A response by democracies could be to have a "freedom computing" initiative that ensures that freedom-enhancing technologies (anonymity and secure communications) are supported out-of-the-box in the protocols the internet runs, internet-based services and computing hardware. (I've written about this here: http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/using-computers-to... )
Then, authoritarian regimes would either have to accept that the internet allows freedom, or would have to build their own software and hardware that works the way they want (and would have compatibility problems with the democratic internet). China would have the resources to do this, but many smaller autocracies might not. And would smaller autocracies want to be beholden to China?
Even if the autocracies banded together, if all the democracies got behind freedom computing, then as democracies have a larger share of world GDP than autocracies[1], the free internet would have larger network effects accruing to it than the unfree internet, ensuring that democracies outgrow autrocracies and eventually win[2].
1: true if you count the USA and EU as democracies, which sadly is not a given since (i) the USA is mostly ruled by corporations not people, and (ii) while EU member staes are mostly democratic, the EU central bureaucracy has a democratic deficit with the elected European Parliament being a weak institution without much power.
2: also, countries are more likely to transition from autocracy to democracy than the other way round, which also helps democracy win.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that creating new technology on top of what we currently have will make any difference. Currently, TCP/IP is a very simple end-to-end mechanism, which is why it's so easy to work with it. If you enforce encryption, you're violating that principle and causing a lot of headaches. It's much more a matter of legislation and infrastructure, I think, than of technology itself. Refusing to sell surveillance equipment to these authoritarian states would already be a good first step.
> Currently, TCP/IP is a very simple end-to-end mechanism, which is why it's so easy to work with it.
I agree, and it makes a lot of sense to have a "world of ends" (http://www.worldofends.com/) where all the intelligence is at the ends of the network rather than in the network infrastructure.
> If you enforce encryption, you're violating that principle and causing a lot of headaches.
I'm not tlaking about having a law that enforces encryption. Instead I think services should be created that make it dead easy to use encryption, and computers/tablets/mobile phones should come with these facilities out of the box.
> It's much more a matter of legislation and infrastructure, I think, than of technology itself.
Infrastructure is technology, so I'm not sure what point you're making. Imagine if every laptop sold in the west came as standard with hardware and software that enabled ad hoc mesh networking, switched on by default. (This would enable a city-wide ad hoc anonymous network). Then imagine that lots of services in the west were bult around this technology, and that you have whole ecosystems of protocols which relied on it. Then autocracies would have to forgo all these services and ecosystems, or build their own alternatives.
sorry, my "infrastructure" was vague. I meant ISPs, traffic hubs, physical cables, etc. The stuff that gets tampered with before it actually hits your PC.
A problem with this approach is that freedom-enhancing technologies are both more expensive and less monetizable. For example, P2P was almost completely replaced with client-server Web 2.0. In the near future I expect we'll discover that the FreedomBox is more expensive than the personal cloud.
If they are more expensive, that's not IMO a serious problem, as long as the more expensive one is perceived as better. E.g. the iPhone is expensive, but sells well because it is perceived as better.
If they are less monetizable, then yes that is a potentially serious issue, because it means companies may build cloud srvices instead of freedom-enhancing ones.
As an aspiring dictator looking to create my minimum viable regime, couldn't I also use some of these same (or similar) techniques to promote the creation of power rather than simply the maintenance of power? This guide is great for the Ayatollahs and Czars of the world who already have a claim to authority. But what about us little guys doing what we can to spread misinformation and dissidence?
indeed! that's probably a second guide (for junior dictators, or aspiring ones). I guess you could start with the 3 prerequisites at the top of the document, see where it takes you? There's a bunch of small authoritarian regimes that managed to pull it off (Eritrea comes to mind), Im sure it's possible. Good luck!
The genie is really out of the bottle. Yes, OP acknowledges that North Korea will be crumbling, static strategy. The alternative merely prolongs but hardly extends.
Consider that people can emigrate - but they still need to communicate with their family back home. That cannot be prevented ideally as remittances would be a major economic boost. However one cannot allow open exchange of liberal ideas _into_ said represssive country. Censor such communication? People start using homonyms and code-words. That road only serves as an excellent recruitment funnel for the dissidents. Stop emigration? Welcome the Berlin Wall aka swiss cheese
Co-opt private enterprise ? Here I'm slightly optimistic that the degration of service over the medium to long term will be just enough such that a better competitor will emerge that _won't_ co-operate. Even if say 80% of tech people co-operate, there will be 20% who won't give in (thanks RMS, Linus for the inspiration) -> ergo the good guys win in the end, eventually
The said dictators only real long-term hope is for global melt-down, reducing economies to 1850 standards when people may actually put up with repression in exchange for food.
PS. Hell, Strategy A Depoliticization is too cunning !
PSS. Knowledge is power. This satirical article is an example of the genie being out of the bottle too.
Afraid to upvote this lest it be put to use (but did anyway). I don't have time to read it all now, but is it satire? If not then how could you honestly live with yourself if it was used to benefit a dictator and suppress a populous?
Well, if you read it and do the opposite, you know how to prevent a nascent dictatorship from taking shape or fight it when it's already in place (although in that case, you would probably not be able to read this document).
I'm guessing the point of this whole thing is that this is a manual of things that should NOT happen in a healthy, free, democratic society; yet some of the things in it are in fact happening right now, so perhaps we recognize them.
It's similar in form to those articles that show "eight ways to ruin a meeting" [1] or "How to destroy a conversation" [2]. At least, that's my interpretation.
Ah yes, didn't read that far into it yet, but of course an explanation of the author about his own intentions is always a good place to start for answers ;)
Interesting link to the Screwtape Letters. I never heard of that before, so I'll be sure to check that out. Thanks for the tip!
editing: "Take examples on these states and seek stability, no matter what your regime type is." -- "take examples on" is not standard english (at least not in america). you want something like "Follow the example of these states".
Thx - it's a WIP thesis, to be submitted in a few months. I'm not saying much new, but I figured having a different tone than the usual patronizing one could make it more interesting.
Then, authoritarian regimes would either have to accept that the internet allows freedom, or would have to build their own software and hardware that works the way they want (and would have compatibility problems with the democratic internet). China would have the resources to do this, but many smaller autocracies might not. And would smaller autocracies want to be beholden to China?
Even if the autocracies banded together, if all the democracies got behind freedom computing, then as democracies have a larger share of world GDP than autocracies[1], the free internet would have larger network effects accruing to it than the unfree internet, ensuring that democracies outgrow autrocracies and eventually win[2].
1: true if you count the USA and EU as democracies, which sadly is not a given since (i) the USA is mostly ruled by corporations not people, and (ii) while EU member staes are mostly democratic, the EU central bureaucracy has a democratic deficit with the elected European Parliament being a weak institution without much power.
2: also, countries are more likely to transition from autocracy to democracy than the other way round, which also helps democracy win.