Merchant Republics of Cyberspace 133
In the Middle Ages, when the reach of kings and laws sometimes grew weak, no single group could regulate or dominate another, or regulate commerce and collect taxes. Throughout Europe, there were frontier or "march" regions where sovereignties blended -- Celtic and English, Christian and Muslim. These sometimes violent borders persisted for centuries; despite continuing conflicts, they often served as spawning grounds for commerce and trade.
These regions developed distinct institutional and legal forms, the type of cultural evolution we're likely to see again soon in a different type of march region -- cyberspace -- according to Davidson and Rees-Mogg.
Their idea is that cyberspace will generate free zones apart from traditional government laws on speech or other control, policing or taxation. Like the residents of the march regions, residents and businesspeople in these new cyber-zones will go largely untaxed, because taxes will be almost impossible to tabulate and collect. Their freedom to speak and act freely and gather information would be unprecedented, and their sense of individual sovereignty enormous.
The authors make the provocative argument that cyberspace will transcend nationality. "Before the nation-state, it was difficult to enumerate precisely the number of sovereignties that existed in the world because they overlapped in complex ways and many varied forms of organization exercised power." In the information age, they claim, the same will be true. Sovereignty will become increasingly fragmented, with new entities emerging which will exhibit some but not all the characteristics we've come to associate with nation-stages.
Like the Knights Templar of the Middle Ages, these new cyber-republics will organize around principles that bear ltitle relation to nationality, at least geographic nationality.
"Market forces, not political majorities, will compel societies to reconfigure themselves in ways that public opinion will neither comprehend nor welcome," Davidson and Rees-Mogg maintain. "It will therefore be crucial that you see the world anew. If you fail to transcend conventional thinking at a time when conventional thinking is losing touch with reality, then you will be more likely to fall prey to an epidemic of disorientation that lies ahead."
Many of us (including myself, I think) aren't quite ready to write off the nation-state, still the most powerful and coherent entity on earth. But the disorientation Rees-Mogg and Davidson warn of is already obvious. Note the mad scrambling of businesses in publishing and entertainment, and other institutions like education and politics, to respond to the Internet, often lashing out in legal desperation or moral outrage at the rise of the new digital culture.
"Disorientation" is the perfect term for the way that groups as different as the U.S. Congress and most journailsts respond to cyberspace. Lawyers and doctors and advertising pros are scrambling to contend with the open-model distribution of once-proprietary information.
It's also a credible idea that some of the traditional functions of the nation-state -- raising armies to protect against attack -- seem increasingly dubious. Most wars were started by nationalists seeking political or economic expansion. But if cultural and influence and economic power is increasingly tied to cyberspace, and the ballooning business moving onto the Net and the Web, the rationale for most wars would evaporate. So would the idea of physical defense, one of the mainstays of the nation-state.
So the idea of merchant republics in cyberspace doesn't seem particularly far-fetched. A number of corporations -- Microsoft, AOL/Time-Warner, Disney, Intel -- are already larger and more prosperous than many countries. They will soon be as powerful as some, if they aren't already. So it doesn't seem much of a stretch to imagine companies or their components declaring themselve merchants of a new and virtual realm. Microsoft could buy an island somewhere and declare the company independent (something that's probably already occurred to Bill Gates, for whom secession might seem the logical next step if the courts continue to rule against him).
Smaller entrepeneurs could use encryption and other security tools to simply put their cyber-operations beyond the reach of governments. There's no real international law governing the global implications of the Net and the Web. Even if there were, a number of countries would surely be found to ignore any new conventions.
These kinds of republics wouldn't need traditional police forces or defense industries or tax-collection mechanisms. Just as the Net has no means of policing speech, such republics could defy regulation, especially if they became numerous.
In fact, many corners of the Net already offer virtual equivalents of the "march" state, entities that fall between the cracks of regulation and control. Wander around AIM or ICQ for awhile and you'll find thousands. We're in one now.
A couple of years ago, merchant republics in cyberspace might have seemed a wacky, even utopian, prediction. No more.
Watch for Part Three, The Return of the Luddites. this book is available at Fatbrain.
Unlikely (Score:2)
Also setting up a business on the ineternet also means that you have to have something to sell and quite frankly 80% of all small businesses fail in 2 years time. It's even worse for the net.
Microsoft is Rome... (Score:2)
That'd make
Protection (Score:1)
Rees-Bogg ?! *snort* (Score:1)
By Davidson, James Dale / Rees-Mogg, William
*not* impressive.
Re:Unlikely (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft is Rome... (Score:1)
Who is JonKatz? Brutus?
Wacky, you bet! (Score:3)
Unfortunately for the goals of some, it is wacky. Even the one place in world with a prayer of pulling something like that off, Sealand, is in trecherous waters.
The cyber revolution will change government as much as the industrial one did. Which, while significant, isn't revolutionary.
So... (Score:2)
...you're saying that the Syndicate is winning the Ascension War?
The person who has the most guns controls the moon (Score:1)
Nonsense (Score:2)
As soon as these corporations start doing harm to nations and citizens as a result, the international community will simply install a taxation system and control system to reign in the nasty companies, and nasty they will be.
NO company does good by way of its workers or the environment or community without the threat of government-sanctioned punishment for transgressing. They would pay the lowest, most poverty-pertetuation wages, pollute like bastards, without regulation. Taxation WILL begin once not paying (only fair) taxes begins to hurt much-loved and desired social programs.
Guns tend to trump T1's (Score:3)
I don't care how fast a connection you have, what length key you have, or how distributed your organization is. There will come a time and place where you, a living breathing human bein', will be subject to somebody putting a gun in your face. Cyber-nations would be more feasable if we had "Ghost in the Shell" type legally-recognized spirits floating around on the Internet. But since I don't see that happening any time soon, I am extremely pessimistic as to the predicitons made above.
That, and the fact that the authors seem to focus on economic interests being the primary motivators of these "cyber-states". Fuck that. I'm tired of being a consumer. I'm a CITIZEN, goddammit. I read, I think, and I like to vote. I buy shit sometimes, but that is not the focus of my being and I resent being considered otherwise, no matter how efficacious it is for marketing-types and Alan Greenspan to classify me thusly.
Oh yeah first world countries actually fear it (Score:1)
wars (Score:3)
What exactly is the rationale for most wars?
I don't think physical defense will ever be obselete. There will always be people who want what you've got - and there are some things that can't be digitally reproduced. Food, for example. If me and some friends want your food, we will come take it. Then we will put up our own defenses to thwart you when you come to take it back. Then you will devise defenses of your own, so next time someone tries to take your stuff, you will thwart them. Then they will develop defenses...
