> 2. Communication and publication can’t be censored. Wikileaks, the Arab Spring, and Snowden’s revelations all depend on governments being unable to prevent mass dissemination of information.
I'm a little scared that if things are allowed to continue, the NSA will get such deep level access to the web, that they will be able to censor information anywhere, in real time. They already say they want to be the "anti-virus of the Internet" or something along those lines. If they will ever be able to do what they claim now, then they'll probably be able to censor information, too.
I don't know if they actually have that capability or not, but at least that's what they say when they lobby the government for new laws and bigger budgets.
So think about what happened in DoD, where they said employees can't read TheGuardian because their computers don't have the clearance level required to learn about those things. Now extend that to the world (given that they have the capability).
How hard would it be for them to say "sorry, world Internet users - you don't have the required clearance level to view those leaked documents", and censor the information for everyone. What happened with the Snowden leaks now, simply won't be possible anymore in the future, if their power over the Internet becomes that great.
Indeed, real-time data mining is very interesting, however real-time data manipulation is far more sinister. Imagine for a moment if the middle eastern governments could "detect" when an Arab Spring is happening and they had systems that would autonomously respond by (for example) spreading propaganda and censoring popular pages.
The anti-virus comparison is a misnomer as it stands to reason that such systems would be more akin to intrusion detection systems (IDSs) or intrusion prevention systems (IPSs) that are actively monitoring and isolating certain system resources and services.
The UK Government has already considered shutting down Twitter when it needs to [1] and I Think it's common knowledge that certain cell towers are turned off when a local hot spot of political action pops up (Occupy).
If you remove a person's ability to access information, that's the same as censorship.
While scary, I think such a system is a long ways off. It's one thing to siphon raw bits flowing through an IXP for later analysis, and another entirely to censor specific pieces of content based on keywords(assuming of course you can't or don't want to simply censor entire domains). It would require a pretty cozy relationship between government and telecoms(already in place in some countries, of course) in the form of some staff to keep afoot of new content that may need to be censored. Automating that part implies that the government would have a list of sensitive, potentially damning subjects that are not publicly known in order to preemptively censor them.
Replacing that content with propaganda would be even more complex(and potentially vulnerable to discovery).
> I'm a little scared that if things are allowed to continue, the NSA will get such deep level access to the web, that they will be able to censor information anywhere, in real time.
Instead of actively censoring or manipulating information, I imagine they could certainly just make it go away.
Let's say you an I are emailing or texting back and forward about a particular leak or topic, surely the NSA could make some of those emails/texts never be delivered, thus severing our line of communication. If they were picky about this, I would just think you never replied, not that someone was manipulating our communication channel.
One thing I think worth highlighting is the opening sentence. It is true that the internet and the government have been conflicting in various ways from the get-go. In point 11 he talks about the differences between industry inside knowledge and government's framework for reasoning about tech lacking in several ways. I think there is also an interesting intersection of the public's framework for reasoning about both government and the internet that is finally starting to be a stress point. Only in the last few of years have we seen the general public starting to become aware of how much government (non)action in the internet space is a big deal.
Recent stories on the NSA, Snowden, Manning, etc, and the Arab Spring have really pushed the awareness of government actions in the internet into the general public awareness. I remember previous things like DMCA and ECTRA did not make a real blip on the general public's radar. More recently however, things like SOPA were heavily discussed outside of tech circles.
Public discourse is really a place we should make our industry insider status heard as much as to/within government, and now is the time it matters.
Amusingly, the inverse is also true: more political articles have been finding their way to HN lately, because suddenly general political discourse is extremely intertwined with internet policy and tech issues.
I suppose this article puts into words something that I (and I suspect many others) 'feel' without articulating: That we're a global community now and I can't possibly think any other way now†. The things that happen in America or Syria or Egypt or New Zealand or Australia affect me emotionally and they feel personal. They affect me because the web makes me feel like the person who's experience or opinion I an listening to is my neighbour. On the Internet, Syria is a few doors down from my house.
And I think this is a good thing. We all individually exist on a web in which we are all compatible. But we live on a planet of nation states that are incompatible with each other. And if anything had to change in this scenario, I would personally rather see the nation states disappear.
But then (in my opinion) there do need to be laws, and there has to be a model for those laws. So now there's another problem, whose ideals and morality should win out? The USA's? The UK's? China's?
The fact that the web is largely lawless is what I think makes it work. So perhaps the global community can prescribe it's own laws. But this is getting off my point. My point is, perhaps it should be less about "how governments control the web" and more about "How do we transition to a world without governments".
If I'm right in that thinking, the web is not just a threat to nasty nations, it's a threat to the good ones too (if there are any). If there is a transition from nation states to a planet unified by the web, with a governance that is an emergent property of the web, then there will be pain associated with that transition. But considering the shit we put up with these days, I think it's a price worth paying.
