
When the Internet dies, meet the meshnet that survives - Libertatea
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229653.700-when-the-internet-dies-meet-the-meshnet-that-survives.html#.U1OUR8etvy8
======
sentientmachine
Perhaps it's a good idea to have random take downs of the internet in large
areas for extended periods of time so that there is more motivation for people
to create a second, non-centralized single-point-of-failure single-point-of-
control internet.

We have to prepare for the inevitable future reality where many layers of
government can terminate the internet connection of any person based on what
content they are providing, or what service they are serving.

When an evil agent discovers the power to shut down my internet connection, or
the internet connection of an entire area based on what people are doing on
it, it is only a matter of days or weeks before that power is wielded to
expand their power and create money from thin air through it. If the internet
is to become a medium through which people think through, it must be as
reliable and un-stoppable as two people talking and listening in a private
room.

~~~
krapp
>Perhaps it's a good idea to have random take downs of the internet in large
areas for extended periods of time so that there is more motivation for people
to create a second, non-centralized single-point-of-failure single-point-of-
control internet.

That's not a good idea. That's a very bad idea, considering how much critical
infrastructure, globally, depends on the internet working -- what you're
suggesting, to even work as "motivation", would be akin to randomly poisoning
pharmaceuticals to discourage overdependence on antibiotics.

That said though, if such a change could be pulled off without essentially
destroying the economies of whole countries, I would be all for it.

~~~
pessimizer
>considering how much critical infrastructure, globally, depends on the
internet working

This is the very bad idea.

~~~
krapp
Perhaps. But solving one evil with a greater evil can't be a valid solution.

------
wcummings
What on Earth makes people think a finnicky meshnet that requires a high
density of nodes will survive a Sandy-like disaster? Doesn't seem like the
most obvious use-case for meshnets, wouldn't people be better served getting
ham licenses and learning how to improvise antennas in an emergency?

~~~
Paul_S
That depends on the types of devices you use for creating it. You can get a km
out of an ordinary router with a directional can antennae. What distance do
you think is required for it to be viable?

~~~
wcummings
>You can get a km out of an ordinary router with a directional can antennae

With a line-of-sight and some careful positioning, maybe.

There are numerous examples of people using traditional radios to coordinate
disaster response [1] (actually why ham licenses are issued IIRC), this seems
like a more complicated, error prone, cool-kid-hackerspace solution. What
advantages does a mesh network have over traditional radios (which have bands
allocated for this) for disaster response? How well will a mesh network hold
up if half (or more) of the nodes fail due to power loss, flooding etc?

Mesh networks are cool, and I'm all for decentralizing communication, but
their usefulness for disaster preparedness seems very dubious to me.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_emergency_communi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_emergency_communications)

~~~
simplicissimus
Ongoing innovations in open firmware like OpenWRT allow deployment of
reasonably robust routing schemes, such that the mesh nodes themselves compute
the routes most efficient for transport (and also repair those routes when
nodes go down). Groups like Commotion Wireless, Freifunk, Funkfeuer, and
LirbeMesh all deploy firmwares derived from OpenWRT to this purpose. The
actual capacity, range, and sensitivity of the radio hardware used, whether
unlicensed or not, will still be gating factors. Along with ambient noise
levels on whatever bands are used.

------
jpasmore
Not to say that what happens with the military will impact those watching
Netflix, but the infrastructure of the Web is vulnerable...

Article from Foreign Policy magazine

The Best Defense The future of war: You better be ready to fight like it's a
pre-electronic age

[http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/04/18/the_future_o...](http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/04/18/the_future_of_war_25_you_better_be_ready_to_fight_like_its_a_pre_electronic_age)

"...Major battles in the 21st century will be confusing and disorganized
affairs more similar to the clashes of a pre-digital age than the ‘network-
centric' combat we've become accustomed to. A new generation of offensive
technology targeting the electromagnetic spectrum -- systems such as
cyberweapons, electronic jammers, anti-satellite missiles, and electromagnetic
pulse (EMP) munitions -- will deprive militaries of the sensor and
communications links they rely on. Forget 24-hour streaming video from a
Predator drone. Armies of the future may struggle just to use their
radios.....

------
bilzip
Being dependent on large monolithic corporate entities for your mostly private
communications is probably not good for your security and privacy. Mesh
networks or something similar sounds just fine to me.

------
kwhitefoot
This is what Internet was supposed to be from the beginning; a reliable
network with multiple paths between nodes so that the removal of even a large
number of edges would not prevent packets getting through.

------
kwhitefoot
Actually for low rate communication in a disaster zone store and forward text
messaging via mobile telephones would surely work more easily and could be
combined with the mesh to enable greater coverage.

------
Istof
And yet Google disables ad-hoc wifi on Android mobile devices...

