Dear #NETMundial, Governance is cool and all, but we need to DEMAND IPv6 NOW! cc #OurNetMundial

Many of my friends and colleagues where in Sao Paulo last week for NETMundial, the Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, convened this initiative to “focus on principles of Internet governance and the proposal for a roadmap for future development of this ecosystem.”

NETMundial was originally motivated by revelations from Edward Snowden about mass surveillance conducted by the US and UK governments, including spying on President Rouseff herself. These revelations prompted Mrs Rousseff to state “In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy” in a speech to the UN at the 68th General Assembly.

Yet, as important as Internet governance is for our future, and as valuable any effort to address this is, it is unlikely to do much, if anything, about the right to privacy online. Why? Because surveillance is not an issue of Internet governance, but of the way the Internet is financed. The vast amount of consumer data amassed by private companies like Google, Facebook and Verizon is not the result of IANA or ICANN policy, but of the business models of these companies which seek to generate profits by way of this data. It is inconceivable that these companies could amass such vast amounts of consumer data, use it for marketing purposes, sell and share access to it with other companies, and yet, somehow keep it out of the hands of the NSA and similar intelligence agencies. Likewise, the extraordinary hacks, mods and exploits the NSA has conducted, as revealed by Snowden, would not be thwarted by any IANA regulation. Aggression by the US is not an Internet problem, and Internet governance can not do away with it, any more that it can do away with drone strikes and regime change projects.

Yet, there is lots that governments can do to ensure the right to privacy, and they can do so today, even absent any change in global Internet governance.

Governments have the ability to regulate the way Telecomms and Internet companies operate within their countries, indeed, the government is no stranger to creating regulation. Government regulation ensures buildings are built correctly, structurally sound, follow the fire code, etc. Governments create rules that make sure highways, roads, and sidewalks are used safely. Governments pass laws to prevent consumers from being defrauded, create statuary warranties, labour standards, regulate broadcast media, etc. Governments can pass regulations to protect the right to privacy. The idea that the Governments such as Brazil, Germany and the others participating in NETMundial need reforms to IANA and friends before they can work towards guaranteeing their own citizens’ right to privacy is absurd.

To guarantee the right to privacy, communication systems must implement the end-to-end principle, which states that functionality ought to reside in the end hosts of a network rather than in intermediary nodes. The term “end-to-end” principle was coined in a 1981 paper by J.H. Saltzer, D.P. Reed and D.D. Clark at the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, “End-to-End Arguments in System Design,” in which they specifically address privacy.

In the section titled “Secure transmission of data,” the authors argue that to ensure “that a misbehaving user or application program does not deliberately transmit information that should not be exposed,” the “automatic encryption of all data as it is put into the network [...] is a different requirement from authenticating access rights of a system user to specific parts of the data.” This means that to protect the users’ rights to privacy, it is not sufficient to encrypt the network itself, or even the platform, as this does not protect against the operators of the network, or other users who have access to the platform. What is needed, the authors argue, is the “use of encryption for application-level authentication and protection,” meaning that only the software run by the user on the end-node, or their own personal computer, should be able to encrypt and decrypt information for transmission, rather than any intermediary nodes, and only with the user’s own login credentials.

The end-to-end principle is a key concept in the design of the Internet itself, the underlying “Transmission Control Protocol,” one of the core protocols of the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP), exemplifies the end-to-principle, and allows applications running on remote nodes to use the Internet for the reliable communication of arbitrary data across the network, without requiring any of the intermediary nodes to know or understand the purpose of the data being transmitted.

In principle, therefore, there is absolutely nothing technically stopping everybody from employing private communications on the Internet. So then, how do we get into this mess we’re in now? Why did the Internet, which has the end-to-end principle in it’s core architecture, become host to the most large scale mass surveillance in history?

Two reasons: Capitalism and IPv4. Let’s start with IPv4.

Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) was created in 1981, the same year the Saltzer, Reed, and Clark paper was published. IPv4 provides approximately 4.3 billion addresses, which sounds like a lot, until you realize the every device that connects to the Internet needs at least one. Running out was not presumed to be a big issue at the time, as this version was originally presumed to be a test of DARPA’s networking concepts, and not the final addressing scheme for the global Internet. In 1981 4.3 billion addresses seemed like an awful lot, but when the public Internet began to take off in the Nineties, it became clear that this would not be nearly enough. In 1998 RFC 2460 was released, this document is the specification for IPv6, an addressing scheme that allows for a near limitless number of addresses, trillions of trillions for each person on earth. Yet, as NETMundial was taking place in Brazil, nearly 16 years since the protocol was invented, Google reports that about 3% of visits to its services use IPv6. The “World IPv6 Launch” site, which promotes IPv6 adoption, estimates that more than half Internet users around the world will have IPv6 available by 2018. In other words, 20 years after the design of the protocol, nearly half of all Internet users will not have access. It’s important to note that it is not hardware adoption that is holding things up, it’s highly doubtful that many device made in the last 10 years could not support IPv6, it’s rather that the owners of the networks do not configure their networks to support it.

