3 ms·
Exactly. Or, as the author puts it: I imagine a different future, where if Alice wants to talk to Bob and Bob wants to talk to Alice, there’s no unaccountable
by qjz 15y ago
Exactly. Or, as the author puts it:
I imagine a different future, where if Alice wants to talk to Bob and
Bob wants to talk to Alice, there’s no unaccountable intermediary that
can interfere with their communication, whether they’re speaking text,
or video, or 3-D models, or simulation.
I never thought I'd live in a society where the value of privacy or anonymity was up for debate. These are real world concepts that I thought everyone took for granted in their routine communications, but are being tossed aside on the Internet merely because finding a technical solution seems too hard (and it is very, very hard).
Maybe we should reframe the debate around the concept of intimacy instead. There are a lot of activities that are perfectly innocent, but I still wouldn't want to do them in a crowded room or in my boss's office. The Internet is becoming the primary medium of electronic communication. I should be able to use it to have an intimate discussion without it being data mined by anyone. There's no reason any third party should be able to detect the conversation is even taking place, and anonymity should be at my discretion, subject to the acceptance of the party I'm communicating with.
- rmrm 15y agoI can appreciate that thought, but I think you are overlooking that we are moving from the primary medium of the telephone for these types of communications. Telephones certainly weren't anonymous, or undetectable. In fact when they first started they weren't even private but quasi public (to the operator and others on the party line). I'm not arguing with the ideal, just pointing out that we didn't transition straight from face to face, anonymous and undetectable to the internet. We passed through the telephone phase, which last many decades, and arguably had less tools available to do what you wanted. Internet communication is an outgrowth of the telephone and its network, but arguably with some work is able to provide more of what you want. Your home phone was the equivalent of a gmail address. A pay phone was closer to a home email server, or an anonymous internet cafe web browsing session. If its shocking that this debate isn't larger about web decentralization, it should be doubly shocking that it never seemed to occur at all, so far as I can tell, during the phone age. But regardless, your ISP will always be present, and your packets will always traverse many dozens of pieces of networking equipment, owned by several dozen big faceless institutions, along the way. Services can be eliminated, the network cannot. True point to point communication in the manner the OP and yourself seem to want truly requires point to point communication. Maybe we need some innovation in the ham radio space.
- qjz 15y agoI'm old enough to remember party lines, so your point is well taken. But even with the advantages of the telephone, it soon became obvious that people resented the constant eavesdropping of nosy neighbors. It's frustrating to have to fight that battle all over again, especially when someone like Eric Schmidt says, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." [1] I get it, the Internet is turning the world into a small town, but sometimes living in a small town sucks. [1] http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-people http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-...
- wsc 15y agoEncrypting or even obscuring communications on the amateur radio bands is illegal.
- jrockway 15y agoHow many people have ever been prosecuted for that, though? Walking across the street when the light is red is illegal. But everyone does it anyway, and "the law" does not seem to care much.