MainChat — Wednesday, September 4

Thursday, September 5

1:20 PM
David S I.
Hello world
1:25 PM
SOB
hello small world
1:30 PM
Ben G.
Bonjour
Brewster K.
I like the urgent call: we need to save the Internet
1:35 PM
Rick W.
In past years we focused mostly on the corporations trying to harm the Net in some ways. Now it's The Government who seems to be The Enemy.
1:40 PM
Christopher M.
Rick: Indeed, hard to tell fed gov apart from corporations in some of these threats
Rick W.
Agreed
But I would submit that governments have many more tools (direct/indirect) to screw with your life.
Christopher M.
Intuitively, I agree that fed/national govs have more tools for maximal disruption (taking life, property, etc). But my life seems plenty screwed with by big corporations, including my ability to control my government.
1:45 PM
Barbara C.
Corporations and governments coevolve... and since the Citizens United case the political/economic interrelationships are even more complex and often opaque.
1:50 PM
Elliot N.
it's alive!
Carlien R.
yes David, I did
Brough
yes!
Christopher M.
Dewayne brought us this wireless - THANKS!
1:55 PM
Christopher M.
Eleanor S.
You fight a different game - a structural one, an economic one.
Elliot N.
"what do you do when rule of law is gone". sadly, See: Egypt
2:00 PM
Eleanor S.
This is the same thing we face with NSA.
Fumi Y.
Steve S.
Dewayne talks about "Person of Interest" as being relevant to what we're discussing
Christopher M.
Not just that the show is relevant, but it gives us a shared vocab and a sense of what people who aren't in this room know - that show gives them information to make sense of the world.
Elliot N.
the show itself is kind of meh, but the point is quite germane
Ben G.
Person of Interest may be a reality... see Future Attribute Screening Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Attribute_...
2:05 PM
Elliot N.
the people at the top want to know about the future now!
Christopher M.
fewer self-identified technologists in the room than I would have expected...
2:10 PM
SOB
david started by saying that we needed to save the Internet - to me that is a sub problem - what we are seeing is that we are under observation in everything - not just the Internet - the phone net, the road & highway system, waling down the street etc
Steve S.
++ scott
Ben G.
+1
Rick W.
Although the network (Net/IP) is the basis for much of that surveillance.
SOB
s/waling/walking/
SOB
rick - the Internet is a mechanism of transport for the info but not always the mechanism for collection
Steve S.
/agree sob
Rick W.
yup
SOB
"/agree" means "end of agreement"?
Steve S.
sorry, gaming term, means I agree with ou
... you
to elaborate, we have a number of sensor grids out there.
Christopher M.
SOB - the problem does seem limited to technology though... is it not the new technology that allows this level of data collection? And that seems tied to the Internet often.
2:15 PM
Steve S.
cameras, power meters, other utility grids, stores (brick and mortar), town records, public records, all of which observe and collect various pieces of information about us. THen, plus there's what we self-publish on the interent. The sum of all these things, fed into ever-more-powerful inference engines, can tell a frightening amount about us.
SOB
technology makes the process of observation inexpensive - e.g. it would have been impossible to even think of the postal service taking a picture of every piece of postal mail before digital photography - but too much of this seems to be 'if I can to this, then I may do it'
Steve S.
(dang, campfire cut off the first part of my longish comment :(
Christopher M.
Right, the idea of 1984 existing in a time when the technology itself wasn't practical, so we were somewhat insulated from the abuses we now find regularly occurring.
SOB
dog ate my homework? :-)
Steve S.
yup :)
Christopher M.
The tendency of those in power to abuse it is timeless, but the technology does change. And when it changes, sometimes it seems like toothpaste out of the tube. Hard to put back in.
2:20 PM
Elliot N.
I think there is good news in all this
Elliot N.
there is SO much more transparency
SOB
not voluntary transparency however
Elliot N.
I believe that corruption (broadly defined) is slightly on the decline (yet still terrible) but transparency is growing exponentially
I mean the ability to expose and disseminate wrongdoing
Ben G.
transparency for who?
kk
Christopher M.
