New title: Why backbones make the web centralized and therefore make spying easier.<p>From a satellite's view, the internet does not look like "mesh", as it would if it were decentralized.<p>It looks more like several pieces of thick rope, unravelled into many strands at the each end. The "rope" portions are the "backbones".<p>With all traffic funneled through these backbones, the internet is quite centralized. This make surveilance quite easy.<p>If you "wiretap" the internet nearest the backbones (the thick rope), upstream from where the rope unravels, where the tier 1 ISP's connect, you can get a complete copy of everything they get, and thereby everything their customers[0] get.<p>0. The monopolies: Facebook, Google, etc.<p>What could be easier? Could any network engineer say "no" to a spy agency asking to install a wiretap?<p>There seems a preoccupation with "direct access" to "servers" (e.g. ones receiving your personal info). But (perhaps) there's no need for direct access to any web company's servers under PRISM. (Perhaps) this is not how PRISM works.<p>(Perhaps) PRISM targets upstream routers close to the backbone. If so, it copies everything coming through those routers. The web companies don't control those routers. Major ISP's do (like AT&T). The web companies, the "monopolies", are their customers.<p>A prism deviates the path of a light beam, such as the light travelling through a fiber optic cable that plugs into a router near a backbone. If you divert the bit stream flowing out of a backbone, you can get a copy of all the bits headed for all the monopoly web companies. A company called Narus makes devices that can sort out the traffic for you. It would be quite easy.<p>If you want details, including a photo of the door to a room where (perhaps) some "prism" tapping is being carried out right now, read the sworn testimony made by former AT&T employees. The lawsuit was covered by Wired years ago.<p><a href="https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT_onepager.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT_onepager...</a><p><a href="https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/SER_marcus_decl.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/SER_marcus_decl.pdf</a><p><a href="https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/SER_klein_decl.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/SER_klein_decl.pdf</a><p><a href="http://cryptome.org/scott-marcus.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://cryptome.org/scott-marcus.pdf</a><p>Credit: Steve Gibson
Jeff Jarvis (quoted in newyorker article) provided a link to Gibson's disclosure:
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/17/chilling-effect-nsa-surveillance-internet" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/17/chilling...</a>
The author suggests one of the remedies to the monopolies is "At the federal level, this means vigorous antitrust enforcement"<p>That's a great idea, really. Sadly it's unlikely that the feds will bust monopolies when those same monopolies are so damn convenient for them for spying.<p>We've got a problem here. The government, which is supposed to be trustworthy, isn't. And that means that some of the other checks and balances that the government is supposed to provide will be defeated internally. And we're stuck with the consequences. Rad.
Even though the intent of this article is good, I dislike that the article starts out with the false premise that monopolies exist on the internet. A majority or even dominant market share does not imply that a monopoly exists.<p>A monopoly is properly defined by the lack of an ability to introduce competing options. If it was illegal to build another search engine or competing social network, then a monopoly would exist. There are clearly competing options for all of these services and it is legal to introduce competitors, therefore, no monopoly exists.
<i>These days, America has one dominant search engine, one dominant social-networking site..</i><p>Correction:<p>These days, the <i>world</i> has one dominant search engine, one dominant social-networking site...
I could imagine this article being talked about in the preschool, to teach little fellas, but on HN?<p>Of course it is easier to subvert 1 company than to subvert... well n>1.
What, you mean the web isn't Facebook and Google?<p>We've seriously let the centralization of the net get out of control, and nobody seems to really care.