Until there is digital reproduction of food, water, medicine, shelter.. there will always be potential for war.
wishus
Vote for freedom! [harrybrowne2000.org]
---
Why not? (Score:1)
I was under the impression that one such country was doing exactly this - an island somewhere...
Military Obsolescence (Score:2)
The authors may think that nation-states will abstain from violence when threatened by whatever is seeking to replace them. I sincerely doubt that existing nation-states will roll over and die in the face of virtual territories.
As Heinlein pointed out in Starship Troopers, anyone who thinks violence solves nothing should ask the citizens of Carthage.
After all, if I'm the leadership of a sovereign nation and I can't outwit you, I can always pass laws to restrict you (examples, anyone?). Last resort, if you're located in another nation and threaten me badly enough, we use the military option. Harden those server rooms, boys.
JA
So where are the independent currencies? (Score:1)
Re:Guns tend to trump T1's (Score:2)
I'll classify this book as Sci-Fi in my library. Or, "Y2k, the world will end".
[OT] Re:Unlikely (Score:1)
A non-troll finally got a first post.
I could die happy now.
--- 'dex
Or maybe not... (Score:2)
Re:Unlikely (Score:1)
Alex.
Simply rediculous (Score:1)
The idea that the globalist coterie of governments would allow anything of significant value or power to elude their reach is quite simply a rediculous idea. For these people, control is the key to their power, and they cannot allow anything to exist outside of their control.
You can expect to see any organisation trying to acheive something like this hit by the tools of these people - the UN and the WTO - and if that fails, then I'm sure "accidents" will follow. No country will dare to provide a location for these organisations - just look at what has happened in holdout nations like Panama. Freedom was crushed in the name of international trade, and bodies such as the UN and the WTO provide a valuable smokescreen for such activities. Just look at Bosnia or Rwanda - the UN death squads have been operating under the cover of "peacekeeping", eliminating targets that don't fall into line.
Independent orgainsations will not be allowed to happen.
Sovereign Individuals are already here (Score:3)
Check out my own project Neudist.org [neudist.org] for example, where we are trying to create an online replacement for Legal Entities. Others such as WebFunds [webfunds.org] and E-Gold [e-gold.com] are creating Gold backed digital currencies a'la Cryptonomicon (They were actually doing it before Cryptonomicon). FreeNet is creating an uncensurable infrastructure and HavenCo are doing Offshore web hosting.
I'm sure I've forgotten quite a few, but these are the technologies that will enable or inspire the Sovereign Individuals. I loved the book, but the writers are very much involved with the really high end of the market, and when it comes down to it would probably feel a bit left behind by all this free software creating real Sovereign Individuals.
-Pelle
Still doesn't seem very feasable (Score:1)
Founder's Camp [founderscamp.com]
Methinks... (Score:2)
If you are getting funds and you live in the US.. (Score:1)
If you don't pay taxes you go to jail or pay a *huge* fine to the IRS. Plain and simple. What you are talking about is almost like money laundering unless you pay the proper taxes on it.
Um, hello, is this thing on (tap, tap, tap)? (Score:1)
If he were paying attention, he might notice that the governments of the world (being pushed by the same big business that have owned them for decades/centuries) are doing everything in their power to turn the Internet into an extension of the 'real' world. Big business doesn't want the Internet to allow people a free 'republic', therefore government doesn't want it to happen either.
Now, maybe someone can argue that it will happen with or without the government interfering, but seriously, does anyone believe that? The government (US or other countries) will just regulate the piss out of it if they (and the businesses that really control them) can't keep it 'under control'. I don't doubt at all that someday soon we will have an 'Internet tax' for even hooking in. And then, we will be levied a tariff on product purchased over the Internet (because we aren't purchasing things the way the businesses want us to purchase them) and goods purchased over the Internet will be so expensive it won't be worth it.
Of course, assuming that big business and government manage to pull their heads out someday and realize the tracking capabilities in Internet purchases, they will jump at the opportunity to create 'online' countries. Then they can give the common people an excuse to think they are free of the old control, yet still the old control will still be in place.
Sorry, I must have forgotten my meds today
Re:wars (Score:1)
Re:Unlikely (Score:1)
This is a statistic that gets tossed out quite often. While it is true that many small businesses close their doors shortly after opening, that is not to say they _failed_. Many times the business owners realize that they can make more working for someone else and/or eliminate many of the hassles and risks they encounter by striking out on their own. It is not uncommon for someone to open a business, work at it for a few years/months and then sell the operation and break even, or make a small profit. That (to me) is not a failure, it's like changing jobs or careers. Just because I'm moving to a different employer doesn't mean that I _failed_ at my current gig, it just means that I found something _better_ elsewhere.
This may be slightly off-topic, but if people are scared to even try their hand at running their own business, that just makes the big sloth corporations even stronger. If Amazon can convince people that there is no hope in challenging them in on-line sales, then they have a lack of competition and can do things like dynamically marking prices up, etc.
Inevitable? (Score:3)
Re:[OT] Re:Unlikely (Score:1)
Maybe that's because the real trolls avoid Katz articles like the plague that they are.
The rest of us are apparently too stupid to apply the same logic
Little Change (Score:2)
Re:Simply rediculous (Score:1)
The key for such an organization is to not APPEAR to be an organization -- merely a loose collection of like-minded individuals. If the powers that be view them as disconnected fringe elements, they will miss the threat. First one of us, then two, then pretty soon they call it a movement.
"Rogue" states can only offer temporary protection (Score:1)
Look at OECD's black list of Tax Havens [oecd.org] Since the list was announced you have had Cayman Islands, Dominica, Antigua, Mauritius and several others bending over backwards.
Having lived and worked in several of these places, I have experienced first hand that the government officials here are not idealistic about anything, don't generally understand the new economy and are scared as hell right now of loosing their income.
Nation States (Score:2)
Today's Decisions (Score:2)
Actually, probably the most important decision you and I will make in the next few months with regards to this is our vote on the 7th of November. One candidate has clearly committed to a socialist taxation/economic system. The other has chosen to continue (and enhance) our current system of supporting business opportunity. Oddly, the incumbent proposes the huge alteration and the challenger the continuity. What a wierd presidential system the USA has.