Elliot - disagree. I think transparency is on the wan. Fewer reporters and far fewer that actually do real reporting. I think we are heading to golden age of corruption.
Elliot N.
think of what we know about PRISM
and about snowden's flight
SOB
know or guess?
Elliot N.
and about ATTs role in with the DEA
all of this would have been completely private a generation ago
Christopher M.
For me, it is a reminder of how terrible 99% of reporters are doing at informing us.
it is not 99%, but probably 75%
SOB
and what don;t we know because someone in the know has not yet told us
Elliot N.
and it used to be 90%
Christopher M.
I wish I thought these leaks are a sign of more to come.
Elliot N.
SOB: LOTS
but way less than we used to
Elliot N.
we need to put it in context
SOB
way less = N% less, but is the % significant
Elliot N.
we are all in deep agreement about how terrible it all is
but the context is so important
2:25 PM
Elliot N.
SOB: do you mean that the absolute amount is greater in your opinion?
Eleanor S.
Transparency is complicated. The same transparency that can help us fight corruption is what makes surveillance so effective, and the power law value of accumulated data puts us at the wrong end of things.
Elliot N.
because remember we are barely more than a generation away from hoover and mccarthy (that is j edgar, not herbert)
SOB
I worry that we do not know more than we know about the scope and depth of government and commercial knowledge of our smallest actions and thoughts
Christopher M.
I recall that conversation differently - I thought most of us took it seriously but didn't know what we could do.
Elliot N.
but there is a public face http://www.reddit.com/r/planbshow/
Robin C.
Brad: you are such a pollyanna!
Elliot N.
James V.
2:30 PM
Elliot N.
James V: has higher security clearance than me ;-)
James V.
It's all inverted. I have lower clearance, which lets me tunnel deeper.
Ben G.
Global view on Internet censorship and monitoring http://www.amazon.com/Access-Controlled-Cybersp...
Josh L.
Dubai/ITU was *also* about whether and how the global south can exert influence on global internet governance
the divisions were not as clear as Pepper is making them out to be...
Elliot N.
I would suggest there is NO country in the world that is in favour of an Open Internet
James V.
Speaking of the reddit darknet plans. They have been much mocked as cjdns fetishists, but I can't really find any research on cjdns virtues and tradeoffs. If anybody here has insight or resources on that, I'd appreciate a pointer or a chat.
Elliot N.
not one
not canada or sweden
Josh L.
+1 Elliot
SOB
there were multiple fights in Dubai - one of which is the one Josh mentions but there was just as strong a fight over what the control would produce
Ken Z.
Echo Elliot: NO country wants and open Internet
Eleanor S.
there are countries that find pushing for an internet that is somewhat more open than what their adversaries want to be temporarily convenient.
Elliot N.
the US and China are partners in working against an Open Internet
Christopher M.
I'm a big partisan for open Internet - an extreme position on our planet... for instance, Germany has laws limiting speech. How can we welcome a conversation about it while being unwilling to compromise on openness? ... I sure don't want to compromise it.
James V.
A lot of countries want an open internet everywhere but at home.
Elliot N.
luckily it is people who are in favour
James V: dewayne may have a view on cjdns
2:35 PM
James V.
Thanks. I plan to chat him about a couple things. I'll add that to the list.
Christopher M.
Elliot - Canada also has laws limit hate speech, are such laws not popular?
Elliot N.
friends = humans, enemies = nation states, LEA, IP, telcos
Christopher Mitchell: not sure you can draw that line
there are laws against hate speech but I can say whatever I want to you
so we can debate what it means to publish
Eleanor S.
This presumes that a) giving up your privacy is psychologically survivable (it's not, for most people)
Aleecia M.
+1
Christopher M.
Elliot: I think my point is that it is more complicated than you suggest in saying people prefer openness.
SOB
all gods children will have no clothing?
Eleanor S.
and b) that there's some kind of equality between a $5B company and a single individual if they're both naked.
Neither of these are true.
Carlien R.
+1 Roxanne: trust is the new currency, and in other to be able to trust each other maximum transparancy is needed.
2:40 PM
Josh L.
what does "open" mean?
Eleanor S.
Carlien: Not really. That's not how trust has worked for the rest of human existence.
