It’s Been 20 Years Since This Man Declared Cyberspace Independence (Wired)

[Posted February 8, 2016 by ris]

Wired talks with John Perry Barlow on the 20th anniversary of his Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace. "In the modern era of global NSA surveillance, China’s Great Firewall, and FBI agents trawling the dark Web, it’s easy to write off Barlow’s declaration as early dotcom-era hubris. But on his document’s 20th anniversary, Barlow himself wants to be clear: He stands by his words just as much today as he did when he clicked “send” in 1996."

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Feb 9, 2016 17:46 UTC (Tue) by asjo (guest, #56570) [Link]

I would be surprised if he clicked "send", but who knows.

It’s Been 20 Years Since This Man Declared Cyberspace Independence (Wired)

Posted Feb 9, 2016 18:42 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

A web search says he used a Mac to send the mail, so probably did click send - Eudora was around in the late 80s, so well within the time range given.

It’s Been 20 Years Since This Man Declared Cyberspace Independence (Wired)

Posted Feb 10, 2016 6:25 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

I respect Barlow's work with the EFF and love his lyrics for the Grateful Dead, but if Cyberspace is akin to a new undiscovered country, a lack of government is just as much of a bad idea there as in the physical world. Barlow says the inhabitants of cyberspace didn't elect their governments. Well, yes, they did, locally. But if the physical governments in the real world aren't representative, how to elect one that is? I don't see an answer. Libertarianism is superficially appealing but tends to empower the already powerful, in cyberspace just as much as in the real world.

It’s Been 20 Years Since This Man Declared Cyberspace Independence (Wired)

Posted Feb 12, 2016 12:43 UTC (Fri) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]

The Internet does have a governance model:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistakeholder_governance...

But there is hardly any police. :-)

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 11, 2016 9:17 UTC (Thu) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link]

Individuals online find their “freedom” limits how much power they have. With the demise of USENET, online communities are mainly to be found on websites run by corporations like Facebook et al, where you are only allowed to participate by agreeing to their terms and conditions. Don’t like it? You can get lost. But then you lose access to the increasing numbers of those who have agreed to become subjects of that empire.

And so power gets centralized, one way or another.

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 14, 2016 1:49 UTC (Sun) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]

Huh?

For about $10/mo anybody can have their very own virtual machine running a personal message board or mailing list. I know there's hundreds. There are probably millions.

Yes, you lose easy access to the large numbers of Facebook users. But this was always a problem for small publishers. Even in Ben Franklin's day you could publish all the pamphlets and small press newspapers you wanted but you could never MAKE people read them.

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 18, 2016 8:56 UTC (Thu) by Garak (guest, #99377) [Link]

That "very own" virtual machine is only your own so much as you abide by the providers terms and conditions. Problem not solved, just a different corporate overlord whose bottom line you better not threaten lest they decide to excercise their liberty by ceasing to do business with you.

I thought upon reading the FCC's 'Network Neutrality' (10-201) that the government actually grokked that. At least until I tried (very hard!) to get them to confirm or deny that suspicion. Now I think the real issue is a combination of Snowden/PRISM + Hillary/DiscouragingHomeServerUsage + Maintained Establishment Dominance of forums of 'free speech'.

http://lwn.net/Articles/670166/

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7522219498

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-k12...

Note well that I will pay $1000 to anyone who can answer the following question about my 2012 FCC complaint - "Is there any special meaning to the interestingly symmetric complaint number issued to me- FCC complaint #12-C00422224". I'm pretty sure the 12 corresponds to 2012AD. The sequence of 2's and 4's seems like it may pay homage to a self published dystopic scifi novel I wrote in 2009, which referenced the 2+2=4 stuff from Orwell's 1984.

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 18, 2016 15:49 UTC (Thu) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]

> That "very own" virtual machine is only your own so much as you abide by the providers terms and conditions. Problem not solved, just a different corporate overlord whose bottom line you better not threaten lest they decide to excercise their liberty by ceasing to do business with you.

The Internet is a set of INTERconnected NETworks. Each network is owned. Each network owner sets its own terms and conditions.

Unless you are networking between just you and your friends over private Ethernet, wireless or fiber, you are using someone else's stuff, and bound by the agreement you made to use it.

So yes any use of the Internet is subject to contracts with corporations (there might be privately owned non-corporate colo facilities and such but I doubt it, as limited liability is too useful).

