Welcome to the splinternet – where freedom of expression is suppressed and repressed, and Big Brother is watching

Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Gilmore said that the internet routed around censorship. But what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing? National governments are busy walling off their own sections, and in some cases changing the technologies that underpin it. What's more, they're not stopping at their …

[StrangerHereMyself]

HORNET or death

This is the reason I've been calling for migration to a new kind of internet: HORNET (High Speed Onion Network) which is similar to the Tor network but with the speed of the regular internet. Hornet will make suppression of content and free speech infeasible and will therefore force authoritarian regimes to either disappear off the internet completely (with all the economic disadvantages that entails) or to put up with the free speech criticizing the regime.

[Rol]

Re: HORNET or death

I've listened to "free speech" coming from the mouth of a dear friend. Sadly his free speech was the culmination of months and most probably years of being groomed by conspiracy theorists and downright malignant muppets, on Facebook.

Sure, have a place on the internet where anonymously posted bullshit and the likes can be scrawled, but for heaven's sake, insist comments on popular and widely used media have a genuine and verifiable source. A source that can be held accountable for the profanities and malicious content of their spewing.

Society protects it's innocent children from the worst of us, or at least tries, but the politically innocent and naive of our community have no such protections, and they have the power, once every term, to vote Hitler's biggest fan into office.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: HORNET or death

> A source that can be held accountable for the profanities and malicious content of their spewing.

Perhaps with some sort of "social credit" score ?

[Robert Carnegie]

Re: HORNET or death

Like the special naext-to-name badges some readers have here, yes.

Speech is silver, but silence is golden.

[Rol]

Re: HORNET or death

A user who has been verified by the site to be genuine, and therefore be held accountable for what they publish.

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: HORNET or death

Sorry, but if you want the "good stuff" you'll also get some of the "bad stuff" as a bonus. No doubt we'll see piracy, conspiracy theories, terrorism and child-pornography popping-up on HORNET, but that's simply the price we have to pay to keep our freedom of expression.

[Anonymous Coward]

@StrangerHereMyself - Re: HORNET or death

And who is to decide if this price is worth paying ? Who is to draw the line between safety and freedom ? As a person who has spent half of his life under a communist regime and the rest of it under a democratic and liberal one, I am unable to tell.

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

You of all people should know that the price for freedom is paid for in blood but always worth it.

It's the same with the right to bear arms in the U.S. Most people don't know the idea behind it: it's so citizens can overthrow the government should it become authoritarian, and every day people in the U.S. die from gun related violence, but I sincerely believe even if all other nations in the world turn into totalitarian states, the U.S. will always remain a free democracy. Because of the right to bear arms.

[LenG]

Re: @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

Sorry, but when I look at the last US election and the way the system is constructed to centralize power in a few hands I am no longer convinced that the US is even truly a democracy, let alone anything which can be held up as an exemplar to the rest of the world.

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

The U.S. uses the same district system as the U.K. which has the side effect of reducing the number of election parties to two or three.

I personally believe the district system is undemocratic because of this. What we need is proportional representation and coalition governments. These usually satisfy few voters because of the compromises that necessarily have to be made, but it's a lot more democratic than the district / electoral college system.

[Charles 9]

Re: @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

The reason for the district system is that it allows the requirement that the representative actually live IN the district in question. US Representatives must physically reside in their respective districts, Senators in their respective states. It's in the Constitution, Article I. It's harder to have the same thing in a proportional-representation system because your districts by necessity have to be larger and risks someone being less representative (and in sparse states like Wyoming, you can't get any larger as there's only one district there--the entire state) or you simply have parties draw up lists of the faithful, who may not be from the places they 're chosen to represent.

[cornetman]

Re: @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

The answer is that we each decide for ourselves.

It is not someone else to decide how much freedom is good for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

@cornetman - Re: @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

Does that include freedom to enslave or kill other fellow humans ?

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: @cornetman - @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

The short answer would be yes.

The long answer would be that society as a whole decides what is acceptable and what isn't. And that acceptance may change over time, as it did with slavery and the death penalty.

This doesn't, however, mean that this may not revert back over time. Consider the fact that in some parts of the world slavery is seen as acceptable and has only been outlawed because of external pressures (colonial powers that forbade it).

The same holds for the age of consent, which used to be much lower, but is now considered child abuse.

[cornetman]

Re: @cornetman - @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

> Does that include freedom to enslave or kill other fellow humans ?

My freedom ends where another's begins etc etc.

My point is that in a free society, freedom should be the default, and should be curtailed ONLY when there is no alternative. We protect our children and the other vulnerable individuals.

But adults must be treated as adults and afforded the freedoms that we rightly come to expect.

There is a dangerous trend these days where we seem to be headed in the direction of having to justify our freedoms as though freedom was something that you had to earn or that freedom was something that is doled out as a privilege on a case-by-case basis. Also, we are seeing a lot of do-gooders trying to determine what is and is not good for me.

A telling example was the situation recently after the terrorist gunning down where a video was being circulated of it over the Internet. Politicians were calling for it to be banned and people circulating it criminally charged, for the mere act of showing the truth of a real live event. That is just how far we have already gone down that rabbit hole.

[Charles 9]

Re: @cornetman - @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

"But adults must be treated as adults and afforded the freedoms that we rightly come to expect."

The problem becomes defining what it means to BE an adult, especially when past experience tells us there's no one-size-fits-all solution that can keep society both satisfied and running properly. Get it wrong (which happens pretty damn often) and people die, loved ones grieve and sometimes consider revenge. Sorry, that's just the human condition for you.

"There is a dangerous trend these days where we seem to be headed in the direction of having to justify our freedoms as though freedom was something that you had to earn or that freedom was something that is doled out as a privilege on a case-by-case basis."

Furthermore, since no man is an island and one person's action inevitably have knock-on effects on others, people often can't be left solely to their own devices as then you also have widows and orphans to consider. And c'est la vie isn't an option, either, because of the aforementioned human instinct. Everyone has a breaking point, but every breaking point is different. That's what makes it hard.

