دانلود کتاب The future of the Internet and how to stop it

Anyone interested in the future of freedom should read Jonathan Zittrain's book, The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It. Just the picture on the hardcover edition is worth the price of the book. But it goes much deeper on the first page and keeps going. This is a challenging read, and the ideas covered are vital to our future. The internet is at a crossroads, Zittrain argues, and will go either in the direction of grassroots generativity or tethered cybersecurity. The first will increase freedom, while the second will maintain security at the cost of many aristocratic controls. Neither path is perfect, and both have some merit. Few people know how crucial this choice is or that it is being made now. Yet the future of freedom hangs on it.This is not hyperbole. It is real, and it is timely.The internet has been a great source of innovation, creativity and freedom, because it has been generative. This means that anybody with a computer and internet hookup could put whatever they wanted online. On the one hand this is a powerful freedom, but on the other hand there have been many abuses. Online, person A's opinion has the same weight as person B's. But what if person A is a seventeen-year-old Nazi sympathizer? The proponents of generativity argue that over time most people will listen to reason and we can trust that the outcome will work out well. Others wonder--what about the six or eighteen who do listen to the Nazi promoter? School shootings and terrorist bombings promote the idea that some type of regulation may be warranted.If anybody can say anything online, what of accuracy, decency, or safety? Internet promoters make a lot of money passing around false messages, without editors like the print and broadcast media. Is it the destiny of the internet to be the major provider of yellow journalism, child pornography, and shadiness? Strong words, but the reality is even stronger. Is the generative future viable without a balance of freedom and order?The other future is the tethered appliance, as Zittrain calls it. Instead of a two-way communication, this type of technology allows the user to call, email or otherwise use the iPhone, TiVo, Onstar, the internet, software or other technology. Sometimes a central operator controls the flow and edits it to ensure safety and perhaps even accuracy or decency. For example, if a user downloads copyrighted material illegally, and then sends it to a friend, the technology provider is liable and will likely not allow the transfer. In tethered appliances, the technology company can monitor the usage. For example, TiVo was able to report that Janet Jackson's Super Bowl performance was rewound three times more often than any other part of the Super Bowl. If the company can monitor users, the government can too. What does this mean for the future of privacy?Zittrain is a supporter of generativity, and very concerned about the loss of freedom that a tethered society would bring. But the challenge to freedom goes much deeper. In fact, even the generative technologies are easily tethered. With spy ware your personal computer work can be monitored---by private or government watchers. Your conversations while driving can be listened to if you have Onstar, and of course, phone calls can be overheard. As digital technology increases, perhaps anything and everything can be watched--by companies, individuals and governments.Papers, documents, conversations--nothing is private in a digital world. The solution has little to do with generativity vs. tethering, and more to do with separations, checks and balances. Technology gives governments more power, and so the need for Constitutional overrides is even stronger. I've heard it said that the U. S. Constitution was made for an agrarian people, and is therefore inadequate for our day. In fact, our modern technologies make the Constitutional checks and balances more important now than ever. If anything, we need even stronger ones! Amazingly, the 1789 U. S. Constitution solves the current generativity vs. tethering question. It allows both, and keeps both within proper boundaries. Some regulation is needed, or we'll be stuck with privacy for aristocrats (who can afford it) and aristocratic surveillance of everyone else in practically all aspects of life. Under a full constitutional model, privacy would be regulated and maintained by the right people in the right way--with oversight by the people, and effective checks and balances. Under our current model, this is disappearing.Since 1945 there has been a gradual, some would say rapid, de-emphasis of the clear separations, checks and balances of the Constitution. In practice, this is a tragedy. Today, more than ever, we need a citizenry who demands that the Constitution be followed--as it is on paper, not as "experts" have interpreted it. And that's not a criticism of the judiciary or executive alone. If anything, it is Congress and the state legislatures who are most to blame. Fortunately, they are the closest to the people, and therefore the most likely to change. But change will only come when people, regular people, read and study and support the U. S. Constitution.In general, technology is a great benefit to prosperity, security, lifestyle and progress. Adopting effective principles of freedom actually allows technology to progress faster, without tethering its users to an aristocratic Big Brother.When technology flourishes, power increases. But power can be used for or against freedom. Progress is measured by the increase or decrease of freedom and technology. When both are prevalent, society progresses and prospers. When both are diminished, society regresses. But the real value of this measurement tool is the gap between the two. When technology is high and freedom low, power centers in the aristocratic or autocratic few, and society, happiness and prosperity decline. While some few find success, society as a whole degenerates.When freedom is high and technology low, freedom itself naturally foments technological progress. Sometimes a nation in this situation is conquered by a stronger power before it completes its technological growth, but high freedom tends to catalyze technological growth. In contrast, low freedom always blocks or at the very least slows technology.ConclusionHistory provides this clear lesson for our day: tethered technology is a means of rule, not leadership, and eventually decreases or drastically slows technological progress.Some would argue that the model is flawed, that it leaves out morality (be it fidelity in marriage or responsible protection of the environment). But morality is technology in the best sense--strong family and environmental values and practices meet all the criteria of the best other technologies and increase progress, power, prosperity and freedom when applied by a society.Freedom is neither anti-technology nor pro-technology patently. Freedom principles are against tethered, controlling, manipulative and aristocratic technologies or uses, and strongly support technological progress and freedom together.