[Fwd: Multiple Internets]

newer
Re: [Cryptography] Proof that the...

older
Fwd: [Cryptography] Proof that the...

Ted Smith

9 Feb 2016 9 Feb '16

4:15 p.m.

In an effort to re-seed discussion about cypherpunk topics I'll be reposting old threads from the cypherpunks list in a rough "this day in cpunks" effort. In this mail, John Young analyzes the subclasses of "the internet" as a user might see. Optional discussion questions: * How has this dichotomy survived the intervening half-decade? * Taxonomies sometimes afford conception of novel categories; the original periodic table was mostly empty, not-filled with elements yet to be discovered. What internets can we conceive of that do not presently exist? -------- Forwarded Message --------

...

From: John Young To: cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net Subject: Multiple Internets Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:01:38 -0500 Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9

...
i say again: twitter is ruining the internets...

I agree, but I think it's highlighting an underlying issue that we've been letting the wrong sort of people on the internet for a long time. I tend to think that if this type of people ends up sticking to the world of twitter and facebook and co, then we can safely caution them off and just ignore them at large, so for that purpose it works well

------

Multiple, discrete internets are coming into play, perhaps have always existed.

First, the known internets, utilizing ubiquitious access logging which under guise of administration allows universal spying:

1. The internet run by operators of the overall background system which most users know little about or care.

2 The open policing apparatus of the overall system run by governments and their contractors and cooperating non-profits.

3. The commercial internet providing services or products for pay.

4. The non-profit, open-source, volunteer internet providing services or products at no cost or for donations.

5. The closed sub-internets, mil-gov classified, SCADA, restricted and special purpose networks used by operators and administrators of backbones, nodes, satellite, cable, wired and wireless systems,

Second, the unknown internets, with or without evident access logging:

6. The covert policing and spying internet which watches, logs, mucks around, runs stings, causes accidents and shut-downs, cuts cables, runs surprise tests and attacks, and keeps alive the demand for covert oversight of all the known others.

7. The covert internets which hide among all the others, or try to subject to discovery by 6.

8. The evanescent internets which are set up, used and disappear quickly, openly or covertly, subject to 6.

9. The wayward and waylaid internets which cannot be identified: rogues, experiments, mistakes, erratic systems, unexpected glitches and consequences, acts of nature, forgotten protocols, inept code, destructive code, lost access techniques, death of the perpetrators.

10. Internets of combinations, hybrids, deceptions, ploys and warfare among 1-9.

-- Sent from Ubuntu

Attachments:

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 819 bytes)

Show replies by date

Zenaan Harkness

10 Feb 10 Feb

12:03 a.m.

Posting 'useful' (your definition) older emails like this I think is good.

...

...
4. The non-profit, open-source, volunteer internet providing services or products at no cost or for donations.

5. The closed sub-internets, mil-gov classified, SCADA, restricted and special purpose networks used by operators and administrators of backbones, nodes, satellite, cable, wired and wireless systems,

Second, the unknown internets, with or without evident access logging:

6. The covert policing and spying internet which watches, logs, mucks around, runs stings, causes accidents and shut-downs, cuts cables, runs surprise tests and attacks, and keeps alive the demand for covert oversight of all the known others.

7. The covert internets which hide among all the others, or try to subject to discovery by 6.

8. The evanescent internets which are set up, used and disappear quickly, openly or covertly, subject to 6.

9. The wayward and waylaid internets which cannot be identified: rogues, experiments, mistakes, erratic systems, unexpected glitches and consequences, acts of nature, forgotten protocols, inept code, destructive code, lost access techniques, death of the perpetrators.

10. Internets of combinations, hybrids, deceptions, ploys and warfare among 1-9.

We need a good name for the internet with these attributes: - not so ad-hoc - physical layer - localised/ immediate neighbourhood area mini-nets - eventually (if useful) a meta network connecting these Since in general we don't own our internet tubes, the mostly profit-motivated companies that do have ongoing economic incentive to centralize, control, be taken over by larger fish. We need to grok a counter-principle, such that we can over the longer term reverse this trend. This requires perhaps some perceivable benefit(s) to the local neighbours and their phy nodes, to warrant the hour or so required to connect to each other. So where could such features/ benefits arise?: - some new dynamic of torrents? - local/ community "library" concept? - privacy? - anonymity?

