Slashdot Mirror


Flushing the Net Down the Tubes

netcetra writes "From a post by on CircleID by Phillip J. Windley: 'Doc Searls has written a brilliant piece framing the battle for the Net at Linux Journal. ... if you take the time to read just one essay on the Net and the politics surround it this year, read this one.' Quote from Doc himself: 'This is a long essay. There is, however, no limit to how long I could have made it. The subjects covered here are no less enormous than the Net and its future. Even optimists agree that the Net's future as a free and open environment for business and culture is facing many threats. We can't begin to cover them all or cover all the ways we can fight them. I believe, however, that there is one sure way to fight all of these threats at once, and without doing it the bad guys will win. That's what this essay is about.' Also see additional background on the piece on Doc Searls blog."

23 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. by Senes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other media such as television and radio, it takes a great deal of resouces to be able to broadcast your information outward. Anyone can connect to the internet, and unless ISPs suddenly find the motivation and the money to start taking fine tuned control over what every user does, anyone can host their own information and data.

    1. Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. by Bonker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have to disagree. The problem here is not that the ability is going away, but that the freedom is going away. Those who take the freedom, those who excercise the ability in the face of legislation, are more and more often having to do it at risk to themselves or those around them.

      How many companies can I badmouth before they shut me up by suing me?

      How longer can I criticize the government before I get sent to Guantanamo?

      Widespread lawbreaking indicates a problem with the laws, and not with the crime. This is why copyright law is so ineffective. It's also the reason that drug law doesn't really work.

      In this case, however, more power is moving away from inviduals faster than it's coming to them. Of those who take that power back, by whatever means, more and more of them will be made to suffer.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    2. Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. by guardiangod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

      Are you vigilant?

    3. Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The United States contains about 296 million people. 12,000 murders divided by 296,000,000 people equates to 0.004% of the population. Similarly, rapes = 0.03%, car thefts = 0.3%, burglaries and assaults = 0.7% each. These are all less than 1% of the population, and in most cases, much less.

      On the other hand, anecdotally I'd say that at least a third of the population condones non-commercial copyright infringement (and I'm being conservative in my estimate, and taking into account the propaganda of the RIAA).

      The point is, when an act is accepted by a significant proportion of the population, chances are that act is ethical -- in fact, it can be argued that ethics only exist relative to the population. So yeah, if murder and copyright infringment were performed at the same rate, then either both would be acceptable, or neither would. Of course, if a third of the population condoned murder, we'd have a society more similar to the Roman Empire (not that there's anything wrong with that).

      Your use of absolute numbers are meaningless, and borderline FUD -- 12,000 out of 12,000 means something completely different than 12,000 out of 296,000,000.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. by BrynM · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Don't forget that most major broadband ISPs block known server ports and restrict you from running servers in their EULA. At first it was so businesses didn't just start using broadband in lieu of "premium" accounts. Too bad, because broadband is so common now that it's what most businesses use anyway. The only real "cost" the ISP incurrs by making them use a "premium" account is a higher bandwidth cap and un-blockings some ports. It's an anachronistic practice, but greed keeps it going.

      Running a personal wiki or having a photo-share server for friends seems like a technical imposibility to most lay people because of this. The truth is, most of it can be done with easy to use software today. It should be trivial for the end user. Run an installer and start going. I seem to remember dreams of this being what the internet was for - back in the day... Remember when having a webcam wasn't mainly just for IM?

      Yes I know that script kiddies have made this idea a playground for malware and things need to be blocked upstream for authentication-less ports sometimes. I do firmly believe that if everyone knew it was initially prety much their right to add their info to the internet, MS would have never been so lax and security would have had the focus by all of us that it should have gotten. The software that enables a home desktop to be a server would be way more mature due to popularity. In some ways, IM epitomizes this need to share with eachother.

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    5. Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. by xkenny13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If murder were at the same rate as copyright infringement, would you argue that both were bad laws, neither were bad laws, or only one?

      Well, before we do that, let's look a little deeper. Copyright used to last only 14 years. Now it is 70ish years beyond the death of the creator. It has been extended and expanded well beyond it's useful function, and is a horrid aberration of its original intention.

