Internet censorship is a dramatic example of this. Even in democratic societies with large majorities in favor of free communication over the internet, the internal imperatives of governments to monitor and control trump the will of the people, no matter who is in power. In the matter of desiring to be able to read everyone's email, the governments of the world are in nearly unanimous alliance against their own citizens.
Do you have any data to back this up?
My guess is that if you frame it the right way, most people would vote for censoring the Internet
Well, people are very protective of their email, that's why. Email is the key to a person's online identity and should be guarded like one's wallet or house keys. But wait until the children are brought into the debate. "Of course, everyone knows _you_ are legit, but there are predators creeping around in the seedy underbelly of the internet. These sexual predators will prey on your children through email and social networking sites. We need safeguards in place to ensure that predators are not able to operate freely on the internet and thus ensure your and your family's freedom and security."
Those predator shows on MSNBC where they basically entice some disturbed person with a made up fantasy, parade him in front of the cameras, talk about all the what-ifs and then arrest him only to have him show up on the next episode reinforces this. Aside: It drives me bonkers when the host says, "You came here to meet a 14 year old boy. What would have happened if we were not here?" I'll tell you. Absolutely nothing. Because there was no 14 year old boy in a chat room looking to meet 45 year old child molesters and there was no 14 year old boy waiting for him in the house.
There are smart people- good parents- who will eat that kind of crap up. They are the kind of parents that are involved in their children's lives. They help them with homework and know their friends and their friend's parents. They talk to their children about risks and staying safe. These are the kind of parents who have the least to worry about, but also the ones who will argue most passionately in favor of policies like this.
1. Season 4, episode 9 "Numbers"
But his larger point remains intact: Freedom of the press/Internet is only an axiomatic good in educated America and Europe. It's on shaky ground in the rest of the world, which in a democratic referendum would make the educated population of America and Europe a rounding error.
I'm not sure if it was constructive. However, the parent poster was asking for sources.
The average American votes against his best interest. The official response to any opposition to totalitarian tactics is .. FUD. Something only less blatant than what I have written above.
I know Texas' redistricting shenanigans are sleazy, but it's still a democracy.
Of course, some jackhole will tell me that I must be horribly uninformed if my knee doesn't jerk like theirs. I don't think any answer to that will suffice for someone who feels that way (Q:"How can you not be driven into a frothing rage about the 'kill switch bill'?" A:"I actually read it.") but at least consider that I was actively seeking information when I clicked on the link and was disappointed to find instead a glittering call to action based on interpretations I don't share, punching at emotional triggers that I don't have.
However, the point of the link was not just to be to the call for action. The site itself, as you'll see if you scroll down, is meant as a collection of information. Links posted so far and found on the site include the following:
In the future, more links will likely be posted so if this is an issue that concerns you, you might consider bookmarking the site (which I am unaffiliated with).
Like I said, the G8 is not extremely forthcoming with what they plan to do and it is unclear to what extent the information they do release should be trusted. And so we have opinion pieces where people watching the general anti-democratic trend of certain G8 decisions express caution at allowing them to control the internet.
If you prefer to read euphemisms discussing what will take place during the talks ("the promotion of human rights and democratic freedoms"), consider the official site - http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/g8/english/priorities-for-franc...
This is HN at its worst.
two more articles about the event:
but i share the concerns of mr. spivack in the 2nd link.
At first sight the conference seems a perfectly valid event about the internet at this moment. But Sarkozy is not a person who takes privacy very seriously.
This article, posted to g8internet.com, from the Italian newspaper la Republicca, by internet reporter Arturo Di Corinto, provides more detailed arguments and a generous use of footnotes and citations - http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2011/05/01/news/sarkozy_...
Hopefully more pieces like that will be found and added to the growing repository at the site.
As far as headline, I took that from an article by Dominic Basulto which I submitted separately here - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2581175 - apologies for any confusion.
