Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.

[krishna e bera <keb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:29:26PM -0500, Brian Mearns wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:04 PM, John Case <case@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Jacob Todd wrote:
> [clip]
> >>> I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing
> >>> regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international
> >>> agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries
> >>> don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut
> >>> them off.
> >
> >
> > Let's say this is successful ... it will simply lead to a parallel, mostly
> > wireless network that is even more decentralized than the current Internet.
> >  How much does it cost these days to link 10mbps across 10 km ?
> >
> > In a few years, with "n" hardware flooding the market, how much will it cost
> > to link 100mbps across 50 km ?
> [clip]
> 
> Agreed. You would think a man at the head of an Internet Security firm
> would have a better understand of Internet vs. internet. His comment
> about the Internet being "designed" illustrates to me that he doesn't
> actually know much about the history of networking, and apparently
> doesn't even have a good understanding of how ad-hoc these things
> really are.
> 
> Anyway, like I said, I totally agree with your point. If The Internet
> is restricted in such ridiculous ways as Kaspersky suggests, then
> other internets will just spring up to replace it. Maybe to this end
> we should all make an effort to establish de-centralized networks in
> our own worlds: connect a few neighbors together with CAT5, or hell,
> even RS232, and you've got a network. Connect one of these to the
> neighbors on the next block, and you've got an internet. How about
> Sneakernets? Onion routing by snail-mail and courier? Packet
> transmission by encrypted email? The Internet grew out of nothing,
> once, and that when network theory was only in its infancy. There's no
> reason we couldn't go it again.
> 
> -Brian

I havent read Kaspersky's report but the general argument is supportable.
The hardware on which the high speed internet runs is increasingly concentrated
under fewer owners.  How many internet access providers exist where you live
and do they significantly differ in Terms of Service, i.e. friendly to privacy?
Google alone now carries from 6 to 10% of all the traffic.
viz. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/youtube-bandwidth/

The laws governing (or attempting to) what is allowed on the internet
are also swinging in favour of more control and traceability.  
Indeed, if the ACTA currently being negotiated is implemented,
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-three-strikes-and-
Tor could well become illegal, (a) because it can be used to circumvent
restriction of copyrighted content by country and (b) because you can use it
to hide identity while filesharing (even though we discourage that).
EFF and friends succeeded in repealing some PATRIOT act insanity,
but national insecurity and corporate greed continue to infect
all areas of law and social reality including the internet.

Anyway, there is a volunteer project which may help Tor work 
on the kind of grassroots internet you describe:
https://www.torproject.org/volunteer.html.en
Simulator for slow Internet connections 
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/