In the old days of computers, if you wanted to save something, you had to deliberately save it, give it a title, etc. Anything you recorded wiped out what was stored there already.
That changed with the packet-switching internet. Packetization cannot work unless the packets are recorded along the way. And once they're recorded, there is nothing to unrecord them. The whole intrusive big-brother side of modern communications happens because it is easier to keep recordings of the packets than it is to unrecord them.
Once they're recorded -- for nothing -- hey, let's make use of this free tool.
Nobody's to blame. It just sort of happened.
What we need, of course, is an alternative internet. A new internet, where the technology does not depend on recording the transmitted content A technology where users can see, for themselves, that nothing is recorded (unless you record it yourself).
Obviously, the present technology is not good enough, where the technology depends on all your private stuff being recorded by the communications providers. Your only safeguard, now, is that the government agencies (sometimes) have to get a warrant to view it. Usually, they can just view it anyway. That is ludicrously inadequate.
What we need is a communications technology (like telephones) where the technology does not operate by recording the content. The technology itself must not only not leave a record, it must be seen to not leave a record.
No reason why we can't have two internets -- one that depends on recordings, like now, with all the good things that stem from that, when we want them, and another parallel private internet where the technology does not itself require anything to be recorded, and we can see that it doesn't.
We should make this move fairly soon. Our governments, accustomed as they have become to assuming they have a mandate to intrude into everything, could well make the very idea of a private internet illegal (if they haven't already).
Over to you, innovative communications experts.
That changed with the packet-switching internet. Packetization cannot work unless the packets are recorded along the way. And once they're recorded, there is nothing to unrecord them. The whole intrusive big-brother side of modern communications happens because it is easier to keep recordings of the packets than it is to unrecord them.
Once they're recorded -- for nothing -- hey, let's make use of this free tool.
Nobody's to blame. It just sort of happened.
What we need, of course, is an alternative internet. A new internet, where the technology does not depend on recording the transmitted content A technology where users can see, for themselves, that nothing is recorded (unless you record it yourself).
Obviously, the present technology is not good enough, where the technology depends on all your private stuff being recorded by the communications providers. Your only safeguard, now, is that the government agencies (sometimes) have to get a warrant to view it. Usually, they can just view it anyway. That is ludicrously inadequate.
What we need is a communications technology (like telephones) where the technology does not operate by recording the content. The technology itself must not only not leave a record, it must be seen to not leave a record.
No reason why we can't have two internets -- one that depends on recordings, like now, with all the good things that stem from that, when we want them, and another parallel private internet where the technology does not itself require anything to be recorded, and we can see that it doesn't.
We should make this move fairly soon. Our governments, accustomed as they have become to assuming they have a mandate to intrude into everything, could well make the very idea of a private internet illegal (if they haven't already).
Over to you, innovative communications experts.
