Slashdot Mirror
Merchant Republics of Cyberspace
In the Middle Ages, when the reach of kings and laws sometimes grew weak, no single group could regulate or dominate another, or regulate commerce and collect taxes. Throughout Europe, there were frontier or "march" regions where sovereignties blended -- Celtic and English, Christian and Muslim. These sometimes violent borders persisted for centuries; despite continuing conflicts, they often served as spawning grounds for commerce and trade.
These regions developed distinct institutional and legal forms, the type of cultural evolution we're likely to see again soon in a different type of march region -- cyberspace -- according to Davidson and Rees-Mogg.
Their idea is that cyberspace will generate free zones apart from traditional government laws on speech or other control, policing or taxation. Like the residents of the march regions, residents and businesspeople in these new cyber-zones will go largely untaxed, because taxes will be almost impossible to tabulate and collect. Their freedom to speak and act freely and gather information would be unprecedented, and their sense of individual sovereignty enormous.
The authors make the provocative argument that cyberspace will transcend nationality. "Before the nation-state, it was difficult to enumerate precisely the number of sovereignties that existed in the world because they overlapped in complex ways and many varied forms of organization exercised power." In the information age, they claim, the same will be true. Sovereignty will become increasingly fragmented, with new entities emerging which will exhibit some but not all the characteristics we've come to associate with nation-stages.
Like the Knights Templar of the Middle Ages, these new cyber-republics will organize around principles that bear ltitle relation to nationality, at least geographic nationality.
"Market forces, not political majorities, will compel societies to reconfigure themselves in ways that public opinion will neither comprehend nor welcome," Davidson and Rees-Mogg maintain. "It will therefore be crucial that you see the world anew. If you fail to transcend conventional thinking at a time when conventional thinking is losing touch with reality, then you will be more likely to fall prey to an epidemic of disorientation that lies ahead."
Many of us (including myself, I think) aren't quite ready to write off the nation-state, still the most powerful and coherent entity on earth. But the disorientation Rees-Mogg and Davidson warn of is already obvious. Note the mad scrambling of businesses in publishing and entertainment, and other institutions like education and politics, to respond to the Internet, often lashing out in legal desperation or moral outrage at the rise of the new digital culture.
"Disorientation" is the perfect term for the way that groups as different as the U.S. Congress and most journailsts respond to cyberspace. Lawyers and doctors and advertising pros are scrambling to contend with the open-model distribution of once-proprietary information.
It's also a credible idea that some of the traditional functions of the nation-state -- raising armies to protect against attack -- seem increasingly dubious. Most wars were started by nationalists seeking political or economic expansion. But if cultural and influence and economic power is increasingly tied to cyberspace, and the ballooning business moving onto the Net and the Web, the rationale for most wars would evaporate. So would the idea of physical defense, one of the mainstays of the nation-state.
So the idea of merchant republics in cyberspace doesn't seem particularly far-fetched. A number of corporations -- Microsoft, AOL/Time-Warner, Disney, Intel -- are already larger and more prosperous than many countries. They will soon be as powerful as some, if they aren't already. So it doesn't seem much of a stretch to imagine companies or their components declaring themselve merchants of a new and virtual realm. Microsoft could buy an island somewhere and declare the company independent (something that's probably already occurred to Bill Gates, for whom secession might seem the logical next step if the courts continue to rule against him).
Smaller entrepeneurs could use encryption and other security tools to simply put their cyber-operations beyond the reach of governments. There's no real international law governing the global implications of the Net and the Web. Even if there were, a number of countries would surely be found to ignore any new conventions.
These kinds of republics wouldn't need traditional police forces or defense industries or tax-collection mechanisms. Just as the Net has no means of policing speech, such republics could defy regulation, especially if they became numerous.
In fact, many corners of the Net already offer virtual equivalents of the "march" state, entities that fall between the cracks of regulation and control. Wander around AIM or ICQ for awhile and you'll find thousands. We're in one now.
A couple of years ago, merchant republics in cyberspace might have seemed a wacky, even utopian, prediction. No more.
Watch for Part Three, The Return of the Luddites. this book is available at Fatbrain.
Unless you are outside of the territorial juridestiction of your country groups like the FTC will eventually get you good.
Also setting up a business on the ineternet also means that you have to have something to sell and quite frankly 80% of all small businesses fail in 2 years time. It's even worse for the net.
Respond to s
So, does that mean that Microsoft is Rome, trying to bring order with a very strict regime? /. the Huns and Taco would be Attila.
That'd make
:wq!
At the moment, such groups or entities probably would have to purchase protection from a suitable nation-state. That shouldn't be hard. Nigeria, for example, would probably come cheap.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
By Davidson, James Dale / Rees-Mogg, William
*not* impressive.
nosig
Unfortunately for the goals of some, it is wacky. Even the one place in world with a prayer of pulling something like that off, Sealand, is in trecherous waters.
The cyber revolution will change government as much as the industrial one did. Which, while significant, isn't revolutionary.
...you're saying that the Syndicate is winning the Ascension War?
"...heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
Really that's almost funny. The only real soverign power that actually "controls" the moon would be the united states. I don't think anyone would mind too much taking a laser and taking out that server of yours.
Respond to s
As soon as these corporations start doing harm to nations and citizens as a result, the international community will simply install a taxation system and control system to reign in the nasty companies, and nasty they will be.
NO company does good by way of its workers or the environment or community without the threat of government-sanctioned punishment for transgressing. They would pay the lowest, most poverty-pertetuation wages, pollute like bastards, without regulation. Taxation WILL begin once not paying (only fair) taxes begins to hurt much-loved and desired social programs.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I don't care how fast a connection you have, what length key you have, or how distributed your organization is. There will come a time and place where you, a living breathing human bein', will be subject to somebody putting a gun in your face. Cyber-nations would be more feasable if we had "Ghost in the Shell" type legally-recognized spirits floating around on the Internet. But since I don't see that happening any time soon, I am extremely pessimistic as to the predicitons made above.
That, and the fact that the authors seem to focus on economic interests being the primary motivators of these "cyber-states". Fuck that. I'm tired of being a consumer. I'm a CITIZEN, goddammit. I read, I think, and I like to vote. I buy shit sometimes, but that is not the focus of my being and I resent being considered otherwise, no matter how efficacious it is for marketing-types and Alan Greenspan to classify me thusly.
