If you want a more lucid and thorough look at the past and possible future of the internet, check Heather Brooke's "The Revolution Will Be Digitised", if you can stomach her personal vendetta against Assange.
But this book's good. Here are some quotes that jumped out at me:
Within a few years, global civilization will be a postmodern surveillance dystopia, from which escape for all but the most skilled individuals will be impossible. In fact, we may already be there.
It is important to understand these systems, because when we don’t understand them there’s a general trend to defer to authority, to people who do understand them or are able to assert control over them, even if they do not understand the essence of the thing itself. Which is why we see so much hype about cyber war—it’s because some people that seem to be in the authority about war start talking about technology as if they understand it.
Such people are often talking about cyber war and not one of them, not a single one, is talking about cyber peace-building, or anything related to peace-building. They are always talking about war because that’s their business and they are trying to control technological and legal processes as a means for promoting their own interests. So when we have no control over our technology such people wish to use it for their ends, for war specifically.
Cryptography is the ultimate form of non-violent direct action.
Strong cryptography can resist an unlimited application of violence. No amount of coercive force will ever solve a math problem.
As states merge with the internet and the future of our civilization becomes the future of the internet, we must redefine force relations. If we do not, the universality of the internet will merge global humanity into one giant grid of mass surveillance and mass control.
We must raise an alarm. This book is a watchman’s shout in the night.
When you communicate over the internet, when you communicate using mobile phones, which are now meshed to the internet, your communications are being intercepted by military intelligence organizations. It’s like having a tank in your bedroom. It’s a soldier between you and your wife as you’re SMSing.
There has been a shift in the last few years from intercepting everything going across from one country to another and picking out the particular people you want to spy on and assigning them to human beings, to now intercepting everything and storing everything permanently.
Ten years ago this was seen to be a fantasy, this was seen to be something only paranoid people believed in, but the costs of mass interception have now decreased to the point where even a country like Libya with relatively few resources was doing it with French technology. In fact most countries are already there in terms of the actual interception.
States within Europe are massively buying machines that allow them to act exactly outside the law in regard to interception because they don’t need a court decision, they can just switch it on and do it, and this technology can’t be controlled.
This technology is very complex; for example in the debate in Australia and the UK about proposed legislation to intercept all metadata, most people do not understand the value of metadata or even the word itself. Intercepting all metadata means you have to build a system that physically intercepts all data and then throws everything but the metadata away. But such a system cannot be trusted.
We’re now at a stage where the human population is doubling every twenty-five years or so — but the capacity of surveillance is doubling every eighteen months. The surveillance curve is dominating the population curve. There is no direct escape. We’re now at the stage where just $10 million can buy you a unit to permanently store the mass intercepts of a medium sized country. So I wonder if we need an equivalent response. This really is a big threat to democracy and to freedom all around the world that needs a response, like the threat of atomic war needed a mass response, to try and control it, while we still can.
If you’re a standard Google user Google knows who you’re communicating with, who you know, what you’re researching, potentially your sexual orientation, and your religious and philosophical beliefs… It knows more about you than you know yourself... Do you know what you looked for two years, three days and four hours ago? You don’t know; Google knows... Actually, I try not to use Google any more for these very reasons.
And it can be argued that the US spying agencies have access to all of Google’s stored data. And all of Facebook’s data, so in a way Facebook and Google may be extensions of these agencies.
It’s absolute madness to imagine that we give up all of our personal data to these companies, and then the companies have essentially become privatized secret police. And—in the case of Facebook — we even have democratized surveillance. Instead of paying people off the way the Stasi did in East Germany, we reward them as a culture — they get laid now.
If you build a system that logs everything about a person and you know that you live in a country with laws that will force the government to give that up, then maybe you shouldn’t build that kind of system.
Cryptography can solve the bulk interception problem, and it’s the bulk interception problem which is a threat to global civilization. Individual targeting is not the threat.
Of course anyone can stay off the internet, but then it’s hard for them to have any influence. They select themselves out of being influential by doing that. It’s the same with mobile phones; you can choose not to have a mobile phone but you reduce your influence. It’s not a way forward.
I think that the only effective defense against the coming surveillance dystopia is one where you take steps yourself to safeguard your privacy. A historical analogy could be how people learned that they should wash their hands.
The only question is in which one of the two ways will they think about it? They will either think, “I need to be careful about what I say, I need to conform,” the whole time, in every interaction. Or they will think “I need to master little components of this technology and install things that protect me so I’m able to express my thoughts freely and communicate freely with my friends and people I care about.” If people don’t take that second step then we’ll have a universal political correctness, because even when people are communicating with their closest friends they will be self-censors and will remove themselves as political actors from the world.
The people that created Google didn’t start out to create Google, to create the greatest surveillance machine that ever existed. But in effect that is what has been created.
In the political storytelling it is called stealing, but I want to make my point that everybody who used Napster back in 1999 became a music fan and then went to concerts and became a descriptor telling everybody, “You should listen to those people, you should go to that concert” and so on.
Some members of the European Parliament now understand that when individuals share things, when they share files without a profit, they shouldn’t go to jail, they shouldn’t be punished.
You can have a totally secure technical system and the government will think it’s no good, because they think security is when they can look into it, when they can control it, when they can breach the technical security.
That is the most dangerous thing that happens to governments these days — when people have better ideas than what their policy is.
This has had a tremendous chilling effect on the Chinese — not that they’re being censored but that everything that they read is being spied upon and recorded. In fact, that’s true for all us. This is something that modifies people, when they are aware of it.
Journalists are rarely instructed, “Don’t print anything about that,” or, “Don’t print that fact.” Rather they understand that they are expected to because they understand the interests of those they wish to placate or grow close to. If you behave you’ll be patted on the head and rewarded, and if you don’t behave then you won’t. It’s that simple. I’m often fond of making this example: the obvious censorship that occurred in the Soviet Union, the censorship that was propagandized about so much in the West — jackboots coming for journalists in the middle of the night to take them from their homes — has just been shifted by twelve hours. Now we wait for the day and take homes from journalists, as they fall out of patronage and are unable to service their debts.
People need to know that they cannot just sit idly by, they need to actually take action, and hopefully they will.
Italian hackers behave totally differently than German hackers — wherever they are, they need to make good food; with German hackers, they need to have everything well-structured.
The transnational surveillance state and endless drone wars are almost upon us.
All communications will be surveilled, permanently recorded, permanently tracked, each individual in all their interactions permanently identified as that individual to this new Establishment, from birth to death. That’s a major shift from even ten years ago and we’re already practically there. I think that can only produce a very controlling atmosphere.
How can a normal person be free within that system? They simply cannot, it��s impossible. Not that anyone can ever be completely free, within any system, but the freedoms that we have biologically evolved for, and the freedoms that we have become culturally accustomed to, will be almost entirely eliminated.