25 ms·
Authoritarian nations are turning the internet into a weapon
- woah 7y ago> If an app — let’s say Uber — adopts our tech, you would be able to use Uber [without the internet],” says Jorge Ribs, CEO of Bridgefy There have been a few of these phone mesh startups (OpenGarden, RightMesh, Bridgefy) over the years, and they all seem to dramatically oversell the abilities of a phone's radio. Basic physics mean that a network made up of only phones will be extremely slow, even if everyone has the app. Text messages delivered unreliably is probably the best you're going to get in the foreseeable future. I'm sure it's tempting to embellish the abilities of one's technology to investors and press, but the quote above is obviously false.
- Spooky23 7y agoToday, in consumer space you are correct. If you look at some of the military and police radios, they can build 10Gb mesh networks.
- lalos 7y agoAn example would be the mesh network in NYC https://www.nycmesh.net https://www.nycmesh.net
- woah 7y agoThey use dedicated radios with good lines of sight (mounted very high up), and aimed reflectors. Not phones with tiny battery-powered radios. NYCMesh is basically just a nonprofit ISP.
- woah 7y agoI work in the networking space, on althea.net. Any number of GB is indeed possible on various types of networks. What gives you high speed is 1. dedicated frequencies, 2. powerful radio with well-aimed reflectors or large antenna arrays, and 3. clear lines of sight. Networking software can not increase the maximum speed possible, given the above factors. Phones have neither 1, 2, or 3. Radios in military networks often have all 3. Claiming that an app will magically make your phone into a much more powerful radio is like claiming that a flashlight app will some day make your phone screen put out thousands of lumens. > "Sure, right now Flashify just turns the screen white to provide a dim glow, but in the future we think Flashify will replace all indoor lighting. Think about that, we're going to disrupt the whole lighting industry."
- isthis1984 7y agoA Pringles wi fi network is always a possibility https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-make-a-wifi-antenna-out-of-a-pringles-can-nb/ https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-make-a-wifi-antenna-out...
- justaj 7y agoI furthermore don't understand why they're promoting what looks like a proprietary solution, while things like Briar exist: https://briarproject.org/ https://briarproject.org/
- mc32 7y ago>"But the extraordinary case draws attention to how dictatorships are increasingly using technology to crush online dissent." Yes, authoritarian regimes control communication. That's been the case for over a century of radio and mass circulation dailies. It's nothing new. What is new is that even democratic countries are controlling free speech via speech laws or often the private companies engaging in evaluating what's permissible speech and not above and beyond what laws require. To wit what comprises "hate speech". It's basically come to mean "point of view in disagreement with my group's current position which may change in the future"
- wavefunction 7y ago>private companies engaging in evaluating what's permissible speech and not I don't feel this is an issue until you can't spin up your own website/app/platform and allow whatever speech you want. I am interested for any responses as to why I might be mistaken from people who disagree with me, though.
- systematical 7y agoSome of these tech companies are so large and pervasive that they are integral parts of society. The policies they enact with that power can have a chilling effect. Now, whether we should or shouldn't do something about that is another matter. The Government has certainly shown a willingness to regulate industries that got to big for their britches before.
- wavefunction 7y ago>integral parts of society I am not sure I agree with these companies being an integral part of society. I feel pretty confident they could be replaced by alternatives operated by other people and most if not all users would not notice the difference. But I've seen that happen with the early WWW with Altavista, Yahoo, etc. And if they are an integral part of society then I think they should be heavily regulated for things like foreign and domestic propaganda and the promotion of dangerous falsehoods. It's either self-regulation (within legal reason) and whatever they decide is appropriate for their platforms, or they should be heavily regulated with guaranteed free expression as allowed by law.
- roenxi 7y ago"Authoritarian Nations are..." makes it sound like the same trends aren't prevalent everywhere. The cost of monitoring and enforcing compliance with the law is dropping very rapidly. Cameras, automated monitoring systems, etc, have all blossomed since around 2007 when phones suddenly became computers and cameras in one fell swoop. It is no longer a default expectation that someone can commit a crime without being detected. Or do anything without it being recorded in triplicate on the internet. We'd better all hope we aren't doing anything the government doesn't like!
