|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 14 - 02 Feb 2009 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Factions in a Digital Age | | | Ted -- The concentration at internet backbones, while a problem currently, might become less so as the range of each individual node in the network improves. In any case, that concentration exists in the current network architecture too--except instead of having multiple paths from each endpoint to the backbone provider, you now have only one with the cable/dsl/dial-up ISP acting as an intermediary. Strong competition in the last mile doesn't address the backbone bottleneck either.
-- AndreiVoinigescu - 06 Jan 2009 | |
>
> |
- Previous commenters asked useful questions about the technical realities. It seems to me that the other side of the presentation--the relation to political theories of the late 18th century--also needs to be inquired into. Why is Federalist 10 relevant? Is "faction" enough of a definition of a common problem? Does the rather hard-eyed realism of Madison's attempt to explain how the sum of private vices can be public virtues neatly map onto your rather less realistic and more romantic judgment about the nearness of free networks?
| | | |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 13 - 06 Jan 2009 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Factions in a Digital Age | | | Would a mesh network really solve the problem you are addressing? Even if a mesh would work in urban areas, you are still going to need backbones in order to move the data cross country/ocean. You would likely end up with small open nets linked through the same infrastructure we have today. It would seem likely to actually make the problem worse: If you have backbones, you have access points that are controlled by someone- either private parties or government. In a mesh, you only would have a few access points, versus the current accesspoint-per-house ISP model. Although the local mesh would be robust, there would seem to be far more risk of communications control having just a few access points to the backbones. I would think that having a wide selection of carriers to act as ISPs would be far preferable to solve the problem you are talking about (noting of course that the current duopoly ISP model is terrible)
-- TheodoreSmith - 05 Jan 2009 | |
>
> |
Tom -- I don't have much insight into how engineer wide scale mesh network adoption. A necessary first step would be to integrate the technology into routers and WLAN chips alongside the commonly used 802.11 standards. so that the physical capability is there. As the cost of the technology continues to decrease, this should become increasingly viable.
The real problem is a first-mover one: most people are content with the current state of the network, and there is little perceived need for radical change.
I don't think FON's business model is particularly helpful, since interconnection between the public FON routers is still handled through the existing ISP network infrastructure.
Do you perceive a need for state regulation apart from non-interference in spectrum allocation? What role does the state play with regard to network infrastructure today (in the US)?
Ted -- The concentration at internet backbones, while a problem currently, might become less so as the range of each individual node in the network improves. In any case, that concentration exists in the current network architecture too--except instead of having multiple paths from each endpoint to the backbone provider, you now have only one with the cable/dsl/dial-up ISP acting as an intermediary. Strong competition in the last mile doesn't address the backbone bottleneck either.
-- AndreiVoinigescu - 06 Jan 2009 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 12 - 05 Jan 2009 - Main.TheodoreSmith
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Factions in a Digital Age | | |
-- TomGlaisyer - 23 Dec 2008 | |
>
> |
Would a mesh network really solve the problem you are addressing? Even if a mesh would work in urban areas, you are still going to need backbones in order to move the data cross country/ocean. You would likely end up with small open nets linked through the same infrastructure we have today. It would seem likely to actually make the problem worse: If you have backbones, you have access points that are controlled by someone- either private parties or government. In a mesh, you only would have a few access points, versus the current accesspoint-per-house ISP model. Although the local mesh would be robust, there would seem to be far more risk of communications control having just a few access points to the backbones. I would think that having a wide selection of carriers to act as ISPs would be far preferable to solve the problem you are talking about (noting of course that the current duopoly ISP model is terrible)
-- TheodoreSmith - 05 Jan 2009 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 11 - 23 Dec 2008 - Main.TomGlaisyer
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Factions in a Digital Age | | | -- | |
>
> |
Interesting paper - It provoked two thoughts...
1. How best could an mesh network be achieved. There are likely many different ways to do this - focus on wireless routers, or PCs? Ideally you want to build a process that creates its own momentum - How could this be done? Does FON figure into this or is it just an unnecessary interim step?
2. What does the state have to do beyond mandating public use of white spaces? In the physical world the state still plays a role after architecture is built. Is there a similar role in the wireless world?