There was a time where a reading populace was the bane of the powerful. Now we are beginning to have a writing populace. This means the doom of current power structures, should they let it happen. The fact they try hard not to doesn't surprise me at all. (Though I am ashamed of my government right now.)
At work, we have an IP network called BARONET. It's like the Internet except it's not. There is a bridge on one machine that proxies HTTP requests from this network to the Internet. There are no routes to the Internet.
This significantly reduces the possibility of "cyberattacks", since you'll have to go through that proxy box. (Which probably runs Windows, but hey... if you actually cared about security, you wouldn't do that. The rest of the idea is good.)
What we did was use a serial port, but with no protocol (just plain ascii) and with the return wire physically cut. There was hardware flow control (RTS and CTS were there), but you could only send data one way. The logging machine at the other end wasn't connected to any other network.
You want security, you have to deal with physical security.
As a point of order: serial port exploits exist for other OSes (Linux, Juniper, Cisco, APC...) and also for windows virtual com ports so whilst probably not trivial it's not entirely infeasible either.
The other problem with it is anthropomorphic Stuxnet, which giggles like a schoolgirl when anyone says there's no route to the Internet.
Could you explain what does that `anthropomorphic Stuxnet' stand for?
True, but I don't think that's central to what most governments are seeking to do, if it is as all. Even the US "kill switch bill" was almost entirely about things other than the so-called "kill switch".
The "anthropomorphic" bit was just me being excessively silly and forgetting that it's not a very common word even among native English speakers. My apologies. Stuxnet does not, in fact, giggle.
As for Stuxnet: As jrockway correctly pointed out you can secure a network against attacks from the Internet by not connecting it to the Internet. But, on the other hand, one of the most notable attacks in recent history, and one that I think that governments have in mind when thinking about cybersecurity, is an attack that targeted (and reached) systems which weren't connected to the Internet.
Anthropomorphism is a term coined in the mid 1700s to refer to any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to non-human animals or non-living things, phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts, such as god(s).
Stuxnet attacked Windows systems using an unprecedented four zero-day attacks (plus the CPLINK vulnerability and a vulnerability used by the Conficker worm) It is initially spread using infected removable drives such as USB flash drives, and then uses other exploits and techniques such as peer-to-peer RPC to infect and update other computers inside private networks that are not directly connected to the Internet.
Semi-related, there was that old sci-fi story by Stanisław Lem. A mad scientist was researching two AIs (based on organical matter, IIRC) that somehow communicated with one another in spite of some distance and thorogh screening of all known means of communication. The scientist was puzzled beyond comprehension; story's protagonist notes the scientist himself served as as unnwitting messenger -- as he (affectionaly) touched AI's chassiss, he subconsciously passed data by taping on 'em, probably somehow `programmed' to do so by the other AI. Oh well.
I say IPv6 because nearly all operating systems do support IPv6 even if it's barely used these days; the address space is big so the addresses can probably be used to store some routing or clustering hints that make the onion network more efficient; and if all you have is an anonymous IPv6 address that isn't directly related to any physical connection then monitoring, governing, controlling and taxing becomes pretty difficult.
In a few years maybe, if Linux distributions shipped with such a client by default and you could download such a "network driver" for Windows to enable you to communicate and share with your friends in a private manner, the userbase will suddenly consist of so many nodes that the lack of performance and content-scarcity of the current anonymous networks will likely become history.
Anyways, I'm getting carried away here. I simply wanted to point out that we shouldn't use the word democracy so liberally as it is often the thing we should be fighting. Let's talk about constitution instead :)
32% vote for candidate/party A, 33% vote for B, 35% vote for C.
65% are not represented. First past the post needs to go. :(
Now we have the first government ever in a Westminster Democracy that the Prime Minister lost to a vote of no-confidence for breaching parliamentary conduct and we turn his minority government to a majority.
Fucking Canadians are idiots, 40% of them at least.
Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?
LAWRENCE R. JACOBS and BENJAMIN I.
Democracy is used liberally as you say and it has come to mean something else other than what it was supposed to, this is the thing we should be fighting.
