librelist archives

« back to archive

Net Neutrality Ruling, Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, There are no Captains, Decentralize Everything, etc.

Net Neutrality Ruling, Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, There are no Captains, Decentralize Everything, etc.

From:
Odinn Cyberguerrilla
Date:
2014-01-14 @ 20:14
[note: the following message has been posted also to cypherpunks and to
unsystem lists, some comments have already been received like 'don't use
github!' <sigh> this is more or less a cry for help on real ways to
redecentralize EVERYTHING and get EVERYBODY (or most internet users in the
world) to do just that.  If you have suggestions / comments (and I bet you
do!) please include what we _should_ do, please, in addition to what you
think we _should not_ do... if all you do is say what we _should not_ do,
I don't see that as a viable suggestion... I am looking for technical
solution(s) rather than "don't use that!" "don't use the internet!" "don't
use facebook!" I am looking for someone to say "Do this! or this. or
that." (insert this or that here) cheers]

Hello,

As you are probably aware, there has been a net neutrality ruling from US
courts and it essentially kills net neutrality.

Reference (this is just one of many news outlets announcing this)

http://gigaom.com/2014/01/14/breaking-court-strikes-down-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/?go_commented=1#comment-1388649

This is surely no new concept to anyone on this list (the concept that we
can't rely upon laws, need to use technical solutions to bypass what
passes for government/corporation-state, etc.) but I have to say this net
neutrality calls into stark contrast what we are doing with what we could
be doing.  And by we, I mean anyone using the internet.

Many people use AT&T, or Verizon. Many people use Google and Facebook.  Or
Weibo. Or VK.  Or... you get the picture.  But rather than harp about any
one company (or licensing approach, or ruling, etc) I want to emphasize
decentralized systems beyond what many are accustomed to hearing about /
using.

When people hear "open source" or "p2p" they might think of Ubuntu, or
Android (regarding open source OSs) or Bittorrent, or Piratebay (in terms
of things that come to mind if an ordinary human is asked what do they
thing of as an example of P2P or F2F tech).  Given the news about Bitcoin
it's a sure bet at least some people if asked on the street might also say
'Bitcoin' (or alternately, "what's P2P?" or "Software!")  So you'll get a
lot of responses and responses will vary substantially, but this is my
sense based on talking to people I know around my (rather small) town.

But how often do you hear people talking about what is needed to literally
Decentralize Everything?

Well, except for posts occasionally on lists like these, or meetings /
discussions with like-minded people, or hackerspaces, or development
discussions, the answer is Almost Never.

Anyway, this recent ruling announcement re. net neutrality (or its death)
here in the USA is just one more example of how we cannot rely upon laws,
at least in my view.  But it also made me think some more about this and
realize that if we want decentralized protocols / solutions to spread at
all, we have to do a way better job at being good advocates for them and
talking about them incessantly to everyone in a way that is easy, simple,
and makes sense to people.

As this post already exhibits I can be very wordy and windbaggish.
Further evidence of that fact is presented amply in my recent post here:
https://odinn.cyberguerrilla.org/index.php/2014/01/02/opensourcebuildguide/

As I reflect on this I think about the following.

1) I need to make something shorter that easily introduces people to open
source stuff.  Something that's even simpler than prism-break
(http://prism-break.org/) - an option which is so simple that anyone (at
least in primary school levels) can understand it and act on things
presented in it within less than a minute.  Look. Software. Click (one
click, two max!) to get it. Done.

2) What are some ways to Decentralize Everything? To the DNS and beyond?
Stuff that comes to mind (remember, there is no one thing, there are no
captains, there is no one solution, these are just examples of possible
partial solutions being thrown out here):
   2)a. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/
   2)b. https://github.com/namecoin
   2)c. https://nameid.org/
   2)d. concepts like this

http://torrentfreak.com/how-the-pirate-bay-plans-to-beat-censorship-for-good-140105/
   2)e. Convergence for namecoin
https://github.com/JeremyRand/Convergence/tree/namecoin
   2)f. Convergence (a different one) https://github.com/moxie0/Convergence
   2)g. Tack.io - for pinning (it's my understading that moxie0 prefers
this direction, but I haven't been tracking it closely enough to say
what is going on with it right now)  -->  http://tack.io/
     2)g.1. See also the Tack internet draft(!) at http://tack.io/draft.html
     2)g.2. See also reference TACK implementations https://github.com/tack

So...

As I read through this, and similar stuff, I think to myself, something
about this needs to be broadcast in a way that it is so easy to do, so
simple to accept, that it meets the "everybody sees it (or it's in the
news) and they click and download it"

I know it's never really that simple. But I am throwing this out there
because even more censorship is coming.  And there are no captains, and we
do need to decentralize everything. We must get A Lot more people on board
with decentralization, open source, and as close to p2p as possible, we
need to make it so easy to defeat censorship of anything that those who
propose allowing it to happen will just throw up their hands in
frustration. So the question (one of many!) is how to present this in a
way that makes sense to a lot of people.

