Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > rm_mazandbren > The Complaisant Husband |
Barbarian at the Portal
|
Barbarian at the Portal There is a widespread perception that the value of the internet relies on the freedom of the internet. Freedom of expression, freedom of anonymity and, of course, all the free goodies that you can lay your hands on. It is this view that is increasingly being heard as any number of experts turn from promoting the internet as some sort of magical panacea for the world’s ills and bemoan the rise of the efforts by companies and the like to create their own networks of retailers, entertainment sites, etc within the broader network of the internet. One article likened it to the process in the real world where the big shopping malls developed at the expense of the local shopping strips. Commentators and experts are increasingly complaining that the internet is being corrupted by commercialisation or being torn down by government interference in the freedoms that the internet was supposed to guarantee. And yet, for all the warnings of doom and gloom that are broadcast about these developments, it is increasingly obvious that these networks of online and bricks and mortar companies are attracting an ever growing number of users. As another article described it, the days of the frontier internet are coming to an end, just as the American Wild West was eventually tamed and settled. The small sites, just like the corner stores, are being left out in the cold as these networks continue to develop. The interesting thing is that the reason for the popularity of these networks is often overlooked; in my experience none of the articles I have read in the last six months have really touched on the actual cause of this mass migration to these networks, being content to complain about the effect it has having and will continue to have. In many ways it reminds me of the complaints constantly levelled at Microsoft and its Windows operating system. Could it be better; well the plethora of expert opinion and hardcore users suggest that there are many ways in which Windows could be improved to more closely resemble some other of the favoured operating systems like Linux or whatever. But this is to ignore one simple fact; most people who use a computer have absolutely no idea, and very little care, about the features of their operating system. Most users do not care about how they can get more out of their computers because the truth is most people want their computers to do a few basic things and Microsoft provided operating systems and programmes that did exactly that. In this sense the internet is exactly the same- most people do not care about the threat such networks pose to their future use because these networks are unlikely to threaten what they will use the internet for in the future because it will be the same as it is now. They want their LOLcats and their blogs and their social networking and their porn and so on; it is for these things that the networks are being set up to deliver. It does not matter to 90% of people what they may be missing out on because, honestly, those things were never likely to be important to them anyway. What is important, and what the networks are falsely offering, is a sense of security. It is not an intentional false hope; they are not setting out to lie by making claims they know to be false. The fact is that the people who build things, and the vast majority of people who like to use these things that they have built, operate on the idea that everyone wants to see the internet grow and progress and fulfil the dreams of the boosters and propagandists. As the Arab Spring got under way and Hosni Mubarak was driven from power amidst growing protest movements that stretched from one end of the middle-east to the other, there grew the impression that all of this was made possible because of the internet. But as the Arab Spring has given way to the Arab Summer, the protest movements are nowhere near to securing power anywhere else in the region unless they resort to armed insurrection; the promise of internet based revolutions has given way to the harsh reality that well-armed and determined men and women can maintain their hold on power no matter how many blogs, groups are formed to protest the regime. To paraphrase an old argument, a computer is no match for a well aimed bullet. The same is true for any number of promises made in the attempt to boost the image of the internet- no matter how well crafted the argument, no matter how passionate the belief behind it, at some point, in order to be effective, people have to haul their obese arses out from behind their computer screens and do something about it in the real world. The attempt by corporations to promote their networks of alliances as being secure is another false promise. But in not being able to understand why this is false, most users are going to continue pouring into these networks regardless. The reason that these networks are growing in popularity is that people are being scared into them by the threat of trolls and hackers- the modern equivalent of the Mongols and the Vikings. Modern historians are keen to proclaim that these two cultures and their like are deeply misunderstood within the broader zeitgeist of our cultural understanding and that the understanding we have inherited from our ancestors of their reputation needs to be challenged. In one sense they are correct; even a brief study of the Mongols or Vikings reveals a