3 ms·

I may have just misinterpreted your statement, "So go ahead and use a VPN, but it won't matter when you're throttled to 50 kb/s" to mean they would throttle all

by Jach 9y ago

I may have just misinterpreted your statement, "So go ahead and use a VPN, but it won't matter when you're throttled to 50 kb/s" to mean they would throttle all VPNs no matter what, which is what I was saying wouldn't happen because in the worst case you have to pay extra for unthrottled VPN use but it's still available. It's not a great outcome, nobody likes having to pay for things they used to get for free, but it's not an existential threat to the internet. If you didn't mean that, probably my fault for not reading carefully enough this late.

csydas 9y ago
Ah, I see. Yes, this was more just me extrapolating that even if VPN access were to circumvent the package/tier deals initially, such behavior would eventually just result in VPN usage being added as a tier/package, which is not ideal regardless. I guess I make a logical leap with the extrapolation there, but more or less I feel that the downplaying of these changes is bad, especially with the expectation that we can easily circumvent the last mile somehow here. Even if they can't see what the traffic is, it can still be determined how much bandwidth is being used and the traffic itself can still be shaped/altered at will. Edit: Also, I'm sorry that someone is voting you down for a misunderstanding. I think that's inappropriate.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
What would in your eyes make something an existential threat to the internet?
- Jach 9y ago
  Cutting the international underwater cables would be a good start. A lot of infrastructure isn't EM shielded. A ton of hobbyist and expert know-how will need to be eliminated and disincentivized. Equipment destroyed or confiscated. Hard to do these things without government approval or action of some sort, so I'd expect more government interest in being hands-on to be a convergent source of trouble. Honestly it's hard to picture an effective set of attacks that could end the internet which aren't a bigger threat to something more valuable.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    OK. So, suppose the rules for elections were to be changed. Now, you have to pay 100 bucks to cast a vote. Unless you vote republican, then you get a 50% discount. Would you agree that that is not an existential threat to the country?
    - Jach 9y ago
      Sure. That'd probably be an improvement, even if you switched the discount. America didn't always have universal suffrage, so I can hardly see how this new requirement would be a threat.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        OK. How about we increase what you have to pay to 1 million bucks, this time without a discount? Would that be an existential threat in your opinion?
        Jach 9y ago
        Nope. Governments and countries can work just fine without democracy.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        OK. Is there anything that one could do with a country that you would consider an existential threat to the country, and if so, could you give an example?
        Jach 9y ago
        Sure, though I'm not seeing the value in this thread when the original context was existential threats to the internet... Some existential threats to countries: * An equally or more powerful country declares war on the country. (Actually even an underdog can occasionally win, so the power criteria isn't strictly needed for a threat...) Similarly for a group of countries against another group of countries. * Increased tensions within a country build up to a civil war. Survivable (USA) but still a threat. * The US State Department doesn't like the country's leader(s) * Country cannot produce as much as or more than it consumes. Side effects include mass starvation, coup attempts. * Modern "acts of war" but not necessarily carried out by a war-declaring entity like another country. E.g. terrorist attacks on infrastructure. Probably worst (but least likely) threat is an EMP detonated about as high up as the ISS, if you wanted to affect a country the size of the continental US. * Government bankruptcy. * Mass disease (thankfully less of a threat given modern medicine and distribution) I'll stop there...

by Jach 9y ago

csydas 9y ago

Ah, I see. Yes, this was more just me extrapolating that even if VPN access were to circumvent the package/tier deals initially, such behavior would eventually just result in VPN usage being added as a tier/package, which is not ideal regardless. I guess I make a logical leap with the extrapolation there, but more or less I feel that the downplaying of these changes is bad, especially with the expectation that we can easily circumvent the last mile somehow here. Even if they can't see what the traffic is, it can still be determined how much bandwidth is being used and the traffic itself can still be shaped/altered at will. Edit: Also, I'm sorry that someone is voting you down for a misunderstanding. I think that's inappropriate.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

What would in your eyes make something an existential threat to the internet?

Jach 9y ago
Cutting the international underwater cables would be a good start. A lot of infrastructure isn't EM shielded. A ton of hobbyist and expert know-how will need to be eliminated and disincentivized. Equipment destroyed or confiscated. Hard to do these things without government approval or action of some sort, so I'd expect more government interest in being hands-on to be a convergent source of trouble. Honestly it's hard to picture an effective set of attacks that could end the internet which aren't a bigger threat to something more valuable.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  OK. So, suppose the rules for elections were to be changed. Now, you have to pay 100 bucks to cast a vote. Unless you vote republican, then you get a 50% discount. Would you agree that that is not an existential threat to the country?
  - Jach 9y ago
    Sure. That'd probably be an improvement, even if you switched the discount. America didn't always have universal suffrage, so I can hardly see how this new requirement would be a threat.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      OK. How about we increase what you have to pay to 1 million bucks, this time without a discount? Would that be an existential threat in your opinion?
      - Jach 9y ago
        Nope. Governments and countries can work just fine without democracy.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        OK. Is there anything that one could do with a country that you would consider an existential threat to the country, and if so, could you give an example?
        Jach 9y ago
        Sure, though I'm not seeing the value in this thread when the original context was existential threats to the internet... Some existential threats to countries: * An equally or more powerful country declares war on the country. (Actually even an underdog can occasionally win, so the power criteria isn't strictly needed for a threat...) Similarly for a group of countries against another group of countries. * Increased tensions within a country build up to a civil war. Survivable (USA) but still a threat. * The US State Department doesn't like the country's leader(s) * Country cannot produce as much as or more than it consumes. Side effects include mass starvation, coup attempts. * Modern "acts of war" but not necessarily carried out by a war-declaring entity like another country. E.g. terrorist attacks on infrastructure. Probably worst (but least likely) threat is an EMP detonated about as high up as the ISS, if you wanted to affect a country the size of the continental US. * Government bankruptcy. * Mass disease (thankfully less of a threat given modern medicine and distribution) I'll stop there...