Cari Machet

3:06 p.m.

there are mesh networks freifunk https://duckduckgo.com/?q=freifunk+berlin also when people woke up to the cables of the net all going thru the US there was at least talk of making new infrastructure on other land masses i wrote about the chatanooga model that freed the fiber under the city of chatanooga and also the future being wireless hubs not broadband ... look to what the powers are making frameworks for and develop outside that realm using its flaws when i lived in syria i had video calls in the middle of the desert ... no cell towers in sight - iraqis had video calling in 2000 or even 1999 - anyone that had an efficient fone (nokia was big) in other words the whole system is throttled and thats not just about speed but quantum computing development is being ignored ? On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

Posting 'useful' (your definition) older emails like this I think is good.

...
...
4. The non-profit, open-source, volunteer internet providing services or products at no cost or for donations.

5. The closed sub-internets, mil-gov classified, SCADA, restricted and special purpose networks used by operators and administrators of backbones, nodes, satellite, cable, wired and wireless systems,

Second, the unknown internets, with or without evident access logging:

6. The covert policing and spying internet which watches, logs, mucks around, runs stings, causes accidents and shut-downs, cuts cables, runs surprise tests and attacks, and keeps alive the demand for covert oversight of all the known others.

7. The covert internets which hide among all the others, or try to subject to discovery by 6.

8. The evanescent internets which are set up, used and disappear quickly, openly or covertly, subject to 6.

9. The wayward and waylaid internets which cannot be identified: rogues, experiments, mistakes, erratic systems, unexpected glitches and consequences, acts of nature, forgotten protocols, inept code, destructive code, lost access techniques, death of the perpetrators.

10. Internets of combinations, hybrids, deceptions, ploys and warfare among 1-9.

We need a good name for the internet with these attributes: - not so ad-hoc - physical layer - localised/ immediate neighbourhood area mini-nets

- eventually (if useful) a meta network connecting these

Since in general we don't own our internet tubes, the mostly profit-motivated companies that do have ongoing economic incentive to centralize, control, be taken over by larger fish.

We need to grok a counter-principle, such that we can over the longer term reverse this trend.

This requires perhaps some perceivable benefit(s) to the local neighbours and their phy nodes, to warrant the hour or so required to connect to each other.

So where could such features/ benefits arise?: - some new dynamic of torrents? - local/ community "library" concept? - privacy? - anonymity?

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

Cari Machet

4:26 p.m.

i am reminded of my visit to tesla in serbia his story tells a tail of defeat by the powers but his is not the only and final story rabbit hole: also to my knowledge his archive is there but the USG confiscated his US archive and it was freed in 2013 but i have not looked into that declasification from top secret ... to what i dont know... http://www.tesla-museum.org/meni_en/nt.php?link=arhiva/a&opc=sub5 http://www.teslasociety.com/archive.htm there are problems with the digitization process http://www.tesla-museum.org/meni_en/nt.php?link=arhiva/a&opc=sub5 some fbi files are linked here: http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_mispapers.html ## anyway the point of bringing it up is that in spite of the powers making structural decisions for the globe i still think it is possible to work around them and i am not sure this original post of johns is really that interesting to what point is he posting it? knowns? there is overall a harnessing of the structures in the minds of people meant to thwart development and all fronts need work to shift this out > from trash collecting to nasa stuffs i think catagorizing what is known is archival but our minds can engage more substantive constructs On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

there are mesh networks

freifunk

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=freifunk+berlin

also when people woke up to the cables of the net all going thru the US there was at least talk of making new infrastructure on other land masses

i wrote about the chatanooga model that freed the fiber under the city of chatanooga and also the future being wireless hubs not broadband ... look to what the powers are making frameworks for and develop outside that realm using its flaws

when i lived in syria i had video calls in the middle of the desert ... no cell towers in sight -

iraqis had video calling in 2000 or even 1999 - anyone that had an efficient fone (nokia was big)

in other words the whole system is throttled and thats not just about speed

but quantum computing development is being ignored ?

