High Stakes in Cyberspace

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
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. One question--whaty kind of equipment does Robt Krulwich use. It takes me five times the amount of time to load MY web pages! Very good!!! Keep up the good work. (Also this web page is very nice!) Bruce Bloy--Philadelphia PA

From: Sandy Schaffell
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.

Date: 10/31/95 10:35 PM
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.

Date: 11/1/95 9:22 AM
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

From Brian Brennan:
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!

Date: 10/31/95 10:30 PM
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.

Date: 10/31/95 11:06 PM
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.

From: John Young
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

From: Alan Duvall:
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

From Lisa Fischer:
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.