A lot more than currently.

OK I am done for now.

[this message has also been posted to cypherpunks and unsystem lists]

your thoughts please

Re: [redecentralize] Net Neutrality Ruling, Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, There are no Captains, Decentralize Everything, etc.

From:
Paul Frazee
Date:
2014-01-14 @ 20:38
Hi Odinn,

I'm not a huge fan of projecting p2p or decentralization as a way to
subvert laws. For one, it's a dangerously inaccurate. For two, it's not
what I'm here for.

None of the software you mention even addresses net neutrality. You use
"censorship" very vaguely, and your post mostly reads as an attempt to echo
back the community's ideas.

Anybody else?



On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla <
odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> wrote:

> [note: the following message has been posted also to cypherpunks and to
> unsystem lists, some comments have already been received like 'don't use
> github!' <sigh> this is more or less a cry for help on real ways to
> redecentralize EVERYTHING and get EVERYBODY (or most internet users in the
> world) to do just that.  If you have suggestions / comments (and I bet you
> do!) please include what we _should_ do, please, in addition to what you
> think we _should not_ do... if all you do is say what we _should not_ do,
> I don't see that as a viable suggestion... I am looking for technical
> solution(s) rather than "don't use that!" "don't use the internet!" "don't
> use facebook!" I am looking for someone to say "Do this! or this. or
> that." (insert this or that here) cheers]
>
> Hello,
>
> As you are probably aware, there has been a net neutrality ruling from US
> courts and it essentially kills net neutrality.
>
> Reference (this is just one of many news outlets announcing this)
>
> 
http://gigaom.com/2014/01/14/breaking-court-strikes-down-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/?go_commented=1#comment-1388649
>
> This is surely no new concept to anyone on this list (the concept that we
> can't rely upon laws, need to use technical solutions to bypass what
> passes for government/corporation-state, etc.) but I have to say this net
> neutrality calls into stark contrast what we are doing with what we could
> be doing.  And by we, I mean anyone using the internet.
>
> Many people use AT&T, or Verizon. Many people use Google and Facebook.  Or
> Weibo. Or VK.  Or... you get the picture.  But rather than harp about any
> one company (or licensing approach, or ruling, etc) I want to emphasize
> decentralized systems beyond what many are accustomed to hearing about /
> using.
>
> When people hear "open source" or "p2p" they might think of Ubuntu, or
> Android (regarding open source OSs) or Bittorrent, or Piratebay (in terms
> of things that come to mind if an ordinary human is asked what do they
> thing of as an example of P2P or F2F tech).  Given the news about Bitcoin
> it's a sure bet at least some people if asked on the street might also say
> 'Bitcoin' (or alternately, "what's P2P?" or "Software!")  So you'll get a
> lot of responses and responses will vary substantially, but this is my
> sense based on talking to people I know around my (rather small) town.
>
> But how often do you hear people talking about what is needed to literally
> Decentralize Everything?
>
> Well, except for posts occasionally on lists like these, or meetings /
> discussions with like-minded people, or hackerspaces, or development
> discussions, the answer is Almost Never.
>
> Anyway, this recent ruling announcement re. net neutrality (or its death)
> here in the USA is just one more example of how we cannot rely upon laws,
> at least in my view.  But it also made me think some more about this and
> realize that if we want decentralized protocols / solutions to spread at
> all, we have to do a way better job at being good advocates for them and
> talking about them incessantly to everyone in a way that is easy, simple,
> and makes sense to people.
>
> As this post already exhibits I can be very wordy and windbaggish.
> Further evidence of that fact is presented amply in my recent post here:
> https://odinn.cyberguerrilla.org/index.php/2014/01/02/opensourcebuildguide/
>
> As I reflect on this I think about the following.
>
> 1) I need to make something shorter that easily introduces people to open
> source stuff.  Something that's even simpler than prism-break
> (http://prism-break.org/) - an option which is so simple that anyone (at
> least in primary school levels) can understand it and act on things
> presented in it within less than a minute.  Look. Software. Click (one
> click, two max!) to get it. Done.
>
> 2) What are some ways to Decentralize Everything? To the DNS and beyond?
> Stuff that comes to mind (remember, there is no one thing, there are no
> captains, there is no one solution, these are just examples of possible
> partial solutions being thrown out here):
>    2)a. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/
>    2)b. https://github.com/namecoin
>    2)c. https://nameid.org/
>    2)d. concepts like this
>
> 
http://torrentfreak.com/how-the-pirate-bay-plans-to-beat-censorship-for-good-140105/
>    2)e. Convergence for namecoin
> https://github.com/JeremyRand/Convergence/tree/namecoin
>    2)f. Convergence (a different one)
> https://github.com/moxie0/Convergence
>    2)g. Tack.io - for pinning (it's my understading that moxie0 prefers
> this direction, but I haven't been tracking it closely enough to say
> what is going on with it right now)  -->  http://tack.io/
>      2)g.1. See also the Tack internet draft(!) at
> http://tack.io/draft.html
>      2)g.2. See also reference TACK implementations
> https://github.com/tack
>
> So...
>
> As I read through this, and similar stuff, I think to myself, something
> about this needs to be broadcast in a way that it is so easy to do, so
> simple to accept, that it meets the "everybody sees it (or it's in the
> news) and they click and download it"
>
> I know it's never really that simple. But I am throwing this out there
> because even more censorship is coming.  And there are no captains, and we
> do need to decentralize everything. We must get A Lot more people on board
> with decentralization, open source, and as close to p2p as possible, we
> need to make it so easy to defeat censorship of anything that those who
> propose allowing it to happen will just throw up their hands in
> frustration. So the question (one of many!) is how to present this in a
> way that makes sense to a lot of people.
>
> A lot more than currently.
>
> OK I am done for now.
>
> [this message has also been posted to cypherpunks and unsystem lists]
>
> your thoughts please
>
>