As everybody knows, 20 years is effectively infinity in Internet years. With IPv6 a far away utopia, and with IPv4 addresses still the currency of Internet service, NAT was developed. The vast majority of devices available to users where not assigned public IP addresses, but only private ones, separated from the public internet by “Network Address Translation” (NAT), a system that allowed the sharing of public IP addresses by many end-nodes, this was an effective solution to IPv4 address exhaustion, but introduced a bigger problem, the network was no longer symmetric, software running on users’ computers can reach central Internet resources, but can not reach other users, who are also on private address space, without some intermediary service providing access.

What this means is that so long as users’ are on private address space, any communication system they use requires centralized resources to bridge connections between users, and what’s more, the scale of these central resources must grow in proportion to the the number of users it has. In order for the end-to-end principle to be respected, these intermediary services need to support it.

And this where we get to the Capitalism part: Building, maintaining and scaling these resources requires money. In the case of “web scale” platforms, lots of money.

By and large, this money comes from Venture Capital. As Capitalists must capture profit or lose their capital, these platforms require business models, and while many business models are possible, the most
popular today, the one presumed to be the most lucrative by investors, is big data. Thus, instead of respecting the end-to-end principle and engineering functionality into the end hosts of a network, capitalists instead only invest in applications where core functionality is built into the intermediary nodes, that can capture user data and control user interaction, which is how they make money.

Capitalist platforms grow and collect data around these intermediary nodes in the same way the mould grows around leaky pipes. In order to give alternative platforms that respect the right to privacy a fighting chance and rid the Internet of the mould of centralize data-collecting platforms, we must fix the pipes, we need to remove the asymmetry in the network.

We can not allow private initiative alone to push adoption of IPv6, and wait however many years or decades it takes to get it. If governments want to promote their citizens right to privacy, they need to mandate adoption of IPv6, to ensure their citizens are able to use software that respects the end-to-end principle.

Here is a charter of rights that all Governments can provide to their own citizens right now to promote the right of privacy:

– IPv6 connectivity with adequate public address space for all!
– At least one DNS Domain Name for every citizen!
– At least one Government signed SSL certificate for every citizen!

If each citizen had a public address space, a domain name and a signed certificate, the leaky pipes of the Internet could be fixed, the surveillance mould would dissipate, and new privacy-respecting applications could flourish!

DEMAND IPv6 NOW!

Anti-Capitalism: The Musical! and The Panel! // Galway, Ireland.

I’ll be in Galway, Ireland, this weekend, to particate in a panel to discuss the themes in “Anti-Capitalism: The Musical!”

The Panel is free to attend. All are welcome. Please pass it on.

Anti-Capitalism: The Musical!

Venue: The Cube, NUI Galway
Áras Na Mac Léinn
NUI Galway National University of Ireland, Galway
University Road
Co. Galway
Phone: +353 91 524411
URL: http://www.nuigalway.ie/

choreographed & composed by Deirdre Murphy

A fairytale of musical theatre, using circus, song, and dance to create a near-future political reality similar to our own. A large scale theatrical narrative with a cast of 15 dancers, singers, circus performers, actors and a live band, it uses acrobatics, plot twists, assassinations, and intrigue to tell the tale of a heroic group of everyday acrobats, aided by the Greek-chorus style narrations of a powerful triumvirate of fairy godmothers.
‘Social criticism wrapped in wit, glee and stunning physical & vocal performance’.

Anti-Capitalism: The Panel!
Sunday, March 30 at 2:30pm

A panel of speakers from various backgrounds lead an open discussion on issues raised by Anti-Capitalism: the Musical!

Since the financial crash of 2008 the world has entered into a new depression. While some in the top 1% have remained comfortable, the .01% of the richest in the population have become much richer. At the same time that the broad mass of the population is struggling to make ends meet. Unemployment, underemployment, emigration and the misuse of internships are serious problems. Climate change and other environmental problems which at one time seemed to be on the agenda have disappeared from public discourse.

We will explore what we can do and how to get involved in doing it.

Chair: Gavin Mendel-Gleason
panel speakers: Deirdre Murphy, Dmytri Kleiner, John Bissett

Information is like Uranium

This post is addressed to my friends and colleagues Prabir Purkayastha, Kiran Chandra and all the others participating in FreedomFest at Acharya Nagarjuna University today and Tomorrow!

Years ago I was visiting my old friend Cory Doctorow in London, and was lucky enough to catch a talk he gave during a CopyFight night in a local pub. He was speaking about an incident in the UK where the government lost a whole lot of personal data about UK residents, collected as part of a effort to create a large identity database.

Cory used a great analogy that has stuck with me, and is a useful way to think about information collection in general; Information is like Uranium.

Uranium, for the most part, is not dangerous at all. It’s a naturally occurring element, it exists everywhere, all around us, even inside of us, distributed far and wide in tiny amounts. There is no problem with uranium per se. Heck, for some plants uranium even appears to be a micronutrient, essential for healthy growth, like other vitamins and minerals.

However, when you have a lot of uranium in one place, when it’s collected in one place, concentrated and refined, when you have giant pile of refined uranium it becomes dangerous, very very dangerous. Doomsday scenario kind of dangerous. **KABOOM** kind of dangerous.

