Free Speech Or Stone Age

[Eugen Leitl]

http://www.kozubik.com/published/fsosa.txt

John Kozubik - john at kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com


In the very recent past, the world has crossed a threshold, beyond which
anonymous free speech can only be limited by completely removing the basic
infrastructure of commerce.

The union of cryptography, ubiquitous portable computers and low-cost-
standards-based wireless networking does not guarantee free speech, but it
does guarantee that such restrictions imply an inability to conduct modern
business and a dramatically lowered standard of living.

In this environment freedom of speech is atomic - it cannot be partially
limited.  It can be both global and instantaneous.  Most importantly, it
is not dependent on centralized public networks like the Internet.

It will be shown that tools available to anyone in a society that takes
part in modern commerce are all that is required for anonymous free
speech.  It will further be shown that such tools must be available for
such a society to continue participating in modern commerce, and that
their availability is an all or nothing proposition.  Finally, it will be
shown that a high value should be placed on open standards and
interoperability as well as peer-centric attitudes towards communication
and networks.

Taken as a whole, the FSOSA concept should be used to encourage free
speech and to discourage policymakers from pursuing policies that are
destined either to fail, or to relegate them to the "stone age".


Free Speech Or Stone Age


All digital information can be encrypted, and a rich set of tools exists
to hide the use of encryption.  These tools are widely used for all
manner of commerce such as online banking and corporate intranets.  Even
the most mundane protection of a cafe or hotel wireless network implies
encryption tools sufficient to protect any piece of data[1].  Even if
these tools were not already universally adopted, they can themselves be
hidden, as can their use.  Therefore, the only way to keep a piece of data
from a person or group is to deny posession of general purpose computers
and to deny all international travelers from importing their own.

Portable computers are now largely ubiquitous[2] and the price of older
models approaches zero[3].  Their mass adoption and the reliance on them
by every economic sector makes them synonymous with modern commerce.  As
with the software that hides information, the device it runs on cannot
be proscribed without breaking a society away from modern commerce.

Finally, standardized wireless protocols have been established worldwide.
These protocols, like the familiar "Wi-Fi" family or the CDMA and GSM
mobile telephone protocols, as well as the more specialized bluetooth and
wireless USB, make it possible to negotiate communications between
disparate hardware and computing platforms.  While participation on a
particular network may imply costs, direct point to point connections, or
ad-hoc internets have no cost other than hardware and electricity[4].
Significantly, repeating, reflecting, amplifying or otherwise obfuscating
the signal can make it difficult to quickly locate the source of these  
wireless communications, while merely receiving them remains simple.
This is especially true in densely populated urban environments.

Once again, the standardization and interoperability of these protocols
that so readily enables anonymous free speech are the same qualities that
make them so valuable to commerce.  You cannot restrict access to this
functionality and continue to take part in modern commerce.


A Thought Experiment


Oceania is a statist, authoritarian society transitioning from a planned
economy to some semblance of a free market.  They participate in all
manner of modern commerce and allow relatively free internal movement as
well as (most importantly) foreign visitors.

Various cultural mores, combined with a reactionary government, have
established certain documents, and even certain topics as forbidden.
Materials in physical form are confiscated and destroyed, and electronic
documents accessible through the Internet are either removed from national
providers, or blocked from international links.  Violation of these
proscriptions incurs criminal charges and often harsh prison
sentences.

In this scenario partaking of, or distributing the proscribed speech in a
personally identifiable manner (while avoiding repurcussion) is
impossible.  The legal and technical controls erected by the state are
sufficient to restrict conventional free speech, such as physical paper
media, large public gatherings and fixed broadcast infrastructure.  No
matter how selective you are in your distribution, or how modest your
distribution network is, eventually an agent of the state can witness you
passing out a leaflet, or can trace a television signal back to a source
antenna.

However, personally identifiable speech is not our goal, nor are
conventional delivery mechanisms.  The phrase "free speech or stone age"
does not imply those abilities.  What it does imply is that all of these
communications can still occur, with relative ease, in any state such as
Oceania.

If general purpose computers are allowed to be imported by travelers and
possessed by nationals, then any piece of data can be possessed and
perfectly hidden.  If standards-based wireless communication is available,
then this hidden data can be transferred arbitrarily between users,
perfectly disguised as legal traffic.  Using those basic building blocks,
all manner of anonymous publication, distribution and consumption can
occur, and there is nothing Oceania can do to stop it.


