We’ve had enough of digital monopolies and surveillance capitalism. We want an alternative world that works for everyone, just like the original intention of the web and net.
We seek a world of open platforms and protocols with real choices of applications and services for people. We care about privacy, transparency and autonomy. Our tools and organisations should fundamentally be accountable and resilient.
One reason it's important to keep working on the technology is to remove the incentive for carriers (and others) to fight net neutrality. If we make it technologically such that even if they win politically it will be costly or quixotic to implement a non-neutral net, we make them more likely to capitulate politically.On Jan 14, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Eric Mill <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:The legal system isn't fundamentally broken just because a legal event occurs you don't like.The Internet has been (roughly speaking) net neutral for decades now, because of legal mechanisms. Today's ruling can be reversed through legal mechanisms (for exampl e, by the FCC mustering the political will to classify broadband companies as "common carriers", or by Congress passing new law). These things are politically difficult, but not impossible, and should be one of the things the Internet works to make happen.At the same time, we should keep working on the technology. After all, the strong belief in net neutrality that much of society (and the US government) has is due to technology shaping culture and norms. Building new things is one of the ways to create social change.Just don't cast out the entire idea of laws. Now's the time to organize in all kinds of ways.On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla <email@example.com> wrote:
Maybe I didn't express myself in a way that adequately described to the
audience of this list what it is that I am seeking.
So I'll preface this reply with a couple caveats.
1) I am not trying to overthrow a nation-state (though I would be pleased
if digital systems could essentially make nation-states irrelevant).
2) I am not suggesting that a meshnet could somehow 'defeat' (whatever
that means) the attempts of a focused, persistent group of (governmental /
corporation-state / corporate / random malicious individual) actor(s). Â I
do think that migrating to open source (and free) solutions will help
remove funding from such entities and will encourage a more healthy and
vibrant society through transparency and sharing. Â I should note that
Microsoft (a company that I don't particularly like and am trying to
migrate completely away from) characterizes the US government as an
"advanced persistent threat." Regardless of how you think of (or
personally define) meshnets, or Microsoft, or the US or any government
a.k.a. corporation-state, the notion of a "advanced persistent threat" is
inclusive (but not limited to) the concept that someone, somewhere, has
the ability to get you or your data should they so desire. Â I also ask
that you reflect upon the following (old, heavily recycled) quote - which
I like a lot: Â "The first thing required is to discard any desire to turn
swordsmanship into... a matter of mere accomplishment. (...) (O)ne is not
to think of achieving victory over the opponent." - Odagiri Sekiei
(Muji-Shin-Jen ryÅ«) Â Nor do I think that technological solutions are
everything. But that's what I'm asking about here.
3) That said, here's getting to what I intended to emphasize:
The process of decentralization needs to be everywhere.
It needs to be easier.
Things that are here and there need to be made available in commonly
available places and made easy to access / download / use in ways that are
well known and can be understood by anyone in primary school.
I also like the suitpossum blog (note that it is a blogger blog,
maintained by Google), not because it is a blogger blog but because of its
contents and its reference to 'Five Pillars of Open Source Finance,' which
reminds me a bit of the Book of Five Rings, written by Musashi around
This e-mail is already too long so I am going to stop here and repeat my
request for technological suggestions. Â Have any?
> On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Paul Frazee <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Hi Odinn,
>> I'm not a huge fan of projecting p2p or decentralization as a way to
>> subvert laws. For one, it's a dangerously inaccurate. For two, it's not
>> what I'm here for.
> I can agree with this point.
> I'd add three: if you fight nation states you're probably going to lose in
> the long run, cause they have more resources than you do.
> The idea of a meshnet that can withstand a concerted assult by, say, the
> NSA is a fantasy. I'm not aware of any meshnet that would not be
> vulnerable to a well funded and very smart attacker's distributed DDOS or
> other disruption efforts.
> Technology can only be at best half the fix for the panopticon problem.
> The other half has to be political.