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.)

26 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. Oh yeah? by Bovius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oh yeah? by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hrm - how long have governments, corporations, and cartels been trying to kill Bittorrent off again?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't build a new infrastructure, you piggyback on-top of the existing one. Take pieces from dark web, Tor, p2p, etc, and sit on-top of the existing internet without creating a new internet. This is part of why we need to fight so hard to keep encryption strong and legal.

    3. Re:Oh yeah? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      idea about a global infrastructure that can't be controlled by the organizations who build and maintain said infrastructure.

      I think the idea is to render it all Opaque to the entities that control the infrastructure, so their ability to see and "Control" what happens is Reduced to Two options: Have everything Turned on, Or Turn everything Off.

      The option of "Have everything turned on, but Delete or block access to data item X" will no longer exist.

    4. Re:Oh yeah? by irving47 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In theory, you could run a red light bulb on your porch, and eventually, the government, with guns, could conceivably arrive to stop you.
      Oh, sure, it'll take a while. You'll get HOA letters, lawyer letters, eventually subpeonas to appear in court for flagrantly disregarding the HOA bylaws.... All said, eventually, your little red light bulb will be shut down by the government. Even if you plugged it in before the by-law was written.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    5. Re:Oh yeah? by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't kid yourself. Your ISP can block it all with the flip of a switch. They are just waiting for the order.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Oh yeah? by cavreader · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You think the government doesn't monitor the dark web? I think they would allocate sufficient resources to monitoring the dark web out of the belief that anything going on there has a good chance of being illegal. And the US Naval Research laboratories created TOR looking for a secure way of transmitting highly encrypted military communications. They released their work to the general public because it did not meet their stated goals. Just like DARPA did the initial research to create a distributed network that could continue to operate if pieces of the network was destroyed. This little project was also released into the public domain and was eventually called the internet. Anyone, and I mean anyone can build their own version of the internet any time they want. All they would need is billions of dollars, some how create the mythical secure network, and then get anyone to actually use it. If want to save some time and money by piggybacking on the existing infrastructure they would still be susceptible to the same security problem the internet has to deal with. And think about this. The general public may be susceptible to government misuse but the government is even more susceptible to having the Internet used against them. It's painfully evident that the government has no clue on how to build a secure system but no one in the public domain can do it either.

    7. Re:Oh yeah? by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hrm - how long have governments, corporations, and cartels been trying to kill Bittorrent off again?

      The government doesn't care that you download Game of Thrones or Justin Bieber, really they don't. It's half of "bread and circus" and a huge tech industry driver, despite the lip service they give the content industry. Share something really illegal on BitTorrent and you'll soon have cops knocking at your door. Or in your door. I'm sure you've heard of the four boxes of liberty, the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the ammo box. Conversely, those who seek to oppress don't really care unless one of those is threatened. If most people listen to mainstream media, they own the soap box. The first past the post system locks down the ballot box. The legal system keeps the jury's power a guarded secret. As for the ammo box, a few guns are no match for a para-military police.

      Look at modern day authoritarian states, it's not the Soviet Union anymore where they try to keep totalitarian control. They've found it's completely pointless, for the most part the average person in China cares about the same things as in the US as they did in the Roman Empire, if they have a decent paycheck and having a good time they're not going to topple the government. Both the rise and fall of the Soviet Union came because life had turned to shit, while China's government seems rock solid and Tiananmen Square is now 25+ years ago. The individuals are like ants compared to the government, you don't really care what they do unless they're ganging up to threaten you.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  2. While you're at it, build in crime prevention by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Build it so that people can't trade kiddie porn, or plan terrorist attacks, or spread ransom-ware to people's computers.

    1. Re:While you're at it, build in crime prevention by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?
    2. Re:While you're at it, build in crime prevention by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:While you're at it, build in crime prevention by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
  3. Governments are the only ones who censor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We need to remember that governments aren't the only ones who censor others. We see private entities do it all of the time, too. Heck, even Slashdot's moderation system is a great example of this. A small number of people can easily manipulate what content others will see. Remember, censorship doesn't need to involve the complete removal of information. Even just obscuring it, by say downmodding a perfectly fine comment to -1 so it isn't shown to most users by default, is a form of censorship.

    1. Re:Governments are the only ones who censor. by saider · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
  4. Does it have blackjack? by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    And hookers?

  5. Only an academic... by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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
    1. Re:Only an academic... by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?"

      How about TOR? Developed by the US Navy...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Only an academic... by BlueKitties · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Packet switching - aka ARPANET- was US funded. The IP/TCP/HTTP/HTML stack was developed at CERN, EU.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    3. Re:Only an academic... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 5, Informative

      ARPANET was US funded as well was TCP/IP (made at Berkeley or MIT can't remember which),

      If you mean the TCP and IP protocols, RFC 791, "INTERNET PROTOCOL/DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM/PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION" and RFC 793, "TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROTOCOL/DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM/PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION" were "Developed ... by Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California". TCP was, to quote that RFC, "based on concepts first described by Cerf and Kahn in {Cerf, V., and R. Kahn, "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication", IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. COM-22, No. 5, pp 637-648, May 1974}".