- datashow 7y agoI'm not sure what is your point, authoritarian or democratic does not make a difference? Both kind of nations have same kind of access to citizens' private information? Both use the monitoring for the same purpose? US is throwing people who offended Trump online into jail like China is doing for Xi? I just can't live with this kind of intentional defense of authoritarian by making nonsensical and shameless equalization. Plug: China Sentences Wang Yi, Christian Pastor, to 9 Years in Prison https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/world/asia/china-wang-yi-christian-sentence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/world/asia/china-wang-yi-... Kaifeng Jewish Community Suffers New Suppression https://bitterwinter.org/kaifeng-jewish-community-suffers-new-suppression/ https://bitterwinter.org/kaifeng-jewish-community-suffers-ne... Inside China’s Push to Turn Muslim Minorities Into an Army of Workers https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/world/asia/china-xinjiang-muslims-labor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/world/asia/china-xinjiang...
- throw4532u 7y ago> In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.” > According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...
- systematical 7y agoI'm trying to think of an instance where a government (authoritarian or not) hasn't used technology to advance its agenda, or more to the point of the article, for espionage. I can't think of one.
- joejerryronnie 7y agoAlmost all technological progress begins with a national defense purpose.
- newguy1234 7y agoThere isn't one because all governments focus on continuance of their regime once they've gained a foothold for power.
- silentsea90 7y agoFor the sake of argument, the link below sharing India's internet shutdowns has a fair share of temporary shutdowns to help allow tensions between communities to cool down, prevent riots etc. https://internetshutdowns.in/ https://internetshutdowns.in/
- Nasrudith 7y ago"Have you tried going mad without power? Nobody listens to you!" Technology has been used to advance agendas before there was a government. Even if the agenda was "hitting a simolodon" and the technology was "picking up a stick first".
- 0xmohit 7y agoIt's been 150 days that internet has been blocked in Kashmir by the Indian government. The Indian government routinely blocks internet in various parts of the country. They recently even blocked it in the national capital, Delhi.
- larnmar 7y agoSix top level comments, and four of them are of the form “whatabout democratic nations doing the same thing, huh?”
- supergirl 7y agoit wouldn't be news if everyone did it no?
- pell 7y agoSurely not a fan of China's internet censorship or India shutting down the internet whenever people protest their insane nationalistic politics, but let's not forget what the NSA from the land of the "free" does.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago> let's not forget what the NSA from the land of the "free" does Nobody is forgetting it. But just as discussions about authoritarian nations’ tactics get derailed by these comments, discussions about the NSA get railroaded by “but at least it’s not China” messaging.
- pell 7y agoFair point.
- mamborambo 7y agoThe risks of government abusing Internet is omnipresent, but this risk is out of control in countries where the constitutional courts are weak and lawmakers compliant. It shows that tech disruption is ultimately still less powerful than political disruption -- only that can fundamentally bring this civilization forward.
- umvi 7y ago> but let's not forget what the NSA from the land of the "free" does Collects tons of data and then does nothing with it?
- joejerryronnie 7y agoThey could also be finding valuable patterns in communication data and withholding it from other government agencies.
- chasd00 7y agohah that reminds me of the demotivator "Government, if you hate our problems just wait until you see our solutions".
- Razengan 7y agoAuthoritarian? As if America has NOT been turning the internet into a weapon?
- joejerryronnie 7y agoC’mon man, the Internet started out as a weapon.
- aabbcc1241 7y agoWhen talking about censorship, I want to discuss about zeronet. It appear to be censorship free. Yes, the zite owner can apply censorship, but anyone can clone the zite and become the new admin (similar to fork in the GUI of github). And there is hub mechanism so people can see aggregated content from multiple zites. Zeronet may be not as good as the FANG but it's already usable.
- bardan 7y agoZeronet feels too monolithic to be an effective web replacement to me, given it's almost all delivered through that its frontend. I'm more interested in systmes like ipfs
- isacikgoz 7y agoBeing authoritarian should be a property of the governments. I don’t think nations become intentionally authoritarian.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- smt88 7y ago> I don’t think nations become intentionally authoritarian They absolutely do. Most democracies and republics in history have transitioned to authoritarianism at the behest of their own citizens. Centralized power is seen as a route to fast, urgent reform. The most famous example, of course, is Julius Caesar's assumption of power. This is partially why "populist" can have a negative connotation in political or historical discussions. Putin is (supposedly) very popular, and Stalin is still remembered fondly by a surprising number[1] of Russians. South America has had tons of popular authoritarians, like Juan Perón[3], Alberto Fujimori[4], and Getúlio Vargas. 1. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-05-09/stalin-is-more-popular-than-ever-in-russia-survey-shows https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-05-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n#Fascist_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n#Fascist_influe... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n#Fascist_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n#Fascist_influe... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori
- aey 7y agoUnpopular opinion: Its a sign of the world becoming more liberal and free. These kinds of weapons don’t directly kill hundreds of thousands of people. It’s propaganda wars. Let’s hope all future wars are fought only on the internet.
