6 ms·

We are dealing with the consequences of not taking this very seriously for the last decade. It's not good enough to just hope that the Internet will remain free

by gozo 11y ago

We are dealing with the consequences of not taking this very seriously for the last decade. It's not good enough to just hope that the Internet will remain free in the face of legitimate concerns. Yes, it's a concern that the Internet won't be global anymore, but it never really was. Up until thing like Firesheep and Snowden, and still to some extent, a lot of Internet traffic was only safe based on not passing any bad actors.

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
> Yes, it's a concern that the Internet won't be global anymore, but it never really was. So we're willing to throw all this interconnection away, the one thing that made the internet the place it is? The interconnected nature of the internet is what made me the person I am today. I have more friends from other countries than I have friends from my own and from my friendship circles I know I'm not the only one.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gozo 11y ago
  Not taking legitimate concerns seriously and securing the Internet we want is what is going to throw away the positive things about the Internet. Something that isn't technically secure nor robust in the face of arguments is bound to change
bediger4000 11y ago
And by "bad actors" you mean folks like NSA, GCHQ and FSB, right? Oh, and Unit 8200.
- rdancer 11y ago
  Yes
- freehunter 11y ago
  "Bad actors" includes all bad actors, and the parent explicitly called out both major bad actors (hackers and governments). Not sure what more you want by demanding a clarification.
pdonis 11y ago
> it's a concern that the Internet won't be global anymore Why not? Facebook, or some other centralized cloud service, is not the only way you have of using the Internet.
- kijin 11y ago
  Exactly. If the end of Safe Harbor spells disaster for all those centralized cloud services, that might actually turn out to be a good thing for the Internet in the long term. We often think of decentralized peer-to-peer networks as a rebellious technology, something we need to develop in order to evade oppressive laws in an increasingly dystopian world. But what if decentralization becomes the only legal way to create and maintain a global social network? That would be ironic but also deeply satisfying. My only worry is that this ruling might not spell enough of a disaster to shake up the VCs' faith in the centralized cloud.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
  I don't feel going back to the old days of borders everywhere is a good idea.
  - spaceSub 11y ago
    In the face on inaceptable laws and regulations it can't be helped. We can't just wipe any political discourse with this sentence.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> Up until thing like Firesheep and Snowden, and still to some extent, a lot of Internet traffic was only safe based on not passing any bad actors. So what? "Only safe based on not encountering bad actors" is far and away the dominant mode of security everywhere. It's what keeps your house unburgled, your planes in the air, and your family alive. Breaking into a house, taking down a plane, and murdering strangers all require very little in the way of skill or planning. Burglary and murder are also unlikely to be caught (absent a connection to the victim).

by gozo 11y ago

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago

> Yes, it's a concern that the Internet won't be global anymore, but it never really was. So we're willing to throw all this interconnection away, the one thing that made the internet the place it is? The interconnected nature of the internet is what made me the person I am today. I have more friends from other countries than I have friends from my own and from my friendship circles I know I'm not the only one.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gozo 11y ago
Not taking legitimate concerns seriously and securing the Internet we want is what is going to throw away the positive things about the Internet. Something that isn't technically secure nor robust in the face of arguments is bound to change

bediger4000 11y ago

And by "bad actors" you mean folks like NSA, GCHQ and FSB, right? Oh, and Unit 8200.

rdancer 11y ago
Yes
freehunter 11y ago
"Bad actors" includes all bad actors, and the parent explicitly called out both major bad actors (hackers and governments). Not sure what more you want by demanding a clarification.

pdonis 11y ago

> it's a concern that the Internet won't be global anymore Why not? Facebook, or some other centralized cloud service, is not the only way you have of using the Internet.

kijin 11y ago
Exactly. If the end of Safe Harbor spells disaster for all those centralized cloud services, that might actually turn out to be a good thing for the Internet in the long term. We often think of decentralized peer-to-peer networks as a rebellious technology, something we need to develop in order to evade oppressive laws in an increasingly dystopian world. But what if decentralization becomes the only legal way to create and maintain a global social network? That would be ironic but also deeply satisfying. My only worry is that this ruling might not spell enough of a disaster to shake up the VCs' faith in the centralized cloud.
the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
I don't feel going back to the old days of borders everywhere is a good idea.
- spaceSub 11y ago
  In the face on inaceptable laws and regulations it can't be helped. We can't just wipe any political discourse with this sentence.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

> Up until thing like Firesheep and Snowden, and still to some extent, a lot of Internet traffic was only safe based on not passing any bad actors. So what? "Only safe based on not encountering bad actors" is far and away the dominant mode of security everywhere. It's what keeps your house unburgled, your planes in the air, and your family alive. Breaking into a house, taking down a plane, and murdering strangers all require very little in the way of skill or planning. Burglary and murder are also unlikely to be caught (absent a connection to the victim).