| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebHome" |
|---|
Factions in a Digital Age |
| |
Introduction |
|
<
< | In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat posed by factions to self determination through democratic governance. Factions are groups whose interests are adverse to the rights of other citizens and the permanent interests of the community. While Madison understood the need to keep factions from usurping the power of the state, the march of technology has made it evident that state coercion is neither the sole nor the most ominous mechanism of control over human behavior. Just as the American Constitution seeks to limit the power of factions by incorporating principles of federalism, separation of powers and bicameralism into the architecture of the state, so too must we now look to the architecture of the internet as a means of diffusing the power technology grants to factions. We can--and should--build a new network where ownership and control over the switches is maximally dispersed. |
>
> | In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the threat posed by factions to self determination through democratic governance. Factions are groups whose interests are adverse to the rights of other citizens and the permanent interests of the community. While Madison understood the need to keep factions from usurping the power of the state, the march of technology has made it evident that state coercion is neither the sole nor the most ominous mechanism of control over human behavior. Just as the American Constitution seeks to limit the power of factions by incorporating principles of federalism, separation of powers and bicameralism into the architecture of the state, so too must we now look to the architecture of the internet as a means of diffusing the power technology grants to factions. We can--and should--phase in a new network where ownership and control over the switches is maximally dispersed. |
| | How Technological Change Threatens Democracy and the Rule of Law
Lawrence Lessig has identified four mechanisms though which human behavior is controlled: laws, social norms, market forces, and physical architecture. Physical architecture is a far more powerful means of regulation than law: physical architecture creates self-enforcing ex-anti constraints, while law can only threaten ex-post punishment and requires a complex bureaucracy to enforce. Laws against drunk driving are less effective then breathalysers hooked to the ignition switch. |
| | To stop factions from abusing the unprecedented regulatory power of code in ways, we need a network where ownership and control of the switches is dispersed as widely as possible. In such a network, the power of code can only be employed through substantial populist consensus.
Building a Commonly-Owned Internet |
|
<
< | The current Internet architecture is very hierarchical. The communication between many end-points (laptops, PCs, internet-enabled cellphones, etc.) is routed through a much smaller number of centralized switches. This architecture is largely a relic of wired links and limited computational power. Other, flatter network architectures are now possible which would eliminate the distinction between end-points and switches. |
>
> | The current Internet architecture is very hierarchical. The communication between many end-point devices is routed through a much smaller number of centralized switches. This architecture is largely a relic of wired links and limited computational power. Other, flatter network architectures are now possible which would eliminate the distinction between end-points and switches. |
| | |
|
<
< | In a wireless mesh network, computers are both end-points and switches. A talks to B directly if B is in range; if B is not in range, then the communication is forwarded to B through a series of hops through switches that are in range of each other. No third party is need to construct, own and maintain centralized network infrastructure; the cost is spread out among the individual computer owners. Because the technology is cheap (and getting cheaper), the cost of owning such a switch is low. Indeed, the One Laptop Per Child Association has integrated wireless mesh networking in sub-$200 laptops meant to be deployed in areas with limited Internet infrastructure. |
>
> | In a wireless mesh network, devices (computers, cell-phones, smart appliances, networked cars, etc.) can act as both end-points and switches. Devices within range of each other communicate directly, while those further apart take advantage of the forwarding capacities of the devices in the middle. No third party is need to construct, own and maintain centralized network infrastructure; the cost is spread out among the individual device owners. The technology required is cheap, and getting cheaper--it has been incorporated in sub-$200 laptops meant to be deployed in areas with limited Internet infrastructure. |
| | |
|
<
< | In a wireless mesh network, control over the switches is maximally dispersed. Each computer user can control what code is run on the wireless switch he control. Furthermore, since alternative paths between any two points of such a network almost always exist, two parties communicating in a mesh network can chose a link that avoids switches running code they don't trust. While most people will have little interest or aptitude for tinkering with the code on the switches they own, they can still meaningfully express their views on what types of code-based regulation over the network are appropriate by installing third-party firmware on their switches which embodies coded regulations they favor. |
>
> | A wireless mesh network disperses control over the switches and the code that they run. So long as networked devices remain untethered, each owner can program his device to regulate in a fashion he finds ethical, or install third-party firmware embodying acceptable regulation. The power of each device owner is minor, however, because alternative paths between any two nodes in the network almost always exist. Two parties communicating in a mesh network can chose a path that avoids untrusted switches. Thus, effective code-based regulation on the network only arises only if there is substantial--probably supermajoritarian--consensus among all network users. |
| | The electromagnetic spectrum required to implement a robust wireless mesh network is becoming available. By February 17, 2009, all television stations in the United States must complete the mandatory transition from analog to digital broadcasting. Because digital transmissions are much less sensitive to to interference, there is no longer any need for large bands of 'white space'--unused electromagnetic frequencies--between digital TV channels. The FCC has already indicated its intention to leave the white space frequencies in the public domain to be used by new consumer wireless devices. As television broadcasting gives way to webcasting, more and more spectrum will be freed from its traditional use. |