4 ms·

The characteristic pattern: In authoritarian states, more influential internet service providers are predominantly state-owned, whereas in democracies they are

The characteristic pattern: In authoritarian states, more influential internet service providers are predominantly state-owned, whereas in democracies they are largely privatized. This is basically irrelevant as long as there are only a small number of gigantic providers. If the shareholders disagree with the government, the company will do what the government wants. This all played out with crystal clarity over two decades ago, when the CEO of Qwest (then one of the five largest carriers) refused to spy for the NSA. So they threw the CEO in prison and drove the company to the edge of bankruptcy (it no longer exists). That was the last time a "privately owned" telecom giant ever said "no" to the NSA. https://www.vice.com/en/article/pgg7q7/the-telecom-exec-who-refused-nsa-snooping-is-out-of-prison-and-hes-talking https://www.vice.com/en/article/pgg7q7/the-telecom-exec-who-... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished-qwest-refusing-participate-illegal-surveillance-pre-9-11 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished... https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30/a-ceo-who-resisted-nsa-spying-is-out-of-prison-and-he-feels-vindicated-by-snowden-leaks/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30...

verisimi 3y ago
Yes, corporations and the state working together is concealed fascism. We can choose red or blue, but nothing changes.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > concealed fascism. We can choose red or blue Presuming this, I can see distance between dominant and recessive fascism. Elements of recessive fascism can be whittled down - if enough of society is conscientious.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
The article begins by assuming a world split into two camps; freedom-loving liberal democracies and authoritarian hell-holes, each delimited by strong national borders. That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs. That should be evidence enough that for 80 years since the last world war we've maintained an alliance of ideals that were worth fighting for. Indeed, it's why we have concepts like "national security", although the common meaning of that has been perverted and its reputation dragged into the mud. Our more subtle problem is the supposed perimeters are no longer clear. We have fascists amongst us on our own soil. They are well ensconced in both government and private enterprise. Globalism and the Internet allowed the spread of authoritarianism which has taken root "at home", sadly much assisted by the technology we've built. I think it's cynical and does us a disservice if you suggest that every company who disagrees with what the government wants has their CEO thrown in jail. When bullied, providers like Lavabit, TrueCrypt and others chose to shut down their companies and tell everybody why rather than collude in fascism. Much as I dislike Apple (because they are duplicitous) they also put on a show of principles. They may even sincerely believe that "protecting" their customers is a core value. 80 years ago people chose to make the "ultimate sacrifice" by giving their lives. Today the ultimate sacrifice is to forgo money. Qwest folded because they were weak on fascism and put money first, but they are not the only example to hold up. There are more important things than money in this world.
- pydry 3y ago
  >That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs. This is possible in many if not most oppressive countries too. It's simply not worthwhile to throw every critic in prison. This doesn't mean they are protecting freedom, it just means that they've made a cost/benefit trade off that left somebody who wasn't that much of a threat to begin with out of prison. When you see how we treat dissidents who are a threat to the powers that be (Assange, Snowden, Gonzalo Lira) I don't see a huge difference in how we treat them and how our geopolitical rivals treat theirs. We're slightly better than them at not doing it, but that could just be because our elites feel less threatened. >That should be evidence enough that for 80 years since the last world war we've maintained an alliance of ideals that were worth fighting for. Not very well, and we get more like Russia with every passing year. Sometimes the similarities are a little too on the nose - like when we bring down a jet to try and grab one dissident and then a year or two later they do it too.
- lukan 3y ago
  "TrueCrypt" Maybe not the best example as it was very likely build and run by a criminal to aid his crime cartel buisness, not someone acting on ideals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux And TrueCrypt did officially recommend switching to BitLocker, where I am sure the NSA has backdoors for. So not sure what do you mean here.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Good to know that's a weak example. Thanks.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs. Mostly when the outcome of the criticism happening doesn't matter. And one can still very well be fired, fined, thrown off their college, for saying the wrong things in their "criticism of society", it's just that the establishment has those consequences distributed now.
betaby 3y ago
The thole 'paper' is a trash-level 'research', adds no knowledge at all. Typical in that area: 'I run ping from random places here are random graphs', let's assume some nonsense and there are bizarre conclusions.
rekttrader 3y ago
I can’t upvote this more, kudos to realization that the evolution of the apranet has not ever been anything less than a military network controlled by the US.
- cookiemonsieur 3y ago
  Exactly. So called "liberal western democracies" are essentially running the same game as the oh so bad "authoritarian states", just in a roundabout way (Protect the children, the war on "terror" etc ...) . These "privately owned" companies have always been in bed with the military industrial complex. I'm glad more and more americans and westerners are waking up to this reality and this false dichotomy.

