[p2p-research] FWD: Re: Google gets into the DNS business

[M. Fioretti]

(for some reason this message didn't go through this morning, when I
first sent it)

----- Forwarded message from "M. Fioretti" <mfioretti at nexaima.net> -----

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:01:34 +0100
From: "M. Fioretti" <mfioretti at nexaima.net>
To: p2presearch at listcultures.org
Subject: Re: [p2p-research] Google gets into the DNS business
Reply-To: "M. Fioretti" <mfioretti at nexaima.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B1C55E4.5020100 at kurtz-fernhout.com>

(this is an answer both to Paul and to Ted, who mentioned mesh
networking)

On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 20:09:56 PM -0500, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> M. Fioretti wrote:
> >Even the discourse about limiting corporation rights (which is
> >really interesting for me, thanks Michel for the link!)... I am not
> >sure how relevant it is to this other one. If it's already possible
> >(at the software level, physical infrastructure is another issue)
> >to communicate without multinationals, why discuss how they should
> >be regulated, in this context at least? I mean, they should be
> >regulated for a lot of reasons, but having reliable and easy to use
> >email is definitely not one of them.
> 
> Those are good points, but the fact is, multinationals lay the fiber
> cables under the sea, launch the satellites, repair the cables to
> people's homes, supply the power to the equipment, train the
> operators, and so on.

Sorry, but this comment is wrong. OK, wrong is not the best word, let
me elaborate. Your answer puts all in one monolithic block both the
hardware (the physical network) and the software services (email,
calendaring etc... by Google or everybody else). It frankly looks
simply another (extended) version of the attitude I described in an
earlier post:

"I'll rather be tortured that learn how software works and how to
configure it myself, so I will not only fatalistically give up to
corporations management of personal services I could do myself with
tools already existing today, but also give up serious understanding
of the difference between hardware/networks and software"

(answering also to Ted now) I am deeply skeptical (**) about DIY / P2P
physical networks as complete replacements of centrally managed and
deployed **physical** telecom networks. I already wrote extensively
about this, so I invite everybody to (re)-read this:

http://p2pfoundation.net/Thoughts_on_P2P_production_and_deployment_of_physical_objects

but this doesn't mean that I agree with "we are stuck with Google (and
corporate friends)". When it comes to self-managing software services
essential to one's life, like email etc..., we are not stuck with
corporations at all. It is already possible today to eliminate or
greatly reduce this dependency.

Sure, we would be still be dependent by centralized physical telecom
networks, especially if you accept my view that they are inherently
better than DIY ones at least as a backbone. But it is wrong at
several levels to say "if the **fibers** today only belong to
governments or multinationals I will also let _other_ multinationals
routinely scan ALL my email, private appointments and so on". One
thing does NOT imply or requires the other.

Battles for Net neutrality and abolition of some laws, plus
free-as-in-freedom software for cryptography, virtual servers on
community owned data centers, VPNs and similar services: this is all
stuff that already exists today and can make our online life much less
investigated from above and flexible on the very efficient physical
backbone that already exists, without spending thousands of hours to
imagine a new one and then decades and tons of money to implement it.

What is more efficient and eco-friendly if you need to communicate
privately with somebody living in another country, or even a few
kilometers away: learn how to use cryptography and steganography
software or look dreamily at the sky imagining how could and
privacy-friendly it would be if you and everybody else between you and
that somebody buying and deploying the hardware for mesh networking?

> So, unless we talk about a radical restructuring of the economy
> (which I've been happy to talk about)

Let's do it then, but that is a whole different thread. Everything
should be as simple as possible but not simpler. The tendency to start
(whatever the initial issue was) very stimulating discussions about
GUPEMs ( Grand Unified Phylosophical-Economical Model) doesn't change
the fact that **this** particular problem doesn't need such long term
revolutions. You don't need to reform the whole economy and society to
get your free digital communications under your own control.

	Marco

(**) even if I do recommend that people go and get information about
them, to understand the underlying general issues:
http://stop.zona-m.net/node/47

-- 
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
software is used *around* you:            http://digifreedom.net/node/84

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
software is used *around* you:            http://digifreedom.net/node/84