- smt88 7y agoPropaganda wars aren't better because they "don't directly kill". It's part of the same chain of events -- just a little earlier. Propaganda has been a necessary precursor for most recent civil wars, genocides, and regime changes. It's the most important ingredient in acts that can be labeled terrorism. Organized violence can't really happen without spreading information, and the internet has democratized the ability to spread information. I don't know whether it's net-good or net-bad, but I consider it to be unknowable what the net effect of all this propaganda is until it either leads to something or it doesn't.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoFor the most part, those who don't want that violence seem to win, though.
- smt88 7y agoTwo of the worst human rights disasters of the last 100 years are happening now: the conflict in Syria and displacement 20 million, and the Uyghur genocide. I've thought about it a lot, and I don't know how anyone can ever topple the CCP when they control information so tightly. You could never create a large enough revolution with no organizing power. The really scary thing is that control of information also means you can hide the murder of millions of people. We'll never know how many people the Nazis, the Ottomans, or the CCP kill, and our estimates might be off by millions.
- staplers 7y agoStar Trek thought differently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon Worth a watch on this subject.
- molteanu 7y agoI agree, US has always used the internet as a weapon. This being actually in line with the article's title.
- imvetri 7y agoInnovations can't win over evil.
- mrobot 7y agoThe US had thousands of bots defending the Evo Morales Bolivia coup. Barely anyone in Bolivia speaks English.
- j88439h84 7y agoSource?
- proc0 7y agoNot sure what your point is, but Evo is the authoritarian that would do what the article is describing. He wanted to be dictator and wanted all kinds of controls on the people there including media. Also if you ever been there you will realize the majority of people understand English, if not actually speak it pretty well.
- smt88 7y agoThis is at least preferable to the older US practice of assassinating[1] world leaders. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/05/cia-long-history-kill-leaders-around-the-world-north-korea https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/05/cia-long-his...
- gen_greyface 7y agoSurprised to see India not mentioned in the article. https://internetshutdowns.in/ https://internetshutdowns.in/
- meh206 7y agoThis article lost me at the notion of using Brave.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mrlanderson 7y agoThe Western Firewall is forming.
- LifeLiverTransp 7y agoThe basis for this power usage lies in the root-centralization that is infrastructure. If the routing of information was from device to device, network adressing provided by location and grouping, instead of adress assignment, then the pure internet (HTML/IRC) could escape the clutches of tyrans. But hey, no money to make there, so its not done. The routing via dataplankton is highly fascinating. Basically- our organisations and groups become visible as routing entity, confirming that we are we, and keeping knowledge on how to contact. Your house knows you are on vaccation and redirects traffic to the bus-stop, who redirects-traffic to the bus, who redirects traffict to the air-port, who redirects traffic to people who go into the same direction on a plane. Organisations have organells, meaning constituitonal members who predict the organisational structure and stability, and get lots of support vote from "regular" support voters. A professors cellphone, voting against a bus drivers cellphone, would win in declaring the society structure a "class" if the timing would be consistent with class, and the majority members would be class participents, and the predicted changes would not be consistent with a bus stopping at every bus-stop. I think there even was a book on that.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoIt seems like this is a return to the normal. Before the internet, repressive regimes had an easier time censoring mass media, monitoring telecommunications and stop organizing efforts. The major problem isn't so much the surveillance technology, but the intent and power of those governments. The solution must be political, rather than technological, if only because politics can eventually tackle any technology.
- adamsea 7y ago> if only because politics can eventually tackle any technology. This. 100%. I think a lot of technologists struggle with this for various (understandable) reasons.
- 0x8BADF00D 7y agoThis is why decentralized protocols are so important, especially if you live where govt censorship is rampant. Internet was designed with decentralization in mind, first and foremost.
- Frost1x 7y agoWe're heading in the opposite direction because decentralization typically flies in the face of business interests. It's essentially the Apple IBM 1984 commercial, all over again. If a business has something to sell, they want to he the central authority of it, otherwise someone else is making money. Decentralized technologies/IP can certainly grow inside a given business but they still want to maintain some sort of stranglehold so as not to make that IP public if possible or maintain some sort of legal restrictions on its usage.
- guavaNinja 7y agoAnd I couldn't access the link because medium is blocked here in Egypt. The irony
- neiman 7y agoNations are turning the internet into a weapon. It's terrible when it comes to authoritarian nations, as it's so difficult to imagine an upheaval taking place under internet surveillance, but it's even scarier with democracies. The law in a democracy is not meant to describe the future. It describes what people do in the past. But democracies rely on people occasionally breaking the law in order to evolve and improve. If we use the internet to monitor and surpass every possible violation, we lose what makes democracies great.