Josh L.
if Google and Facebook are the definition of "open," we're going to have some disagreements :)
Eleanor S.
Carlien: It might mean that for companies, but it doesn't mean that humans.
Eleanor S.
Forcing all data to be open only helps the largest entities that are able operate at a global scale. It doesn't help humans at all, except the "help" of being persistently exploited.
SOB
such a Pollyannisn view of the world :-)
Rick W.
I think "open" is the Net platform itself, upon which a wide swath of business models (from open to closed) have a chance to compete.
Christopher M.
Josh, I think of open as all things are out there, filtering is done by end user
Carlien R.
Eleanor: I partly agree. This link made me think about it: http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/26/technology/soci...
Josh L.
Chris, so if a company can be "open" by exposing data in a way that encourages interoperability, but is in favor of deregulating the telecoms (hyopthetical), are they really in favor of "openness"?
Carlien R.
@eleanor: the ultimate question however is not if I have friends with a bad credit score but which bank has clients with bad credit scores
Eleanor S.
Carlien: That trust only goes one direction. Yes, it lets the bank predict my behavior more closely, but I can't trust the bank any more because of this.
Elliot N.
ICANN now = the nexus for governments and law enforcement to try and exert control over the Internet
2:45 PM
Elliot N.
they are making progress
Eleanor S.
Carlien: In this case, them predicting my behavior more correctly is just a matter of them being able to more finely exploit me economically.
Christopher M.
Josh: open depends on context. I'm thinking of ways national governments want to limit content in the context of the above discussion. Open means other things when talking about access to information via an ISP.
Struggling with Eleanor's comment... giving up x% of privacy seems to do little damage psychically. But 2x or 3x may do damage depending on person.
Carlien R.
Eleanor: your premise is that companies will always be the dominant entities, I think that the internet will enable us to do more and more ourselves. Like Chris Rufer says, people are the ultimate reality and the only operative elements. An Organisations is but an idea, a concept.
Elliot N.
Carlien Roodink: +1 re: dominant entities
2:50 PM
Aleecia M.
Basically the trouble with Brin
Wendy S.
right, Brin glosses over power imbalances
Elliot N.
the Internet is bigger than any company
Sascha M.
*has been hit by three separate reporters today talking about moving jurisdiction over Internet communications from the FCC to the FTC... looks like the telcos are rapidly gearing up for what to do assuming the FCC loses its court battle (in order to prevent reclassification under Title 2).*
Dan G.
Big data brokers are also a big problem: Axciom wants us to help it create even more invasive dossiers on us. No, thanks. owl.li/oz4aE
Eleanor S.
It's a question of centralization, not of the company form.
Elliot N.
Eleanor Saitta: not much today is more "powerful" than anonymous. no media is more powerful than reddit
Eleanor S.
And centralization of agency, not of ownership.
Elliot N.
and agree re: centralization
Josh L.
Sascha Meinrath:
Christopher M.
Elliot: Fox News sets the agenda of the powerful to a far greater extent than Reddit. Reddit may have long term impacts, but in the now, I don't see it has particularly powerful.
Eleanor S.
Elliot: while I agree in some ways, but tell me with a straight face that Reddit matters more than CNN for swinging a US presidential election.
Robin C.
I've been conceptualizing these new organizational structures as Peers Incorporated. Right now, the peers haven't organized. We are too early in this new paradigm to have seen the need. But starting right now, this need is becoming more apparent. The Peers need to be able to organize in order to mainain the power balance. And this is happening new. New NGO: peers.org trying to help them.
2:55 PM
Steve S.
Elliot, I'm not much using reddit, maybe you could give me a short primer sometime the next few days?
Brewster K.
David Reed: internet is the freedom to assemble more that freedom of speech
Josh L.
What does it mean in theory if the FTC takes the FCC's place and we let telecoms regulate themselves? (loaded question obv)
James V.
We've also provided unions with a bunch of legal privileges, so maybe it makes sense that we have rules for what we call a union.
Robin C.