Information is the same, we share information all the time, even personal information, even through insecure channels like a casual conversation with a friend on a park bench, on the telephone, in the office with co-workers, and this is just fine. When information is defuse, casual, fleeting and everywhere it causes no harm. It is the main nutrient for human relationships and action.

However, when you have a lot of information, all in one place, concentrated and refined, tagged and categorized and cross referenced, it becomes very dangerous.

This is true for government databases, for social media platforms, communications systems, ecommerce platforms, even for Bitcoin exchanges. We’ve seen bad things happen many times with personal information being used for crime, surveillance, identity theft, fraud, etc. Over and over again we’ve seen information stockpiles putting peoples lives, finances, privacy and identity at risk.
.
Put a whole bunch of information in one big pile and sooner or later there will be tears

Yet, so many companies and institutions, so many projects and even individuals think nothing of collecting data indiscriminately, after all, it is argued, storage is cheap, and becoming cheaper, so why not just simply collect every bit of data you can grab. What the heck, even if you have no use for the data now, it might be useful later, why not just stockpile it and see what value can be squeezed out of whenever we get around to it. The data is perceived to have potential value, but not potential risk.

This is like arguing, what the heck, plastic bags are cheap, why don’t we just assemble all the Uranium we can get our hands on, snag it all, enrich it and concentrate it, and dump it in the basement, where’s the harm, sure, we may not have any use for enriched Uranium now, but who knows, it could be useful later!

Nobody would stockpile enriched Uranium in their basement just in case it might be valuable later, the risk would be considered too high. Similarly, no one should stockpile personal information without seriously considering the risks involved.

So, to all the amazing activists at FreedomFest, to the great community that I was lucky enough to meet some of in Hydrabad, when thinking about our campaigns against surveillance we must remember, that it’s not just a matter of kooky spies at places like the NSA illicitly collecting piles and piles of data thought deception and trickery, it is all of us, from the biggest abusers, companies like Google and Facebook, to our governments and institutions, to individual users, like all those Bitcoin users who thought that the right place to store a distributed crypto currency was in wallets hosted on giant centralized servers.

Stockpiles of information bear risks, often these risks far out way any “benefits,” since the same benefits can be achieved with secure distributed systems if we put our minds to it, except, or course the benefit to spies, crackers and criminals of having a whole bunch of juicy data all in one place.

So we need you at FreedomFest, our next generations of developers, of entrepreneurs, of activists, our future technologists, to take this knowledge and bring it to society broadly; Information is like Uranium, when it flows freely it is a nutrient, when it is contained and concentrated it is toxic, put too much of it in one place and eventually it goes **KABOOM** and people get hurt.

M-C-LOL: Circuits of value in the Lulz economy.

Neither free software, nor crowd funding will save us from capitalism. We can’t overthrow capitalism by undertaking work merely for the Lulz, we need to create new value circuits that allow is to build new means of survival for the planet, and only then can we do away with capitalism.

In the stages of capitalist production, the Capitalist comes to market twice. The first time as a buyer, the second time as a seller.

Marx described this as M – C – M’

In the first stage the capitalist buys commodities and labour time. In the second stage, the purchased commodities and labour time are put into production. The result is a commodity of more value than that of the elements entering into its production. In the third stage, the capitalist returns to the market as a seller; the new commodities are turned into more money.

As the capitalist winds up with more money as a result of the productive process, the capitalist can purchase more labour time and commodities and repeat the process again, and again.

Investing in production allows the capitalist to reproduce, increase and accumulate capital. This reproduction cycle is what makes capitalism a thriving, dynamic system, that expands.

This very process of capitalist production has many negatives, many of which extend from the inherent exploitation involved in making labour time into a commodity, many others from the practice of allocating productive assets in the interests of profit, instead of social good, still more from the dispossesion and enclosure required to create the social conditions for capitalist production.

Yet, capitalism sustains us. Despite it’s social costs, its factories and institutions provide the means of survival that the world depends on, even while it’s contradictions jeopardize our survival.

In order to transcend capitalism, we need to find ways to provision the means of survival differently. “Ending” Capitalism, before alternative productive strategies for survival are not only conceived, but actually existing on sufficient scale, would more likely lead to collapse and a new dark ages than it would a fairer and more sustainable society.

In order for any such alternative productive strategies to grow to a scale in which they could be a viable alternative to capitalism, they must, like capitalism be thriving, dynamic systems capable of growth. They need to be able to reproduce their productive inputs. Economic alternatives need to have sustainable value circuits to be truly viable.

Free Software as well as the goods financed by Kickstarter and similar sites seem like production, after all stuff is produced. One can use free software, just like one can consume a movie, book, album or novelty gadget funded by Kickstarter.

Yet, the way the creation of these goods is financed can not reproduce its inputs.

In the creation of free software and in the funding of Kickstarter projects, money to sustain the inputs comes from donation, either actual donation of money in the case of crowd funding, or in-kind in the form of free labour in the case of some free software. These donations and in-kind contributions are done voluntarily. Yet such voluntarist production is different from capitalist production.