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...
Posting 'useful' (your definition) older emails like this I think is good.

...
...
4. The non-profit, open-source, volunteer internet providing services or products at no cost or for donations.

5. The closed sub-internets, mil-gov classified, SCADA, restricted and special purpose networks used by operators and administrators of backbones, nodes, satellite, cable, wired and wireless systems,

Second, the unknown internets, with or without evident access logging:

6. The covert policing and spying internet which watches, logs, mucks around, runs stings, causes accidents and shut-downs, cuts cables, runs surprise tests and attacks, and keeps alive the demand for covert oversight of all the known others.

7. The covert internets which hide among all the others, or try to subject to discovery by 6.

8. The evanescent internets which are set up, used and disappear quickly, openly or covertly, subject to 6.

9. The wayward and waylaid internets which cannot be identified: rogues, experiments, mistakes, erratic systems, unexpected glitches and consequences, acts of nature, forgotten protocols, inept code, destructive code, lost access techniques, death of the perpetrators.

10. Internets of combinations, hybrids, deceptions, ploys and warfare among 1-9.

We need a good name for the internet with these attributes: - not so ad-hoc - physical layer - localised/ immediate neighbourhood area mini-nets

- eventually (if useful) a meta network connecting these

Since in general we don't own our internet tubes, the mostly profit-motivated companies that do have ongoing economic incentive to centralize, control, be taken over by larger fish.

We need to grok a counter-principle, such that we can over the longer term reverse this trend.

This requires perhaps some perceivable benefit(s) to the local neighbours and their phy nodes, to warrant the hour or so required to connect to each other.

So where could such features/ benefits arise?: - some new dynamic of torrents? - local/ community "library" concept? - privacy? - anonymity?

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

Ted Smith

5:02 p.m.

I'm a little skeptical of wireless mesh networks as a general solution to this sort of problem, because they're inherently chatty, and have very limited reach. I think a better solution is local wired networks with something like Freenet running over them providing distributed censorship-proof storage. The next challenge is to synchronize contents between local Freenet darknets over sneakernet, which I don't think has been done. On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 16:06 +0100, Cari Machet wrote:

...

there are mesh networks

freifunk

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=freifunk+berlin

also when people woke up to the cables of the net all going thru the US there was at least talk of making new infrastructure on other land masses

i wrote about the chatanooga model that freed the fiber under the city of chatanooga and also the future being wireless hubs not broadband ... look to what the powers are making frameworks for and develop outside that realm using its flaws

when i lived in syria i had video calls in the middle of the desert ... no cell towers in sight -

iraqis had video calling in 2000 or even 1999 - anyone that had an efficient fone (nokia was big)

in other words the whole system is throttled and thats not just about speed

but quantum computing development is being ignored ?

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Posting 'useful' (your definition) older emails like this I think is good.

>> 4. The non-profit, open-source, volunteer internet providing services >> or products at no cost or for donations. >> >> 5. The closed sub-internets, mil-gov classified, SCADA, restricted >> and special purpose networks used by operators and administrators of >> backbones, nodes, satellite, cable, wired and wireless systems, >> >> Second, the unknown internets, with or without evident access logging: >> >> 6. The covert policing and spying internet which watches, logs, >> mucks around, runs stings, causes accidents and shut-downs, cuts >> cables, runs surprise tests and attacks, and keeps alive the demand >> for covert oversight of all the known others. >> >> 7. The covert internets which hide among all the others, or try to >> subject to discovery by 6. >> >> 8. The evanescent internets which are set up, used and disappear >> quickly, openly or covertly, subject to 6. >> >> 9. The wayward and waylaid internets which cannot be identified: >> rogues, experiments, mistakes, erratic systems, unexpected >> glitches and consequences, acts of nature, forgotten protocols, >> inept code, destructive code, lost access techniques, death >> of the perpetrators. >> >> 10. Internets of combinations, hybrids, deceptions, ploys and >> warfare among 1-9.

