[MTS]

Behold the sandwich board.

 sandwich-board.jpg (38.32K)
Number of downloads: 2

[Adjutant Stormy~]

All this talk of sandwiches and the aporkalypse are making me hungry. You wouldn't like me when I'm hungry.

[Thel Akai]

Whatever you think one way or the other about Wikileaks, I doubt many would deny that the US government is now trying to do what they've always accused the Chinese of doing, as far as access to Wikileaks is concerned. What I think will happen is that this (what with the DNS takedowns and all) will accelerate a change of Internet technology, a change that's always been there in potentia. The easiest way of describing it would be as a general move of everything into a Darknet.[*]

As soon as the tech is widespread (and it's not a difficult thing, just slightly complex, but this has been researched for years), big chunks of the network will move inside the Darknet. And when everyone's there it'll look just like it does today, except that there's no centrally controlled DNS authority, there's no monitoring of network traffic (well, you can _monitor_, but you won't have any idea of where from or to the data really goes, or what it's about) and so on. This will happen naturally, just as everyone is now using ssh instead of telnet or rsh for remote login. That change happened because people started peeping into the data along the lines. It's not always authorities, it's as often criminals, but sometimes it _is_ states forcing a change: After Sweden declared that the authorities would and could monitor all network traffic going through Sweden (and a lot of traffic from neighbouring countries does go through Sweden), companies in the region are moving over to large-scale encrypted VPN networks and other tech which I've been forced to get familiar with but won't discuss. (Companies have been using virtual private networks for inter-office communication for a long time of course, the difference is that stuff that in the past wouldn't be sent over VPN will be, now.)

Another example about what happens when you push: The European Union is trying set in law a directive which would force ISPs and telcos to store all traffic data for at least six months (EU Directive 2006/24/EC). I've seen one argument that goes something like "we need this in order to catch the pedop. networks". Well. They do catch them today, with some difficulty. The reason they do catch them at all is that it's possible today, within today's laws, to monitor them and catch them. Which is good. And the police manage this because most of these folks aren't particularly sophisticated about network technology, they just use the common, unprotected, often unencrypted stuff. But if this directive goes through even those people can't miss the red flag and know that everything they do will be monitored and stored. So what will they do? Well, there are criminal gangs out there already, specialising in creating and selling software tech for other criminals. Suddenly there's a big market for them. What'll happen if 2006/24/EC goes through is that all your targets will suddenly move Darknet and then your chance of catching them goes from not-as-good-as-we-wish to nearly-non-existent. If you push too hard and close all holes you'll lose all the catch.

So. Naturally I'm totally against 2006/24/EC, exactly because it'll work _against_ what the directive tries to achieve.

Now, back to what the US is currently doing about Wikileaks: DNS takedowns, bullying companies (and nations) to try to force them off the net (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Amazon, EverNet, etc.): Something has to give, and it doesn't even have to be about Wikileaks at all. Suddenly everyone (companies, nations, individuals) can see clearly that their presence on the net is subject to what the US government (directly, or indirectly via ICANN) will allow. This won't do. Thus, the global Darknet will come, and much quicker than anyone anticipated. This is both good and bad. The bad part is of course that the real criminals will get their ride for free. But this is something that can't be stopped now. Just as disk encryption software is now widespread and easy to get hold of, more so than ever. There was always some stuff somewhere, but I know that companies started to demand this software for real when you risk that your company laptop is searched (and sometimes copied) at the US border (for some reason this is seen as a more real threat than the laptop being lost or stolen, which in practice happens all the time while those searches are rare.). Now you can find easy disk encryption solutions everywhere. Naturally the criminals, even the unsophisticated ones, also find it as easily. Before you know it laptops will come with disk encryption built-in, because there's enterprise demand.

So, what the US government will achieve by attacking Wikileaks is that in the near future they won't be able to take down _any_ site, not even those that everyone agree should really be taken down, the pure terror/criminal sites and networks. In short, It'll backfire utterly. These methods always did, without exception.

[*] I use the term "Darknet", but that's not exactly what I have in mind - I have a pretty good idea about what things are going to look like but Darknet is the easiest analogy.

