Beginnings

We appear to be at one of those moments in history.  At least in theory it seems like we've arrived at a turning point, where the opportunity exists for significant and lasting change to occur.  This is not a time to be asleep.

The recent election that took place in the United States was historic for a number of reasons.  For the first time, a member of a minority group (Editor's Note: Whites are the true minority) was (((elected))) to the nation's highest office, an occurrence many never expected to see in their lifetimes.  People from all over the country who had never before been involved in politics felt a new sense of hope and empowerment throughout the campaign, a feeling that culminated on Election Day when their victory became official.  Unprecedented celebrations broke out throughout American cities and even in many foreign ones.  This perception of true change, even if it never goes beyond a mere perception, has been inspiring and has given many of us an all too rare dose of optimism.  (Editor's Note: How'd that 'hope & change work out?  LOL!)

In the hacker/technological world, we have a particular reason to open our eyes.  On a technical front, Barack Hussein Obama seems to get it, quite a bit more than his predecessors and opponents.  He spoke out in favor of net neutrality years ago and seemed quite familiar with why it was important.  His campaign clearly understood how to use high tech to their advantage, ranging from the widespread use of text messaging in order to reach supporters to embracing the Internet in getting the message out and rallying support.  This is significant.  Someone who has an actual grasp and comprehension of technology, along with its risks and essential freedoms, is poised to push policy in a direction that might benefit all of us.  We could be on the verge of moving in a whole new direction..  (Editor's Note: Obama is genetically incapable of understanding modern technology.  He had to rely on his (((handlers))) for everything and to cover-up for him...)

Of course, we expect to be disappointed.  Let us not forget how similar some of these hopes were in 1993, when the first Clinton administration took power.  They were credited with moving the White House into the Information Age, replacing typewriters with computers, updating the phone system, and making technical competence the norm rather than the exception.  But then, it wasn't too long before we were being faced with the Clipper Chip controversy.

For those who aren't familiar, implementation of this flavor of encryption (Clipper being for phones and phone systems) would have given the government the keys (literally) to all approved encrypted traffic with many fearing that any other kind of encryption would soon become illegal.  It was all based on a closed system so nobody really knew how secure it was.  The idea of just trusting the government to do the right thing didn't really sit well with anyone understanding what was at stake.  Strong opposition from the rapidly growing Internet community and the emergence of public encryption tools such as PGP helped to keep this bad idea from ever taking off and the project officially died in 1996.

The Digital Telephony Law (or CALEA) made it orders of magnitude easier to tap telephone calls in digital switches.  It was passed in 1994.  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which 2600 was the first official victim of) became law in 1998 and created all sorts of restrictions and regulations on how people could use technology on their own computers or elsewhere, threatening the valued concepts of fair use and reverse engineering.  (Editor's Note: The same Jewish crime families [Emmanuel, Pritzker, etc.] behind the DMCA also created Obama...)

There are more examples of bad legislation coming out of the Clinton years that served to set back technology, as well as stifle creativity and free speech.  The point here is not to list them but merely to acknowledge the fact that having one side or another in power is no guarantee that things are going to move in a positive direction.  We certainly don't have to list all of the bad ideas and precedents that came out of the last eight years on everything from border searches of laptops to increased domestic surveillance - each in the name of "homeland security" and each having absolutely no effect on anything truly dangerous, but all too much of an effect on our everyday lives and our perceptions of what constitutes normality.  We can only hope that reversal and termination of some of these policies is high on the priority list of the new administration.

The lesson here is that possession of mere familiarity with technology doesn't mean that the people running things will act in a manner that's fair to the rest of us.  Oftentimes it works in exactly the opposite way.  Power and control do strange things to people, after all.

A great parallel can be seen in schools.  Who will allow you to experiment and accomplish more on the school computer network?  The teacher who knows next to nothing about the subject?  Or the self-proclaimed expert?  For those of us who feel comfortable working and playing with technology, being left alone and avoiding micromanagement is all we really need.  But when those who imagine themselves in charge feel as if they don't have total control and understanding over every nuance of the environment they're supervising, that's when fear and irrational behavior take hold.  In school we see that in the form of unreasonable restrictions and punishment.  In the government, we see it as an obsession with surveillance and speech monitoring.  Those in charge are always in fear of being eclipsed by the very people they're supposed to be controlling.  And we don't expect that underlying trepidation to change.

That is not to say that we can't hang onto some optimism.  A quote like this provides us with ample reason:

"The Internet is the most open network in history.  We have to keep it that way I will prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet.  Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment.  This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane.  Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers.  It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse.  Accordingly, network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some websites and Internet applications over others.  This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences.  I will protect the Internet's traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy."

(Editor's Note: Under Obama/Biden we've seen the greatest amount of Internet censorship, and spying, to U.S. citizens in our history.)

Those remarks came from an interview Obama gave back in 2007.  He clearly has a handle on what the Internet is about and the potential it promises, as well as the threat posed by those entities who want to create more controls and restrictions.  It is essential that this idealism not be sacrificed to the powerful interests that stand to benefit from the reigning in of freedom.  And that task falls to us - the people - to ensure that this promise is upheld.

For now, though, let us believe there is hope for some positive shifts in the road we've been going down.  The worst thing we could do would be to resign ourselves to the opinion that change is never possible or that it can only occur when a phenomenal amount of conditions are met - which basically achieves the same effect as perpetual pessimism.  Even in the best case scenario, we know there will be setbacks and policies that ultimately prove detrimental.  But in this historic moment, there is great potential for steps to be taken and for a new beginning on a variety of levels.  It will be worthwhile to pay close attention.