of BBN. If you are going to try to impress us with your credentials try listing your real credentials. I looked you up; You were a Senior Consultant in Systems Integration. That little detail that you left out is a lot more impressive than just that you worked for BBN. You could have turned out to be the janitor.

    @Laroquad: If someone points out blatantly criminal behavior by government flunkies is the real question the minimalist “traitor or hero” or is it the much more meaningful; “does the constitution matter?” Historically, the constitution is a minor fluke and unlikely to persist.

    @John-Sensei: Well said.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Black Friday/Cyber Monday Blow-Out Sale

Enter code:
HOLIDAY 2014
at checkout

Get 20% off now! >

X

Email this Article

X