M – C – LOL

Thus, like capitalists, voluntary producers, come to market twice. Fist time as buyers, the second time for the lulz. However, unlike capitalists their circuit is not completed, because the lulz do not enable them to be buyers again, do not allow for them to acquire the inputs they need to repeat such production.

Yes, in the case of Free Software, major corporations do provide funding, lots of it. This is when the Capitalist is coming to market as a buyer, not a seller. Thus it is capitalist consumption, they don’t need to make a profit from Free Software directly, they use it in their production process and make money when they return to the market with the resulting product, which is distributed for more money, not lulz.

The source of this money is not a new mode of production, but capitalism. It’s simply part of the investment capital must make in its means of production, it is consumption not production.

And yes, recipients of Kickstarter financing can use such financing to make money, but such income does not flow back to those that donated the funds in the first place. The donors, for the most part, need to go back to work to get another paycheck before donating again. Thus the money comes from their Capitalist employers and is spent out of their “disposable income,” in other words, once again it is consumption, not production.

Both free software and crowd funding are simply novel forms of distribution within the capitalist mode of production, and therefor not a new mode of production that could potentially disrupt capitalism.

In order to transform these practices into genuinely revolutionary forms, we must collectively own the means of production so created, so not only must the software be free, but we must collectively own the wealth that results form using the software in production. We must collectively own the products produced by crowd funding, so that we can use the wealth created to reproduce the cycle, again, and again.

So long as our free labour earns only lulz in return, Capitalism has the last laugh.

I’ll be at Cafe Buchhandlung tonight around 9pm or so, come by if you’re in time, hope we have lots of surprise guests still hanging around Berlin after transmediale.

The Flying Rock Theory of Politics

Communism can not be imposed from the top down, it must be built from the bottom up. This is very important to understand. The state is the servant of the ruling class, because the ruling class has the wealth to relentlessly push the state towards their own interests. Trying to give control of the State to an underclass is like trying to make a rock fly by throwing it into air and berating it to stay up there. An underclass, by definition, has less wealth than the ruling class, and therefore can never retain state power! Even in the extremely rare case it manages to seize it, no matter how well it manages what wealth it has, it will, inevitably, eventually, fall to the unceasing attack of the global ruling class, and it will inevitably be distorted and degraded beyond recognition by the fight for its life during the time that it does remain in power.

The only way to change the structure of wealth in society, is to change the way we produce and share, by producing and distributing wealth differently, we change the structure of society itself. The preamble of constitution of the IWW states this quite well: “The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old”

However, the complete rejection of parliamentary action that many anarchists promote is also problematic. The goal of taking the state and imposing a new society is not the only possible motivation for parliamentary action! Our capacity for building the new society in the shell of the old depends on the amount of wealth and freedom that we currently have, and that level is clearly affected by the policies of the state, parliamentary action can help resist policies that degrade the conditions of workers by fighting for the maintenance of rights and benefits. Like workplace and community action, parliamentary action is another theater of struggle, and it is foolish to abdicate this struggle, simply because we understand that such activity alone can never achieve our goals! The struggle for communism must be waged on all fronts where inequality reigns, in the workplace, in the household, and in the parliament as well!

Ecerpted from Listen, Anarchists!

Scratch-off the Facebook logo, and you’ll find the CompuServ logo underneath.

During the summer I traveled to the Monostori Fortress near Komárom, Hungary to attend IslandCQ 2013 “Crisis! Re/Constructing Europe.” This text is for the IslandCQ 2013 publication. Rather than simply transcribing my presentation, I have created this text to cover some of things we talked about, and to expand upon them and take the topic further. This text is a remix and extension of three previous texts, two from my blog, and one co-written with Baruch Gottlieb.

Remixing and forking both software and text is an approach I have used for years, and indeed most of my texts contain fragments of other texts, some of which I have written myself, some co-written with others. I inherited this technique from the long history of radical art, from practitioners of cut-up, like Brion Gysin and William Burroughs, to Dada and The Situationists International, and into my own generation with the Neoist Network.

The Internet and free software, to me, were a natural extension of my already existing support of free communications and anti-copyright. When I encountered the Internet for the first time I immediately embraced it, its distributed architecture, its capacity for allowing free speech, and perhaps most significantly, its culture of sharing. The Internet embodied the social relations to match my political and artistic convictions.

However, when I encountered the Internet, though I didn’t know it, it was already dying. It was clear to me that there were challenges, to be sure, but I didn’t yet realize how bad the prognosis was. To me, my fight to save the Internet was against the cencorius desires of other users and the timidity of the small companies providing internet services. This was a fight that seemed winnable. However, what I didn’t know at the time, was that the real fight was against Capitalism, and as such, the inevitable end of the Internet was already evident.

A good example of my early participation is a text I posted on Usenet, it was republished on Wired Magazine’s HotWired site, which claimed to be the world’s first commercial web magazine. In it, I argue that sysadmins working for internet service providers should focus on keeping their servers running, and sanction users that are abusing system resources, but not interfere with content, because if they did so, if they assumed the role of online censor, they would jeopardise the spirit of the Net, and also jeopardise the viability of their own service.

