Title: Community Computing and the Computing Community First Author: J. Michael Yohe First Author's Title: Director, Information Systems and Computing Services First Author's U.S. Mail Address (at work): University of Northern Iowa, 255 Gilchrist, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0007 First Author's Electronic Mail Address: Mike.Yohe@uni.edu First Author's Telephone number: (319) 273-2178 First Author's Fax number: (319) 273-5836 Abstract: We explore briefly the historical notion of community, and indicate how technology is changing our view of what constitutes a community. We then examine the kinds of value (information, communication and service) that can be and "ought to" be delivered over computer networks, and suggest adaptations of current network structures that could deliver these values effectively and efficiently. The focus will be on the local geographical community, and on the nature of interconnections between local communities. Finally, we consider technological and social challenges inherent in providing community computing and networking. _I.__The_Individual's_World_View_ Whatever else can be said about the universe, it is not absolute. Each of us is, in our own view, the center of it; thus it has one center; it has many centers; it has no center. The way you and I perceive the universe, or any part of it, will depend on our unique perspectives. We do not necessarily value the same things, and the value of a thing to us depends upon how it relates to us as individuals. In the highest sense, we would like to believe that Technology exists to serve people in the pursuit of higher human values such as knowledge, creativity, community, culture, integrity and wisdom. Technology is not an end in itself, but serves to empower, to connect, to enhance, and to assist. Even in that context, however, the role of technology is subject to personal interpretation. The value of the technology to an individual depends on that individual's personal goals. Such goals may be subsumed in the above list, or may be more immediate goals such as to save effort, save time, make money, exert influence, or cultivate friendships. From our individual perspective, the world can be viewed as a large onion, with the self at the core. Subsequent layers might correspond to family, neighborhood, community, area, state, region, nation, and finally world. In a narrow sense, one might think of individuals interacting within a family; families interacting within a neighborhood; neighborhoods interacting within a community, and so on. In practice, of course, the various kinds of interactions are far more complex than this; indeed, from our individual perspective, it is we, as individuals, who interact with various amalgamations of other individuals. _II.__What_Is_Community?_ When we hear of a neighborhood, many of us automatically think of some collection of homes or other living units in geographical proximity. Indeed, that is essentially the dictionary definition of neighborhood. However, technology and Fred Rogers began a redefinition of neighborhood more than a quarter century ago, and the term has come to include mental/spiritual proximity in addition to geographical proximity. Similarly, "Community" at one time tended to connote geographical proximity (city or town), although it has also been used to indicate some more tightly-focused commonality of interest as well. We are used to hearing about a "University Community" in conjunction with an institution of higher education or a "Community of Faith" in conjunction with a church. Historically, neighborhood and community have been defined in terms of geographical boundaries, technological boundaries (such as local telephone calling area), and political boundaries. More recently, new forms of community have been defined by social boundaries, technological boundaries, and experiential boundaries. What characterizes community in the modern world, then, is merely some form of interdependence: perhaps a common geographic location, or common interests, or common beliefs, or common culture, or common experience. _III.__Technology_and_Community_ Technology has fostered new forms of community by dramatically diminishing the importance of the old boundaries. Television has for years had the capacity to bring world events into our personal space in a timely and dramatic manner. However, that does not, in general, inject our person into the world space, and so does not involve us personally in a community. On the other hand, computers and particularly computer networking have had the opposite effect; they let us as individuals explore the world space and (more or less frequently) "meet" other people. This tends to make us as individuals *feel* we are a part of a community (whether or not we actually are). In any case, technological networking has dramatically decreased the importance of geographical proximity and other factors that used to be definitive of community, and has fostered the development of geographically and politically diverse communities formed around common interests, common beliefs, or common experiences. The Computing Community is at once the parent and the child of modern computing technology. _IV.__What's_Out_There?_ At times, the discussion of the marvels of "the Internet" seems to be all hyperbole and no substance. Everyone knows "the Internet" is a Good Thing, but comparatively few can provide ready examples of benefits that have accrued directly from the existence of computer networking. Many of the arguments for acquiring new technology seem to follow the Field of Dreams philosophy, "if you build it, they will come." In the case of technology, however, "they" sometimes seems to refer to nothing more than bucketsful of bits. Clearly, none of the technology is free. Equipment costs money; transportation of data costs money; and all of it occupies a great deal of effort on the part of many different people (which, after all, money was invented to represent). Somebody has to pay for all this; and that somebody is clearly the person at the center of the universe. Let us consider, then, what resources in the various layers of the universal onion might be valuable to an individual. Personal and family resources tend to be "my own" private resources. Personal computers and software, if it's perceived that this will somehow advance our progress toward our goals. If