One key point in all of this (going back to the original article about
Vint's comments) is the truism of "routing around damage" that is common
among technologists like Vint (and Avri).
What are the practical limits to routing around damage?
There are software workarounds, and then there are hardware constraints.
If the hardware is truly controlled (a central authority controls the
pipes) there is a potential to turn them from "dumb" pipes into "smart"
pipes, which can prevent software workarounds that can only operate on
higher (application) layers.
(It should be noted that it is not only governments who want to control
these pipes in a proprietary manner -- the big ISP corporations want to do
this too, and in the US they are our bigger worry regarding the
abandonment of network neutrality. In the conceptual extreme,
authoritarian governments and authoritarian corporations merge into a
single integrated public/private power elite, anyway, regardless of which
side, public or private, first gains the upper hand.)
Techies will talk about independent mesh nets -- basically, alternative
hardware that is kept open/dumb -- but this is a physical enterprise of
major proportions, even in the dreamworld of distributed infrastructure
(crowd-source the physical network, not just the software protocols). To
bring this to full fruition globally requires trans-oceanic connections,
and there was a conference not long ago considering satellite tech to
accomplish this (I hope they were talking about low-orbit, because
geosynch is not going to overcome the speed-of-light constraints). Even
with the recent successful launch by SpaceX, this does not seem practical
in the foreseeable future.
Vint's reaffirmation of the techie mantra of "If someone stops me from
communicating, I'll find a way around it" seems unduly brazen to me, even
if Google (where he works these days) has the demonstrated resources to
build its own proprietary wire-line network within the US.
Google may be able to route around damage to some extent, but then we are
dependent upon Google to "not be evil" itself. In the long run, this is
not guaranteed, and there are already many critics of Google's corporate
policies (especially in the area of personal privacy).
Bottom line: these trends toward elite control of ICT need to be fought at
all levels, wherever and whenever possible. The slippery slopes take
different forms in different places, but they are always about existing
institutional power attempting to consolidate itself increasingly
permanently and irrevocably.
Don't expect pure technical solutions to always work, without cooperation
from and integration with political and market powers. Technology *can*
be controlled by other forces, if those other forces are intent enough and
powerful enough.
Best to take the broadest and most multifaceted approach that is feasible
in any particular context. One size does not fit all, and there needs to
be maximum flexibility to respond in any and all ways that will help the
cause.
In order for Marc Perkel's vision to ring true (whether he sees himself as
"Seven-of-Nine" or the "Hive Queen" ... sorry, Star Trek "Borg" reference
there ...), the Internet has to "stay the Internet" and not be dragged
off-course by those with interests in it becoming "not the Internet"
anymore. This is by no means guaranteed, and I suspect there will
*always* be forces trying to co-opt the platform to narrow ends against
the interests of the general public. It is not automatically
self-correcting -- that ongoing correction takes great effort by a
distributed constituency beset by the greatest of all systemic obstacles:
the Collective Action Problem.
We'll have to continue to be creative, because the "incoming bogies" will
be constantly evolving, and so our response will have to evolve along with
it.
Dan
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 7:07 am, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Having spent most of my life in a country with a largely conservative
> society, I would like to share some thoughts on the issue of legislative
> action to combat moral decadence as a result of online exposure to Web
> content. A couple of months ago, an MP belonging to one of the
> ultra-conservative parties now holding a majority in the Egyptian
> parliament
> proposed a law to force local ISPs to block pornographic content in Egypt.
> Furthermore, the law (which our esteemed legislative branch of government
> has quickly voted in favour of with very little debate) goes on to allow
> the
> authorities to punish any ISPs that do not comply with the ban. Although
> the
> Egyptian Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MCIT) and
> the
> National Telecom Regulatory Authority (NTRA) are both cooperating with
> this
> new legislation, it is a very unpopular law amongst the officials who
> understand the implications (particularly concerning cost-effectiveness).
>
>
>
> http://thenextweb.com/me/2012/03/24/egyptian-government-reportedly-preparing
> -a-ban-on-internet-pornography/
>
>
>
> Last month, at the annual national ICT conference, our newly ratified NGO
> on
> Internet policy and development arranged a panel discussion. We invited
> the
> MP who proposed the law and held a debate in which it was quite obvious
> that
> he has next to no understanding about Internet policy and what it entails.
> IMHO, this individual is merely a tool following orders passed down from
> his
> party for what many believe is just a lame attempt at gaining public
> support
> on a controversial issue. However, with a closer look at the dynamics of
> Egyptian politics, this legislation is probably no more than a stepping
> stone for the powers-that-be to control the flow of information to the
> Egyptian public via the Internet, which has been (to say the least)
> extremely problematic for the former(?) ruling regime. Does any of this
> sound familiar to anyone??
>
>
>
> Over the years, I have developed what I believe to be a healthy distrust
> of
> politicians and their motives. With all due respect to others on this list
> who share my background of living in conservative societies, there are
> solutions that do not necessitate banning of content, even illegal
> content,
> on a national scale; amongst which is one that currently exists in Egypt
> to
> allow parents to locally block porn sites to their personal computers at
> home without treading on the "slippery slope" of compromises freedom of
> expression on a nation-wide scale. At least here in Egypt, this is a
> well-known fact conveniently ignored by legislators with ulterior motives.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> rusdiah
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:43 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] 'Father of the Internet' warns Web freedom is
> under attack
>
>
>
> dear all:
> some government control... for political issue... some for industry
> issue.... some for security/defence issue.. but in Indonesia somehow on
> ethical and pornography issues :-)
>
> sometimes we forget because of the scale and power of Internet that
> actually
> internet supposed to be the tools... to deliver th contents... or is it
> the
> ends.. ?
