DARPA enabled the creation of TCP/IP as means of overcoming limitations of networks communicating with other networks, to yield an "inter-network" outcome of communication portability, on battlefields and beyond. This is the origin of ARPAnet.
NSF helped commercialize ARPAnet by formation of Network Solutions, Inc and deployment of ICANN, ARIN, to serve TCP/IP domain registry to public. This public internet of IP addresses and domain names was released in 1996 for public consumption.
Vint Cerf, co-creator of TCP/IP at DARPA, via private communication with author while at MCI, in question about why TCP/IP deployment via domain registries prioritized a renter model of cost support rather than an owner model, answered: "that was considered in 1976 and discarded".
As a result of this discarded consideration, and subsequent growth of TCP/IP use in American/Global civil societies, the original intent of DARPA within the engineering design choices made in 1976, prior and after, end "users" of this innovative technology have received a relationship structure via this infrastructure giving meaning and utility to data at scale ("Big Data"), and as of 2023, artificial intelligence systems deriving utility from public sources of data derived by human interactions. This relationship structure is well-informed by basic definitions in computing and economics, such as "renter", or "slave".
Data Slave: Renter
As a result of an engineering design process aimed at goals conceived of by DARPA, and subsequent deployment of public access technologies within American civil society in coordination with the National Science Foundation, "We The People" have received an architectural relationship to the utilities built atop this infrastructure. As can be viewed by inspecting the subsequent TCP/IP dependent solutions where human data interactions are enticed/suggested/served/supported/scaled, people have been packaged as "data product" to be sold to "customers of data context" by the "Master" of such web interactions as a webmaster may serve from time to time. Facebook and Google may serve as the leading edge of this infrastructure, where the relationship is best observed and harvested by social graphing systems.
Root Administrator: Owner
Sovereignty has borders; American Sovereignty is born of the people giving it authority, Individuals all. "We the People" exist as a data structure, a deeply personal one. In every zip code all over our land, in every home where families live and grow, in every pocket where every device is held by those Individual people, a data structure of relationships exists as the deeply held asset of American Sovereignty itself.
How should you be organized by default?
Own root. Every human life that acquires a birth certificate, whether for your child or another, or for yourself when needed, understands how a data structure works. Lawyers will understand that "Rights" are for people, not birth certificates. But try proving that at the border of American Sovereignty where it matters. Words don't accomplish much in those moments, especially legalese.
Structure yields results at the border. Root administration over the data structure of American Sovereignty is an edge-driven experience. It happens at the authentic border of authentic Sovereignty itself, or it doesn't. And when it doesn't, there is a reason. This is where failures carry meaning, and can instruct us on flaws in need of fixes.
When DARPA yielded TCP/IP and the NSF made it public, there were other examples that perhaps the notions of future utility were not adequately conceived, and were going to need fixes to flaws faster than originally understood. IPv4 -> IPv6 is one such example... the system was going to run out of addressable spaces to serve the inter-network to users. Other examples are the increasing absence of a default archival system, and IAM work to service the identity space where citizen identifiers are utilized broadly, as the ultimate data silo.
If given a choice, which one do you look to by default for more information:
Slave: Renter
Root: Owner
Without any additional information concerning architectural choices, infrastructure requirements, engineering design choices, or participatory patterns of engagement... which do you select?
Functional literacy for American citizens REQUIRES a new consideration of 1976 choices, once more.
Battlefield tech (1976-1996), battlefield results (1996-2024)... enforcing a data structure on anonymous data slave: id renters to freely disseminate sand that will wash away from inspection over time in the waves of inadequate cost support, and open borders to participation from external sources diligently working to harm the integrity of civil society where people, Individuals all, exist with rights, is a failure at the highest level of planning. Monies were made, at great cost to civil society. Surveillance was strengthened by leveraging self-slavers against their peers. Structure has yielded results....
ReplyDeleteThe words shouldn't fit together. The outcomes shouldn't have data flow maps that validate they do. Engineering design processes must do better... ID structure matters.
ReplyDeleteMentor others, share your resiliency: https://codeli.oyoclass.com/story/669aafb79358d9c725199ddc New choices, new results..
ReplyDelete