All anyone would have to do is bribe a group of Nigerian nationals and train them and give them arms to attack/destroy the server facility.
Respond to s
What exactly is the rationale for most wars?
I don't think physical defense will ever be obselete. There will always be people who want what you've got - and there are some things that can't be digitally reproduced. Food, for example. If me and some friends want your food, we will come take it. Then we will put up our own defenses to thwart you when you come to take it back. Then you will devise defenses of your own, so next time someone tries to take your stuff, you will thwart them. Then they will develop defenses...
Until there is digital reproduction of food, water, medicine, shelter.. there will always be potential for war.
wishus
Vote for freedom!
---
I was under the impression that one such country was doing exactly this - an island somewhere...
The authors may think that nation-states will abstain from violence when threatened by whatever is seeking to replace them. I sincerely doubt that existing nation-states will roll over and die in the face of virtual territories.
As Heinlein pointed out in Starship Troopers, anyone who thinks violence solves nothing should ask the citizens of Carthage.
After all, if I'm the leadership of a sovereign nation and I can't outwit you, I can always pass laws to restrict you (examples, anyone?). Last resort, if you're located in another nation and threaten me badly enough, we use the military option. Harden those server rooms, boys.
JA
JA
http://www.johnalex.org/
I'd be more convinced if any of the private currency/e-money initiatives had actually gotten off the ground. As it is, they've all fallen apart. Private currencies would be a necessary part of this merchant-state future. It's ironic that Local Exchange Trading Schemes and Micro-banks, which are community-based schemes, are flourishing and spreading but the big corporations can't do it.
This is offtopic but worth noting:
A non-troll finally got a first post.
I could die happy now.
--- 'dex
Rather than the dissolution of nation states, it seems more likely that the result of "borderless" transactions will be increased cooperation between governments to create a system of rules and regulations to insure mutual survival (one could argue that the WTO is one of the first steps in this direction), to the exclusion of those nation-states who choose not to participate, and therefore risk economic isolation and collapse (e.g. Cuba).
The idea that the globalist coterie of governments would allow anything of significant value or power to elude their reach is quite simply a rediculous idea. For these people, control is the key to their power, and they cannot allow anything to exist outside of their control.
You can expect to see any organisation trying to acheive something like this hit by the tools of these people - the UN and the WTO - and if that fails, then I'm sure "accidents" will follow. No country will dare to provide a location for these organisations - just look at what has happened in holdout nations like Panama. Freedom was crushed in the name of international trade, and bodies such as the UN and the WTO provide a valuable smokescreen for such activities. Just look at Bosnia or Rwanda - the UN death squads have been operating under the cover of "peacekeeping", eliminating targets that don't fall into line.
Independent orgainsations will not be allowed to happen.
There is a lot of work being done by various mainly opensource groups already on technology for Sovereign Individuals.
Check out my own project Neudist.org for example, where we are trying to create an online replacement for Legal Entities. Others such as WebFunds and E-Gold are creating Gold backed digital currencies a'la Cryptonomicon (They were actually doing it before Cryptonomicon). FreeNet is creating an uncensurable infrastructure and HavenCo are doing Offshore web hosting.
I'm sure I've forgotten quite a few, but these are the technologies that will enable or inspire the Sovereign Individuals. I loved the book, but the writers are very much involved with the really high end of the market, and when it comes down to it would probably feel a bit left behind by all this free software creating real Sovereign Individuals.
-Pelle
Founder's Camp
Founder's Camp
News for non-Nerds. Stuff that matters.
That should be Moggs, not Boggs. But, there again, with some of the things he's said in the past, nobody is likely to really notice the difference.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
you pay taxes.
If you don't pay taxes you go to jail or pay a *huge* fine to the IRS. Plain and simple. What you are talking about is almost like money laundering unless you pay the proper taxes on it.
Respond to s
Does Katz pay any attention to what is 'actually' happening in the world?
;-).
If he were paying attention, he might notice that the governments of the world (being pushed by the same big business that have owned them for decades/centuries) are doing everything in their power to turn the Internet into an extension of the 'real' world. Big business doesn't want the Internet to allow people a free 'republic', therefore government doesn't want it to happen either.
Now, maybe someone can argue that it will happen with or without the government interfering, but seriously, does anyone believe that? The government (US or other countries) will just regulate the piss out of it if they (and the businesses that really control them) can't keep it 'under control'. I don't doubt at all that someday soon we will have an 'Internet tax' for even hooking in. And then, we will be levied a tariff on product purchased over the Internet (because we aren't purchasing things the way the businesses want us to purchase them) and goods purchased over the Internet will be so expensive it won't be worth it.
Of course, assuming that big business and government manage to pull their heads out someday and realize the tracking capabilities in Internet purchases, they will jump at the opportunity to create 'online' countries. Then they can give the common people an excuse to think they are free of the old control, yet still the old control will still be in place.
Sorry, I must have forgotten my meds today
Bite my yammer.
Of course this is inevitable... In fact, I can see this becoming the next marketing boon for small, 3rd world nation... Take a starving country in Africa, and tell them that if they have completely non-restrictive internet laws, they will cease being poor. Say that you can sell anything you want online, and allow for this small little country to see money beyond it's wildest dreams, which is still going to be nothing but a drop in the bucket for most large businesses. I can see it being a possibility that, in the future, alot of small countries in Latin America and Africa could make up for alot of their economic stife by allowing rich European and American corporations to have free reign.
As I read this piece,I get the idea that Katz thinks the Net will help stop wars and change individual nations into one big global entity. I don't see either of these things happening. First off,as long as you have people,you'll have war. We have a very long history of not being able to get along with each other. And if you'll notice,alot of the current conflicts are based on ethnic and religious differences. A line on a map has little to do with them. Second,people tend to like their national identities. They want to be considered Americans or Brits or French or whatever. I simply can't see the entire planet giving up all it's flags and coins and various trappings and considering themselves all Earthlings.
==== Warning:this poster contains subject matter that may be offensive. Flaming discretion is advised.
Technology is where it's at I'm afraid. The problem with these so-called rogue states, is that they are Nation States as well and are run by individuals or groups of individuals. While you might get protection from them for a short while, if it's all of a sudden in the interest of your protective state to hand you over, they will.
