Protocol: Configuring the Digital Highway for
Digital Society

            Glancing at data usage with as much
Internet traffic that occurs daily (even within seconds), it can be understood
that people operate in an interconnected network where organization is key to
functioning; regardless of whether the human acknowledges the method of
organization. This organization process limits access to information while
creating a hierarchical network. Distributed networks emerged to resolve flaws
in centralized networks, but even distribution is criticized. In this essay I
analyze computer networking in both centralized and distributed context to
convey how society operates as a network. Through analysis, we understand how societies
manage in a network flooded with information.

The Internet user is not required to comprehend and
compute information, such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, to navigate the
digital space. Rather, a select few Internet Service Providers (IPSs) assign
protocol to the networks by designating IP addresses amongst a Domain Name
System (DNS). At most the user is required to only understand the Service Set
Identifier (SSID), or the network name, and in some cases the encryption key
(otherwise a Wi-Fi password) to connect to the network. Once connected the user
submits a web address (i.e. www.google.com) to navigate, not the actual
website’s IP address used to establish and communicate the network. Despite the
hierarchical connection where information is limited down to the user, the user
still comprehends having connection within a network. But the power granted to
the user is mystified in the process of consistent navigation. The ability for
daily publication of information is present in social media like blogging, but
whether users have access to information remains dependent on the protocol
structure of the Internet.

            In 1968, the Advanced Research
Projects Agency (ARPA) created a network called ARPANET to become the first

global inter-network communication. The network operated with Internet Protocol
suite (IP) and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) technology. This project was
conceived within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to communicate
information in projects at universities and research laboratories in the United
States—in some cases this is referred as a DoD model. Combining TCP/IP with
“packet switching,” a protocol where information is fragmented and then
assigned a destination to reassemble within the network. Outside of
understanding the technical components this process appears “automatic,” but
acknowledging the hierarchical structure we see that it is automatic by
assigning protocol to the network.

            Understanding the ethics of
protocol, the structure renders an order of hierarchy. To paraphrase the
scholarly author Alex Galloway in discussing the formal structure of protocol
in social context, that such technology prompts us to automate information as
it is processed.[1] As though we, as nodes, automatically compute information while operating within the network. As rigorous as hierarchy is to each node, the network requires this structure to function. This notion is extended to

society when various individuals operate under one network, such as the
Internet, where human experience is disembodied into navigated through web
servers where information is processed. However, philosopher Michel Foucault
views hierarchy as necessary rigor in our social network. Paraphrasing from his
writings in Discipline and Punish,
punishment not only emphasizes the detainee, but also the audience surrounded
in context. From experiencing punishment, we learn to facilitate our lives not
only to prevent such punishment, but also to understand why punishment occurs
from malpractice.[2]

In this sense, hierarchical punishment actually benefits the
community through vertical facilitation. Likewise, discipline and punishment
serve to dictate power in a militaristic structure. However emphasizing too
much discipline can result in failure for the facilitator as well as the
facility, understanding is weighed in one fashion. Since failure is evident
even in a centralized network, de-centralization is vital to sustaining the
network with more probability.

Protocol is not just a command prompt, but it is
also a distribution of information from one object onto another. While access
to protocol was limited with ARPANET, people were still communicated amongst
one another to a degree. Paraphrasing Galloway, protocol is a system of
distributed management. Without management, the system loses sustainability;
without distributed communication, there is no system. Despite their
differences, computer networking requires both paradigms to function.

In understanding limitations of a centralized
network, we learn to question just who limits the network. The authority behind
ARPANET is drawn from the name itself, which is limited to military research.
Since funding is limited to the Department of Defense, the network emerges just
as militaristic. Military structure is hierarchical like a centralized network
of power. The military itself is a network where peers communicate combat
operations for survival, so secure stability is of major concern. Information
is encoded according to hierarchical protocol; sharing hierarchical nature to
the military structure where access to information is limited the higher an
individual stands in power. Following computer networking with military protocol, security was improved during the Cold War. Some power was dispersed as well as vital information in the process of de-centralizing the network for sustainability and security.