In some way I was right, assuming the Net worked the way we thought it worked, worked the way that John Perry Barlow thought when he wrote “We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity,” or the way John Gilmore thought when he wrote “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it,” or the way Richard Barbrook thought when he wrote “Within the Net, people are developing the most advanced form of collective labour: work-as-gift.”

Unfortunately, I wrote my article in September. The 790th day of September, 1993, to be exact. What would have been October 31st, 1995 on the pre-September calendar.

The Jargon File defines “The September that never ends” as “All time since September 1993. One of the seasonal rhythms of Usenet used to be the annual September influx of clueless newbies who, lacking any sense of netiquette, made a general nuisance of themselves. This coincided with people starting college, getting their first internet accounts, and plunging in without bothering to learn what was acceptable. These relatively small drafts of newbies could be assimilated within a few months. But in September 1993, AOL users became able to post to Usenet, nearly overwhelming the old-timers’ capacity to acculturate them; to those who nostalgically recall the period before, this triggered an inexorable decline in the quality of discussions on newsgroups.”

Once the internet was available to the general public, outside of the research/education/NGO world that had inhabited it before September, the large numbers of users arriving on the untamed shores of early cyberspace “nearly overwhelmed the old-timers’ capacity to acculturate them.” The Jargon File mentions “netiquette,” a quaint term from the innocent times of net.culture, yet netiquette was not simply a way of fitting in, it wasn’t like table manners at an exclusive dinner party. The cultural context of that Internet that made acculturation necessary was its relative openness and lack of stratification.

Netiquette was required, because the network had relatively little constraints built into it, the constraints needed to be cultural for the system to work. There was much more to this culture than teaching new users how to not abuse resources or make a “general nuisance of themselves.” Netiquette was not so much about online manners, it was rather about how to share. Starting from the shared network resources, sharing was the core of the culture, which not only embraced free software and promoted free communications, but generally resented barriers to free exchange, including barriers required to protect property rights and any business models based on controlling information flow.

As dramatic as the influx of new users was to the “old-timers” net.culture, the influx of capital investment and it’s conflicting property interests quickly emerged as an existential threat to the basis of the culture. net.culture required a shared internet, where the network itself and most of the information on it was held in common. Capital required control, constraints and defined property in order to earn returns on investment. Lines in the sand were drawn, the primitive communism of the pre-September Internet was over. The Eternal September began, and along with it, the stratification of the Internet began.

Rather than embracing the free, open platforms where net.culture was born, like Usenet, email, IRC, etc, Capital embraced the Web. Not as the interlinked, hypermedia, world-wide-distributed publishing platform it was intended to be, but as a client-server private communications platform where users’ interactions were mediated by the platforms’ operators. The flowering of “Web 2.0″ was Capital’s re-engineering of the web into an internet accessible version of the online services they were building all along, such as the very platforms whose mass user bases were the influx that started the Eternal September. CompuServ and AOL most notable among them.

The Eternal September started when these Online Services allowed their users to access Internet services such as Usenet and email. Web 2.0 replaced Usenet and email with social platforms embedded in private, centralized web-based services that look and work very much like the old Online Services.

Scratch-off the Facebook logo, and you’ll find the CompuServ logo underneath.

The Internet is no longer an open free-for-all where old-timers acculturate new-comers into a community of co-operation and sharing. It is a stratified place where the culture of sharing and co-operation has been destroyed by the terms of service of online platforms and by copyright lobbies pushing for greater and greater restrictions and by governments that create legislation to protect the interests of property and “security” against the interests of sharing.

The culture of co-operation and sharing has been replaced by a culture of surveillance and control.

Much later that September, the 6,820th day of September, 1993, to be exact, I gave a talk with Jacob Appelbaum at the 6th annual Re:publica conference in Berlin. In part, I responded to the earlier presentation by Eben Moglen, the brilliant and tireless legal council of the Free Sofare Foundation and founder of the FreedomBox Foundation, who gave a characteristically excellent speech. However, in it was something that just couldn’t be right.

Moglen claimed that Facebook’s days as a dominant platform are numbered, because we will soon have decentralized social platforms, based on projects such as FreedomBox, users will operate collective social platforms based on their own hardware, retain control of their own data, etc. The trajectory that Moglen is using has centralized social media as the starting point and distributed social media as the place we are moving toward. But in actual fact, this transformation had already occured very long ago.

During the twilight of the CompuServ era, both personal and commercial users migrated en masse to the Internet. For instance, in a letter to their customers that is still available online the software company BASIS international, “The Big Little Software Company,” writes: “BASIS plans to move completely off CompuServe (CSi) and onto the Internet. This is a logical consequence of the many changes that have taken place in the online world over the past few years.”

In their letter, BASIS spells out a lot of these changes: “While our CSi presence has served the company well in the past, its pay-to-access structure is increasingly harder to justify with the Internet providing almost limitless content at a negligible incremental cost. People are moving away from CSi in significant numbers, making it a less effective platform from which to address our current and future customers. We believe that moving our existing support infrastructure from CSi to the Internet will give us better access to our customers and our customers better access to us.”

