Tim Wu explains the rise and fall of information monopolies in a conversation with New York Times blogger Nick Bilton. Author of The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires (Borzoi Books), Wu is known for the concept of “net neutrality.” He’s been thinking about this stuff for several years, and has as much clarity as anyone (which is still not much) about the future of the Internet.
I think the natural tendency would be for the system to move toward a monopoly control, but everything that’s natural isn’t necessarily inevitable. For years everyone thought that every republic would eventually turn into a dictatorship. So I think if people want to, we can maintain a greater openness, but it’s unclear if Americans really want that…. The question is whether there is something about the Internet that is fundamentally different, or about these times that is intrinsically more dynamic, that we don’t repeat the past. I know the Internet was designed to resist integration, designed to resist centralized control, and that design defeated firms like AOL and Time Warner. But firms today, like Apple, make it unclear if the Internet is something lasting or just another cycle.
Mid-1990s: Gonzalez, 14, is visited by F.B.I. agents at his high school for hacking into NASA.
Gonzalez, law-enforcement officials would discover, was more than just a casher. He was a moderator and rising star on Shadowcrew.com, an archetypal criminal cyberbazaar that sprang up during the Internet-commerce boom in the early 2000s. Its users trafficked in databases of stolen card accounts and devices like magnetic strip-encoders and card-embossers; they posted tips on vulnerable banks and stores and effective e-mail scams. Created by a part-time student in Arizona and a former mortgage broker in New Jersey, Shadowcrew had hundreds of members across the United States, Europe and Asia. It was, as one federal prosecutor put it to me, “an eBay, Monster.com and MySpace for cybercrime.”
Phi Beta Iota: We opened Hackers on Planet Earth (HOPE) in 1994, making the observation that when the Israeli's captured a hacker they gave him a job, while the US simply kicked them in the teeth and sent them to jail. We tried to keep Phiber Optic out of jail, and we have for decades been on record comparing hackers to astronauts–full of the right stuff and pushing the edge of the envelope. No one, including Marty Harris then in charge of the National Information Infrastructure (NII) wanted to listen. Today the US Government is again ignoring the warnings on the urgency of getting a grip on all information in all languages all the time, and roughly 20 years behind in creating “root” cyber-security. This article by James Verini is a phenomenal update on what we all knew in the mid-1990's that the US Government is still oblivious to–this is not a problem technology or wanton spending can solve–this is a problem that demands discipline, integrity, intelligence, and sharing. It is neither possible nor desireable to secure government or military computers in isolation–this is an “all in” smart safe nation challenge.
This article by Bill Gertz needs to be seen in perspective. During the Cold War the Soviet Union as well as a number of other countries, including China were constantly engaged in trying to acquire U.S. Technology of all types through various means from industrial espionage to bribery. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) was extremely concerned about this and the subject of illicit ‘international technology transfer’ to the Soviet Bloc (as well as a few other countries) generated numerous DOD requirements to such agencies as NSA and CIA. Much of the urgency of these requirements was downgraded precipitously when the Cold War ended. Also the number of incidents of foreign powers trying to acquire U.S. technology has declined in the 21st Century for a very sinister reason: the U.S. is no longer the sole leader in the research and development of advanced technologies that it was after WWII. Although incidents still occur, as the Chinese Huawei example shows, they are much less common than once was the case. So DOD no doubt does not see the need for the same emphasis on loss of U.S. origin technology.
Yet financial intelligence is more than technology loss it also involves major illicit financial operations, such as money laundering, and financial operations in support of espionage and terrorism against U.S. interests. This of course includes the financial infra-structure supporting al Qaeda. If Ferguson is shutting this effort down as well he is making an unbelievable mistake.
This incident is symptomatic of an Intelligence System that is indeed out of control. In the absence of a viable strategic plan for intelligence collection, analysis, and production, every time some new crises occurs the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) resembles an ant hill that somebody has just stepped on. In the absence any real leadership or clearly defined purpose, the big four of the IC (CIA, DIA, NGA, and NSA) will continue to waste billions of dollars for minimal returns while resisting an efforts at meaningful reforms. At the same time the IC institutional bias against using non-classified (open) source information will ensure that they will only be able to provide very small windows that are of only limited usefulness to decision makers. What a way to go!
Phi Beta Iota: We are truly surprised that someone of Jim Clapper's caliber would allow an Acting Undersecretary no one has ever heard of to be named Acting in the first place; or that such an individual would do something this dumb without clearance from the DNI. There are a couple of variations on a theme: a) Clapper wants to make it obvious that Treasury is in enemy hands and DoD wants nothing to do with Treasury intelligence which does not exist–Treasury, like Energy and the other non-national security departments are patronage stove-pipes receiving direction from ideological idiots–they don't do “evidence-based” policy; b) Clapper is finally thinking about holistic intelligence in support of Whole of Government, and having DoD drop financial intelligence is a preamble to elevating the Financial Intelligence Center in some manner. On balance, as much as we admire the DNI, we think he has blown it–he will not accomplish anything consequential in the next few years by continuing to do the wrong things righter, and that is a shame, because so much could be accomplished in a mere 90-180 days, if he would empower those with the right mind-set to do the right things, which is to say, M4IS2 simultaneously with Whole of Government intelligence-support operations and the creation of a Smart Nation.