-- TomGlaisyer - 23 Dec 2008 | | | |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 10 - 19 Nov 2008 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Factions in a Digital Age | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat posed by factions to civil rights and the public good. While Madison understood the need to keep factions from usurping the power of the state, the march of technology has made it evident that misuse of the state's coercive power is not the only threat to individual rights. Just as the American Constitution seeks to limit the power of factions within the political process by incorporating principles of federalism, separation of powers and bicameralism into the architecture of the state, so too must we now look to the architecture of the internet as a means of diffusing the power technology grants to factions. We can--and should--phase in a new network where ownership and control over the switches is maximally dispersed. | >
> | In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat posed by factions--groups of citizens with shared interests adverse to the rights of other citizens and the interest of the community as a whole. While Madison understood the need to keep factions from usurping the power of the state, the march of technology has made it evident that misuse of the state's coercive power is not the only threat to individual rights. Just as the American Constitution seeks to limit the power of factions within the political process by incorporating principles of federalism, separation of powers and bicameralism into the architecture of the state, so too must we now look to the architecture of the internet as a means of diffusing the power technology grants to factions. We can--and should--phase in a new network where ownership and control over the switches is maximally dispersed. | | | How Technological Change Threatens Civil Rights and Self Governance | |
<
< | Lawrence Lessig has identified four mechanisms though which human behavior is controlled: laws, social norms, market forces, and physical architecture. Physical architecture is a far more powerful means of regulation than law: physical architecture creates self-enforcing ex-anti constraints, while law can only threaten ex-post punishment and requires a complex bureaucracy to enforce. Laws against drunk driving are less effective then breathalysers hooked to the ignition switch. | >
> | While laws passed and enforced by the state are the most obvious mechanism for regulating human behavior, Lawrence Lessig has identified three others: social norms, market forces, and physical architecture. Of the four, physical architecture often is the most potent tool, because it works by creating self-enforcing ex-anti constraints, while the rest rely on the threat of ex-post punishment imperfectly administered by the community or the state. Speed bumps and ignition interlock devices can outperform harsher legal penalties. | | | | |
<
< | For activities conducted over networks, the code than controls the switches defines the physical architecture of the network. It prescribes what can and cannot be done on the network, which communications can get through, which are to be modified (and how), and which are simply not to be forwarded on. Modify the code on enough switches to block certain websites, and you get China's Golden Shield Project. Write code to identify subversive or unflattering text in transit, and Twitter posts by political dissidents and whistle-blowers become toothless endorsements of the regime. | >
> | For activities conducted over networks, the code than controls the switches defines the physical architecture of the network. It prescribes what network users can do, and how they are monitored. Modify the code on enough switches to block certain websites, and you get China's Golden Shield Project. Write code to identify subversive or unflattering text in transit, and Twitter posts by political dissidents and whistle-blowers become toothless endorsements of the regime. Add code to log a user's network traffic, and you can build a complete profile of his online activities, ready for sale to any interested third party. Is it any wonder that switch manufacturers are competing to create 'intelligent' switches with enhanced monitoring and security functionality? | | | Our ability to modify the physical architecture of the real world is still, fortunately, rather limited. But in a networked world, code is easy to modify. The owner of the switch has almost unlimited control over what is and isn't possible on the network. And, in the Internet as it exists now, ownership of the switches is concentrated among a relatively small number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), most of whom are commercial entities. This creates an environment where a single ISP (or a few acting in concert) can regulate human behavior much more completely than the most determined police states of the Cold War era ever could. Comcast's unilateral decision to throttle BitTorrent traffic across its network is a pale hint of what we can expect to see as switching hardware develops to allow real-time deep packet inspection of all network traffic and the owners of the switches become increasingly savvy about the power they control. |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 9 - 18 Nov 2008 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Factions in a Digital Age | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat posed by factions to self determination through democratic governance. Factions are groups whose interests are adverse to the rights of other citizens and the permanent interests of the community. While Madison understood the need to keep factions from usurping the power of the state, the march of technology has made it evident that state coercion is neither the sole nor the most ominous mechanism of control over human behavior. Just as the American Constitution seeks to limit the power of factions by incorporating principles of federalism, separation of powers and bicameralism into the architecture of the state, so too must we now look to the architecture of the internet as a means of diffusing the power technology grants to factions. We can--and should--phase in a new network where ownership and control over the switches is maximally dispersed. | >
> | In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat posed by factions to civil rights and the public good. While Madison understood the need to keep factions from usurping the power of the state, the march of technology has made it evident that misuse of the state's coercive power is not the only threat to individual rights. Just as the American Constitution seeks to limit the power of factions within the political process by incorporating principles of federalism, separation of powers and bicameralism into the architecture of the state, so too must we now look to the architecture of the internet as a means of diffusing the power technology grants to factions. We can--and should--phase in a new network where ownership and control over the switches is maximally dispersed. | | | | |
<
< | How Technological Change Threatens Democracy and the Rule of Law | >
> | How Technological Change Threatens Civil Rights and Self Governance | | | Lawrence Lessig has identified four mechanisms though which human behavior is controlled: laws, social norms, market forces, and physical architecture. Physical architecture is a far more powerful means of regulation than law: physical architecture creates self-enforcing ex-anti constraints, while law can only threaten ex-post punishment and requires a complex bureaucracy to enforce. Laws against drunk driving are less effective then breathalysers hooked to the ignition switch.
For activities conducted over networks, the code than controls the switches defines the physical architecture of the network. It prescribes what can and cannot be done on the network, which communications can get through, which are to be modified (and how), and which are simply not to be forwarded on. Modify the code on enough switches to block certain websites, and you get China's Golden Shield Project. Write code to identify subversive or unflattering text in transit, and Twitter posts by political dissidents and whistle-blowers become toothless endorsements of the regime. | | | The electromagnetic spectrum required to implement a robust wireless mesh network is becoming available. By February 17, 2009, all television stations in the United States must complete the mandatory transition from analog to digital broadcasting. Because digital transmissions are much less sensitive to to interference, there is no longer any need for large bands of 'white space'--unused electromagnetic frequencies--between digital TV channels. The FCC has already indicated its intention to leave the white space frequencies in the public domain to be used by new consumer wireless devices. As television broadcasting gives way to webcasting, more and more spectrum will be freed from its traditional use.