- netcan 7y agoFragmentation is relative, and "weoponization" in the sense described in the article is global. That doesn't mean we're equally affected and government type doesn't matter. If a scary dictatorship gets access to journalist communications, for example, a scary dictatorship will more aggressively action that. That said, almost any of these "weaponization" trends happen everywhere and affect everyone. Strong democracies have certain defenses, but that doesn't make them immune. Spying, censorship, propoganda, media manipulation, disruption of activist or political groups... These uses are growing. Democratic norms and institutions are not absolute, or necessarily even even effective at preventing abuses of a totally new communication ecosystem. It's not as if our high courts, parliaments or whatnot have been breaking new ground recently. The ground however, keeps moving regardless.
- alerighi 7y agoAs Stallman said, this technology would have been Stalin's dream. We must control the amount of data that we put in the hands of others, and we must do that avoiding the use of services that tracks us, avoid Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and we must use only encrypted communication. Who says that in our democratic country in a couple of years will not arrive a dictator that will use this data that was collected to repress us? To me is not only possible, but probable, seeing the cult of the strong man in power that is appreciated nowadays.
- talkingtab 7y agoInvasive advertising is a kind of propaganda - information that is intended to manipulate people. Bruce Schneier said that surveillance was the business model of the internet, but perhaps more precisely, propaganda is the business model of the internet. At least the user facing part of it. Put simply, we have come to accept that it is okay for businesses to manipulate people, so it should not come as much of a surprise that other entities will use that same well-oiled machinery for their own purposes.
- johnday 7y agoI think it's easier and more correct to view it the other way round: propaganda is a form of advertising. Specifically it's political advertising which intends to bring you round to some viewpoint. Viewed this way it's much easier to see the evils that advertising can and does propagate.
- pelliphant 7y agoIsn't it easier to see the evil parts of advertising if one calls it a form of propaganda than the other way around? In my opinion: using the first sentence of the wikipedia articles for advertising and propaganda, I would argue that advertising is a sub-set of propaganda: Propaganda is information that is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. Advertising is a marketing communication that employs an openly sponsored, non-personal message to promote or sell a product, service or idea.
- acollins1331 7y agoBut while all propaganda is advertising, not all advertising is propoganda so it would not work as you describe.
- ivanhoe 7y agoIn my view any form of political advertising is in fact propaganda. If it sells ideas and world views as a prepackaged product, it's an attempt at indoctrination, and thus propaganda. > or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. All commercials do this. Just think of Apple ads...
- fredley 7y agoThe whole industry of advertising as we understand it today was created by those who had done propaganda during the first and second world war, and realised they could apply their skills in the field of business. To learn the history of propaganda, advertising and how it is embedded deeply in our current political machine, watch The Century of the Self, a 2002 documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04
- mc32 7y agoKinda but advertising was called propaganda in some places before the term was marred by WWII and was afterwards rebranded as advertising.
- dangerlibrary 7y agoIn some languages it was never rebranded (I believe the Portuguese word for "advertisement" is just "propaganda")
- cptaj 7y agoIn spanish too. Although depending on region and context you might also use publicidad.
- mAEStro-paNDa 7y agoIt was rebranded "public relations", as noted in the referenced documentary. A central figure in the film is Edward Bernays, who was referred to as "the father of public relations".
- stOneskull 7y agoA very interesting character he is
- buckminster 7y agoIt was the 1920s after WWI.
- lammalamma25 7y agoWhat's the answer? I grew up in the late 2000s and really believed the internet would challenge existing power structures to change. I think in a lot of ways it did. Even as a fairly technically sophisticated user I can't seem to think what to do about the backslide though. Maybe good open source tools? Maybe a career in cybersecurity? It seems like the bad has more resources and incentives than the good now.
- dmos62 7y agoWestern business practices is the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the title. The internet has been a weapon for a while now. The authoritarians are late to the party and they are putting their specific spin on it, but we've been doing it for some time now. NSA, Cambridge Analytica, mass surveillance by big-business, general manipulation through media (e.g. news outlets, advertisement). The authoritarian regimes function differently, so they do it differently. I've no sympathy for them, but pointing fingers saying "they've weaponized the internet" is severe hyperopia.