Look at OECD's black list of Tax Havens Since the list was announced you have had Cayman Islands, Dominica, Antigua, Mauritius and several others bending over backwards.
Having lived and worked in several of these places, I have experienced first hand that the government officials here are not idealistic about anything, don't generally understand the new economy and are scared as hell right now of loosing their income.
Nation States provide much more than armed forces and ways of collecting taxes. They can also provide a police force, social security, education and other services. I am having trouble seeing how an online community could provide these things without a physical presence. Any ideas?
------------------------------ Only a fool has no doubts.
The decisions you and I make today about where we buy, what we buy, how much information we permit free access to and how we choose to communicate all will affect the rise of these merchants. The difference between success and failure, early in the life cycle may only be a few customers or complainers. Does my purchase today allow that company to survive and one day develop into a vast empire. Could the first clients of the Hansa League chosen better?
Actually, probably the most important decision you and I will make in the next few months with regards to this is our vote on the 7th of November. One candidate has clearly committed to a socialist taxation/economic system. The other has chosen to continue (and enhance) our current system of supporting business opportunity. Oddly, the incumbent proposes the huge alteration and the challenger the continuity. What a wierd presidential system the USA has.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Either way (if it does or doesn't happen), whoever tries to make it a reality first is gonna take it in the ass when they go to court (and they will). No country is going to let some corporation within its bounds defy tax laws, at least not without a fight!
"Like the Knights Templar of the Middle Ages, these new cyber-republics will organize around principles that bear ltitle relation to nationality, at least geographic nationality. " The knights templar were founded as a quasi-military benedictine monk sect. What they evolved into was something completely outlanding that touched on some of these principles, but in the end they were disbanded by the church and many of their leaders were burned at the stake for treason, heresy, and blasphemy. Nice analogy JK.
They may attempt to tax you. Most tax regimes and the OECD are already starting to do this. The IRS is obscene for example in trying to track it's citizens abroad.
No matter how nasty they will attempt to be, I seriously doubt that they will come out ahead. It will be very uncomfortable for us for a few years, while they get more and more desperate, however they really wont be able to tax truely anonymously owned online entities, just like they wouldn't be able to censure FreeNet or read my PGP mail.
Snowcrash, Neuromancer and many others over the last decade or so. I think we are seeing the foundations of virtual-scape presented in books like snowcrash, et al...this idea of commerce centers (evolving), gated communities (evolving and here, e.g. aol>,and the arguable anarchy between these stable realms.
Personally, I think the writing is on the wall for net governance as we know it. The reality is that the net is *global*...that the laws that the US or any other sovereign state attempts to impliment only holds substantive force in the country of origin, treaties notwithstanding.
Either there needs to be a global government with actual enforcement powers (I'll just hold my breath and wait for that one)...or there will eventually be some sort of global internet "treaty" wherein all signatories agree to abide by certain agreed upon terms etc. Again...I'm just going to hold my breath... Even if the later comes into being, there will always be those who refuse to sign...or sign and violate (the whole issue of enforcability is an entirely seperate and monumental issue).
I think we are seeing the birth of a form of virtual company town...where you can be...and buy...and play...in exchange for various amounts of freedom. What is your comfort level...are you very timid and want relative safty, live in aolville (but we will be watching over you quite closely, but you don't mind that do you *gentle smile*).....or do you want no structure whatsoever, it's yours..but who do (or can) you trust then.
It's an amazing applied sociological experiment we are watching evolve. I look forward to witnessing it...and making a living integrating it into others lives...
rootrot
ah, but what if the server were on the dark side of the moon? No laser will hurt it there ;-)
--
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
-Possum Lodge Motto
I think it's fair to point out to /. readers, that William Rees-Mogg is possibly the most out-of-touch man in modern Britain.
Next!
First, some background:
Sealand is actually an old British military installation. For all puposes, think of it like an oil rig type platform out in the middle of the sea between Holland and the U.K. It's just a 3,500? sq. ft. platform with lots of anti-aircraft guns and the like. The Brits abandoned it after WWII and beacuse of it's location etc. when some crazy guy decided to take it over and declare it a soverign nation, Britan laughed and basically left him alone. So now Sealand (as the "king" declared it) is in a very unique position.
Fast Forward to the year 2000
Now add a bunch of venture capitalists and soe enterprising and slightly rebellious nerds and you've got yourself a haven like no other.
The Future for Sealand:
Sealand is having massive amounts of hardware etc. brought on board and they're hopping to turn it into cyber mecca. Their touting themselves to customers as a GREAT opportunity for REAL security and REAL autonomy. Sealand is exempt from all laws but their own. Sealand does not allow childporn/corporate espinoge and some things like that, but if the feds ever want to see your email records/etc. and Sealand has them, you're clear. Sealand is going to be RABID about protecting their customers and the digital nation-state they've created.
Maybe someone else still has the article around, but it was quite an interesting read. When hell breaks loose, I'd certainly like these Sealand guys in my corner....
You had to launch it to get it there right? Well then all the adversary has to do is to use another similar tajectory and it can smash into your computer going at a high rate of speed. Different tactic, same result.
Respond to s
A recent article on MSNBC.com shows that the tiny Polynesian country of Tuvalu has recieved $17 million to date because of the Internet domain name it has of ".tv".
.tv domain. If this isn't a "Merchant Nation" in the same vein, then I don't know what is...
Basically, this country (not necessarily the inhabitants thereof, mind you) is getting suddenly wealthy off of the Internet and the potential market value of the
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
No encryption technology will prevent the county sherrif from showing up at my door demanding payment of my property taxes. No digital cash scheme will prevent the cashier at the local supermarket from adding on sales tax when I buy a chocolate bar, or prevent the imposition of income taxes on that cashier's paycheck - the supermarket, as a fixed physical entity, is easily subject to state regulation. SSL won't keep the state from knowing who a corporation's stockholders are and imposing capital gains taxes - since corporations are state-chartered entities, there's no way they can avoid regulation. (As lax as that regulation tends to be today, don't doubt that if the tax money stops flowing that will change.)
The only taxes that might be avoided by new technology are income taxes for independant contractors who work via the net; and if that truly comes to pass, you'll just see a shift away from the income taxes toward other forms of taxes. Which might not be a bad thing, but it's hardly the destruction of taxation.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The place is called Sealand. Not an island tho' a structure. I posted more about it...
I've considered creating one, but thus far demand hasn't been too high.