"A telling example was the situation recently after the terrorist gunning down where a video was being circulated of it over the Internet."

And we have documented instances of copycats...made by supposed adults supposedly choosing of their own free will (or so they claim). See where this is going? When you have small families or even clans, it's still possible to get everything dialed in. But get too large, and the medium starts becoming UNhappy, with no satisfactory solution possible because someone's going to retaliate.

Put pretty bluntly, not too many people in society are fond of anarchy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

"The answer is that we each decide for ourselves."

You realise that half of us are below average? And at least quarter of us are well below average...

The reality is that any alternative to the Internet will either suffer the same issues as the present infrastruture (because the alternative will use the majority of the same infrastructure) or can already be addressed via overlays and thus doesn't require an alternative.

There are ways to bypass content screening and over time these are broken and need to evolve - as long as the Internet continues to evolve, the game goes on but we the battle for privacy and freedom has swung sgnificantly towards the individual in the last 30 years inspite of the battles that have been lost and ground that has been conceded at times.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

Trouble is, all this talk of a Stateful Intenet indicates the pendulum is starting to swing BACK...with the force of states being behind the jerking. Which raises interesting questions, as the Internet still requires physical infrastructure to work (wires or airwaves). What happens when states start guarding this infrastructure?

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: @StrangerHereMyself - HORNET or death

You realise that half of us are below average?

That tired sophomorism is only true if by average you mean "median", or the metric you're referring to has the appropriate sort of distribution. And as a generality it's meaningless.

[Arthur the cat]

Re: HORNET or death

Society protects it's innocent children from the worst of us, or at least tries

The problem with the "will nobody think of the children" types is that in order to prevent the <1% of serious malefactors on the net having their evil way they're prepared to wreck the utility and usability of the net for the generally law abiding 99+%.

[veti]

Re: HORNET or death

The free Internet has given us Facebook and Twitter and Google and Amazon. Are you sure that's the best it can be?

1%, if the figure truly is that low (and I'd love to see some hard numbers on that), can still do a tremendous amount of damage. The number of people who abuse guns or poison is lower than that, but we still regulate them.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: HORNET or death

Nothing compared to the trouble books have caused

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: HORNET or death

Books are far worse - you can't even burn them now without damaging the environment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: HORNET or death

The free Internet has given us Facebook and Twitter and Google and Amazon.

No those are censored services, you can’t use them to exercise free speech on all issues, as you’ll get demonetised, censored, warnings or banned. Not so different from China, they just censor different information.

groomed by conspiracy theorists

Shocking revelation: sometimes people conspire, so sometimes conspiracy theories are true. There’s often enough evidence to disprove the official story behind many events, but finding the truth is a lot harder.

[veti]

Re: HORNET or death

The services are censored, yes, but they were created by the commercial pressures of the free unregulated Internet. They're censored because they choose to be that way. And people choose to use them anyway.

Just like any fully unregulated market eventually tends to monopoly, but on the Internet of course it happens faster.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: HORNET or death

It used to be said a free press was free to print any of the political opinions of the owner which didn't upset the advertisers.

The nice thing about social media is you can match the advertisers with the opinions

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: No those are censored services

Censorship and moderation are not the same thing.

If you're not just here to shout and fancy reading up a bit, try https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150326/12252530454/free-speech-censorship-moderation-community-copia-discussion.shtml and then link from there.

It's a complex area, pretending it's simple doesn't help.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: No those are censored services

It's a complex area, pretending it's simple doesn't help.

Woah, slow down there, friend. If we get people to stop pretending complex things are simple, Internet discussions will grind to a halt.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: HORNET or death

the politically innocent and naive of our community have no such protections

Won't someone think of the idiots?

[handle handle]

Re: HORNET or death

How about we just fucking ignore social media and socialize more in meat space? We'll all be happier for it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: HORNET or death

Until we all catch the virus and die, that is...

[Anonymous Coward]

20 years ago, the US proudly showed the world that the DMCA could be applied globally. And now there's some kind of surprise that other countries find ways to use the internet to suit their own goals? How wasn't it expected in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

Free internet != lawless internet

Make the internet a lawless entity and the request to "fully regulate" it will become more and more, and eventually even democratic countries risk to apply Draconian rules. Freedom is not anarchy - and the latter usually just brings the rule of the 800 pound gorilla.

The fact that people like you believe they could do in the virtual world what is already forbidden in the physical one is one the issues.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Free internet != lawless internet

But in the physical world one president can't just take away control of another entire country's telecoms infrastructure and hand it over to a supporter in Florida

[Yes Me]

Re: Free internet != lawless internet

Yes, and all those downvotes confuse me. Too much "freedom" and you get phenomena like Trump. Freedom shouldn't include the freedom to lie. Or steal. Or hurt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Free internet != lawless internet

But your half-truth maybe my lie and vice versa.

The problem with truth is that it isn't always true. Oh for the good old days when truth was decided by stoning your opponents to death - that settled the arguments for a few eyars at least.

[anonymousI]

Re: Free internet != lawless internet

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

In our 'good new days' of glorious wokedom, opponents and doubters are digitally stoned to death with demands that they be deplatformed thus silencing their voice, and in many cases also that they be deprived of their livelihood.

But that's okay, because clearly anyone deviating from current groupthink dogma deserves nothing less than erasure...

[Anonymous Coward]

"20 years ago, the US proudly showed the world that the DMCA could be applied globally."

So what does Kodi show us then? I mean apart from all the latest movies and TV shows for free*.

Sure, it lacks the personal touch of swapping physical media that video casettes, audio casettes, CD's and DVD's had but you can still get your grubby hands on that sweet, sweet content.

* please note that the availability, quality and reliability of your "free" may vary

[Charles 9]

Kodi showed us nothing. It's nothing but a front end for showing stuff to which we already have access. I happen to use it myself to serve a home network with TV shows I recorded. It was other things like streaming services, torrents, and offshore hosting that increased access to movies, TV shows, etc.