Conclusion | |
<
< | Detailing all the salutary (and problematic) effects of distributed ownership and control over Internet switches is beyond the scope of this paper. But an internet structured to give every user an ownership stake is now technologically feasible. It is an option we should consider if we are serious about preserving democratic self-government. | >
> | Detailing all the salutary (and problematic) effects of distributed ownership and control over Internet switches is beyond the scope of this paper. But an internet structured to give every user an ownership stake is now technologically feasible. It is an option we should consider if we are serious about preventing factions from unilaterally determining the public good and the scope of our rights. | | | -- |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 8 - 18 Nov 2008 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Factions in a Digital Age | | | Our ability to modify the physical architecture of the real world is still, fortunately, rather limited. But in a networked world, code is easy to modify. The owner of the switch has almost unlimited control over what is and isn't possible on the network. And, in the Internet as it exists now, ownership of the switches is concentrated among a relatively small number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), most of whom are commercial entities. This creates an environment where a single ISP (or a few acting in concert) can regulate human behavior much more completely than the most determined police states of the Cold War era ever could. Comcast's unilateral decision to throttle BitTorrent traffic across its network is a pale hint of what we can expect to see as switching hardware develops to allow real-time deep packet inspection of all network traffic and the owners of the switches become increasingly savvy about the power they control.
Network Architecture as a Check on the Power of Code | |
<
< | End to end encryption of networked communications and government regulation offer only partial solutions to the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the switch owners. Encryption does not disguise the parties to a communication or their pattern of interaction. Credit cards would allow most internet commerce to continue even if ISPs decided to block all encrypted communication. Regulating the switch owners, meanwhile, only transfers control of the switches to political incumbents who would undoubtedly be tempted to employ it to consolidate their own power. And regulation is reactive, not preemptive; some switch owners will be willing to risk the consequences of the law if the immediate rewards are large enough. | >
> | End to end encryption of networked communications and government regulation offer only partial solutions to the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the switch owners. Encryption does not disguise the parties to a communication or their pattern of interaction. Regulating the switch owners, meanwhile, only transfers control of the switches to political incumbents who would undoubtedly be tempted to employ it to consolidate their own power. And regulation is reactive, not preemptive; some switch owners will be willing to risk the consequences of the law if the immediate rewards are large enough. | | | To stop factions from abusing the unprecedented regulatory power of code in ways, we need a network where ownership and control of the switches is dispersed as widely as possible. In such a network, the power of code can only be employed through substantial populist consensus. |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 7 - 17 Nov 2008 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Factions in a Digital Age | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat posed by factions to self determination through democratic governance. Factions are groups whose interests are adverse to the rights of other citizens and the permanent interests of the community. While Madison understood the need to keep factions from usurping the power of the state, the march of technology has made it evident that state coercion is neither the sole nor the most ominous mechanism of control over human behavior. Just as the American Constitution seeks to limit the power of factions by incorporating principles of federalism, separation of powers and bicameralism into the architecture of the state, so too must we now look to the architecture of the internet as a means of diffusing the power technology grants to factions. We can--and should--build a new network where ownership and control over the switches is maximally dispersed. | >
> | In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat posed by factions to self determination through democratic governance. Factions are groups whose interests are adverse to the rights of other citizens and the permanent interests of the community. While Madison understood the need to keep factions from usurping the power of the state, the march of technology has made it evident that state coercion is neither the sole nor the most ominous mechanism of control over human behavior. Just as the American Constitution seeks to limit the power of factions by incorporating principles of federalism, separation of powers and bicameralism into the architecture of the state, so too must we now look to the architecture of the internet as a means of diffusing the power technology grants to factions. We can--and should--phase in a new network where ownership and control over the switches is maximally dispersed. | | | How Technological Change Threatens Democracy and the Rule of Law
Lawrence Lessig has identified four mechanisms though which human behavior is controlled: laws, social norms, market forces, and physical architecture. Physical architecture is a far more powerful means of regulation than law: physical architecture creates self-enforcing ex-anti constraints, while law can only threaten ex-post punishment and requires a complex bureaucracy to enforce. Laws against drunk driving are less effective then breathalysers hooked to the ignition switch. | | | To stop factions from abusing the unprecedented regulatory power of code in ways, we need a network where ownership and control of the switches is dispersed as widely as possible. In such a network, the power of code can only be employed through substantial populist consensus.
