This is a clear case where we see the idea that governments should represent the will of their citizens break down completely. Every power structure serves its own needs first. In areas where the interest of governmental systems and the citizens are in alignment, democracy can work - but when there is a conflict between the will of a power structure to extend its power and influence and the desires of the citizens, governments almost invariably choose to serve their own systemic interests.
Internet censorship is a dramatic example of this. Even in democratic societies with large majorities in favor of free communication over the internet, the internal imperatives of governments to monitor and control trump the will of the people, no matter who is in power. In the matter of desiring to be able to read everyone's email, the governments of the world are in nearly unanimous alliance against their own citizens.
Counter argument: why do you want to allow gay-married Muslim homosexual commies to sneak into our country and piss on our burning flag after taking our jobs and blowing up our kindergartens? Is that what you want? puppy-AIDS and Sharia law?
The link doesn't actually provide any information. It's only waving it's hands in my face and telling me that I should be angry, telling me that a lot of different things are connected, and telling me that certain people are so inherently bad that anything they do or say is bad. That's not information, that's indoctrination.
Of course, some jackhole will tell me that I must be horribly uninformed if my knee doesn't jerk like theirs. I don't think any answer to that will suffice for someone who feels that way (Q:"How can you not be driven into a frothing rage about the 'kill switch bill'?" A:"I actually read it.") but at least consider that I was actively seeking information when I clicked on the link and was disappointed to find instead a glittering call to action based on interpretations I don't share, punching at emotional triggers that I don't have.
Hi GHFigs. I'm sorry you feel that way about the link I submitted to g8internet.com . I agree the "call" itself at http://g8internet.com/call-for-creative-action/ issued by FAT Lab, Free Culture Forum, Chaos Computer Club, Boing Boing and others provides little information. One reason there is little information is that the G8 is not the most transparent institution and much of their discussions and decisions are behind closed doors (not say, streamed live on the web).
In the future, more links will likely be posted so if this is an issue that concerns you, you might consider bookmarking the site (which I am unaffiliated with).
Like I said, the G8 is not extremely forthcoming with what they plan to do and it is unclear to what extent the information they do release should be trusted. And so we have opinion pieces where people watching the general anti-democratic trend of certain G8 decisions express caution at allowing them to control the internet.
This article is a sensationalist piece with very little content, the HN headline is misleading (the words "tax" and "monitor" do not appear anywhere on the target webpage), and the comments are impassioned soapbox generalizations.
but i share the concerns of mr. spivack in the 2nd link.
At first sight the conference seems a perfectly valid event about the internet at this moment. But Sarkozy is not a person who takes privacy very seriously.
haberman, you say the article is a sensationalist piece with very little content but I'd like to point out that the site linked to is more than a single blog post. Included are links to Boing Boing comments and discussion as well as links to pieces in newspapers in France and Italy.
This article, posted to g8internet.com, from the Italian newspaper la Republicca, by internet reporter Arturo Di Corinto, provides more detailed arguments and a generous use of footnotes and citations - http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2011/05/01/news/sarkozy_...
Hopefully more pieces like that will be found and added to the growing repository at the site.
As far as headline, I took that from an article by Dominic Basulto which I submitted separately here - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2581175 - apologies for any confusion.
"The printing press allowed the people to read. The Internet will allow them to write." Benjamin Bayart, acting president of French Data Network (non-profit French ISP).
There was a time where a reading populace was the bane of the powerful. Now we are beginning to have a writing populace. This means the doom of current power structures, should they let it happen. The fact they try hard not to doesn't surprise me at all. (Though I am ashamed of my government right now.)
Cyberterrorism is a bullshit argument. If you don't want your machines to be attacked from the Internet, don't connect them to the Internet. In fact, governments and big companies already do this!
At work, we have an IP network called BARONET. It's like the Internet except it's not. There is a bridge on one machine that proxies HTTP requests from this network to the Internet. There are no routes to the Internet.
This significantly reduces the possibility of "cyberattacks", since you'll have to go through that proxy box. (Which probably runs Windows, but hey... if you actually cared about security, you wouldn't do that. The rest of the idea is good.)