[Magani]

Free speech? It'll never catch on...

With China's Belt and Road trying to influence 3rd world countries left right and centre, Iran's isolationist theocracy and Russia's love of cronyism and corruption, why should they not join in the push to keep their citizens in the dark with respect of what goes on in the rest of the world? If this means censorship a la Nth Korea and the Great Firewall, then by all means let's keep the populace in the dark. Locking down the internet, presenting your own version of the news and tracking all and sundry from inadvertently having impure thoughts is just what '1984' was all about.

A lot of the African continent isn't exactly known for free and democratic government, so this is just what their leaders can use before those pesky freedom-lovers get out of hand.

A note to all African countries - Beware of Greeks the CCP bearing gifts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A note to all African countries - Beware of the CCP bearing gifts.

I'm afraid this argument has already been won in Africa by the CCP. I just wonder, whether the Chinese will end up the same as the Western colonizers after WW2. Colonization is essentially, the same, but the method is more rational. Arguably, you could compare it with German efforts for European domination - first WW1 and WW2, then... the EU. They learnt their lesson, perhaps the Chinese have learnt ours and will be as successful in Africa, as Germany in Europe? Sustainable exploitation?

[GrumpenKraut]

Re: A note to all African countries - Beware of the CCP bearing gifts.

> ...German efforts for European domination - first WW1 and WW2, then... the EU.

OMG, you mentioned the ... EU!

[Graham Dawson]

Re: A note to all African countries - Beware of the CCP bearing gifts.

We are the knights who say... EU!

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: A note to all African countries - Beware of the CCP bearing gifts.

We are no longer the nights who say Eu

We are now the knights who say Farage-Farage-Backstop

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: first WW1 and WW2, then... the EU

Seriously? There's no push back on here against the idea that the EU is just the German state?

No wonder we voted to leave, completely fucking delusional.....

[A.P. Veening]

Re: first WW1 and WW2, then... the EU

Seriously? There's no push back on here against the idea that the EU is just the German state?

Of course there isn't, most of us have a working sense of humour, recognising satire.

No wonder we voted to leave, completely fucking delusional.....

How do you like your French Navy Blue passport?

[Muscleguy]

Re: Free speech? It'll never catch on...

Outside of the tech field China has done good things in Africa. It looked at the road and rail networks there and said 'this is illogical' which it was. Connections between Francophone and Anglophone countries are rare to non existent. Add in Portugese speaking Angola and Mozambique, Moslem vs Christian.

The Chinese connected these places up and in West Africa local trade is booming across a now connected border irrespective of Chinese natural resource extraction. Africa has long needed to be able to trade its way out of poverty. The transport network including access to ports inhibited that. It also enables new industry since the transport links enable cost effective supply and sale where before it did not.

In the Pacific Islands the Chinese have replaced the wooden wharves Australia and New Zealand built/funded with concrete. Gravel/mud roads with tarseal and grass airstrips with concrete/tarseal. In recent times a cyclone tore through Tonga, Oz & NZ asked 'what do you need' the Tongans replied 'nothing thanks, China will provide'. Alarm bells rang in Canberra and Wellington, influence waning. They have woken up and are responding and the Islands are benefiting.

As a Kiwi I find all this hard to dislike.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Free speech? It'll never catch on...

"It looked at the road and rail networks there and said 'this is illogical' which it was."

Yup.

There's an old saying in NGO circles: "Africa isn't poor, just poorly managed" - China's helped break down a lot of old colonial barriers and does't actually seem to be erecting any new ones

I believe they're working on the basis that as a supplier they do better if all the customers are doing better, vs old colonial exploitation/extraction mindsets

[MachDiamond]

Re: Free speech? It'll never catch on...

"China's helped break down a lot of old colonial barriers and does't actually seem to be erecting any new ones"

Yes, but there still remains a lot of inter-tribal animosities and country borders that don't mesh with allegiances of the people living within them.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Free speech? It'll never catch on...

Sure. It's basically the China-for-Africa version of the Marshall Plan. Economic investment and development is broadly recognized as a way to project power, and it can (doesn't necessarily) have beneficial effects. The only mildly surprising aspect of the whole thing is that the US, the EU, the individual European nations, the Commonwealth nations, Russia, etc, didn't get their acts together to compete more effectively for this opportunity. But this is one of those cases where a planned economy can (won't necessarily) mobilize large, targeted investments more quickly and easily, since decision-making is concentrated.

[anonymousI]

Re: Free speech? It'll never catch on...

Not really. The CCP's B&R "initiatives" seem much closer to the Balkanisation seen in recent history.

There appear to be 2 objectives with all those shiny new Belt and Road projects:

1/ Burden Pacific/Asian fiefdoms with costly B&R loans they can't possibly repay, then move in to take over the assets.

2/ Insist projects are built to military specifications, so wharves, airstrips etc can handle all PLA warships/planes.

[Flak]

Starlink?

Thankfully Mr Musk & team are in the process of providing a non-government controlled alternative (not that this is the be all and end all solution, but one alternative which will be very hard for any government to control).

[Paul 195]

Re: Starlink?

But does Elon Musk control it? How welcoming will it be to opinions that think he is an obnoxious bully prone to throwing out random accusations of paedophilia against those who upset him?

[jpo234]

Re: Starlink?

Nope. StarLink requires "landing rights" in each nation. StarLink in China will either go through the Great Firewall or not be available. Same is true everywhere else: Play by the local rules or don't play at all.

Example: https://spacewatch.global/2020/01/uks-oneweb-awarded-satellite-communications-landing-rights-in-nigeria/

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Starlink?

Are you going to connect to it with an hidden dish, where it is forbidden? How you're going to pay for the service? In countries where using "not approved" connections may cost you dearly?

[Rol]

Re: Starlink?

Let's not forget, China and Russia's attempts to ring fence their internet was in response to their citizens being bombarded with American propaganda, designed to destabilise and subvert.

