
Government and the Internet - sama
http://patrickcollison.com/post/government-internet
======
devx
> 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.

~~~
ihsw
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.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
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).

------
sophacles
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.

------
tomelders
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.

~~~
Gormo
> 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.

~~~
tomelders
> 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.

~~~
Gormo
> 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.

~~~
tomelders
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?

------
BrandonMarc
_2\. Communication and publication can’t be censored._

Except in places it can.

* Turkey vs. YouTube and some Google features

* Iran vs. social, video, and news sites

* China vs. ... well, damn near everybody

* the US is even in on the act (thanks, DMCA)

See this article for more (and of course, that article hasn't been censored
... right?)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship)

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](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.

------
thufry
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.

~~~
szuhanchang
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.

------
smutticus
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.

------
maw
Well laid out. My only quarrel is this: is point 10 really anything new?

~~~
sophacles
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.

