[free-sklyarov] Compromise? Balance?

[William Ahern]

On Saturday 28 July 2001 15:03, Eric C. Grimm wrote:
> I certainly agree with you, at least to a point, William.  The Internet
> certainly CAN be (or, more accurately, can become again) the "great
> equalizer."  But certainly, no particular future is foreordained or
> inevitable.
>
> The Internet is what we (collectively) make of it.  And, if we are not
> careful, the Internet and information technology generally it is at least
> equally likely to become -- as professor Lessig puts it -- "the instrument
> of perfect control" as it is to enhance freedom.  Based on observing both
> technological and legislative developments for some time, I hate to say
> that I must put myself squarely in the camp of the "pessimists" along with
> Lawrence Lessig -- and perhaps our own resident editorialist / "journalist"
> / kibitzer from Wired.
>
> At least if the arrow of legislation over the past several years points in
> the general direction of where we are headed (and we can look to other
> signs like software licenses or frequency of surreptitious insertion of
> data collection mechanisms into both Interenet content and "client"
> software code), then I have to say the day of "perfect control" may be much
> closer at hand than the dawn of "perfect freedom."  But again, that will be
> so only if people make it so.
>
> What say you?
>
> Eric C. Grimm

The internet is intriguing because it allows for almost perfect extremes.
In the 'real' world space/time barriers still largely control how humans can
construct a system. But on the internet, those barriers are much, much lower.

I do agree that there are many signs eminating from 'traditional' 
institutions that would normally warrant pessimism. But, there is a point
that can be made, that the balance of power (and I define power as the 
'ability to affect change' locally-- for the individual-- and globally-- for 
a society) is being placed in the hands of individuals, both in the 
collective sense and also literally in the hands of each and every individual.

By example, I would like to point at Gnutella, but more so at the FreeNet 
Project (and soon at my own project which is coming along nicely, AnonNet,
which is similar to the commercial Freedom Network from Zero Knowledge 
Systems... shameless plug ;).

These systems (specifically Freenet and AnonNet) have the capacity to force 
everybody to either choose between total freedom of information flow or none 
at all. So institutions like the U.S. Congress cannot avoid making difficult 
decisions. These systems de-centralize things, so that the only way an 
institution can be effective is by pin-pointing their control at 1) 
everybody, such as the DMCA criminalzes almost everybody or 2) only at those 
individuals that directly break societal norms (i.e. criminals). And not only 
that, but it seems to me that the phrase 'societal norms' cannot be fudged 
anymore, because only those who commit physical acts can be pin-pointed, and 
more mundane stuff like discussing cryptography can be conducted under the 
umbrella of anonymity.

Anonymity is key, and it is something that even the U.S. Congress is keen on,
given their [sometimes hypocritical] concern for privacy.

Technology can indeed make anonymity possible and impenetrable. Today, though,
the construction of systems that employ it can either be stopped dead in its 
tracks (such as banning crypto or by failing to adopt a critical following), 
or allowed to flourish, where it can erode the capacity of entities to 
unitlaterally  'affect change' (IOW, despotic institutions, however you 
imagine them).

In any event, the internet not only places power in the hands of individuals, 
but it gives them the ability to keep it. The question, therefore, is not how 
that power will be eroded (we know how that can come about, its happens 
cyclically through history) but whether the people will exercise their very 
real ability to keep it. And on a side-note, it may even be possible for a 
minority, you or I solely, to retain that power (ability to affect change 
locally.. not necessarily globally)... but that remains to be seen.

So, traditionally the argument for pessimism can be a valid one. Sometimes 
things work out, sometimes they don't. But it happens that way because 
entities can gain a monopoly on power. The internet, using devices such as 
anonymity, can erase those monopolies. It can give back power to the people 
and ensure its place there. That is something to be optimistic about. It may 
open a whole new can of worms, but its a new can, and something we have
never tasted before.

bon appetite.