Decius wrote:
] ] Global Internet,
] ] Once a spring of liberty,
] ] Autumn chill so near.
]
] This is the founder of Autodesk on how the potential for
] freedom represented by the internet could be rolled back over
] the next few years.

While I agree that in principle this is possible, I'm not terribly worried by it. I think it would be extrordinarily expensive to deploy and maintain... I may have some more to say about this later.

bucy wrote:
] While I agree that in principle this is possible, I'm
] not terribly worried by it. I think it would be
] extrordinarily expensive to deploy and maintain... I may have
] some more to say about this later.

Lets discuss this...

1. Asynchronous internet access:
Already occurred. I've been complaining about this for years. I have a DSL connection with a static IP and I pay through the nose for "real" internet access in a colo facility. I think this is a real problem. I think it can be solved, but it will take real market pressure from a really hot service that people want to host themselves. Even surmountable barriers chill speech.

2. DRM:
Yes, sort of. I've been warning about this for years. I think it works for software. I don't think it will work for content. The only way for DRM to work is with things like the DMCA... The future here is uncertain, but certain to be contentious (putting it mildly).

3. Micropayments: I don't see this as a technical problem. If people wanted this, then they would build something reasonable out of what they already have. Its a prisoners dilemma. You WILL get better sites when you decide to pay for them. When I imagine how cool MemeStreams would be by now if I could feed myself while working on it I almost want to cry. But it doesn't happen because everybody expects somebody else to pay. There has to be a massive social movement to encourage people to willingly donate cash to small websites before these changes will start to happen, and when it happens it won't matter what the technology is. People used to pay for online services in the early 90's... I think that all this free stuff is mostly a product of the bubble. It will probably change eventually... I think he has the basic economics right. Some WAP networks currently cut checks to content providers based on the amount of traffic they collect. The billing will be managed such that end users see a flat rate... However, I might be wrong here. He might be wrong. The social movement might not happen. People like free stuff, and prisoner's dilemmas are powerful things...

4. Personal Certs: Already here, but no one really uses them. A geek idea that has never gained traction. I think this needs an application moreso then better tech. Spam white-listing might end up being the killer app for personal certs. Fortunately we don't NEED certs to solve that problem. There will be alternative solutions available, and they are actually more likely to be adopted because the personal Cert option is more costly. Its a maybe situation. If people start banning remailers from publishing we're in a lot of trouble.

5. The end of anonymous speech: This, again, will be a social rather then technical phenomenon. On the one hand, I am amazed to see the end of anonymous mail. That is something I would never have predicted. I think its a really bad idea. On the other hand, I think the reason th... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Decius wrote:
] So we build something else... We build
] fidonet again if need be. It was effective.

Let's build Aquanet again... :)

Decius wrote:
] bucy wrote:
] ] While I agree that in principle this is possible, I'm
]
] ] not terribly worried by it. I think it would be
] ] extrordinarily expensive to deploy and maintain... I may
] have
] ] some more to say about this later.
]
] Lets discuss this...
]
...
]
] This is also why it is important that we be prepared to deploy
] alternative systems if this system does not meet our needs.
] The internets power comes from empowerment. Its Ebay and
] google that drive this stuff, not amazon and cnn. You didn't
] learn computers so you could get books and broadcast news. You
] had both those things before. An internet that isn't free
] isn't an internet. So we build something else... We build
] fidonet again if need be. It was effective.
]
] If we don't allow ourselves to be locked into the mindset that
] we have to operate within the parameters of the existing
] system then we have nothing to fear from this.

John Walker wrote, in the orignally meme'd article: Whatever solutions are adopted [to create the Secure Internet]... , are likely to be with us for a long time. Whether they preserve the essential power of the Internet and its potential to empower the individual or put the Intenet genie back into the bottle at the behest of government and media power centres who perceive it as a threat will be decided over the next few years.