Re: [redecentralize] Net Neutrality Ruling, Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, There are no Captains, Decentralize Everything, etc.

From:
Adam Ierymenko
Date:
2014-01-14 @ 20:41
On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Paul Frazee <pfrazee@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Odinn,
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of projecting p2p or decentralization as a way to 
subvert laws. For one, it's a dangerously inaccurate. For two, it's not 
what I'm here for.

I can agree with this point.

I'd add three: if you fight nation states you're probably going to lose in
the long run, cause they have more resources than you do.

The idea of a meshnet that can withstand a concerted assult by, say, the 
NSA is a fantasy. I'm not aware of any meshnet that would not be 
vulnerable to a well funded and very smart attacker's distributed DDOS or 
other disruption efforts.

Technology can only be at best half the fix for the panopticon problem. 
The other half has to be political.

Re: [redecentralize] Net Neutrality Ruling, Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, There are no Captains, Decentralize Everything, etc.

From:
Odinn Cyberguerrilla
Date:
2014-01-14 @ 21:00
Maybe I didn't express myself in a way that adequately described to the
audience of this list what it is that I am seeking.

So I'll preface this reply with a couple caveats.

1) I am not trying to overthrow a nation-state (though I would be pleased
if digital systems could essentially make nation-states irrelevant).

2) I am not suggesting that a meshnet could somehow 'defeat' (whatever
that means) the attempts of a focused, persistent group of (governmental /
corporation-state / corporate / random malicious individual) actor(s).  I
do think that migrating to open source (and free) solutions will help
remove funding from such entities and will encourage a more healthy and
vibrant society through transparency and sharing.  I should note that
Microsoft (a company that I don't particularly like and am trying to
migrate completely away from) characterizes the US government as an
"advanced persistent threat." Regardless of how you think of (or
personally define) meshnets, or Microsoft, or the US or any government
a.k.a. corporation-state, the notion of a "advanced persistent threat" is
inclusive (but not limited to) the concept that someone, somewhere, has
the ability to get you or your data should they so desire.  I also ask
that you reflect upon the following (old, heavily recycled) quote - which
I like a lot:  "The first thing required is to discard any desire to turn
swordsmanship into... a matter of mere accomplishment. (...) (O)ne is not
to think of achieving victory over the opponent." - Odagiri Sekiei
(Muji-Shin-Jen ryū)  Nor do I think that technological solutions are
everything. But that's what I'm asking about here.

3) That said, here's getting to what I intended to emphasize:

The process of decentralization needs to be everywhere.

It needs to be easier.

Things that are here and there need to be made available in commonly
available places and made easy to access / download / use in ways that are
well known and can be understood by anyone in primary school.

I also like the suitpossum blog (note that it is a blogger blog,
maintained by Google), not because it is a blogger blog but because of its
contents and its reference to 'Five Pillars of Open Source Finance,' which
reminds me a bit of the Book of Five Rings, written by Musashi around
1645.

This e-mail is already too long so I am going to stop here and repeat my
request for technological suggestions.  Have any?