From limited access to information in a centralized
network, we begin understanding how information is communicated as well as
operated. It is worth noting with a centralized network that not only is value
of information limited, but also efficient stability as a vital core is created
when power becomes centralized. Security flaws from centralized networks leads
to de-centralizing power in the computer network. In doing so, users have created
a distributed method of networking where users, not ISPs, establish and share
access to information. Distributed networking is effective in expanding power
to information horizontally, while sustainability is also distributed. This can
lead to an unstable yet also resilient network; however, instability can serve
a variety of functions when understood properly. Both types of networks are
analyzed with historical context to understand how we figure in society where
information is flooded in digital space beyond capability of an individual
user. Despite heavy data traffic, humans are not inclined to operate solely on
a digital scale accustomed to a particular network. Computer networking is but
one approach to human communication where nodes are placeholders for
communication, and ultimately peer-to-peer communication is where social
relationships emerge, not the nodes structured in place of each peer.

In the process of de-centralization, more nodes
within the network gained further access to information; in a way, the network
was expanding beyond military officials. In 1976 Apple released their first
computer, but this would not be the first personal computer to enter the public
domain; rather, IBM had the first release in 1981. Both corporations Apple and IBM began providing

public service to computer technology, in which the hierarchical structure of capital
control was evident. Nonetheless, computer technology and computer networking
were being distributed to the public, which accelerated overall development.
Development increased due to more peers having access to information,
notwithstanding military fear of a network with compromised security. With more
access to information, come more facilitators to communicate and empower the
network, as a whole. As we see computer networking develop, the spread of

information does not always diminish value of the network; in fact it works
opposite of that while deconstructing hierarchy. To put it simply, a network
assigns power to specific nodes, but that power can operate differently when
power is distributed; a network is merely a method of operating, where the
relationship of operator and operated can fluctuate according to circumstance.

In the 1980s, Internet usage was still limited to
those affiliated with universities like MIT, but some users were persistent on
increasing connectivity within the network. Counter to corporate hierarchy,
former MIT student Richard Stallman helped establish and distribute the free
software movement. Stallman’s movement opposed corporate protocol like Unix

because Unix had induced hierarchy to achieve capital. Richard Stallman
contests hierarchy as such, “The political power of business has led to the
government adoption of both this criterion and the answer proposed by the
developers: that the program has an owner, typically a corporation associated
with its development.”^[3] Computer
technology shares protocol not just in networking but also software, and as
such protocol submits the user to following commands.

 The Free
Software movement influenced the Open Source movement, where networks were
established amongst the Internet to utilize as well as develop software hand in
hand. The public domain of Open Source information is considered “the commons," representing a commonplace for public users. With Open Source the user had

access to be a developer because they could re-code the software to the user’s
convenience. The network functioned as a public community that distributed
information as well as providing publishing space for the user to develop
information.  But the business model for
Free Software and Open Source were difficult for investors to fathom
significance; in fact users invested their significance as they developed and submitted
their efforts into the community with scarce capital investment. Capital
investment challenged the network’s feasibility, but as popular as personal
computers emerged so did user interest for a distributed network. Stallman
actually argued that “free software” was not free in price like open source
software, but several people were still confounded by the notion of free
information. However, authors Gabriella Coleman and Mako Hill agree that Free
Software is similar to Open Source than Stallman figures. Furthermore, free and

open source are criticized as a different capital model where users are
exploited for their labor that supplements the “free” network. Put differently,
distributing power amongst the network conceals the notion that power is actually
re-centralized in the gestalt of operation. And in fact, online open source and
free software communities are still regulated by the Border Gateway Protocol
(BGP). The BGP serves as the primary gateway that regulates communication
between nodes in a server; the Internet could be shut down entirely with this
protocol. So distributed networks are still convoluted with centralized power, and
disembodiment of information is merely escalated in the process of a
self-published, self-emerging network.