Many years ago I worked on a secure system that comprised a Sun running the webserver, connected over a 9-pin RS232 serial cable to another box running Windows 95, on which the secure part of the system ran, which was in turn connected via an ISDN line to some mainframe somewhere. I've never heard of a case of Windows being compromised via the serial port!
The trouble with this kind of thing from the perspective of government is that not everybody who runs important things does it. Those that do may not always do it well, and if they don't, there generally isn't anyone in government with the expertise or responsibility to tell them things like "if you actually cared about security, you wouldn't do that".
The other problem with it is anthropomorphic Stuxnet, which giggles like a schoolgirl when anyone says there's no route to the Internet.
This in accord with the emerging counterforce of various anonymous networking projects that are reaching the state of being usable. These networks are likely to evolve to the point where, instead of using proxies and non-standard protocols, the users actually access a regular IPv6 subnet that simply uses the onion-routed private network such as Phantom or I2P as the carrier.
I say IPv6 because nearly all operating systems do support IPv6 even if it's barely used these days; the address space is big so the addresses can probably be used to store some routing or clustering hints that make the onion network more efficient; and if all you have is an anonymous IPv6 address that isn't directly related to any physical connection then monitoring, governing, controlling and taxing becomes pretty difficult.
In a few years maybe, if Linux distributions shipped with such a client by default and you could download such a "network driver" for Windows to enable you to communicate and share with your friends in a private manner, the userbase will suddenly consist of so many nodes that the lack of performance and content-scarcity of the current anonymous networks will likely become history.
I agree that even the Great Firewall of China can easily be beaten by simply using Tor, however, it is now our democratic duty to prevent this from becoming a necessity in the western world.
It's my understanding that the Internet is structured in such a way that this kind of thing is impossible unless there is a massive buy in of all involved countries.
I very much prefer the Internet raw and unfiltered. I know enough to know which sites I like and which I don't.
Furthermore, the Internet is an expression of the human condition, and as such it is itself art, and should not be censored for this reason as well.
We already have enough trouble with ICE seizing domains
Funny how these thoughts don't come up with phone networks, when the Internet could theoretically run via modems over phone networks. It's pretty clear that the unbridled, egalitarian power the Internet offers ordinary people is a scary concept to hierarchical power structures.
Btw nice thought with the Internet being art, but it might be a bit of a stretch in realpolitik terms.
I really don't understand people who come with such propositions. When life is so short, yet the possibilities of freedom limitless, why would you choose to be anything else other than free?
They are free, they just dont want you to have that freedom, and also some people enjoy having power over others. They think that power gives them more freedom.
Every time such thoughts come up, I am reminded of how difficult it is to bring the world to a consensus. Easier said than done, it's pretty comfortable putting a regulation on paper but bringing it to practice can take a toll. Internet regulation does not stop at content policing and stopping malicious activities, it rather extends to creating difficulties in doing online business globally and taking a toll on innovation. China is regulated; how many websites coming to China from outside do a successful business there (enlighten me)! I really doubt if all the members would agree for such pact at the cost of business and innovation; unless there is a pressure from corporates (anon attack on master and visa).
"how many websites coming to China from outside do a successful business there (enlighten me)!" : and that's exactly the purpose. They don't want no pesky foreigners owning communication businesses. Remove the 'from outside' & you're talking about something totally different though: massive inernal internet stories do exist.
Why is everyone suddenly up in arms about the internet losing its freedom and being regulated? How is this any different from every other service that exists?
The internet is the shining last example of true liberty - it CAN work - and yet everyone seems to think that the world would go into chaos if everything wasn't heavily regulated. Where does this assumption come from? The internet is super prosperous because of this freedom. Why do people assume regulation is the best answer, when evidence indicates otherwise?
Here we go again. It's 2011 and our governments still don't understand the Internet. They don't understand that it's way bigger than them. They don't understand that it's not possible to monitor, govern, control, tax it, simply because it's so cheap and simple to circumvent any of these measures and there's plenty of motivation to do so.
