Comment by crotchfire | Hacker News Reader

Comment by crotchfire | Hacker News Reader

The characteristic pattern: In authoritarian states, more influential internet service providers are predominantly state-owned, whereas in democracies they are largely privatized.

This is basically irrelevant as long as there are only a small number of gigantic providers. If the shareholders disagree with the government, the company will do what the government wants.

This all played out with crystal clarity over two decades ago, when the CEO of Qwest (then one of the five largest carriers) refused to spy for the NSA. So they threw the CEO in prison and drove the company to the edge of bankruptcy (it no longer exists).

That was the last time a "privately owned" telecom giant ever said "no" to the NSA.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pgg7q7/the-telecom-exec-who-...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished...

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/09/30...

The article begins by assuming a world split into two camps; freedom-loving liberal democracies and authoritarian hell-holes, each delimited by strong national borders.

That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs. That should be evidence enough that for 80 years since the last world war we've maintained an alliance of ideals that were worth fighting for. Indeed, it's why we have concepts like "national security", although the common meaning of that has been perverted and its reputation dragged into the mud.

Our more subtle problem is the supposed perimeters are no longer clear. We have fascists amongst us on our own soil. They are well ensconced in both government and private enterprise. Globalism and the Internet allowed the spread of authoritarianism which has taken root "at home", sadly much assisted by the technology we've built.

I think it's cynical and does us a disservice if you suggest that every company who disagrees with what the government wants has their CEO thrown in jail. When bullied, providers like Lavabit, TrueCrypt and others chose to shut down their companies and tell everybody why rather than collude in fascism. Much as I dislike Apple (because they are duplicitous) they also put on a show of principles. They may even sincerely believe that "protecting" their customers is a core value.

80 years ago people chose to make the "ultimate sacrifice" by giving their lives. Today the ultimate sacrifice is to forgo money. Qwest folded because they were weak on fascism and put money first, but they are not the only example to hold up. There are more important things than money in this world.

>That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs.

This is possible in many if not most oppressive countries too. It's simply not worthwhile to throw every critic in prison. This doesn't mean they are protecting freedom, it just means that they've made a cost/benefit trade off that left somebody who wasn't that much of a threat to begin with out of prison.

When you see how we treat dissidents who are a threat to the powers that be (Assange, Snowden, Gonzalo Lira) I don't see a huge difference in how we treat them and how our geopolitical rivals treat theirs. We're slightly better than them at not doing it, but that could just be because our elites feel less threatened.

>That should be evidence enough that for 80 years since the last world war we've maintained an alliance of ideals that were worth fighting for.

Not very well, and we get more like Russia with every passing year. Sometimes the similarities are a little too on the nose - like when we bring down a jet to try and grab one dissident and then a year or two later they do it too.

"TrueCrypt"

Maybe not the best example as it was very likely build and run by a criminal to aid his crime cartel buisness, not someone acting on ideals.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Le_Roux

And TrueCrypt did officially recommend switching to BitLocker, where I am sure the NSA has backdoors for. So not sure what do you mean here.

Good to know that's a weak example. Thanks.

>That's still somewhat true. We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs.

Mostly when the outcome of the criticism happening doesn't matter.

And one can still very well be fired, fined, thrown off their college, for saying the wrong things in their "criticism of society", it's just that the establishment has those consequences distributed now.

You are correct, but this is precisely what I mean by sacrifice.

Freedom costs.

One has to have optimism beyond oneself - which is really a belief and care for the future and future generations.

I guess my point is that wherever you are in the world, and whatever frightened "elites" (legitimised criminal classes) you have to deal with, democracy and freedom are not states of being but ideals we make sacrifices for.

I think we have done a good job of standing up for that. I'm reminded on International Womens Day that people used to throw themselves under trains to make a point. They chose visible struggle. Protest is ever more costly. And what of Aaron Bushnell? Beyond comprehension! We've been living off the courage and sacrifice of 50 million lives 80 years ago so we're free to make money and have a good time, and that savings account is nearly empty.