Stone Age Societies


There is nothing the state can do to stop this, that is, other than
choosing to live in the "stone age".  It is worth noting that some states
in the 21st century have, in fact, made this choice.  The "free speech or
stone age" concept does, unfortunately, imply the ability of a state to
divorce itself from modern commerce and accept the drastically limited
possibilities and reduced standard of living that this implies.  North
Korea circa 2008 is a good example of this.  This government has
successfully curtailed free speech, even in anonymous form, by restricting
international travel, by the probable de jure (and certainly de facto)
proscription of computing devices, and lack of access to standards-based
wireless communication. [5]

Whether they realize it or not, it is impossible for them to become a part
of modern commerce without, by definition, losing this ability to
curtailing speech.  Attempts to enter modern commerce in a piecemeal
fashion will also fail - probably very quickly.  Once general purpose
computing devices are introduced, and standards based wireless protocols
are available, only a single international traveler or cross border signal
is necessary to introduce any form of information.

Looking beyond North Korea, it's not impossible for a state to move
backwards, dropping out of modern commerce to pursue total control over
information (which implies, essentially, an absence of information).
This is very unlikely, however, and the steps that some states have taken
towards this [6], however chilling, will surely fail.  If there is any
doubt as to how important it is to remain connected to modern commerce,
consider the severe economic impact of the 2002/2003 SARS epidemic and how
desperate the countries involved were to normalize ties of commerce and
tourism.  Consider further the infrastructure providers in the developed
world whose profits depend on continued adoption and proliferation of the
very technologies that make curtailing speech impossible.


A Call to Action


Many people alive today greatly overestimate the ability of the state they
live in to curtail their anonymous free speech.  It is my hope that
demonstrating the access to that speech which modern commerce implies will
encourage these people to begin speaking.

It is my further hope that as our technical sophistication grows, it is
accompanied by an increasing value placed on open, extensible standards
and general purpose computing devices.  If we are optimizing simply to
communicate, it is not processor speed or OS version or disk size that
matter as much as simple things like Ethernet, TCP/IP, USB, (S)ATA and the
like.  A relatively higher value should be placed on devices that contain
widely adopted, standard interfaces such as this.  Devices or
implementations that alter these specifications, or contain proprietary
protocols should be highly suspect if not avoided altogether. [7]

Further, while "appliances" with simplified feature sets are convenient,
it is general purpose computing devices that enable the ability to
obfuscate information arbitrarily.  Appliances are quite useful, and will
therefore proliferate, but we must retain access to general purpose
computing devices.  Content protection, digital rights management (DRM)
and other seemingly reasonable schemes for information usage are not
merely relevant to consumption of mass media - they are steps away from
the toolset required for free speech and should be viewed with suspicion.

Finally, I would like greater understanding of the fact that the Internet,
and the client role that users assume on that fixed infrastructure, is not
a given.  Ad-hoc networks can be brought into existence easily, and
usually without any additional cost, promoting the user from a client to a
peer.  The same is true for mobile devices and entrenched wireless
carriers.  If you don't like the network you're communicating on, start a
new one.  The basic tools of modern commerce give you everything you need
to do so.


A Call to Caution


Speakers should be ever vigilant and exercise great care.  Just because
tools exist to enable your speech does not mean you will use them
properly, nor does it mean that low technology methods of survelliance and
coercion cannot be used on you.  Educate yourself, be as conservative as
possible in what you say and how much you say of it, and live free to
speak another day.


[1] These tools are almost universally broken in their implementation and
    nearly worthless in providing security to the wireless networks that use
    them.  They are ubiquitous, however, and their legal use implies the
    ability to use similar tools which would not, presumably, be as poorly
    implemented.

[2] Notebooks Pass Desktops In US Retail
	http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-146603.html
    PC Milestone - Notebooks Outsell Desktops
	http://news.cnet.com/PC-milestone--notebooks-outsell-desktops/2100-1047_3-5731417.html

[3] Brand new general purpose PC laptops can be purchased in Vietnam for
    less than $100 in 2009.  Used laptops can be found for much, much less.

[4] It should be understood that electricity is not always a trivial
    resource to obtain, but inasmuch as we are discussing the freedom
    to communicate on computer networks, it is safe to assume that it
    can be obtained.

[5] North Korea has, in the past, deployed cellular telephone networks,
    and appears to be doing so again with a CDMA network provided by Orascom.
    Presumably the Democratic People's Republic of Korea believes that such
    technology can be controlled in ways so as not to eventually allow
    arbitrary communications, but they are wrong.  Only by so severely
    limiting such a network so as to make it incompatible with modern commerce
    will they continue to curtail free speech.

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project

[7] Avoiding non-standard and proprietary hardware and software has long
    been considered good practice, but strictly for the sake of technical
    concerns.  Now we may add human values to the list of reasons that open
    standards are important.


John Kozubik - john at kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com