Tag Archive for 'internet'

Internet war, what is it good for?

On Wednesday (US time), Dave Winer published a post entitled ‘Are we starting a full-out war on the Internet?‘. This may seem a bit extreme or at least overly dramatic to many, but given the goings on in relation to Wikileaks, and the ongoing fallout from the release US Embassy Cables, it has certainly given me pause to reflect on the question.

Winer states upfront:

I’m afraid it (the storm surrounding Wikileaks) also will draw us into a future that I’ve believed was coming and didn’t want to talk about.

This also reminded me of something that was said in the BBC documentary series I saw on TV here in Australia not long ago, The Virtual Revolution. At one point it asserted that mass warfare on the Web is a strong possibility for the 21st century, and it will be our choice as to whether we take it in that direction, and to what extent.

As far as I know, humans have always been in violent conflict with each other to varying degrees. Is there any reason to think life and actions online will be any different? I certainly hope so. There is the hope that we are heading into a new era where mass warfare may become a thing of the past, as our online global civilisation further develops. Not that there will not be conflict, it’s just that it may look more like civil conflict. In a more globally connected world, to what degree will it be ‘them and us’?

DDOS attacks such as the ones we’ve seen on Wikileaks, and then in retaliation from supporters, on multiple companies that withdrew their digital services from Wikileaks, are nothing new. As I write this, I see that Sarah Palin says she is also under heavy attack from London–based supporters of Wikileaks. What is new is the very high profile nature of this situation, and that it involves the US government, and many other governments around the world. It also goes to the heart of the rapidly changing media industry; many would say an industry in crisis.

As Winer implies, what we have seen in the past few days is a kind of mob mentality emerge, both online and off. It’s all in the spirit of “fighting the good fight” for free speech, on more than one side of the debate in fact. And before we know it, we could be in the middle of an online war that we find it impossible to extricate ourselves from.

As @deekdeekster on Twitter pointed out as I was thinking out loud about writing this post, “the implications of mob internet rule are scary, as much as the strangling of free speech”. There is certainly something to that.

There’s also something to the assertion that governments have been pushing around other governments and their people, and it’s not a surprise that people resent that, and citizens should know what governments are doing in their name. That is indeed a solid reason why Wikileaks (and other whistleblower organisations) should be vigorously defended, and be allowed to continue to exist.

It remains to be seen whether this is how 21st century wars will partly be fought, but it seems highly likely. Many societies are becoming more and more dependent on digital networks. What the present international situation shows is that we are getting to the point where attacking, disrupting and targeting information and the flow of information, and indeed revealing previously secret information, can have a major impact on the world as we know it.

Wikileaks is rocking our institutions to the core.

You’d have to have been living under a rock not to notice the massive and continuing fallout from the latest Wikileaks release of diplomatic ‘cables’, on top of the Iraq war logs released not long ago.

Add to this the probability that Wikileaks will release documents that will significantly impact some major banks (and other companies?) in the near future, and you have a full blown scramble to try and shut down Wikileaks as soon as possible.

Wikileaks, It's time to open the archives

Just in the last couple of days since the beginning of the latest release, among other developments, many governments seem to be in damage control; Wikileaks has been under DDOS attack on multiple occasions; Interpol has issued a ‘Wanted’ notice for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange; Amazon has cut off hosting to Wikileaks on its servers; and a senior advisor and strategist to the Canadian Prime Minister has even called for Assange’s assassination! What next?

Whether you think what Wikileaks is doing is right or wrong, there’s little doubt that they are so far succeeding in rocking many of our major institutions to the core, including ‘the media’, governments, and soon various large corporations. It also leaves little doubt about just how much impact the Internet is continuing to have on the world. Wow.

What would a global civilisation with a collective mind look like?

Lately I’ve been thinking more on the subject of this great human hive humanity is currently creating, in the form of our insatiable and widening use of the internet.

In just 20 years we have come to the point where almost 2 billion of us now use the internet, and no doubt that will continue to grow until most of us are communicating online on a regular basis, however long that takes.

Star Trek references aside (to The Borg hive mind), as I know someone will mention it, the question remains: is all this mass connectivity leading to a global civilisation with a collective mind? Is it an inevitable part of our social, technological and cultural evolution as a species?

Let’s just say the answer to that question is yes. Will this collective mind be able to help solve our greatest problems, such as climate change? Will it create new problems, such as large scale cyberwarfare? Will life on the internet just play out as it does offline or will it be different? Perhaps the answer is all of the above.

As usual I’ve already floated these ideas on Twitter, a part of this global hive mind in the making (now close to 2oo million users worldwide). It was suggested at one point that the general level of discourse on the web is not high enough at present to be able to achieve anything of real value in a collective sense.

My answer is that it doesn’t all have to be of crucial importance and of great value. Like conversation, the collective mind will wander, will concern itself with trivial matters and pointless entertainment, and “oh look at that silly cat” and celebrities and so forth. Like conversation itself, it can be trivial, it can be awkward, it can be small, it can be big, it can be vitally important. It can have a sense of urgency. It can be relaxed and slow. It can be a lot of things.

Someone also mentioned that it may be a disastrously disconnected global mind rather than a cohesive, perfectly in-tune collective consciousness. My answer to that is that perhaps it doesn’t need to be pretty or perfect, maybe it just has to be.

The Politics Of Censoring The Web

Apparently, Twitter and many other social networks were blocked in China in the lead-up to the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. According to Mashable, the networks included Twitter, YouTube, WordPress, Flickr and others. Also included were local sites such as Fanfou, Xiaonei and Wordku, although these said they were closed for maintenance.

The blocking of these networks must have been frustrating for a lot of people, to say the least! I can only imagine the uproar that would occur if the government tried to block or filter the internet in Australia.

Oh, hold on a second, there has been a debate going on in this country about the government introducing a contentious plan to force internet service providers to filter the internet to a certain (or rather uncertain) extent. Talk of this kind of censorship raises quite a few questions. How is it decided what gets censored and what doesn’t? Who decides? Where do you draw the line in a medium that is constantly being updated and changed? Is any system for censoring the internet workable in practice? Is it healthy for a democracy to begin censoring the internet at all?

The plan by the Australian government to filter the internet is one thing,  blocking whole social networks for days at a time for political reasons is quite another.