NETIQUETTE: ROAD RULES FOR AUSTRALIA'S DATA SUPER-HIGHWAYS Address to the ACS Victorian Branch Lorne'94 Conference: "In Pursuit of Best Practice" by Tom Worthington macs pcp Director of the ACS Community Affairs Board e-mail: tomworthington@acslink.net.au http://www.acslink.net.au/~tomw/ ABSTRACT This paper discusses the needed for ethical and social rules with the wide spread use of data networks. It suggests that ubiquitous wide area networking on "data super-highways", will be the most important computer application of the nineties. Data networking is argued to be mostly about communication between people, not computers. The paper suggests new and adapted social protocols and conventions (network ethics and etiquette, or netiquette), will be required for this communication to work effectively. The paper concludes that Information Technology professionals have the primary responsibility to see good social conventions develop for networking. INTRODUCTION This talk is based on four premises: 1. Ubiquitous wide area networking (UWANs), will be the most important computer application of the nineties. 2. This data networking will be mostly about communication between people, not computers. 3. New and adapted social protocols and conventions (ethics and etiquette), will be required for this communication to work effectively. 4. As IT professionals it is our job to see good social conventions develop for networking. THE INTERNET: THE WORLD'S MOST AMAZING NETWORK The Internet is the world's most amazing computer network, and is one place new social protocols are being worked out. For several years I have been a traveller on the Internet. This talk is based on my experiences. The Internet has developed its own social conventions. Many of these derive from the Internet's academic background. These conventions may not survive the Internet's move out of research and academia, into commercial and public use. UWANS: GLOBAL COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS I remember when the personal computer was new and the first spreadsheet "VisiCalc", was released. People bought personal computers just to run this one application. The industry has been searching ever since for the next "killer application", which would sell equipment by itself. The killer application of the 1990s is ubiquitous wide area networking. It is very hard to explain to someone who has not used them, the power of global electronic mail, computer conferences and information services. Imagine explaining to someone what a spreadsheet does: "you get this grid of rows and columns on the screen, you can type in numbers and formulas and the computer works them out" and the reply: "oh, yeah, is that all?". The same with networking: "you send a message to someone, you can hold a discussion, you can get some information", reply: "oh yeah, so what?". There is currently intense interest in the business community, government and the media about pay TV, communications convergence and data highways. Unfortunately our government, business community and media have missed the point. They see the result being something like current TV, carried over phone lines with fibre optic cable. This revolution will be about communication between people, not broadcasting to people. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PEOPLE, NOT COMPUTERS Ubiquitous wide area networking is mostly about communication between people, not computers. Telephones don't talk to each other, the people using the telephones do. Local area networks were introduced so that computers could share resources, such as printers and hard disks. Wide area networks are introduced more for the benefit of the users, that the computers. Plugging your computer into a network of millions of people you don't know can be very frightening (like standing under a spotlight naked, in a darkened room full of people). Many otherwise rational system managers, worry about computer viruses and hackers creeping down the public communications links into their systems. They refuse to provide public links or put severe restrictions on their use. At the same time system managers may have not taken the most elementary precautions against other threats their system. There is a risk in any social intercourse. However there are preventative measures which can make the risk manageable with computer systems. Some of these measures are technical, such as "firewalls". Some are better user education: "never run a program from someone you don't know, or can't sue". There are classified government computer systems in use every day which are connected to the public network. I can't tell you how this done, but you may be able to buy a version of the technology shortly. The technological protective measures can only do so much. It is ultimately people who we must rely on and the social conventions they follow. SOCIAL CONVENTIONS ETIQUETTE AND ETHICS Just as data communications relies on "protocols", so do social communications. The fundamental protocols are called "ethics" and the implementation is called "etiquette". New and adapted social protocols and conventions (ethics and etiquette), will be required for UWANS to work effectively. These conventions have been developing on the Internet for many years. I have been experiencing and confronting them for the last four years. ETHICS AND LAWS You will note that I have not mentioned the law so far. There are few laws applicable in this field. Laws tend to follow far behind the arrival of the technology. In any case the law will be unenforceable if people do not believe it is applicable. We do not need to wait for parliamentarians or judges to make the law for networking, we can do it ourselves. In fact, as IT professionals we are obliged to do this. An important part of the Australian legal system is law made up by judges (they may call this "common law" or interpreting the written laws, but its much the same thing). As IT professionals, it is also our job to help make laws. One example is the ACS Code of Ethics. This is not enacted in any written law, but is likely to be used by courts in judging the actions of IT professionals. The ACS code of ethics is a guide for IT professionals to balance the interests of their clients, society and themselves. The same concepts apply in networking. But we will need more detailed interpretation to assist our community gain maximum benefit form the technology. NETWORK ETHICS There has been much written about privacy and censorship of electronic communications. The August 1993 edition of the "Communications of the ACM" has a number of good articles on this subject (Rotenberg; Tuerkheimer; Hiramatsu 1993). The basics are really quite simple: communications should be private and uncensored, except when there is a good reason they shouldn't. The reasons will vary depending on circumstances. However the rules for a particular system should be set down in advance and known to all concerned. There will always need to be a balance between the rights of those communicating and the wider community. As IT professionals you have primary responsibility to strike that balance. Sometimes you can use technology to avoid difficult