Building a Commonly-Owned Internet | |
<
< | The current Internet architecture is very hierarchical. The communication between many end-points (laptops, PCs, internet-enabled cellphones, etc.) is routed through a much smaller number of centralized switches. This architecture is largely a relic of wired links and limited computational power. Other, flatter network architectures are now possible which would eliminate the distinction between end-points and switches. | >
> | The current Internet architecture is very hierarchical. The communication between many end-point devices is routed through a much smaller number of centralized switches. This architecture is largely a relic of wired links and limited computational power. Other, flatter network architectures are now possible which would eliminate the distinction between end-points and switches. | | | | |
<
< | In a wireless mesh network, computers are both end-points and switches. A talks to B directly if B is in range; if B is not in range, then the communication is forwarded to B through a series of hops through switches that are in range of each other. No third party is need to construct, own and maintain centralized network infrastructure; the cost is spread out among the individual computer owners. Because the technology is cheap (and getting cheaper), the cost of owning such a switch is low. Indeed, the One Laptop Per Child Association has integrated wireless mesh networking in sub-$200 laptops meant to be deployed in areas with limited Internet infrastructure. | >
> | In a wireless mesh network, devices (computers, cell-phones, smart appliances, networked cars, etc.) can act as both end-points and switches. Devices within range of each other communicate directly, while those further apart take advantage of the forwarding capacities of the devices in the middle. No third party is need to construct, own and maintain centralized network infrastructure; the cost is spread out among the individual device owners. The technology required is cheap, and getting cheaper--it has been incorporated in sub-$200 laptops meant to be deployed in areas with limited Internet infrastructure. | | | | |
<
< | In a wireless mesh network, control over the switches is maximally dispersed. Each computer user can control what code is run on the wireless switch he control. Furthermore, since alternative paths between any two points of such a network almost always exist, two parties communicating in a mesh network can chose a link that avoids switches running code they don't trust. While most people will have little interest or aptitude for tinkering with the code on the switches they own, they can still meaningfully express their views on what types of code-based regulation over the network are appropriate by installing third-party firmware on their switches which embodies coded regulations they favor. | >
> | A wireless mesh network disperses control over the switches and the code that they run. So long as networked devices remain untethered, each owner can program his device to regulate in a fashion he finds ethical, or install third-party firmware embodying acceptable regulation. The power of each device owner is minor, however, because alternative paths between any two nodes in the network almost always exist. Two parties communicating in a mesh network can chose a path that avoids untrusted switches. Thus, effective code-based regulation on the network only arises only if there is substantial--probably supermajoritarian--consensus among all network users. | | | The electromagnetic spectrum required to implement a robust wireless mesh network is becoming available. By February 17, 2009, all television stations in the United States must complete the mandatory transition from analog to digital broadcasting. Because digital transmissions are much less sensitive to to interference, there is no longer any need for large bands of 'white space'--unused electromagnetic frequencies--between digital TV channels. The FCC has already indicated its intention to leave the white space frequencies in the public domain to be used by new consumer wireless devices. As television broadcasting gives way to webcasting, more and more spectrum will be freed from its traditional use. |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 6 - 16 Nov 2008 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Factions in a Digital Age | | | In a wireless mesh network, control over the switches is maximally dispersed. Each computer user can control what code is run on the wireless switch he control. Furthermore, since alternative paths between any two points of such a network almost always exist, two parties communicating in a mesh network can chose a link that avoids switches running code they don't trust. While most people will have little interest or aptitude for tinkering with the code on the switches they own, they can still meaningfully express their views on what types of code-based regulation over the network are appropriate by installing third-party [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware] [firmware]] on their switches which embodies coded regulations they favor. | |
<
< | The electromagnetic spectrum required to implement a robust wireless mesh network is becoming available. By February 17, 2009, all television stations in the United States must complete the mandatory transition from analog to digital broadcasting. Because digital transmissions are much less sensitive to to interference, there is no longer any need for large bands of 'white space'--unused elecromagnetic frequencies--between digital TV channels. The FCC has already indicated its intention to leave the white space frequencies in the public domain to be used by new consumer wireless devices. As television broadcasting gives way to webcasting, more and more spectrum will be freed from its traditional use. | >
> | The electromagnetic spectrum required to implement a robust wireless mesh network is becoming available. By February 17, 2009, all television stations in the United States must complete the mandatory transition from analog to digital broadcasting. Because digital transmissions are much less sensitive to to interference, there is no longer any need for large bands of 'white space'--unused electromagnetic frequencies--between digital TV channels. The FCC has already indicated its intention to leave the white space frequencies in the public domain to be used by new consumer wireless devices. As television broadcasting gives way to webcasting, more and more spectrum will be freed from its traditional use. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | Detailing all the salutory (and problematic) effects of distributed ownership and control over Internet switches is beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, it should be clear that an internet architected to give every user an ownership stake is technologically feasable, and ideologically desirable if one's goal is to preserve democratic self-government. | >
> | Detailing all the salutary (and problematic) effects of distributed ownership and control over Internet switches is beyond the scope of this paper. But an internet structured to give every user an ownership stake is now technologically feasible. It is an option we should consider if we are serious about preserving democratic self-government. | | | -- |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 5 - 15 Nov 2008 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Disclaimer: This is a work in progress. Comments are welcome. | | | Factions in a Digital Age
-- By AndreiVoinigescu | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat posed by factions to self determination through democratic governance. Factions are groups of individuals united by interests adverse to the rights of other citizens and the permanent interests of society as a whole. While Madison worried about how to keep factions from usurping the power of the state through the political process, the march of technology has made it evident that state coercion is neither the sole nor the most ominous mechanism of control over human behavior. Just as the American Constitution seeks to limit the power of factions by incorporating principles of federalism, separation of powers and bicameralism into the architecture of the state, so too must we now look to the architecture of the internet as a means of diffusing the power technology grants to factions. We can--and should--build a new network where ownership and control over the switches is maximally dispersed. | >