We need a good name for the internet with these attributes: - not so ad-hoc - physical layer - localised/ immediate neighbourhood area mini-nets

- eventually (if useful) a meta network connecting these

Since in general we don't own our internet tubes, the mostly profit-motivated companies that do have ongoing economic incentive to centralize, control, be taken over by larger fish.

We need to grok a counter-principle, such that we can over the longer term reverse this trend.

This requires perhaps some perceivable benefit(s) to the local neighbours and their phy nodes, to warrant the hour or so required to connect to each other.

So where could such features/ benefits arise?: - some new dynamic of torrents? - local/ community "library" concept? - privacy? - anonymity?

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-- Sent from Ubuntu

Cari Machet

6:52 p.m.

i will look at that but what makes wired less "chatty" can you expand your ideas on why wireless over wired/fiber? if the interconnected reach problem goes away that is +++ my issue with wire/fiber is that it is infrastructure built by the powers ... if higher levels of strength are on wireless networks - which my report discusses as coming - then maybe it is a better place to form new structures the powers have proven they will lock them for capital as the chatanooga model demonstrates so i think it would be best to move from wire and my point in bringing up syria and iraq wireless use as v strong signal in the middle of nowhere speaks to wireless ability as well so i have no clue how they attianed this super connectivity and maybe the human body was sort of fucked by the waves floating in the air but still ... there could be built protection shields i would like to see your arguments On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Ted Smith wrote:

...

I'm a little skeptical of wireless mesh networks as a general solution to this sort of problem, because they're inherently chatty, and have very limited reach.

I think a better solution is local wired networks with something like Freenet running over them providing distributed censorship-proof storage. The next challenge is to synchronize contents between local Freenet darknets over sneakernet, which I don't think has been done.

On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 16:06 +0100, Cari Machet wrote:

...
there are mesh networks

freifunk

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=freifunk+berlin

also when people woke up to the cables of the net all going thru the US there was at least talk of making new infrastructure on other land masses

i wrote about the chatanooga model that freed the fiber under the city of chatanooga and also the future being wireless hubs not broadband ... look to what the powers are making frameworks for and develop outside that realm using its flaws

when i lived in syria i had video calls in the middle of the desert ... no cell towers in sight -

iraqis had video calling in 2000 or even 1999 - anyone that had an efficient fone (nokia was big)

in other words the whole system is throttled and thats not just about speed

but quantum computing development is being ignored ?

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Posting 'useful' (your definition) older emails like this I think is good.

>> 4. The non-profit, open-source, volunteer internet providing services >> or products at no cost or for donations. >> >> 5. The closed sub-internets, mil-gov classified, SCADA, restricted >> and special purpose networks used by operators and administrators of >> backbones, nodes, satellite, cable, wired and wireless systems, >> >> Second, the unknown internets, with or without evident access logging: >> >> 6. The covert policing and spying internet which watches, logs, >> mucks around, runs stings, causes accidents and shut-downs, cuts >> cables, runs surprise tests and attacks, and keeps alive the demand >> for covert oversight of all the known others. >> >> 7. The covert internets which hide among all the others, or try to >> subject to discovery by 6. >> >> 8. The evanescent internets which are set up, used and disappear >> quickly, openly or covertly, subject to 6. >> >> 9. The wayward and waylaid internets which cannot be identified: >> rogues, experiments, mistakes, erratic systems, unexpected >> glitches and consequences, acts of nature, forgotten protocols, >> inept code, destructive code, lost access techniques, death >> of the perpetrators. >> >> 10. Internets of combinations, hybrids, deceptions, ploys and >> warfare among 1-9.

We need a good name for the internet with these attributes: - not so ad-hoc - physical layer - localised/ immediate neighbourhood area mini-nets

- eventually (if useful) a meta network connecting these

Since in general we don't own our internet tubes, the mostly profit-motivated companies that do have ongoing economic incentive to centralize, control, be taken over by larger fish.

We need to grok a counter-principle, such that we can over the longer term reverse this trend.

This requires perhaps some perceivable benefit(s) to the local neighbours and their phy nodes, to warrant the hour or so required to connect to each other.