> On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Paul Frazee <pfrazee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Odinn,
>>
>> I'm not a huge fan of projecting p2p or decentralization as a way to
>> subvert laws. For one, it's a dangerously inaccurate. For two, it's not
>> what I'm here for.
>
> I can agree with this point.
>
> I'd add three: if you fight nation states you're probably going to lose in
> the long run, cause they have more resources than you do.
>
> The idea of a meshnet that can withstand a concerted assult by, say, the
> NSA is a fantasy. I'm not aware of any meshnet that would not be
> vulnerable to a well funded and very smart attacker's distributed DDOS or
> other disruption efforts.
>
> Technology can only be at best half the fix for the panopticon problem.
> The other half has to be political.
>
>

Re: [redecentralize] Net Neutrality Ruling, Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, There are no Captains, Decentralize Everything, etc.

From:
Eric Mill
Date:
2014-01-14 @ 21:27
The legal system isn't fundamentally broken just because a legal event
occurs you don't like.

The Internet has been (roughly speaking) net neutral for decades now,
because of legal mechanisms. Today's ruling can be reversed through legal
mechanisms (for example, by the FCC mustering the political will to
classify broadband companies as "common carriers", or by Congress passing
new law). These things are politically difficult, but not impossible, and
should be one of the things the Internet works to make happen.

At the same time, we should keep working on the technology. After all, the
strong belief in net neutrality that much of society (and the US
government) has is due to technology shaping culture and norms. Building
new things is one of the ways to create social change.

Just don't cast out the entire idea of laws. Now's the time to organize in
all kinds of ways.


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla <
odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> wrote:

> Maybe I didn't express myself in a way that adequately described to the
> audience of this list what it is that I am seeking.
>
> So I'll preface this reply with a couple caveats.
>
> 1) I am not trying to overthrow a nation-state (though I would be pleased
> if digital systems could essentially make nation-states irrelevant).
>
> 2) I am not suggesting that a meshnet could somehow 'defeat' (whatever
> that means) the attempts of a focused, persistent group of (governmental /
> corporation-state / corporate / random malicious individual) actor(s).  I
> do think that migrating to open source (and free) solutions will help
> remove funding from such entities and will encourage a more healthy and
> vibrant society through transparency and sharing.  I should note that
> Microsoft (a company that I don't particularly like and am trying to
> migrate completely away from) characterizes the US government as an
> "advanced persistent threat." Regardless of how you think of (or
> personally define) meshnets, or Microsoft, or the US or any government
> a.k.a. corporation-state, the notion of a "advanced persistent threat" is
> inclusive (but not limited to) the concept that someone, somewhere, has
> the ability to get you or your data should they so desire.  I also ask
> that you reflect upon the following (old, heavily recycled) quote - which
> I like a lot:  "The first thing required is to discard any desire to turn
> swordsmanship into... a matter of mere accomplishment. (...) (O)ne is not
> to think of achieving victory over the opponent." - Odagiri Sekiei
> (Muji-Shin-Jen ryū)  Nor do I think that technological solutions are
> everything. But that's what I'm asking about here.
>
> 3) That said, here's getting to what I intended to emphasize:
>
> The process of decentralization needs to be everywhere.
>
> It needs to be easier.
>
> Things that are here and there need to be made available in commonly
> available places and made easy to access / download / use in ways that are
> well known and can be understood by anyone in primary school.
>
> I also like the suitpossum blog (note that it is a blogger blog,
> maintained by Google), not because it is a blogger blog but because of its
> contents and its reference to 'Five Pillars of Open Source Finance,' which
> reminds me a bit of the Book of Five Rings, written by Musashi around
> 1645.
>
> This e-mail is already too long so I am going to stop here and repeat my
> request for technological suggestions.  Have any?
>
> > On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Paul Frazee <pfrazee@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Odinn,
> >>
> >> I'm not a huge fan of projecting p2p or decentralization as a way to
> >> subvert laws. For one, it's a dangerously inaccurate. For two, it's not
> >> what I'm here for.
> >
> > I can agree with this point.
> >
> > I'd add three: if you fight nation states you're probably going to lose
> in
> > the long run, cause they have more resources than you do.
> >
> > The idea of a meshnet that can withstand a concerted assult by, say, the
> > NSA is a fantasy. I'm not aware of any meshnet that would not be
> > vulnerable to a well funded and very smart attacker's distributed DDOS or
> > other disruption efforts.
> >
> > Technology can only be at best half the fix for the panopticon problem.
> > The other half has to be political.
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>

Re: [redecentralize] Net Neutrality Ruling, Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, There are no Captains, Decentralize Everything, etc.

From:
Adam Ierymenko
Date:
2014-01-14 @ 21:39
One reason it's important to keep working on the technology is to remove 
the incentive for carriers (and others) to fight net neutrality. If we 
make it technologically such that even if they win politically it will be 
costly or quixotic to implement a non-neutral net, we make them more 
likely to capitulate politically.