> regards, rudi rusdiah - apwkomitel - indonesia
> On 05/24/2012 09:03 AM, Kadian Davis wrote:
>
> Increasingly Governments are moving towards control of Internet Freedom.
> Freedom of expression, although debatable, is a fundamental right and is
> often the center piece of a democracy. However, Governments are sometimes
> preoccupied with finding ways to protect national security and human
> rights
> pertaining to Internet usage. I believe that the mechanisms for
> enforcement
> of copyright laws or illegal content laws through DNS filtering is
> disproportionate and is too restrictive. In total, DNS filtering
> undermines
> security on the Internet and may block legitimate content from the
> Internet.
> Therefore, this negatively impacts freedom of expression.
>
> It is important to note that the blocking of domain names does not
> actually
> remove illegal content off the Internet. As a result, there is need for
> various human right agencies within the government, private sector,
> academia
> and civil society to negotiate the terms and conditions for Internet
> Regulation. However, I believe that these agencies should have a basic
> understanding of the Internet before negotiating Internet regulation.
> Moreover, Governments need to realize that harsh regulations of the
> Internet
> may impede innovation through various ICT tools.
>
> Recently we have seen a few examples pertaining to Internet Freedom see
> below:
>
> "Iran's telecommunications ministry has barred local banks, insurance
> firms and telephone operators from using foreign-sourced emails to
> communicate with clients, a specialist weekly said on Saturday. "The
> telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names ending
> with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported." See
> http://j.mp/KDVUWK
>
> In addition, we see that India is pushing for the creation of a forum
> called
> 'Committee for Internet Related Policies' (CIRP) to develop internet
> policies, oversee all internet standards bodies and policy organizations,
> negotiate internet-related treaties and sit in judgment when
> internet-related disputes come up. The catch is that India's formal
> proposal
> is for CIRP to be funded by the U.N., run by staff from the U.N.'s
> Conference on Trade and Development arm and report directly to the U.N.
> General Assembly, which means it will be entirely controlled by the U.N.'s
> member states. See
> http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3423018.ece
>
> We can effect change let us bring these issues to the fore at the various
> (ICANN, IGF, WSIS, IETF etc) Internet Governance meetings.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kadian Davis.
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM, rusdiah <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> it is not easy talk about freedom, safety, neutrality, cybercrime, IP
> pirate, CISPA...with different interest... personal interest, national
> interest... business interest of the stakeholders ...
>
> anything that are not following somebody interest will be bad and
> sometimes
> considered as a crime ... cybercrime...
>
> "either you with me or against me....."
>
> this is the challenge for the future global dialog, not as easy during the
> period of cerf when he started the Internet everybody has one goal... ...
> regards, rudi rusdiah - apwkomitel (association of internet community -
> indonesia)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/228561-father-of-the-int
> ernet-warns-web-freedom-is-under-attack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 'Father of the Internet' warns Web freedom is under attack
>
>
> By Andrew Feinberg - 05/21/12 11:07 AM ET
>
> "Father of the Internet" Vint Cerf on Monday warned that Internet freedom
> is
> under threat from governments around the world, including the United
> States.
>
> Cerf, a computer scientist who was instrumental in the Internet's creation
> and is now employed by Google as its "Internet evangelist," said officials
> in the United States, United Kingdom and Europe are using intellectual
> property and cybersecurity issues "as an excuse for constraining what we
> can
> and can't do on the 'net."
>
>
>
> "Political structures . are often scared by the possibility that the
> general
> public might figure out that they don't want them in power," he said.
>
>
>
> He sounded the alarm about the International Telecommunications Union
> (ITU),
> arguing the group is poised to assume the role of global Internet cop.
>
> "There is strong indication that the Internet will enter the picture [for
> the ITU]," Cerf said at the Freedom to Connect conference.
>
> Cerf said the ITU is likely to try and lock in mandatory intellectual
> property protections as a backdoor for easy Web surveillance.
>
> Even good-faith efforts at Internet policymaking should be viewed with
> skepticism, Cerf said, because balancing freedom and security "isn't
> something that government alone is going to figure out."
>
> He criticized the Cybersecurity and Intelligence Protection Act (CISPA),
> legislation passed by the House to encourage companies to share
> information
> about cyber threats with the government, because it lacks "adequate
> constraints" on how the information is used.
>
> But Cerf said he has the "optimistic belief" that attempts by hostile
> governments to restrict access will be circumvented by resourceful
> engineers
> around the world.
>
> "If someone stops me from communicating, I'll find a way around it," he
> said.
>
> Cerf also urged vigilante groups such as Anonymous to stop using
> cyberattacks as a means of activism, saying the hackings are
> counterproductive.
>
> "I don't think lawlessness is our friend," he said.
>
> Ultimately, there is a legitimate role for law enforcement on the Web, he
> said, adding that "it would be bad for us as a community to say . that all
> the good things outweigh the bad."
>
> "That's not a credible position to take," he said.
>
> Cerf said activists and regulators alike harm themselves by using terms
> like
> "cybercrime" because they suggest that "every bad thing that happens on
> the
> Internet is a crime."
>
> "Some are just bugs," Cerf said, while suggesting a better goal for
> policymakers should be "cybersafety."
>
> --
> Kadian Davis
>
> "Mark the blameless man, and observe the upright; For the future of that
> man
> is peace" Psalm 37:37.
>
>
>
>
|