You can find virtual machine and network providers that don't bother to enforce any terms and conditions except getting paid. Spammers and malware hosts use them and so their IPs are often blocked. But they are out there and that's probably the best you can manage for freedom.

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 18, 2016 20:27 UTC (Thu) by Garak (guest, #99377) [Link]

You can find virtual machine and network providers that don't bother to enforce any terms and conditions except getting paid. Spammers and malware hosts use them and so their IPs are often blocked. But they are out there and that's probably the best you can manage for freedom.

Doesn't that sound like a horribly sad state of affairs? Wouldn't a proper enforcement of 'Network Neutrality' including the right to operate both clients and servers from any internet access provider (especially residential) be a vast improvement of the situation? What am I not getting, other than the fact that decentralizing the technology of free speech will cost some establishment players clout and money that they aren't giving up without a bloody fight?

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 18, 2016 21:11 UTC (Thu) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]

I don't see it as horrible or sad. What it is, is the Internet is made up of private property and private roads, and no one on the Internet is obligated to talk to you or anyone else. It seems to work pretty well as I see it.

What I do think we need more of is competition and not government mandated "neutrality."

I see so many advantages to traffic prioritization and rate limiting that I don't want anything to interfere with that.

And as to running servers at home, I can and do. I pay more for a business class connection and I don't get hassled by usage limits or server restrictions, and I get static IPs, and I get better service guarantees, and I get _much_ better customer service and service technicians. The "Terms & Limitations" is pretty much "Don't do anything illegal." It really is a whole different and much better cable provider experience at 2-3x the consumer price. It is so different that it is almost as if Comcast is competing with itself.

Anyway, I feel no sympathy for cheap users who want the full Internet capability while only paying for the minimum rate. That low rate only exists because of all the corners that are being cut.

With more competition in the ISP market there would be providers offering full server access, symmetric rate connections and other features without charging business prices. There would be others offering almost free service with advertising supported video streaming and VOIP (listen to an ad before each call and free calling!) etc. People could choose what they want.

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 18, 2016 22:05 UTC (Thu) by Garak (guest, #99377) [Link]

I don't see it as horrible or sad. What it is, is the Internet is made up of private property and private roads, and no one on the Internet is obligated to talk to you or anyone else. It seems to work pretty well as I see it.

I thank you for your fairly in depth, insightful and nuanced response. I actually agree with much of it, though won't for now try to come back with my own nuanced angles and have a good discussion about some esoteric things. Rather I'll highlight what I see as our root disagreement- i.e. that in your description of the internet above, I don't see "Free Speech". If the internet was just another set of products in the capitalistic fray, your analysis would be fine (setting asside nuance and complexity for the moment). But the internet is somewhat rather more 'special' for lack of a better word. Precisely because it has _something_ to do with Free Speech. Amongst all the hours of my life I'll never get back that I spent reading FCC 'Network Neutrality' documents, I gleamed the fact that 'Free Speech' also has some pretty key relation to the FCC's jurisdiction over the internet. I.e. what makes it 'special' amongst a sea of other commercial products in our capitalistic society that the FCC has utterly no jurisdiction over.

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 19, 2016 20:21 UTC (Fri) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link]

I get _much_ better customer service and service technicians. The "Terms & Limitations" is pretty much "Don't do anything illegal." It really is a whole different and much better cable provider experience at 2-3x the consumer price. It is so different that it is almost as if Comcast is competing with itself.

Random gripe: I was getting a lot of packet loss with my Comcast business class connection last month. After three calls they sent someone out who seems to have fixed the problem. But all three calls were terrible--after the usual request to power-cycle the modem, they followed the same script, asking me how many devices I had, and then insisting (with no evidence) that a more expensive plan might solve my problem. I don't remember their being so bad the last time I needed support a few years ago. Oh well. Sorry for the derail....

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 18, 2016 16:28 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

> Note well that I will pay $1000 to anyone who can answer the following question about my 2012 FCC complaint - "Is there any special meaning to the interestingly symmetric complaint number issued to me- FCC complaint #12-C00422224".

No, there is no special meaning. The symmetry is purely coincidental. The FCC doesn't waste its time arranging for symbolic complaint numbers.

I'd prefer the $1000 in the form of a check, but I will also accept cash. Thanks.

