Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate Internets

Frank Corrigan email at franciscorrigan.com
Sat Sep 24 04:59:29 PDT 2011


The article spurred me on to locate these:

FreedomBox
http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox

Enabling private conversations online
We're building software for smart devices whose engineered purpose is to
work together to facilitate free communication among people, safely and
securely, beyond the ambition of the strongest power to penetrate, they
can make freedom of thought and information a permanent, ineradicable
feature of the net that holds our souls. 
https://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/


Frank

----- Original message -----
From: "Yosem Companys" <companys at stanford.edu>
To: "Liberation Technologies" <liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:58:19 -0700
Subject: [liberationtech] Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and
Activists to    Build Alternate Internets

September 18, 2011
Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate
Internets
[image: College 2.0: Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to
Build Alternate Internets 1]

Yana Paskova for The Chronicle

Eben Moglen, a law professor at Columbia U., is developing the Freedom
Box,
a personal server that makes data harder to intercept. "The Net we have
is
increasingly monitored, measured, and surveilled everywhere by everybody
all
the time," he says. "Our Net has been turned against us."
Enlarge
Image<http://chronicle.com/article/Fear-of-Repression-Spurs/129049/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en#>

By Jeffrey R. Young

Washington

Computer networks proved their organizing power during the recent
uprisings
in the Middle East, in which Facebook pages amplified street protests
that
toppled dictators. But those same networks showed their weaknesses as
well,
such as when the Egyptian government walled off most of its citizens
from
the Internet in an attempt to silence protesters.

That has led scholars and activists increasingly to consider the
Internet's
wiring as a disputed political frontier.

For example, one weekend each month, a small group of computer
programmers
gathers at a residence here to build a homemade Internet—named Project
Byzantium—that could go online if parts of the current global Internet
becomes blocked by a repressive government.

Using an approach called a "mesh network," the system would set up an
informal wireless network connecting users with other nearby computers,
which in turn would pass along the signals. The mesh network could tie
back
into the Internet if one of the users found a way to plug into an
unblocked
route. The developers recently tested an early version of their software
at
George Washington University (though without the official involvement of
campus officials).

The leader of the effort, who goes by the alias TheDoctor but who would
not
give his name, out of concern that his employer would object to the
project,
says he fears that some day repressive measures could be put into place
in
the United States.
 Enlarge
 Image<http://chronicle.com/article/Fear-of-Repression-Spurs/129049/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en#>[image:
College 2.0: Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build
Alternate Internets 2]

He is not the only one with such apprehensions. Next month The­Doctor
will
join hundreds of like-minded high-tech activists and entrepreneurs in
New
York at an unusual conference called the Contact
Summit<http://contactcon.com/>.
One of the participants is Eben Moglen, a professor at Columbia Law
School
who has built an encryption device and worries about a recent attempt by
Wisconsin politicians to search a professor's e-mail. The summit's goal
is
not just to talk about the projects, but also to connect with potential
financial backers, recruit programmers, and brainstorm approaches to
building parallel Internets and social networks.

The meeting is a sign of the growing momentum of what is called the
"free-network movement," whose leaders are pushing to rewire online
networks
to make it harder for a government or corporation to exert what some
worry
is undue control or surveillance. Another key concern is that the
Internet
has not lived up to its social potential to connect people, and instead
has
become overrun by marketing and promotion efforts by large corporations.

At the heart of the movement is the idea that seemingly mundane
technical
specifications of Internet routers and social-networking software
platforms
have powerful political implications. In virtual realms, programmers
essentially set the laws of physics, or at least the rules of
interaction,
for their cyberspaces. If it sometimes seems that media pundits treat
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg or Apple's Steve Jobs as gods, that's because
in
a sense they are—sitting on Mount Olympus with the power to hurl digital
thunderbolts with a worldwide impact on people.

Instead of just complaining, many of those heading to New York next
month
believe they can build alternatives that reduce the power of those
virtual
deities and give more control to mere mortals.

I was surprised by the number of homegrown Internet projects described
on
the Contact Summit's Web site—though most of them are not yet
operational,
and some may never be. Among the approaches: an alternative to Facebook
that
promises better privacy control; a device that automatically scrambles
e-mail and Web traffic so that only people authorized by the user can
read
them; and various mesh-network efforts that can essentially create an
"Internet in a suitcase" to set up wherever unfettered Internet access
is
needed.

Whether you see these techies as visionaries or paranoids, they
highlight
the extent to which networks now shape nations.

"Anyone who cares about human rights anywhere should dedicate themselves
to
building these systems," is how Yochai Benkler, co-director of the
Berkman
Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, put it when I
asked
him about the trend.
 Bazaar 2.0

One organizer of the Contact Summit, Douglas Rushkoff, compares the
disruptive power of the Internet to the impact of bazaars in the Middle
Ages.

In his latest book, *Program or Be Programmed* (OR Books), he argues
that
the earliest bazaars helped transform feudal society by allowing
vigorous
information sharing—a low-tech peer-to-peer network. "Everyone was
speaking
with everybody else, and about all sorts of things and ideas," he
writes.
"All this information exchange allowed people to improve on themselves
and
their situations," allowing craftsmen to form guilds and share
techniques.
"As the former peasants rose to become a middle class of merchants and
crafts­people, they were no longer dependent on feudal lords for food
and
protection."