On Jan 14, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com> wrote:

> The legal system isn't fundamentally broken just because a legal event 
occurs you don't like.
> 
> The Internet has been (roughly speaking) net neutral for decades now, 
because of legal mechanisms. Today's ruling can be reversed through legal 
mechanisms (for example, by the FCC mustering the political will to 
classify broadband companies as "common carriers", or by Congress passing 
new law). These things are politically difficult, but not impossible, and 
should be one of the things the Internet works to make happen.
> 
> At the same time, we should keep working on the technology. After all, 
the strong belief in net neutrality that much of society (and the US 
government) has is due to technology shaping culture and norms. Building 
new things is one of the ways to create social change.
> 
> Just don't cast out the entire idea of laws. Now's the time to organize 
in all kinds of ways.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla 
<odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> wrote:
> Maybe I didn't express myself in a way that adequately described to the
> audience of this list what it is that I am seeking.
> 
> So I'll preface this reply with a couple caveats.
> 
> 1) I am not trying to overthrow a nation-state (though I would be pleased
> if digital systems could essentially make nation-states irrelevant).
> 
> 2) I am not suggesting that a meshnet could somehow 'defeat' (whatever
> that means) the attempts of a focused, persistent group of (governmental /
> corporation-state / corporate / random malicious individual) actor(s).  I
> do think that migrating to open source (and free) solutions will help
> remove funding from such entities and will encourage a more healthy and
> vibrant society through transparency and sharing.  I should note that
> Microsoft (a company that I don't particularly like and am trying to
> migrate completely away from) characterizes the US government as an
> "advanced persistent threat." Regardless of how you think of (or
> personally define) meshnets, or Microsoft, or the US or any government
> a.k.a. corporation-state, the notion of a "advanced persistent threat" is
> inclusive (but not limited to) the concept that someone, somewhere, has
> the ability to get you or your data should they so desire.  I also ask
> that you reflect upon the following (old, heavily recycled) quote - which
> I like a lot:  "The first thing required is to discard any desire to turn
> swordsmanship into... a matter of mere accomplishment. (...) (O)ne is not
> to think of achieving victory over the opponent." - Odagiri Sekiei
> (Muji-Shin-Jen ryū)  Nor do I think that technological solutions are
> everything. But that's what I'm asking about here.
> 
> 3) That said, here's getting to what I intended to emphasize:
> 
> The process of decentralization needs to be everywhere.
> 
> It needs to be easier.
> 
> Things that are here and there need to be made available in commonly
> available places and made easy to access / download / use in ways that are
> well known and can be understood by anyone in primary school.
> 
> I also like the suitpossum blog (note that it is a blogger blog,
> maintained by Google), not because it is a blogger blog but because of its
> contents and its reference to 'Five Pillars of Open Source Finance,' which
> reminds me a bit of the Book of Five Rings, written by Musashi around
> 1645.
> 
> This e-mail is already too long so I am going to stop here and repeat my
> request for technological suggestions.  Have any?
> 
> > On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Paul Frazee <pfrazee@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Odinn,
> >>
> >> I'm not a huge fan of projecting p2p or decentralization as a way to
> >> subvert laws. For one, it's a dangerously inaccurate. For two, it's not
> >> what I'm here for.
> >
> > I can agree with this point.
> >
> > I'd add three: if you fight nation states you're probably going to lose in
> > the long run, cause they have more resources than you do.
> >
> > The idea of a meshnet that can withstand a concerted assult by, say, the
> > NSA is a fantasy. I'm not aware of any meshnet that would not be
> > vulnerable to a well funded and very smart attacker's distributed DDOS or
> > other disruption efforts.
> >
> > Technology can only be at best half the fix for the panopticon problem.
> > The other half has to be political.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> konklone.com | @konklone

Re: [redecentralize] Net Neutrality Ruling, Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, There are no Captains, Decentralize Everything, etc.

From:
Feross Aboukhadijeh
Date:
2014-01-14 @ 21:47
> If we make it technologically such that even if they win politically it
will be *costly or quixotic* to implement a non-neutral net

How would this work?