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 18, 2016 20:12 UTC (Thu) by Garak (guest, #99377) [Link]

If you can convince me that you have actually answered my question, I'll gladly pay the money. But it sounds like you just made that up. Are you suggesting for instance, that my complaint was preceded by four hundred twenty two thousand two hundred and twenty three similar category complaints? Otherwise the 'simple coincidence' answer doesn't sound likely to be true to me. I'm not being evasive, I'll gladly pay at least a thousand U.S. dollars to be able to psychologically put this issue to rest. Seriously, if you actually believe your own answer, my phone number is 785-979-7723. Please try to convince me. This really is having seriously negative effects on my life.

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 19, 2016 13:53 UTC (Fri) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

The “#12” at the start probably comes from the fact that you submitted your complaint in 2012. As far as the rest goes, for all we know the number was assigned in the FCC office with code “C”, by employee no. “00422”, and it was that employee's 224rd complaint that year.

If you're really that bothered by it, try filing an FOI request with the FCC to have them explain how they assign their complaint numbers. This is probably not a national security issue, so you may even eventually get an answer back.

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 19, 2016 19:27 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

> If you can convince me that you have actually answered my question, I'll gladly pay the money.

If you can prove that I didn't answer the question correctly, I'll gladly return the money.

(This is an unnecessarily generous offer, as even an incorrect, made-up answer would still be an answer.)

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 22, 2016 7:08 UTC (Mon) by Garak (guest, #99377) [Link]

Honest question: Does anyone else reading this believe I have any ethical obligation to pay nybble41? I'm not inclined to at the moment, but I'll pay real close attention to any added opinion to break the 1-1 tie. I think the spirit, if not the letter of my bounty offer was clear enough. And to raven- I have already consulted with my mother's primary care physician who said 'it sounds like someone is putting you on', to which I agreed and did not press the issue further at the time. Likewise, were I to get a FOIA response, I would only be satisfied if it were thorough enough to exclude the possibility that hackers had owned the FCC's web server that day, and due to ordinary professional embarassment, no agent of the government feels inclined to confirm that suspicion for me. But I may get around to the FOIA some day. I'll specifically not for 6 months, so anyone who wants to try that route to get my $1000USD has the opportunity to save me some beaurocratic anxiety and headache (I've spent a _lot_ of time on hold with the FCC, mainly in 2012 and 2013 already. In my final conversation, they had a lawyer for the first time on conference/speaker. I got the distinct impression that the non-lawyer sympathized with my complaint, and perhaps even the beaurocratic drag I had dealt with. But I wasn't in the mood, nor could I really afford, to hire a lawyer and try to sue Google for something that became moot a few months later with the Verizon ruling. And then there were the kids protesing with picket signs in Utah that succeeded in forcing Google's hand WRT 'non-commercial' servers. Oh well, whatever...

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Feb 19, 2016 22:47 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

> I'll gladly pay at least a thousand U.S. dollars to be able to psychologically put this issue to rest.
> This really is having seriously negative effects on my life.

I believe you when you say that this issue is causing you pain and is having negative consequences in your life but you are not going to get an answer on a web forum or mailing list, it's beyond any of our ability to help, when something is causing serious negative effects in your life then you really need to consult with a doctor in your area. A doctor can get you the help you need in a way that none of us can.

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Mar 2, 2016 13:49 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

The sequence of 2's and 4's seems like it may pay homage to a self published dystopic scifi novel I wrote in 2009, which referenced the 2+2=4 stuff from Orwell's 1984.

How would the FCC even know that you'd published that novel? Why would the entity assigning ticket numbers have read it? Even if a human can override the automated assignment, which I doubt, how much spare time do you think people in the FCC have got? They're not looking for works self-published by every complainant, I guarantee you that.

Seriously, I can only echo the suggestions to talk to a psychologist on this one.

Internet Power Goes To The Powerful

Posted Mar 2, 2016 18:07 UTC (Wed) by Garak (guest, #99377) [Link]

Seriously, I can only echo the suggestions to talk to a psychologist on this one.

I went to more than half a dozen 1 hour sessions with a psychologist from the most mainstream mental health facility in Lawrence, KS last year- Bert Nash. That question was the first thing I asked of my therapist. I specifically asked my therapist to use their position of relative authority in society to help find an 'official' (a.k.a. psychologist blessed) answer. Sort of similar to the FOIA route I haven't yet exhausted. The therapist never again brought up that subject, and has since closed my case with no urging that I continue seeking the services of any mental health professional. Do you have a specific referral?