I think the big platforms that are now engaging with peer will be required to give the peers more power and rights if they want long-term viability
Dan G.
Freedom of assembly has devolved into what governments call "free speech zones" -- where they corral protestors out of sight and hearing of the people they're trying to reach.
James V.
Dan G.: online, we call those free speech zones "Reddit". They're similarly safely out of common sight.
Steve S.
I highly recommend Elliots registrar -- hover.com
Christopher M.
Indeed - switched all my domains to hover and I love it.
Eleanor S.
The pop-up union efforts in the UK are pretty interesting. Create something that creates the power structure of a union but that doesn't last long enough to be corrupted/captured/suborned in the same way.
Christopher M.
Also switched to Ting - very happy with it.
3:00 PM
Christopher M.
It bears repeating: Elliot is Canadian
Dan G.
Another happy Ting customer...but worry that Elliott is putting too many eggs in one (Sprint) basket...
Eleanor S.
hehehe
I wish I agreed with David here.
Sascha M.
Dan: Agreed!
Eleanor S.
I don't think it's desperation at all.
Steve S.
Can't use Ting, I travel to widely in New England and Sprint doesn't have coverage. I wish I could though. I think Sprint is the only major mobile carrier that widely supports MVNOs.
SOB
transparency when it comes to the powerful orgs (like government & companies) is good - transparency when it comes to people is not quite the same thing
Aleecia M.
Seems to be over more people than has ever been possible before
Christopher M.
People who snear at mainstream media miss that it sets the agenda for today.
Eleanor S.
I think it's a very simple, straightforward plan being executed.
Sascha M.
Elliot: [only somewhat facetiously] So mandatory full-body probing = win for privacy rights?
Eleanor S.
DoD said a decade ago that it needed to own the Internet, so it went out and took it.
3:05 PM
Elliot N.
Sascha Meinrath: no, foreplay
Robin C.
some people in government might get it (and those are important ones), and then there is a whole bunch (most) who are clueless about the whole thing
Elliot N.
moto X will get me to ditch my iphone 5
and (I told rick) our shipment was just delayed 2-3 weeks
Sascha M.
Completely put together in USA... by robots created in China. ;)
Eleanor S.
...if only it had a keyboard.
Elliot N.
YAY!!
Eleanor S.
<3 my Samsung Relay; it's far from perfect, but I can type on it for real.
Christopher M.
Is it assembled in the US or in Texas? I'm confused.
Elliot N.
sign Ting up
Rick W: can go home with a customer
Brewster K.
Wendy S.
"unlike software"? unfortunately, that's garbled by patent claims too
3:10 PM
Sascha M.
Rick: I want 5 of those... plus the Voltron module.
Eleanor S.
[yay New Zealand!]
Dan G.
Seems to me that the most important feature of the Moto X is Google -- the way it's more than any previous phone an extension of the mother ship.
Steve S.
I'm going to get a moto x. Re: our topic though, note the low power chip that does speech processing any time the device is powered on. Compromised (or vendor or regime-inserted) code could enable 24x7 audio scanning of any place the phone goes. .... global sensor grid ...
Eleanor S.
for precarity
woah
James V.
A phone optimized for google services is exactly the kind of thing that's defeating privacy.
Eleanor S.
does the moto X have a removable battery?
Sascha M.
Alas, Android still hasn't put ad-hoc mode back into its operating system and still ties users far more closely to the telco motherships than they need to be.
Elliot N.
@dan it is. you just have to choose which mother ship
3:15 PM
James V.
The new Moto X comes pre-0wned...
Eleanor S.
because if not, I don't want that phone near me.
Elliot N.
James V: LOL
Steve S.
exactly Eleanor
James V.
Elliot: that joke courtesy of my recent browsing of Ting refurb phones
Carlien R.
Robin: I am not sure I understood what you said about AirBnB and hosts. AirBnB has the possibility to create groups. It started last week.
Christopher M.
Jim and I started a podcast series on muni network history - First episode here: http://www.muninetworks.org/content/jim-baller-... - others to be published soon.
Robin C.
Carlien! ha. excellent. I'm been pitching that it was needed. Right in time with their growth cycle. Airbnb is good enough that it was time to introduce it, and they have. Good for them.
airbnb is BIG enough...
3:20 PM
Ben G.
Robin Chase: does Amazon's mechanical turks provide a view into the new model?
Christopher M.
