<html>
<body>
At 12:17 08/10/2013, Anne Jellema wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thanks Pranesh - these are
fascinating pieces. I have been wondering for awhile if there is a
widespread pattern of govts using hotly contested license negotiations or
spectrum auctions to secure access to data. It only makes sense that they
would try, I guess. Does anyone have similar intelligence from other
countries? </blockquote><br>
Anne,<br><br>
Govts do exactly what you do: they ask for intelligence.<br><br>
Their way of going about it is nothing compared with rampant consumer
intelligence. BTW, Govts and industry dig into it in full reciprocity:
the mission of
<a href="http://export.gov/advocacy/">http://export.gov/advocacy/</a> is
to "level the playing field for U.S. businesses competing
internationally".<br><br>
The NSA mission is simple:
<a href="http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml">
http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml</a>: "The NSA/CSS core
missions are to protect U.S. national security systems and to produce
foreign signals intelligence information".<br><br>
Same for Google:
<a href="https://www.google.fr/intl/en/about/">
https://www.google.fr/intl/en/about/</a>: "Google’s mission is to
organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and
useful." and rule #1 is "Focus on the user and all else will
follow". Let it be clear that for #6: "Google is a
business" and you are the product. The whole thing is a master/slave
market (in networking this is called a centralized
architecture).<br><br>
<br>
The trick is to erode your intelligence (what you know and how you think)
into something that is "collectively correct", so that you
conceive the life, live, eat, choose, buy, like, lie, propose, demand,
etc. the way and for what competitors want to sell you to others. They
compete for your money but they first coopete (cooperate in order to
further best compete) for you – under their favored cover slogan "to
foster competition and democracy". <br><br>
And we buy that! <br><br>
We do not want our appliances to be low cost/grade and democratic (i.e.
to have to buy them again and again every year, and our voice to be
diluted by social engineering); we want them to be affordable,
innovative, efficient, and robust in order for us to democratically
compete for the common good. However, we would then endanger their
statUS-quo market share or possibly liberate the internet technology from
their long enforced constraint. <br><br>
Plain internet history, published archives, and RFCs root the NSA/ARPA
decisive influence to 1972, in Jon Postel’s office. This is where and
when the internet was hijacked. <br><br>
The big architectural inconvenience of OSI was not X.25 vs. TCP/IP (IETF
was expected to replace TCP/IP with OSI). The major incoveniene was to
have implemented the OSI presentation layer 6. This layer is the layer in
charge of formats, encryptions, languages, etc. (NB: The lack of formats
support has been partly patched by the web application).<br><br>
<br>
BTW, this govts and industry’s influence obviously continues in here, on
this very list. Who actually yet indirectly pays for civil society
activists’ salaries, travel, and living, and why do they do so? I do not
object national interests, to the countrary, but one has to acknowledge
they do exist - the same as your asking for intelligence. We all are in
the people survival business.<br><br>
jfc<br>
</body>
</html>