we make that investment, most likely we have some personal information that we store on our personal computer; such things as financial records, an inventory of our "stuff," family history, our embryonic best-selling novel, and so on. We may buy an encyclopedia on CD-ROM, baseball statistics, or other information of interest to us. If we see good reason, we may invest in a telephone line and a modem so we can get beyond our personal space. In all these cases, we justify these expenses to ourselves, in conjunction with our other priorities. In most cases, unlike the ones to follow, information stored on personal or family computers is not intended for public access. Neighborhood and community resources are available on many college and university campuses through the Campuswide Information Systems. These systems typically include such items as telephone directories, events calendars, policies and procedures, university catalogs, and other information for delivery, although some include facilities for applying for admission or getting a computer account. At present, neighborhood and community resources are available by network in only a few cities and towns, but the number is growing rapidly. Things such as local government services, community calendars, and telephone books are only a few of the features that could be included in such a system. The pattern of these two layers continues throughout the remaining layers of the universal onion. Each layer may add its own value (services) to the network, and one of the values each layer may add is access to other layers of other onions. So, for example, in an regional computing system, one might find access to other state computing systems within the region, in addition to access to information on regional resources such as the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois. Examples are not difficult to come by, and we will not belabor them here. Most resources at the outer layers of the onion are things that are, or have historically been, available in other forms. Telephone directories, for instance, are routinely printed and distributed for most communities (geographical and otherwise). The cost of making these resources available via network must be borne by someone, and the benefit of doing so must justify the cost. Either the individual seeking the information will pay, or the organization supplying it will. The information or service will continue to be a viable part of the network only so long as someone benefits enough to continue footing the bill. _V.__What_Is_a_Network?_ We need to distinguish between the structural network and the conceptual network. Structurally, a network consists of things to be connected together ("nodes") along with cables and electronics necessary to move signals from one node to another. In our onion model, the self can be networked to the self by a standalone computer (these are of decreasing size and increasing portability, so we will not discuss the obvious counterexample of home vs. office). In many families, a single standalone computer is adequate, although some families are connecting multiple computers together via local area networks. Connections from the family environment to other layers tend to be via telephone line and modem. While this can typically connect one with any layer, the advantages of connecting to a resource within the local calling area are, in most cases, obvious. At the neighborhood and community levels, there is a multiplicity of technologies, all different but all converging. These include telephone systems, cable TV systems, local computer networks, and, in some cases, public utilities networks and/or government networks. No simple model exists to describe connections to networks at other layers of the onion. However, conceptually, a community network might be connected to an area network, which in turn might be connected to a state network (such as the Iowa Research and Education Network, netILLINOIS, or MERIT), which in turn might be connected to a regional network (such as CICNet or MIDnet), which in turn might be connected to a national network such as NREN. The picture becomes clouded when we try to extend the model to include such commercial networks as America OnLine, Compuserv, or Prodigy; however, we believe these networks have a central role to play in the overall picture. Connections within the outer layers of the onion tend to be via lines (copper or fiber optic) leased from companies which have traditionally been telephone service carriers, though increasingly within communities the cable TV franchises operate data services, and some governments (the State of Iowa, for example) have built and are operating extensive fiber optic networks to deliver governmental services. In many cases, the outer-layer connections are subsidized by state or federal dollars. The conceptual network has little to do with the structural network. In the conceptual network, we consider nodes of "value" -- the resources (information or services) available on the network which are to be delivered to "consumer" nodes. The structural network exists and evolves to deliver the value to the consumer. _VI.__What_Should_a_Network_Do?_ Since the purpose of the network is to deliver resources to the Center of the universe, it should be incumbent on the network to deliver that information in a form the Center can use; and preferably in a form the Center wishes to use. Since there are many Centers, we need to think in terms of many modes of delivery. A few obvious ones come to mind: via telephone, using touch-tone pad; via cable TV, using remote control; via computer and modem, text interface; via computer and modem, graphical interface; via computer and modem, audio interface. Other possibilities will be invented if they do not already exist. This variety of presentation formats imposes some obvious constraints on value-providing systems: information must be stored in "universal" form; information should be stored in least complex form possible; bandwidth required to deliver information should be minimized; delivery should be adjusted to the capabilities of the Center's workstation. The Center's workstation should communicate with the network at the most fundamental level possible, since bandwidth costs money. It should be the workstation's responsibility to present the information to the Center in the desired format (text, GUI, audio, tactile, or whatever). and to accept information from the Center in the desired format (keyboard, mouse, voice recognition, joystick, eye-scan, etc.) Provision should be made, if possible, to store information locally when desired, rather than retransmitting the same information over the network. In some cases, the Center of the universe may not have a workstation capable of these tasks. In such a case, there needs to be provision for attaching the available equipment to a host machine that is capable of providing the necessary service. There is still considerable pressure to regard computer networking as an entitlement. It is our position that the cost of networking should be borne by the beneficiaries of the network. The law of supply and demand will control network traffic and result in construction of appropriate network capacity. Experience proves that "free" services tend to be used in a profligate manner. If networking is to be charged, the next question is how to charge. That subject is beyond the scope of this paper; however, there are a few constraints we feel need to be observed. Nobody should be charged for material they did not request. Those originating network traffic should pay for its transport, unless the traffic was originated at the specific request of an identifiable party, in which case that party should pay. The cost of any local storage should be borne by the party whose information is being stored unless otherwise agreed. There should be a provision for localizing frequently-retrieved information, if doing so would result in a net cost saving, and for keeping the local copy up to date once that is done. Finally, the parties operating any node should have the right to decide whether that node will absorb costs or pass those costs on to whomever causes the node to incur them. _VII.__Community_Computing_ In a very real sense, community computing began with the development of the timesharing computer in the early 1960's. A timesharing computer system created a community, and applications such as electronic mail, electronic conferencing, and "community" notices arrived relatively early in the history of timesharing systems. The UNIX operating system, which dates from about 1970, was one of the first systems to support broad-based networking. See, for example, [1]. The first campuswide information system was probably the CUINFO system at Cornell University, developed in 1982 and made interactive in 1986 [2]. Other early systems included Infosys at the University of Northern Iowa in early 1990. One of the most creative campuswide information systems is the University of Kansas LYNX system, which has evolved into a powerful internet navigational tool [3]. However, the real model for a community computing system is not a campuswide information system, but rather the full, evolving spectrum of resources and services that colleges and universities have been making available over their computer networks for many years. In 1986, Dr. Thomas Grundner inaugurated the Cleveland Free-Net, which was, as far as we know, the first municipal computing system. This project evolved into the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), and there are currently more than 30 Free-Nets, with more than 80 Free-Nets in the formative stages [4]. A typical community computing system, in this context, would contain several types of resources, loosely termed information, communications, services, and doorways. Information might include such resources as an events calendar, a directory of city and county government; library information (including, perhaps, an on-line public access catalog); civic information of the Chamber-of-Commerce type; weather information; telephone directories; emergency and crisis information; read- only bulletin boards; and perhaps even a community map. Communication resources might include suggestion boxes, electronic mail, electronic conferences, electronic conversations, and bulletin boards on which individuals could post information. All except perhaps the first of these would require participants to identify themselves, to minimize the likelihood of anonymous mischief. Services could include license renewals, building permits, bill- paying, banking, shopping, plat information, and similar activities. Again, these services could only be offered with positive identification of the participant. Doorways would include access to other community information systems and the Internet at large. Some systems could be accessed without requiring identification, but access to Internet should be through an identifiable account. A typical community computing system is topically organized. The Free-Nets are organized on a "virtual city" theme, with the Administration Building, City Hall, Public Library, Medical Center, and so on. Responsibility for maintaining the information on each segment of the information system is typically assigned to the parties "owning" the information to begin with. Most college and university campuswide information systems tend to contain public information, and the campus community computing system includes the campuswide information system as one component. Other components generally provide library access, electronic communication, internet access, and other communication, service and doorway functions. The Free-Net systems tend to be monolithic host-based systems, with escapes (if need be) to support other functions. While that was the only reasonable model a few short years ago, the recent development of Worldwide Web servers and clients and the trend toward client/server architecture makes the monolithic model much less attractive today. The Worldwide Web servers can deliver information to a variety of clients, from host-based clients driving the very dumbest terminals to Mosaic [5] clients providing graphical user interfaces and display of graphics information. Moreover, administration of an information source is considerably less complex than administration of a large user base on a host system. A Worldwide Web [6] or Gopher [7] information server can be managed almost as a spare-time activity, whereas management of a host system may require two or more full-time staff members, office space, and significant overhead costs -- particularly if customers are billed for the services they use. Electronic Mail systems are available in most communities now, through commercial services. Other services requiring customer identification can be delivered by commercial services or by client/server systems reached through network access servers or commercial host connections, with the customers being validated by the commercial systems. We agree with the Telecomm Limited study [8] that community computing must be economically viable, and we recommend migrating customer-specific services to private enterprise, and leaving civic organizations to maintain civic information and services. _VIII.