gigabit effectively means not having to wait for network stuff to happen.
(in this context)
SOB
seems to me that gigabit tail circuits mean that you DO have to wait for network stuff (elsewhere) to happen
Christopher M.
Seeing more interest than we have in my 6 years in the field. Not expecting *most* cities to build competitive networks. There are major benefits to a relative minority of communities making smart investments.
3:25 PM
Christopher M.
Brough created this slide, which many of us have loved to share: http://www.fiberevolution.com/images/6a00d83452...
Josh L.
wow
Brewster K.
Elliot N.
damn sales. it makes business such a bitch
growth hacking!!
3:30 PM
Robin C.
Ben g: it is one version. The lowest common denominator of what peers can do. Interesting for me to think at that level. It does deliver the benefits of peer diversity (resilience, redundancy and innovation -- I'm thinking of the sheep drawing project). compare that use of peers with TopCoder, different ends of the spectrum.
Aleecia M.
Robin - at some point I'd love to talk with you about some research I'm working on
4:05 PM
Eleanor S.
changed the room’s topic to Who's Watching
4:10 PM
Brewster K.
testing testing
David R.
fail fail
4:20 PM
Christopher M.
Will all the "bad guys" please self-identify?
Wendy S.
talk about perverse incentives
Elliot N.
sim city!
Dan G.
definte "bad"
that's define
Christopher M.
Thank you for self-identifying, Dan. =)
If all this spying is working, why did the NFL come up with new, more restrictive requirements limiting ability to take purses into games this year?
Eleanor S.
This is the existential problem at the heart of the black state.
Brough
What is a pound of intelligence worth?
Sascha M.
Brough: less than a gram of wisdom.
Eleanor S.
"there is no bar too high where we can't justify more intelligence, because if we don't we might all die"
Wendy S.
and would the non-survival of some of the marketers be so bad?
4:25 PM
Christopher M.
We are manufacturing more enemies with every drone hit. Don't worry about running out.
Dan G.
Terrorism, a franchise business. Soon: Terror University.
Eleanor S.
The enemy is us. Is anyone who might threaten the hegemony of Empire.
Christopher M.
Eleanor: I think Clapper would be surprised to hear that we think we are the enemy. I think he and his type believe they are protecting us from Hobbes' world.
Robin C.
Al Quaeda is a franchiise. I have been thinking about this a bit. It is a form of Peers Inc. If Al Quaeda creates a compelling platform for participation, we could imagine the high growth, scaleable, resilient, redundant organization they could make. Imagine the possibilities
Eleanor S.
Christopher: Us as humans, or us as Americans?
Christopher M.
Americans, emphatically.
Elliot N.
seems dan's mercury stuff is not indexed :-(
Eleanor S.
Right. I don't care two whits for passports.
Christopher M.
Why bring Rick into this? ;-)
Brewster K.
I saw this test work in a room like this: who is the primary threat, corporation or government, gives an idea of democrat vs republican. I find myself thinking the big-corps and gov are becoming symbiotic.
Elliot N.
this has nothing to do with motorola
;-)
David R.
In the banking crisis, the following phrase was in play in the banking senior executives (especially trading side): "If you don't know who your counterparts is, the counterparty is you". Replace counterparty with "enemy" or "antagonist" - it applies.
damn spelling corrector (counterparts meant counterparty)
4:30 PM
Eleanor S.
There's a giant human opportunity. I think if you make it into a business, you make it into a target.
Rick W.
thanks elliot
Eleanor S.
This follows the standard pattern of a new piece of surveillance law being introduced to ratify current practice happening via extralegal means.
Yup, that's about the shape of it.
Elliot N.
I think we would all be better off if we just agreed we have lost it
Christopher M.
As Dewayne reminded me last night, much of America has already lost basic democracy. However, middle and upper class folks are just starting to notice.
Eleanor S.
What about traffic analysis?
Elliot N.
it = democracy
Eleanor S.
Elliot: Yup. Because then we can start fighting to bring it back without our illusions.
Dan G.
Here's what I wrote about Scott Bradner's BH talk 11 years ago:
Elliot N.
Eleanor Saitta: I think we need to fight for the next thing
democracy is what is always was
which is better than monarchies and empires
David R.
big data == traffic analysis with very high reliability/accuracy
Dan G.
September 09, 2002

