Ownership of the Internet

In the last issue of New Scientist there is an article called Uncle Sam is Watching You (p.22) in which it describes the current system of internet ownership and challenges to the status quo.

What the article says:
The internet consists of 13 computers that translate text into IP node addresses. Together the computers of this system, which are spread across the globe, are called the Domain Name System (DNS). The DNS master computer, or master root server, is located in the USA, where the internet was invented in the late 1960's by the US military. The US Department of Commerce regulates the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit company that essentially manages the internet. ICANN does a good job of protecting freedom of speech, and works well with the international community. However, there is nothing to ensure that this will continue since ICANN is under US government control. If the US government were to so wish, it could delete a country from the master root or shut the entire internet down.

The UN's Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) is concerned by what could happen if the internet is to remain under the jurisdiction of a single state. Issues such as the high prices demanded from third world countries to be linked to the internet's fat pipes, and the lack of international standards for dealing with cyber crime and net privacy violations are of great concern to the WGIG. The WGIG has proposed that an international body govern ICANN, and hence the internet, rather than the US government. This November in Tunisia the International Telecommunication Union's World Summit on the Information Society is to vote on whether or not to accept the WGIG's proposal. For its part, the US government strongly opposes such plans to internationalize control over the internet.

--------------------------------------

What I think:
Perhaps rather than seeking a single international system a more decentralized policy could be used. Perhaps duplicates of the internet's major hubs could be created so that many different countries could house portions of it, making it impossible for it to be lost. Certainly the master computer needs to be under international control, but this would not prevent the US government from forcibly taking the master computer since it is located in the USA. For this reason it may be a wise decision to have the EU maintain a master computer duplicate of its own as well. Eventually each country should have it's own duplicate so that none could destroy it for the others. China and Iran have undertaken projects to seriously restrict the internet within their own countries. Thus it is not inconceivable that the same could happen some day in this country, but with much more far-reaching effects because we control the internet for the entire world.

Peer-to-peer networks and repeater relay technologies (that are now being used to avoid having to pay cable compaies for access) should also be examined and experimented with so that the people of the world will always be able to continue along the path of international exchange and unification even if it be against the will of the governments.

The Invisible Bridge

This week I'm teaching at "the peace school" which is a program run out of two Columbus area churches, the Newman Center and the University Baptist Church. They are adjacent to one another. There are preschool classes, daycare groups from younger kids and general classes for people of all ages (mostly ages 5-10, though there are a few older kids, adults and their small children mixed in too). The entire thing is organized by Madeline Trichel to teach conflict management skills, cooperative games, silly songs and to increase both global and daily-life awareness of conflicts. In my class there are two other teachers, 13 kids and a woman with her toddler. The theme of the school is bridges, or more specificly bridges for peace. The students were first introduced to a bridge in a more literal/structural sense. Over the past couple days they've learned to see it more as a metaphor. A bridge for peace is anything that connects people, groups, or regions. So this includes music, airplanes, language, boats, trains, roads, actual bridges and telephones. My favorite kind of bridge is the invisible kind: the internet.

I love what technology has been able to do for us. While there still are reasons to worry about invasions of privacy, the more recent developments in tech seem to favor decentralization and bottom-up organization. No longer do we think of evil robots or distant space travel and battles with aliens when we think of the future, or at least I don't (as I once did). I think of open source, instant messaging, blogs. Last year I wrote a paper about this in relation to Orwell's 1984. I might post that eventually, although I don't think its so great anymore. But basicly the internet is what can most bring peace to the the world, most help us to help eachother and to know one another. The internet's infrastructure and access to computers are very important for the causes of justice and peace. There are also other tech trends as of late that favor the user, consumer, worker or common person in general rather than the corporate-state Axis of Evil. An example of this trend can be found in the new no-click ideas being created. Check out the recent post and links on this topic from Sanity Now!, a cool New Zealand-based blog authored by a Maori Jew, which is, by the way, an ethnic diversity which ought to make us all jealous (after all, more diverse genetic heritage makes one less suceptible to many diseases, and cultural diversity is probably way more important than that).

My Moral Philosophy

In my Ethics and Science class we read a short excerpt from a book called Beyond Bumper-sticker Ethics. Our teacher asked us some broad questions about where we stand, how we view the world, and from what bases we operate in the world. Below are my answers to the questions. I have a more revised summary of my position which I may tack on in the comments sometime.

My vision of ultimate reality includes God. The things I am most sure of are that there is right and wrong and that human emotion cannot be entirely reduced to the physiological functions of synapses. I see no basis for this within a wholly empirical system. While I do not propose an affront to the accuracy of scientific processes, I simply do not believe that they explain everything. I have no evidence for my position other than intuition.