Tell Chinese government how impossible it is to control the internet. The Great Firewall of China (GFC) is advancing very fast. Just a few years ago even an unencrypted proxy abroad would do the trick, and yet most people did not know how to set it up and did not care enough to find out. Nowadays even VPNs and SSH tunnels are commonly blocked. It is not trivial to bypass the GFC and it is only getting harder by the time.
> They don't understand that it's not possible to monitor, govern, control, tax it, simply because it's so cheap and simple to circumvent any of these measures and there's plenty of motivation to do so.
Actually, it is trivial to do all those things. You forget that govt controls access to bit transport.
The hard part is allowing extensive "appropriate" access and denying those things, but with limited appropriate access.....
If govt has a choice between doing what it wants and allowing you extensive access, what do you think will win?
How is it that we, who have built the free internet, are letting them, who stood in its path on every turn, take control? Why aren't hackers in positions of power?
The corporations, rich and powerful want (at least the illusion) of full control over the communication channels so they can prevent honest people from organizing en masse and rising up. What is happening here in Madrid is a first for this country: http://www.tvspain.tv/blog/?p=3026
I don't know what you're smoking if you think "the corporations" have even 0.1% of the power of your own democratically elected government. Who has all the guns in your country? I bet it's not the phone company...
[+] [-] mycroftiv|15 years ago|reply
Internet censorship is a dramatic example of this. Even in democratic societies with large majorities in favor of free communication over the internet, the internal imperatives of governments to monitor and control trump the will of the people, no matter who is in power. In the matter of desiring to be able to read everyone's email, the governments of the world are in nearly unanimous alliance against their own citizens.
[+] [-] gizzlon|15 years ago|reply
Do you have any data to back this up?
My guess is that if you frame it the right way, most people would vote for censoring the Internet
[+] [-] mahmud|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GHFigs|15 years ago|reply
Of course, some jackhole will tell me that I must be horribly uninformed if my knee doesn't jerk like theirs. I don't think any answer to that will suffice for someone who feels that way (Q:"How can you not be driven into a frothing rage about the 'kill switch bill'?" A:"I actually read it.") but at least consider that I was actively seeking information when I clicked on the link and was disappointed to find instead a glittering call to action based on interpretations I don't share, punching at emotional triggers that I don't have.
[+] [-] keane|15 years ago|reply
However, the point of the link was not just to be to the call for action. The site itself, as you'll see if you scroll down, is meant as a collection of information. Links posted so far and found on the site include the following: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/17/fight-back-against-s.ht... (English) http://alt1040.com/2011/05/e-g8-la-balcanizacion-del-interne... (Spanish) http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2011/05/01/news/sarkozy_... (Italian) http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2011/05/16/manife... (French)
In the future, more links will likely be posted so if this is an issue that concerns you, you might consider bookmarking the site (which I am unaffiliated with).
Like I said, the G8 is not extremely forthcoming with what they plan to do and it is unclear to what extent the information they do release should be trusted. And so we have opinion pieces where people watching the general anti-democratic trend of certain G8 decisions express caution at allowing them to control the internet.
If you prefer to read euphemisms discussing what will take place during the talks ("the promotion of human rights and democratic freedoms"), consider the official site - http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/g8/english/priorities-for-franc...
[+] [-] chopsueyar|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haberman|15 years ago|reply
This is HN at its worst.
[+] [-] rivd|15 years ago|reply
two more articles about the event:
http://www.businessinsider.com/eg8-france
http://www.novaspivack.com/technology/the-e-g8-forum-unveile...
but i share the concerns of mr. spivack in the 2nd link. At first sight the conference seems a perfectly valid event about the internet at this moment. But Sarkozy is not a person who takes privacy very seriously.
[+] [-] keane|15 years ago|reply
This article, posted to g8internet.com, from the Italian newspaper la Republicca, by internet reporter Arturo Di Corinto, provides more detailed arguments and a generous use of footnotes and citations - http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2011/05/01/news/sarkozy_...
