War on the Internet: Meshnet activists Rebuilds the Net from Scratch

In anticipation that the US government will require the surrendering of customer’s data, two small email providers including Lavabit, a Texas-based service that was reportedly used by whistleblower Edward J. Snowden, decided to preempt them by shutting down and destroying their servers.

Such are examples of how government has used the web not only to expand their power but to mount repressive policies on their constituents. 

At the same time these are examples how government policies rob economic opportunities of small businesses (favoring the big ones).

However markets aren’t taking this slippery slope of privacy invasion sitting down. Some entities has taken into their own hands the rebuilding of the internet from scratch.

From the New Scientist 

Across the US, from Maryland to Seattle, work is underway to construct user-owned wireless networks that will permit secure communication without surveillance or any centralised organisation. They are known as meshnets and ultimately, if their designers get their way, they will span the country.

Dan Ryan is one of the leaders of the Seattle Meshnet project, where sparse coverage already exists thanks to radio links set up by fellow hackers. Those links mean that instead of communicating through commercial internet connections, meshnetters can talk to each other through a channel that they themselves control.

Each node in the mesh, consisting of a radio transceiver and a computer, relays messages from other parts of the network. If the data can't be passed by one route, the meshnet finds an alternative way through to its destination. Ryan says the plan is for the Seattle meshnet to extend its coverage by linking up two wireless nodes across Lake Union in downtown Seattle. And over the country at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, student Alexander Bauer is hoping to build a campus meshnet later this year. That will give his fellow students an alternative communications infrastructure to the internet.

While these projects are just getting off the ground, a mesh network in Catalonia, Spain, is going from strength to strength. Guifi was started in the early 2000s by Ramon Roca, an Oracle employee who wanted broadband at his rural home. The local network now has more than 21,000 wireless nodes, spanning much of Catalonia. As well as allowing users to communicate with each other, Guifi also hosts web servers, videoconferencing services and internet radio broadcasts, all of which would work if the internet went down for the rest of the country.

So successful is the community model that Guifi is now building physical fibre-optic links to places like hospitals and town halls where it can help carry the heaviest traffic.

The development of the “new” guerilla internet doesn’t totally bypass the current system.

Again from the same article:

Hyperboria, the virtual layer that underpins meshnet efforts in the US. Hyperboria is a virtual meshnet because it runs through the existing internet, but is purely peer-to-peer. This means people who use it exchange information with others directly over a completely encrypted connection, with nothing readable by any centralised servers.

When physical meshnet nodes like those in Maryland and Seattle are set up, existing Hyperboria connections can simply be routed through them. At the moment, Hyperboria offers a blogging platform, email services, and even forums similar to reddit.

Unlike sheep or automatons, the above shows how people respond to incentives. The war on the internet will signify a cat and mouse relationship in the deepening age of decentralization.

War on Internet: Internet Freedom Prevails over UN Sponsored Regulations

The United Nations via the International Telecommunication Union has failed in her mission to put a centralized legal kibosh on the internet.

From Forbes.com

For the last two weeks some of the planet’s most oppressive regimes have faced off against some of the most powerful Internet advocates in an effort to rewrite a multilateral communications treaty that, if successful, could have changed the nature of the Internet and altered the way it is governed.

On Thursday night that effort failed, as a US-led block of dissenting countries refused to sign the proposed updates, handing the United Nation’s International Telecommunication Union a humbling defeat.

The United States, which framed its dissent as defending “the open Internet,” was joined by more than 80 other countries, including Australia,Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kenya, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Sweden and the United Kingdom. (Some of the non-signers seemed to be seeking to avoid making too overt of a political statement, saying, regrettably that they could not sign because they had to “consult with capital.”)

On Friday, the remaining members of the ITU, which is made up of 193 countries, signed the treaty, known as International Telecommunications Regulations, but the gesture in many ways was hollow.