      Murder today only applies to the willful killing of a human being. Should this law be extended the way copyright law has been extended ... then what becomes a murder now? What if all manslaughters were murders? How about hitting a dog on the road? Stepping on bugs?

      If ALL those things were now considered to be murders, then you would definately have a murder rate comparable to the rate at which copyright infringement occurs.

      If all that were true, then yes ... I would definately say there was something wrong with the "murder" law.

      To properly answer your question, I would successfully argue that both laws were bad.

      While I will agree that this argument initially sounds ludicrous ... remind yourself again how badly manipulated the copyright law is today. Note also for the record that Congress is not done with their rewriting of copyright law.

    6. Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about the 2.1 million burglaries and 2.2 million assaults?

      What percentage of the 18 - 40 year old public (roughly the heart of the burglary market, I would guess) engages in burglary?

      What percentage of the 18 - 40 year old public engages in copyright infringement?

      At least an order of magnitude difference there, right?

      If murder were at the same rate as copyright infringement, would you argue that both were bad laws, neither were bad laws, or only one?

      Both. I'll avoid the straw man you've set up by mixing the moral issue of murder with the legal matter of homicide. Ask yourself this - in societies where the percentage of the population that engages in homicide reaches double digits, isn't it obvious that the laws are broken? South Africa, Tombstone, Yugoslavia, Boston in the 1770's, Nicaragua, South Central LA, The Gangs of New York, Paris before The Revolution - in every case homicide became commonplace because the laws were enforced inconsistently and/or prejudicially. What is more wrong in those cases; fighting for your way of life or letting the injustice stand? We celebrate the people who committed homicide in the name of The American Revolution. So yes, when homicide becomes as commonplace as copyright infringement is today, it loses it's objective, absolute "wrong"-ness.

    7. Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 5, Insightful
      when an act is accepted by a significant proportion of the population, chances are that act is ethical
      You mean, like slavery in the US 200 years ago?
      Or, more recently, the anti-communist witch-hunts of the 1950s?
      Or, currently, the systematic violations of your rights that occur at airports every time that you want to make a trip on a commercial airline?
      Or the killing of non-human animals for sport?
      Or the killing of pre-natal children?
      Or the forced indocrination of religion on post-natal children (in church , Sunday-school, etc.)?
      Or the idea that it's OK for a government to take a huge chunk of your income and spend it on things to which you are ethically opposed (like war, or Welfare (or both, depending on your point of view))?
      Or the idea that Britney Spears has talent and deserves her fame?
      Or the idea that it's O.K. for stupid football games to repeatedly preempt a great T.V. program like Firefly, eventually leading to the latter program's demise?

      Wait, I appear to be drifting off-topic.
      The point that I'm trying to make is that a popular belief is not always ethical, especially by my standards, which are the only ones that I care about anyway.
      That's why the U.S. government was created as a republic, not a democracy, and why we have a Supreme Court to curb the excesses of a supposedly popularly-elected Congress.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    8. Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. by AGMW · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The point that I'm trying to make is that a popular belief is not always ethical, especially by my standards, which are the only ones that I care about anyway.

      You are missing his point. The world's ethics are not set by you, or me, or any individual. They are the current mood of the population. Sure, now the whole concept of slavery seems barbaric, but back in the day, slavery was deemed acceptable/ethical. That's the whole point!

      We can look back and wag our fingers about how awful our ancestors were, and not just slavery, but witch burning, any number of religion-based attrocities (nobody expects ...), animal welfare, treatment of indigenous people, the list is probably endless, but at the time, most of the actions were deemed acceptable. As I understand it, if we burnt someone at the stake, we thought we were saving their soul!

      I'd say that by definition, the popular vote defines the popular ethical values. Just be thankfull that we have moved on from the time when having different ethical values from the norm might mean you were burnt at the stake for heresy!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    9. Re:Internet freedom isn't going anywhere. by radarjd · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The world's ethics are not set by you, or me, or any individual. They are the current mood of the population. Sure, now the whole concept of slavery seems barbaric, but back in the day, slavery was deemed acceptable/ethical. That's the whole point!

      Bravo to you for taking cultural relativism to its absurd extreme. The idea has moved from a challenge to be open minded, to the conclusion of all of philosophy. Gone are thousands of years of thought on what mankind could acheive, and we, in our profound wisdom, have replaced it with the "philosophy" that what is moral is what the majority of people say is moral.