[Furion]

http://www.youtube.c...embedded#at=257

Glad to see SOMEONE with real political standing is willing to stand up for Assange.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Yeah, but I'd rather it be anyone but Ron Paul. He'd chant libertarianism into his grave.

Perhaps someone with political power?
Perhaps someone with a political career to lose...

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 11 December 2010 - 06:41 AM

[Furion]

Adjutant Stormy, on 11 December 2010 - 06:40 AM, said:

Perhaps someone with political power?
Perhaps someone with a political career to lose...

I wish. I really do. I'm severely disappointed in Obama and his administration for going after wikileaks. I expected better from him. The government is showing it's true colors to the public, but it seems very few people are actually willing to take a look.

[HoosierDaddy]

I'm honestly curious, what do you all want the government to do? They aren't international peace-keepers. The American government is elected to further the interests of the American people. If that's shutting down a website that is leaking messages that are not in the national interest, are you surprised?

The naivete of people towards American foreign policy is frankly astounding.

[frookenhauer]

Are you talking about their foreign policy of invading other countries (with a coalition of couse ), on the pretext that weapons of mass destuction (what a catchphrase!) are being put together, with evidence put together from a student thesis and classified as intelligence, and the happy coincidence that oil can be found in abundance there? I am indeed the pinnacle of naivete, clearly.

This current situation is a tad differrent, what is happening is that the U.S. government is doing it's damndest to close down a group that is willing to air their dirty laundry to the world. All the while forgetting that the dirty laundry is theirs and rather than try to clean up their act they'd much rather hide it. Guess what? This is called accountability, albeit rather unconventional.

@Thel Akai, the whole darknet thing will always be at the fringes of society and businesses do use the deep web to store their data and have sites that are not registered with search engines and are accessible only through forms. The way our current net is designed is that there is a link to everything and we can find that link by searching. So how would we be able to find stuff on the darknet? Sure freenet is an answer, but I've had a play and came running back to my pal firefox like a little lost boy. I don't know enough, yet, to really say for sure if you're wrong, but this is my opinion so far.

[Aptorian]

HoosierDaddy, on 11 December 2010 - 09:46 AM, said:

I'm honestly curious, what do you all want the government to do? They aren't international peace-keepers. The American government is elected to further the interests of the American people. If that's shutting down a website that is leaking messages that are not in the national interest, are you surprised?

The naivete of people towards American foreign policy is frankly astounding.

But America DOES style itself as International peace-keepers. As the good guys fighting the good fight. A right moral bastion of freedom, free speech, the American dream and all that bullshit.

America certainly does not commit all the crimes and little political back deals that it does to "further the interests of the American people" or promote world peace. It does what it does to earn money and gain power. To create strife and mistrust between it's rivals and enemies. To make sure that America remains the big dog.

You can't have a government that says it wants transparency and free speech and then at the same time attack Wikileaks when it airs Americas dirty laundry.

I am not surprised that America is a naughty super power. I am surprised that the public just shrugs it off with a "heh, they do it for the American people, that makes it okay". This kind of secret lies is why we can't have nice things like "world peace".

[HoosierDaddy]

Yes, god forbid an elected government protect their interests.

I don't support it all, but I can at least recognize it is there. And it is there everywhere. If you don't play the game you lose.

Edit: You all need another superpower to show you how to be a real bad guy. Jesus.

DEATH TO AMERICA!

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 11 December 2010 - 10:46 AM

[Aptorian]

But they are protecting their people (creating wealth, making pacts, sabotaging other political threats) by hurting other countries. This may be the way it is done when everyone is playing the game, but that does not mean it is in any way commendable. It may be the foolish idealistic view, but how the hell can you feel good about yourself when you know your government is crippling other nations so that you can have your luxury goods? And I am in no way implying that Denmark is innocent, we're lapdogs for American politics after all, but seriously, the complete blindspot the politicians are showing for their own misdeeds is disgusting. Where are the inquiries, the outrage?

As for other Superpowers, I am sure that China and India will take over where the US and Russia left off in a couple decades.