In fact, including myself I now have heard of two people that would enjoy it (you and I).
Just hang in usenet. There's lots of philosophy groups there. Some even have a techno slant.
Bite my yammer.
One Mogg, not two. William Rees-Mogg, former editor of The Times. If you have a silly name, it is some consolation to get it spelt right.
Why? Well, first, we're (the US citizens out there) taxed to death. We do not need another tax, let alone an internet one (though it seems one is on its way...isn't that right California?). Some of the ideas by these guys seem proposterous, but weren't all those 'wacky' ideas of the sixties of fax machines and the internet in general seen as nutty?
I've been reading the comments doubting the ability for there to be a common internet currency. Though many tries have failed, the story of an interviewer and Thomas Edison comes to mind. The interviewer asked, "It took a thousand and one tries to invent the light bulb. How did it feel to fail 1000 times?" To which he replied, "I didn't fail 1000 times. The lightbulb was simply an invention that required 1001 steps." Internet currency CAN work. And it WILL work, one day.
The US Government takes 1/3rd of your wages. Do you think that figure is going to go down? And furthermore, do you think that big a cut is worth it? Does the goverment do 1/3rd of your laundry, or 1/3rd of your coding? Do they do anything with that money but blow a large percentage of it on things we don't need? Or gold-plated toilet seats? Or $500 screwdrivers?
If the idea of no war is so insane, why haven't we had a major one in years? What's up with the Serbs or the Bosnians? Do we care? They fight over land and food and things we have in such great abundance that our military expertise ends up with the equivalent of government masterbation. Our military is so good in fact, that nobody will fight us. And who would have the balls? So after everyone turns to the internet, and a common global currency is developed, the only thing you would have to worry about is shipping. I see, if anything, security would have to be developed for food shipping than anything else. Food can be stored properly and sent ANYWHERE. There is no limit as to where things can go or what they can do.
You know what? I think, looking at the grand scheme of things, that FedEx and UPS stock is lookin MIGHTY tasty right now.
This is possible. And it can happen.
any info?
Respond to s
I think it's safe to agree that "internet access frustrates my government's attempt to control me." The interesting question is: to what extent does that regulation become difficult?
Taxation
You don't receive real merchandise through the wire, you receive them by some means of transport. If a nation wanted to enforce a tax on internet-purchased goodies, then it could
- force vendors to collect taxes
- check incoming freight
Sure, maybe you can find a vendor willing to smuggle goods without the notice of the government, but that happens without the 'net.Free Speech
Only if your government lets you. Consider that encryption is banned in Chine for unauthorized individuals.
-- David M. Moore
Yes, I know the far side of the moon is commonly called the dark side, but that is a miss-conception and needs to be stamped out (along with flat earth etc:)
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Does this sound like Sealand (more info here) and HavenCo? It sure does to me.
I was pondering at length on this a while back, and had a disturbing though:
What would happen if instead of HavenCo operating on Sealand, suddenly Microsoft picked up from Redmond and plunked itself down on Sealand? What would happen if Microsoft was its own COUNTRY?
Mr. Ska
I think there are a few problems with the idea of a cyberspace "nation" existing. existing nation-states currently provide things like water, power, schooling, JOB PROTECTION and MINUMUM WAGE, a police force. The end all of everything is that RESOURCES are what makes the world go round, and controlling those resources is an important thing. That can only be accomplished by a geographical government which needs an army to protect its boundaries. At this point, what is the difference?
M period. Fresh, comma
1) Just because people can communicate more easily across national boundaries doesn't mean that everyone will agree. Witness Slashdot's forum ;-)
2) "Most wars were started by nationalists seeking political or economic expansion." - That's ludicrous. Nationalism didn't even exist until the early 20th Century. There's this place called Jerusalem - people have been fighting over it for centuries because of religion. You honestly think that the Internet will erase the relevance of religion?
3) "But if cultural and influence and economic power is increasingly tied to cyberspace, and the ballooning business moving onto the Net and the Web, the rationale for most wars would evaporate." - So, if business is good, there won't be any wars? Hmm....
4) When the telegraph came into existence, many pundits predicted that it would mean the end of warfare, because rapid communication would mitigate arguments. Ironic that the speedy telegraph was used to set World War One in motion faster than the diplomats could act to prevent it.
The bottom line is that people start wars. Nation-states are collections of individual human beings. Think about the number of times in your own life when you've had a conflict of interest with another person. Did you always come to an equitable solution? Or did the conflict continue? Until we can govern ourselves as individuals, no amount of technology will help us mitigate conflicts among nation-states.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
They could try but then they would have to defend themselves against everyone and anyone. Persoanlly I would give them 5 minutes outside of the protections of the USA.
Respond to s
As submitted to slashdot 09/07/00 and REJECTED (maybe they didn't want me to scoop katz?):
The FBI today released a report on school violence. Ironically, there is only a 1 in a million chance at present of someone being shot in school. Despite that, the political fallout has been fast and extensive. What follows is my own analysis of the report, along with my thoughts on what they did right, and what they did wrong, in the report. "... a great many adolescents who will never commit violent acts will show some of the behaviors or personality traits included on the list."
The FBI went to great pains in this report to inform the reader that this report is not intended to be a basis for forming a profile of a potential killer. There is no single metric to judge the threat someone poses. Almost all of the information in the report points to this underlying theme - "do not profile students." The FBI also cautioned against the impulsive responses that the issue of school violence has generated, going as far as to say that these demands "have been accompanied by little if any concerted and organized effort to understand the roots of school shooting incidents." The FBI also stated that as a direct result of these incidents being so rare, there was no reliable way to pick out from any group who the killer will be.
The FBI also lashed out at the media, dedicating an entire section to debunking various myths that the media has propagated. Some of these I didn't pick up. Among the myths debunked that slashdotters would be most interested in:
The FBI, in a very round-about way, also slammed schools for zero tolerance policies, saying that the "one-size-fits-all approach" many schools take was ill-advised and could even be dangerous. To quote, "...schools must recognize that every threat does not represent the same danger or require the same level of response."
The core of the report, however, doesn't take some of its own advice and goes on to offer a series of threat assessment criterion to identify potential problems. In other words, profiling.