deep and rich cultural tradition that is reflected in their arts and crafts and literature and music. They were extraordinary cultures populated by remarkable people and led by fascinating figures of history. But the fact remains that for all of their capacity for art and trade, they were martial peoples who left a trail of destruction behind them that impeded the flow of civilisation. Their intrusions into the rest of the world were not marked by great artistic outpourings or the free flow of trade but by violence, rapine and destruction. It is all well and good to call for perspective- but it needs to be a perspective that is not divorced from the reality they represented. In much the same way, a study of hackers and trolls can be a fascinating experience. Their motivations are often complex and their own cultural interactions can be astonishing. But let us be honest about this- they are destroying what we know as the internet. While many, if not all of them, believe that they are acting in the best interests of their concepts of internet freedom, and all that that freedom is supposed to deliver, most users are uninterested in such things. This has led to the perception that these dilettante users do not belong on the internet; that something as awesome as the internet belongs to and should be populated by the chosen few who actually know what they are doing. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than the repeated attacks against sites that provide on-line support groups and information for epileptics; flashing symbology designed to trigger an attack is put up to drive these unfortunates from the world of the web. While some would defend such actions as demonstrating the weakness of the security arrangements of these sites, a far less dramatic form of intervention would seem to be called for if this was the case. The truth is that the internet envisaged by groups like Lolsec and Anonymous is more akin to the central idea of survival of the fittest; only those most capable of defending themselves and attacking others are deserving of a place on the web. To these groups, using the web to view pictures of cats and dogs with funny captions or playing online computer games or downloading a new recipe for lamingtons is a waste of the potential of the internet. Frightened by potential humiliation, cyber-attacks and theft, the weaker members of the online community are doing what people have always done in these circumstances- looking to organisations and institutions that will protect them. In the process, they are giving up parts of the internet dream that never really mattered to them in the first place. The problem is that these networks, in order to work as promised, will need to spend ever increasing resources on trying to protect those networks. This means that membership is going to come at a cost. And, like the war on drugs or the war on terror, the war against hackers and trolls can never truly be won just by doing things the way they have been done in the past. Passive defence measures are not coping with the increasing complexity of the attacks. What does this mean for the internet? Well, it is not going to go away. It just won’t be what we have become used to. The first change will be that unless you are within these networks, the opportunity to be heard or make a buck will be severely limited. Beyond the networks it will be a wasteland of abandoned websties and extremist positions- and anything else that is not acceptable to the bulk of the network users. The new internet will probably become increasingly prudish and those perceived as different are likely to be marginalised. And this sounds fine, to a degree, because it will still be out there- until you realise that one of the weakest points in a passive defence is the entrance. You won’t be able to gain access to the networks and the services they offer on a day to day basis if you are also prone to trawling the rest of the web. The other big change will be that passive defence will eventually give way to an active defence. Many hacking attacks make use of compromised computers. One day you will sign onto your computer and find that it has been completely wiped- victim of an active defensive system that has identified your computer as one of those that, entirely without your knowledge, has been one of these compromised computers. You might scoff and look at your Norton subscription just to make sure it is up to date, but a disturbing trend in recent hacking attacks has been the ability of these robots to burrow into third party computers and rewrite virus protection software to ignore it- all without you being aware that an attack has taken place and you are now part of a network of computers that can be used in a hacking attack. The first hint you will have is to find your computer wiped. Ironically, the promise of worldwide interaction free from borders will be replaced by self imposed borders. In a hundred years time we will doubtless have communities of people asking why it is that we have limited ourselves with borders and there will be conspiracy theories galore about how capitalism and governments established these artificial boundaries to keep us enslaved. And it will doubtless be forgotten that the boundaries which form our online nations, just as the boundaries around our nations, are a response to the threat of the barbarians at the gate.  In truth is there no beauty? I am not in love; but i am open to persuasion. |
|||
|
Sezy
|
Become a member to create a blog
