Gone are the days when the Air Force pledged to “dominate” cyberspace. Now, the flyboys just want “freedom of action” online. Oh, and the ability to deceive foes, and cyberstrike enemies at will.

That’s according to a draft document, “Cyberspace Operations — Air Force Doctrine Document 2-11,” obtained by Inside Defense. “Freedom of action… can be seen as freedom from attack and freedom to attack,” the paper states. But, it adds, “The size and complexity of the domain and the extensive collection of networks… can make freedom of action difficult and perhaps elusive.”

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/10/in-new-doctrine.html

The Air Force wants a suite of hacker tools, to give it “access” to — and “full control” of — any kind of computer there is. And once the info warriors are in, the Air Force wants them to keep tabs on their “adversaries’ information infrastructure completely undetected.”

Google gathers so much detailed information about its users that one critic says some state intelligence bureaus look “like child protection services” in comparison. A few German government bodies have mounted a resistance.

I have a lot more to say about this, but I love your comments Bitscape, especially this one:

all these pointy-haired hierarchy-dominator-framed visions of a more centralized “Web 3.0″. It’s propaganda to designed to steer us into their dystopian visions by making them appear inevitable.

We have the ability to make technology go in any direction we choose. It pays for us to make intelligent decisions which serve us at every step of the way

In order to make it work, we’re going to need to develop protocols and interfaces which allow direct node-to-node communication via scalable mesh networks in a manner that doesn’t rely on any centralized servers or access points, and allows the user to “surf the mesh” in a seamless and easy to comprehend manner — much like the invention of the “web browser” made “the Internet” accessible and comprehensible to the layperson.

So far, most of the online documentation and discussion I’ve been able to find regarding mesh networks focuses on its uses in allowing towns in “developing countries” to “get online”. (Meaning: The Mesh has been seen merely as a vehicle for connecting machines on little mesh networks to “the Internet”, but an even more explosive potential is that people could use the mesh to talk directly to *each other* without any need for an “Internet connection” as we know it, especially if these autonomous meshes grow large enough to connect multiple towns to one another via redundant relays and such.)

The entity knows as chaos motor has put out some useful ideas on this front:

http://chaosmotor.wordpress.com/2008/0...versal-wireless-communication-system/

A few weeks ago, I went hunting around on google to see if I could find anyone else who might be advancing ideas along similar lines, and found scant little… (Why not? It seems like these sorts of applications should be an obvious “next step” in the evolution of networked technologies! Pardon my french, but I say fuck all these pointy-haired hierarchy-dominator-framed visions of a more centralized “Web 3.0″. It’s propaganda to designed to steer us into their dystopian visions by making them appear inevitable.)

Anyway, I did find a wiki which featured some instructions regarding “how to set up a neighborhood wireless mesh network”, but the whole thing was grounded in the old assumption that the primary use for the mesh would be to connect the nodes to “the internet”, rather than one another. So I took the opportunity to propagandize a few of these ideas in the “discussion” area, along with a few thoughts on how such a system might be implemented.

http://wire.less.dk/wiki/index.php/Tal...hbourhood_mesh_network_-_step_by_step

So far, my comments there haven’t received any replies. It is my hope that these concepts might find fertile ground here. If enough smart people start thinking, talking, and envisioning, these things are bound to come to fruition in some form.

I left out a bunch of other cool stuff I wanted to smoosh into this conversation as well: bits and pieces I’ve got left over hanging around, like this

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2008/10/12/networked-nations/

I’d really like to develop this subject matter further and encourage other people to write on and elaborate these subjects. Run with them in new directions and point out where I’m totally off-target. Thanks!