Choosing to get fired, trash a "career", or forgo money seems a small sacrifice in the scheme of history and what others have given up.

> We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs.

Sure, but try doing in person and it can be a very different story.

> We may criticise our society in this forum and not be arrested by thugs.

In the US because we have constitutional freedom of speech. But plenty of people in 'freedom-loving liberal democracies' are arrested for criticizing their societies. Unless you think the UK and Germany are authoritarian?

Besides, there are things we cannot even criticize in this forum.

> That should be evidence enough that for 80 years since the last world war we've maintained an alliance of ideals that were worth fighting for.

What alliance of ideals? What are the ideals? Other than maintaining the european domination of the world?

> 80 years ago people chose to make the "ultimate sacrifice" by giving their lives.

What? You sound like the morons that think we invade iraq to bring freedom and democracy.

> In the US because we have constitutional freedom of speech.

In the UK we recently lost a lot of fundamental freedoms. Our current Tory party are spiteful and corrupt.

> Unless you think the UK and Germany are authoritarian?

There are extremist authoritarians everywhere. That was my point in the original post. And since they are essentially anti-democratic I think it's fair to label them as traitors and "enemies within".

> Besides, there are things we cannot even criticise in this forum.

We know that. Ycombinator has owners and a clear agenda. The punishment is being down-voted and made invisible. But there are ways to challenge entrenched ideas here and drag difficult topics out into the sunlight.

> What are the ideals?

Human rights. Particularly freedom of speech.

> Other than maintaining the European domination of the world?

I don't think it's fair to equate those things. I'm well aware of historical hegemony, That torch passed to the USA in the last century.

> What? You sound like the morons that think we invade Iraq to bring freedom and democracy.

Oh dear. I don't know where to start with all that. Iraq was an offensive resource war waged by the US to secure oil, with the side effect of toppling a disobedient puppet and assuaging the egos of two second rate Western leaders. That's not even debatable now. But to confuse that with the defeat of Nazism and Fascism in a world war in which 80-100 million people died shows an astonishingly poor grasp of history and politics.

> Human rights. Particularly freedom of speech.

Neither human rights and especially freedom of speech was a product of 'liberal freedom loving democracies'.

> That torch passed to the USA in the last century.

America is a european nation. Founded by europeans and populated by europeans.

> But to confuse that with the defeat of Nazism and Fascism in a world war in which 80-100 million people died shows an astonishingly poor grasp of history and politics.

You forget most americans didn't want to defeat 'the nazis' or 'fascism'. Like every war we got involved in, it was against the will of the people. Besides, nazism and fascism was defeated by bigger nazis and bigger fascists. No serious person thinks the US, british empire or soviet union were any better than germany, italy and japan.

I'm curious what glorious civilisation could ever meet your standards of approval?

None. That's my point.

i don't have time to address all the wrong assumptions and bad knowledge in your comment. but your crown your ignorance by praising apple marketing against all common sense.

As I said, I dislike Apple because they are deceitful.

They are useful because they put on a show of principles. That helps remind people that privacy and security are valuable even if Apple's products do not in fact deliver. They are useful politically if not technically.

The rest of your reply seems lazy. If you've something to say then please have the courage and good manners to speak up and say it.

The thole 'paper' is a trash-level 'research', adds no knowledge at all. Typical in that area: 'I run ping from random places here are random graphs', let's assume some nonsense and there are bizarre conclusions.

I can’t upvote this more, kudos to realization that the evolution of the apranet has not ever been anything less than a military network controlled by the US.

Exactly. So called "liberal western democracies" are essentially running the same game as the oh so bad "authoritarian states", just in a roundabout way (Protect the children, the war on "terror" etc ...) .

These "privately owned" companies have always been in bed with the military industrial complex. I'm glad more and more americans and westerners are waking up to this reality and this false dichotomy.

Yes, corporations and the state working together is concealed fascism. We can choose red or blue, but nothing changes.

> concealed fascism. We can choose red or blue

Presuming this, I can see distance between dominant and recessive fascism. Elements of recessive fascism can be whittled down - if enough of society is conscientious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com