[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Feb 26 16:29:17 UTC 2014
At 16:15 26/02/2014, John Curran wrote:
>On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:15 AM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> > All I know is that a global network for me is the capacity to
> access everywhere in the world, with my computer, with my way of
> using it, in my language, along my country's laws, under the
> protection of my government, etc.
> > ...
>Your "global network" described above which provides access "along
>laws" and "under the protection of your government" is not going to happen,
you hare here at the real crux of our entire discussion. The
internet, as it is, seems to be adequate to the digisphere since it
develops well. A good development is necessarily based upon clear and
respected premises, otherwise it is unstable. I agree with Louis that
the Internet is an uncomplete copy of the Cyclades prototype [in
particular in bounding hosts to addresses] and that both never took
into account properly (but this was OK for transport oriented
proptypes) the missing high layers I enjoyed on Tymnet and we start
However, Vint considered that missing layers (cf. the cover page of
http://vgnics.net) and the way he did it (IMHO adequately at that
time, for a first phase) is precisely the problem at hand. You have
to reread carefully his vision which has been only in part
implemented in the Internet architecture. In part because he says he
uses the word "local" in a "loose" meaning, and a loose meaning is
something engineers, designers, business people, politics and bankers
do not know how to quantify.
I do not know to which point he planned ahead, but his project was
brillant. There were actually three steps for the two phases.
1. first phase: prototype proof of the catenet concept. This is technical.
2. pause: we consider what we learned and how to clarify what we mean
by "local" (technologies, languages, sovereignties, people, cultures,
social relations, trades, etc.)
3. second phase: one develops the multitechnology capacity based upon
the localities we defined. The sovereignty problem having been dealt with.
In step 2, occured the BUG, i.e. local has not been discussed, the
second phase did not develop, the status quo prevailed and the
network stayed Being Unilaterally Global. This is where we are and
why we are disatisfied. Our main problem, after languages that Vint
was only partly able to make addressed, is sovereignty.
The sovereignty issue is simple enough to understand for a former
naval officer like me. The state is sovereign at home, i.e. on its
land and on the seas it rules either by force or by treaties. What
cyber does is to extend the virtual sea to foreign states territories
where virtual citizens can directly infringe local laws. This is not
a big deal as a sovereignty is the capacity to use violence to
protect its interests. In this case its citizens in the cyberspace.
This may translate in three main ways:
1. the citizen of country A infringes the laws of country B and has
assets in country B. These assets are subject to country's B justice.
2. the citizen has no asset in country B and his legal infringement
in country B is also a violation of the law in his country A. He is
extraded or fined by country A.
3. the citizen has no asset in country B and his legal infringement
in country B is legal in country A. He is protected from country B.
(there can be intermediary cases when he can be punished in A but not
Now country B may decide to hit the virtual assets of the citizen in
country A through a cyberattack. The citizen is then entitled to ask
the protection of his country which may chose to compensate him
and/or attack assets of country B. This is cyberwar. Cyberwar laws
are documented in the Tallinn Manual which unfortunately costs a lot.
I shown you the pratical aspects. In theory it means that the
Nation-State concept is not replaced but extended by the
Relations-State concept which is more complex to manage, more over
than this happens after Einstein also extended it (the initial
problem is the consequence of the cosmological principle) with the
space-time. States do not have anymore to only govern the interior
and the exterior affairs, but also the ulteriors affairs in
considering some anterior affairs due to the collective media memory.
This has introduced the precaution duty and the need of precautionary
counter-war actions (prevent the war technologies could lead to).
Historical issues have far more important weight through the virtual
"anterior" of the media: look at the weight in todays politics of the
Shoah, Nagasaki, the Viet-Nam war, etc.
This is in this context that I want my "relational space" (call it
commercial social network if you like) to be protected by people
sharing the same law, values, interests, language, ideals, etc. And
my job in life is to facilitate their and my protection by
precautionary actions, developments and innovations.
More information about the discuss