So where could such features/ benefits arise?: - some new dynamic of torrents? - local/ community "library" concept? - privacy? - anonymity?

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-- Sent from Ubuntu

juan

7:14 p.m.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:52:23 +0100 Cari Machet wrote:

...

i will look at that

but what makes wired less "chatty"

Anybody can listen to radio. Tapping cables takes more effort. Maybe.

...

can you expand your ideas on why wireless over wired/fiber?

if the interconnected reach problem goes away that is

Ted Smith

7:40 p.m.

Wireless broadcasts everything on radio. Wired less so. I mean this for extremely local networks, i.e., a single building or city block. On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 19:52 +0100, Cari Machet wrote:

...

i will look at that

but what makes wired less "chatty"

can you expand your ideas on why wireless over wired/fiber?

if the interconnected reach problem goes away that is

+++

my issue with wire/fiber is that it is infrastructure built by the powers ... if higher levels of strength are on wireless networks - which my report discusses as coming - then maybe it is a better place to form new structures

the powers have proven they will lock them for capital as the chatanooga model demonstrates so i think it would be best to move from wire

and my point in bringing up syria and iraq wireless use as v strong signal in the middle of nowhere speaks to wireless ability as well so

i have no clue how they attianed this super connectivity and maybe the human body was sort of fucked by the waves floating in the air but still ... there could be built protection shields

i would like to see your arguments

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Ted Smith wrote: I'm a little skeptical of wireless mesh networks as a general solution to this sort of problem, because they're inherently chatty, and have very limited reach.

I think a better solution is local wired networks with something like Freenet running over them providing distributed censorship-proof storage. The next challenge is to synchronize contents between local Freenet darknets over sneakernet, which I don't think has been done.

On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 16:06 +0100, Cari Machet wrote: > there are mesh networks > > > freifunk > > > https://duckduckgo.com/?q=freifunk+berlin > > > > also when people woke up to the cables of the net all going thru the > US there was at least talk of making new infrastructure on other land > masses > > > i wrote about the chatanooga model that freed the fiber under the city > of chatanooga and also the future being wireless hubs not > broadband ... look to what the powers are making frameworks for and > develop outside that realm using its flaws > > > when i lived in syria i had video calls in the middle of the > desert ... no cell towers in sight - > > > iraqis had video calling in 2000 or even 1999 - anyone that had an > efficient fone (nokia was big) > > > in other words the whole system is throttled and thats not just about > speed > > > but quantum computing development is being ignored ? > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Zenaan Harkness > wrote: > Posting 'useful' (your definition) older emails like this I > think is good. > > >> 4. The non-profit, open-source, volunteer internet > providing services > >> or products at no cost or for donations. > >> > >> 5. The closed sub-internets, mil-gov classified, SCADA, > restricted > >> and special purpose networks used by operators and > administrators of > >> backbones, nodes, satellite, cable, wired and wireless > systems, > >> > >> Second, the unknown internets, with or without evident > access logging: > >> > >> 6. The covert policing and spying internet which watches, > logs, > >> mucks around, runs stings, causes accidents and shut-downs, > cuts > >> cables, runs surprise tests and attacks, and keeps alive > the demand > >> for covert oversight of all the known others. > >> > >> 7. The covert internets which hide among all the others, or > try to > >> subject to discovery by 6. > >> > >> 8. The evanescent internets which are set up, used and > disappear > >> quickly, openly or covertly, subject to 6. > >> > >> 9. The wayward and waylaid internets which cannot be > identified: > >> rogues, experiments, mistakes, erratic systems, unexpected > >> glitches and consequences, acts of nature, forgotten > protocols, > >> inept code, destructive code, lost access techniques, death > >> of the perpetrators. > >> > >> 10. Internets of combinations, hybrids, deceptions, ploys > and > >> warfare among 1-9. > > We need a good name for the internet with these attributes: > - not so ad-hoc > - physical layer > - localised/ immediate neighbourhood area mini-nets > > - eventually (if useful) a meta network connecting these > > Since in general we don't own our internet tubes, the mostly > profit-motivated companies that do have ongoing economic > incentive to > centralize, control, be taken over by larger fish. > > We need to grok a counter-principle, such that we can over the > longer > term reverse this trend. > > This requires perhaps some perceivable benefit(s) to the local > neighbours and their phy nodes, to warrant the hour or so > required to > connect to each other. > > So where could such features/ benefits arise?: > - some new dynamic of torrents? > - local/ community "library" concept? > - privacy? > - anonymity? > > > > > -- > Cari Machet > NYC 646-436-7795 > carimachet@gmail.com > AIM carismachet > Syria +963-099 277 3243 > Amman +962 077 636 9407 > Berlin +49 152 11779219 > Reykjavik +354 894 8650 > Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet > > > 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 > > Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the > addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not > the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this > information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email > without > permission is strictly prohibited. > > >