The Internet has created a bazaar 2.0, says Mr. Rushkoff, accelerating
information exchange and giving people the power to organize in new
ways.

At least so far. Mr. Rushkoff argues that companies and governments are
gaining too much power, in ways that could limit communication in the
future. Facebook, for instance, is a centralized system that forces
users to
run communications through its servers—and, he observes, its main goal
is to
make money by analyzing data about users and sharing that information
with
advertisers.

"The Internet that we know and love is not up to the task of being both
a
fully commercial network and a people's infrastructure," Mr. Rushkoff
told
me. "The Net is not a marketing opportunity—it's something much bigger
than
that."

One idea: Create two parallel Internets, one run and optimized for banks
and
entertainment giants (like Netflix, whose streaming movies take up more
and
more of total bandwidth), and the other for academic research, civic
discourse, and independent artists. He points to Internet2, a high-speed
research network run by universities, as a step in the right direction.
But
that network is available only on select campuses.

Perhaps other approaches will emerge that are designed to encourage the
kind
of peer-to-peer trading of information that Mr. Rushkoff prefers. To
encourage that, the Contact Summit will organize a bazaar of its own,
where
participants can seek supporters for their projects. The organizers plan
to
award start-up grants to a few projects on the basis of a competition.
"This
is a conference of doers and people looking for counsel and
collaborators,"
Mr. Rushkoff explains.

He acknowledges that the crowd he is gathering can be hard to herd,
though:
"There are people who are afraid to come to Contact because they think
they're going to be hacked or tracked or injected with something. There
are
a lot of loonies out there."
 Protecting Privacy

One developer who is eager to go the summit is Mr. Moglen, the law
professor. He's leading the development of a device called the Freedom
Box,
and though it doesn't look like much—a gadget the size of a paperback
book—he believes that it would be able to help Internet users preserve
their
privacy.

The concept: It's a personal server, which automatically scrambles
digital
data to make them harder for unauthorized people to intercept. The idea
is
to create a personal "cloud," or online storage space, for data before
the
information is sent to standard e-mail or Web services.

Mr. Moglen and a team of programmers are developing the software under
the
auspices of the FreedomBox Foundation, a nonprofit organization, and
plan to
release it under an open license that lets anyone use and modify it. The
initial Freedom Box code is expected to hit the Web in the next week or
two,
although it is more of a framework for developers at this point and
lacks
most of the planned features.

For Mr. Moglen the work is part of a longtime mission. *The Chronicle*
profiled
him <http://chronicle.com/article/The-dotCommunist/18635/> several years
ago, soon after he founded the Software Freedom Law Center and published
what he called *The dotCommunist Manifesto.*

In the manifesto, he argues that all software should be developed by
groups
under free licenses rather than by companies out to make profit. Critics
have called his approach extreme and unworkable, but in some areas
open-source software has gained ground in recent years.

"The Net we have is increasingly monitored, measured, and surveilled
everywhere by everybody all the time, or at least by somebody who's
doing it
for somebody else and would answer a subpoena if they got one," he
argued at
a conference this year. "Our Net has been turned against us."

In an interview, Mr. Moglen emphasizes that professors in particular
should
send their communications through his device. The reason? "Two words:
William Cronon."

Mr. Cronon, a history professor at the University of Wisconsin at
Madison,
was recently the subject of an unusual public-records request by a
political
group. The Republican Party of Wisconsin asked the university to turn
over a
batch of e-mail messages by the professor containing certain keywords,
as *The
Chronicle*
reported,<http://chronicle.com/article/Wisconsin-GOP-Seeks-E-Mails-of/126911/>
after
he wrote a blog post examining how conservative groups had helped craft
controversial legislation, including the 2011 measure to strip Wisconsin
public employees of collective-bargaining rights.

Mr. Cronon believes that Republican officials were hunting for evidence
that
he had violated state law by using his state-university account for
political speech, which he denies doing. He says other professors might
be
discouraged from speaking publicly on controversial issues, for fear
their
e-mail messages, too, might be sought by critics.

Some free-Internet projects have been under development for some time,
and
many professors and business leaders have long encrypted their e-mail
messages. But there is a new emphasis on making such systems easier to
use
and bringing them to a wider audience, says Sascha Meinrath, director of
the
Open Technology Initiative at the New America Foundation.

"We're trying to move them out of the geekosphere and get them into
mainstream use," he told me.

And there's evidence of that happening. This summer the foundation
received
a $2-million grant from the State Department to build its own mesh
network,
which could be set up by dissidents abroad to avoid censors. That's the
system being called an "Internet in a suitcase."

Proponents of mesh projects like Byzantium say they can provide a
different
kind of Internet freedom—a connection that comes at no cost.
Potentially,
mesh networks could be set up and shared as free community networks.

For activists like TheDoctor, that kind of freedom can give low-income
users
a chance to access information that could help improve their lives.

"If a single Byzantium node gave a single person access to MIT's open
courseware," he says, "the whole project would be a success."

College 2.0 covers how new technologies are changing colleges. Please
send
ideas tojeff.young at chronicle.com or @jryoung on Twitter.

_______________________________________________
liberationtech mailing list
liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu

Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click
above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily
digest?"

You will need the user name and password you receive from the list
moderator in monthly reminders.

Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.

Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech



More information about the liberationtech mailing list