5 ms·

> Looking at a bigger picture though, honestly I think we're seeing the end of the raw global Internet for the masses. 20 years ago, it seemed impossible, but h

> Looking at a bigger picture though, honestly I think we're seeing the end of the raw global Internet for the masses. 20 years ago, it seemed impossible, but here we are. This is defeatist. You're probably right 'for the masses' but there will always be those networking and collaborating and bypassing whatever restrictions get put in place. I have online contacts in 'firewalled' regimes that use v2ray/shadowsocks or whatever the thing of the now is to get around the restrictions. There's a ton of cheap tools now that can be used for running local or citywide networks, hams have their own packet radio stuff. There's now all those new LoRa networks that only really popped up in the past few years. What I'm trying to say is the stuff is there and it's accessible, but it's only going to be a minority of people that use it just as it's a small minority that comments on posts like this (people like us) and even smaller yet again that write content on how to do it and create those tools to begin with. But it has always been this way....

ZoomZoomZoom 1y ago
> What I'm trying to say is the stuff is there and it's accessible, but it's only going to be a minority of people that use it Exactly. This is why the tech has to be made resistant to surveillance and censorship by default. Until usage of alternative connectivity and circumvention methods sticks out as a sore thumb (turns out, for most tools it does), it applies a constant pressure on anyone under oppression to stop, increasing the risks for those who continue to use them.
mschuster91 1y ago
> hams have their own packet radio stuff We got basically three different things. First we got APRS, mostly used for position reports (go on aprs.fi for a map). That is pretty nice but unusable for anything more than a SMS worth of things, and you need repeaters and not just internet gateway collectors to actually have something that's resilient. Next thing is AX25, the technical foundation behind APRS. Yes you can use it to create actual data links, but it's about modem speeds so virtually useless outside of toying around. And finally there is HamNet but it's line of sight based and not cross routed to the internet, and identically to all things ham radio, encryption is banned by law. And on top of that, you can expect regulatory agencies to crack down on ham radio fast and hard, should it be used for political dissency motives at scale. It's already against ham practice to talk politics, especially with people in repressive countries - we don't want more countries other than Yemen and North Korea to just blanket ban ham radio.
- swores 1y ago
  Am I right to assume that it's easy to locate the source of ham radio signals? i.e. if there's a blanket ban, can you use your radio hidden in your house or can the government easily find out that the user they've noticed on the airwaves is located there and knock down your door?
  - ridgeguy 1y ago
    It's very easy, has been for a long time. See the story of Israeli Eli Cohen, an operative in Syria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cohen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cohen
    - swores 1y ago
      Thanks!
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    > can the government easily find out that the user they've noticed on the airwaves is located there and knock down your door? Sadly, yes. A bunch of SDRs spread over the whole country with precise clocks or a scheme like the one used in ADS-B MLAT reception (that's based on using the internal SDR clocks without requiring precise clocks on the host) is enough to use multilateration to hone in on any kind of signal, even looking up in raw signals in the past. If I were to guess, I'd assume that even in nominal democracies the secret agencies are already running such monitoring stations so it's probably already the case that, should need be, all communications can be triangulated. The HF bands are all small enough to be sampled whole with a single cheap RTL-SDR each, a KiwiSDR can sample literally all of them at the same time, only the VHF/UHF bands need more dedicated equipment (e.g. a BladeRF) - all of that is inside the range that hobbyists can easily afford.