Either Way... (Score:1)
horrible analogy (Score:2)
Unrealistic (Score:1)
No matter how nasty they will attempt to be, I seriously doubt that they will come out ahead. It will be very uncomfortable for us for a few years, while they get more and more desperate, however they really wont be able to tax truely anonymously owned online entities, just like they wouldn't be able to censure FreeNet or read my PGP mail.
interesting, didn't I read this in... (Score:3)
Personally, I think the writing is on the wall for net governance as we know it. The reality is that the net is *global*...that the laws that the US or any other sovereign state attempts to impliment only holds substantive force in the country of origin, treaties notwithstanding.
Either there needs to be a global government with actual enforcement powers (I'll just hold my breath and wait for that one)...or there will eventually be some sort of global internet "treaty" wherein all signatories agree to abide by certain agreed upon terms etc. Again...I'm just going to hold my breath... Even if the later comes into being, there will always be those who refuse to sign...or sign and violate (the whole issue of enforcability is an entirely seperate and monumental issue).
I think we are seeing the birth of a form of virtual company town...where you can be...and buy...and play...in exchange for various amounts of freedom. What is your comfort level...are you very timid and want relative safty, live in aolville (but we will be watching over you quite closely, but you don't mind that do you *gentle smile*).....or do you want no structure whatsoever, it's yours..but who do (or can) you trust then.
It's an amazing applied sociological experiment we are watching evolve. I look forward to witnessing it...and making a living integrating it into others lives...
rootrot
Re:Simply rediculous (Score:2)
Re:The person who has the most guns controls the m (Score:1)
ah, but what if the server were on the dark side of the moon? No laser will hurt it there ;-)
--
Katz and Rees-Mogg: Whadda combo! (Score:1)
SEALAND (Score:1)
First, some background:
Sealand is actually an old British military installation. For all puposes, think of it like an oil rig type platform out in the middle of the sea between Holland and the U.K. It's just a 3,500? sq. ft. platform with lots of anti-aircraft guns and the like. The Brits abandoned it after WWII and beacuse of it's location etc. when some crazy guy decided to take it over and declare it a soverign nation, Britan laughed and basically left him alone. So now Sealand (as the "king" declared it) is in a very unique position.
Fast Forward to the year 2000
Now add a bunch of venture capitalists and soe enterprising and slightly rebellious nerds and you've got yourself a haven like no other.
The Future for Sealand:
Sealand is having massive amounts of hardware etc. brought on board and they're hopping to turn it into cyber mecca. Their touting themselves to customers as a GREAT opportunity for REAL security and REAL autonomy. Sealand is exempt from all laws but their own. Sealand does not allow childporn/corporate espinoge and some things like that, but if the feds ever want to see your email records/etc. and Sealand has them, you're clear. Sealand is going to be RABID about protecting their customers and the digital nation-state they've created.
Maybe someone else still has the article around, but it was quite an interesting read. When hell breaks loose, I'd certainly like these Sealand guys in my corner....
Kill it with another satellite (Score:1)
We kind of already have this now... (Score:1)
Basically, this country (not necessarily the inhabitants thereof, mind you) is getting suddenly wealthy off of the Internet and the potential market value of the
Kierthos
it's still death and taxes that are certain (Score:2)
No encryption technology will prevent the county sherrif from showing up at my door demanding payment of my property taxes. No digital cash scheme will prevent the cashier at the local supermarket from adding on sales tax when I buy a chocolate bar, or prevent the imposition of income taxes on that cashier's paycheck - the supermarket, as a fixed physical entity, is easily subject to state regulation. SSL won't keep the state from knowing who a corporation's stockholders are and imposing capital gains taxes - since corporations are state-chartered entities, there's no way they can avoid regulation. (As lax as that regulation tends to be today, don't doubt that if the tax money stops flowing that will change.)
The only taxes that might be avoided by new technology are income taxes for independant contractors who work via the net; and if that truly comes to pass, you'll just see a shift away from the income taxes toward other forms of taxes. Which might not be a bad thing, but it's hardly the destruction of taxation.
Re:Unlikely (Score:2)
yup (Score:1)
Re:Quite frankly I like editorials and subjective (Score:1)
In fact, including myself I now have heard of two people that would enjoy it (you and I).
Just hang in usenet. There's lots of philosophy groups there. Some even have a techno slant.
Re:SEALAND (Score:1)
Rees-Mogg (Score:1)
About time (Score:1)
Why? Well, first, we're (the US citizens out there) taxed to death. We do not need another tax, let alone an internet one (though it seems one is on its way...isn't that right California?). Some of the ideas by these guys seem proposterous, but weren't all those 'wacky' ideas of the sixties of fax machines and the internet in general seen as nutty?
I've been reading the comments doubting the ability for there to be a common internet currency. Though many tries have failed, the story of an interviewer and Thomas Edison comes to mind. The interviewer asked, "It took a thousand and one tries to invent the light bulb. How did it feel to fail 1000 times?" To which he replied, "I didn't fail 1000 times. The lightbulb was simply an invention that required 1001 steps." Internet currency CAN work. And it WILL work, one day.
The US Government takes 1/3rd of your wages. Do you think that figure is going to go down? And furthermore, do you think that big a cut is worth it? Does the goverment do 1/3rd of your laundry, or 1/3rd of your coding? Do they do anything with that money but blow a large percentage of it on things we don't need? Or gold-plated toilet seats? Or $500 screwdrivers?
If the idea of no war is so insane, why haven't we had a major one in years? What's up with the Serbs or the Bosnians? Do we care? They fight over land and food and things we have in such great abundance that our military expertise ends up with the equivalent of government masterbation. Our military is so good in fact, that nobody will fight us. And who would have the balls? So after everyone turns to the internet, and a common global currency is developed, the only thing you would have to worry about is shipping. I see, if anything, security would have to be developed for food shipping than anything else. Food can be stored properly and sent ANYWHERE. There is no limit as to where things can go or what they can do.
You know what? I think, looking at the grand scheme of things, that FedEx and UPS stock is lookin MIGHTY tasty right now.
This is possible. And it can happen.
Re:Little Change (Score:1)
Having said that, I know for damn sure that not many 'politicians' are going to allow 'people' to have any more say in that than in how much they are taxed.
Of the people, for the people, by the people, yeah right. Try, of big business, for big business, by big business. That sounds a little closer.
What is OECD? (Score:1)
Is government control cut by the net? (Score:1)
I think it's safe to agree that "internet access frustrates my government's attempt to control me." The interesting question is: to what extent does that regulation become difficult?