> | In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat posed by factions to self determination through democratic governance. Factions are groups whose interests are adverse to the rights of other citizens and the permanent interests of the community. While Madison understood the need to keep factions from usurping the power of the state, the march of technology has made it evident that state coercion is neither the sole nor the most ominous mechanism of control over human behavior. Just as the American Constitution seeks to limit the power of factions by incorporating principles of federalism, separation of powers and bicameralism into the architecture of the state, so too must we now look to the architecture of the internet as a means of diffusing the power technology grants to factions. We can--and should--build a new network where ownership and control over the switches is maximally dispersed. | | | How Technological Change Threatens Democracy and the Rule of Law
Lawrence Lessig has identified four mechanisms though which human behavior is controlled: laws, social norms, market forces, and physical architecture. Physical architecture is a far more powerful means of regulation than law: physical architecture creates self-enforcing ex-anti constraints, while law can only threaten ex-post punishment and requires a complex bureaucracy to enforce. Laws against drunk driving are less effective then breathalysers hooked to the ignition switch. | |
<
< | For activities conducted over networks, the code than controls the switches defines the physical architecture of the network. It prescribes what can and cannot be done on the network, which communications can get through, which are to be modified (and how), and which are simply not to be forwarded on. Modify the code on enough switches to block the http protocol, and you could have an network where websites no longer exist, but email, VoIP? , torrents and other activities are unaffected. And that's just the crudest example of what you can do when you control the code. | >
> | For activities conducted over networks, the code than controls the switches defines the physical architecture of the network. It prescribes what can and cannot be done on the network, which communications can get through, which are to be modified (and how), and which are simply not to be forwarded on. Modify the code on enough switches to block certain websites, and you get China's Golden Shield Project. Write code to identify subversive or unflattering text in transit, and Twitter posts by political dissidents and whistle-blowers become toothless endorsements of the regime. | | | | |
<
< | Our ability to modify the physical architecture of the real world is still, fortunately, rather limited. But in a networked world, code is easy to modify. The owner of the switch has almost unlimited control over what is and isn't possible on the network. And, in the Internet as it exists now, ownership of the switches is concentrated among a relatively small number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), most of whom are commercial entities. This creates an environment where a single ISP (or a few acting in concert) can regulate human behavior much more completely than the most determined police states of the Cold War era ever could. Comcast's unilateral decision to throttle BitTorrent? traffic across its network is a pale hint of what we can expect to see as switch hardware develops to allow real-time deep packet inspection of all network traffic and the owners of the switches become increasingly savvy about the power they control. | >
> | Our ability to modify the physical architecture of the real world is still, fortunately, rather limited. But in a networked world, code is easy to modify. The owner of the switch has almost unlimited control over what is and isn't possible on the network. And, in the Internet as it exists now, ownership of the switches is concentrated among a relatively small number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), most of whom are commercial entities. This creates an environment where a single ISP (or a few acting in concert) can regulate human behavior much more completely than the most determined police states of the Cold War era ever could. Comcast's unilateral decision to throttle BitTorrent traffic across its network is a pale hint of what we can expect to see as switching hardware develops to allow real-time deep packet inspection of all network traffic and the owners of the switches become increasingly savvy about the power they control. | | | Network Architecture as a Check on the Power of Code | |
<
< | The solution to the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the switch owners cannot be government regulation alone. First, such regulation only transfers the control from ISPs to political incumbents who would undoubtedly be tempted to employ it to consolidate their own power. Second, legal regulation it is only reactive, not preemptive; some switch owners will be willing to risk the consequences of the law if the immediate rewards are large enough. To stop factions from using the unprecedented regulatory power of code in ways that hurt democracy, we must take a page out of The Federalist #10, and create a network where ownership and control of the switches is dispersed as widely as possible.
Building a Commonly-Owned Internet
The current Internet architecture is very hierarchical. It is a network of networks that can be visualized like a pyramid with end-points at the bottom. Groups of end-points (laptops, PCs, internet-enabled cellphones, etc.) connect to a switch at the next layer up, allowing communication between all the end-points connected to that switch. Groups of switches in turn connect to one switch at a higher layer of the pyramid, and so on. Any end-point can thus communicate to any other end-point by climbing up through the levels of switches until it finds a switch that both end-points can reach, and then descending again. End-points never communicate directly with each other. | >
> | End to end encryption of networked communications and government regulation offer only partial solutions to the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the switch owners. Encryption does not disguise the parties to a communication or their pattern of interaction. Credit cards would allow most internet commerce to continue even if ISPs decided to block all encrypted communication. Regulating the switch owners, meanwhile, only transfers control of the switches to political incumbents who would undoubtedly be tempted to employ it to consolidate their own power. And regulation is reactive, not preemptive; some switch owners will be willing to risk the consequences of the law if the immediate rewards are large enough. | | | | |
<
< | The hierarchical structure of the Internet is an part a relic of the use of wired links to connect computers together. While wireless (radio) technology and wireless routers are starting to replace Ethernet networks at the base of the pyramid, those wireless networks remain hierarchical. | >
> | To stop factions from abusing the unprecedented regulatory power of code in ways, we need a network where ownership and control of the switches is dispersed as widely as possible. In such a network, the power of code can only be employed through substantial populist consensus. | | | | |
<
< | A flat network would eliminate the distinction between end-points and switches. In a wireless mesh network, for example, computers communicate with each other though wireless radio links without the need for a switch to route traffic between them. Rather, A talks to B directly if B is in range; if B is not in range, then A talks to C, and C forwards A's message to B. Each computer can act as both an end-point and a switch in the network. Thus, no third party is need to construct, own and maintain the infrastructure of the network; the cost is spread out among the individual computer owners. Because the technology is cheap (and getting cheaper), the cost of owning such a switch is low. Indeed, the One Laptop Per Child Association has integrated wireless mesh networking using the IEEE 802.11s standard in sub-$200 laptops meant to be deployed in areas with limited Internet infrastructure.
