-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello Bob,
I agree with you on the whole but I'm going to argue some of your points.
On 26 Jun 2013, at 17:03, Yosem Companys wrote:
> From: "Bob Frankston" <bob19-0...@bobf.frankston.com>
>
> The current implementation of the Internet is hierarchical in that we get IP
> addresses from provides and then use a DNS that is rooted.
Well, its "decentralised hierarchical" I guess. To be fair, there is nothing
from stopping you or I from running our own DNS servers. However, at some
point, I guess it will have to get its answers from root servers.
> We go even further in requiring that we conform to conditions on our intent
> (AKA our use) of connectivity in order to get a temporary lease on something
> so fundamental as our identity in the guise of a DNS name. We go further by
> accepting the idea that we communicate within pipes owned by service
> providers who can dictate terms in order to extract a rent.
Someone has to build, maintain and expand the backbone infrastructure. I'm not
for one minute saying the Verizon's, AT&T, Vodafone's of the world are the best
to do this. But it is expensive. Nowadays telecoms operators are more
interested in sponsoring sports stadia, or film events than paying for the
hardware needed. Thankfully this is causing their destruction.
David Burgess from Open BTS said this about telecoms last year:
"....will be served by companies that look and work a lot more like Red Hat
than like Nokia-Siemens. I see that vision too, and I see products (not
projects, products) like OpenBTS and OpenBSC.....having places in that world.
If we are correct about this vision of the future, then that small gathering of
hackers.....may have held the seeds of a revolution that will fundamentally
change a multi-trillion dollar industry." [1]
These are the kinds of projects are the way of the future, but they still rely
on infrastructure companies to carry packets to reach maximum range.
> Once you accept such an architecture and such rules it seems disingenuous to
> act surprised when those whom we’ve put in charge take advantage of this
> control for whatever purpose whether for advertising or for our safety (real
> or imagined).
Why so?
We pay them for a service to provide us connectivity. We do not pay them to
facilitate worldwide surveillance with no basis.
Governments and LEA enforce "legal interception protocols" and build in
requirements for any nation who wants to build a 3GPP standard mobile phone
network to install legal interception equipment. By this I don't mean Finfisher
or other sickening weapons of mass surveillance.
Advances in communications technologies like LTE/SAE ("4G") have built into
their core Deep Packet Inspection. This is there for network management
purposes, but lets be honest, it can (and is) used for other reasons.
I would be amazed if any private individual asked ETSI (European telecoms
Standards Institute) or ITU (International Telecoms Union) to require telecoms
providers to install surveillance equipment. This is a legal battle.
> We may ask for restraint on the part of those who enforce the rules but every
> time there is an outrage (often called terrorist attack) we (perhaps not the
> same “we”) demand more surveillance.
We demand more surveillance because we have been blinded by the "more
surveillance protects us". I have been happily surprised by the number of
conversations I have had since this Prism story was released.
The number of times I have been banging on to people about these topics. People
are starting to consciously realise and importantly *becoming angry* about
these events.
> The ideas behind the Internet – the use of raw packets that have no
> intrinsic meaning in transit – should enable us to communicate without having
> to agree to all of these conditions and without subjecting ourselves to prior
> restraint.
For me the issue with privacy on the Internet s not that it *is* designed for
surveillance. It's that it *was* designed for open, transparent communications
within a restricted self-controlling group, who all-in-all had no intention of
doing anything "bad".
I read an article about, I can't remember exactly who, (Vint Cerf, Bob
Metcalfe, Bob Kahn) and they were asked what were they thinking about when they
worked on early Internet protocols. There answer was (paraphrasing terribly):
"I wasn't thinking about the military generals thats for sure."
While I have the utmost respect for the mothers and fathers of the Internet,
they failed future generations by not building privacy and security into the
founding protocols.
For me, as a result, we are now in the place where we are today - trying to fix
the sticking plaster onto the big open cut.
> Even if we didn’t fully appreciate the idea of raw packets we still have to
> wonder why we accept a rent-seeking approach for something so vital as our
> ability to communicate.
I agree, but while it's not the *exact* same as road infrastructure, that is
how I look at it currently.
Originally the point of the Internet was to decentralise infrastructure - the
nodes that move packets from Bob to Alice.
Now we have decentralisation in the end nodes - Joe running his Raspberry-Pi
over his 3G connection on the side of a mountain. Or Frank running his SailMail
e-mail programme running over HF SSB-Pactor powered by a community of ham radio
ops which feed into ISPs.
For me the end node decentralisation has won. The battle is now with the as you
say "rent-seeking" service providers.
This battle is not technology, it is legal. The technology to make an
independent ISP is there. Has been for 10-15 years. The problem is getting the
lawmakers to support them.
How come all (or at least the majority) of the independent ISPs are gone in the
USA?
> Where is the effort honor the Internet paradigm and move away from the
> presumption of hierarchy to a distributed approach that doesn’t assume that
> we must declare our intent merely to exchange bits?
Sorry I don't follow.
> At very least we should move beyond having rent-seekers in the path.
A-f*#king-men to that, Bob.
Thanks,
Bernard
[1]:
http://openbts.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/terminal-state-of-telecom-industry.html
- --------------------------------------
Bernard / bluboxthief / ei8fdb
IO91XM / www.ei8fdb.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRyz3LAAoJENsz1IO7MIrrPyQH+wUtFYDkhmh8pv87ohfEEb1L
+b+vsAmhmsNyOpCExRKx3eajdmdY1FRvYYaaiByt9uQhDoFCIoUOy3SiDinhvFnE
Je9Zghy42pPxOiWaUINO25NpRofXfMVt1fU3r9yZREnaLmerli6c7Yh2kye0a0SH
PKX/46YYj8tv6Mo9b0rfCC6Ih4rtWpJPrXNwljb94593fa7GBooKFLMfEajy1k7z
JOcz+XNcGxLcf9Xoz6tuZ58PACMVHsTje69ebd6AEIWve0dUMtLiVg4ST0qYXbUd
mlFhvEUq+0tLJngPsI6QNl1hSwPoImVmn3jk0ZXBu96pzlvDsqU/8VmU1stEYW4=
=zig9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
