[eternalban]

> their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player.

There are distinct business models at play here and that should be noted before arriving at a conclusion that Google is a benevolent corporate actor. The fact that Google (or any company for that matter) can dominate and observe traffic patterns and content should be a matter of concern to the democratically [in the contemporary sense] minded individuals.

[sounds]

I follow your logic. I agree.

What concrete action would you suggest to make the internet more democratic?

[eternalban]

Central servers must go. We must also disentangle presence management, identity, and services built on top of those layers. Access to identity must be layered and fully subject to user control.

I am personally remiss in this matter as I thought deeply about all this when ICQ came out in mid 90s (and even filed a PPA on April 1st 1997 with USPTO on my take on the solution) but did not advocate effectively enough for the (obvious) architectural remedies. Frankly it bugs me to this day and weighs on me like a still born child.

[lukeschlather]

Can we create a trusted identity service that doesn't rely on centralized highly-trusted nodes? It seems necessary to me that the government or other large associations (/corporations) are the only entities with the resources necessary to secure and maintain decent authentication services. I can't say I'm fond of the idea of maintaining a personal auth server so I can participate in society (and I'm one of our privileged class who can actually contemplate doing such a thing.)

[eternalban]

I couldn't design my way around a centralized bootstrap node, but after that, it can be decentralized. And it has to be highly trusted, so the vision for the ur-node was a bunch of servers in Switzerland inside a vault, run by a public non-profit; subject to random audits; and funded by the IP royalties of the projected patent. (But thank God we can now rely on the good graces of concerned geeks such as Sergey Brin who have millions to spare. (Right Sergey?))

Yes, there is need for user agents running on the user's devices. Your chrome browser transparently maintains a https connection to mother ship (last I checked). I don't think that part of it is really an issue.

[sounds]

About that centralized bootstrap node:

i2p, tor, and dht all rely on some sort of centralized node for bootstrapping. e.g. a fresh install, or when the client has been disconnected from the internet for years.

Would it work to use multiple orthogonal bootstrap methods? i.e. try in a random order any of the following until the client can join the swarm:

• DNS records, http pages, etc. (a straightforward approach like i2p, tor, and dht do)

• "user content," i.e. comments on news sites, blogs, image sharing sites, pastebin, github, etc. that contain the information, hidden using steganography or encryption. A simple google search should not find this user content - the bootstrap method would need to crawl a large number of pages looking for the "signal in the noise," which would make it difficult to find and eliminate all the places the data was hidden.

• "data broadcast," i.e. the bootstrap client listens on random TCP or UDP ports within a certain range. Active swarm peers do "port knocking" in this port range, subdividing the IPv4 space among them so that they visit every IP address within about 24 hours. The range is chosen so as not to incriminate the peers doing the knocking. The waiting bootstrap node will eventually be reached, and the active peer can then transmit the needed data. (IPv4 address blacklists are a must, i.e. do not "port knock" in government address ranges or other sensitive targets.)

By attempting all the methods at random, any that get shut down can be detected and the status updates pushed out to all clients.

[sounds]

I'm loving this discussion, but how would we convince even 1% of internet users to switch?

Unless I am badly mistaken, you propose we tell people: "abandon all the services you've grown to like about the internet. Let's reboot the internet within the confines of this new secure service."

No sarcasm intended - a new service, with real security, would still lack a "killer app."

[eternalban]

How about email without spam, guaranteed, as just one example?

[sounds]

In case it needs repeating, I would subscribe. I want this to happen.

I'm guessing I don't understand the email service, but if I assume it's separate from the current SMTP world, then...

• gmail is currently "good enough" most people wouldn't see 100% spam blocking as a big improvement

• no address for inbound email; can't post "my address" online

• friction to get the service set up, because an email client is included already on my machine, my phone, etc.

• might cost extra to be able to read my email anywhere (i.e. "cloud email storage")

Ok, so if it's so hard to replace email, how can it be done? Instinct tells me that until gmail loses some of its shine, nothing is going to happen. But gmail is more vulnerable than people think, and having a workable alternative when the time comes would go a long way toward getting people to switch. And if gmail fails, it's not going to be Yahoo Mail that steps up to fill in - gmail is the peak of traditional email services. I don't see how, from a technical standpoint, you could do any better than gmail without abandoning SMTP email altogether. (And I mean gmail along with all the accessory programs to make it perfect, i.e. iPhone integration, google apps for your domain, etc.)

[eternalban]

> In case it needs repeating, I would subscribe. I want this to happen.

Good to know. I'm wondering if kickstarter is the way to go, but all that has to wait as I need to first pay the rent :-) [My email is in my profile.]