    - swores 1y ago
      Thanks!
  - Tangurena2 1y ago
Ray20 1y ago
>there will always be those networking and collaborating and bypassing whatever restrictions get put in place. I don't think so. It's just a question of the severity of the punishment for violating regulations. A couple of small fines for an unlicensed networking and collaborating - and there will be no one left. >There's a ton of cheap tools now that can be used for running local or citywide networks, hams have their own packet radio stuff. The issue has never been in the technical plane. The equipment for building and operating networks has become dozens of times more accessible over the past couple of decades. The problem is in the increasing number of regulations that purposefully lock all clients into a few select controlled service providers. They have a goal and they have the tools to achieve it, so it's only a matter of time before they reach the minority of network-enthusiasts.
- dvdkon 1y ago
  > It's just a question of the severity of the punishment for violating regulations. A couple of small fines for an unlicensed networking and collaborating - and there will be no one left. I don't think you give people enough credit. There have been dissidents in totalitarian regimes the world over, even when the punishment was death or being sent to a labour camp. You might think that unlicenced networking isn't important enough, but I think many people would see it as the start of China-like censorship. Especially now that we've had decades of a mostly-free Internet, I don't think people will react kindly to politicians taking it away.
  - LadyCailin 1y ago
    I dunno, the reaction to the anti-porn laws in Texas haven’t gotten too much pushback, as far as I’m aware. Sure, keeping kids off porn is good, but do you trust the Christian nationalist government of Texas to only define porn as the thing that needs logged identification?
    - dmbche 1y ago
      I think it's trivial for people to circumvent this ID, no? So no need to pushback. Kind of like everyone going 120 on the highway
rs186 1y ago
Live in China/Iran for a few years and see if you would still post this same comment.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  I don't think personal reprisal because you posted something critical is generally the most scalable or realistic concern. It seems far easier to just let citizens know that if they're disruptive, you don't have protections; for everyone else, who knows if others can even see what you post? The current american administration clearly wants to stamp down on disruption, too. If they can't deport us I think they'd be fine with prison or working us to death. Future administrations won't be so dumb to think this is just related to criticizing Israel, either, but anything.... disruptive.
coderatlarge 1y ago
it seems to me that a nation determined to control wired network traffic within its borders cannot be circumvented. if they can control the ISPs and observe packet flows then they can just obstruct any connection they cannot conclusively prove is acceptable. it seems then that store-and-forward ad hoc p2p (ie extremely high unpredictable latency) is the only option for those who can reach some node with a connection to the outside (maybe laser near the border). or perhaps really clever steganography with outside partners assisting.
- baby_souffle 1y ago
  > it seems to me that a nation determined to control wired network traffic within its borders cannot be circumvented. Starlink/Kuiper and the geostationary satellites are an alternative. Not perfect... but far better than *nothing*
  - coderatlarge 1y ago
    i believe the base stations for those can be triangulated leading to knocks on the for for unsanctioned traffic.
  - bigfatkitten 1y ago
    None of the major mobile satellite networks work without the terminal’s position being known.
  - robertlagrant 1y ago
    > Starlink Only when (if) Stalink removes the need for base stations and just sends the traffic directly between satellites.
    - ACCount36 1y ago
      It already does that. That's how Starlink works over the ocean.
      - 1y ago

