"One thing is crystal clear: nationalism was doomed the instant the Internet was organized."

So opines science fiction writer Joseph Delaney in the "letters column" of a recent issue of Analog. His assertion struck me because, while I would quibble with Delaney's terminology, it embodies a profound yet little-regarded reality of today's Internet.

My quibbles are that the Internet, as it exists today, was not "organized." Rather, it gradually coalesced from many disparate elements, and mutated into an electronic mycelial entity quite unlike anything its early nurturers could have envisioned. And, on the emotional, individual/group level, nationalism probably isn't doomed; just consider recent events in the Balkans or [insert your choice of troubled world region here]. If anything, the Internet's capacity to transcend distances - to instantly bring a part of "there" to "here" - may serve to reinforce a sense of national identity among geographically scattered expatriates.

But the fundamental essence of Delaney's assertion is sound. On a governmental/regulatory level, the Internet is doing more than any technology since television to transcend the world's artificial political barriers. And the Internet's ultimate potency will be greater than that of TV because (1) it's interactive and (2) it's less susceptible to government (or big business) interference or control.

When someone can sit in an office in Cincinnati, download a child pornography jpeg image from a server in Brussels, and pay for the download with a Tokyo bank credit card, how many (and whose) local and national laws is he breaking? If a skinhead in Berlin browses a Neo-Nazi homepage in Montana, or an apostate in Islamabad reads The Satanic Verses online, are they breaking local laws even though they didn't download the banned material? And, aside from incarcerating miscreants if their transgressions are discovered, what can the local gendarmerie do to prevent future violations?

No, the sense of nationalism won't die out soon. But national government control over the access of its citizens to "illegal" images, politically incorrect reading materials, or uncensored news is even now in critical condition. With a computer, modem, and phone line, anyone can access any information from anywhere in the world.

The obvious question is: Should the Internet be controlled? If the answer is "yes," then concomitant questions are: By whom should it be controlled? How (and to what extent) should it be controlled?

These are issues worth considering, but they beg the more fundamental questions: Can the Internet be successfully controlled? (Probably not without full consent and cooperation from governments and telecom providers around the world.) What technologies would be required? (Complicated, expensive, privacy-invading ones.) Might not the cure be worse than the disease? (That perception probably depends on which side of the political fence you sit.) And if the Internet is "controlled," what's to stop a new network from replacing it? (The price of technological progress.)

Behind one door is the lady. Behind the other, the tiger. Or maybe there's just one door, and what we find depends on our point of view.

WM. Auckerman