ethical issues. If you run an e-mail system you will, sooner or later, be asked to reveal the contents of your clients messages. You might avoid this ethical dilemma by having all messages encrypted at source, using something like Privacy Enhanced Mail (Kent 1993). Then you can't read the messages, even if you wanted to (or were ordered to). However this just creates a larger ethical issue: should you install a system which cannot be intercepted? NETIQUETTE Etiquette is a set of social conventions, formalities, manners, protocols or rules (at least that's what my thesaurus says). It is the "soft" implementation of ethics (which are: conventions, ideals, morals, mores, scruples and standards). You usually act in a particular way, because it is the accepted way to act, not due to a severe legal sanction. Having a well developed etiquette can avoid the need for applying more serious legal sanctions. Some Netiquette: * NEVER WRITE AN ANGRY E-MAIL MESSAGE: This applies more so to electronic than paper mail. It is very easy to dash off a quick angry reply to something you receive. The receiver is likely to respond in kind and this leads to a quick escalation of angry messages back and forth. The angry exchange of electronic communications is called "flaming". My suggestion is to write a quick reply while you are angry, but don't send it for a day or so. If possible get a trusted colleague to read and comment on it. Rewrite your reply after cooling off and considering other's comments. Usually angry replies are counterproductive. If I want to really "get at" someone, I write a frigidly polite and falsely modest reply. This is particularly effective when dealing with self appointed technical experts on the Internet. I frequently post items about the technical and social limitations of the system. The most memorable one was a discussion topic about the Internet: "If the system is designed by 20 year old, white western males, will it suit the rest of the population?". The replies (containing expletives) suggested I was not technically competent and was placing at risk the reputation of the entire network. The way I reply is to politely apologise for my ignorance, pointing out my many years of IT experience may not be relevant in this case. I request the forgiveness and assistance of the "experts". * PREPARE YOUR MESSAGES WITH CARE: It is very tempting to dash off a quick answer to a message or posting. Messages should be checked for spelling, punctuation and the like (very easy with a computer). Documents should be designed for their intended audience. Documents should not bee too long and wordy. There is effectively no limit on the size of an electronic document and it is tempting to just keep writing. However this does not necessarily suit the reader. At least provide a summary in the first few screen-fulls of a document. * RESPECT OTHERS PRIVACY: If you receive some information, assume it is confidential. It can be very tempting and easy, to broadcast some piece of information received by e-mail. However you should ask the sender if this is acceptable. * HAVE YOUR ARGUMENTS IN PRIVATE: Computer conferences often degenerate into free-for-all arguments. If you are aggrieved by something someone says about you publicly (on a mailing list or conference), take it up with them privately, not publicly. Preferably contact the person via a medium which can carry more emotional content than electronic mail. Talking by telephone or in person, is better. A few months ago I received a very insulting reply to an item I posted on Usenet news. As I happened to be interstate, in the same city as the sender, I called them by telephone. I arranged to visit them that day and we have been on very good terms ever since. * ASK FOR HELP AND THANK PEOPLE FOR FAVOURS: The words "please" and "thank you" have not been made obsolete by technology. The Internet has a tradition of people supplying network services for free. This is partly because the services are experimental and the users are testing the services. However many of theses services are better than commercially available "for fee" services, others are available no where else. People like to be helpful and will often provide something over the network if asked (I got an on-line FTP archive, Usenet newsgroup and Gopher service for the ACS this way). However, do not make the mistake of demanding what is a voluntary service. Do not forget to thank the provider and offer something in return (such as a public acknowledgment). One insulting Usenet news posting I read, asked for information on a topic. Normally replies would be posted on the same place, so everyone could be informed. However this person explained they didn't read newsgroups and wanted replies sent by e-mail. This suggested the poster did not want to contribute, just take. In response I posted some information on the newsgroup and e-mailed the person, politely suggesting they would have to read the newsgroup to get it. * CONSULT BEFORE ACTING: The Internet is a network anarchy. There is no central control in the usual sense. This is normal for social institutions, but less common in technical systems. The primary rule is that you must consult the people concerned before doing something which will effect them. As an example there are announcements, discussions and on-line votes taken before new newsgroups groups are created. There is no technical requirement to do this. However if you don't then those aggrieved will make your electronic life very difficult. LETS MAKE SOME LAW Its time for the IT professionals to accept their responsibilities and make some networking law. There has been an on-going debacle over Pay TV in Australia. Our government, parliament and their advisers, are not competent to make IT policy or law on their own. This is not their fault, it is ours: we invent the technology, we must accept the social consequences of our actions. As Chairman of the Canberra Branch of the ACS, I sent out a challenge to my members: use the technology you advocate to others. I no longer accept paper correspondence from computer companies which sell electronic mail. They either send me e-mail or I don't read their mail. Many have accepted this challenge. You may have read the announcement of The Australian Open Systems Server (TAOSS), which is intended to further the use of networks by IT professionals. As Director of the Community Affairs Board of the ACS I now set you a challenge: define the rights and responsibilities of your network clients. You must set down rules as clearly and as carefully as if they were the law, because they will be. I believe that network communications can be of benefit to society. Individuals should have a fundamental right to communicate, using available technology. If you agree, then say so and it will be so. REFERENCES "Communications Privacy: Implications for Network Design", Marc Rotenberg; "The Underpinnings of Privacy Protection", Frank M. Tuerkheimer; "Protecting Telecommunications Privacy in Japan", Tsuyoshi Hiramatsu "Internet Privacy Enhanced Mail", Stephen T. Kent. All from Communications of the ACM, August 1993, The association for Computing Machinery, New York