- einpoklum 7y agoThis story seems to focus on the minor offenses, ignoring the huge one - not seeing the forest from the trees. > Twitter employees ... spying on behalf of Saudi Arabia ... passed private information about more than 6,000 Twitter users 2 employees, 6,000 spied on. How about: All employees, everybody spied on? Hundreds of millions of people? > For most people, the news sparked concerns that companies like Twitter are failing to keep user information secure For the rest of us, no concern was sparked, because we: 1. Know that some companies were always about selling user information to advertisers and other interested parties, and 2. Noticed when Ed Snowden revealed that the large companies (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, maybe others) transmit all user information to the US government. It seems like a lot of US media has been making an effort - one might say an active effort - to have the knowledge of mass (US) government surveillance fade out of our memories. > Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg described cybersecurity as “an arms race,” It's more of a quarrel among thieves. Facebook has the "loot" - users' information, which is not kept safe from the company itself (though in many ways it could!) - and whoever has access to the loot can pass it on to other seedy elements. > As governments get better at imposing online censorship Censorship is a crude, blunt instrument. Governments try it and mostly fail. It's much more effective to drown stories out with noise and junk and drivel; or to create strung prejudice which prevents people from being open to regime-undesirable opinions and positions.
- ChrisMarshallNY 7y agoI remember, in the mid-1980s, I was attending an event called MacHack (long since gone the way of the dodo). There was an Australian gentleman there, who was writing database code as a contractor for the Sultan of Oman. It was basically a "people tracker," and he expressed misgivings about its use (not enough to prevent him from taking the money, though). In the US, people think that keeping guns is some sort of guarantor of freedom. I posit that the computer database is the single biggest threat to freedom on Earth. It's just a bit more difficult to understand databases, so we ignore them, and keep updating our Facebook status.
- at_a_remove 7y agoDatabase Nation (Simson Garfinkel, 2000) was a nice intro to the topic. I agree that the abstraction into a computer jargon renders the topic more distant, somehow, to people than the Violent Femmes bit: "I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record."
- m000 7y agoOh those nasty authoritarians! IMHO, that's a pretty narrow point of view, reminiscent of cold-war rhetoric. There's a 2016 documentary called Black Code [1] on the weaponization of the internet. While the documentary also focuses on "authoritarian" nations, their commentary was more insightful: > it feels, I think to many, exotic and different and it couldn't happen here. And I think, in fact, what you're seeing in Syria is this is what happens when the risks get higher but the technology is the same. [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5937964/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5937964/
- ljw1001 7y agoCompanies that collect what could be very sensitive information about people should be subject to criminal negligence charges if someone comes to harm because of their carelessness. This is especially true where they promote highly politicized speech to drive engagement. Civil suits won't do the trick when the chiefs are super-rich. No court would ever fine Facebook enough that Mark Zuckerberg could be inconvenienced in the slightest.
- charliebrownau 7y agoAuthoritarian nations - Like Australia, UK + CA + NZ + USA Considering all these nations are controlled via Global Zionist LEFT +Central banking + Corporations We no longer have a proper right wing western Nationalist party willing to call out and stop the bullshit and end white genocide in Western nations
- charliebrownau 7y agoHate Speech is ANY speech the Global Zionist LEFT hates hearing. This is why they restore to fascist methods like Censorship Book burning Deplatforming False arrest/imprisonment Like Women the Global LEFT hate being held accountable for their own actions and choices and refuse to admit they are morally WRONG
- charliebrownau 7y agoI cant see the West or EU last without either Self segregation via RACE and Political viewpoint or Civil War Most people are fucking sick and tired of the Anti White Anti Western Anti Right wing Anti Freedom which is often funded by the Working CLASS , Whites or socialist slush funds by NGO/Corporations which are headed up by JEWS and Liberals which hate whites/freedom/right wing/western nations Multil culturalism is never going to work with multiple RACES using multiple cultures, rules and double standards with courts/laws Australia like many nations worked with multiple RACES as long as we had Right wing/Nationalism 1 rule for everyone 1 standard for everyone 1 law for everyone Now that all western/eu nations are on the brink of national population genocide via Mass Migration Mass Murder via "ABORTION" (killing babies) and ruining Western LAW/COURTS via Feminism/Duluth Model/pussy pass Western men and even men in JP/SK/CHINA/EU are walking away from Simping Dating Marriage Pandering to women Thus once you remove the sexual power women have over males you thus find women pointless to be "friends" or have a relationship with This is why the LEFT and JEWS have clamped down on MGTOW and MRA communities If all males walk away from marriage it effects - economy , housing, retail and banking and the only real change we see lately is when it effects the loss of money from Banks / Government / Society Maybe the next step is white Western population stop paying forced taxation - income tax, forced super,etc Live off grid and Live off system Go back to rural districts and communities working together and solving their own problems and issues without relying on big government and forced taxation to fund the solutions
- gcmptra 7y agoYea, must fight back!