I understand arguments that God is a human construct made to comfort us or to serve some other function. While this may be true, and I may rationally be able to see the strengths of this point of view, to me as a human (who constructs ultimate reality perhaps only as the result of mechanistic causes) God is real and will remain so. Without anything beyond empirical facts there are no problems other than human perception of pain, and the only solutions are to either undertake a massive numbing campaign by use of drugs or attempt species-wide suicide. I can't disprove this position, but that is only because "disproving" is itself a construct of science, making empiricism a system supported only by circular arguments and in reality no more true than most other systems.

I'm not particularly picky about what God is. I only insist that there is some meaning and order beyond empiricism. This void is what I call God. If someone says they don't believe in God, they may in truth actually believe in something akin to what I have described. To me, meaning and morality are the only parts of God that can comprehended by humans, and are the only parts that matter. There may or may not be more to God; it doesn't affect me in any way I need to know about either way.
I don't like the English word "God" because it seems to heavily imply a grandfatherly person sitting in the sky directing things. I do not think things are necessarily entirely directed by a deity. Nor do I believe that God is necessarily good. Either God is not good or not charge, maybe both. Perhaps due to my religious background (which says that God cannot be portrayed or even compared to anything we know but can only be talked about in negatives) I prefer the Hebrew word "YHVH" which signifies something like "being" or alternately "will be/may be."

Douglas Rushkoff wrote a short simple book called "Nothing Sacred" in which he describes how the Hebraic nondescriptive approach to the divine may have been an attempt to communicate that the unknowable is no concern of our's beyond the fact that we know it exists. On the ark where an idol would be placed there was an empty space. Much of the Jewish tradition usually does not indulge discussions about the afterlife or the nature of the divine because they are so unknowable that they are both divisive and irrelevant.

=================================

In my worldview humans are the ones who are given the task of implementing morality (maybe like the "co-creator" role of the bible) Perhaps God is powerless, perhaps this is a test, perhaps God is not good; None of that matters to our world in which human activity is the only thing we can do anything about.

I believe that humans have the capacity for good, which is discernible by use of intuition (and informed rationality to ensure good intention becomes good action). Why do we fall short of this?
1) Fear/Distrust <---> Insecurity (either real or only perceived)
2) Lack of informed rationality ---> Gap between intent and action

Humans have the instinct to survive. This is a valid impulse. When it appears to conflict with ethics it is often thrown by the wayside. In earlier ages there may have been actual scarcity of resources and life was likely a high-priced commodity. However, we theoretically are no longer hindered by such limitations of supply. A sense of fear/distrust is caused by perceived insecurity of life/lifestyle. Often perceived insecurity causes actual insecurity (circle of violence and reprisals...). There is no reason why people must feel insecure in a world where it is possible to provide for everyone. However, a sense insecurity prevents the very eradication of this evil. We need stronger welfare/regulatory states and structures of international peacekeeping to prevent insecurity of position so that people can behave morally without the option-blindness that results from the presence of a perceived threat.

Even without the perception of insecurity people may lack the skills to apply their moral intentions. Education and a high-quality information dissemination system is needed so that people can do what they intend to do. I believe that most people want good but that they don't usually now how to act in accordance with their values.

Obviously these conditions will never be fully met, and even if they were they could easily exist for only a short time. Is this a flaw of human nature? I don't think so: as the world changes it is difficult for institutions and their relations with the people to keep up. The world changes because humans are creative. While this causes many problems it may be one of the only things justifying the continued infliction of our species upon the planet. Times will change and we will never be able to fully attain those conditions necessary for widespread morality. However, it is not an all-or-nothing scenario; we can get as close as we can get.

What most concerns me is that the government structures that last the longest will by simple logic be the most prevalent in the distant future. Thus we may be evolving toward a more stable, but perhaps less just society. We can only hope that governments based upon respect for human dignity prove to be longer-lasting than autocratic regimes.

One People, No Borders

Why is it that immigration laws are so strict? Security arguements are hardly justification for blocking students, professionals and refugees from coming. They may be the only ones to follow strict immigration laws while terrorists could easily find ways slip past immigration control or enter illegally. Many may fear the economic impact such immigration liberalization would bring as a result of the flight of those in poor regions to wealthier regions such as North America and the EU. This is the only reason I can see for anti-immigration laws.

However, the status quo of slow assylum hearings that cause many refugees to languish in camps or be killed in their homelands is morally intolerable, and has been for years, perhaps most notably during the Holocaust and other more recent genocides in which millions more died than was necessary. In addition to this, immigration control keeps out many students, professionals. My readers will know that I love inter-cultural contact, and find restrictions on the flow of ideas to be hindrances to the advancement of global society.