The assessment approach advocated in the report is based on a "four-pronged" model, with the main areas to identify falling into the personality of the student, and the family, school, and social dynamics in that student's life. This approach is *very* similar to current practices in "emotionally/behaviorally disturbed" programs for many schools. The difference between the FBI's approach hinges on the idea that a student should not be "profiled" until after a threat has been made. It is a small, but important, distinction. [Of interest to myself, the report noted that "about 25% of the adolescent population is at risk for psycho-social problems..." Also, the report notes that adolescence begins earlier in today's kids - as early as age nine. I found that somewhat suprising.]
The actual threat list had several interesting things listed in it which I will list below.
All of these, to me, seem like values my boss has. Should I turn him in?
Continuing down the list...
Hmm, apparently having unmonitored access to TV and standard media, as well as the internet, are threat factors according to the FBI. So, despite all the effort the FBI made to make it clear to people that profiling was a bad idea, here they are using a very generalized list to determine whether someone really is a threat or not.
The last leg of the report has recommendations for handling threats. As a short summary, the FBI recommends that schools form a group of teachers specifically to deal with possible threats. They specifically note that expelling or suspending the student is NOT a substitute for evaluating the student. Such an impulsive move can actually worsen the situation as the student may feel as if he/she was treated unfairly and feel a need for retribution. Also among the recommendations made, is that each case be treated individually, rather than the one-size-fits all approach common in schools.
In the conclusion, the FBI recommends additional research, and that in the interim, that both educators and law enforcement be trained in handling of such incidents and that a plan be put in place ahead of time to deal with serious, specific threats. The report also notes that school violence is continuing on a downward trend. The report concludes with the following: "Threats in schools are not just the schools' problem; therefore, neither is the solution".
The report is available directly from the FBI homepage, or via this link.
What taxes?
With a caymen Islands server and bank account as a front, and secure connections going both ways (ie no way to tie the account to the person), its impossible to prove WHO is running it.
That is, indeed, the whole point. The money is there, it can be accessed in some ways. Only when it comes into the persons hands in a traceable manner does it need to be reported as income.
The only real danger is in being turned in by people who find out.
All your really doing is cheating the government out of money that they arn't entitled to in the first place.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
So it'll go in this case too: either the Net will tear down the Borders, or the Borders will tear down the Net.
(This is a first post for me, by the way. Not on the topic, but for myself. Consequently, it's gotten a bit stream-of-consciousnessy on me, so moderate gently, please?)
Individual nations' governments are the biggest threat, but only in the way that Hannibal's elephants were -- large, slow-moving, ponderous creatures which didn't know better than to go where you told them. They usually only attack at the orders of someone else, be it people outraged by some form of expression (the Germans against racism, Americans against pornography, the French against any advertising that written in any language other than French) out of some diluted loyalty, and a desire to stay in power. Then there's nations like China which actively seek to strangle it; even elephants get enraged sometimes.
The Borders' best way to win is to pursue. As someone pointed out, the complete freedom to transmit whatever information you want anywhere in the world doesn't do you a whole lot of good if a team of [insert nationality] marines lands on your deep-sea-ISP and opens fire indiscriminately. And when that offshore server station is doing little things to honk off the 168+ nations of the world, don't be surprised to find Maori with grenades floating in the North Atlantic looking for yourownprivateidaho.org.
The Net's best way to win is to persevere: to continue on in the face of the pressures and adversities. According to the dictum, the Net views censorship as damage and acts to route around it. "Damage" in this case means that occasionally those enraged Albanians will take out a netbarge or two, but the net's work will continue.
A Net victory wouldn't destroy the borders, but with the people dealing with each other as equals and sharing information as peers, all those borders would become next to meaningless.
The other question is, "What are you doing with the Net?"
If you're talking about pushing goods around the world, the balance tips greatly in favor of the Borders. Someone has to produce the item in question, pick it up, ship, and drop it off at its destination. Physical entities are easy to stop at border crossings, and governments will call those couriers 'smugglers' if the item is contraband (a fancy term meaning "you can't possibly pay what we'd want to let this in here, so we're just not going to allow it"), and act to stop it. At that point, some of the world's more significant governments will join the fray, like Canada.
If the thing being traded is information or services, though, the Net has the strong advantage. Governments have proven particularly inept at grasping ideas, much less stopping them. The honest flow of information across the Net will necessitate it being kept open, despite any legal discomforts (or attempted illegal stoppages by certain governments who shall remain nameless).
Side-thought, and caveat: The 'Web Application' qualifies as a service, rather than a good. If most companies are going to go to web apps, then sooner or later 'illegal' or 'hack' web apps will crop up, and could be brought to bear to push information through tightly locked borders. tribalfloodnetwork.com, anyone...? It could spell a quick and decisive victory for the Net if the right information is pushed through, but if not, it WILL mean the two combatants will be fighting instead to the death.
Many people like to dream that the Net is an integral part of humanity's future (at least until Internet2 comes along). I look at UseNet and think "Gawds, I hope not."
(Remember what I said about 'stream-of-consciousnessiness'? Sorry about that...)
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
For those who aren't familiar with the details, most of the Knights Templar were executed (burned at the stake) for "heresy." The charges were brought against them by the French king, who had heard rumors that the Knights were hoarding vast wealth. The king, in order to get his hands on the Templar treasure, conspired with groups of noblemen who were jealous of the Templars worldly power to destroy the order.
The amazing parallel here is to the internet in modern times. The internet contains vast wealth, which the greedy governments of modern times wish to acquire. Just as the king had help in the Templar's time, governments today have willing conspirators in the form of the companies who stand to lose the most from the internet.
The Golden Age of the Internet is over: the kings and their co-conspirators have decided to either control the wealth - or destroy it. The actions against MP3.com, Napster, and DeCSS are all symptoms of the growing movement to make the internet just another method of extracting wealth from the masses. In the United States, our elected representatives are fighting amongst themselves over how to tax the Internet properly. If sales taxes on the internet become unpopular, then they will simply levy a "telecommunications tax" on the service providers. Once it was obvious that the wealth was there in cyberspace, these institutions became the internet's worst enemy.
This is not a hopeless battle, though. The Industrial Revolution destroyed the power of the aristocracy in Britain by creating wealth that was not tied to large tracts of land. It did not, however, do so overnight. The decline of that institution can be measured from the mid-18th century up until the twilight of the 19th century. Much in the same way, I believe the Information Revolution was the death knell of government as we know it today, and its willing conspirators.
