首页> 外文会议>IFIP WG 9.7 international conference on histories of computing in eastern Europe;IFIP world computer congress >From CoCom to Dot-Com: Technological Determinisms in Computing Blockades, 1949 to 1994
【24h】

From CoCom to Dot-Com: Technological Determinisms in Computing Blockades, 1949 to 1994

机译:从CoCom到Dot-Com:1949年至1994年的计算机技术封锁中的技术决定论

获取原文

摘要

The well-known restrictions on exports of computing equipment to the USSR and its allies at the end of the cold war had a curious history. Although the legacy of CoCom is that it seems natural to restrict technology from potential belligerents, it is difficult to determine the policy's efficacy. Started as a corollary to the plan to rebuild Europe after World War II, CoCom originally had nothing to do with computers. High-profile failures brought the usefulness of the economic blockade into question at the same time a new academic definition of technology became popular: technology is not just a material device, but it is also a means of getting something done. Computers were at the center of the quandary: does a device provide an inevitable strategic advantage, or is it the innovation culture that surrounds the device what needs protection? What is more, protecting the institutionalized knowledge from antagonists would require reducing the openness of the academic and scientific institutions that had provided innovation in the first place. When the personal computing revolution was underway, the computing embargo was at the forefront of CoCom, even though PCs had not been prominent at its inception. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the USSR, it might seem as if CoCom had been successful, yet contemporary critics and practitioners think otherwise. The determinism that underwrote CoCom then operated in reverse: policies granting access to computing networks were imagined to inevitably bring about cultural and political changes. The failure of CoCom to achieve a meaningful hindrance to technology and the unintended consequences of its implementation failed to make an impact in the political arena, but the lessons about technology transfer grained from the evaluation of the embargo deserve greater attention to guide policy today.
机译:冷战结束时众所周知的限制向苏联及其盟国出口计算机设备的历史令人好奇。尽管CoCom的遗产是似乎很自然地限制了潜在交战方的技术,但是很难确定该政策的效力。作为第二次世界大战后重建欧洲计划的必然结果,CoCom最初与计算机无关。备受瞩目的失败使经济封锁的有效性受到质疑,与此同时,新的技术学术定义变得流行:技术不仅是一种物质手段,而且还是一种完成工作的手段。计算机是难题的中心:设备是否提供了不可避免的战略优势,还是设备周围的创新文化需要保护?而且,要保护制度化知识免受敌手的攻击,就需要减少首先提供创新的学术和科学机构的开放性。当个人计算机革命进行时,即使PC在成立之初并不突出,但计算机禁运一直处于CoCom的最前沿。随着柏林墙的倒塌和苏联的解体,CoCom似乎成功了,但当代的批评家和实践者却持相反的看法。当时支持CoCom的决定论反过来运作:人们认为授予访问计算网络的政策不可避免地带来了文化和政治变革。 CoCom未能实现对技术的有意义的障碍以及其实施带来的意想不到的后果未能在政治舞台上产生影响,但禁运评估中有关技术转让的经验教训值得今天进一步指导政策。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号