      Slavery isn't acceptable, no matter what time or what place. I don't care if 90% of people agree to it, those 90% are wrong. Whether you take a utilitarian, or absolutist, or just about any doctrine I can think of besides cultural relativism, it's wrong.

      "News for nerds" -- aren't nerds supposed to be in favor of logic and reason? No sound logic or tenable reason can arrive at many of the junk ideas that float around here. You tell me how humanity is better by saying "what's moral is what we think is moral" -- give me some sort of reason based argument that isn't premised on "it makes us feel better."

      It's this line of thinking that allows extremism, hatred, and tyranny. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and even those originating the ideas of relativism would accept that.

  2. I sense a great disturbance in the force by farker+haiku · · Score: 5, Funny

    as if millions of bytes of ram screamed in agony, and were suddenly silenced. /.ed before any comments isn't a good sign.

    --
    Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Greed... by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...still one of my favorite sins.

    That and pride are the two things causing the current dark ages of the internet.

    And make no mistake, we are in what future scholars will call the dark ages. We have this wonderful tool for communication which would enable vast networks of not just information, but concepts and ideas to be shared globally. And we are letting ( yes, letting ) big companies/governments take control and destroy this wonderful tool. All to satisfy some board of share holders, or some CEO's pride.

    Whether they see us as the depth of the dark ages, or the beginning is the question I worry about.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Greed... by Shihar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you honestly think that we are in a 'dark ages'? We are accelerating so quickly technologically and connecting so fast that I don't think the average human comprehends it. Think back just 10 years ago. Most people were not connected to the Internet. Internet usage has sky rocketed up faster then anything in our wildest dreams. Further, it isn't even the Internet. Cell phones are another fine example. I remember being awed by my friends massive clunky cell phone in the mid 90's that got shit for reception. Now, it is easier to count the people I know who don't own a cell phone then it is to count the people that do. I got a jump drive I keep in my pocket the other day for $20 with more hard drive space then the computer I owned back in 95.

      Further, it isn't just technology that is interconnecting. The entire world is interconnecting. China, EU, and the US are all so dependent upon each other that any sort of conflict between them is unthinkable to the point that loss of one could lead to a collapsing (or at least crippled) society in the others.

      Look, I am not saying that everything is rosy colored and wonderful, but point to a time in history that was better. Do you long for the brutal dictatorships that existed almost exclusively up until the past few centuries? Do you miss the wonderful days of the industrial revolution when it was common place to die early and lose a hand in hazardous machinery? Maybe you miss the days of American expansion westward and European colonialism that chewed up the natives they got in the way. Do you long for the days when a married woman couldn't own property, much less vote? Maybe you miss the good old days of New Deal, complete with withering racism and World War. Maybe your nostalgia only reaches back a couple days and blindly forgets the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the ever present and very real threat of nuclear annihilation, and starvation in the millions that afflicted pretty much everyone on the Asian content. If this is the Dark Ages, what the hell exactly was everything that came before this time?

      This is only "The Dark Ages" is you are a jaded liberal who has some how managed to shrink his view of history down to the past 6 years or so. Stop, take a deep breath, and realize that 6 years is a hiccup in the grand scheme of things. Further, even in those 6 years things have gotten better despite Bush's ham fisted blundering. Further still, things are better now then they were at any other time in history.

      Honestly, take a deep breath and realize that the world isn't so bad. You can post angry rants on Slashdot, you clearly have an Internet connection, chances are you can vote, and I imagine you probably are not starving. Those four things alone make this time in history better then all the times before it. Relax and don't let today's day to day politics get you all worked up and taint your view of history in the long term.

    2. Re:Greed... by Shihar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would like to point out that it was the liberals who fought for womens rights, civil rights, clean air, and unions. They are still fighting for more and are still being resisted by the same forces.

      Don't take my comment that liberals think the world is coming to an end as a statement against liberals. My point was more that liberals are more inclined to look for the doom and gloom over the past few years and declare that the world is about to come to an end. Pick a broad liberal ideal; civil rights, health care quality/coverage, infant mortality/life expectancy, hunger, tolerance, wages / hours, whatever, it is better today then it was 50 years ago. We are even more well off if you look a 100 years back. Look 200 years back and the difference is so stark that it isn't even a meaningful comparison. The liberals are winning.