Taxation
You don't receive real merchandise through the wire, you receive them by some means of transport. If a nation wanted to enforce a tax on internet-purchased goodies, then it could
- force vendors to collect taxes
- check incoming freight
Sure, maybe you can find a vendor willing to smuggle goods without the notice of the government, but that happens without the 'net.Free Speech
Only if your government lets you. Consider that encryption is banned [slashdot.org] in Chine for unauthorized individuals.
-- David M. Moore
Re:horrible analogy (Score:2)
The Knights Templar organization is accredited for developing the concept of a bank. Money deposited in England was represented by a chit and that chit could be given to a Templar Citadel anywhere in exchange for an equal amount of money.
The analogy is about the non-national nature of the organization, not about its decline or use in occultic references in today's era.
Re:Nonsense (Score:1)
much-loved and desired by whom?
Re:SEALAND (Score:1)
Potted History Of Sealand
Sealand was outside the regional waters of the UK when it was taken over. Soon after a Navy destroyer blew up a similar installation to prevent the same thing happening.
For a while, organized crime sold forged Sealand passports.
At some point the UK extended their territorial waters to include Sealand. They now claim that whatever the case, Sealand is in the UK. Recently, someone with a (valid) Sealand passport was refused entry in to the UK.
People argue that if in fact Sealand is part of the UK, then HM.Gov has wilfully ignored numerous serious fire-arm violations.
I believe that as soon as Sealand actually get's nototious for something, HM.Gov will move in.
At the moment it doesn't have enough credibility (in the eyes of the government) to warrant doing anything about it.
Sealand will soon have the most guns per square metre of any "Country" in the world. I would also advise a couple of gas masks.
Re:wars (Score:1)
Don't forget that someone has to protect the infrastructure. If you have no military, your influence in cyberspace can be nullified with a good old-fashioned iron bomb placed squarely on a critical router.
There is a lot of wishful thinking going on here, but the internet is basically a glorified telephone. It facilitates communication. Nothing more. It does not render governments obsolete. It took a while for governments to adapt to industry (Sherman Anti-trust Act) and telecommunications (wiretap warrants) but they eventually tamed it. The internet will be no different. The government will find a way to assert their power. After all, that's what governments do best.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
[OT} dark side of the moon (Score:2)
Yes, I know the far side of the moon is commonly called the dark side, but that is a miss-conception and needs to be stamped out (along with flat earth etc:)
Bill - aka taniwha
--
It's already started: HavenCo? (Score:1)
Does this sound like Sealand [sealandgov.com] (more info here [principality-sealand.net]) and HavenCo [havenco.com]? It sure does to me.
I was pondering at length on this a while back, and had a disturbing though:
What would happen if instead of HavenCo operating on Sealand, suddenly Microsoft picked up from Redmond and plunked itself down on Sealand? What would happen if Microsoft was its own COUNTRY?
Re:horrible analogy (Score:2)
A better analogy would have been to the guilds that existed at the time and only answered to those within the guilds.
my services (Score:1)
Re:Inevitable? (Score:1)
I think this is the natural extension of the "financial havens" with which most of us have at least a passing knowledge. I do not think that these principles are solely the refuge of those who are doing things that they know are "questionable", but they provide a way for those without enough power to usurp the draconian nature of the state without resorting to violence or sedition.
Communication doesn't equal Harmony (Score:2)
That would be impossible (Score:1)
Re:Guns tend to trump T1's (Score:1)
Move to the wilderness and become soley a producer.
Go to some huge forest and never come out. If a criminal can evade the FBI for months using the wilds someone like me or you can still disappear before we are all marked up with trackers n such and never be found again. Spy on the thick forest canopy bub.
It all works out in the end, ahem but anyways you dont see anyone taking the obvious solution
Jeremy
Slashdot flubs again (Score:2)
As submitted to slashdot 09/07/00 and REJECTED (maybe they didn't want me to scoop katz?):
The FBI today released a report on school violence. Ironically, there is only a 1 in a million chance at present of someone being shot in school. Despite that, the political fallout has been fast and extensive. What follows is my own analysis of the report, along with my thoughts on what they did right, and what they did wrong, in the report. "... a great many adolescents who will never commit violent acts will show some of the behaviors or personality traits included on the list."
The FBI went to great pains in this report to inform the reader that this report is not intended to be a basis for forming a profile of a potential killer. There is no single metric to judge the threat someone poses. Almost all of the information in the report points to this underlying theme - "do not profile students." The FBI also cautioned against the impulsive responses that the issue of school violence has generated, going as far as to say that these demands "have been accompanied by little if any concerted and organized effort to understand the roots of school shooting incidents." The FBI also stated that as a direct result of these incidents being so rare, there was no reliable way to pick out from any group who the killer will be.
The FBI also lashed out at the media, dedicating an entire section to debunking various myths that the media has propagated. Some of these I didn't pick up. Among the myths debunked that slashdotters would be most interested in:
The FBI, in a very round-about way, also slammed schools for zero tolerance policies, saying that the "one-size-fits-all approach" many schools take was ill-advised and could even be dangerous. To quote, "...schools must recognize that every threat does not represent the same danger or require the same level of response."
The core of the report, however, doesn't take some of its own advice and goes on to offer a series of threat assessment criterion to identify potential problems. In other words, profiling.
The assessment approach advocated in the report is based on a "four-pronged" model, with the main areas to identify falling into the personality of the student, and the family, school, and social dynamics in that student's life. This approach is *very* similar to current practices in "emotionally/behaviorally disturbed" programs for many schools. The difference between the FBI's approach hinges on the idea that a student should not be "profiled" until after a threat has been made. It is a small, but important, distinction. [Of interest to myself, the report noted that "about 25% of the adolescent population is at risk for psycho-social problems..." Also, the report notes that adolescence begins earlier in today's kids - as early as age nine. I found that somewhat suprising.]
The actual threat list had several interesting things listed in it which I will list below.
All of these, to me, seem like values my boss has. Should I turn him in?
Continuing down the list...
Hmm, apparently having unmonitored access to TV and standard media, as well as the internet, are threat factors according to the FBI. So, despite all the effort the FBI made to make it clear to people that profiling was a bad idea, here they are using a very generalized list to determine whether someone really is a threat or not.
The last leg of the report has recommendations for handling threats. As a short summary, the FBI recommends that schools form a group of teachers specifically to deal with possible threats. They specifically note that expelling or suspending the student is NOT a substitute for evaluating the student. Such an impulsive move can actually worsen the situation as the student may feel as if he/she was treated unfairly and feel a need for retribution. Also among the recommendations made, is that each case be treated individually, rather than the one-size-fits all approach common in schools.