It will not be necessary to abandon the internet as long as a sufficient number of voices are raised which demand that provision be made for (relatively) unfettered peer-to-peer communication on the internet, and reasoned proposals are presented to decisionmakers for technical and procedural mechanisms to achieve those provisions. This would be an opt-in subset of the net, and the intellectual property exchanged would have to be explictly given over free exchange by their creators.

Hypothesis: The dynamism, creativity and excitement of this free subnet would be a sufficient countervailing force to prevent big media from crushing it, and a passion for free speech will prevent big government from crushing it.

bucy wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] ] Global Internet,
] ] ] Once a spring of liberty,
] ] ] Autumn chill so near.
] ]
] ] This is the founder of Autodesk on how the potential for
] ] freedom represented by the internet could be rolled back
] over
] ] the next few years.
]
] While I agree that in principle this is possible, I'm
] not terribly worried by it. I think it would be
] extrordinarily expensive to deploy and maintain... I may have
] some more to say about this later.

Some elements of this future are inevitable. That future will be profoundly shaped by market forces. The secure internet will increase the "barriers to entry" for anyone who desires a first-class presence on the secure internet, precisely because so few people will desire it. But, if there is a large enough counterculture who demand it, there should be a niche for first-class access. While free access won't be "free" it should certainly be affordable for the geeks and activists who really want it.

The end of anonymity need not lead to oppression. The US is (more or less) a society where a citizen can state her views openly. Most government agencies and semi-public organizations (like hospitals) are scrupulous about preserving the privacy of personnal information. That is not the case in many parts of the world, and the secure internet could be a tool for preventing dissent. Its not obvious what can be done about that.

A large enough constituancy needs to demand that a provision be made for free access to the secure internet. That should be possible in the US where a passion for freedom runs deep. Maybe that can be a base for fighting oppression elsewhere.

bucy wrote:
] While I agree that in principle this is possible, I'm
] not terribly worried by it. I think it would be
] extrordinarily expensive to deploy and maintain... I may have
] some more to say about this later.

Lets discuss this...

1. Asynchronous internet access:
Already occurred. I've been complaining about this for years. I have a DSL connection with a static IP and I pay through the nose for "real" internet access in a colo facility. I think this is a real problem. I think it can be solved, but it will take real market pressure from a really hot service that people want to host themselves. Even surmountable barriers chill speech.

2. DRM:
Yes, sort of. I've been warning about this for years. I think it works for software. I don't think it will work for content. The only way for DRM to work is with things like the DMCA... The future here is uncertain, but certain to be contentious (putting it mildly).

3. Micropayments: I don't see this as a technical problem. If people wanted this, then they would build something reasonable out of what they already have. Its a prisoners dilemma. You WILL get better sites when you decide to pay for them. When I imagine how cool MemeStreams would be by now if I could feed myself while working on it I almost want to cry. But it doesn't happen because everybody expects somebody else to pay. There has to be a massive social movement to encourage people to willingly donate cash to small websites before these changes will start to happen, and when it happens it won't matter what the technology is. People used to pay for online services in the early 90's... I think that all this free stuff is mostly a product of the bubble. It will probably change eventually... I think he has the basic economics right. Some WAP networks currently cut checks to content providers based on the amount of traffic they collect. The billing will be managed such that end users see a flat rate... However, I might be wrong here. He might be wrong. The social movement might not happen. People like free stuff, and prisoner's dilemmas are powerful things...

4. Personal Certs: Already here, but no one really uses them. A geek idea that has never gained traction. I think this needs an application moreso then better tech. Spam white-listing might end up being the killer app for personal certs. Fortunately we don't NEED certs to solve that problem. There will be alternative solutions available, and they are actually more likely to be adopted because the personal Cert option is more costly. Its a maybe situation. If people start banning remailers from publishing we're in a lot of trouble.

5. The end of anonymous speech: This, again, will be a social rather then technical phenomenon. On the one hand, I am amazed to see the end of anonymous mail. That is something I would never have predicted. I think its a really bad idea. On the other hand, I think the reason th... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]