      If anyone has reason to cry doom and gloom it is actually the right wing folks. All of their 'morality' issues are being hacked to pieces. There is more sex for non reproductive purposes, greater acceptance of homosexuals, proportionally fewer marriages, more broken homes, and all of the bread and butter of a conservative platform. Hell, the fact that we are at the point where we can even have a gay marriage debate is rocking conservatives to the core. Just 15 years back, talking about gay marriage would illicit roughly the response of talking about bestiality.

      I suppose it all depends on whether you look at the glass as being half full or half empty. In this day and age we have the power and the technology to ensure that nobody is starving, that nobody has to die from poverty or war or famine. All it takes is a little money and little will.

      There certainly is more that could be done, but the relics of the past do not easily die. There is no amount of money, technology, and will that could make North Korea a happy place unless by 'happy place' you mean 'war zone'. War and famine are political problems. No one in this world should starve. Not only do we have more then enough food for everyone, but we are trying to get that food to the people. Somalia is a perfect example of this. Somalians are not starving because the rest of the world is unwilling to feed them. Somalians are starving because short of going in guns blazing, we can't we can't keep our aid out of the hands of warlords. In fact, this very dilemma is what resulted in the US invading Somalia. We wanted to give them food. We had the food and the means to get it there; we just needed to keep warlords from taking it. If you recall, things didn't go so well when we tried to intervene (IE see Black Hawk Down).

      So sure, we could certainly do more, it just boils down to disagreement as to how to do more (does globalism hurt or help?), and the problems with humans some times sucking no matter how much power and technology you have. The larger point is that even though we certainly screw up, fail politically, and in general act like the imperfect humans that we are, we are still steam rolling forward. Things are getting better. A political charged look at the best 6 years might make you think differently, but the second you look at this era from a historical point of view, it quickly becomes clear which direction things are headed. Now is a great time to be alive.

  5. this is just silly by kaan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know all kinds of smart people try really hard to predict things like this, and they give all sorts of explanations that "support" their position. But here is why the Internet won't go away: it is useful, and people like it.

    If you look throughout history, in all cultures, if people find something to be useful, no amount of government or corporate intervention or regulation will dissuade those people from doing what they want. Despite most citizens not giving a shit about voting in government elections, very few people will stand by and allow a government or corporation to take away something they want. It just does not happen. This happens all over the world, in all cultures, and when this stand-off becomes a big enough event, it makes the news as a "revolution".

    So no, the internet isn't going to be flushed down the tubes by ISPs or whatever, because consumers will not allow it.

  6. Searls overstates his case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out Tim Lee's lengthy response. He argues (and I suspect most Slashdotters will agree) that, "The Internet is a massive, chaotic, fiercely competitive ecosystem. No one carrier owns more than a tiny fraction of its capacity. No one company controls more than a tiny fraction of its content. In short, no one company is ever going to control the Internet." The complete rebuttal is available at http://www.techliberation.com/archives/027010.php

  7. Nope, I wouldn't argue any of those numbers ARE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    widespread.

    2.2M represents less than 1% of the population, and the reality is it is a small percentage of repeat offenders.
    You want widespread?

    Copyright violation is being estimated by the media industries to be occuring on the rate of millions of offenses per day. Millions of users are logged onto P2P networks primarily for copyright infringement purposes (I said primarily, not exclusively).

    Minor excess speeding tickets hit a large percentage of the population (upwards of 40% depending on jurisdiction and technologies being applied). That will definitely go up in the UK if/when they roll out those beautiful new speed cams.

    Drug crimes hit a large percentage of the population. Sure, lots of people are in jail for violent crimes. But 1 person in 30 in the USA are in jail are because of drug crimes, the majority of those for simple possession. Estimates range, but the low estimates for teenage illicit drug use (one-time or more) is at around 25%.

    Those are widespread numbers. Violent crimes (I'm sorry 12,000 murders is not a lot in a population of 280 million) are not. You just hear about the violence a lot whenever you listen to Fox News or whenever the police or government are trying to take your rights away. Even with the drug violence, long term violent crime rates continue to decline.

