[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

[Jefsey]

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.
> > ...
>
>JFC -
>
>Your "global network" described above which provides access "along 
>your country's
>laws" and "under the protection of your government" is not going to happen,

Dear John,

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 
really needing.

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 
extraded, etc.)

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.

jfc