
Power and the Internet - lispython
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/01/power_and_the_i.html
======
B-Con
> Unless we start deliberately debating the future we want to live in, and
> information technology in enabling that world, we will end up with an
> Internet that benefits existing power structures and not society in general.

This is very true. The _default_ state of the Internet is _not_ to empower
everyone. The default state is to further the power of those who already have
it, with emphasis on anyone with power over the Internet.

The Internet is young, large powers are slow to adapt, and the Internet
community doesn't have the best foresight, so the popular consensus has been
that the Internet is by default the world's power balancer.

We've seen some attempts to control the Internet, but only a few have been
successful. While some people use that as evidence the Internet "wants to be
free", that's just the beginning. Nothing prevents more powers from trying
more often and with better tactics. And they will.

Letting the Internet be a universal power balancer is going to require
_active_ work and engagement. It won't stay in the current form for forever.

------
Executor
How can we support such action?

~~~
jayfuerstenberg
We must begin to prepare now for deploying mesh networks.

Mesh networks cannot be effectively policed and can provide free access to
networks. No more 3 strikes laws since you can connect anywhere wirelessly.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networks>

~~~
greenyoda
Mesh networks aren't immune from power-grabs. For example, Congress could pass
a law allocating all available radio spectrum to corporations, thus making it
illegal for private citizens to transmit on those frequencies. They could pass
draconian laws making people criminally liable for any illegal content that
passed through their nodes.

------
pasbesoin
We have these incredibly useful tools and data. And powerful, entrenched
interests increasingly seek to cripple them, making their access and use
solely dependent upon their interests and permission.

Voilà, the three-handled hammer, that you cannot use without the invisible
hand of corporation or government to enable your strokes.

I'm not a total libertarian, for example in that I see a clear need for e.g.
data privacy that includes regulation that prevents corporations -- and
government -- from turning my every activity into personally identifiable
analytics datapoints.

And I don't want to be vaporized or poisoned as the result of someone else's
perhaps misguided cost/benefit analysis.

But giving that status quo ultimate control in ever-increasing perpetuity
(e.g. Mickey Mouse copyright)? No. Institutions have lifespans, just like
individuals. And evolutionary needs.

As for "the Internet". We who don't want to be wholly commoditized, need to
create and maintain our own physical layers, and attendant security -- our
definition of security -- on same.

It's not about "something for nothing". TANSTAAFL. It's about preventing
"nothing for something" and systems that approach this in a counter-productive
fashion.