Proponents of the "free market" should recognize that international trade liberalization is far from complete when only goods are allowed to cross borders. If people can freely move from one place to another, the poor will flock to the wealthier nations, and those crowded in over-filled urban centers will migrate to the countryside, thus leading to an eventual equilibrium of distribution of population and capital across the face of the earth. This is precisely what is most feared by proponents of anti-immigration policies. I am by no means a supporter of the so-called free market to any form of extreme, and see that even a geographic equilibrium of resources and humans would not prevent class-stratification within specific regions. However, I see that there is a strong need to liberalize immigration policy despite legitimate economic concerns (although neither right nor left-wing ideologies provide much of a basis for anti-immigration positions).

I recognize the need to address the concerns that many have about open immigration. In order to prevent a massive influx of impoverished people from third world countries that may destabilize already prosperous economies and societies I think it would be necessary for there to be multinational treaties to liberalize immigration policy in many prosperous states on a basis of coordinated action and gradual erosion of immigration control. By doing this regions, say the EU and the USA, could lessen the burden of immigration laws without having to bear the burden of massive influx alone, but rather spread it over a broader area. Such treaties should set a target year by which immigration laws would constitute nothing more than a background check to allow the governments to reject known criminals, spies or terrorists.

This could save numerous lives, enrich global culture, and help to equalize the distribution of resources relative to the distribution of people. If someone's threatening to kill me, I'll get up and leave. Of course I'd want my property protected, but that's nothing compared to my life. Evacuate the civilians and document as much of their property as possible. That's it; tyrants can battle amongst themselves without soldiers, citizens or victims.

We can vote with our feet.

The Culture of Driving

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the way our space is used, the way we transport ourselves from one place to another, the way we spend out time and the ways we treat one another are all wrong. Some of you might get sick of my anti-American idealization of European culture, but this time I have a specific example that illustrates the difference between our backwardness and European rationality and compassion. I have discussed the some of the Swiss communal economic/land use practices, and the Spanish lifestyle, and I'm sure many of you are aware of Bowling for Columbine's take on American culture as compared to Canadian, European, Japanese... cultures.

Today I saw the body of a pedestrian who had been hit by a car crumpled and motionless lying in the right lane of Morse Road east of 270 and west of Hamilton. Now I could focus on the problems of how that area is laid out: the fact that the whole area is poorly organized for pedestrians or their safety, even though the place has many houses, stores, restaurants, and of course many pedestrians. (Also as a side note: in Switzerland cars stop whenever anyone is anywhere near a crosswalk regardless of traffic flow, and crosswalks are put on major roads, including highways).

But, instead I want to focus on the reaction of the drivers around me. Seeing as there was a motionless, badly twisted body in the lane I was in, I was not able to drive there. The traffic there is almost always very slow, but especially with the 161-270 junction closed, 62 closed, construction on 270, Hamilton and on 161. Morse road at this time was at a crawl. Left lane backed-up because the left turn-lane is filled all the way back, the right lane slowed by people turning into parking lots every 20 meters, and people cutting in front of us pass in the right-turn-only lane. Its like that scene at the start of Office Space. Now I'm waiting to get into the left lane, with my turn signal blinking. I approach a small space, but the car in the left lane in back honks and accelerates from snail-pace to slug-pace (slugs aren't slowed by the huge shell) and prevents me from getting over. I wait, try again, the same. Again, the same. There's a dead person in the road! (Maybe they aren't dead, but have a broken back, but they aren't moving and luckily no one is making an attempt to move them.) But still! I don't think people have to drive with excessive courtesy or anything, but when there's a dying person in the road, don't be ridiculous.

Then I'm on my way, and the ambulance is coming a few minutes later, heading the opposite direction. At least the cars let this one through. About a week ago I was on 270 when an ambulance was coming through behind me. I pull over and let them pass. Then I keep on driving and I notice that I'm gaining on the ambulance. People ahead aren't getting over for it! Then they do get over for a stretch, and I follow in the wake of the ambulance to make it through the ridiculous traffic. But then the cars aren't getting over again and I have to slow down so that I don't pass the ambulance, which is franticly jumping from lane to lane trying to get through. Eventually I saw it make it to its exit though. Maybe the ambulances that I saw today were slow coming for the same reasons.

Now, when I was in Italy I saw a car accident on the way out of Florence heading North to Milan. It was August and most of Italy, and perhaps most of Europe was heading to the beaches of southern Europe. Tiny Fiats crammed with people, inflatible rafts and dogs towed small sailboats and carried canoes on their rooves. There was a minor fender-bender at a place where all these on and off-ramps met. The 2 cars in the little wreck pulled over to the edge, and then, instantly, about 5-10 cars are pulled over to help them. People are running from their cars to go help. I'm concerned that something more serious happened than I had thought. As we pass I see that the people from the wreck are out of their cars, walking around. The driver apologizes for seeming so uncaring, and tells us that he doesn't stop when he's on the clock for a customer. I don't think that it was necessary for all those people to go help, but I find it very interesting that they did, or that they were at least caring enough not to start getting all angry at eachother.