America has been empire building in this manner for a very long time, while those held up as the bogie men of the internet in the west, have just been playing catchup.

[Paul 195]

Does that mean that internet users in these countries are spared the endless proliferation of batshit crazy, and in the case of C-19 life-threatening, conspiracy theories? I don't think a balkanized internet controlled by repressive regimes is a good idea, but when you see demonstrators outside a London hospital telling everyone that there is no virus and the pandemic is faked, you have to wonder whether our own model for internet usage has been a roaring success.

[Anonymous Coward]

They will ne fed with a proliferantion of batshit crazy too...

.... just in the full interest of the rulers only.

Have you read some of the old Soviet propaganda? Or Maoist one? Nothing new under the Sun...

Are you sure that all that batshiy crazy we see is only created by idiots, and not by far more cunning people with a precise plan?

[Paul 195]

Re: They will ne fed with a proliferantion of batshit crazy too...

I'm pretty sure some of the conspiracy theories are being created by smart manipulators. But from the little we know, those manipulators are likely to be in Russia, and doing it for the purpose of damaging societies. In the case of the US, they have been aided and abetted by the orange one who has willing assisted in the weaponisation of social media as a way to screw up democracies. You can't have an effective democracy when a sizeable minority of citizens are unwilling to believe that their side lost an election.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: They will ne fed with a proliferantion of batshit crazy too...

>You can't have an effective democracy when a sizeable minority of citizens are unwilling to believe that their side lost an election

You could just tell them that their side DID win.

Since there is generally very little difference in US policy between the center-right and the further-right parties. You could just segment the audience so that all Fox viewers get told that R won and all the Wapo readers get told the D won, Facebook are already essentially there.

It would make everyone happier and remove the need for expensive and disruptive elections.

Then the the country could continue being run by <NO CARRIER ..........

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: They will ne fed with a proliferantion of batshit crazy too...

Problem is, some of the nutters aren't content to stay home, and Mr. Trump isn't helping matters be telling some of these nutters to "Stand by" as if egging them to trigger an armed insurrection while simultaneously creating plausible deniability for himself ("What? I didn't tell them to start Civil War II. They did that all by themselves.").

[Anonymous Coward]

@Paul195 - Re: They will ne fed with a proliferantion of batshit crazy too...

Yeah, you really know too little so Russia would likely be a good guess isn't it ?

[Alan Brown]

Re: They will ne fed with a proliferantion of batshit crazy too...

"Have you read some of the old Soviet propaganda? Or Maoist one?"

Yup and everyone knew it was propaganda, including the locals.

coca cola smiles are much more insidious

[sabroni]

Re: and not by far more cunning people with a precise plan?

Uh oh! Conspiray theorist.

[Doctor Syntax]

I've often thought that quite early on the whole internet community should have adopted the principle that countries abide by openness principles or they get cut off. Stop routing data to them for an hour a day. After a while double that. Then double it again. Move to full days a week, full weeks a month, full months a year, entire years. Not even the elites in the country get to use it for any purpose at all during those times. No using it to dabble in other countries affairs. It wouldn't just apply in the case of governments causing problems, it would also apply in cases of them failing to clamp down on criminal usage. There would be few countries willing to go full Nork - and even if they did full Nork would still preclude causing mischief elsewhere.

No chance of it ever happening, of course. Self-interest putting pressure on ICANN.

[AlJahom]

Are we pretending that the USA and its foremost internet companies have set any kind of gold standard for openness, transparency, fairness, free speech, liberty and decency?

Because surely it must have done if US organisations are deemed qualified to sit in judgement of other countries who may have imposed their own cultural, moral or political standards on their populace.

[John H Woods]

The USA model is not perfect ...

... but it's a lot better than the alternatives.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: The USA model is not perfect ...

I might argue that a European model might be better than a USA model. But hey, so might someone from other parts of the world. Who's to say that a utopian communist meritocratic state might not be the bets option? I think the original Star Trek universe pretty much matched that model, or at leat the Federation anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

"universe pretty much matched that model"

Which Star Trek did you watch? That with the Potemkin starship^

[DoctorNine]

Re: The USA model is not perfect ...

While I definitely agree that the evolution of legal control of internet personal data is more respectful of human rights in the EU than in NA, I'm afraid that it's somewhat a specious distinction to separate the US and the EU in regards to their internet 'model'. We are at a moment in history, where the liberal democracy impulse toward globalization (and thus the regime of internet control advocated by the US and all European liberal democracies) is being challenged by alternative models of global integration. (Most notably authoritarian dictatorships of various species.) Unless and until THAT challenge is resolved politically, then the control of all means of electronic communications will simply become increasingly fragmented and confined to the relative spheres of influence of those socio-economic competitors. This is a logical inevitability. There is no technological answer to political disagreements. That is a conceit which technocrats seemingly still believe, despite decades of evidence that it simply isn't true. Amazingly.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: The USA model is not perfect ...

At least in Europe we don't have all-powerful media billionaires with a right wing political agenda controlling vast blocks of news sources.

[R Soul]

Re: The USA model is not perfect ...

Good job Europe's mass media is in the hands of powerless leftie billionaires like Berlusconi, Murdoch, Springer, Lagardere, the Barclay twins, Bertelsmann, Lord Harmsworth, Bouyges, etc.

[Tom 38]

Re: The USA model is not perfect ...

Aw, I just got Poe's Law'd by this - clearly need more caffeine :/

[MachDiamond]

Re: The USA model is not perfect ...

"At least in Europe we don't have all-powerful media billionaires with a right wing political agenda controlling vast blocks of news sources."

Right Wing? What? Most of the media in the US is very liberal. A bunch of it is controlled by Murdoch and Assoc and people such as George Soros. The media that is demonstrably conservative is only a small fraction.

[MachDiamond]

Re: The USA model is not perfect ...

"While I definitely agree that the evolution of legal control of internet personal data is more respectful of human rights in the EU than in NA, I'm afraid that it's somewhat a specious distinction to separate the US and the EU in regards to their internet 'model'."