verisimi 3y ago

Yes, corporations and the state working together is concealed fascism. We can choose red or blue, but nothing changes.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> concealed fascism. We can choose red or blue Presuming this, I can see distance between dominant and recessive fascism. Elements of recessive fascism can be whittled down - if enough of society is conscientious.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

The article begins by assuming a world split into two camps; freedom-loving liberal democracies and authoritarian hell-holes, each delimited by strong national borders. That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs. That should be evidence enough that for 80 years since the last world war we've maintained an alliance of ideals that were worth fighting for. Indeed, it's why we have concepts like "national security", although the common meaning of that has been perverted and its reputation dragged into the mud. Our more subtle problem is the supposed perimeters are no longer clear. We have fascists amongst us on our own soil. They are well ensconced in both government and private enterprise. Globalism and the Internet allowed the spread of authoritarianism which has taken root "at home", sadly much assisted by the technology we've built. I think it's cynical and does us a disservice if you suggest that every company who disagrees with what the government wants has their CEO thrown in jail. When bullied, providers like Lavabit, TrueCrypt and others chose to shut down their companies and tell everybody why rather than collude in fascism. Much as I dislike Apple (because they are duplicitous) they also put on a show of principles. They may even sincerely believe that "protecting" their customers is a core value. 80 years ago people chose to make the "ultimate sacrifice" by giving their lives. Today the ultimate sacrifice is to forgo money. Qwest folded because they were weak on fascism and put money first, but they are not the only example to hold up. There are more important things than money in this world.

pydry 3y ago
>That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs. This is possible in many if not most oppressive countries too. It's simply not worthwhile to throw every critic in prison. This doesn't mean they are protecting freedom, it just means that they've made a cost/benefit trade off that left somebody who wasn't that much of a threat to begin with out of prison. When you see how we treat dissidents who are a threat to the powers that be (Assange, Snowden, Gonzalo Lira) I don't see a huge difference in how we treat them and how our geopolitical rivals treat theirs. We're slightly better than them at not doing it, but that could just be because our elites feel less threatened. >That should be evidence enough that for 80 years since the last world war we've maintained an alliance of ideals that were worth fighting for. Not very well, and we get more like Russia with every passing year. Sometimes the similarities are a little too on the nose - like when we bring down a jet to try and grab one dissident and then a year or two later they do it too.
lukan 3y ago
"TrueCrypt" Maybe not the best example as it was very likely build and run by a criminal to aid his crime cartel buisness, not someone acting on ideals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux And TrueCrypt did officially recommend switching to BitLocker, where I am sure the NSA has backdoors for. So not sure what do you mean here.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Good to know that's a weak example. Thanks.
coldtea 3y ago
>That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs. Mostly when the outcome of the criticism happening doesn't matter. And one can still very well be fired, fined, thrown off their college, for saying the wrong things in their "criticism of society", it's just that the establishment has those consequences distributed now.

betaby 3y ago

The thole 'paper' is a trash-level 'research', adds no knowledge at all. Typical in that area: 'I run ping from random places here are random graphs', let's assume some nonsense and there are bizarre conclusions.

rekttrader 3y ago

I can’t upvote this more, kudos to realization that the evolution of the apranet has not ever been anything less than a military network controlled by the US.

cookiemonsieur 3y ago
Exactly. So called "liberal western democracies" are essentially running the same game as the oh so bad "authoritarian states", just in a roundabout way (Protect the children, the war on "terror" etc ...) . These "privately owned" companies have always been in bed with the military industrial complex. I'm glad more and more americans and westerners are waking up to this reality and this false dichotomy.