Like other U.N. agencies, the ITU strives for consensus, and it’s within that consensus that the ITU derives its authority. The ITU can’t force a country to abide by its treaties, but if representatives of all member countries agree to a global telecommunications framework, and subsequently pass laws enforcing the framework, the ITU itself grows stronger.

Dissenting countries led by the US have not really been for defending “open internet”, as the US for instance have pursued various forms of social media censorship (some examples see here here here and more). The difference, I think, is that these supposed “open internet” faction don’t want to be tied up with or submit to a global regulator via such treaty.

They seem to prefer approaching the internet via domestic policies.

The same article seem to give such a hint,

Interpreted as a power grab by the United Nations, the secrecy rang alarm bells. Distrust of the ITU began to approach panic after the contents of more controversial proposals became known. Some of the proposals endorsed by authoritarian countries would have increased censorship, potentially restricted the free flow of information and undermined the voluntary framework that forms the basis of today’s Internet.

In addition, upholding the treaty may also extrapolate to the dilution of power by the opposing bloc to the UN consensus led by authoritarian governments which would be unacceptable to opposition many whom are developed economies.

The good news is that forces of decentralization embodied by the internet continues to sow division on governments. Such factionalism will likely be more pronounced when the next debt crisis surfaces.

Information Age Politics: The Rise of the Pirate Party

As I have been saying, the information age will usher in radical and dramatic changes in the way we do things. And corollary to these, we should see the snowballing forces of decentralization percolate into the field of politics as digital activists congregate to defend against government’s repeated attempts to control the internet through coercive means (mostly via censorship) by bringing the confrontation into the political arena.

Internet activism has turned what used to be a defensive evasion strategy into offense—via voters.

I am gradually being validated by developing events abroad as digital activists appears to have emerged as a potent third party political force, first in Sweden and now in Germany.

From the Wall Street Journal, (bold emphasis added)

The Pirate Party, a loosely organized group of digital activists, is dropping anchor in state legislatures here, shaking up Germany's staid political establishment.

The Pirates believe in file-sharing, online privacy and digital democracy, but their platform lacks policies on major issues of the day, such as the euro-zone debt crisis. That isn't holding them back.

Around 10% of German voters support them, according to opinion polls. They are expected to win seats in two important state legislatures in early May, including in Germany's most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia. A strong result in those regional elections could set the course for the Pirates' real breakthrough: seats in the German federal parliament in next year's national elections.

"The tremors will be felt all the way to Berlin" if the Pirates enter the North Rhine-Westphalia legislature, says Joachim Paul, the party's lead candidate in the region.

The rise of the upstart movement is complicating life for Germany's established parties, which could struggle to form their usual ruling majority coalitions at state and national level if the Pirates' popularity proves durable.

The Pirates represent "a new style" in German politics, Mr. Niedermayer says. Their professed aim is to bring the digital revolution to politics, making government more transparent and accessible. They have caught the imagination of the Facebook generation, as well as of less tech-savvy voters disenchanted with bland politicians in Germany's mainstream parties.

"What we all have in common is the desire to be active in grass-roots democracy," says Kai Hemsteeg, a 30-year-old police detective. He used to be a local official for Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union, but says he likes the Pirates' greater openness to participation.

The Pirates were founded in late 2006 in an underground Berlin nightspot called C-Base, a hangout of the local digerati. They are part of an international movement that began in Sweden, whose main aim is the free sharing of information online, including through looser copyright laws. Of the roughly 50 Pirate parties around the world, none has had the electoral impact of the German wing.

As the information age deepens, compounded by the crisis of the welfare states (which should implode sometime soon), global political trends will increasingly shift in favor of digital or internet activism and of the entrepreneurs (China’s media suppressed political upheaval have indicated signs of the latter’s development). In the US, the rise of Ron Paul as a serious political contender against establishment politics seem as further evidence of such a formative trend shift. This should accelerate overtime.

