I'm reminded of this presentation produced by NASA about the advancing dangers in technological threats: https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025 I don't remember if...
I don't remember if that slideshow even touches on the surveillance state. With snowden's leaking of PRISM, wikileaks' vault 7 revealing that the surveillance technology is in the hands of anyone and everyone, and silicon valley's desperation to expand the "internet of things" and the 5G network to power it... that's just one more danger to toss onto the pile.
Right now the main defense against this sort of thing, in my opinion, is for the people to get involved in the technological arms race as well, with mainly defensive tech. Notabug.io is a good example of this in terms of combating authoritarians exerting control over communications platforms to control thought. In the USA we have long depended upon the 2nd amendment, where the citizenry are armed to deter tyranny - those guns alone may not be enough to defeat swarms of drones, bio-weapons, or worse (though they certainly play a part in deterring even faster degeneration).
Ah I see. Yes, I agree that the physical network is dominated by a handful of entities (both governmental and multinational corporate). Depending on what "public" means, it could be good or bad. I...
Ah I see. Yes, I agree that the physical network is dominated by a handful of entities (both governmental and multinational corporate). Depending on what "public" means, it could be good or bad. I assume a public network provided by the chinese government would/does still have censorship, whereas something that would be somehow independent of government or corporate authority would be far more resilient.
The issue of domination of communications platforms by a small handful of authorities is but one of the ways in which the people are not as armed as the other entities in the techno-political game, in my opinion.
I'm not certain - it's just something i came across a while back while randomly surfing the internet. It certainly would be interesting to follow up with the people who delivered the presentation.
I'm not certain - it's just something i came across a while back while randomly surfing the internet. It certainly would be interesting to follow up with the people who delivered the presentation.
Hrm. Author is Dennis M. Bushnell. No immediately obvious follow-ups.... Google Scholar. “Beyond-the-box” thinking on future war: The art and science of unrestricted warfare (2009). Officer...
Hrm. Author is Dennis M. Bushnell. No immediately obvious follow-ups....
This is a bad web site. Halfway through there's a flashing neon video about some unrelated thing, and half the article doesn't show in Firefox reader mode. If they want to do serious investigative...
This is a bad web site. Halfway through there's a flashing neon video about some unrelated thing, and half the article doesn't show in Firefox reader mode.
If they want to do serious investigative journalism they have to focus.
I'm reminded of this presentation produced by NASA about the advancing dangers in technological threats: https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025
I don't remember if that slideshow even touches on the surveillance state. With snowden's leaking of PRISM, wikileaks' vault 7 revealing that the surveillance technology is in the hands of anyone and everyone, and silicon valley's desperation to expand the "internet of things" and the 5G network to power it... that's just one more danger to toss onto the pile.
Right now the main defense against this sort of thing, in my opinion, is for the people to get involved in the technological arms race as well, with mainly defensive tech. Notabug.io is a good example of this in terms of combating authoritarians exerting control over communications platforms to control thought. In the USA we have long depended upon the 2nd amendment, where the citizenry are armed to deter tyranny - those guns alone may not be enough to defeat swarms of drones, bio-weapons, or worse (though they certainly play a part in deterring even faster degeneration).
None of this matters as long as the actual hardware is still controlled by private interests, we need public broadband.
I'm not sure that I understand. Would you be willing to elaborate?
Even if you build a distributed, censorship resistant communications platform it's still running on centralized, controlled fiber.
Ah I see. Yes, I agree that the physical network is dominated by a handful of entities (both governmental and multinational corporate). Depending on what "public" means, it could be good or bad. I assume a public network provided by the chinese government would/does still have censorship, whereas something that would be somehow independent of government or corporate authority would be far more resilient.
The issue of domination of communications platforms by a small handful of authorities is but one of the ways in which the people are not as armed as the other entities in the techno-political game, in my opinion.
That's a fascinating slide deck, thanks!
Any subsequent updates of which you're aware?
I'm not certain - it's just something i came across a while back while randomly surfing the internet. It certainly would be interesting to follow up with the people who delivered the presentation.
Hrm. Author is Dennis M. Bushnell. No immediately obvious follow-ups....
Google Scholar.
Also The Future of Warfare.
Ugh. Just ugh. The potential for abuse is sickening.
This is a bad web site. Halfway through there's a flashing neon video about some unrelated thing, and half the article doesn't show in Firefox reader mode.
If they want to do serious investigative journalism they have to focus.
Gotta get that sweet sweet ad revenue though!