Feross
✩ blog <http://feross.org/> | ✎ studynotes <http://www.apstudynotes.org/> |☮
webtorrent <http://webtorrent.io/>


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Adam Ierymenko <adam.ierymenko@zerotier.com
> wrote:

> One reason it's important to keep working on the technology is to remove
> the incentive for carriers (and others) to fight net neutrality. If we make
> it technologically such that even if they win politically it will be costly
> or quixotic to implement a non-neutral net, we make them more likely to
> capitulate politically.
>
> On Jan 14, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com> wrote:
>
> The legal system isn't fundamentally broken just because a legal event
> occurs you don't like.
>
> The Internet has been (roughly speaking) net neutral for decades now,
> because of legal mechanisms. Today's ruling can be reversed through legal
> mechanisms (for exampl e, by the FCC mustering the political will to
> classify broadband companies as "common carriers", or by Congress passing
> new law). These things are politically difficult, but not impossible, and
> should be one of the things the Internet works to make happen.
>
> At the same time, we should keep working on the technology. After all, the
> strong belief in net neutrality that much of society (and the US
> government) has is due to technology shaping culture and norms. Building
> new things is one of the ways to create social change.
>
> Just don't cast out the entire idea of laws. Now's the time to organize in
> all kinds of ways.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla <
> odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> Maybe I didn't express myself in a way that adequately described to the
>> audience of this list what it is that I am seeking.
>>
>> So I'll preface this reply with a couple caveats.
>>
>> 1) I am not trying to overthrow a nation-state (though I would be pleased
>> if digital systems could essentially make nation-states irrelevant).
>>
>> 2) I am not suggesting that a meshnet could somehow 'defeat' (whatever
>> that means) the attempts of a focused, persistent group of (governmental /
>> corporation-state / corporate / random malicious individual) actor(s).  I
>> do think that migrating to open source (and free) solutions will help
>> remove funding from such entities and will encourage a more healthy and
>> vibrant society through transparency and sharing.  I should note that
>> Microsoft (a company that I don't particularly like and am trying to
>> migrate completely away from) characterizes the US government as an
>> "advanced persistent threat." Regardless of how you think of (or
>> personally define) meshnets, or Microsoft, or the US or any government
>> a.k.a. corporation-state, the notion of a "advanced persistent threat" is
>> inclusive (but not limited to) the concept that someone, somewhere, has
>> the ability to get you or your data should they so desire.  I also ask
>> that you reflect upon the following (old, heavily recycled) quote - which
>> I like a lot:  "The first thing required is to discard any desire to turn
>> swordsmanship into... a matter of mere accomplishment. (...) (O)ne is not
>> to think of achieving victory over the opponent." - Odagiri Sekiei
>> (Muji-Shin-Jen ryū)  Nor do I think that technological solutions are
>> everything. But that's what I'm asking about here.
>>
>> 3) That said, here's getting to what I intended to emphasize:
>>
>> The process of decentralization needs to be everywhere.
>>
>> It needs to be easier.
>>
>> Things that are here and there need to be made available in commonly
>> available places and made easy to access / download / use in ways that are
>> well known and can be understood by anyone in primary school.
>>
>> I also like the suitpossum blog (note that it is a blogger blog,
>> maintained by Google), not because it is a blogger blog but because of its
>> contents and its reference to 'Five Pillars of Open Source Finance,' which
>> reminds me a bit of the Book of Five Rings, written by Musashi around
>> 1645.
>>
>> This e-mail is already too long so I am going to stop here and repeat my
>> request for technological suggestions.  Have any?
>>
>> > On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Paul Frazee <pfrazee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Odinn,
>> >>
>> >> I'm not a huge fan of projecting p2p or decentralization as a way to
>> >> subvert laws. For one, it's a dangerously inaccurate. For two, it's not
>> >> what I'm here for.
>> >
>> > I can agree with this point.
>> >
>> > I'd add three: if you fight nation states you're probably going to lose
>> in
>> > the long run, cause they have more resources than you do.
>> >
>> > The idea of a meshnet that can withstand a concerted assult by, say, the
>> > NSA is a fantasy. I'm not aware of any meshnet that would not be
>> > vulnerable to a well funded and very smart attacker's distributed DDOS
>> or
>> > other disruption efforts.
>> >
>> > Technology can only be at best half the fix for the panopticon problem.
>> > The other half has to be political.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>
>
>
>

Re: [redecentralize] Net Neutrality Ruling, Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, There are no Captains, Decentralize Everything, etc.

From:
Adam Ierymenko
Date:
2014-01-14 @ 21:50
If most of the net's traffic is encrypted and hard to classify, then it 
becomes costly to implement discrimination.