10 choices that were critical to the Net's success

By Dan Gillmor
Mercury News Technology Columnist

In our modern, corporate culture, the rise of the Internet is a happy accident. In its roots and growth, says Scott Bradner, the Net never had a business model.

How did technologists, government officials and a host of other early players turn something with no obvious business model into a system that has become so intrinsic to the new century? A series of decisions proved critical -- choices that helped turn data transport into a commodity business and put the power in users' hands, not in the centralized telecommunications companies' controlling grasp.

At a telecom conference in Massachusetts last week, Bradner, senior technical consultant at Harvard University and a longtime leader in the formation of Internet standards, listed 10 crucial decisions along the way. (You may have other candidates; send them to me and I'll list them on my Web page). Here are Bradner's picks:

1) Make it all work on top of existing networks. Designers deliberately didn't try to build a single, new über-data network -- it was about ``networks, not a network,'' Bradner observes. This meant supporting multiple network types by putting a simple set of rules, now called the Internet protocols, on top. This added layer was wide open for innovation, not controlled by a few players.

2) Use packets, not circuits. Telephone networks open a circuit from one phone to another, keeping the connection open until the call is ended. The Internet splits messages into little packages called packets, which are sent to their destination by various routes and at various times. This was a radical idea at the time, but it has been one of the qualities that makes the Internet so basically reliable and resilient under stress.

3) Create a ``routing'' function. Stand-alone boxes along the way from point to point make instant decisions on what route to send each packet by, reacting to failures in the networks. Again, this was a decentralizing function that enhanced reliability.

4) Split the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP), which are generally used together in much of what we do on the Net and are called TCP/IP. Originally they were meant to be tied together in a single service designed to guarantee that the stream of data would get to its destination complete and in perfect order. To do this, however, would have given network services far less flexibility. IP by itself offers an unreliable but still enormously valuable service, simply sending the packets through the network without checking to see if they all get there.

TCP makes sure, among other things, that they actually do get there. So an application can use TCP if it cares most about reliability, while another application can use IP (and other protocols) if it's more concerned with timeliness -- such as an Internet phone call -- where losing a few packets matters much less than getting most of the data there on time.

5) The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds the University of California-Berkeley, to put TCP/IP into the Unix operating system originally developed by AT&T. Berkeley thereby created a full but low-cost network operating system, along with a full suite of network applications, that computer start-up companies flocked to use in their boxes. It was, says Bradner, ``a way to get into the networking game without spending a lot of money.'' So it spread fast.

6) CSNET, an early network used by universities, connects with the ARPANET, the Internet precursor network operated by the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency. ARPA funded much of the early technical work on what later became the Net. ARPANET use had been restricted solely to government-funded individuals. The connection was for e-mail only, but it led to much more university research on networks and a more general understanding among students, faculty and staff of the value of internetworking. When students graduated, they sought employers that had the technology.

7) The NSF requires users of the NSFNET to use TCP/IP, not competing protocols. This decision about the NSFNET, which was originally created to connect supercomputer centers, forced wider availability of the TCP/IP protocol, and helped prevent a wasteful ``proliferation of miscellaneous transport protocols for the Internet,'' Bradner says.

8) International telecommunications standards bodies reject TCP/IP, then create a separate standard called OSI. TCP/IP, remember, was designed as a low layer on top of which other applications, such as e-mail, would be created. OSI was carrier-centric, a suite of protocols that included things like e-mail. Had TCP/IP been accepted and then co-opted by the international groups and telecom companies, things we now take for granted might not have appeared, or might have been under central control. One the fundamentals of the Net is we can create new protocols on top of IP, as Tim Berners-Lee did to create the World Wide Web, says Bradner -- ``and we don't have to have permission of the carriers to do that.

9) The NSF creates an ``Acceptable Use Policy'' restricting NSFNET use to noncommercial activities. Although this rule grew blurry, it was largely heeded despite fierce criticism. The result was an incentive to create commercial network providers. The commercial providers created a huge business of long-haul ``backbone'' and local carriers upon which the Internet relies today.