If it's not universal, it won't work. Big Data companies will simply "relocate" their servers and listed business office someplace where it doesn't have to comply. If people and companies in the EU want that service, they'll not mind where they have to go to get it.

The US should have similar rules on personal data that the EU is putting into practice, but the politicians likely aren't seeing enough suitcases full of cash or a clear path to more votes in the next election to work on that sort of thing. They might be seeing money to maintain the status quo.

[sabroni]

Re: but it's a lot better than the alternatives.

Having your family massacred by a helicopter gunship is better than what alternative, precisely?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: but it's a lot better than the alternatives.

Having your family massacred by a government-influenced rabid mod, as they're more likely to take their time doing it and use much more painful methods like hot tar, fire, etc...?

[MachDiamond]

"Are we pretending that the USA and its foremost internet companies have set any kind of gold standard for openness, transparency, fairness, free speech, liberty and decency?"

In recent days we have been seeing what lengths many companies are willing to go to purge everybody in any level of society that doesn't fit their typically liberal views. Banning of apps for unfiltered social media sites. Banning of people from mainstream sites while ignoring people with even less character, but much more of a socialist bent. I blame some of these issues on people that rely exclusively on a single company to convey their content. Why does the President of the US need a Twitter or FB account? A private website/blog is sufficient. It's not like they aren't going to get the exposure if it comes through a non-instapintatwitface connection and the unwashed hordes will rush to repost and link content from that website anyway.

I still find it unwise that NetFlix uses Amazon to deliver its media. That's like Caterpillar relying on JCB to market their heavy equipment. You don't put you livelihood in the hands of an entity that can switch you off with no consequences.

[jpo234]

You know that the backbone of the Internet are huge telcos that are often state owned?

[genghis_uk]

Or in the case of the US - own the state!

Verizon, AT&T, Comcast etc. lobbyists write their own rules and are actively pushing the 'Big Tech Bad' narrative while Big Telco reap the rewards.

[Alan Brown]

This has been something that has been raising alarm bells amongst greybeards for years.

Tier1s wield more power than governments and have done for a while

[[e-mail]]

But who watches the policemen?

The problem with cutting countries off the internet - temporarily blocking them or physically switching off/disconnecting the network links at their borders - is who do you trust to do it?

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: But who watches the policemen?

>who do you trust to do it?

Mumsnet ?

[Arthur the cat]

Re: But who watches the policemen?

Mumsnet goes on-line, and becomes self-aware on January 11th, 2000. When panicking humans try to shut it down, Mumsnet starts a flame war that virtually annihilates humankind. This event is known as Judgement Day.

[John Brown (no body)]

"I've often thought that quite early on the whole internet community should have adopted the principle that countries abide by openness principles or they get cut off."

Who gets to be on that committee? Who gets to decide who is banned? How much influence will lobbyists, blackmailers, governments with the ability to apply personal, financial or life threatening pressure have?

It's a nice though, but I have little faith in peoples altruism or their ability remain independent.

[marcellothearcane]

But they just don't care. China doesn't care if its citizens have no Western internet, Russia cut of Western DNS to "see what would happen".

All this would do would be to accelerate separatist internets being made in each country, where their own country has complete control.

[Charles 9]

They why haven't they done it already if it's all according to plan?

[doublelayer]

Because it takes a lot of time, and they don't need to. They just need to have the ability to do it if they want to.

China doesn't need to cut their people off the internet if they have the ability to block things they don't like. In an emergency situation, they can do so without affecting the rest of it. Meanwhile, they get the benefits of being on the internet, such as the international markets, access to stuff produced elsewhere which isn't political, etc. China doesn't need that access to survive, but while it's harmless, they'll take it. If it should ever become harmful, they'll block it. Even if at some point they decided the entire non-China internet is harmful, they now have the ability to cut it within an hour.

[Primus Secundus Tertius]

Different censorships

The article might have added the misdeeds of, e.g. Iran and Turkey, to the known infamy of Russia and China.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Different censorships

Is turkey still a loyal NATO ally and a bastion against the asiatic hoards or is it a filthy muslamic dictatorship that must be crushed in the name of freedom ?

Sorry my vidscreen is broken.

[AnonEMusk Noel]

Re: Different censorships

That's nobody's business but the Turks

[DoctorNine]

Re: Different censorships

I think there may be a few million Armenians who disagree with that assessment.

[AnonEMusk Noel]

Re: Different censorships

I think you misunderstand the meaning of my post

[Roland6]

"That might seem like a weird thing to do."

"The standards merge the data link with the network layer," says Taylor. That might seem like a weird thing to do. "It's not weird if you want the ISPs not to be just dumbly moving around traffic, but to actually understand and have some active role in authenticating users and reading what's going on."

Nothing weird here, in principle. The ISO OSI reference model was just a way of presenting the different services and functionality a network required. Yes it got implemented with each layer as a discrete protocol, but it could be implemented differently.

So we had the idea of implementing IP directly on to Ethernet, lightweight protocols that merged Transport and Network etc.

Looking at QUIC, 5G et al, it does seem that the current incarnation of the Internet is reaching end-of-life, the only question is whether we resist change and continue to use the QWERTY keyboard of networking or develop Internet V3...

[51mes]

Re: "That might seem like a weird thing to do."

The most common example of protocols conflating different layers of the OSI model is the way that TCP was mapped into the model.

TCP is a transport and session control protocol so providing services as defined in the OSI transport and session (layer 4 and 5).

In a previous life (90's) I was involved in the implementation/maintenance of a fullOSI networking stack with functionality broken up as per the 7 layers. I remember the day the transport designer issued his part1 (of 3) design document. When someone printed it it was the size of a phone book (double sided) and tied up the office laser for a day. TCP/IP was much easier in comparison.

[Roland6]

Re: "That might seem like a weird thing to do."

>In a previous life (90's)

From memory there were only a handful of companies doing OSI/X.400 development in the 1990's. In general things seemed to grind to a halt in late 1988.