† If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor.
> And if anything had to change in this scenario, I would personally rather see the nation states disappear.
I'd agree with you here, but what I'm afraid is that with the absence of modern nation-states, we'd get a fewer number of more centralized political institutions, rather than moving towards the ideal of more numerous decentralized and autonomous polities.
When you say:
> And I think this is a good thing. We all individually exist on a web in which we are all compatible.
I get what you're going for here, but there's a great danger that this could be misinterpreted as a call for universalism, as some sort of idea that everyone's the same and distinctions should all be flattened or ignored. If we treat the world as an open space within which we can coordinate our own ad-hoc communities and polities based on mutual compatibility, where it exists, without being constrained by artificial boundaries, we'll all be better off.
But if we don't have the facility for mapping out and adhering to natural social boundaries that emerge from manifest differences in worldviews, values, intentions, and ambitions, then we'll end up with lots of incompatible ambitions attempting to realize themselves in the same space, and that can only lead to stasis and conflict.
> whose ideals and morality should win out?
Everyone's. If the interconnected world isn't a platform in which everyone can construct their lives on the basis of their own values, and evolve new communities whose boundaries are defined by something more substantive than mere geographical proximity, then it just becomes an impetus to all-or-nothing conflict, which will surely ruin the world for everyone.
> we'd get a fewer number of more centralized political institutions, rather than moving towards the ideal of more numerous decentralized and autonomous polities.
I don't agree with you on that point I'm afraid. There is nothing more corrupt than local politics. Backhanders, bribes, virtually no transparency. I personally prefer to have my politicians in one place where a lot of people can keep an eye on them. Here in the UK, when I see people campaigning for devolution, or independence, I can't help but wonder who is going to keep an eye on these smaller, more secretive and ultimately more powerful political terror cells. I wouldn't look after a hundred kittens by having them scattered all over the place in pods of five. It would be an unmanageable task and they'd run riot.
If you start start with the assumption that every politician will abuse their power, you will a) probably be right and b) have to think differently about how best you can efficiently keep track of thousands of them.
When you describe "a platform in which everyone can construct their lives on the basis of their own values, and evolve new communities whose boundaries are defined by something more substantive than mere geographical proximity" I can't help but think think of African Warlords who have done exactly that, and it's horrific.
There must be free and fair debate, there must be the opportunity for everyone to participate equally in that debate and most importantly everyone should have a say in the administering the decisions that impact on their life. Take for example the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran etc. Their lives literally hang in the balance based on US elections, and yet they have no say in those elections. That is not fair. It is not right. I could argue that people in the middle east have a bigger right to vote in US elections because they are at greater risk form those election results, but i'd settle for them at least having an equal say as everyone else.
Your idea is essentially just a lot of smaller nation states acting in their own blinkered interests, which is the worse than what we already have. People will behave badly. People will give way to hatred. People will cheat and lie and steal and murder. And while I don't endorse a world governed by paranoia about these things, I do endorse a world where we all get an equal say in how we react to these things.
I'm not trying to aggressively shoot your comment down, so please don't imagine me sat at the other side of the internet hammering out an angry rebuttal, I thank you for taking the time to put your view out there, but we do have a clear difference of opinion and we shouldn't shy away from that. I hope I've raised my counter view with respect to you, even if I don't see the logic in your worldview.
> I don't agree with you on that point I'm afraid. There is nothing more corrupt than local politics.
There's nothing more corrupt than politics. The great thing about local politics is that localities are small; excessively corrupt politics in one locality can be avoided by dealing with another locality instead, or by playing multiple polities off against each other. Centralization means less variation: no other centers of authority to turn to when the one you're dealing with goes bad, and no gaps between poles of authority to retreat to when nothing is working right.
> Backhanders, bribes, virtually no transparency.
Except for the level of transparency that clues you in to the fact that corruption is happening in the first place. The difference between local and global is in scale and distance: corruption in larger-scale and more distant institutions is harder to discover, but it's silly to suggest that the complex of motivations and incentives that generate corruption close by aren't likewise present further away.
> I can't help but wonder who is going to keep an eye on these smaller, more secretive and ultimately more powerful political terror cells.
That's the beauty of having multiple centers of power in a society - they all keep each other in check far more effectively than the public at large can keep a single, centralized institution in check.
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" is a question applicable to all political systems, but it becomes more difficult to answer, not less so, as political systems become more centralized and authoritative.
> If you start start with the assumption that every politician will abuse their power
Well, if you don't start with the more basic assumption that, given the opportunity, some people will abuse others, then what's the justification for empowering any political state in the first place? If it's actually possible to construct our relationships so as to minimize or eliminate the possibility of abuse, then we don't need politics; if it isn't possible to do that, then politics itself will be susceptible to the same flaws as any other human institution.