  8. Demonizing CEO Whiteacre? by crucini · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This article is long; I read up to the quote from Edward Whiteacre, CEO of SBC. Whiteacre said obvious and sensible things:
    1. Google, Yahoo, etc. have to pay for transport. That money goes to the pipe owners.
    2. If a cable TV company can offer phone services without paying the city a franchise fee, AT&T should be able to offer TV service without paying the city a franchise fee.

    Somehow, Searls extracted some hideous meaning from these comments. He wants to ask Whiteacre a bunch of deep questions about the Net and freedom. I don't think Whiteacre could answer any of them; nor should he.
    1. Re:Demonizing CEO Whiteacre? by eric76 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This article is long; I read up to the quote from Edward Whiteacre, CEO of SBC. Whiteacre said obvious and sensible things:

      We'll see about that.

      Google, Yahoo, etc. have to pay for transport. That money goes to the pipe owners.

      They pay for transport to their local provider. That it isn't SBC does not matter.

      What SBC seems to want to do is to require everyone to be their customer in order to carry their traffic on SBC's network.

      Look at it as if it were telephone traffic. In that case, it is as if they would not complete any telephone calls unless the calling party and the called party were both customers of theirs.

      Or, more accurately, they want to charge long distance tolls. I guess for your $30 per month, you will be able to connect to your local town without paying additional fees. If you want to connect to the next town, you're gong to have to pay more.

      If a cable TV company can offer phone services without paying the city a franchise fee, AT&T should be able to offer TV service without paying the city a franchise fee.

      I never understood the rationale for franchise fees other than just another way to stick it to the public.

  9. The control freaks often get control. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree exactly with the thesis of the article. The Internet is being divided and debased by people who care only about avoiding knowledge of their own deficiencies, such as some of the leaders in China.

    The control freaks often get control. In the past, their power over the Internet has been limited by their extreme technical ignorance. Now, more and more, they are hiring technically knowledgeable people to corrupt and diminish the freedom.

    If the healthy people don't assert their authority, the corrupters will debase the Internet as they debase everything else they touch.

    The ceaseless activity of those whose only life is money and who want to make one more dollar has already caused limits to VOIP, for example. The communications companies want to protect their easy profits. They use VOIP, but they don't want us to do it without their permission or without their profit.

  10. Maybe there is something wrong with the law. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When so many people break the law, maybe there is something wrong with the law. Maybe there is something wrong with how the problem of intellectual property rights is being approached.

    I've seen NO creative thinking about IP rights. There's a lot of talk, but very little serious progress.

    Maybe history is a guide. For example, did you notice how libraries made all publishers go bankrupt? Not.

    Did you notice that television and video tape recorders utterly destroyed the movie industry? Not.

    I don't download music. However, if I did, it is obvious to me that I would get interested and would buy more CDs.

    I had several very bad experiences with the music industry and their marketing methods. The industry is extremely adversarial toward its artists and its customers. Over time, that caused me to listen to music less and less. What I'm seeing however, is that music industry leaders want to fix their problems without fixing the problems they create for me.

    The world is dominated by people who believe that interacting with other people requires fighting. In fact, the only real solutions to social problems come from thinking.

  11. This article SHOULD have more comments, but... by lightyear4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but it is obvious that even the large readership of the slashdot community is either ill informed, indifferent, or uncertain about this issue. Even the article posted at 230am has more activity! This should frighten you!

    Make no mistake...the governance of the Internet and the fight for its control is the most important issue currently at stake. Period. Wars will subside, politicians will be replaced, the world will keep turning. However, if the core principles driving the Internet are not preserved, we as diverse citizens of all nations will forever have lost something magnificent.

    I have been on the Internet for a long, long time. I remember BBSes at pathetic baudrates, when emails didn't travel between ISPs, when there weren't any advertisements online whatsoever. Those of you that remember these changes and are able to see the Internet --- not as it is nor for what it has become, but for what it must be --- please educate the masses. It must exist as a free, uninhibited enity and REMAIN independent of the infrastructure through which it is accessed. Should the day come when borders and binding structure is imposed upon the Internet, we will all have truly lost the most important medium for communcation, commerce, and culture ever created.