In a wireless mesh network, control over the switches is maximally dispersed. Each computer user can control what code is run on the wireless switch that is part of his computer--and each user can also choose which switches to trust in forwarding his communication. Thus, if A wants to talk to B and B is far enough to require an intermediary to forward the message, A can choose if it will send the message using C as an intermediary (and thus accepting whatever code-based regulations C imposes) or opts for a different route to reach B instead--perhaps forwarding the message through D, E and F, who use switching code from a source A trusts. While most people will have little interest or aptitude for tinkering with the code that handles the switching functionality of their device, they will be nonetheless be able to meaningfully express their views on what types of code-based regulation over the network are appropriate by installing firmware created by others that embodies those rules. | >
> | Building a Commonly-Owned Internet
The current Internet architecture is very hierarchical. The communication between many end-points (laptops, PCs, internet-enabled cellphones, etc.) is routed through a much smaller number of centralized switches. This architecture is largely a relic of wired links and limited computational power. Other, flatter network architectures are now possible which would eliminate the distinction between end-points and switches. | | | | |
<
< | February 2009, Digital Broadcasting, and Spectrum | >
> | In a wireless mesh network, computers are both end-points and switches. A talks to B directly if B is in range; if B is not in range, then the communication is forwarded to B through a series of hops through switches that are in range of each other. No third party is need to construct, own and maintain centralized network infrastructure; the cost is spread out among the individual computer owners. Because the technology is cheap (and getting cheaper), the cost of owning such a switch is low. Indeed, the One Laptop Per Child Association has integrated wireless mesh networking in sub-$200 laptops meant to be deployed in areas with limited Internet infrastructure. | | | | |
<
< | The F.C.C and White Spaces | >
> | In a wireless mesh network, control over the switches is maximally dispersed. Each computer user can control what code is run on the wireless switch he control. Furthermore, since alternative paths between any two points of such a network almost always exist, two parties communicating in a mesh network can chose a link that avoids switches running code they don't trust. While most people will have little interest or aptitude for tinkering with the code on the switches they own, they can still meaningfully express their views on what types of code-based regulation over the network are appropriate by installing third-party [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware] [firmware]] on their switches which embodies coded regulations they favor. | | | | |
<
< | Broadcasting or Webcasting? | >
> | The electromagnetic spectrum required to implement a robust wireless mesh network is becoming available. By February 17, 2009, all television stations in the United States must complete the mandatory transition from analog to digital broadcasting. Because digital transmissions are much less sensitive to to interference, there is no longer any need for large bands of 'white space'--unused elecromagnetic frequencies--between digital TV channels. The FCC has already indicated its intention to leave the white space frequencies in the public domain to be used by new consumer wireless devices. As television broadcasting gives way to webcasting, more and more spectrum will be freed from its traditional use. | | | | |
>
> | Conclusion
Detailing all the salutory (and problematic) effects of distributed ownership and control over Internet switches is beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, it should be clear that an internet architected to give every user an ownership stake is technologically feasable, and ideologically desirable if one's goal is to preserve democratic self-government. | | | -- |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 4 - 13 Nov 2008 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Internet 2.0: 6 Degrees of (Hardware) Separation | >
> | Disclaimer: This is a work in progress. Comments are welcome. | | | | |
<
< | -- By AndreiVoinigescu - 06 Nov 2008 | >
> | Factions in a Digital Age
-- By AndreiVoinigescu | | |
Table of Contents | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | The continuing migration of human activity 'online' requires a re-examination of many of the bargains embodied in our social contract--bargains antiquated by the underlying technological change. Debates about intellectual property laws and privacy are, at their core, debates about the right balance between our interests in autonomy, equality, prosperity and security. Consequently, it is hard to overstate the importance of the consensus we reach on these issues. We are balancing fundamental values.
We should not entrust the balancing process to politics as usual. That is to say, we should not allow it to devolve into a bargain between incumbent factions with the resources to capture the political process. We need real grass-roots deliberation. We need an internet architected to curtail the influence of the incumbents--a network where both ownership and control are maximally dispersed. | >
> | In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat posed by factions to self determination through democratic governance. Factions are groups of individuals united by interests adverse to the rights of other citizens and the permanent interests of society as a whole. While Madison worried about how to keep factions from usurping the power of the state through the political process, the march of technology has made it evident that state coercion is neither the sole nor the most ominous mechanism of control over human behavior. Just as the American Constitution seeks to limit the power of factions by incorporating principles of federalism, separation of powers and bicameralism into the architecture of the state, so too must we now look to the architecture of the internet as a means of diffusing the power technology grants to factions. We can--and should--build a new network where ownership and control over the switches is maximally dispersed. | | | How Technological Change Threatens Democracy and the Rule of Law | |
<
< | | | | Lawrence Lessig has identified four mechanisms though which human behavior is controlled: laws, social norms, market forces, and physical architecture. Physical architecture is a far more powerful means of regulation than law: physical architecture creates self-enforcing ex-anti constraints, while law can only threaten ex-post punishment and requires a complex bureaucracy to enforce. Laws against drunk driving are less effective then breathalysers hooked to the ignition switch.
For activities conducted over networks, the code than controls the switches defines the physical architecture of the network. It prescribes what can and cannot be done on the network, which communications can get through, which are to be modified (and how), and which are simply not to be forwarded on. Modify the code on enough switches to block the http protocol, and you could have an network where websites no longer exist, but email, VoIP? , torrents and other activities are unaffected. And that's just the crudest example of what you can do when you control the code. | | | Our ability to modify the physical architecture of the real world is still, fortunately, rather limited. But in a networked world, code is easy to modify. The owner of the switch has almost unlimited control over what is and isn't possible on the network. And, in the Internet as it exists now, ownership of the switches is concentrated among a relatively small number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), most of whom are commercial entities. This creates an environment where a single ISP (or a few acting in concert) can regulate human behavior much more completely than the most determined police states of the Cold War era ever could. Comcast's unilateral decision to throttle BitTorrent? traffic across its network is a pale hint of what we can expect to see as switch hardware develops to allow real-time deep packet inspection of all network traffic and the owners of the switches become increasingly savvy about the power they control.