-- Sent from Ubuntu

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet

7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

-- Sent from Ubuntu

grarpamp

7:03 p.m.

On 2/10/16, Ted Smith wrote:

...

I'm a little skeptical of wireless mesh networks as a general solution to this sort of problem, because they're inherently chatty, and have very limited reach.

I think a better solution is local wired networks with something like Freenet running over them providing distributed censorship-proof

The cost of wiring to your neighbor is similar to wireless, yet wired will always perform better, is vastly more private and tap evident. Use wireless for shots where you cant secure legit or guerrilla wired rights. Performance matters when the airwaves are full of noise and you're running layers of required overlay routing / crypto net / fill traffic over it, not to mention your data.

...

storage. The next challenge is to synchronize contents between local Freenet darknets over sneakernet, which I don't think has been done.

If the network filestore overlay splits and spreads random blocks across nodes, sneakernet will just add random avg replication, afaik no networks or storage have that capability to plugin? Of course if you trust the anonymity of your overlays, anyone can host unsplit copies of anything they want. Then, other than again needing a network with a plugin capable datastore, if it's not encrypted unknown to you, you'd have to trust getting it in person, which probably rightly isn't going to happen unless you're already BOFs with MAD.

Sean Lynch

7:36 p.m.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:11 AM grarpamp wrote:

...

On 2/10/16, Ted Smith wrote:

...
I'm a little skeptical of wireless mesh networks as a general solution to this sort of problem, because they're inherently chatty, and have very limited reach.

I think a better solution is local wired networks with something like Freenet running over them providing distributed censorship-proof

The cost of wiring to your neighbor is similar to wireless, yet wired will always perform better, is vastly more private and tap evident. Use wireless for shots where you cant secure legit or guerrilla wired rights. Performance matters when the airwaves are full of noise and you're running layers of required overlay routing / crypto net / fill traffic over it, not to mention your data.

Your immediate next door neighbor, yes. But forget crossing a street or wiring the house two doors down if your immediate neighbor doesn't agree. One should definitely use wired links when possible, but this problem is why the telcos and cable companies are able to maintain their local monopolies/oligopolies.

...

...
storage. The next challenge is to synchronize contents between local Freenet darknets over sneakernet, which I don't think has been done.

If the network filestore overlay splits and spreads random blocks across nodes, sneakernet will just add random avg replication, afaik no networks or storage have that capability to plugin? Of course if you trust the anonymity of your overlays, anyone can host unsplit copies of anything they want. Then, other than again needing a network with a plugin capable datastore, if it's not encrypted unknown to you, you'd have to trust getting it in person, which probably rightly isn't going to happen unless you're already BOFs with MAD.

Sneakernet replication is an interesting option if your goal is to be hyper-local and disconnected, like a micropower FM station or something. There are villages in Africa that send and receive email using a similar system, where a van with a server and wifi drives from village to village, exchanging files with a local village server using something akin to UUCP, or the van itself acts as a hotspot for villages without a local server. Could do the same thing with attribution-resistant bootleg servers planted in stealthy locations.

grarpamp

11 Feb 11 Feb

4:32 a.m.

On 2/10/16, Sean Lynch wrote:

...

Your immediate next door neighbor, yes. But forget crossing a street or wiring the house two doors down if your immediate neighbor doesn't agree.

