“Networks, when attacked, become even more decentralized and resilient. A good example is Napster and its successors, each of which has more closely approached an ideal peer-to-peer model, and further freed itself from reliance on infrastructure that can be shut down by central authority, than its predecessors. Hierarchies, on the other hand, respond to attack by becoming even more ossified, brittle and closed. Hierarchies respond to leaks by becoming internally opaque and closed even to themselves, so that their information is compartmentalized and they are less able to make effective use of the knowledge dispersed among their members.”
(Visited 39 times, 1 visits today)
Related posts:
Jacob G. Hornberger: The Evil of the National-Security State, Part 3
Julian Assange on Google and the NSA: Who’s holding the ‘sh*t-bag’ now?
The Fascinating Interventionist Mindset
The Real State Secret: Spies Aren't Very Good At Their Jobs
Detlev Schlichter: ‘Positive Money’ and the fallacy of the need for a state money producer
It Won't Stay in Vegas: The Metro PD's Homeland Security Theater
Can You Pass The Terrorism Quiz? (Updated June 2013)
Depreciating Dollar Not Good For People, But Good for 'the Economy'?
The US and China: A Difference in Approaches
Lew Rockwell: Speaking Truth to Monetary Power
The Throwaways: Pawns in the War on Drugs
The Financial Case for Borrowing Money Today
I Only Regret That I Have But One Life to Give for My Country: Yours
Why US government IT fails so hard, so often
Creating a Culture of Denunciation