10) Once things start to build, government stays mostly out of the way. If the Internet suffered from a lack of regulation, Bradner says, it was ``a good suffering'' for all of us.
Eleanor S.
Elliot: Of course; sorry, took that as read.
Brough
SOB - In response to Snowden etc. IETF has dropped anything that uses other than end-to-end encryption.
4:35 PM
Christopher M.
Elliot: Democracy is not what we have imagined it to be (where we = middle class and above)
Elliot N.
and then the USG eventually funded sascha!
schizophrenic
David R.
democracy is what allows the suppression of inconvient dissent
Elliot N.
Christopher Mitchell: @eleanor yes! onwards :-)
Christopher M.
Elliot: Government is a handy term for a specific collection of competing interests
Eleanor S.
Christopher: I don't know about that. I think it's still exactly what the people who bought it ordered, re: class. It's not what the middle class thought it was, sure, but a middle class who understand their position in the world are a threat to the state. :-)
Christopher M.
Indymedia gained prominence in the 99 WTO protests in Seattle. It was among the first online news sites to allow anyone to publish to a live newswire.
Christopher M.
Eleanor, if I understand, you meant "not a threat..."
4:40 PM
Eleanor S.
Christopher: Not at all. It's not in the state's interest that the middle class understand how the state works.
4:40 PM
Christopher M.
I think our republic has worked better and worse over the years regarding its ability to aim toward a common good for a large segment of the population.
Eleanor, OK
Not sure I agree, but I understand the point.
Elliot N.
repression was the same. transparency was greater. my core hypothesis
Christopher M.
I think a tripling or greater of the prison population suggests repression changes. Not the only factor, but an important one.
David R.
Ultimately, the population has to think of government as controllable and valuable. The rhetoric that works (both for GOP and Democrats) is to describe government as uncontrollable and useless. This works.
Eleanor S.
Elliot: to some degree, yes. But more transparency can also be read as more ability to repress. "We don't need to hide that you don't have any real rights any more".
Wendy S.
lots of good comes from "sacrificing some cocktail napkins"
Elliot N.
Eleanor Saitta: I don't think this society would allow that. I think if the mask was truly ripped off it would be over
but of course you may be right
Eleanor S.
Elliot: Like a bandaid. Inch by inch, piece by piece.
I have plenty of friends who are less legible who aren't that different than Sascha who get plenty of hostility from USG.
(within the US)
It depends whether you look like something they understand or not, and how far you stick out your neck.
Elliot N.
Eleanor Saitta: oh for sure. we all have friends who are casualities
this is war and there will be some
I agree TOTALLY with this being war. I feel great about the outcomes, but war is hell for sure
4:45 PM
Christopher M.
I think people who have been to shooting wars may take issue with the use of calling this struggle a war. No one is coming to kill me. Or even Sascha... not yet anyway.
Eleanor S.
Christopher: Tell that to Aaron or Len. There are plenty of ways that we see casualties.
Elliot N.
Christopher Mitchell: point taken
Eleanor S.
(Point taken at one level, but no, this is very real)
Elliot N.
Eleanor Saitta: I was going to say that, but I ate it
Christopher M.
I'm not saying there are no casualties or that we don't face threats. But I don't expect to get PTSD
Dan G.
CB: Barrett Brown?
Eleanor S.
Christopher: I have friends who have PTSD from doing field technical support for internet freedom.
SOB
re The Machine - Mike (from Moon is a Harsh Mistress)
Sascha M.
Christopher -- they only shot tear gas and rubber bullets at me... the absolute worst were the Canadians.
Christopher M.
I think there is a difference in scale from "there are some that have paid a major price" to hundreds of thousands of people dead or injured for life. I don't want to harp on it, I just think we need to be aware of the words we use.
SOB
sounds like Poindexter
James V.
Observe everything. Understand it. Remember it forever.
Christopher M.
Interesting that our brains are powerful precisely because of what we can forget.
Wendy S.
and then the sub-working-groups
Steve S.
"Observe everything, understand it, remember it forever"
SOB
understand it enough
Eleanor S.
Christopher: it's a small war right now, definitely. The flip-side is that when we understand this as a war, it changes how we heal and recover from it.
4:50 PM
Carlien R.
when we talk about government, do we mean Civil Servants AND politicians?
Aleecia M.
"conflict" seems to do nicely as a replacement for the word "war"
David R.
And Robin
Robin, Roxanne, Barbara - organizational restructuring is radical
Eleanor S.
Very much a +1 to the phase transition.
SOB
many more civil servants who "just do their jobs" & those that define what those jobs are than politicians (who define other people's jobs)
Christopher M.
Elliot appears skeptical. Also excited to talk about Canadia.
4:55 PM
Elliot N.
I think barbara is right about the path dependence and the broken US system
BUT I think canada is a bad example
what she is saying right now is RIGHT
Christopher M.
Re: Elliot on the networks in Canada, I regularly hear from people who say their options are worse - high prices, few choices, slow speeds, low data caps, etc.