These institutions must evolve or be replaced, and they will. It is only a matter of time. What is important is that the replacements for them be what we dream about, not what we fear most. The hallmark of the Information Age is the burgeoning empowerment of the individual. It is this property that the modern governments and corporations in America and Europe fear most, and are trying the hardest to limit.
This is because these institutions require complacency and uniformity to exist. Consider: if all people liked the same music, finding artists to record popular music would be easier, discovering the next John Grisham or Tom Clancy would be simpler, and the products created by these people would be easier to market, and would sell more copies. This is why the large media companies focus on expanding markets by telling us what is "cool." They simply do not have the agility to deal with more that two or three different markets. This is leading to an explosion in small niche providers: the small record labels and presses. These people are doing much better in the Internet Age.
Can we make a difference? Certainly. Spend some time researching where your entertainment budget goes. Use the internet to find bands or authors or artists that are good, but not "signed" with a label or a publisher. Reward talent with money. If you are politically inclined, write. Write your newspaper, your representatives, and the executives of companies to praise moves you agree with and to condemn those you don't. Pick an issue for which you are passionate and promote it. And most importantly, if you don't feel like being such an activist, the email those who do with two lines or so of encouragement. It helps.
More accurately: those people fight on land and influence, something the US has done several time in this century (imposing US-friendly dictatorships in Cuba and south Vietnam, for instance).
The alternatives that they will probably introduce are delivery taxes (payable through FedEx???), Internet Taxes payable by ISP's or tacked on to our ISP bills.
If only part of the population is taxable, you will probably start seeing that taxable low income part of the population get more and more angry, which we are already seing in the rise of hate groups through out the world. Eg. Anti Chinese riots in Indonesia, Neo Nazi Groups, Pat Buchanan etc.
The authors conclusion is that there will be much greater equality between countries, but much greater inequality within countries. Just look at India, China, Mexico etc. They all now have large growing educated middle classes, but as they grow the inequality within the countries increase.
However the traditional large semi-well paid working class of North American and Western Europe has had it's foundations torn apart over the last 30 years.
The most obvious thing the authors' argument ignores is that people do not live in cyberspace. Physical goods do not exist in cyberspace. Currency, while often transferred electronically, is still rooted in the physical and is ultimately controled by physical institutions. For these very simple reasons, you can not totally circumvent a physical nation-state (or a future equivalent). I do not know why the authors think a cyberzone of some sort could be created where taxation is impossible. Taxes on individual transactions might be difficult, but those are definitely not the only kinds of taxes we have. Physical goods traded in a cyberzone must be produced somewhere, purchased by someone with currency, and delivered somewhere. Unless all of these are performed outside the physical boundaries of a nation-state, the state still has myriad mechanisms available for control.
No, a nation-state can't (using even marginally reasonable and feasible means) stop the trading of MP3s. But a strong nation-state with the support of its people can easily exert enormous influence on economic activity that involves physical goods. I am glad that Katz isn't yet writing off the nation-state, but it is disappointing (though not surprising) that he acts as though the physical world is irrelevant for electronic commerce and goods. Two of those companies that he cites as examples of possible cyber merchant republics - AOL/Time-Warner and Microsoft - deal almost totally in immaterial goods. Their products require physical products like computers to have any use at all. Intel deals in physical goods and is therefore prone to control. Disney's revenues come from both kinds of products. None are at all free from the constraints of the physical world and the nation-state. If Microsoft moved to an island, a nation-state could get rid of Microsoft with a single missle.
I think the basic point here is that any realm or zone in cyberspace can only be useful for "cybergoods." And no matter what people like Katz say, we will always need food, shelter, and a whole lot of other physical goods to have a society where cyberspace even exists. Given that, the power of a cyberzone is ultimately very limited, and I don't think it's an alternative or challenge to the nation-state at all.
I'm somewhat agnostic about the merits of this phenomenon. Economic globalism is both good and bad. But the focus of this debate should rightly be on globalism and not the net, IMO.
The currency is growing like crazy, besides not having been funded by VC's and largely ignored by the press. I think I just read on the mailing list that there is now over 1 ton of e-gold in circulation today.
While this is still small fish, it's the most succcessfull attempt yet of any online currency, thats backed by real value. Beenz may have more users, but it's essentially backed by air. You wouldn't accept a pay check in beenz, but I know many people that are getting paid in E-Gold.
Some group in the Isle of Man also just announced they were going to create a similar system.
Yeah, money will be the motivation behind it, until people realize that in a completely digital marketplace, money (which is a representation of physical wealth) is meaningless and a totally new monetary system will have to be devised. So I guess it's more like a group of financial minded VA's are pushing their idea of Ascension...
Lord... we are geeks, aren't we?
^_^
-Speldor
SWISS and the world swisses with you; PROVE and you provalone
Hey, I would visit on a daily basis. Be sure to post an announcement on Slashdot if you get something going....
I was just reading through the OECD's document cited above. I'm pretty fucking disgusted with it.
They go on and on about "Harmful tax practices", which is anything that might undermine the member countries tax base... such as tax havens. They talk about taxation as if it is a necessity to the proper functioning of the planet... assholes.
To make matters worse, this is being used as a pretty explicit threat against those countries that participate in "harmful tax practices". The threats are primarily financial, adding additional tax burdens on citizens of those countries who operate within/through member countries.
Ick. The more I think about them, the less I like international governmental organizations.
Brief info on OECD, etc.
OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
Some members - Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, US, Japan, Australia, Mexica, Korea... among a dozen others.
Some havens - Andorra, Anguilla, Aruba, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cook Islands, Gibraltar, Grenada, Isle of Man, Liberia, Monaco, Montserrat, Panama, Samoa, Tonga, US Virgin Islands, Rep of Vanuatu... among a dozen others.
"Why should I be content to simply live in this world, when I, as a human being, can CREATE it?" - Oertel
it's all dark, actually
The REAL Anonymous Coward is User# rnd(). Anyone else is just afraid to give their name.
It's probably already happened - there's certainly a grey market online for items like marijuana seeds and plants that can be used to make psychedelics.
Of course, there have been many pirate republics in the past. Most of them flourished for a while, then got blown to kingdom come by the British or other international policemen of their day.
Just in case you need someone to tell you which way the wind blows...