This post has been edited by Jenisapt Rul: 11 December 2010 - 11:05 AM

[frookenhauer]

Actually we're getting 2 new ones soon, the rise and rise of china and india is a thing to behold. And China has never really been a bad guy on the world stage. Not really the imperialistic types at all. As for india...has issues, but you try feeding a billion.

No one wants death to america, ya great ox. Where would my movies come from? Je ne comprende francais avec moi. And I really want to go to Vegas. Sometimes no matter how big you are a good bitch slap helps and it's been a long time coming, this is the first salvo one would hope.

[HoosierDaddy]

Apt, I never said I'm a great fan of the system, but I'm not going to pretend to be oblivious as to how it works. Do I wish it was different? Yes. I do. I have very high ideals as well as any other political person. My point has been all along, in the real world of politics this is normal and expected. It's easy to say what you would do. It's much harder to do in actuality.

Edit: Good luck with India and China. I'm sure they are willing partners in your future prosperity. God knows they don't have any reasons to despise Western Europe.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 11 December 2010 - 11:09 AM

[Aptorian]

Aptoran, on 11 December 2010 - 11:01 AM, said:

Actually we're getting 2 new ones soon, the rise and rise of china and india is a thing to behold. And China has never really been a bad guy on the world stage. Not really the imperialistic types at all. As for india...has issues, but you try feeding a billion.

No one wants death to america, ya great ox. Where would my movies come from? Je ne comprende francais avec moi. And I really want to go to Vegas. Sometimes no matter how big you are a good bitch slap helps and it's been a long time coming, this is the first salvo one would hope.

China may not be the bad guy now, but what happens in 10, 20 or 50 years from now, when China is an economic and military super power that dwarfs the US and Russia? It's not expansionist now, but what happens when it decided that it would like to reunite with Taiwan. Or begins putting some serious economical pressure on the US or EU?
The problem lies in the fact that while China has adapted to capitalism, it has not adopted to democracy or free speech or any other western approach to government.

As a columnist remarked recently here in Denmark regarding our countries infatuation with "The Asian Dream" perhaps it would be better to invest in India and keep our distance from China.

This post has been edited by Jenisapt Rul: 11 December 2010 - 11:10 AM

[Morgoth]

I somehow expect more of m government than just the protection of Norway's interests at the expense of all things, including the ideals on which we've built our nation.

[frookenhauer]

HoosierDaddy, on 11 December 2010 - 11:07 AM, said:

Apt, I never said I'm a great fan of the system, but I'm not going to pretend to be oblivious as to how it works. Do I wish it was different? Yes. I do. I have very high ideals as well as any other political person. My point has been all along, in the real world of politics this is normal and expected. It's easy to say what you would do. It's much harder to do in actuality.

Edit: Good luck with India and China. I'm sure they are willing partners in your future prosperity. God knows they don't have any reasons to despise Western Europe.

And therein lies the problem, it shouldn't be considered normal and expected. The whole idea of holding people to account means that morally bankrupt people/institutions/governments are held in check. But, the problems not going to go away, unless a signioficant proportion of the population turns around and says enough is enough. It's all very well having high ideals, but if you're not doing anything about it, you might as well chuck those ideals away, they're worthless...Are you in politics yet? I do hope you get to apply those ideals. This is not a dig, at all, I'm behind you all the way. And we've kind of strayed from the poser...

Quote

China may not be the bad guy now, but what happens in 10, 20 or 50 years from now, when China is an economic and military super power that dwarfs the US and Russia? It's not expansionist now, but what happens when it decided that it would like to reunite with Taiwan. Or begins putting some serious economical pressure on the US or EU?
The problem lies in the fact that while China has adapted to capitalism, it has not adopted to democracy or free speech or any other western approach to government.

As a columnist remarked recently here in Denmark regarding our countries infatuation with "The Asian Dream" perhaps it would be better to invest in India and keep our distance from China.