David R.
Canada's path dependence might be different
Elliot N.
but canada is the only country in the world that is worse in terms of outcomes
Eleanor S.
The US bubble is really thick. The world looks so different from the outside.
Wendy S.
Bring back common carriage!
Elliot N.
another part of the historical problem and the path barbara speaks of is that theodore vail was actually a great CEO
and ATT has not had one since
Christopher M.
I find Barb compelling, but I can't help but think of the quote, "How many divisions does the Pope command?"
David R.
We could discuss the value of measuring outcomes (and what gets measured and not measured), because by choosing the definition properly, you can twist the statistics into any truth you want to hear
Remember, Genachowski declared that the US is entirely covered by broadband as his legacy
And he has the "statistics" to prove it = $tati$tic$
Christopher M.
David: Yes - those who pushed for broadband mapping did not expect how terribly the USG would do it. It has reinforced their message.
5:00 PM
Sascha M.
US vs. Canadian broadband speeds (spanning tens of millions of tests over 4+ year period): http://bit.ly/17vqo4V
take-home message -- Elliot is correct, historically, Canada has been slower than US... but watch what happens over time as Canada catches up, then surpasses the US.
Christopher M.
Wow Sascha - great visualization
David R.
Nice, but not as pretty as the pictures from the $tink Tank$
That's my slide about "data" (as a signal processing guy)
Robin C.
this is what the NSA is saying. This isn't information yet, it is just data so it doesn't count
Elliot N.
tom said "yours" like he had one too! :-)
5:05 PM
Aleecia M.
pink barbie cameras should be illegal right there :-)
David R.
I have two pink Barbie cameras from my daughters. Can I sell them on eBay?
Eleanor S.
The daughters?
Elliot N.
Sascha Meinrath: canada is going backwards. there is NO muni broadband movement
David R.
Now, now
Aleecia M.
"If you don't feel guilty, you're doing something wrong" -- awesome
Christopher M.
Elliot: Agree that there is very little muni networks, but at the very least, the people in Canada who are taking speedtests are on faster networks now.
Elliot N.
Christopher Mitchell: very little = 0
Wendy S.
IMMI.is
Christopher M.
Sounds like Iceland wants a US military base on it.
David R.
Sadly, satisfying people's short term needs is what central power uses to maintain itself. So Canada's oligopolies use that strategy.
James V.
It's not entirely clear Iceland wants to be the free haven we all want it to be.
David R.
The alternative is to buy government help (which is cheaper in the US) to exclude new entrants
5:10 PM
Eleanor S.
Christopher: It used to. They got rid of it.
5:10 PM
David R.
Iceland after the Pots and Pans revolution doesn't want the crooks that ruined its economy (at least for now)
Christopher M.
Susie Cagle on Freedom to Connect: fun illustrations. http://www.thisiswhatconcernsme.com/2012/05/23/...
5:15 PM
Christopher M.
The whole "high school dropout" meme is uselessly distracting. Just a mainstream media BS distraction.
Wendy S.
Squid Friday > Caturday
Elliot N.
I think that makes 4 people from sascha's world (a strange variation on wayne's world)
Christopher M.
Barry Lynn keynote from Freedom to Connect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IRcpdjL_G8 and lots of other good keynotes here: http://freedom-to-connect.net/2012/videos.html
5:20 PM
Christopher M.
I think this was the first article about 21st century monopoly capitalism that blew my brain up. http://monthlyreview.org/2011/04/01/monopoly-an...
5:30 PM
Eleanor S.
Carlien: Yes! The Dutch government is very effective at harassing all of my political friends in the Netherlands. :-)
Elliot N.
David R.
Wouldn't it be great if Accenture had such a component of its skill set,,,
Wendy S.
+1 to the Conspiracy of Open
Elliot N.
Brewster Kahle: I am in!
Josh L.
let's do it
5:35 PM
David R.
What would "open surveillance" be, if it were to be a good thing? I'm really interested in that.
Carlien R.
@eleanor: interesting, are they public figures?
Wendy S.
"interesting and contentious space," says the master of understatement
Eleanor S.
Carlien: No, activist types.
5:40 PM
Dan G.
I love this music. My first instrument was clarinet (still my favorite)...
8:50 PM
David S I.
David S I.
Disruptive camou
James V.
If you search for "dazzle ships" you'll see some pics of those ships
8:55 PM
Fumi Y.
My friend in Japan does digital camouflage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CflMr6y-UeU and since we don't have to hide ourselves using camouflage in peaceful Japan, the application they made was to show the camouflaged background inside the car so that the driver can see the view of outside the car directly inside the car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDioQoSB8mI

Thursday, September 5

 

MainChat

People in this transcript

  • Aleecia M McDonald
  • Barbara C
  • Ben Gaucherin
  • Bob L
  • Brewster Kahle
  • Brough
  • Carlien Roodink
  • Christopher Mitchell
  • Dan Gillmor
  • David R
  • David S Isenberg
  • Dewayne Hendricks
  • Eleanor Saitta
  • Elliot Noss
  • Fumi Yamazaki
  • James V
  • Josh Levy (Free Press)
  • Ken Z
  • Monica Webb
  • Ram M
  • Rick W
  • Robert Pepper
  • Robin Chase
  • Sascha Meinrath
  • SOB
  • Steve C
  • Steve Smith
  • Susie Cagle
  • Wendy Seltzer