While there are fundamental differences, in some ways we can draw parallels between virtual and meat space. Being healthy equates to having a device capable of connecting and providing the type and degree of access desired by the user. It includes keeping the device and data under the user’s control, however much the user wants it (I fold together with data the control over transmission or “free exchange”). At a more fundamental level, the user and his device are able to assume the status of an equal node on the network.
Violence is just about anything that interferes with that, whether intended or not. Warfare is, by extension, violence on a wider scale, particularly between various identifiable entities. Here is where it gets difficult, because a great many political entities in meat space falsely imagine that it’s all the same on the Net. It’s not that users connected to the Net cannot operate as a community based on their meat space identities, but that virtual communities are not confined to just that. Any sense of community and affiliation forms the basis for a “political entity” in virtual terms.
Furthermore, while data is never truly forgotten on the Net, the human identity behind any virtual entity is forever in flux. An entity composed of network nodes is never more nor less than what it is at the moment of consideration. Human minds without proper training struggle with that concept. The network is self-aware in the sense of combined user awareness, but that amounts to what it is only at the moment of inspection. The moment you ask the question, the answer changes before you get it back. Every node that constitutes the network is free to cease existing, or to come back into existence, at will. It’s hard to get your head around that.
Humans capable of adapting to virtual reality have an advantage over users with less of that awareness. While the devices remain theoretically equal, the capabilities of the users constitutes a very real meritocracy. In the middle space between the bare network device reality and the human operators is another kind of quasi-meritocracy of software. In terms of capability, some software is distinctly better than others on the Net, though it largely reflects human capability in terms of design and implementation.
In virtual warfare, a better machine is a better gun. Better software is better ammunition. A better soldier using them is pretty much the same anywhere: part training plus experience and part talent. And espionage is exploiting weaknesses in any defense system.
One could be more pedantic about the analogies, but I think you get the idea. It provides a background for understanding the importance of this article on Tech Dirt. Regardless of meat space identities, the non-state computer security researchers are a virtual army. Those with some measure of loyalty to the users as a whole are de facto the enemy of state-sponsored spying agencies. The various government agencies are indistinguishable from criminals in this respect, because they seek opportunities to commit violence as I defined it above — seizing control of data and device from the nominal owner (user).
That there is also a meat space component of this war, with very real threats to life and limb, doesn’t change the picture much. To the degree any state manages to protect any user, it is purely by accident. Anyone paying attention can see that states consistently demonstrate their lack of concern for those who pay their salaries in meat space. The real interest of the user is control over device and data. Anyone supporting that end is the user’s true ally. It has nothing to do with official declarations in meat space, but actual effect on the Net.
Our challenge is that actual control over this issue remains rooted in meat space politics. The likes of NSA might understand some of this the same way, but have no intention of helping us ordinary users, despite their official mission statement requiring that. Even in meat space the state has no interest in the wishes of those governed and actively seeks to extend the same kind of oppression into virtual space. For now, we have still have some choices.
Make no mistake: The spiritual forces of Darkness have an interest in this, too. The definitions of divine justice are a little harder to explain for virtual space, but Our Creator is at work here.
At a minimum, if you use Windows, consider paying for your AV protection. The moment I make a specific recommendation of one vendor or another, things could change, since we are talking about commercial operations run by humans. Some are better at marketing than others, which includes deception. For example, I highly recommend you not trust McAfee, Norton or Trend Micro, but only because of their reputation from previous decades is wholly unconnected to their current shoddy products. They may have well gotten the message in recent months, but I don’t trust them on the human level, having struggled myself against the damage they did to my tech support clients. So I’ll just say you can test the free versions of almost any other vendor and pay for the one you like best. Virtually all of them have security researchers on staff who merit your support. A much bigger issue is customer support and the user’s perception of usability.
Otherwise, invest time and effort in learning something a little harder to crack. It really depends on your temperament and use pattern, so I can’t summarize that here. Anyone who checks previous posts using the search box on this blog can discern my preferences, but you aren’t me. More important is that you sensibly assess how important computer use is to your divine calling and mission, and act accordingly. Think and pray before you act.