War on the Internet: Freedom Wins Round One

Writes Mac Slavo

Amid significant pressure from tens of thousands of internet users and major web behemoths like Google, Facebook, and Reddit, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is, in its current form, Dead on Arrival:

“Misguided efforts to combat online privacy have been threatening to stifle innovation, suppress free speech, and even, in some cases, undermine national security. As of yesterday, though, there’s a lot less to worry about.

“The first sign that the bills’ prospects were dwindling came Friday, when SOPA sponsors agreed to drop a key provision that would have required service providers to block access to international sites accused of piracy.

“The legislation ran into an even more significant problem yesterday when the White House announced its opposition to the bills. Though the administration’s chief technology officials officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy, the White House statement presented a fairly detailed critique of the measures and concluded, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” It added that any proposed legislation “must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet.”

…

“Though the administration did issue a formal veto threat, the White House’s opposition signaled the end of these bills, at least in their current form.

“A few hours later, Congress shelved SOPA, putting off action on the bill indefinitely.

“Sourced From Washington Monthly via The Daily Sheeple

Sponsored primarily by purported free speech advocates that include democrats and republicans alike, the SOPA would have fundamentally transformed the internet as we know it today. As Daisy Luther writes at Inalienably Yours, the bill was nothing short of a direct attack against the first Amendment and the right to free speech:

“On closer inspection, the legalese in the bill has the potential to eviscerate free speech….and like NDAA, without proof…only with suspicion of “wrong-doing”. It’s all about copyright infringement. If you tick off the powers that be, and you’ve quoted someone, somewhere, saying something, you may have infringed on their copyright. As a defendant, you are not even present at the legal proceeding allowing “them” to shut you down until you prove yourself innocent.

“How do they shut you down? Search engines are required to remove you from their listings. Internet Service Providers can be ordered to block access to your site. Advertising networks and payment providers can also be forced to cease doing business with you. This continues until you are proven INNOCENT. Wait – I thought it was innocent until proven guilty….oh….that was “before” the NDAA.

Source: The Internet: The Last Bastion of Free Speech

While this bill of goods was being sold to the American public as a way to reduce online piracy originating on foreign shores, in essence the legislation would have made it possible for any organization (with the financial assets and access to attorneys to do so) to target web sites (foreign or domestic) using excerpts, quotes, and videos without express permission of the authors or producers of such content. Furthermore, any web site linking to suspected copyrighted content would be guilty by association for fascilitating the infringement.

Read the rest here

In the growing realization that political power is being frayed by the ongoing information age revolution or the democratization of knowledge, the 20^th century welfare and warfare state will use anything, like Intellectual Property and copyright arguments, as pretext to rein control over the internet. Earlier they argued that the cyberspace can pose a threat to national security.

Today, Wikipedia and other websites has shut down to express their opposition to proposals over censorship masquerading as ‘foreign Internet Piracy’.

The above is just one of the other being actions undertaken such as Spying of Email and the harassment of Wikileaks

As I previously wrote

These actions represent “resistance to change”, whereby politicians will try to enforce information control or censorship in the way the industrial age used to operate.

The horizontal flow of information threatens the institutional centralized frameworks built upon the industrial age economy.

As I earlier wrote,

“Political and economic ideology latched on a vertical top-bottom flow of power will be on a collision course with horizontal real time flow of democratized knowledge.

“This would likely result to less applicability of ideologies based on centralization, which could substantially erode its support base and shift political capital to decentralized structure of political governance that would conform with the horizontal structure of information flows.

“People will know more therefore control from the top will be less an appealing idea.

But again these attempts to regulate the web are likely to fail.

Nevertheless the war on the internet accounts as part of the adjustment process away from the command and control structure of the industrial ages with the knowledge revolution taking place beyond the reach of politicians. Besides, technological advances will work around regulations.

Signifying the foundation of knowledge, the internet will serve as THE battleground between socialism and free markets, and this will be just one of the many series of skirmishes that are destined to occur. And as previously noted, many internet activists have already been preparing for the worst scenario.