It goes on to explain how it will now use open platforms like email, Usenet and IRC instead of CompuServ’s proprietary and centralised applications. This letter was published around the same time HotWired reposted my Usenet article.

Contrary to Moglen’s trajectory of social media, the fact is that we already had distributed social media, we already abandoned the centrally controlled platforms such as CompuServ and AOL, and moved to the Internet, and despite this, our decentralized platforms have since been replaced, once again, with centralized social media. Why? Because Capitalism.

The Internet is a distributed social media platform. The classic internet platforms that existed before the commercialization of the web provided all the features of modern social media monopolies. Platforms like Usenet, email, IRC and finger allowed us to do everything we do now with Facebook and friends. We could post status updates, share pictures, send messages, etc. Yet, these platforms have been more or less abandoned. So the question we need to address is not so much how we can invent a distributed social platform, but how and why we started from a fully distributed social platform and replaced it with centralized social media monopolies.

The answer is quite simple. The early internet was not significantly capitalist funded. The change in application topology came along with commercialization, and this change is a consequence of the business models required by capitalist investors to capture profit. The business model of social media platforms is surveillance and behavioral control. The internet’s original protocols and architecture made surveillance and behavioral control more difficult. Once capital became the dominant source of financing it directed investment toward centralized platforms, which are better at providing such surveillance and control, the original platforms were starved of financing. The centralized platforms grew and the decentralized platforms submerged beneath the rising tides of the capitalist web.

This is nothing new. This was the same business model that capital devised for media in general, such as network television. The customer of network television is not the viewer, rather the viewer is the product, the “audience commodity.” The real customers are the advertisers and lobby groups wanting to control the audience.

Network Television didn’t provide the surveillance part, so advertisers needed to employ market research and ratings firms such as Nielson for that bit. This was a major advantage of social media. Richer data from better surveillance allowed for more effective behavioral control than ever before, using tracking, targeting, machine learning, behavioral retargeting, among many techniques made possible by the deep pool of data companies like Facebook and Google have available.

This is not a choice that capitalists made, this is the only way that profit-driven organizations can provide a public good like a communication platform. Capitalist investors must capture profit or lose their capital. If their platforms can not capture profit, they vanish. The obstacle to decentralized social media is not that it has not been invented, but the profit-motive itself. Thus to reverse this trajectory back towards decentralization, requires not so much technical initiative, but political struggle.

So long as we maintain the social choice to provision our communication systems according to the profit motive, we will only get communications platforms that allow for the capture of profit. Free, open systems, that neither surveil, nor control, nor exclude, will not be funded, as they do not provide the mechanisms required to capture profit. These platforms are financed for the purpose of watching people and pushing them to behave in ways that benefit the operators of the platform and their real customers, the advertisers, and the industrial and political lobbies. The platforms exists to shape society according to the interests of these advertisers and lobbies.

Platforms like Facebook are worth billions precisely because of their capacity for surveillance and control.

Like the struggle for other public goods, like education, child care, and health care, free communication platforms for the masses can only come from collective political struggle to achieve such platforms.

This is a political struggle, not a technical one.

The Mossy Side of the Rock theory of State Power.

The state is not a neutral, disinterested mediator, uninfluenced by regard to personal interest nor free from bias or prejudice. The state does mediate among the classes, but always on behalf of the dominant class, and what’s more, there is nothing sinister or nefarious about this, this is nothing more than a material fact, like the fact that moss grows on the damp side of the rock.

The unequal distribution of moss on the surface of a rock is not a conspiracy against the sunny side of the rock, but simply a matter of irrigation. The moss needs water to grow, there is simply more of it on the shady side.

Just as moss needs water, power needs wealth, and the wealth of the most powerful provides the irrigation for the growth of the State, which would shrivel without it. The interests of the State are always ultimately driven by the interests of wealth. We can not change this. The only thing we can change is how wealth is created and distributed in society by producing and sharing differently and thereby change what the State’s interests are.

So long as the the wealthiest members of society depend on control and exploitation, the State will serve the interests of control and exploitation. If we can instead develop ways to build social wealth based on co-operation and equality, the State, to whatever degree it is needed at all, will serve these interests instead. It is not a matter of clandestine schemes to control the state, it’s a matter of irrigation.

Excerpted from David Miranda, Keith Vaz and Legitimizing the “Ordinary” State.

Chelsea Manning, Mr. Bumble’s Wife, and the Law as the Ass of Capital

“Oh, Eeyore, you are wet!” said Piglet, feeling him. Eeyore shook himself, and asked somebody to explain to Piglet what happened when you had been inside a river for quite a long time.

Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison. And as there should be, there is wide scale outrage over this. Manning’s punishment is more than many convicted of rape, murder, and even of war crimes. As such, many are decrying this apparent miscarriage of justice.

Eeyore would probably ask somebody to explain what happened when you challenged the power of the State. I’ll give it a try.