In the conclusion, the FBI recommends additional research, and that in the interim, that both educators and law enforcement be trained in handling of such incidents and that a plan be put in place ahead of time to deal with serious, specific threats. The report also notes that school violence is continuing on a downward trend. The report concludes with the following: "Threats in schools are not just the schools' problem; therefore, neither is the solution".
The report is available directly from the FBI homepage [fbi.gov], or via this link [fbi.gov].
Re:it's still death and taxes that are certain (Score:2)
--
Re:If you are getting funds and you live in the US (Score:1)
With a caymen Islands server and bank account as a front, and secure connections going both ways (ie no way to tie the account to the person), its impossible to prove WHO is running it.
That is, indeed, the whole point. The money is there, it can be accessed in some ways. Only when it comes into the persons hands in a traceable manner does it need to be reported as income.
The only real danger is in being turned in by people who find out.
All your really doing is cheating the government out of money that they arn't entitled to in the first place.
Two entities will go to war. One will win. (Score:4)
(This is a first post for me, by the way. Not on the topic, but for myself. Consequently, it's gotten a bit stream-of-consciousnessy on me, so moderate gently, please?)
Individual nations' governments are the biggest threat, but only in the way that Hannibal's elephants were -- large, slow-moving, ponderous creatures which didn't know better than to go where you told them. They usually only attack at the orders of someone else, be it people outraged by some form of expression (the Germans against racism, Americans against pornography, the French against any advertising that written in any language other than French) out of some diluted loyalty, and a desire to stay in power. Then there's nations like China which actively seek to strangle it; even elephants get enraged sometimes.
The Borders' best way to win is to pursue. As someone pointed out, the complete freedom to transmit whatever information you want anywhere in the world doesn't do you a whole lot of good if a team of [insert nationality] marines lands on your deep-sea-ISP and opens fire indiscriminately. And when that offshore server station is doing little things to honk off the 168+ nations of the world, don't be surprised to find Maori with grenades floating in the North Atlantic looking for yourownprivateidaho.org.
The Net's best way to win is to persevere: to continue on in the face of the pressures and adversities. According to the dictum, the Net views censorship as damage and acts to route around it. "Damage" in this case means that occasionally those enraged Albanians will take out a netbarge or two, but the net's work will continue.
A Net victory wouldn't destroy the borders, but with the people dealing with each other as equals and sharing information as peers, all those borders would become next to meaningless.
The other question is, "What are you doing with the Net?"
If you're talking about pushing goods around the world, the balance tips greatly in favor of the Borders. Someone has to produce the item in question, pick it up, ship, and drop it off at its destination. Physical entities are easy to stop at border crossings, and governments will call those couriers 'smugglers' if the item is contraband (a fancy term meaning "you can't possibly pay what we'd want to let this in here, so we're just not going to allow it"), and act to stop it. At that point, some of the world's more significant governments will join the fray, like Canada.
If the thing being traded is information or services, though, the Net has the strong advantage. Governments have proven particularly inept at grasping ideas, much less stopping them. The honest flow of information across the Net will necessitate it being kept open, despite any legal discomforts (or attempted illegal stoppages by certain governments who shall remain nameless).
Side-thought, and caveat: The 'Web Application' qualifies as a service, rather than a good. If most companies are going to go to web apps, then sooner or later 'illegal' or 'hack' web apps will crop up, and could be brought to bear to push information through tightly locked borders. tribalfloodnetwork.com, anyone...? It could spell a quick and decisive victory for the Net if the right information is pushed through, but if not, it WILL mean the two combatants will be fighting instead to the death.
Many people like to dream that the Net is an integral part of humanity's future (at least until Internet2 comes along). I look at UseNet and think "Gawds, I hope not."
(Remember what I said about 'stream-of-consciousnessiness'? Sorry about that...)
Re:Simply rediculous (Score:2)
So which government controls Time-Warner? Sony? Ericsson? Unilever? Volkswagen? Nike? Coca-Cola?
Sure all these companies are based somewhere, but they are hardly under the control of any government. Not even under the likes of WTO.
They are the ones who walk up tho their local government and state their terms for not moving along with their cash.
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Got news for you. Medicare, Social Security, roads/highways are ALL heavily favored in the USA. In other countries, the equivalents are also heavily favored. Try taking some of these equivalents from the Brits, Franks, Germans, etc. Wont happen.
The "people" in general LIKE REAL stores and shops. Sure, online shopping CAN be convenient, but it is also insubstantial. Many people gain social enjoyment by actually looking at, touching, trying out REAL merchandise while looking at some picture on the web just don't cut it.
I suppose those with your opinion would like a world where you NEVER have to directly interact with ANYONE...ONLY "communicating" via email and other such nonsense. If you don't actually interact with and SEE people dying or starving because there is no medicare or social security, you don't have to feel anything and don't need to care - until it is YOU on the receiving end (or your parents).
Nay, there are very favored social programs paid for in taxes. If you don't nail companies directly, then the costs will merely be taken from each persons individual income. As the world becomes more economically and socially homogenous, the structures (like the WTO and other international bodies) will certainly be capable and willing to correct the evil done by rampant merchantilism. The world is becoming MORE integrated, which will one day accept a more international, integrated set of rules and taxes (like it or not, that is the ultimate writing on the wall). The net is NOT a panacea for having to actually care for your fellow citizens. It is NOT the perfect solution allowing you to ignore social injustice, environmental degredation, etc. They will remain and you will pay, one way or another...and so will companies.
Who in their right mind would want BUSINESS to run the world? They had essentially free reign during the Industrial Revolution and they REALLY dropped the social and environmental ball. The horrid excesses wrought by nothing but greedy self-interest lead directly to labor unions, environmental regulations, anti-trust laws, etc. These things didn't just pop out of the ether with no good reason.
The NET does NOT make up for real interaction and real action.
Get out of your house, off your butt, and actually interact with humans face-to-face. Interact with the world, foresaking the false interaction with the "world" that you get with the impersonal net.
Do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend? Do you actually have a life?
The Knights Templar are an apt comparison (Score:4)
For those who aren't familiar with the details, most of the Knights Templar were executed (burned at the stake) for "heresy." The charges were brought against them by the French king, who had heard rumors that the Knights were hoarding vast wealth. The king, in order to get his hands on the Templar treasure, conspired with groups of noblemen who were jealous of the Templars worldly power to destroy the order.
The amazing parallel here is to the internet in modern times. The internet contains vast wealth, which the greedy governments of modern times wish to acquire. Just as the king had help in the Templar's time, governments today have willing conspirators in the form of the companies who stand to lose the most from the internet.