Indexed’s Jessica Hagy has a nice graphical depiction of the ongoing war, which she calls: Dark Ages II: in discussion now!

Indeed, the left and vested interest groups wants us to remain in the Dark ages and as their serfs.

War on the Internet: Threat to National Security as Pretext for Controls

As earlier posted, governments around the world will be rationalizing control of the web or the cyberspace by putting up various bogeymen (strawmen).

The US has now been considering cyber attacks as a threat to national security that would justify military response.

From the Wall Street Journal,

The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.

The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.

This is an overblown reaction.

Writes Cato’s Benjamin Friedman

Actually, our claim is not that we should never use military means to respond to cyberattacks. Our point instead is that the vast majority of events given that name have nothing to do with national security. Most “cyberattackers” are criminals: thieves looking to steal credit card numbers or corporate data, extortionists threatening denial of service attacks, or vandals altering websites to grind personal or political axes. These acts require police, not aircraft carriers.

Even the cyberattacks that have affected our national security do not justify war, we argue. There is little evidence that online spying has ever done grievous harm to national security, thinly sourced reports to the contrary notwithstanding. In any case, we do not threaten war in response to traditional espionage and should not do so merely because it occurs online.

Moreover, despite panicked reports claiming that hackers are poised to sabotage our “critical infrastructure” — downing planes, flooding dams, crippling Wall Street — hackers have accomplished nothing of the sort. We prevent these nightmares by decoupling the infrastructure management system from the public internet. But even these higher-end cyberattacks are only likely to damage commerce, not kill, so threatening to bomb in response to them seems belligerent.

I am reminded by this wonderful quote from General Douglas MacArthur who said that government has always peddled fear to expand over us.

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervour -with the cry of grave national emergency. Always, there has been some terrible evil at home, or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it

Always somewhere a deception designed to curtail our liberties.

War on the Internet: G-8 Mulls Regulation of the Web

As earlier predicted, global politicians who see their turfs dramatically being eroded by the rapidly expanding flow of decentralized information, enabled and facilitated by the web, will declare an open war against the cyberspace.

The New York Times reports,

Leaders of the Group of 8 industrialized countries are set to issue a provocative call for stronger Internet regulation, a cause championed by the host of the meeting, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, but fiercely opposed by some Internet companies and free-speech groups.

The G-8 leaders will urge the adoption of measures to protect children from online predators, to strengthen privacy rights and to crack down on digital copyright piracy, according to two people who have seen drafts of a communiqué the G-8 will issue at the end of a meeting this week in Deauville, France. At the same time, the document is expected to include a pledge to maintain openness and to support entrepreneurial, rather than government-led, development of the Internet.

This balancing act was reflected Tuesday in a speech by Mr. Sarkozy, who convened a special gathering of the global digerati in Paris on the eve of the G-8 meeting. Calling the rise of the Internet a “revolution,” Mr. Sarkozy compared its impact to that of two previous transforming episodes in global history: the age of exploration and the industrial revolution.

The Internet revolution “doesn’t have a flag, it doesn’t have a slogan, it belongs to everyone,” he said, citing the recent uprisings in the Arab world as examples of its positive effects.

These actions represent “resistance to change”, whereby politicians will try to enforce information control or censorship in the way the industrial age used to operate.

The horizontal flow of information threatens the institutional centralized frameworks built upon the industrial age economy.

As I earlier wrote,

Political and economic ideology latched on a vertical top-bottom flow of power will be on a collision course with horizontal real time flow of democratized knowledge.

This would likely result to less applicability of ideologies based on centralization, which could substantially erode its support base and shift political capital to decentralized structure of political governance that would conform with the horizontal structure of information flows.

People will know more therefore control from the top will be less an appealing idea.

But again these attempts to regulate the web are likely to fail.

Nevertheless the war on the internet accounts as part of the adjustment process away from the command and control structure of the industrial ages with the knowledge revolution taking place beyond the reach of politicians. Besides, technological advances will work around regulations.