      If you mean implementations of those protocols, a very important implementation was done at Berkeley.

  6. Neutrino networking by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

    We need to invent a means to communicate via Neutrinos, so no one can intercept the message. Not even the recipient.

  7. The problem is not the technology by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  8. Corporations == Facism by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  9. Inadvertenty? Yeah right. by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  10. Silly idea by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's based on the faulty idea that the government must be evil so you can't give them control over it.

    The government is made of people - some good and some bad. As such, ALL governments do some good as well as some bad.

    There is no way to have an internet with significantly less government control without a shit load more doxing, Blackmail, identity theft, sale of dangerous drugs, pedophilie videos, viruses, hacking and tons of other crimes.

    Hell, the government can barely contain the crime on the internet now.

    Which means any significantly 'freer' internet would end up being banned.

    The BEST they could hope for is to create a specific libertarian UN empowered organization in charge of the free-web, giving it massive enforcement powers but only related to the free-web.

    That libertarian organization could possibly maintain enough control over the internet to reign in mankind's darker side, and at the same time preventing regular governments from over-regulating and controlling it.

    But make no mistake, it can only be done by ADDING a new layer of government to the internet, not by creating a new internet.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  11. 20 Minutes into the Future! by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Best watch that kind of talk, Mr. Anonymous Coward.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  12. Once we built a beautiful garden by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A couple of people, not many, we decided that, well, wouldn't it be really swell if we planted a few gardens. We're gardeners after all. Why not come together and show each other what we know about gardening? We could connect our gardens to each other, have our plants grow together, maybe we'll find some awesome symbiosis happening! And we did. And others came and looked at our garden. It was just a little garden, mind you, there was nobody to hold your hands when you tried to only walk around in them, there were few trails and most of the time you had to carve your own, carrying a machete with you was advisable. Most people turned away when they noticed that it's going to be a bit of work to just look at our flowers. Let alone plant their own garden. Because back then, if you wanted to be part of that gardening experience, you better learned a thing or two about gardening, and fast!

    Yes, there was the occasional bully who jumped into our flowerbeds and trampled over them, but we knew how to deal with them. And deal with them we did, swiftly and with lasting effect. We were, after all, gardeners. And we were good at that.

    More people came along and we were overjoyed. They're really interested in our stuff! You see, nobody really cared about our plants and everyone we showed any of them called us names because, well, it was not "cool" to plant flowers. But suddenly this was the next big thing, everyone wanted flowers! And we were only too eager to share all the knowledge. Hey, the more the merrier! Knowledge multiplies if you share it!

    Well, to be honest... we shared more than just knowledge. There were a few flowerbeds that had those camo nets above them, but hey, ya know, who cares what you do in your spare time, amirite? Just pass it and don't bogard the spliff.

    Then people came who said they wanted to build some roads through our gardens so people could walk more easily. We agreed, it was a good idea. After all, most people by now weren't really hard core gardeners anymore. Many just wanted to wander about and smell the flowers. And those that joined were... well, let's say they were happy if we gave them a few saplings because they had no clue at all how to grow plants but wanted some good looking flowerbeds too. We didn't mind. After all, hey, it's not like I don't have that flower anymore just because I give you a sapling of it, right? And we get roads across our garden.

    A seed shop opened at the corner. We thought it's cool. Hey, that makes it easier to get seeds initially. Someone's gonna buy, and then we pass 'em around and ... so we thought. But suddenly passing seeds and saplings around wasn't "allowed" anymore. The cornerstone of what we built was considered "bad" now. By whom the fuck and who died and made you king, we asked. We dealt with it the way we knew how to deal with it. The same way we dealt with the bullies, or with others that broke the rules. Only to learn that the rules have changed. We no longer make them.

    Long story short, our garden is now walled in. Most of the plots have been sold, or rather, "reappropriated". We're sitting in some corners, tucked away from the busy streets where vendors peddle boring, uninspired hybrid plants (that are of course patented and don't you DARE to as much as SHOW it to anyone, let alone hand him a sapling!) where the masses stumble about, not even knowing what gardening is, for it has been turned into a huge amusement park. Allegedly there is still a tree standing somewhere in what used to be our garden, I haven't seen one in a long time, though.

    So we moved on. And we learned.

    We built another garden.

    And this time, we will not make the mistake to invite the masses in. Leave them their amusement park, and leave them in the blissful ignorance that they don't even know what they're missing.

    They most likely even wouldn't want to know.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.