The Golden Age of the Internet is over: the kings and their co-conspirators have decided to either control the wealth - or destroy it. The actions against MP3.com, Napster, and DeCSS are all symptoms of the growing movement to make the internet just another method of extracting wealth from the masses. In the United States, our elected representatives are fighting amongst themselves over how to tax the Internet properly. If sales taxes on the internet become unpopular, then they will simply levy a "telecommunications tax" on the service providers. Once it was obvious that the wealth was there in cyberspace, these institutions became the internet's worst enemy.
This is not a hopeless battle, though. The Industrial Revolution destroyed the power of the aristocracy in Britain by creating wealth that was not tied to large tracts of land. It did not, however, do so overnight. The decline of that institution can be measured from the mid-18th century up until the twilight of the 19th century. Much in the same way, I believe the Information Revolution was the death knell of government as we know it today, and its willing conspirators.
These institutions must evolve or be replaced, and they will. It is only a matter of time. What is important is that the replacements for them be what we dream about, not what we fear most. The hallmark of the Information Age is the burgeoning empowerment of the individual. It is this property that the modern governments and corporations in America and Europe fear most, and are trying the hardest to limit.
This is because these institutions require complacency and uniformity to exist. Consider: if all people liked the same music, finding artists to record popular music would be easier, discovering the next John Grisham or Tom Clancy would be simpler, and the products created by these people would be easier to market, and would sell more copies. This is why the large media companies focus on expanding markets by telling us what is "cool." They simply do not have the agility to deal with more that two or three different markets. This is leading to an explosion in small niche providers: the small record labels and presses. These people are doing much better in the Internet Age.
Can we make a difference? Certainly. Spend some time researching where your entertainment budget goes. Use the internet to find bands or authors or artists that are good, but not "signed" with a label or a publisher. Reward talent with money. If you are politically inclined, write. Write your newspaper, your representatives, and the executives of companies to praise moves you agree with and to condemn those you don't. Pick an issue for which you are passionate and promote it. And most importantly, if you don't feel like being such an activist, the email those who do with two lines or so of encouragement. It helps.
Serbia etc... (Score:2)
More accurately: those people fight on land and influence, something the US has done several time in this century (imposing US-friendly dictatorships in Cuba and south Vietnam, for instance).
Taxes are certain, just not for everyone (Score:2)
The alternatives that they will probably introduce are delivery taxes (payable through FedEx???), Internet Taxes payable by ISP's or tacked on to our ISP bills.
If only part of the population is taxable, you will probably start seeing that taxable low income part of the population get more and more angry, which we are already seing in the rise of hate groups through out the world. Eg. Anti Chinese riots in Indonesia, Neo Nazi Groups, Pat Buchanan etc.
The authors conclusion is that there will be much greater equality between countries, but much greater inequality within countries. Just look at India, China, Mexico etc. They all now have large growing educated middle classes, but as they grow the inequality within the countries increase.
However the traditional large semi-well paid working class of North American and Western Europe has had it's foundations torn apart over the last 30 years.
Re:wars (Score:1)
But seriously...
Yes. Servers, networking, and all that need
a) Digital infrastructure -- e.g. transmission towers or cables, power sources, replacement parts, and so forth.
And if you're connected, then you have to be connected to somebody who can locate or trace you (even if it's only in the general area) or an important link.
b) People to run them. People need food, space, medicine, and a miscellany of other supplies. People also tend to have some loyalty to a group (nation, city, ethnicity, religion, vocation, secret society, trashy talk show, what-have-you), and these will inevitably come into conflict given sufficient people and time.
c) Space. This happens to be a physical requirement, and can be readily taken away (along with life, limb, property, electricity, and what not) given failure to defend.
If Katz, or the authors whom he cites, can explain how cyberspace leads to a satisfactory resolution of the Jerusalem issue (namely, sovereignty; one might suggest a 'neutral' city administered by the UN and protected by the Security Council permanent members, but that has nada to do with cyberspace), of the Chechen situation, and so forth -- it should be interesting.
I'd side with the cynics here.
Re:Simply rediculous (Score:1)
When I start see stories on the news that relay the truth about the failure of gun control, and how citizens legally & justifiably kill 3 times more criminals then law enforcement every year, then, and only then, will I believe the government doesn't somehow control and direct mass media.
M.G.
People "in" cyberspace? (Score:1)
The most obvious thing the authors' argument ignores is that people do not live in cyberspace. Physical goods do not exist in cyberspace. Currency, while often transferred electronically, is still rooted in the physical and is ultimately controled by physical institutions. For these very simple reasons, you can not totally circumvent a physical nation-state (or a future equivalent). I do not know why the authors think a cyberzone of some sort could be created where taxation is impossible. Taxes on individual transactions might be difficult, but those are definitely not the only kinds of taxes we have. Physical goods traded in a cyberzone must be produced somewhere, purchased by someone with currency, and delivered somewhere. Unless all of these are performed outside the physical boundaries of a nation-state, the state still has myriad mechanisms available for control.
No, a nation-state can't (using even marginally reasonable and feasible means) stop the trading of MP3s. But a strong nation-state with the support of its people can easily exert enormous influence on economic activity that involves physical goods. I am glad that Katz isn't yet writing off the nation-state, but it is disappointing (though not surprising) that he acts as though the physical world is irrelevant for electronic commerce and goods. Two of those companies that he cites as examples of possible cyber merchant republics - AOL/Time-Warner and Microsoft - deal almost totally in immaterial goods. Their products require physical products like computers to have any use at all. Intel deals in physical goods and is therefore prone to control. Disney's revenues come from both kinds of products. None are at all free from the constraints of the physical world and the nation-state. If Microsoft moved to an island, a nation-state could get rid of Microsoft with a single missle.
I think the basic point here is that any realm or zone in cyberspace can only be useful for "cybergoods." And no matter what people like Katz say, we will always need food, shelter, and a whole lot of other physical goods to have a society where cyberspace even exists. Given that, the power of a cyberzone is ultimately very limited, and I don't think it's an alternative or challenge to the nation-state at all.
Globalism Independent of the Net (Score:1)
I'm somewhat agnostic about the merits of this phenomenon. Economic globalism is both good and bad. But the focus of this debate should rightly be on globalism and not the net, IMO.
Re:What is OECD? (Score:2)
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been called a think tank, monitoring agency, rich man's club, an unacademic university. It has elements of all, but none of these characterisations captures the essence of the OECD.