The solution to this dilemma is to realize that (a) it is possible to formulate our interactions so as to minimize the likelihood and mitigate the impact of abuse, and that (b) the way to accomplish that is with more opportunities for exit, so we can disassociate from and insulate ourselves against abusers. Centralization of power reduces opportunities for exit, and mere voice isn't a sufficient substitute.
> I can't help but think think of African Warlords who have done exactly that, and it's horrific.
I've no idea what you're referring to. Warlordism is, by definition, a repudiation of the principles I'm articulating here. Warlords aren't typically interested in protecting a varied and dynamic civil society against abuses of concentrated power; they're typically interested in concentrating power for themselves, and subordinating others to themselves.
> everyone should have a say in the administering the decisions that impact on their life.
No; again, mere voice isn't enough. People must have the right to opt out and to reclaim responsibility for making those decisions, limited only by the boundaries between their lives and others'.
> Your idea is essentially just a lot of smaller nation states acting in their own blinkered interests
My "idea" consists of the empirical recognition that every particular grouping of human beings, no matter how ad-hoc or ephemeral, is effectively a society unto itself, and that the members of each group have the natural right to define the nature of their mutual interactions within that context without being subjected to manipulation by others outside of it.
The use of law - not policy - can function as a failsafe mechanism to prevent disputes from spilling out of their native contexts and harming third parties, or escalating into life-or-death conflicts, but that depends on law not being perverted into a system of active preemptive control over society. The century-long experiment in gradually replacing common law and equity with statutory policy and regulatory bureaucracy has been a clear failure, and one that demonstrably undermined the ability of law to function for its intended purpose.
> world where we all get an equal say in how we react to these things.
You envision a world of continuous, irresolvable conflict, then, as people with drastically different values attempt to realize them by having an "equal say" in a singular undifferentiated conceptual "space".
The real way to enable stability and prosperity in a highly diverse and complex world is precisely to protect people's ability to differentiate their own conceptual "space", as distinct from others, and to allow them maximum control over their own lives within that space, and minimum control over others'.
> but we do have a clear difference of opinion and we shouldn't shy away from that.
Well, that's the crux of it, isn't it? The existence of this very disagreement demonstrates that universal solutions to problems aren't attainable, and attempting them causes the exact sort of escalation of conflict that we've thankfully avoided thus far precisely because - this being a merely academic discussion on the internet - neither of us is in a position to impose our own preferences on the other.
I've not ignored your comment, I've actually been thinking about it quite a lot for the past few days. Can you give me a concrete example of the kind of thing you're thinking about?
This page has a decent map giving a gauge of just how much censorship is judged to be happening in a given location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_by_country ... along with a plethora of details about each country's activities. There's a link to a full page for each country, and -- sadly -- it's too much to even try summarizing here.
What's troubling is that the censorship is not decreasing, but increasing. Technologies to get around it are improving, sure, but the technologies to censor in the first places are spreading and improving as well.
The point is - there's no certainty that eventually free speech on the internet will prevail and censors (or even a fraction of them) will give up.
People who spend a lot of time working with and thinking about the Internet, and not a lot of time working with and thinking about government, often fall victim to the delusion that the Internet somehow "changes everything."
It's not true in the slightest. Governments have consolidated, maintained, and lost power since the dawn of civilization. They have marshaled popular support, quashed dissenters, and brutalized their enemies. They have taken major societal changes (Industrial Revolution, advent of firearms, invention of broadcast media) and harnessed them for the perpetuation of their own power.
Governments will continue to use their central power, the power of violence, to maintain the general framework under which their power endures. The Internet won't change that at all.
I think this is THE crucial point - as long as governments have a monopoly on violence / physical force, the power of the Internet is a mere sliver in comparison.
If you're interested in this subject further I suggest you pick up 'Networks and States' by Martin Mueller, 2010, MIT Press. I can't recommend this book enough for anyone interested in understanding how the internet is transforming our idea of the nation state.
None of it's really new, or insightful (as the author himself points out), but it is a nice gathering of thoughts on the matter, useful given the recent heavy inclusion of internet in public policy issues, and it's importance to average people's usage of the internet.
I'm a little scared that if things are allowed to continue, the NSA will get such deep level access to the web, that they will be able to censor information anywhere, in real time. They already say they want to be the "anti-virus of the Internet" or something along those lines. If they will ever be able to do what they claim now, then they'll probably be able to censor information, too.
I don't know if they actually have that capability or not, but at least that's what they say when they lobby the government for new laws and bigger budgets.
So think about what happened in DoD, where they said employees can't read TheGuardian because their computers don't have the clearance level required to learn about those things. Now extend that to the world (given that they have the capability).
How hard would it be for them to say "sorry, world Internet users - you don't have the required clearance level to view those leaked documents", and censor the information for everyone. What happened with the Snowden leaks now, simply won't be possible anymore in the future, if their power over the Internet becomes that great.