When I was in Paris I saw an accident in which a moped with a windshield hit a car going the opposite way making a left turn in front of him. I was standind on the street-corner and was stunned. All traffic going any direction stopped and pulled over to the curb before the ambulance even got there, or was even called. Before I have time to move or do anything, a team of street-sweepers appear, help the moped driver up, talk to him briefly, and start to clean up the glass, and drag his bike to the curb. The moped driver helps them hastily sweep up the glass, and then the intersection is clear. As I turn to walk away I see and hear the ambulance coming. I never saw anyone signal for an ambulance, but someone did and it was there almost instantly. I don't know if the man even went to the hospital on the ambulance; he didn't appear to be hurt. As I'm crossing the Seine and heading toward the city's Latin Quarter, I look back and traffic is zooming like nothing ever even happened.

I don't know what all that means other than that I was impressed with what I saw in Europe, but very disappointed with what I saw today.

On Nationalism in Rushdie

The question of meaning has driven the history and development of the human race. The quest for purpose has time and again led humans to search out individual significance through various types of communities. It is this that inspired prophets to unite warring desert tribes into broader religious communities. In more recent centuries individuals have sought meaning in more particularist ways, creating devolutionary nationalisms and regionalisms. The communal form that dominated intellectual discourse of the 19th and 20th centuries was the nation. Now, at the dawn of the 21st century the centrality of the nation in social and political discussions is in question. Whether or not the nation will survive this challenge can only be determined by time. What may lay beyond the nation is only now becoming imaginable. In recent decades intellectuals and artists have begun to grapple with the very notion of the nation. Central to any discussion on this topic is the author Salman Rushdie who, in his modern epic novel, Midnight's Children, considers the problems of identity in the modern world, using India as his model to test nationalist theory, pushing it to the breaking-point and beyond.

Read More

The Take

I heard about the documentary, The Take, a long time ago and everywhere I look I can't find it even though it was released in 2004. It was made by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis. If anyone readers or web wanderers know where to find it, please tell me.

AI Urgernt Actions.

Defend human rights.

2 Amnesty International Urgent Actions for this month.

Mahmoud Abbas's PA to resume executions

Vietnamese government imprisons democracy advocate for using the internet

The Self-defenestration of Oppression

This started as a joke yesterday, but evolved over the past day:

After the Revolution:

Upon witnessing his first --there would be many more-- foreign dictator leap from the window of his apartment (repairing the window became quite tiresome): "Comrade, in my homeland self-defenestration is generally looked down upon, but is considered an acceptable end for particularly despicable persons," he said as he turned to me for what would soon be the last time; Moses would not enter the promised land.

One by one the dictators flew through the windows that had been closed to their people for so many years, but now the tyrants' wings had been clipped by the people. They fell like bricks but splattered like eggs, and indeed their insides fertilized the grounds of history, enabling the hatching of a better world once the shell had been suddenly cracked after centuries of incubation in the hearts of parents, the dreams of their children, and the memories of their elders.

As mustachioed generals burst through panes of glass, the beak of the revolution plunged through the shell of oppression, and the dreams of the people poured through opened windows around the globe, ascending as a backward waterfall, a raging river, destroying all obstacles to its foward progress, paving the way for an emergent emanationism, creation in reverse --not destruction-- but the refinement of the will of the human collective into the creation of a new reality.


-Globe Patriot

Global Patriotism

I never feel anything --or rather: I never feel anything positive-- when I see a flag of any sort.

But while making a video recently, I was taking a photo of the earth from space and having it shift across the screen as zooming in, and I think that for the first time in my life I was feeling patriotic, not about the middle portion of North America, but about the world, one little speck in space, but the only speck that matters.

Our speck matters because it is the only speck we know of that has water and oxygen. Perhaps other planets have these elements too, but they are insignificant because they are undiscovered by humans, and that leads to my next point: oxygen and water are only important because humans need them to live, and humans are what matter most. Of course we should still treat our world and its creatures well. Ultimately though, we matter and that's it. We've only got one earth to deal with. It should be easy enough for us to maintain this little speck of dirt, but time and again we fail, and let eachother down.

While NASA may well be the single biggest waste aside from military expenditures, I'm glad we have it; I'm glad I can look at the earth from space, to see that it is round and beautiful and that we all live on it, and that's it. I don't care about martians or water on other planets or tenth planets or anything else; I care about humans and the earth that we inhabit together.

I couldn't care less about a government.