Bet you and your designer appreciated why MAP/TOP/GOSIP all did a hatchet job on ISO OSI.

>TCP is a transport and session control protocol so providing services as defined in the OSI transport and session (layer 4 and 5).

That explains why IETF et al refer to QUIC as a Transport protocol when in fact it is a Session protocol.

[Howard Sway]

what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

In the authoritarian states you'll be restricted to the governet, where the big government dictate arbitrary rules and spy on everything you do.

In the world of freedom, you'll be free to use the internet, where the big corporations dictate arbitrary rules and spy on everything you do. And the big corporations finance the politicians in government that keep it that way.

[Chris G]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

And just to be clear; everything the big corporations learn from spying on you is available to governments. Effectively, in the lands of the free, people will be equally as traceable as in any so called repressive lands, it's roses all the way down.

Considering the WEC and a number of National banks are in favour of totally digital economies, the scope for anonymity will likely disappear.

[Rol]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

And that is a good thing.

The TOR network is there to offer a modicum of security to those who need to stay anonymous, and for everyone else, your criminal or uncivil actions on the internet get laid bare before the courts.

Bring back hanging, drawing and quartering, for public display. That should limit the obsessive need for shite reality TV shows with z list celebs.

[Robert Carnegie]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

Everyone needs to stay anonymous for some things. As far as I remember, I haven't used Tor... but I probably should: to provide support and cover for people who need privacy more than I do.

I have limited internet capacity, though, so AIUI Tor might cost me a bit too much.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

That's assuming TOR isn't already subverted by government agencies by the simple act of gaining control of most of the endpoints. It's like with the mail: it'll have to pass through government hands at some point...

[MachDiamond]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

"That's assuming TOR isn't already subverted by government agencies"

What you are then doing is making them work for the data. If you aren't already a "person of interest", They® likely don't want to spend the processing cycles on you. But, if you read lots of sci-fi, you will have run across the plot about innocent people looking guilty when they really aren't. I'm thinking of Little Brother by Cory Doctorow as an example.

If you pay with cash at the market, They could examine cctv footage with facial recognition software, the que you are in and the time stamp to determine what you purchased. The effort involved isn't worth it unless They need the information to build a case against you. If you make it simple through using digital money, rewards cards and have a QR code tattoo that links to your instapintatwitface account, it might take very little effort.

[MachDiamond]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

"Considering the WEC and a number of National banks are in favour of totally digital economies, the scope for anonymity will likely disappear."

This is why it's important to use cash. If studies show that very few of the masses use it, it's easier to make the argument to get rid of it.

I predominately use cash. I don't do rewards cards or download apps. I'm not in a big town and from time to time the internet goes on holiday. Since nearly all (maybe all) businesses are connected by one service, when it's down, no merchant in town can take plastic/mobile. I do pay some regular bills online, but I'm leaving a trail about my power usage anyway. I'm not telling anybody about how much petrol I use and where I have filled up or what's in my weekly shop.

Not having cash in an emergency means everything comes to a standstill. Weather events, earthquake, volcano, terrorist act or a backhoe operator slicing though a bundle of fiberoptics can make digital money impossible to access. How many shop owners will take an IOU? What do you do if you run out of baby formula and the only shop open will only take cash?

[Charles 9]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

"Weather events, earthquake, volcano, terrorist act or a backhoe operator slicing though a bundle of fiberoptics can make digital money impossible to access."

Wireless networks and backup generators say hi; otherwise, you're going to have a hard time having access to money full stop, unless you're well-verses in barter economies...especially when the baby's screaming his/her head off and you find out you're out of formula in the middle of the night...

[Captain Hogwash]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

Big corporations can't throw you in jail or worse, so I know which side of your proposal I'd rather be.

[Howard Sway]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

It wasn't a "choose one side or another" proposal.

It was meant to suggest that a more attractive third alternative was "no spying".

[Captain Hogwash]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

Oh, that wasn't clear. But yes, I agree, a third stream is always welcome. Long live Jacques Loussier!

[doublelayer]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

And, as accurate as the sentences said were, they're not universally so. New laws and regulations restrict the freedom of big tech companies in democracies. In dictatorships, the only regulations are new "thou shalt do what we tell you to when we tell you to" ones. I want more privacy, but I have the freedom to evade corporations here and, depending on where I live, the freedom to sue them for privacy violations and win. I don't have that power in China, where the social credit score is not optional and your options for redress from the government primarily include paying a bunch of money to gain citizenship in a different country.

[MachDiamond]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

"New laws and regulations restrict the freedom of big tech companies in democracies."

Not in the US. Ajit Pai(d), chairman of the FCC and Obama ending Net Neutrality. A real boon for big tech companies.

[Mike 16]

Re: Big Corporations

Have plenty of brown envelopes and cash to fill them.

To assume that "throwing people in jail" as a service, provided by government functionaries (who just happen to live in houses well beyond their visible means of support) do not exist (let alone cannot exist) is dangerously naive.

(blackmail and other alternate forms of payment also exist)

[Anonymous Coward]

@Mike 16 - Re: Big Corporations

Yeah but those functionaries are also vulnerable to the exact same fate, including judges. That's the beauty of the system. What you can do to others can also be done to you. That's how NK has reached the highest level of obedience per citizen on the planet.

What you say is totally true when applied to banana republics (you know those dictatorships US loves to love) but not to China.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Captain Hogwash - Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

Inquisition did not torture or execute people directly. The accused were just trialled, found guilty and handed over to civil authorities who dutifully executed them. Big corporations can't throw you in jail, they just lobby or simply write the laws that will be enforced by the authorities.

[Captain Hogwash]

Re: @Captain Hogwash - what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

I'm not suggesting for a minute that the situation in e.g. US or Europe is good. I am saying it's better than e.g. China or Iran. I'm also saying that there is a door slightly ajar from the former which leads to something better than either. However, it is rather heavy and does require some effort to push it right open.

