Slashdot Mirror
The Web's Creator Thinks We Need a New One That Governments Can't Control (thenextweb.com)
The web has created millions of jobs, impacted nearly every industry, connected people, and arguably made the world a better place. But the person who started it all isn't exactly pleased with the way things have turned out to be. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the World Wide Web, believes that the way it works in the present day "completely undermines the spirit of helping people create." The Next Web reports: "Edward Snowden showed we've inadvertently built the world's largest surveillance network with the web," said Brewster Kahle, who heads up Internet Archive. And he's not wrong: governments across the globe keep an eye on what their citizens are accessing online and some censor content on the Web in an effort to control what they think. To that end, Berners-Lee, Kahle and other pioneers of the modern Web are brainstorming ideas for a new kind of information network that can't be controlled by governments or powered by megacorporations like Amazon and Google.The New York Times originally reported on this and has more details. (But it is also paywalled.)
That's hilarious. You go right ahead and then come back and tell us your cool idea about a global infrastructure that can't be controlled by the organizations who build and maintain said infrastructure.
...could look at something that was conceived, paid for, and built by the US defense department and sigh "Don't you wish we could have this without all that pesky GOVERNMENT involvement?"
-Styopa
The problem is people.
If it's built and operated by human beings, those human beings can be co-opted to turn control over to other human beings in a position of power. Muscle, punitive, fiscal, whatever. Given a large enough operation (and world-wide is pretty large), there is zero chance The Powers That Be will be kept out.
And, if by some fantasy miracle TPTB can be kept out, they can't be prevented from destroying what they can't control.
Poor deluded Berners-Lee, finally giving in to the libertarian pipe-dream of benevolent crypto-anarchy. Kind of sad, really. I mean, it's a nice dream, but like most dreams a complete impossibility to implement. Again, not for technological reasons, but because (quoting DNA) "To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Small problem with that... those controls to prevent crime/abuse/etc would be the same controls that governments would happily put to use in censoring whatever they don't like.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
or powered by megacorporations like Amazon and Google.
This.
Because while our governments are slowly turning fascist, corporations are facists. Think about it. Strict top-down control. No democracy or participation at any level (I'm talking about real participation, not token "we listen to your ideas" events). All in the name of superiority and expansionism.
If we want to have a free Internet, corporations are the real enemy.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"Edward Snowden showed we've inadvertently built the world's largest surveillance network..."
Uh, inadvertently...??
Let's pretend the government doesn't exist for a moment. Yes, that's right. No NSA. No FISA courts. No NSLs. No secret data centers. Nothing.
The entities that have robbed us of our privacy and the power they wield today are legally titled under the words I AGREE, and are contained within every EULA that drives every damn app or service that this generation loves to call "free".
Sorry, but I'm not really buying "inadvertently" right now, as if it wasn't obvious enough that our government currently collects or buys most of this data from the very service providers we use every day. Government surveillance today is nothing more than an outsourced arm of corporate data collecting.
And you AGREED to pretty much ALL of it.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. This argument is the same one that's always used when establishing a police state: "We need to violate your liberties in order to keep you safe from ."
The government can't keep you safe from hackers or terrorists, they just won't tell you that because they are stupid, liars, or stupid liars. Not only that, but if you look at history you are far more likely to be killed by a government than a terrorist.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Moderation is not censorship. The content is still there and viewable at the lowest setting, for those that are interested in seeing "it all".
Just because you have the right to speak, that does not compel met to listen.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
People get robbed, scammed, kidnapped, and killed by drunk drivers all the time. The government only helps after the fact when it comes time to punish someone. But that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about crime prevention.
Did the government prevent the Boston Bombing? No.
Did they need access to all of our browser history without warrants to catch the guys who did it? No.
Would access to all of our browser history have helped them prevent it? I doubt it.
Is it worth the price of giving up that much of our liberty and privacy? Absolutely not.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.