On Jan 14, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Feross Aboukhadijeh <feross@feross.org> wrote:

> > If we make it technologically such that even if they win politically 
it will be costly or quixotic to implement a non-neutral net
> 
> How would this work?
> 
> Feross
> ✩ blog | ✎ studynotes | ☮ webtorrent
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Adam Ierymenko 
<adam.ierymenko@zerotier.com> wrote:
> One reason it's important to keep working on the technology is to remove
the incentive for carriers (and others) to fight net neutrality. If we 
make it technologically such that even if they win politically it will be 
costly or quixotic to implement a non-neutral net, we make them more 
likely to capitulate politically.
> 
> On Jan 14, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com> wrote:
> 
>> The legal system isn't fundamentally broken just because a legal event 
occurs you don't like.
>> 
>> The Internet has been (roughly speaking) net neutral for decades now, 
because of legal mechanisms. Today's ruling can be reversed through legal 
mechanisms (for exampl e, by the FCC mustering the political will to 
classify broadband companies as "common carriers", or by Congress passing 
new law). These things are politically difficult, but not impossible, and 
should be one of the things the Internet works to make happen.
>> 
>> At the same time, we should keep working on the technology. After all, 
the strong belief in net neutrality that much of society (and the US 
government) has is due to technology shaping culture and norms. Building 
new things is one of the ways to create social change.
>> 
>> Just don't cast out the entire idea of laws. Now's the time to organize
in all kinds of ways.
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla 
<odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> wrote:
>> Maybe I didn't express myself in a way that adequately described to the
>> audience of this list what it is that I am seeking.
>> 
>> So I'll preface this reply with a couple caveats.
>> 
>> 1) I am not trying to overthrow a nation-state (though I would be pleased
>> if digital systems could essentially make nation-states irrelevant).
>> 
>> 2) I am not suggesting that a meshnet could somehow 'defeat' (whatever
>> that means) the attempts of a focused, persistent group of (governmental /
>> corporation-state / corporate / random malicious individual) actor(s).  I
>> do think that migrating to open source (and free) solutions will help
>> remove funding from such entities and will encourage a more healthy and
>> vibrant society through transparency and sharing.  I should note that
>> Microsoft (a company that I don't particularly like and am trying to
>> migrate completely away from) characterizes the US government as an
>> "advanced persistent threat." Regardless of how you think of (or
>> personally define) meshnets, or Microsoft, or the US or any government
>> a.k.a. corporation-state, the notion of a "advanced persistent threat" is
>> inclusive (but not limited to) the concept that someone, somewhere, has
>> the ability to get you or your data should they so desire.  I also ask
>> that you reflect upon the following (old, heavily recycled) quote - which
>> I like a lot:  "The first thing required is to discard any desire to turn
>> swordsmanship into... a matter of mere accomplishment. (...) (O)ne is not
>> to think of achieving victory over the opponent." - Odagiri Sekiei
>> (Muji-Shin-Jen ryū)  Nor do I think that technological solutions are
>> everything. But that's what I'm asking about here.
>> 
>> 3) That said, here's getting to what I intended to emphasize:
>> 
>> The process of decentralization needs to be everywhere.
>> 
>> It needs to be easier.
>> 
>> Things that are here and there need to be made available in commonly
>> available places and made easy to access / download / use in ways that are
>> well known and can be understood by anyone in primary school.
>> 
>> I also like the suitpossum blog (note that it is a blogger blog,
>> maintained by Google), not because it is a blogger blog but because of its
>> contents and its reference to 'Five Pillars of Open Source Finance,' which
>> reminds me a bit of the Book of Five Rings, written by Musashi around
>> 1645.
>> 
>> This e-mail is already too long so I am going to stop here and repeat my
>> request for technological suggestions.  Have any?
>> 
>> > On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Paul Frazee <pfrazee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Odinn,
>> >>
>> >> I'm not a huge fan of projecting p2p or decentralization as a way to
>> >> subvert laws. For one, it's a dangerously inaccurate. For two, it's not
>> >> what I'm here for.
>> >
>> > I can agree with this point.
>> >
>> > I'd add three: if you fight nation states you're probably going to lose in
>> > the long run, cause they have more resources than you do.
>> >
>> > The idea of a meshnet that can withstand a concerted assult by, say, the
>> > NSA is a fantasy. I'm not aware of any meshnet that would not be
>> > vulnerable to a well funded and very smart attacker's distributed DDOS or
>> > other disruption efforts.
>> >
>> > Technology can only be at best half the fix for the panopticon problem.
>> > The other half has to be political.
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> konklone.com | @konklone
> 
> 

Re: [redecentralize] Net Neutrality Ruling, Internet Interprets Censorship as Damage, There are no Captains, Decentralize Everything, etc.

From:
Eric Mill
Date:
2014-01-15 @ 00:16
It definitely becomes difficult to discriminate based on content, but the
kind of problems a loss of net neutrality brings in would likely lead to
discriminating based on the target domain name (e.g. deals with companies
to favor their content), which encryption doesn't solve.