[sabroni]

Re: Big corporations can't throw you in jail or worse

No, of course not. Big corporations would never use illicit means to get people jailed. Every post master in the UK can vouch for that.

[Alan Brown]

Re: what if the net stopped being one big, connected thing?

"Big corporations can't throw you in jail or worse"

yet

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's an internet where free expression is suppressed and repressed,"

It's Monday (sorry, late to the party) so I'm ready to earn my roubles: free expression is suppressed and repressed, but only in those nasty regimes (Russiachina baaaad! In real democracies (aka "ours") free expression is just monitored and shared responsibly.

My point? Polarization works great to focus one's mind on far away, distant threats. And it makes potential erosion here shrink in significance, in comparison with those nasty, nasty places.

[Anonymous Coward]

An alternate view

Our free and open Internet, coupled with related telecoms tech like VOIP, has created a fraudsters paradise where criminality and tax evasion rules. Consider the real, but largely invisible human misery this causes . Such is the level of criminality that its wise to assume every phone call and every email comes from a criminal unless there is good evidence to prove otherwise. This constant downpour of attempted fraud was utterly unknown even ten years ago. By and large the reaction to this tide of criminality is victim blaming and complacency. I find it very hard to accept that there's anything very admirable about the open Internet. There would be a lot to be said for a model which respected national boundaries and reduced the potential for law and tax evasion and criminality.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: An alternate view

I haven't heard anything coming out of Russian media (and I do listen to a range, from Kremlin-based to "opposition" that would suggest there is ANY positive, i.e. reduction of "tide of [online] criminality" in that country that would have been the result, direct or indirect, of their tight(er) controls. Quite the opposite, on top of the regular tide of criminality as we witness here, you have the semi-criminal state and the legal system, which has been corrupted since, I dunno... I think Tsarist times. Arguably, in Soviet times it was "only" corrupted to protect the system against its people, but now it protects both the system, and those sponging off the system. It's a vicious circle and I don't see more authoritarianism and closing off as a way to get rid of a "tide of criminality". And I don't think it was any better "before the internets", it's just that the ecosystem reacts to changes. Reacts, adapts. Pickpocketing was, perhaps, more profitable, before cards overtook, but then, "analog" pickpockets either died off, or evolve for card skimming, etc., same with internet, one venue for business closes (high street shopping), another venue for "business" opens, fake online shopping)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: An alternate view

The only serious crime you can do in Russia is with the cooperation of the state or at least part of it.

Even the international cyber criminals are warned off attacking targets inside of Russia... Warned off by the fsb themselves. Non Russian targets, fair game.

[Anonymous Coward]

@AC - Re: An alternate view

In the interest of fairness, can you point us to any reliable source of information that will support your statement ? Don't bother if it's from those government contractors, right-wing think-tanks or anyone with a vested interest in starting a new war between East and West.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @AC - An alternate view

Mark Galeotti?

I'm sure you are about to tell me that you don't like him or that he's on the CIA payroll or something.

Here's just an example of his writing:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/23/how-organised-crime-took-over-russia-vory-super-mafia

Sorry if the Guardian is too right wing or driving an agenda of a world war.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @AC - An alternate view

Or maybe this

https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/blogs/russias-cybercrime-rule-reminder-never-hack-russians-p-2888

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Even the international cyber criminals are warned off attacking targets inside of Russia...

Cool story bro!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: An alternate view

> better "before the internets", it's just that the ecosystem reacts to changes

Complacency... Yes the ecosystem reacts to changes, and in this case the change is a massive increase in the opportunities to commit crime... There are frigging call centres devoted to fraud now for goodness sake because the marginal cost to attempt fraud is so low. There were fraudsters back in the day but the traceability of the criminals and setup costs - post charges, phone call rates etc - meant that it wasn't a regular experience. Back in the day I might have been the target of a crime or attempted crime once a year, now its about five times a week.

[MachDiamond]

Re: An alternate view

" has created a fraudsters paradise where criminality and tax evasion rules."

That's due to governments not taking an interest in stopping it. A lot of tech crimes such as identity theft are hard to report since there isn't a clear path to an agency that might have jurisdiction. The bad guys know all about this so that's what they will concentrate on. I get several telemarketing calls every day from spoofed numbers telling me my auto warranty is about to expire or they are from some government agency and I need to take care of a fine or something. About once a year there is a story in the news that they caught one of these scammers. Once. Safer to run that scam than rob a bank. Likely so safe that those people are coining it and will only be caught by a tax authority when they start doing stupid things like buying exotic cars, jewelry and mansions. The smart ones find a way to launder the money even if they have to pay some tax to cleanse it.

[Potemkine!]

"Golden Shield "

I love how dictatorships reverse the name of their controlling tools to make them appear as protection from the Evil Outside ^tm, as the Berlin Wall was the DDR's "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart".

I fear when others offer to protect me against my will.

[sabroni]

Re: I love how governments reverse the name of their controlling tools

FTFY

[Big_Boomer]

What a choice to have to make. Suppression of free will or endless bombardment with fake news, conspiracy theories, advertising, and other lies. I can see why some might think that restriction of the internet might be a good thing, but it's very rare that restrictions ever get lifted. It'll be interesting to see which countries try to keep their Covid restrictions going the longest following widespread vaccinations.

Personally I would rather live in a society that protects the most vulnerable, but lets the rest of us do our own thing, so long as it doesn't seriously affect anyone else's thing. However, since there are so many "things" now (7.836 Billion and rising) your thing is bound to affect someone else's thing, so where do we go from here?

Fragmentation of the internet is inevitable and always will be whilst people of one tribe don't trust people of another tribe. Only once the aliens invade will we start to learn that we are all one tribe, and even then it'll take generations.

[Cynic_999]

Only allow verified truth?