The OECD groups 29 member countries in an organisation that, most importantly, provides governments a setting in which to discuss, develop and perfect economic and social policy. They compare experiences, seek answers to common problems and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies that increasingly in today's globalised world must form a web of even practice across nations. Their exchanges may lead to agreements to act in a formal way - for example, by establishing legally-binding codes for free flow of capital and services, agreements to crack down on bribery or to end subsidies for shipbuilding. But more often, their discussion makes for better informed work within their own governments on the spectrum of public policy and clarifies the impact of national policies on the international community. And it offers a chance to reflect and exchange perspectives with other countries similar to their own.
The OECD is a club of like-minded countries. It is rich, in that OECD countries produce two thirds of the world's goods and services, but it is not an exclusive club. Essentially, membership is limited only by a country's commitment to a market economy and a pluralistic democracy. The core of original members has expanded from Europe and North America to include Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Mexico, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Korea. And there are many more contacts with the rest of the world through programmes with countries in the former Soviet bloc, Asia, Latin America - contacts which, in some cases, may lead to membership.
Exchanges between OECD governments flow from information and analysis provided by a Secretariat in Paris. Parts of the OECD Secretariat collect data, monitor trends, analyse and forecast economic developments, while others research social changes or evolving patterns in trade, environment, agriculture, technology, taxation and more. This work, in areas that mirror the policy-making structures in ministries of governments, is done in close consultation with policy-makers who will use the analysis, and it underpins discussion by member countries when they meet in specialised committees of the OECD. Much of the research and analysis is published.
My take on it is that it is sort of like an economic equivalent of NATO. It's pretty much involved with monitoring and creating global rules that it's member countries should or must (depending on how influential they are) obide by. They also try to bully smaller and poorer countries with programs such as the "harmful tax competition" programme I mentioned in my previous post. It's pretty interesting that this group of powerful countries should fear the unfair competition of small poor countries such as Belize, Dominica etc. May be these countries should create a black list of countries with to big economies, because thats unfair size competition?
Re:It's already started: HavenCo? (Score:1)
That, plus it'd be fairly trivial to snuff 'em out of existence, methinks. Tomahawks aren't often shot down, and it seems unlikely that Sealand could hold off a single carrier group...
They are there, check out E-Gold (Score:1)
The currency is growing like crazy, besides not having been funded by VC's and largely ignored by the press. I think I just read on the mailing list that there is now over 1 ton of e-gold in circulation today.
While this is still small fish, it's the most succcessfull attempt yet of any online currency, thats backed by real value. Beenz may have more users, but it's essentially backed by air. You wouldn't accept a pay check in beenz, but I know many people that are getting paid in E-Gold.
Some group in the Isle of Man also just announced they were going to create a similar system.
Re: Syndicate (Score:1)
Yeah, money will be the motivation behind it, until people realize that in a completely digital marketplace, money (which is a representation of physical wealth) is meaningless and a totally new monetary system will have to be devised. So I guess it's more like a group of financial minded VA's are pushing their idea of Ascension...
Lord... we are geeks, aren't we?
^_^
-Speldor
Re:Quite frankly I like editorials and subjective (Score:1)
Re:Inevitable? (Score:2)
Of course? A lot of people seem to disagree...
Take a starving country in Africa, and tell them that if they have completely non-restrictive internet laws, they will cease being poor. Say that you can sell anything you want online, and allow for this small little country to see money beyond it's wildest dreams,
Most starving countries in Africa have NO internet laws so yo can sell anything you want online right now. Besides, what's wrong with selling anything online?
As to the ways to deal with it, I recommend the book Dogs of War by Frederick Forsyth. It is quite explicit about how such problems can be solved.
Kaa
Re:it's still death and taxes that are certain (Score:1)
Right now, it might be practical for a corporation to go offshore - but if a significant amount of wealth starts to accumulate there, you can be that those government will eventually start taxing just as heavy as anyone else.
Re:"Rogue" states can only offer temporary protect (Score:1)
I was just reading through the OECD's document cited above. I'm pretty fucking disgusted with it.
They go on and on about "Harmful tax practices", which is anything that might undermine the member countries tax base... such as tax havens. They talk about taxation as if it is a necessity to the proper functioning of the planet... assholes.
To make matters worse, this is being used as a pretty explicit threat against those countries that participate in "harmful tax practices". The threats are primarily financial, adding additional tax burdens on citizens of those countries who operate within/through member countries.
Ick. The more I think about them, the less I like international governmental organizations.
Brief info on OECD, etc.
OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
Some members - Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, US, Japan, Australia, Mexica, Korea... among a dozen others.
Some havens - Andorra, Anguilla, Aruba, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cook Islands, Gibraltar, Grenada, Isle of Man, Liberia, Monaco, Montserrat, Panama, Samoa, Tonga, US Virgin Islands, Rep of Vanuatu... among a dozen others.
Re:horrible analogy (Score:2)
So, once again, my basic question is why?
Re:About time (Score:2)
We haven't? I don't know what you consider major, of course, but the Iran-Iraq war was very bloody. The civil wars in Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda were quite nasty, too. Or wars between brown people do not count?
What's up with the Serbs or the Bosnians? Do we care?
Maybe you don't. That doesn't mean everybody else doesn't care either.
They fight over land and food and things we have in such great abundance
Sigh. They fight over power, not land and food. If you give them food, they will not stop fighting.
So after everyone turns to the internet, and a common global currency is developed, the only thing you would have to worry about is shipping.
Ah. Wonderful. I see it now -- all we have to worry about is shipping. Nothing else, really, it's all just shipping. Human rights, ecology, crime -- they'll just stop being problems once we deal with shipping. Joy.
Kaa
Re:SEALAND (Score:1)
there is no dark side of the moon (Score:1)
The REAL Anonymous Coward is User# rnd(). Anyone else is just afraid to give their name.
Drugs and guns online? (Score:1)
It's probably already happened - there's certainly a grey market online for items like marijuana seeds and plants that can be used to make psychedelics.
Of course, there have been many pirate republics in the past. Most of them flourished for a while, then got blown to kingdom come by the British or other international policemen of their day.
The Fed, Net IPO Madness, Templars and Lawyers (Score:2)
The Fed banks are well aware that there is absolutely no difference between the money supply they create and transmit around electronically and a Net-based currency, other than enforceability and trust. I believe that the Fed has had a loose money policy during these past few years partly to ensure that there is enough investor money to keep popular portals in the hands of owners that are on board with traditional Nationalistic Corporatism and out of Net currency. I call the strategy Positive Despotism- don't crush your potential enemies, buy them out, or at least make everybody fat, dumb and happy enough to not question the freedoms that they are losing.
