NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] "Let Them Eat Bits": How We Can Save Freedom On the Internet
"Let Them Eat Bits": How We Can Save Freedom On the Internet
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000857.html
I wish I had thought of it first. A few weeks ago when I wrote my
"Censorship, Governments, and Flagellating Google" white paper
( http://j.mp/l9SKEU [Lauren's Blog] ), I spent some time trying to
think of an appropriate image to accompany that essay, but nothing
really struck home.
But today "Ars Technica" ran an article regarding French King ...
oops, I mean French President Sarkozy (at the current e-G8 meeting
next door to the Louvre) and his desires to "civilize" the Internet
( http://j.mp/jsLoeM ). Included with that article was a graphic of
what I'd call an EtherFlogger ( http://j.mp/klhODK [Lauren's Blog] ).
That was the imagery I was looking for. Man, those connectors must sting!
Despite the fact that I write and speak a great deal about technical
issues -- after all, my original background is techie in nature -- I'm
actually of the opinion that most Internet technical issues will tend
to be worked out over time.
Matters get much more complicated when dealing with policy issues
though, and especially the intersections of policy and technology
concerns.
Net Neutrality issues are an example of this, where the related
controversies can be significantly viewed in some respects as the
results of real (or artificially induced) bandwidth limitations and
associated anticompetitive environments.
But even topics as contentious as Net Neutrality are likely to be
dealt with successfully in the end, either through regulation,
bandwidth increases, or some combination of both. Coordination and
sensible international regulatory harmonization -- of often widely
disparate rules regarding the implementation of opt-in vs. opt-out and
cookie management for example -- could go far to ease the "Mad Hatter"
landscape that currently exists for Web services operating
internationally.
Undoubtedly though, the most significant threats to the Internet that
are now in focus are attempts to -- for all practical purposes --
change the Internet from the greatest tool for individual empowerment
ever created by humanity, into a weapon for societal control ruled
from above by an unholy alliance of powerful governments and
entertainment industry interests.
The work products of this chimera take different aspects in various
parts of the world.
Around the planet, government pushes for encryption controls and
extended-period user activity data retention are widespread.
In the U.S., Senator Patrick Leahy's abominable and dangerous PROTECT IP
Act -- that could criminalize mere linking and search engine
results -- is rushing forward with widespread bipartisan support,
demonstrating the depth to which traditional entertainment industry
forces such as the RIAA and MPAA have co-opted Congress
( http://j.mp/jLDmLU [Lauren's Blog] ).
The attitude regarding the Internet and free speech that we see oozing
from France's President Sarkozy, and many other leaders around the
world, seems much like that of traditional kings, perhaps willing to
allow the serfs some access to technology, so long as the absolute
power of the ruling class and their minions is not threatened in any
significant way.
By continuously portraying the Internet as some sort of wild west or
untamed jungle in need of strong hands to "civilize" the natives, our
leaders also attempt to draw public opinion to their side, while
suggesting that only a tightly controlled and censored Internet will
be safe for the relatively unwashed masses of peons -- that's us.
Do not believe it.
As I implied in "Why the Internet is the Most Important Thing in the
World" ( http://j.mp/ixeLqr [Lauren's Blog] ), governments are now
seizing the moment for their own advantage, not for ours -- even in
democratic countries where -- in theory at least -- the government is
controlled by the people.
We can fight back, in at least a couple of ways.
Where possible, we can use our at least nominal control over our
governments via the ballot box and other means, to make it clear to
our "representatives" that we are not willing to see the Internet
become a "wholly owned subsidiary" of the government and their
traditional entertainment industry sugar daddies.
But we can also use the Internet itself, the fundamental technology of
the Net that is so difficult to truly control, to prepare for the
worst. We can work toward decentralized mechanisms that are much more
difficult for governments to censor, especially in ad hoc manners
without full-blown court approvals. We can build distributed naming
systems and encrypted environments that use the end-to-end natures of
the Net to their best advantage.
Of course, these are exactly the kinds of capabilities that tend to so
upset many governments. We should expect attempts to control their
use as well, especially to make it as difficult as possible for
non-technical persons to employ such techniques. But we should
certainly endeavor to make the best and most effective use possible of
those distributed technologies that do exist.
We may discover that some of the very large Web services companies are
very much our friends in these battles. After all, they're not all
thrilled with the prospect of having their speech muzzled by
government edicts, and their users angered by the resulting
government-ordered perversions of search results and other data.
These companies can all quite reasonably be expected to follow the law
wherever they choose to operate -- but unreasonable government
attempts at control may force some to withdraw various or all services
from affected countries. This isn't to the advantage of these firms
or their users.
Most important and fundamental of all, we need to decide for ourselves
what we really want the Internet to be. Do we want a 21st century
version of Ma Bell's phone network, fused with the Orwellian elements
of government dictated surveillance and censorship?
Or do we wish to keep the Internet open, a beacon of free speech and
interpersonal communications controlled by the people, not by rulers
on high?
The "Kings" -- with their EtherFloggers held firmly and ready in
hand -- believe that they have found a path to wrest control of the
Internet from the people, and deliver it directly to their government
suites and the darkly paneled corporate boardrooms of their powerful
allies.
We shall see.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com