Oh yes, you are of course 100% correct, silly of me to think that a newscast was supposed to be reporting the facts.
M.G.
Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
Nota Bene: the Templars based their order upon the 'Rule of St Benedict' but where never a branch of the Benedictines. The Benedictines were not and are not militaristic. For that maybe you should check the Jesuits !!!!
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
It'll take a bunch of companies to make this work, and the only ones that are going to be really screwed by it are the people.
I can easily see something like the above situation occuring. All it needs is some logistics. And, given the current system, that's where the problem lies.
The major stumbling block to any supranational system such as this is getting known value into the thing in the first place. I'm going to give a very unlikely scenario here, but bear with me :)
Let's say, for instance, that Time Warner wants, for some reason, to spearhead the revolution. They want to set up shop on the net to sell MP3s to all and sundry, and also to make sure that nobody, especially themselves, gets taxed for the transactions. After setting up an offshore company to hold all the activities, they put up an e-com site, and get people to buy their good MP3s from there for a minimal sum per unit. Time Warner, the Official Company, makes up a lot of PR about how this is actually a Bad Thing, and "Nothing To Do With Us," goes through the motions of suing themselves, and as a result might just get away with it. And because they also own (some) of the network, by way of AOL, they have some chance of not having to shut the system down (I'll leave the 'distributed webserving' problem as an exercise for the reader).
Now, lets say that they wanted to use this money they'd been generating in the Real World. That's where the problem comes. You can bet that all the nations that had been screwed out of money would have *big* problems with dealing with that company which TW had set up. And, of course, if TW was to own up to the scheme, they'd have hell to pay. So, now they need to be able to do something with their 'untouchable cash.'
The best way to play with the untouchable cash is to have someone else working the same way, providing a service they want, who is willing to take their money. And so a network of supranationals would form, all dealing outside of the current boundaries, and being more than happy to see more of their turnover as profit.
The only question, after all that, is whether or not the public would get screwed more by their national governments to make up for the tax shortfall, or if they would end up in a similar 'supranational' situation. My main fear of something like this occuring is that basic services will disappear as the sources of tax income dwindle.
Open World - a true United Nations
I'm kind of surprised no one has brought up this point, given the number of international internet lawsuits we've seen in the last few years. What was the original reason for Earth joining the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek?
I see a worldwide government as a solution to quite a few problems we are facing now. As the internet increasingly interconnects the world, I continue to not understand how a national government's laws can be applied to a worldwide structure like the internet. There would be many problems (not the least of which is language), especially remaining nationalistic identity during the switch. I guess the best analogy would be extending the power of the U.N. (but including every country in the world) and giving them true power of creating laws and enforcing them. Yes, I realize that this would have to be ratified by existing governments, and no government will willingly sign their own castration papers (not to mention their own pink slips). So the only time I can see this being implemented is after another world war, when we see the outdatedness of the current "nation-state" idea.
I know this is way out in left field, but all of the sci-fi I've seen deals with planets and worlds (we are earthlings, etc), rather than subcategorizations.
Amazingly, I'm not VirtualKatz, although I love that guy.
-----
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
Actually my perception is that the Net has already had a huge real-world effect in business, specifically the fact that the Fed has been loaning money like crazy, thus creating the Roaring 90's IPO net market.
The Fed banks are well aware that there is absolutely no difference between the money supply they create and transmit around electronically and a Net-based currency, other than enforceability and trust. I believe that the Fed has had a loose money policy during these past few years partly to ensure that there is enough investor money to keep popular portals in the hands of owners that are on board with traditional Nationalistic Corporatism and out of Net currency. I call the strategy Positive Despotism- don't crush your potential enemies, buy them out, or at least make everybody fat, dumb and happy enough to not question the freedoms that they are losing.
I also believe that the Clipper chip and associated technologies are anti-Net currency initiatives moreso than anything else, as a key component of any such system is verification and privacy for tax-avoidance. Fortunately for the Fed and the US Government, it looks like everyone who might have made a Net currency play has been bought out or gone to ground.
By the way, the Templars were the first European internationalist bankers and the first entity to allow checks to be written from one Priory and cash it at another. They achieved this by putting a validation code on the 'check' that could be deciphered and verified at cashout time. As noted before, Philip the Fair of France and his stooge Pope created trumped-up charges to allow the ransacking of the Order's riches. Encryption, money, freedoms and police power have been interrelated issues for a long time.
The key problem I see with the online Merchant Republic concept is trust in contract enforcement- how do I know the goods, services and currency I pour into such an entity will give me value and have a mechanism for redress of grievances? Short of a tribal clade treaty such as those in Stephenson's books, there would be NO enforcement or due process outside of one's Republic. Thus, the Merchant Republic/tribal system is unlikely to occur unless there is
1)a complete collapse of the justice system (therefore people lose faith in the US image-myth, bringing on chaos and a need for adhoc groups for survival),
2) or a collapse of the currency system.
So far the Fed and the Government appear to be defending the currency, so the justice system breakdown is the more likely scenario. Rampant insane corporatism crushing the individual and buying up justice is more likely to create the Merchant Republics rather than Katz' magic Net.
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
While this is still small fish, it's the most succcessfull attempt yet of any online currency, thats backed by real value. PayPal is backed by real value. It is backed by money. Check it out. www.x.com
this is a left handed sig
What's this "we", Kemo Sabe?
"...heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
The corporations will give a small payout to the country's leaders and the nation will remain in poverty. This is EXACTLY what has happened with the world's merchant marine fleets. Over 90% of all commercial ships, from cruise liners to supertankers, are registered out of Panama and Liberia to take advantage of their loose regulations and taxes. Dont see either of those two countries really profitting from it.
The new world will belong to someone who does an end-run around the whole IP debacle.
.
How? By using a physical emplacement, like Sealand, to host a site, call it Arachnea , where artists will catalog and store their music and where listeners can get snippets online and, if they like what they heard, make micro-payments via a service, like x3.com, to down the complete file DIRECTLY to the artist.
Web bugs resididing in each file would insure that the artist is paid his micro-payment by the recipient with every copy that occurs over the internet.
This is economically sound because:
1) The amount the recipient is charged is so small its not worth committing fraud over.
2) The artist would get the entire benefit of the micro-payment.
3) The host site charges the artist a storage fee and transmission changes.
4) The micro-payment service makes money on the float.