Across street requires guerrilla horizontal boring deep enough to not be found during complete roadway / utility replacement. You can rent the rigs yourself. Or go the permit route. First door usually don't mind getting to second if you propose path and demonstrate proper shovel / laying technique that doesn't fuck up their lawn. Beer helps. You can also VPN over incumbents, but that is traffic correlation risk.

...

One should definitely use wired links when possible, but this problem is why the telcos and cable companies are able to maintain their local monopolies/oligopolies.

They do it because property owners ultimately granted ROW in return for service, they then paid govt to keep it. However, they will have an extremely hard to impossible time trying to shoot down new ROW grants over new path by same owners for novel new more or less private service. All you have to do is sell your service... 'free', 'private', and even 'local' are compelling if you spin it right.

...

exchanging files with a local village server using something akin to UUCP,

At least for sensitive content, that works if the files are encrypted (courier rightly demands this) and have specific consumers (pki or shared secret symmetric, otherwise courier wouldn't touch them). Though as before, if they're to be of global use to everyone, the courier can't know contents, and they have to be pluggable so that they become global when plugged.

...

Could do the same thing with attribution-resistant bootleg servers planted in stealthy locations.

USB dead drops... Library Freedom Project... running client/server nodes... publicly accessible injection and retrieval points within censorship resistant overlay networks...

Sean Lynch

6:35 p.m.

In most of the US i am pretty sure the utility oligopoly has a lock on the public roads, and I am pretty sure they will not allow anything to be strung across or under the road. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 20:39 grarpamp wrote:

...

On 2/10/16, Sean Lynch wrote:

...
Your immediate next door neighbor, yes. But forget crossing a street or wiring the house two doors down if your immediate neighbor doesn't agree.

Across street requires guerrilla horizontal boring deep enough to not be found during complete roadway / utility replacement. You can rent the rigs yourself. Or go the permit route. First door usually don't mind getting to second if you propose path and demonstrate proper shovel / laying technique that doesn't fuck up their lawn. Beer helps. You can also VPN over incumbents, but that is traffic correlation risk.

...
One should definitely use wired links when possible, but this problem is why the telcos and cable companies are able to maintain their local monopolies/oligopolies.

They do it because property owners ultimately granted ROW in return for service, they then paid govt to keep it. However, they will have an extremely hard to impossible time trying to shoot down new ROW grants over new path by same owners for novel new more or less private service. All you have to do is sell your service... 'free', 'private', and even 'local' are compelling if you spin it right.

...
exchanging files with a local village server using something akin to UUCP,

At least for sensitive content, that works if the files are encrypted (courier rightly demands this) and have specific consumers (pki or shared secret symmetric, otherwise courier wouldn't touch them). Though as before, if they're to be of global use to everyone, the courier can't know contents, and they have to be pluggable so that they become global when plugged.

...
Could do the same thing with attribution-resistant bootleg servers planted in stealthy locations.

USB dead drops... Library Freedom Project... running client/server nodes... publicly accessible injection and retrieval points within censorship resistant overlay networks...

grarpamp

12 Feb 12 Feb

3:18 a.m.

New subject: Multiple Internets

On 2/11/16, Sean Lynch wrote:

...

In most of the US i am pretty sure the utility oligopoly has a lock on the public roads, and I am pretty sure they will not allow anything to be

Anyone can apply to cities, counties, states for open access to their ROW's. Many private utilities have fee based ROW sharing models, but if they see it as compete they'll say no, and of course running fiber is compete these days.

...

strung across or under the road.

In that case, note the words "guerrilla" and "deep", fish it well below the deepest utility and they're not going to be stumbling across it. Or hang it in the air or sewers, worst there is they'll cut it and maybe send a letter telling you to get permit next time.

dan＠geer.org

4:48 a.m.

| In most of the US i am pretty sure the utility oligopoly has a lock | on the public roads, and I am pretty sure they will not allow anything | to be strung across or under the road. If by "utility oligopoly" you mean the providers of water, electricity, sewerage, piped gas and the like, you are incorrect. Crossing a public way with a private anything will require an explicit permission from whatever entity is the authority for the class of roadway (local, county, state, federal, tribal). Those permissions are straightforward to acquire if the developer or whatever is willing to spend a politically sufficient amount on money on the authority's preferred public goods. ("You can put your pedestrian bridge up if you take over street maintenance on all four sides of your shopping mall in perpetuity.") Personal experience and all that, both in the U.S. and Switzerland. --dan

Sean Lynch

10 Feb 10 Feb

7:21 p.m.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:09 AM Ted Smith wrote:

...