As visionary Alvin Toffler writes (Revolutionary Wealth p.40)

As change accelerates still further, institutional crisis will not be limited to the United States. Every country in the twenty-first-century world economy—including China, India, Japan and the E.U. nations—will need to invest new style institutions and adjust the balance between synchronization and de-synchronization. Some countries may find it more difficult than the United States, whose culture, at least, smiles on change-makers.

US Government’s Social Networking Infiltration Strategy

The internet has nearly been a free market for information and knowledge on a global scale.

And it is why as we wrote in The Web As Foundation To The Knowledge Revolution, global governments will continue to find ways to counteract the increasingly horizontal flow of information which they view as threat to their interests. [You see, governments want to keep people gullible]

A recent approach reportedly enlisted by the US government is one of “If you can’t beat them join them”—an infiltration strategy aimed at shaping public opinions.

Here is Darlene Storm of the PCworld.com (bold emphasis mine)

It's recently been revealed that the U.S. government contracted HBGary Federal for the development of software which could create multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues by promoting propaganda. It could also be used as surveillance to find public opinions with points of view the powers-that-be didn't like. It could then potentially have their "fake" people run smear campaigns against those "real" people. As disturbing as this is, it's not really new for U.S. intelligence or private intelligence firms to do the dirty work behind closed doors.

EFF previously warned that Big Brother wants to be your friend for social media surveillance. While the FBI Intelligence Information Report Handbook (PDF) mentioned using "covert accounts" to access protected information, other government agencies endorsed using security exploits to access protected information.

It's not a big surprise that the U.S. military also wants to use social media to its benefit. Last year, Public Intelligence published the U.S. Air Force social media guide which gave 10 tips for social media such as, "The enemy is engaged in this battlespace and you must engage there as well." Number three was "DON'T LIE. Credibility is critical, without it, no one cares what you have to say...it's also punishable by the UCMJ to give a false statement." The Air Force used the chart below to show how social media influences public opinion.

Read the rest here

This only confirms our earlier observation of the governments broadening engagement against the spread of knowledge and how the web has continued to expose them.

Global Stock Market Update: Advancers Still Dominate

Here is an update of the performances of world stock markets courtesy of Bespoke Invest.

From Bespoke

Just over 30% of the countries shown are down so far this year. Bangladesh has been the worst performer in 2011 with a decline of 23.69% year to date. The country was the 2nd best performer in 2010 behind Sri Lanka with a gain of 82.79%. With its uprising this month, Tunisia is the only other country down more than 10%.

Of the G7 countries, Italy ranks first, followed by France (+6%), the US (+2.57%), Germany (+2.22%), and Japan (+1.14%). The UK ranks second to last of the G7 countries with a gain of 0.74%. Canada ranks dead last and is the only G7 country that is down year to date (-0.69%).

Looking at the BRICs, China continues to struggle with a year-to-date decline of 4% after falling 14.31% in 2010. India is also struggling with a decline of 6.62%, but unlike China, India saw nice gains last year. Russia is currently the top performing BRIC country with a year-to-date gain of 5.39%, and Brazil is just barely in the black at +0.12%.

My comments

Trading Places. Many of last year’s top performers are at the bottom and that includes the Philippines. Whereas many of last year’s laggards are on the upper echelon of the winner’s bracket (Italy, Spain, Greece).

Tailwind. Some of last year’s topnotchers continue to sizzle (Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Estonia), while some of last year’s tailenders continue to trail (Bermuda, Dubai, China).

Definitely NOT A Bear Market. With 30% of global equities down, the obverse side is that 70% of global equities are up. In short, gainers still dominate.

Developed world outpaces major Emerging Markets. It’s yet too early to say that this will be the central trend for the year. Though I wouldn’t bet on it.

Web Revolution. Bespoke links to a New York Times site which shows of the video that triggered the People’s Power revolution in Tunisia. The link here. It’s amazing to see how political events are being shaped by the web.