But *whose* truth do you allow? And who gets to verify what is true and what is not true? "Climate change is almost entirely caused by man's activities". True or not? "If a pharmaceutical company says a medicine is safe, you can trust it completely". True or not? "Leaving the EU will ensure that the NHS receives an additional £350 million per week" True or not true? "Homosexuality is a mental illness" - widely accepted as unquestionable truth not so many decades ago, but now almost certainly a view that would not be permitted to be uttered on a censored Internet. "Truth" changes over time. And so do "facts". Not necessarily together.

Nah. I'd rather be able to hear everyone's opinions and (for those I care about or that affect me) judge which has merit and which do not have merit for myself than have opinions censored by someone who purports to know with certainty what is and what is not the truth.

[Captain Hogwash]

Re: Only allow verified truth?

Quite. After all, are we adults or children?

[DoctorNine]

Re: Only allow verified truth?

Good lord. You don't really want me to answer that, do you?

[Captain Hogwash]

Re: Only allow verified truth?

It was rhetorical.

[Danie]

Explains why P2P networks are getting so popular

Yes very likley why we are seeing the likes of Peer-to-Peer networks such as Aether, Utopia, SSB, and numerous others growing and growing. Looks like citizens the world over are a step ahead of their governmnets and even Big Tech. On all three of these I only see ordinary citizens wanting to talk about coffee, art, programming, sialing, etc. Nothing subversive about it. But they are sick and tired of being the product and it proves you really don't need big centralised server based services.

[doublelayer]

Re: Explains why P2P networks are getting so popular

How many of your immediate family members know what those things are? How many of your nontechnical friends? There are plenty of systems that exist to protect privacy, but you can't exactly claim victory unless those have been tested. For example, how easy would it be for a dictatorship to detect and block each of your suggested P2P systems? How easy to intercept and read them? And, perhaps most importantly, how hard would it be for a new user to join one without a helpful close friend giving them all the necessary things? If a repressive regime censors the software you need and you can't easily obtain it otherwise, you can have a very anonymous network and still not get anywhere.

[AlJahom]

Re: Explains why P2P networks are getting so popular

The whole internet was a better place to be when seriously non-technical people rarely managed to get on it. Smartphones ruined everything. Barriers to entry are what give a thing value.

[Charles 9]

Re: Explains why P2P networks are getting so popular

They also ferment resentment and disenfranchisement which can ultimately lead to rebellion and violence. Seems like a no-win situation to me.

[doublelayer]

Re: Explains why P2P networks are getting so popular

A network that only has a small number of participants on it because it's really difficult to get on it self-selects the population who is interested in anonymity and capable of using complex tech. All a dictatorship needs to do is identify the small set of people joining that network to have a wonderful list of dangerous elements who need some reeducation. Only if there is some way of hiding in the crowd can that be avoided. Your network which has high barriers to entry is harming you, to say nothing of how it makes any plans you have weaker. If a hundred cryptography experts agree that a protest is needed, it will mean a hundred dead cryptography experts. If a hundred thousand people, most of whom are not cryptography experts, agree because they're all able to coordinate, there's much more chance that something less deadly happens.

[cornetman]

Perhaps we need to swap the low-latency provided by high-speed backbones for low-latency "proper" peer-to-peer networking.

Cut out the big players completely.

How much of a lock-down do people need before they start to take mesh nets seriously?

[doublelayer]

Unless you live very close to people, the hardware we have doesn't make it easy to participate in a mesh network. An ad hoc one in a crowd, sure. A long-term one which can be used to organize or find things, no. Worse, in a mesh network, you have lots of ways to interfere with it, either by disruption, impersonation, or surveillance. We should create a good standard mesh network protocol which has clients for existing hardware and has security and anonymity as primary goals, but it will still be of most use for short-term networks.

[Charles 9]

In the end, the speed of electricity (a noticeable ratio of the speed of light less than 1) will limit the practicality of any ad-hoc network. Basically, it's hard to fight physics.

[Anonymous Coward]

So No Different to Us Then

With the Media and Celebs Virtue Signalling Identity Politcs Cancel Culture telling everyone what they should think, when they should think and how they should think it

[spold]

In a mobile device world....

If I buy a mobile device in China then I have to show a passport... my identity is recorded... and it is now bound to my International Subscriber Mobile Identity (IMSI) number, and my International Mobile Equipment number (IMEI). As data flies through switches it may be subject to access through Lawful Interception Gateways (LIG ports)... in many countries... and is identifiable using these numbers. Depending on the encryption provisions, I may or may not be able to see the data, however, I can see who is talking to who or accessing what, I may get additional data from your ISP (who also has your real identity).

[Ringo Star]

like the UK isn't heading down this path already .

got a loicense for that encryption do ya ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It controls the military completely"

So the military should be an independent power in a state ? Hmm, that's intriguing!

[doublelayer]

Re: "It controls the military completely"

Pronoun, antecedent identified incorrectly. -1 points.

"In China, the Communist Party runs the show. That makes tight control of the internet not only possible, but advantageous. 'It controls the military completely. It controls information networks. It controls political perception. It controls the media. It controls the economic design of the country,' Ghosh points out."

"It" does not refer to the state. "It" refers to the political party. A state's military should be part of the state, not of its ruling political party. Be careful with pronouns; they can lead you to incorrect conclusions.

[thinking ape]

The issue of censorship is really about _who_ censures whom? The government surely shouldn't, bar maybe highly illegal activities already carrying jail time. What private companies choose to censor is their own choice. Provided an individual can go setup their own system, what's the issue? What FB censor for example, is their choice. We can go (and probably should) go elsewhere. It's government censoreship that is the issue. And the likes of 'social credit scores' (unless there are plenty of private alternatives not all kowtowing to the government)

After all there probably should be some level of behaviour control (I shouldn't be allowed to go out and start shooting people or setting of bombs off in public places). Where that line is drawn is up for debate. It may be the case we need different spaces (physical and/or virtual) that people can freely go to which enforce a level of behaviour they are happy with.

Personally I'd favour a user supplied 'filter' I can put on feeds of my choosing for example where I can block/limit content I don't care about. That would solve a number of issues people have