Its a cooperative arrangement that works well for everybody.
No RIAA. No MPAA. No ASCAP. No self-serving or thieving guilds or unions. No managers who can't manage. No production costs that always seem to insure that there no net left from the gross.
If you have something to flog, regardless of which sense it appeals to, and it can be transmitted digitally, you can use Arachnea
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I wonder how many of those here decrying the idea of the decline of the nation state are Americans,
as the idea that their nation will last forever seems much more deeply ingrained in them than in other industrialised nations.
I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself. Ihave to quote Terry Pratchett:
I would like it to be clearly understood that this book is not wacky. Only dumb redheads in Fifties' sitcoms are wacky.
No, it's not zany either.
-Equal Rites
OK. Also, please tell me that the "Sealand is in treacherous waters" thing was unintentional. Please.
heh...I need a nap...
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Don't be duped by the UN's track record of ineptitude regarding administration and reconciliation of multinational affairs: The Year 2000 has ushered in changes that will forever and quickly render the entire world a single United Nation (no 's'). This week's Millennium Conference only ratifies the consolidation of political power into a single nationality that is less interested in American capitalism and the Bill of Rights than it is in the homogenization of Human Culture. The Rt Hon Tony Blair yesterday called for the establishment of a UN Army, to be implemented within the next 12 months (!) [think NATO for that quick startup], and this past June the United Religions Initiative [backed by the UN] ratified its charter, thereby doing for religious authority what the UN is trying to do for political authority: a single, pan-global union that leaves no alternative for individuals.
How to finance? The World Bank is already preparing for the inevitable transition to a handful of (or one) standard currencies and the inauguration of a global taxation authority to completely free the central government from the whims of the member states. Check your Anti-Federalist Papers.
The reality is simple: with the whole world under one governmental authority, there are no frontiers among which Merchant Republics can thrive. Even cyberspace will only be so much sand in which the incredulous can stick their heads.
Freak accidents are the natural consequences of freakish behavior.
they're also free to take your money and run (without a government to enforce the contract between buyer and seller) or to send you shoddy goods. Here's where having a government actually helps - you can get contracts enforced.
Look for credit card companies to start requiring you to do business only with vendors within a national jurisdiction, or accept the full risk of any problem (i.e. a credit card number willingly given outside national boundaries is same-as-cash).
The coin of -reputation- will outshine the coin of enforcement, though, if extranationals know what's good for them.
There's a very good reason why Microsoft will never buy itself an island and declare itself independant - it's a software company, not a government.
There is a lot more to starting up your own country than buying the land. Infrastructure being probably the most important. Not Microsoft, nor indeed any other commercial entity, is going to want to worry about waste disposal, road works, or any of the other business that's the domain of local and state government. Even though existing within a nation brings with it all manner of irritating restrictions (like all that anti-monopoly business), to not do so would be even more inconvenient.
- SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
Nation-states are on the decline, and most people won't see it, won't accept it, and will fight frantically to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
Forget it. The world does not follow some simplistic, Newtonian physics... this is a dynamic, chaotic system that feeds back on itself. There are areas of ever-widening anarchy in the global culture, with few common values to glue society together in the aftermath of national dissolution.
The one motivation that most people share is greed. Followed by paranoia and pleasure. You will find people gathering together around these "values". You already do: multinational corporations, UFO/conspiracy groups, and rave culture. I find it interesting that drugs are a common denominator for all three of these... drugs to sell, to control, and to enjoy. Perhaps we can learn to apply digital technology to these same arenas more effectively... if you can, you won't be poor!
So in the end, nationality will mean little, if anything, to the generation who will be born under the flag of a disunited globe.
The West thought it won the Cold War, because they survived while the Soviet Union descended into an anarchy of crime, corruption, and weak democracy. The joke is on them: they will be next.
-----------------------------------------------
Pick your brand carefully. The jihad between Coke and Pepsi is only beginning.
Yes, exactly. Jon's recycling old story lines from the SF pros. Personally, I hope Bill Gibson sues him for infringement, as I'm betting $1 Canadian ($0.00001 US) that there's got to be a couple of copyrighted phrases somewhere in his text.
What we really are seeing develop is this:
1. Cyberhacks are repubbing words that real writers wrote and claiming them as their own. Al Gore is no longer an isolated bump, even if he's a more tech-friendly Presidential candidate.
2. Nations are being divided into feifdoms based on Net use. Only 10% of Mexico is wired, which dooms them to cyberserfdom; Peurto Rico and Guam can use shame to lift them into the Wired category as the US rushes to make sure they're fully served. Other nations will win or lose based on who gets Net-ified and who doesn't. This, naturally, will result in Africa dropping way off the scale and being a total Net writeoff.
3. Americans will project their vision of the world where it doesn't belong. While we have over 50% penetration by high-access (cable modem and DSL) within reach by 2002, the rest of the world is SOL. We will keep acting as if the rest of the world is on the Net, and wondering why we are more than half of the Wired audience, while not clueing in that only Europe and parts of Asia can hope to join in the party.
4. China will take the Great Leap To The Net. They will train cyberwarriors to hack us, start pubbing to the Net in Unicode, and generally force the US to fall back in disarray. Then we'll accidently launch missiles at Hong Kong and start WWIII. Everything will die. Except those people attending Burning Man at the time.
Will in Seattle
PayPal is successfull, but it's a payment system not a currency. PayPal uses USD for the time being as its currencies and uses the existing US banking system for transfers, making it useless for people outside the US.
I find it disturbing that digerati think themselves so free from all things physical. The virtual world is powered by eletricity running through semiconductors and housed in buildings on rented real estate. The internet may be amorphous but I doubt it would stand up terribly well to a few well placed terrorist actions against fiber optic cables and satillite dishes. Some might say things are so well distributed that small outages are inconcequencial but you'd be hard pressed to handle all the high volume data of the world over phone lines and short range microwave networks. Trip a few wires from eletrical generators and entire sections of the country go dark. This is where the virtual ocean rolls onto the real beach. The cocky ones are body boarders who haven't yet felt what it's like to slam face first into the sand.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Anyone read Ian Bank's "The Business"? Corporation buys island, declares independence, seeks a seat on the UN council... There are certainly similarities.
In three or four months maybe. I'm waiting out the local telco on their DSL setup. (The only local cable modem provider won't allow servers.)
Bite my yammer.