“Net neutrality” and “freedom to connect” might be loaded or vague terminologies; the label “Open Internet” is clearer, more effective, no way misleading. A group of Internet experts and pioneers submitted a paper to the FCC that defines the Open Internet and explains how it differs from networks that are dedicated to specialized services, and why that distinction is imortant. It’s a general purpose network for all, and can’t be appreciated (or properly regulated) unless this point and its implications are well understood. I signed on (late) to the paper, which is freely available at Scribd, and which is worth reading and disseminating even among people who don’t completely get it. I think the meaning and relevance of the distinction will sink in, even with those who don’t have deep knowledge of the Internet and, more generally, computer networking. The key point is that “the Internet should be delineated from specialized services specifically based on whether network providers treat the transmission of packets in special ways according to the applications those packets support. Transmitting packets without regard for application, in a best efforts manner, is at the very core of how the Internet provides a general purpose platform that is open and conducive to innovation by all end users.”
Press release:
Numerous Internet and technology leaders issued a joint statement last night encouraging the FCC to expand its recent analysis of open Internet policy in a newly fruitful direction.
In the statement, they commend the agency’s recent request for input on “Two Underdeveloped Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding” for its making possible greater recognition of the nature and benefits of the open Internet — in particular, as compared to “specialized services.” In response to the FCC’s request, their submission illustrates how this distinction dispels misconceptions and helps bring about more constructive insight and understanding in the “net neutrality” policy debate.
Longtime network and computer architecture expert David Reed comments in a special blog posting: “It is historic and critical [to] finally recognize the existence of ‘the Open Internet’ as a living entity that is distinct from all of the services and the Bureaus, all of the underlying technologies, and all of the services into which the FCC historically has partitioned little fiefdoms of control.”
Another signer, John Furrier of SiliconANGLE, has publicized the statement, stating “the future Internet needs to remain open in order to preserve entrepreneurship and innovation.”
The statement’s signers are listed below. Please reply to me, Seth Johnson (seth.p.johnson@gmail.com), to request contact information for those available for comment.
Billions of people participate in online social activities. Most users participate as readers of discussion boards, searchers of blog posts, or viewers of photos. A fraction of users become contributors of user-generated content by writing consumer product reviews, uploading travel photos, or expressing political opinions. Some users move beyond such individual efforts to become collaborators, forming tightly connected groups with lively discussions whose outcome might be a Wikipedia article or a carefully edited YouTube video. A small fraction of users becomes leaders, who participate in governance by setting and upholding policies, repairing vandalized materials, or mentoring novices. We analyze these activities and offer the Reader-to-Leader Framework with the goal of helping researchers, designers, and managers understand what motivates technology-mediated social participation. This will enable them to improve interface design and social support for their companies, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations. These improvements could reduce the number of failed projects, while accelerating the application of social media for national priorities such as healthcare, energy sustainability, emergency response, economic development, education, and more.
Recommended Citation
Preece, Jennifer and Shneiderman, Ben (2009) “The Reader-to-Leader Framework: Motivating Technology-Mediated Social Participation,” AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction (1) 1, pp. 13-32
Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/thci/vol1/iss1/5
Following is self explanatory. About all I can add is:
– “The West wasn't won with a registered gun.”
– As Charlton Heston said, “… from my cold, dead hand …”
– “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.”
– “Don't dry fire in a gunfight.”
– “I am the NRA — and I vote!”
November 30th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could
potentially engage in one of the largest federal power grabs we have ever
seen.
At the FCC’s November meeting – note the coincidental date of choice,
AFTER the impending election – three unelected bureaucrats (of five) could
simply vote themselves rulers of 1/6th of our entire economy – the
information and technology sector.
Meaning the Internet that you currently enjoy – that has been a marvel of
economic and information innovation and success – will be subject to vast
new governmental regulations. You didn’t elect these people – but they
are on the verge of electing themselves Internet overlords.
November 30th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could potentially engage in one of the largest federal power grabs we have ever seen.
After two years of this Presidential Administration and this Congress, that is saying an awful lot about an awful lot.
And what’s worse, the FCC would be doing it without Congress weighing in. At the FCC’s November meeting – note the coincidental date of choice, AFTER the impending election – three unelected bureaucrats (of five) could simply vote themselves rulers of 1/6th of our entire economy – the information and technology sector.