ZoomZoomZoom 1y ago

> What I'm trying to say is the stuff is there and it's accessible, but it's only going to be a minority of people that use it Exactly. This is why the tech has to be made resistant to surveillance and censorship by default. Until usage of alternative connectivity and circumvention methods sticks out as a sore thumb (turns out, for most tools it does), it applies a constant pressure on anyone under oppression to stop, increasing the risks for those who continue to use them.

mschuster91 1y ago

> hams have their own packet radio stuff We got basically three different things. First we got APRS, mostly used for position reports (go on aprs.fi for a map). That is pretty nice but unusable for anything more than a SMS worth of things, and you need repeaters and not just internet gateway collectors to actually have something that's resilient. Next thing is AX25, the technical foundation behind APRS. Yes you can use it to create actual data links, but it's about modem speeds so virtually useless outside of toying around. And finally there is HamNet but it's line of sight based and not cross routed to the internet, and identically to all things ham radio, encryption is banned by law. And on top of that, you can expect regulatory agencies to crack down on ham radio fast and hard, should it be used for political dissency motives at scale. It's already against ham practice to talk politics, especially with people in repressive countries - we don't want more countries other than Yemen and North Korea to just blanket ban ham radio.

swores 1y ago
Am I right to assume that it's easy to locate the source of ham radio signals? i.e. if there's a blanket ban, can you use your radio hidden in your house or can the government easily find out that the user they've noticed on the airwaves is located there and knock down your door?
- ridgeguy 1y ago
  It's very easy, has been for a long time. See the story of Israeli Eli Cohen, an operative in Syria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cohen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Cohen
  - swores 1y ago
    Thanks!
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > can the government easily find out that the user they've noticed on the airwaves is located there and knock down your door? Sadly, yes. A bunch of SDRs spread over the whole country with precise clocks or a scheme like the one used in ADS-B MLAT reception (that's based on using the internal SDR clocks without requiring precise clocks on the host) is enough to use multilateration to hone in on any kind of signal, even looking up in raw signals in the past. If I were to guess, I'd assume that even in nominal democracies the secret agencies are already running such monitoring stations so it's probably already the case that, should need be, all communications can be triangulated. The HF bands are all small enough to be sampled whole with a single cheap RTL-SDR each, a KiwiSDR can sample literally all of them at the same time, only the VHF/UHF bands need more dedicated equipment (e.g. a BladeRF) - all of that is inside the range that hobbyists can easily afford.
  - swores 1y ago
    Thanks!
- Tangurena2 1y ago

Ray20 1y ago

>there will always be those networking and collaborating and bypassing whatever restrictions get put in place. I don't think so. It's just a question of the severity of the punishment for violating regulations. A couple of small fines for an unlicensed networking and collaborating - and there will be no one left. >There's a ton of cheap tools now that can be used for running local or citywide networks, hams have their own packet radio stuff. The issue has never been in the technical plane. The equipment for building and operating networks has become dozens of times more accessible over the past couple of decades. The problem is in the increasing number of regulations that purposefully lock all clients into a few select controlled service providers. They have a goal and they have the tools to achieve it, so it's only a matter of time before they reach the minority of network-enthusiasts.

dvdkon 1y ago
> It's just a question of the severity of the punishment for violating regulations. A couple of small fines for an unlicensed networking and collaborating - and there will be no one left. I don't think you give people enough credit. There have been dissidents in totalitarian regimes the world over, even when the punishment was death or being sent to a labour camp. You might think that unlicenced networking isn't important enough, but I think many people would see it as the start of China-like censorship. Especially now that we've had decades of a mostly-free Internet, I don't think people will react kindly to politicians taking it away.
- LadyCailin 1y ago
  I dunno, the reaction to the anti-porn laws in Texas haven’t gotten too much pushback, as far as I’m aware. Sure, keeping kids off porn is good, but do you trust the Christian nationalist government of Texas to only define porn as the thing that needs logged identification?
  - dmbche 1y ago
    I think it's trivial for people to circumvent this ID, no? So no need to pushback. Kind of like everyone going 120 on the highway

rs186 1y ago

Live in China/Iran for a few years and see if you would still post this same comment.

MangoToupe 1y ago
I don't think personal reprisal because you posted something critical is generally the most scalable or realistic concern. It seems far easier to just let citizens know that if they're disruptive, you don't have protections; for everyone else, who knows if others can even see what you post? The current american administration clearly wants to stamp down on disruption, too. If they can't deport us I think they'd be fine with prison or working us to death. Future administrations won't be so dumb to think this is just related to criticizing Israel, either, but anything.... disruptive.

coderatlarge 1y ago

it seems to me that a nation determined to control wired network traffic within its borders cannot be circumvented. if they can control the ISPs and observe packet flows then they can just obstruct any connection they cannot conclusively prove is acceptable. it seems then that store-and-forward ad hoc p2p (ie extremely high unpredictable latency) is the only option for those who can reach some node with a connection to the outside (maybe laser near the border). or perhaps really clever steganography with outside partners assisting.

baby_souffle 1y ago
> it seems to me that a nation determined to control wired network traffic within its borders cannot be circumvented. Starlink/Kuiper and the geostationary satellites are an alternative. Not perfect... but far better than *nothing*
- coderatlarge 1y ago
  i believe the base stations for those can be triangulated leading to knocks on the for for unsanctioned traffic.
- bigfatkitten 1y ago
  None of the major mobile satellite networks work without the terminal’s position being known.
- robertlagrant 1y ago
  > Starlink Only when (if) Stalink removes the need for base stations and just sends the traffic directly between satellites.
  - ACCount36 1y ago
    It already does that. That's how Starlink works over the ocean.
    - 1y ago