__Pandora's_Box?_ We would be remiss if we did not raise issues that cause, or ought to cause, concern when we are contemplating community computing. _Social_equity_: We must do everything in our power to ensure that technological progress does not exacerbate existing social inequities or create new ones. There is a clear danger that the benefits of technology could accrue only to those who can afford access to it. Access must be as universally available as possible, and those who have even the most outdated, slowest equipment (whether at home, in school, or in business) must have reasonable access to the resources. _Cost_: The technology is not free, and those deriving benefit from the technology should, if possible, pay for their enrichment. This remark, however, must be taken in the context of the previous one. The network and the technology should not be regarded as yet another in a long and growing list of entitlements. _Copyright_: Protection of copyright and intellectual property rights has long been a problem, but computer and network technology has magnified the problem by several orders of magnitude. A couple of keystrokes is all that is now necessary to appropriate the work of someone else for submission as one's own. _Accuracy/Reliability_of_Information_: It is easier to place information on the network or read it from the network than it is to determine whether the information is accurate and/or reliable. Much information on the network has not been refereed; it is difficult to distinguish opinion from fact, and at times difficult to know the source of the information or, even if the source is known, the qualifications of the person to assert the information. Let the reader beware! _Integrity_of_Information_(network_and_local)_: How can we be sure that information, even if reliable at the source, survives its trip through the network, and that it remains intact at the destination? _Confidentiality_(network_and_local)_: How can we ensure that information is seen only by those for whom it is intended? _Privacy_: How can we ensure that our own part of the network is not invaded by unauthorized persons? _Security_(network_and_local)_: How can we ensure that only authorized persons have access to the various network components, and that mischief (such as viruses, worms, etc.) is stopped before it can cause damage? _Identification_of_Users_: How, if at all, can we ensure that persons using the network are really who they say they are? _Identification_of_Resources_: How can we ensure that particular information really comes from the indicated source or is delivered to the indicated destination? _Censorship/selection_: Who decides what information may be placed on the network? The power to select information is akin to the power of censorship; both activities can dramatically influence people's thinking on issues. _Appropriateness_of_Materials_: Who decides what materials are appropriate and what materials are inappropriate? Who resolves conflicts between the First Amendment rights and laws against obscenity, sexual harassment, intimidation, etc.? _Liability_: Who is liable for information delivered via a community computing system? The community? The operator of the system? The originator of the information? _Harassment_: How, if at all, are customers of a community computing system to be protected against harassment, intimidation, defamation, or other antisocial acts committed via the network? _IX.__Conclusion_ Like all very powerful things, community computing and computer networking is a double-edged sword. It holds great potential for good: it can create new communities, and offers the opportunity for new and enhanced personal connections. It provides a wealth of good information, and the rapid access to an almost endless array of information can save time and eliminate drudgery. At the same time, the new technology holds some potential for great harm. It can exacerbate the isolation that seems rampant in our society, by providing a mechanism for apparent, but not actual, contacts. It can allow shy people to exist in an unreal, flat world rather than joining the sometimes-uplifting, sometimes-disappointing but never-boring world of genuine human beings. It can make people susceptible to propaganda and manipulation, if they limit their world to what is delivered to their doorstep (or computer screen) It is up to us, as computer professionals, to take a leadership role, not only in developing and disseminating the technology, but in helping our society keep it in perspective, so the technology indeed is the servant, not the master, of the people. References: 1. S. R. Bourne. The UNIX System. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1983. 2. Steve Worona, Past and Future of Information Services on the Network. Presentation at: Association for Computing Machinery, Special Interest Group on University and College Computing Services, Computer Services Management Symposium XXI, March, 1994. 3. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, online information. URL= ftp://ftp2.cc.ukans.edu. 4. Private communication, National Public Telecomputing Network, Box 1987, Cleveland, Ohio 44106. 5. CERN, online information. URL= http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html 6. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, online information. URL= gopher://gopher2.tc.umn.edu 7. National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, online information. URL= http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/General/Internet/WWW/WebIntro.html 6. Teleconsult Limited. Strategic and Marketing Plan, prepared for Victoria Free-Net Association. Teleconsult Limited, Vancouver, 1994. ACM Proceedings of the ACM SIGUCCS User Services Conference XXXII October, 1994 Ypsilanti, Michigan Copyright 1994, ACM Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.