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Adam Ierymenko <adam.ierymenko@zerotier.com
> wrote:

> If most of the net's traffic is encrypted and hard to classify, then it
> becomes costly to implement discrimination.
>
> On Jan 14, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Feross Aboukhadijeh <feross@feross.org>
> wrote:
>
> > If we make it technologically such that even if they win politically it
> will be *costly or quixotic* to implement a non-neutral net
>
> How would this work?
>
> Feross
> ✩ blog <http://feross.org/> | ✎ studynotes <http://www.apstudynotes.org/>
> | ☮ webtorrent <http://webtorrent.io/>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Adam Ierymenko <
> adam.ierymenko@zerotier.com> wrote:
>
>> One reason it's important to keep working on the technology is to remove
>> the incentive for carriers (and others) to fight net neutrality. If we make
>> it technologically such that even if they win politically it will be costly
>> or quixotic to implement a non-neutral net, we make them more likely to
>> capitulate politically.
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com> wrote:
>>
>> The legal system isn't fundamentally broken just because a legal event
>> occurs you don't like.
>>
>> The Internet has been (roughly speaking) net neutral for decades now,
>> because of legal mechanisms. Today's ruling can be reversed through legal
>> mechanisms (for exampl e, by the FCC mustering the political will to
>> classify broadband companies as "common carriers", or by Congress passing
>> new law). These things are politically difficult, but not impossible, and
>> should be one of the things the Internet works to make happen.
>>
>> At the same time, we should keep working on the technology. After all,
>> the strong belief in net neutrality that much of society (and the US
>> government) has is due to technology shaping culture and norms. Building
>> new things is one of the ways to create social change.
>>
>> Just don't cast out the entire idea of laws. Now's the time to organize
>> in all kinds of ways.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla <
>> odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe I didn't express myself in a way that adequately described to the
>>> audience of this list what it is that I am seeking.
>>>
>>> So I'll preface this reply with a couple caveats.
>>>
>>> 1) I am not trying to overthrow a nation-state (though I would be pleased
>>> if digital systems could essentially make nation-states irrelevant).
>>>
>>> 2) I am not suggesting that a meshnet could somehow 'defeat' (whatever
>>> that means) the attempts of a focused, persistent group of (governmental
>>> /
>>> corporation-state / corporate / random malicious individual) actor(s).  I
>>> do think that migrating to open source (and free) solutions will help
>>> remove funding from such entities and will encourage a more healthy and
>>> vibrant society through transparency and sharing.  I should note that
>>> Microsoft (a company that I don't particularly like and am trying to
>>> migrate completely away from) characterizes the US government as an
>>> "advanced persistent threat." Regardless of how you think of (or
>>> personally define) meshnets, or Microsoft, or the US or any government
>>> a.k.a. corporation-state, the notion of a "advanced persistent threat" is
>>> inclusive (but not limited to) the concept that someone, somewhere, has
>>> the ability to get you or your data should they so desire.  I also ask
>>> that you reflect upon the following (old, heavily recycled) quote - which
>>> I like a lot:  "The first thing required is to discard any desire to turn
>>> swordsmanship into... a matter of mere accomplishment. (...) (O)ne is not
>>> to think of achieving victory over the opponent." - Odagiri Sekiei
>>> (Muji-Shin-Jen ryū)  Nor do I think that technological solutions are
>>> everything. But that's what I'm asking about here.
>>>
>>> 3) That said, here's getting to what I intended to emphasize:
>>>
>>> The process of decentralization needs to be everywhere.
>>>
>>> It needs to be easier.
>>>
>>> Things that are here and there need to be made available in commonly
>>> available places and made easy to access / download / use in ways that
>>> are
>>> well known and can be understood by anyone in primary school.
>>>
>>> I also like the suitpossum blog (note that it is a blogger blog,
>>> maintained by Google), not because it is a blogger blog but because of
>>> its
>>> contents and its reference to 'Five Pillars of Open Source Finance,'
>>> which
>>> reminds me a bit of the Book of Five Rings, written by Musashi around
>>> 1645.
>>>
>>> This e-mail is already too long so I am going to stop here and repeat my
>>> request for technological suggestions.  Have any?
>>>
>>> > On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Paul Frazee <pfrazee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Odinn,
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm not a huge fan of projecting p2p or decentralization as a way to
>>> >> subvert laws. For one, it's a dangerously inaccurate. For two, it's
>>> not
>>> >> what I'm here for.
>>> >
>>> > I can agree with this point.
>>> >
>>> > I'd add three: if you fight nation states you're probably going to
>>> lose in
>>> > the long run, cause they have more resources than you do.
>>> >
>>> > The idea of a meshnet that can withstand a concerted assult by, say,
>>> the
>>> > NSA is a fantasy. I'm not aware of any meshnet that would not be
>>> > vulnerable to a well funded and very smart attacker's distributed DDOS
>>> or
>>> > other disruption efforts.
>>> >
>>> > Technology can only be at best half the fix for the panopticon problem.
>>> > The other half has to be political.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>