The phrase “the law is an ass” was popularized by Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, when the character Mr. Bumble is told he is legally responsible for his wife’s theft of some jewelry as “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”. Mr. Bumble replies “If the law supposes that … the law is a ass — a idiot. … I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience”

The dictionary gives several meaning for the word “ass.” Mr. Bumble is using the word to mean “a pompous fool.”

The law, he supposes, is as misguided as a fool, and with some more experience, “his” eye would be open, and he would realize that woman are independent people and their husband’s don’t control them, and thereby that Mr. Bumble should not be held responsible for his wife’s stealing.

Foolishness seems an odd charge to make of such a studious and contested field as the law.

The law is forged on behalf of the most powerful by their most vetted representatives. Could it be that they simply didn’t know women enough to realize women where real independent people? Or, perhaps more likely, they wanted to employ the law to restrict the independence of woman?

In the Theory of the Leisure Class, Veblen writes “The early differentiation out of which the distinction between a leisure and a working class arises is a division maintained between men’s and women’s work in the lower stages of barbarism. Likewise the earliest form of ownership is an ownership of the women by the able bodied men of the community”

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels write “The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production.”

Maybe the law as not as foolish as it seems, rather it’s simply promoting the interests of the leisure class against the working class and ensuring patriarchal property rights. So perhaps, the law is not an ass in the sense of “pompous fool,” but rather in another meaning from the dictionary, a “hardy and sure-footed animal, smaller and with longer ears than the horse.”

The donkey has been used as a working animal for at least 5000 years. Rather than acting the fool, what the law is doing is carrying water for the beneficiaries of a stratified society. It is the means by which the class structure protects itself from threats. The level of crime, and thereby the just punishment is not based on the damage done to individuals, but rather the threat to the structures that allow one class to exploit another.

The law is an ass. It is capital’s loyal ass. And to use the word in another sense, “the fleshy part of the body that you sit on,” that’s exactly where Chelsea Manning kicked it.

If you understand legal justice as being rooted in fairness and equality, then it is impossible to understand how Manning could possibly be deserving of more punishment than those who commit heinous, violent and inhuman crimes. However, if you understand legal justice in a materialist sense, you realize that hurting people doesn’t necessarily hurt capital or threaten the structure of class society, and therefor is not such a big crime.

Attacking the legitimacy of the State is a very big crime.

From the point of view of Capitalism, Manning got what she deserved. As such, cries for “fair” treatment for Chelsea are likely to fall on deaf ears. Though it’s ears are long, Capitalism’s ass only hears what it wants to. We can only change the logic of the law by resisting capitalism.

On a happier note, DJ Podinski is back from his Balkan adventure with new beats to share, so join us at Buchhandlung this evening!

 

David Miranda, Keith Vaz and Legitimizing the “Ordinary” State.

When I met David Miranda, he was introduced to me as Glenn’s partner. I nodded and smiled and was pleased to meet him. I chatted with David about his home in Brazil, about his 10 dogs and the banana-throwing monkeys that torment them, and other things. A few minutes later, after hearing again that he was “Glenn’s husband,” I whispered to a friend “Um, who’s Glenn?” “Glenn Greenwald” I was told.

David and I didn’t talk about Greenwald, Snowden, the NSA, or any other such thing. I was quite surprised when yesterday morning, while still in the French mountains for a Telekommunisten retreat with several friends, I heard that David was detained in the UK, and that his computer, cellphone, storage media, etc., was taken away from him.

The same day I met David, another friend’s backpack, also containing cellphones and storage media, was stolen from the bar we we’re in. It seems possible these things are connected, perhaps some clumsy SIGINT looking to intercept Snowden material destined for Greenwald.

Many voices have quite rightfully come forward to protest the detainment of Miranda, especially under the specious pretence of anti-terror legislation, and rightfully so. We must all protest the further degradation of our ability to travel and to keep possession of our personal belongings and data, and to maintain our privacy.

In doing so, we must remember that the rule of law and the power of the State is not guided by wisdom or fairness, but always by the interests of the most powerful. And always against whatever adversaries they face.

The state is not a neutral, disinterested mediator, uninfluenced by regard to personal interest nor free from bias or prejudice. The state does mediate among the classes, but always on behalf of the dominant class, and what’s more, there is nothing sinister or nefarious about this, this is nothing more than a material fact, like the fact that moss grows on the damp side of the rock.

The unequal distribution of moss on the surface of a rock is not a conspiracy against the sunny side of the rock, but simply a matter of irrigation. The moss needs water to grow, there is simply more of it on the shady side.

Just as moss needs water, power needs wealth, and the wealth of the most powerful provides the irrigation for the growth of the State, which would shrivel without it. The interests of the State are always ultimately driven by the interests of wealth. We can not change this. The only thing we can change is how wealth is created and distributed in society by producing and sharing differently and thereby change what the State’s interests are.

So long as the the wealthiest members of society depend on control and exploitation, the State will serve the interests of control and exploitation. If we can instead develop ways to build social wealth based on co-operation and equality, the State, to whatever degree it is needed at all, will serve these interests instead. It is not a matter of clandestine schemes to control the state, it’s a matter of irrigation.

