Money well spent. Anything we can do to increase communications outside of officially sanctioned methods within the borders of these regimes is a good thing in my book.
The article is lite on exactly how communications within a geography link up with the rest of the larger internet but you need to forgive the poor reporters who are obviously in way over their heads technically. I give you nonsense exhibit A:
"Developers caution that independent networks come with downsides: repressive governments could use surveillance to pinpoint and arrest activists who use the technology or simply catch them bringing hardware across the border."
To the four cool dudes hanging out with briefcase gear on L street in DC: Pack those beasties with mesh wifi AND satellite uplinks. Make a few hundred and let uncle sam distribute them/pick up the bandwidth tab.
> Money well spent. Anything we can do to increase communications outside of officially sanctioned methods within the borders of these regimes is a good thing in my book.
I agree. I would also add that in my book, "these regimes" includes the USA, UK, EU, Australia, etc.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we're so slow in making progress in fighting against the genuinely oppressive regimes in the world -- because when we should be helping those who really suffer from oppressive regimes we're too busy complaining and finding false equivalence with our own.
"Oh yeah, it's a big problem that the house across the street is on fire. But it's also at least three degrees warmer in here than I'd like! It's important that we go get some hoses for the people across the street. But it's also important that we stop my housemate from turning the thermostat up so high. Let me tell you more about my annoying housemate..."
More like we help the neighbor down the street, while ignoring the shoddy wiring in our own house. We save the neighbor's house, while our own lights on fire and burns down.
There's no reason that we can't help others and ourselves at the same time.
Actually there is... time and focus are limited resources.
Meetings and discussions should be focused on one topic---say for instance stopping the abuses of power by a genuinely totalitarian government. If we want to talk about the encroachment on civil liberties in a social democracy, that is good and well but it should be held at a different time.
Conversation about the former shouldn't suffer from interjections by proponents of discussing the later simply because its an issue that's "closer to home".
You have misunderstood my meaning, which suggests I could have phrased my comment better. Of course I believe that Western countries are less repressive than the likes of North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.
The internet offers people an unprecendented ability to communicate with each other. This is causing big social changes, and big social changes always create winners and losers, so that some people who are currently powerful, but who these changes will make less powerful. For example, repressive regimes, or the copyright industry.
The attitude of the USA and other Western countries is inconsistent. They welcome the changes the internet is bringing when it hurts incumbents they don't like (e.g. repressive regimes except those ones allied to the West), and want to stop they changes when it hurts incumbents they like (e.g. major political donors such as the MAFIAA).
So on the one hand they're trying to make the internet more locked-down, and on the other hand they're trying to make it more free. It's obvious that they won't succeed in doing both, and it's also obvious that they are going to be more successful at doing anything if they have a clear goal of what they want to achieve.
My view is that the national interests of Western countries lie in making the internet as free as possible. Yes there will be costs -- e.g. Wikileaks will embarrass Western leaders from time to time, and file sharing will hurt political donors. But these are harms to the leaders of Western countries, not to their populations.
I'm not comfortable with the connotation that "regime" brings, but I had the same thought as you.
This technology and equipment will find itself in the hands of Americans if the US government tries to shutdown the Internet Mubarak-style.
However, I think the difference is that, in America, I could walk down to Best Buy and build a reasonably effective "alternative Internet" today, at low cost.
The article is lite on exactly how communications within a geography link up with the rest of the larger internet but you need to forgive the poor reporters who are obviously in way over their heads technically. I give you nonsense exhibit A:
"Developers caution that independent networks come with downsides: repressive governments could use surveillance to pinpoint and arrest activists who use the technology or simply catch them bringing hardware across the border."
To the four cool dudes hanging out with briefcase gear on L street in DC: Pack those beasties with mesh wifi AND satellite uplinks. Make a few hundred and let uncle sam distribute them/pick up the bandwidth tab.