Network Architecture as a Check on the Power of Code | |
<
< | The solution to the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the switch owners cannot be government regulation alone. First, such regulation only transfers the control from ISPs to political incumbents who would undoubtedly be tempted to employ it to consolidate their own power. Second, legal regulation it is only reactive, not preemptive; some switch owners will be willing to risk the consequences of the law if the immediate rewards are large enough. To stop factions from using the unprecedented regulatory power of code in ways that hurt democracy, we must take a page out of The Federalist #10, and create a network where ownership and control of the switches is disseminated as widely as possible. | >
> | The solution to the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the switch owners cannot be government regulation alone. First, such regulation only transfers the control from ISPs to political incumbents who would undoubtedly be tempted to employ it to consolidate their own power. Second, legal regulation it is only reactive, not preemptive; some switch owners will be willing to risk the consequences of the law if the immediate rewards are large enough. To stop factions from using the unprecedented regulatory power of code in ways that hurt democracy, we must take a page out of The Federalist #10, and create a network where ownership and control of the switches is dispersed as widely as possible. | | |
Building a Commonly-Owned Internet | |
<
< | | | | The current Internet architecture is very hierarchical. It is a network of networks that can be visualized like a pyramid with end-points at the bottom. Groups of end-points (laptops, PCs, internet-enabled cellphones, etc.) connect to a switch at the next layer up, allowing communication between all the end-points connected to that switch. Groups of switches in turn connect to one switch at a higher layer of the pyramid, and so on. Any end-point can thus communicate to any other end-point by climbing up through the levels of switches until it finds a switch that both end-points can reach, and then descending again. End-points never communicate directly with each other. | |
<
< | The hierarchical structure of the Internet is an part a relic of the use of wired links to connect computers together. While wireless (radio) technology | >
> | The hierarchical structure of the Internet is an part a relic of the use of wired links to connect computers together. While wireless (radio) technology and wireless routers are starting to replace Ethernet networks at the base of the pyramid, those wireless networks remain hierarchical.
A flat network would eliminate the distinction between end-points and switches. In a wireless mesh network, for example, computers communicate with each other though wireless radio links without the need for a switch to route traffic between them. Rather, A talks to B directly if B is in range; if B is not in range, then A talks to C, and C forwards A's message to B. Each computer can act as both an end-point and a switch in the network. Thus, no third party is need to construct, own and maintain the infrastructure of the network; the cost is spread out among the individual computer owners. Because the technology is cheap (and getting cheaper), the cost of owning such a switch is low. Indeed, the One Laptop Per Child Association has integrated wireless mesh networking using the IEEE 802.11s standard in sub-$200 laptops meant to be deployed in areas with limited Internet infrastructure.
In a wireless mesh network, control over the switches is maximally dispersed. Each computer user can control what code is run on the wireless switch that is part of his computer--and each user can also choose which switches to trust in forwarding his communication. Thus, if A wants to talk to B and B is far enough to require an intermediary to forward the message, A can choose if it will send the message using C as an intermediary (and thus accepting whatever code-based regulations C imposes) or opts for a different route to reach B instead--perhaps forwarding the message through D, E and F, who use switching code from a source A trusts. While most people will have little interest or aptitude for tinkering with the code that handles the switching functionality of their device, they will be nonetheless be able to meaningfully express their views on what types of code-based regulation over the network are appropriate by installing firmware created by others that embodies those rules. | | | February 2009, Digital Broadcasting, and Spectrum | | | Broadcasting or Webcasting? | |
<
< | Mesh Networks and the IEEE 802.11s Standard
One Laptop Per Child.. and Teenager, Father, Grandmother
Free Software, Free Firmware, Free Choice | | | -- |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 3 - 13 Nov 2008 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Internet 2.0: 6 Degrees of (Hardware) Separation | | | We should not entrust the balancing process to politics as usual. That is to say, we should not allow it to devolve into a bargain between incumbent factions with the resources to capture the political process. We need real grass-roots deliberation. We need an internet architected to curtail the influence of the incumbents--a network where both ownership and control are maximally dispersed. | |
<
< | How Technology has enhanced the power of incumbents
Code is Law | >
> | How Technological Change Threatens Democracy and the Rule of Law | | | | |
<
< | One Switch to Rule Them All | >
> | Lawrence Lessig has identified four mechanisms though which human behavior is controlled: laws, social norms, market forces, and physical architecture. Physical architecture is a far more powerful means of regulation than law: physical architecture creates self-enforcing ex-anti constraints, while law can only threaten ex-post punishment and requires a complex bureaucracy to enforce. Laws against drunk driving are less effective then breathalysers hooked to the ignition switch. | | | | |
>
> | For activities conducted over networks, the code than controls the switches defines the physical architecture of the network. It prescribes what can and cannot be done on the network, which communications can get through, which are to be modified (and how), and which are simply not to be forwarded on. Modify the code on enough switches to block the http protocol, and you could have an network where websites no longer exist, but email, VoIP? , torrents and other activities are unaffected. And that's just the crudest example of what you can do when you control the code. | | | | |
<
< | Network Architecture can act as a check and balance on power | >
> | Our ability to modify the physical architecture of the real world is still, fortunately, rather limited. But in a networked world, code is easy to modify. The owner of the switch has almost unlimited control over what is and isn't possible on the network. And, in the Internet as it exists now, ownership of the switches is concentrated among a relatively small number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), most of whom are commercial entities. This creates an environment where a single ISP (or a few acting in concert) can regulate human behavior much more completely than the most determined police states of the Cold War era ever could. Comcast's unilateral decision to throttle BitTorrent? traffic across its network is a pale hint of what we can expect to see as switch hardware develops to allow real-time deep packet inspection of all network traffic and the owners of the switches become increasingly savvy about the power they control.