British Labour MP Keith Vaz called the detention of David Miranda “extraordinary.” Yet, there is nothing “extraordinary” about the State attempting to intercept communications by physically taking away media and storage devices. The hollow protestation of Keith Vaz is just part of the spin to deflect attention away from the systemic fact that the State is using its power to protect its interests, and instead frame the story as the behaviour of particular government agents, or perhaps details of law.

By calling the detention of David “extraordinary” Vaz is defending the legitimacy of the State and its power of search and seizure in the “ordinary” case. He makes this clear: “it is right that the police and security services should question people if they have concerns or the basis of any concerns about what they are doing in the United Kingdom.”

And yet, even in the ordinary case, the State will continue to develop its capacities for surveillance and control in concert with its capitalist partners, and this is what will inform the “concerns” of police.

So, while protesting injustices such as the detention of David Miranda is very important, it’s perhaps even more important to remember that it’s not enough to protest the “extraordinary” but the “ordinary” even more so.

It’s far too simple to blame tyrannical law enforcers and clueless politicians while ignoring the laws of motion of capitalism and the profit motive. We must not be under the impression that all can be fixed by simply amending some legislation and reprimanding some border guards. We must always remember that our conflict is with capitalism itself.

I’ll be at Stammtisch as usual today, at 9pm, and I look forward to seeing everybody. Though I hate to say it, please bring only what you need. Let’s watch each others stuff, and do whatever we can to keep our possessions and data safe.

 

Vote WikiLeaks 2013

Correction: Assange is standing for the Senate, not Parliament, and would therefore become a Senator, not an MP.

Entering the Ecuadorian Embassy last Wednesday felt kind of like visiting a private house, a rather posh house right beside Herrods in the conspicuous consumption district of central London, but just a house nonetheless.

The Embassy is neither fortified, nor particularly guarded, neither compound nor fortress, protected not by rampart nor battlement, but only by diplomatic law granting inviolability to diplomatic premises. Ecuador’s Embassy stands in stark contrast with the barricaded garrisons typical of US Embassies around the world. Ecuador, one supposes, has a much shorter list of official enemies.

It’s been a few years since I met Julian Assange at 26C3, and the interim has no doubt been interesting times, as WikiLeaks and Julian himself rose from hacker exemplar to international cause célèbre, currently confined as an asylee in the Embassy for over a year to avoid extradition.

The relative smallness of the building means that the street is never more than a few metres away, always visible through windows and doors, yet beyond reach for Julian, unable to step outside.

Not withstanding his confinement on Hans Crescent, Assange is standing in the Australian Federal elections with the newly formed WikiLeaks party, with elections coming up on September 7th. He stands a good chance of becoming an Australian Senator.

Obviously, the first question that comes to mind is whether or not becoming a Senator would change his situation with regard to potential extradition or somehow allow him to leave the embassy and return to Australia to attend parliament, but Assange doesn’t think it would. He plans to serve as a Senator in exile, from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. As he put it, the only way it would change the situation is make his confinement even more absurd.

The idea of the party is taking advantage of the political process as a public platform for the agenda of WikiLeaks, “Transparency. Accountability. Justice.” As their platform says, “Where the truth is suppressed or distorted, corruption and injustice flourish.” Clearly, the suppression of truth is not an Australian issue, per se, but rather a global issue and WikiLeaks has never had a policy focus, let alone Australian policy specifically.

WikiLeaks is a publisher, aiming to primarily make a contribution to journalism; “Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public.”

This makes the framing of a “WikiLeaks Party” a somewhat odd fit. Yet, my interest in it stems from my endorsement of the concept of “Counterpolitics,” the same basis of my support for the Pirate Party, and my proposal for the Debtors’ Party.

The goal of “Politics” is to impose the interests of powerful groups on the rest of society. The Political process provides a pretense of participation and thereby provides legitimization for rule. However, political participation requires the capacity to campaign, to donate, to lobby, etc, so in the end it’s a battle of capacities in which only the wealthy can push relentlessly towards their own interests. The interests of the less wealthy and less powerful groups can never be imposed by way of the political process, as those that are more powerful will inevitably have more wealth with which to resist them.

This is why the goals of less powerful groups must be pursued from the bottom up, by building and expanding alternatives, not by way of top down restructuring of society through the power of the State.

Thus, our political engagement is not politics proper, but rather counterpolitics. Our goal can not be to impose a new society from the top down, since only dominant groups can impose their interests that way, but rather to resist attacks on our ability to build alternatives.

As such, it doesn’t matter whether or not a WikiLeaks Party represents a coherent platform for ruling Australia, the party will never rule Australia, and we can not achieve communism by offering to manage capitalism for the capitalists.

What does matter is whether or not the WikiLeaks Party can, by way of participating in Australian parliament, and by way of using that country’s upcoming elections as a publicity platform, help defend our ability to build the new society in the shell of the old. Just like the Pirate Party and the proposed Debtors’ Party, I believe it can.

Australia, Vote WikiLeaks 2013!

I’ll be at Stammtisch at Cafe Buchhandlung tonight at 9pm or so, look forward to see you all there.