An interview with cyber-skeptic: Cliff Stoll

Communication World, June-July, 1996 by John Gerstner, Phil Theibert

What kind of reaction did "Silicon Snake Oil" stir up in Silicon Valley?

To my astonishment, the commentary from the computer field has been small; the commentary from the wider field of readers has been considerable. I've gotten a lot of reaction from teachers, librarians, and those who are critical of the runaway growth of the Internet. They agree the Internet is being grossly oversold. And that it's high time to ask why.

How have the media treated you?

One article called me a techno-traitor, a traitor to technologists. Another said I'm just in it for the money, trying to publish the first anti-Internet book. Neither of these is correct. I'm simply trying to keep the field honest. We need skepticism.

The resistance to criticism reminds me of the arrogance of nuclear engineers in the 1960s when they said, "Trust us, we know what's good for you. We will give you low-cost, high-quality electricity."

You're not saying there are dangers to the Internet equal to the dangers of nuclear energy?

Oh no ... I'd say it's much closer to the promises and reality of a highway system in the 1970s. The argument then was that high-speed roads would be good for the country, good for the cities, good for farmers, good for defense. They will bring us closer to one another. All of these promises are similar to promises of the Internet. But no one asked the obvious question: Might this highway system be bad for the country? Might it create a civilization where people waste hours everyday commuting because they have moved to the suburbs? Might the highway system make the U.S. dependent on foreign oil?

Similar grand promises were also made for television in the 1940s. They said it will inform and entertain us; it will make us a closer nation. It will be good for the family by providing a place for all of us to gather in the evening. These promises are also surprisingly similar to the promises made for the Internet. The reality is that television has helped devastate society. But no one asked the obvious question: Do we want or need television?

Do we have the choice of accepting or rejecting a new technology? Doesn't it just get thrown into our laps, and we don't find out its ills until much later, when it may be too late?

This much is certain: Unless we debate these questions in public, we move blindly. We listen to some cyberguru who says this is the way the future is, close your eyes and trust me. I don't believe in gurus. I believe in skepticism, in discussion, in public debate. It's our responsibility as citizens, as technologists, to debate where this stuff is likely to go and to ask difficult questions.

The easy questions are things like, "How will we deliver mega bandwidths into people's homes?" That's a technical question. The tough question is, "For what purpose will this be used? Will this actually help people's lives or will it be used for interactive Nintendo games? Will 500 channels of television give people a better lifestyle or might it be better to spend this money on books for libraries? Do people genuinely need and desire T-1 bandwidth Internet or might it be more important to spend that money on forests? On preserving parks?