...and for some reason, property rights and freedom of contract are always forgotten. But for a prosperous society, these are every bit as important.
Look at the US, just before the Civil War. Or even pre Civl Rights act. Were all natural born Americans given the right to pursue happiness?
There's a lot of things that make a country work well. Not all of them are in the constitution. New rules need enforcement. There's a lot of levels of government, and a lot of public institutions (such as the police, judiciary, and education systems), and they virtually never work together.
Sometimes, there's no abstraction layers that make sense, and you just have to talk about fixing stuff that's broken.
Don't pretend we have society of laws rather than of men, or that such a thing is even possible.
I very much prefer the Internet raw and unfiltered. I know enough to know which sites I like and which I don't.
Furthermore, the Internet is an expression of the human condition, and as such it is itself art, and should not be censored for this reason as well.
We already have enough trouble with ICE seizing domains
Btw nice thought with the Internet being art, but it might be a bit of a stretch in realpolitik terms.
I was going to come up with a more level-headed and well reasoned response here, but I guess the first bit really sums it up.
There are days where I wonder if Academia didn't have the right idea with Internet 2.0. Whatever happened with that anyway?
We're pretty dependent on the results of this 'civilizing' process in most every other aspect of life, why's it so surprising when it's applied here?
- - Frank Herbert, Dune series
Halcyon days to be sure. Pre-spam, largely pre-ecommerce and you'd have to hunt to find an ad. Even when you did, it was kinda cool. Novel, like.
16 entirely too short years later the many too many (as Nietzsche would say) are fully entrenched on the network, bringing with them all of the social ills that are the hallmarks of their culture, a world I willfully turned my back on 16 years ago in favor of a dwelling place of the mind, inhabited by kindred spirits, which is not to say the likeminded.
No, this comes as no surprise, I just miss the network I grew up with.
Time to grab the popcorn.
Fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of other races, fear of the stranger at the playground, fear of the poor, fear of being poor, fear of losing their job, fear of a bad school district, fear of the police, fear of judgment by their peers, fear of standing out, fear of individualism, fear of crime both real and imagined... These are the defining attributes of modern life for many.
Why is everyone suddenly up in arms about the internet losing its freedom and being regulated? How is this any different from every other service that exists?
The internet is the shining last example of true liberty - it CAN work - and yet everyone seems to think that the world would go into chaos if everything wasn't heavily regulated. Where does this assumption come from? The internet is super prosperous because of this freedom. Why do people assume regulation is the best answer, when evidence indicates otherwise?
I'm seriously at a loss here.
And SSH is used not only for tunneling the HTTP traffic, try managing a remote server without it.
I personally, am prepared to walk away. I grew up with BBSs and 2400bps dialup, only one user at a time connecting. It was not horrible. I remeber downloading .gl video files over dialup, too. This level of communication is completely feasible today without relying on any corporate or government owned network.
We can start anew and create a network controlled by the citizens of the world. We may not have HD video at first, but we can have Twitter and a Lynx resurgence....
...or live together in a secluded valley in Colorado, protected by an air-wave reflection device.
But since you asked...
Actually, it is trivial to do all those things. You forget that govt controls access to bit transport.
The hard part is allowing extensive "appropriate" access and denying those things, but with limited appropriate access.....
If govt has a choice between doing what it wants and allowing you extensive access, what do you think will win?
My sympathies to all the Royal & Mitterrand voters - seems like Sarkozy is rapidly becoming the new G.W. Bush.
Nah. Barack Obama is already the new GWBush. So Sarkozy must be the new Obama. Or something like that.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. 
Certainly, the government has all the power, but the people who help get them elected have a lot of the influence.
When the G8 can let protesters have a peaceful protest during their session than we will believe their intentions in governing the internet as being for the common world good..
Until that proof shows up STFU..
Stop going to Starbucks.
Send money to The Freedom Box Foundation.
Otherwise they may prove Richard Stallman correct.