Hopefully more pieces like that will be found and added to the growing repository at the site.
As far as headline, I took that from an article by Dominic Basulto which I submitted separately here - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2581175 - apologies for any confusion.
[+] [-] loup-vaillant|15 years ago|reply
There was a time where a reading populace was the bane of the powerful. Now we are beginning to have a writing populace. This means the doom of current power structures, should they let it happen. The fact they try hard not to doesn't surprise me at all. (Though I am ashamed of my government right now.)
[+] [-] jrockway|15 years ago|reply
At work, we have an IP network called BARONET. It's like the Internet except it's not. There is a bridge on one machine that proxies HTTP requests from this network to the Internet. There are no routes to the Internet.
This significantly reduces the possibility of "cyberattacks", since you'll have to go through that proxy box. (Which probably runs Windows, but hey... if you actually cared about security, you wouldn't do that. The rest of the idea is good.)
[+] [-] gaius|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GHFigs|15 years ago|reply
The other problem with it is anthropomorphic Stuxnet, which giggles like a schoolgirl when anyone says there's no route to the Internet.
[+] [-] yason|15 years ago|reply
I say IPv6 because nearly all operating systems do support IPv6 even if it's barely used these days; the address space is big so the addresses can probably be used to store some routing or clustering hints that make the onion network more efficient; and if all you have is an anonymous IPv6 address that isn't directly related to any physical connection then monitoring, governing, controlling and taxing becomes pretty difficult.
In a few years maybe, if Linux distributions shipped with such a client by default and you could download such a "network driver" for Windows to enable you to communicate and share with your friends in a private manner, the userbase will suddenly consist of so many nodes that the lack of performance and content-scarcity of the current anonymous networks will likely become history.
[+] [-] mahrain|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rawsyntax|15 years ago|reply
I very much prefer the Internet raw and unfiltered. I know enough to know which sites I like and which I don't.
Furthermore, the Internet is an expression of the human condition, and as such it is itself art, and should not be censored for this reason as well.
We already have enough trouble with ICE seizing domains
[+] [-] yid|15 years ago|reply
Btw nice thought with the Internet being art, but it might be a bit of a stretch in realpolitik terms.
[+] [-] knieveltech|15 years ago|reply
I was going to come up with a more level-headed and well reasoned response here, but I guess the first bit really sums it up.
There are days where I wonder if Academia didn't have the right idea with Internet 2.0. Whatever happened with that anyway?
[+] [-] elehack|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lallysingh|15 years ago|reply
We're pretty dependent on the results of this 'civilizing' process in most every other aspect of life, why's it so surprising when it's applied here?
[+] [-] etherael|15 years ago|reply
Time to grab the popcorn.
[+] [-] plainOldText|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tintin|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FlowerPower|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uast23|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] c1sc0|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natmaster|15 years ago|reply
Why is everyone suddenly up in arms about the internet losing its freedom and being regulated? How is this any different from every other service that exists?
The internet is the shining last example of true liberty - it CAN work - and yet everyone seems to think that the world would go into chaos if everything wasn't heavily regulated. Where does this assumption come from? The internet is super prosperous because of this freedom. Why do people assume regulation is the best answer, when evidence indicates otherwise?
I'm seriously at a loss here.
[+] [-] DrJokepu|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vabole|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anamax|15 years ago|reply
Actually, it is trivial to do all those things. You forget that govt controls access to bit transport.
The hard part is allowing extensive "appropriate" access and denying those things, but with limited appropriate access.....
If govt has a choice between doing what it wants and allowing you extensive access, what do you think will win?
[+] [-] cyrus_|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hoggle|15 years ago|reply
My sympathies to all the Royal & Mitterrand voters - seems like Sarkozy is rapidly becoming the new G.W. Bush.
[+] [-] CWuestefeld|15 years ago|reply
Nah. Barack Obama is already the new GWBush. So Sarkozy must be the new Obama. Or something like that.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. [1]
[1] http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/csimiami/wontgetfooledagain.h...
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] patrickg|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rizumu|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gaius|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seymores|15 years ago|reply