I also believe that the Clipper chip and associated technologies are anti-Net currency initiatives moreso than anything else, as a key component of any such system is verification and privacy for tax-avoidance. Fortunately for the Fed and the US Government, it looks like everyone who might have made a Net currency play has been bought out or gone to ground.
By the way, the Templars were the first European internationalist bankers and the first entity to allow checks to be written from one Priory and cash it at another. They achieved this by putting a validation code on the 'check' that could be deciphered and verified at cashout time. As noted before, Philip the Fair of France and his stooge Pope created trumped-up charges to allow the ransacking of the Order's riches. Encryption, money, freedoms and police power have been interrelated issues for a long time.
The key problem I see with the online Merchant Republic concept is trust in contract enforcement- how do I know the goods, services and currency I pour into such an entity will give me value and have a mechanism for redress of grievances? Short of a tribal clade treaty such as those in Stephenson's books, there would be NO enforcement or due process outside of one's Republic. Thus, the Merchant Republic/tribal system is unlikely to occur unless there is
1)a complete collapse of the justice system (therefore people lose faith in the US image-myth, bringing on chaos and a need for adhoc groups for survival),
2) or a collapse of the currency system.
So far the Fed and the Government appear to be defending the currency, so the justice system breakdown is the more likely scenario. Rampant insane corporatism crushing the individual and buying up justice is more likely to create the Merchant Republics rather than Katz' magic Net.
Re:The Knights Templar are an apt comparison (Score:2)
The Templars were known for accumulating a large amount of wealth because of how they worked. They had set up "temples" at one day intervals along pilgrimage routes from northern europe down to the holy land and all the way to portugal. The temples provided shelter from various thieves along the way, which included many of the local rulers who would try to extract large payments from people on pilgrimage. Because the Templars were associated with the church, they were mostly left alone, but for those who didn't respect the church, the Templars were heavily armed and well trained, and held a pact that any attack on a Templar would be avenged.
The Templars started to become wealthy when merchants realised they could move along with the pilgrims, and be afforded protection from attack and extortion. The Templars would "tax" the merchants a small amount of the goods protected. This eventually lead to the first wide area banking system as others have pointed out.
Since only kings and the church collected money like that at the time, once the Templars started to get rich the other two powers took notice. In 1307, the Pope gave the Francish king, Philip, permission to round up the local Templars and try the leader for heresy and treason, and the king could keep their lands for his troubles.
If you read one of the many treasure [templartreasure.com] hunting books, they imply the Templars were completely surprised by this action and fled into the night with many wagons loaded with treasure, and it is hidden somewhere and yet to be found. The banal reality is that the negotiations between the king and the pope lasted for several years, and the Templars had a good intelligence gathering network in both areas. They knew what was going down, and spirited away their wealth well in advance to many locations. Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master at the time, turned himself in to the king, and defied both the king and pope to give him a fair trial. He had a lot of supporters, but the trial was anything but fair and after 7 years he was burned at the stake for heresy, along with a handful of others. Shades of Goldstein, Johannsen, and supporters? The rest of the Templars were never rounded up, they shed their knightish garb and went underground and called themselves Hospitaliers or returned to their wealthy families.
The Grand Temple was on the eastern edge of Paris, and the streets in the Marais area still bear the names the Templars gave them. I used to live in a building built in 1290 in that area.
Much of the Templar wealth was used over the following century to create the Hospitalier movement in the south of france. The Hospitaliers differed from the Templars only in the names of their buildings, and offered a more Christian raison d'etre, that of sheltering the poor and the sick. The name Hospital and the function continues to this day, unless you are stuck in an american HMO.
A lot more of the wealth went to the Knights of Malta, since they were well protected on their island. The Kights are still one of the wealthiest groups on the planet yet today. Bogart's The Maltese Falcon was based on centuries old rumours of the payments the Knights made to the church and local kings. The Knights of Malta are still so powerful, they have ambassadors to almost every country in the world, and their own seat in the UN.
Just as the king had help in the Templar's time, governments today have willing conspirators in the form of the companies who stand to lose the most from the internet.
But I think your analogy, and Katz's as well, are well placed in this story. The Templars created a communications network on top of the ruins of the Roman empire, which allowed merchants for the first time to safely conduct business further than their local feifdom. When the merchants started getting wealth that couldn't be locally taxed, and the Templars also started to gain wealth and land, the two powers-that-be conspired to eliminate the problem and control it themselves.
The internet today is creating untaxable wealth and threatening the mega-corps who have risen to power by corrupting the whole democratic process in modern countries. They are now fighting to steal away the network so they can make even more money and have more power over people. And they will succeed in some of their efforts. I only hope the internet and the geeks who run it learn their lesson from 1307 and slip quietly away into the night, only to reappear with a new name and only slightly masked purpose.
the AC
Re:it's still death and taxes that are certain (Score:2)
--
Yes, you read it elsewhere, and what it means (Score:2)
What we really are seeing develop is this:
1. Cyberhacks are repubbing words that real writers wrote and claiming them as their own. Al Gore is no longer an isolated bump, even if he's a more tech-friendly Presidential candidate.
2. Nations are being divided into feifdoms based on Net use. Only 10% of Mexico is wired, which dooms them to cyberserfdom; Peurto Rico and Guam can use shame to lift them into the Wired category as the US rushes to make sure they're fully served. Other nations will win or lose based on who gets Net-ified and who doesn't. This, naturally, will result in Africa dropping way off the scale and being a total Net writeoff.
3. Americans will project their vision of the world where it doesn't belong. While we have over 50% penetration by high-access (cable modem and DSL) within reach by 2002, the rest of the world is SOL. We will keep acting as if the rest of the world is on the Net, and wondering why we are more than half of the Wired audience, while not clueing in that only Europe and parts of Asia can hope to join in the party.
4. China will take the Great Leap To The Net. They will train cyberwarriors to hack us, start pubbing to the Net in Unicode, and generally force the US to fall back in disarray. Then we'll accidently launch missiles at Hong Kong and start WWIII. Everything will die. Except those people attending Burning Man at the time.
Re:it's still death and taxes that are certain (Score:2)
Hmmm...Interesting. We are moving into an age when information is becoming a more and more important commodity (at least I think so). But you're arguing that information is becoming less valuable. I wonder what the net result of both these forces is going to be!
--
I'll get me an axe (Score:2)
Re:Quite frankly I like editorials and subjective (Score:2)