Rex Regnant Sed Non Gubernat

By Noam Cohen
Sunday, June 3, 2007

NEW YORK: Any modern office worker quickly learns that professing complete inadequacy is usually the best move in the presence of someone from the tech support department. The same rules, however, do not apply in public life.

The latest example of the danger of revealing technological weakness was Judge Peter Openshaw of the High Court, Queen's Branch Division, in London. While presiding over the trial of three men charged under anti-terrorism laws, he was quoted by Reuters last month as saying in open court: "The trouble is, I don't understand the language. I don't really understand what a Web site is."

The pillorying - and Wikipedia entry - came nearly instantly (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Openshaw). Not since Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, referred to the Internet as "a bunch of tubes," or President George W. Bush spoke of the "Internets," had the Web grinned so wide.

The next day, the Judiciary of England and Wales issued an extraordinary statement asserting that Openshaw's comments had been taken out of context. (Reuters, while reporting on that statement, said it "stands by its story.")

"Trial judges always seek to ensure that everyone in court is able to follow all of the proceedings," the statement said, adding that Openshaw was acting not for himself but "on behalf of all those following a case, in the interests of justice."

In case anyone was curious, the statement concluded that "Mr. Justice Openshaw is entirely computer literate and indeed has taken notes on his own computer in court for many years."

Some in the British press parsed that official explanation, wondering why the judge hadn't said explicitly that he was asking on behalf of the jury, if that is what he meant. Others came to his defense.

Alex Carlile, a member of the House of Lords, wrote in The Independent that he could attest that Openshaw had a "sharp, incisive brain often well ahead of the barristers before him. He is at ease with a computer; I have seen him taking notes on it in court, as habitually he does."

When I spoke by phone with the judiciary's press office, I suggested that the judge e-mail me his thoughts on the controversy and let the medium be the message. A spokeswoman there cast doubt on that idea, saying that the judicial e-mail system only worked internally - but she said she would relay my request. (I suppose she may have sent him an electronic message with the details, but I'd like to think a clerk wrapped the note in a ribbon and rode by carriage to the courthouse.)

I never heard back, but I have not checked with Western Union for several days.

Such tales of technological cluelessness can act as entertainment, or even provide a common folklore for the online world. But surely there is also an aspect of marking turf against "the technologically ignorant masses."

Edward Felten , a professor of computer science and public affairs at Princeton University, says it is hardly a coincidence that Internet commentators seize on slips by public officials.

"There is a widespread belief online that many politicians and policy makers don't understand the Internet well enough to regulate it," he said.

Stevens offered his description of the Internet last summer, as chairman of the committee responsible for telecommunications, commenting on the issue known as Net neutrality.

"The Internet," he said, "is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's, it's a series of tubes."

To the online activists who favor Net neutrality - the principle that high-speed Internet companies not be allowed to charge content providers for priority access - Stevens is the enemy, and an unworthy one at that. Hardly a day goes by on liberal sites like Daily Kos or Eschaton that "bunch of tubes" won't appear. On Thursday, it was prominently displayed on both.

Felten, using his authority as a computer expert, defended the senator.

"I felt the criticism had gone too far," he said, "had gone to the point of unfairness. It seemed to me that talking about the Internet as 'tubes' wasn't too far from what even some of the experts do - talking about 'pipes.' "

Felten describes himself on the Net neutrality issue as believing "there is a problem, but I don't think government can solve it." But he said his sympathy for the senator had nothing to do with a shared outlook.

Instead, he preached humility. "The Internet is pretty complicated," he said. "Nobody understands everything about how the Internet works." He then spoke about the complexity of "emergent behavior" and some other ideas I must admit I had not heard before.

When I told him that, of course the Internet was not a bunch of tubes, it was a "bunch of wires," he laughed. "Saying the Internet is a 'bunch of wires' is like saying your body is a bunch of meat."

Know-it-all.