Network Architecture as a Check on the Power of Code
The solution to the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the switch owners cannot be government regulation alone. First, such regulation only transfers the control from ISPs to political incumbents who would undoubtedly be tempted to employ it to consolidate their own power. Second, legal regulation it is only reactive, not preemptive; some switch owners will be willing to risk the consequences of the law if the immediate rewards are large enough. To stop factions from using the unprecedented regulatory power of code in ways that hurt democracy, we must take a page out of The Federalist #10, and create a network where ownership and control of the switches is disseminated as widely as possible. | | | | |
<
< | Federalist 10 | | | | |
<
< | Free Software, Free Firmware, Free Choice | | | | |
<
< | Value consensus from the bottom up | >
> | Building a Commonly-Owned Internet | | | | |
>
> | The current Internet architecture is very hierarchical. It is a network of networks that can be visualized like a pyramid with end-points at the bottom. Groups of end-points (laptops, PCs, internet-enabled cellphones, etc.) connect to a switch at the next layer up, allowing communication between all the end-points connected to that switch. Groups of switches in turn connect to one switch at a higher layer of the pyramid, and so on. Any end-point can thus communicate to any other end-point by climbing up through the levels of switches until it finds a switch that both end-points can reach, and then descending again. End-points never communicate directly with each other.
The hierarchical structure of the Internet is an part a relic of the use of wired links to connect computers together. While wireless (radio) technology | | | | |
<
< | The Technical Implementation | | | February 2009, Digital Broadcasting, and Spectrum
The F.C.C and White Spaces | | | One Laptop Per Child.. and Teenager, Father, Grandmother | |
>
> | Free Software, Free Firmware, Free Choice | | | --
|
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 2 - 08 Nov 2008 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Internet 2.0: 6 Degrees of (Hardware) Separation | | |
| |
<
< | More Spectrum Than You Can Shake a Stick At
February 2009 | >
> | Introduction
The continuing migration of human activity 'online' requires a re-examination of many of the bargains embodied in our social contract--bargains antiquated by the underlying technological change. Debates about intellectual property laws and privacy are, at their core, debates about the right balance between our interests in autonomy, equality, prosperity and security. Consequently, it is hard to overstate the importance of the consensus we reach on these issues. We are balancing fundamental values. | | | | |
<
< | The F.C.C Shows its stripes | >
> | We should not entrust the balancing process to politics as usual. That is to say, we should not allow it to devolve into a bargain between incumbent factions with the resources to capture the political process. We need real grass-roots deliberation. We need an internet architected to curtail the influence of the incumbents--a network where both ownership and control are maximally dispersed. | | | | |
<
< | Broadcasting or Webcasting? | >
> | How Technology has enhanced the power of incumbents
Code is Law | | | | |
>
> | One Switch to Rule Them All | | | | |
<
< | Mesh Networks and the IEEE 802.11s Standard | | | | |
>
> | Network Architecture can act as a check and balance on power | | | | |
<
< | One Laptop Per Child.. and Teenager, Father, Grandmother | >
> | Federalist 10 | | | | |
>
> | Free Software, Free Firmware, Free Choice | | | | |
>
> | Value consensus from the bottom up | | | | |
<
< | Why it's important (or One Switch to Rule Them All)
One Switch to Rule Them All | | | | |
<
< | Code is Law | >
> | The Technical Implementation
February 2009, Digital Broadcasting, and Spectrum | | | | |
<
< | Federalist Papers | >
> | The F.C.C and White Spaces | | | | |
<
< | Free Software, Free Firmware, Free Choice | >
> | Broadcasting or Webcasting?
Mesh Networks and the IEEE 802.11s Standard | | | | |
<
< | Consensus and Laws from Anarchism | >
> | One Laptop Per Child.. and Teenager, Father, Grandmother | | | -- |
|
|
AndreiVoinigescuPaper1Internet20 1 - 06 Nov 2008 - Main.AndreiVoinigescu
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Internet 2.0: 6 Degrees of (Hardware) Separation
-- By AndreiVoinigescu - 06 Nov 2008
Table of Contents
More Spectrum Than You Can Shake a Stick At
February 2009
The F.C.C Shows its stripes
Broadcasting or Webcasting?
Mesh Networks and the IEEE 802.11s Standard
One Laptop Per Child.. and Teenager, Father, Grandmother
Why it's important (or One Switch to Rule Them All)
One Switch to Rule Them All
Code is Law
Federalist Papers
Free Software, Free Firmware, Free Choice
Consensus and Laws from Anarchism
--
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|