I'm a little skeptical of wireless mesh networks as a general solution to this sort of problem, because they're inherently chatty, and have very limited reach.

I think a better solution is local wired networks with something like Freenet running over them providing distributed censorship-proof storage. The next challenge is to synchronize contents between local Freenet darknets over sneakernet, which I don't think has been done.

Interesting. I would have thought wired for longer distance communication, with local mesh networks for the "last mile." Do you have some thoughts on how to set up a local wired freenet? Back in the days of modems over content-oblivious phone lines, freenets were easy because phone lines in bulk were pretty cheap per line, and pretty much everyone had a land line. In this day and age of video and high-resolution images, that no longer seems like an option. Whenever I think of "mesh" I think "mobile mesh," which is just part of the picture. The mesh networks I've actually seen in action are static "meshes", which are only really called that because the ISP puts omnidirectional antennas on some of their customers' roofs to daisy-chain other customers off of, not because they use any kind of dynamic mesh routing protocol. This approach might actually work for setting up a freenet: negotiate directly with local businesses (particularly public places like coffee shops) and residents to set up local hotspots, then put up high-gain directional and omnidirectional antennas on a different band or at least channel to handle the longer distance links. Of course, the businesses/residents involved are probably going to be primarily interested in access to the "regular" Internet, but that doesn't stop you from using strong encryption on the links themselves, tunnelling onion/mixnet networks, offering local services in private IP space, etc. Over time, you can replace tunnels over the government-controlled Internet with wireless links or leased lines with strong crypto. It won't stop the network from getting shut down if the links are specifically cataloged and targeted, but it seems like current "internet kill switch" proposals primarily focus on the layer 3 infrastructure, not on the link or physical layers. And certainly not on RF. But even if you do that, if you are offering a "public" service, and you actually get a lot of users, it seems likely you'd end up being a victim of your own success, noticed by regulators and then forced to comply with the same regulations that cover the Internet, including any retention and "kill switch" requirements. You might be able to mitigate some of that by encouraging mac address spoofing and end-to-end encryption, but that doesn't stop a government from taking over one of the local services and putting a gag order on the operator, then tracking someone to a specific coffee shop and sneaking up behind them and pinning their arms to their sides so they can't wipe their machine. Having a dead man switch/"panic button" on any local servers, routers, etc might help with that, particularly if there's plausible deniability there. "Sorry, can't comply with your retention order because our hard disk just died and it's going to take us months to get the server back online." It works for the Chicago PD with their constantly "malfunctioning" dashcams, so why not for us? One side benefit of bringing back freenets in a big way might be the ability to push back against regulations that have compliance costs. If a bunch of people voters care about are dependent for their Internet access on freenets that would have to shut down if they are required to retain logs for years and set up systems for easy law enforcement access, politicians might think twice about pushing for such things. Provided they can't get away with characterizing freenets as dens of "hackers", drug dealers, terrorists, and child pornographers of course. Which is why it's important to remain connected with society and not become hermits hiding out in Internet backwaters. There's always more social/community-oriented solutions ala Max Hernandez's Thieves Emporium where you have secret access points and people need to be vouched in, but that is incredibly hard and would likely remain quite small, because the probability of infiltration approaches 100% once you get into the thousands of participants. And of course, if it's small and secret, nobody will notice when it and its operators/users quietly get disappeared. Obviously these approaches are orthogonal to one another, and you can use any combination of them.

3157

Age (days ago)

3160

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

14 comments

7 participants

participants (7)

Cari Machet
dan＠geer.org
grarpamp
juan
Sean Lynch
Ted Smith
Zenaan Harkness