[liberationtech] The missing component: Mobile to Web interoperability (in Internet Freedom Technologies)

[Brian Conley]

On Sep 15, 2013 2:22 AM, "coderman" <coderman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Lee Azzarello <lee at guardianproject.info>
wrote:
> > We have a federated telephony system...
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Nathan of Guardian
> <nathan at guardianproject.info> wrote:
> > ...
> > A truly free internet = a federated internet in my mind... Why do you
consider it a sign that something is broken?
>
>
> back in the p2p fad days,

So before wide adoption of mobile. I think you all are discussing apples
and oranges in some ways, and potentially huge ideological distinction in
others.

The Wikipedia definition of "federated architecture" sounds similar to how
you distinguish p2p:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_Architecture

the distinction between federated and
> decentralized became important, and was characterized as
> (paraphrasing):
>
> - federated is distributed hierarchy with a single or few points of
> ownership and control. federated is focused more around
> inter-operability, resilience, availability, and robustness of managed
> services.
>
> - decentralization has no single point of ownership or control nor
> does it imply hierarchy of any sort, instead relying on the
> cooperation of independent peers. decentralized is focused more around
> peer trust boundaries, scale free growth, end-to-end anonymity and
> privacy.

It will be great when someone designs an easy to use p2p functionality for
all communications needs, then it will be a tool for everyone. For example
it will be great if your computer and phone can manage your email in a p2p
system to anyone else you want to email, even if they are using gmail, but
how will your peer connect to the mail server? How will your p2p phone call
someone on the existing telephony network? At that point it ceases to be
p2p, no?

I'm largely ignorant about the bigger implications of these things at the
level of actual functionality/or technical structures. I'm not intending to
say you are wrong about this, just expressing how I read this conversation
due to my limited knowledge and asking for clarification.

To me, naifs email is spot on and accomplishing such would be a huge step
forward. I'm just a guy who tries to understand the tech and tech it to
other non technical people, so please educate me, so I can educate others
without the time to sit on such lists.

>
>
> federated systems are working great! CALEA compliant, one stop shops
> for BULLRUN.
>
> what we need are fully decentralized systems that are even more
> usable, even more scalable, and even more end-to-end protected with
> hardware and software we can actually trust.
> --
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations
of list guidelines will get you moderated:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe,
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
companys at stanford.edu.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130915/7f15155e/attachment.html>