Wireless validating identity firewalled
With the relentless progression of Moore's Law doubling the power of computers at constant cost every two years or so, in a matter of a few years the vast majority of the computer power on Earth was in the hands of individuals.Indeed, the large organisations which previously had a near monopoly on computers often found themselves using antiquated equipment inferior in performance to systems used by teenagers to play games.Without any doubt this explosive technological and social phenomenon discomfited many institutions who quite correctly saw it as reducing their existing control over the flow of information and the means of interaction among people.Suddenly freedom of the press wasn't just something which applied to those who owned one, but was now near-universal: media and messages which previously could be diffused only to a limited audience at great difficulty and expense could now be made available around the world at almost no cost, bypassing not only the mass media but also crossing borders without customs, censorship, or regulation.Computer bulletin board systems, Fido Net, and UUCP/USENET store and forward mail and news systems decentralised communication among personal computer users, culminating in the explosive growth of individual Internet access in the latter part of the 1990s. Individuals, all over the globe, were empowered to create and exchange information of all kinds, spontaneously form virtual communities, and do so in a totally decentralised manner, free of any kind of restrictions or regulations (other than already-defined criminal activity, which is governed by the same laws whether committed with or without the aid of a computer).Indeed, the very design of the Internet seemed technologically proof against attempts to put the genie back in the bottle.In that epoch I was firmly convinced that universal access to the Internet would provide a countervailing force against the centralisation and concentration in government and the mass media which act to constrain freedom of expression and unrestricted access to information.Further, the Internet, properly used, could actually government and corporate encroachment on individual freedom by allowing information to flow past the barriers erected by totalitarian or authoritarian governments and around the gatekeepers of the mainstream media.
The second category, including postal mail, telegrams, and the telephone, is a one-to-one medium; you could (as the technology of each matured) communicate with almost anybody in the world where such service was available, but your communications were person to person—point to point.
Over the last two years I have become deeply and increasingly pessimistic about the future of liberty and freedom of speech, particularly in regard to the Internet.
This is a complete reversal of the almost unbounded optimism I felt during the 1994–1999 period when public access to the Internet burgeoned and innovative new forms of communication appeared in rapid succession.
As with , I will doubtless be attacked by prognathous pithecanthropoid knuckle-typers who snatch sentences out of context. The original design of the ARPANET, inherited by the Internet, was inherently peer to peer.
I do not use the phrase “peer to peer” here as a euphemism for “file sharing” or other related activities, but in its original architectural sense, that all hosts on the network were logically equals.One note as to the style of this document: as in my earlier paper, I will present many of the arguments using the same catch phrases, facile reasoning, and short-circuits to considered judgment which proponents of these schemes will undoubtedly use to peddle them to policy makers and the public.