            Although users can donate for open
source software, the software is largely understood as free in price, freeing
distribution from capital ownership in the process of file-sharing. Like free
software, file sharing emphasizes power in the network’s entirety from and for
the benefit of users. File-sharing operates in a  peer-to-peer (P2P) network where the more
information is shared by peers, information becomes more sustained. Like
Stallman’s free software, file-sharing provides users with access to read and
publish information. In fact, Stallman exemplifies this process of freedom when
he requested that his peers change passwords for developing software to be
blank. By removing password authentication, Stallman understood that
development would flourish because users were more open with each other’s
information. Corporate authorities disagree with P2P networking because they
prefer privatizing information for capital interest. As expected, charges have
been made against popular P2P networks like megaupload.com
and thepiratebay.org because of
piracy issues. Although the U.S. government took down Megaupload, the latter is

still thriving with a network that expands daily as users distribute more files
of information the more that users engage. Even the domain name of The Pirate
Bay has been distributed across the world as the founders avoid lawsuits in
different countries. When a country is prevented access from Pirate Bay, users
create proxy servers to re-configure the gateway protocol to allow access by
re-navigating the network. The Pirate Bay hosts magnet links, which link to

other servers where information is stored for users to access. So The Pirate
Bay is essentially a directory network for other media files. Even if a site
like Megaupload is shut down, the files have been shared across other servers
like The Pirate Bay, so information ultimately recirculates and therefore
sustained.

While free software and open source negotiate
power, the network of Anonymous provides further context on distributed
power.  Anonymous was initially conceived
circa 2003 on the 4chan.org message
board community, where users would publish information as “anonymous” by
default. Five years later, the organization began communicating and enacting operations
with Project Chanology. In this operation, Anonymous pervaded the Church of
Scientology to expose and mock the religious institution. As simple as it was
to publish information on 4chan with
anonymity, any individual can attribute the power of Anonymous, with or without
a mask. Currently, Anonymous distributes manifestos among their network via
social media and websites. A tweet by @YourAnonNews, Anonymous, “Send material
proving corruption, abuse and malpractice by private or public institutions bit.ly/17BCluK,”
is an example of distributing Anonymous’ message as well as providing
instruction to report information anonymously. Because of the anonymous nature
of operators, it is partly difficult to comprehend where as well as how power
figures in this anarchist network.[4]
As one Anonymous representative stated,”We
have no leaders, civilians or soldiers. We are all one. We run operations
because that is what the group decides to do. We choose targets because that is
what the people who represent the ideals of Anonymous want to fight for." 

In
a way the power is so distributed that no individual bears identity but that the
gestalt network holds power en masse ideology. But anarchy is not universally simple; within Anonymous there exists various networks that share conflicts of interest with one another. In one respect Anonymous is
perceived as digital pranksters, but on the other hand they refute humor by
organizing political power. Due to this, Anonymous has been understood as both

a joking community and a volatile organization. Online media besides Anonymous
have described Anonymous with “failed” operations for having power too
distributed in an anarchist network. Operation Tunisia proves counter to this
notion of failure. In 2009, WikiLeaks.org
exposed military and political protocol that censored the Tunisian Revolution,
via an anonymous publisher. In 2011, the Border Gateway Protocol shut down
Internet access in Egypt as a response to WikiLeaks’ exposure.^[5] Enacted by
Anonymous, Operation Tunisia countered censorship by hacking and disabling
Tunisian government websites with Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks.^[6]
DDoS attacks function by distributing power across many users to exceed
Internet server bandwidth, rendering the website too slow to operate. Once President
Hosni Mubarak of Tunisia resigned the BGP shut down, access to social media and
government websites were restored. Also, P2P networking was utilized in Tunisia
to counteract the shutdown by distributing access to be hosted amongst
civilians instead of a corporate protocol. Because BGP censored access to
social media for exposing the revolution, protestors hosted a public network
space to publish information regarding and organizing revolt. Despite power
being disrupted with varied nuances, including self-conflict, distributed
networks prove to be sustainable and efficient where centralized networks fail.

Through analysis we understand that computer
networking operates with centralized networks and distributed networks
supplementing one another, but where does our digital society stand now? Have
they become so de-centralized that digital power has changed hierarchical
protocol? Or are the networks that conceived of the Internet pervading these
efforts by distributing their power in response (ultimately re-centralizing
protocol)? As unpredictable as Anonymous is the future of the Internet cannot
be determined, but we now understand that people, regardless of a specific
network, have the ability to assert digital power at the touch of their
fingertips. As Anonymous took advantage of rich amounts of data published
online, it is time that we use our data to our individual advantage. Protocol
has paved a domain in which we participate in, whether it is to reinforce or
challenge our beliefs.