I'm no futurist I merely market to people and know a little bit about finance and I have no way of telling what they'll be like 50 years from now, but I do know that in the past they have had plenty of opportunity to stamp their mark on the RotW, but instead sent out Dragon ships and built trade networks and have really been concentrating on keeping themselves to themselves. A very differrent people to those that went to colonise America, swept accross a country in a tide of blood and now cast a baleful eye over all that they survey , all the while hiding behind a veneer of do goodery, which has peeled off to reveal it's rapaciaous nature (I kid hoosier...mostly)

China has adapted to capitalism, then might it not adopt democracy and Freedom of speech next...hmm wrong order, freedom of speech then democracy and then loose freedom of speech further down the line, because it's politically expedient. We in the UK can become fully muzzled if the government so choose. Funny how that came about.

Thanks to china and and oligarchy of western food producers eating is becoming almost as expensive as consumer electronics. I can't wait till they figure out how to mass produce food on a scale that they can compete in that market.

Who'd I pick of the two? Neither, I just want a new detente based on economics, tech and getting enough of us off this rock as quickly as possible before the shit matches velocity with the fan. We so definitely, definitely need a new frontier. Hopefully before I croak...or go through my next gene therapy session

[Adjutant Stormy~]

HoosierDaddy, on 11 December 2010 - 09:46 AM, said:

I'm honestly curious, what do you all want the government to do? They aren't international peace-keepers. The American government is elected to further the interests of the American people. If that's shutting down a website that is leaking messages that are not in the national interest, are you surprised?

The naivete of people towards American foreign policy is frankly astounding.

Oh, please don't misunderstand, I fully expect the government to do exactly what it is doing.

HOWEVER, the thought that the only person in government, anywhere, that has anything to say on wikileaks' behalf is Ron Paul is rather disappointing.

[amphibian]

Adjutant Stormy, on 11 December 2010 - 11:02 PM, said:

Oh, please don't misunderstand, I fully expect the government to do exactly what it is doing.

HOWEVER, the thought that the only person in government, anywhere, that has anything to say on wikileaks' behalf is Ron Paul is rather disappointing.

There are job-related considerations for people with "Secret" clearance, or above. If they view, discuss or deal with the leaked cables, that could negatively impact any future security checks and hurt their job prospects. They're being advised to avoid anything and everything.

As for politicians, what does a politician win by publicly speaking out for the behalf of a person like Assange, who's under investigation for sex crimes, treason and whatever else. It doesn't matter to the politicians whether or not he actually did any of those things. In the eyes of their more volatile constituents, Wikileaks probably = Assange and association with Assange is not what they would want their elected representative to be doing.

There is little benefit to publicly speaking out in favor of Wikileaks.

Now, later on down the line, when things have settled and the issue isn't so enflamed, perhaps a few politicians and more prominent government employees will speak out in favor of increased informational transparency, but that's a different thing.

Plus nobody needs or wants total transparency. That's an idiotic concept. There is always going to be a degree of opacity to the government's actions, to private individuals' actions, to corporate actions and state or non-state group actions.

[Thel Akai]

Aptoran, on 11 December 2010 - 10:35 AM, said:

@Thel Akai, the whole darknet thing will always be at the fringes of society and businesses do use the deep web to store their data and have sites that are not registered with search engines and are accessible only through forms. The way our current net is designed is that there is a link to everything and we can find that link by searching. So how would we be able to find stuff on the darknet? Sure freenet is an answer, but I've had a play and came running back to my pal firefox like a little lost boy. I don't know enough, yet, to really say for sure if you're wrong, but this is my opinion so far.

True, for Freenet and the lookalikes. That's why I said that "Darknet" isn't really the word I'm looking for ('cause it doesn't have a name yet), it's just the closest simile. Think of it as a net that looks more or less like what you're used to, but where you can't find a direct connection between an IP address and a physical location, unlike today. And the nearest equivalent of DNS wouldn't be a centrally controlled entity like today (actually you can even today just select whatever alternative DNS entity you wish, it's just not very practical.) I have a fairly good idea about how it would be done, having worked with networking protocols for more than twenty years. And the folks actively researching this will come up with details pretty soon, is my guess.

[worry]

Interesting discussion re: Assange as a journalist