Ask Slashdot: Could We Build A Global Wireless Mesh Network? 168
An anonymous reader wants to start a grassroots effort to build a self-organizing global radio mesh network where every device can communicate with every other device -- and without any central authority.
There is nothing in the rules of mathematics or laws of physics that prevents such a system. But how would you break the problem up so it could be crowdfunded and sourced? How would you build the radios? And what about government spectrum rules... How would you persuade governments to allow for the use of say, 1%, of the spectrum for an unlicensed mesh experiment? In the U.S. it would probably take an Act of Congress to overrule the FCC but a grassroots effort with potential for major technology advances backed by celebrity scientists might be enough to tilt the issue but would there be enough motivation?
Is this feasible? Would it amass enough volunteers, advocates, and enthusiastic users? Would it become a glorious example of geeks uniting the world -- or a doomed fantasy with no practical applications. Leave your best thoughts in the comments. Could we build a global wireless mesh network?
Is this feasible? Would it amass enough volunteers, advocates, and enthusiastic users? Would it become a glorious example of geeks uniting the world -- or a doomed fantasy with no practical applications. Leave your best thoughts in the comments. Could we build a global wireless mesh network?
You mean like Freifunk? (Score:5, Interesting)
https://freifunk.net/en/what-i... [freifunk.net]
The problem would be establishing trunks to carry enough traffic to make it worthwhile, or figuring out a way to distribute the traffic over many links so as to (again) make it worthwhile. I think streaming would be hard. And of course it would be an ecosystem, in which bad things could grow, just like the net is now. You have to solve the problem of DDoS to make this work, I think, and I don't know of anybody who has any idea how to solve that problem.
Re: You mean like Freifunk? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem would be establishing trunks to carry enough traffic to make it worthwhile...
That's only one problem, and that's just within a single neighborhood. The much bigger problem is how a mesh network would traverse countries and continents (even the friendly ones) without massive funds from the very people and companies who would be actively fighting against such a network.
Re: (Score:2)
Giant pringle cans. A basic pringle can can be used to amplify a wifi signal over 3 km. Therefore, to get a signal to cross the Atlantic, we would need pringle cans 300x times the size. Maybe we could stack them vertically.
Re: (Score:2)
You can stack antennas to get more gain, it's called a Co-Linear or Phased-Array.
But trying to get over the horizon does not scale linearily, Once you lose Line-of-Site, more gain doesn't much help.
Re: (Score:2)
...now, imagine a twinkie 35 feet long weighing 600 pounds...
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Yes, but Americans aren't afraid of ANYTHING. Except terrorists, homos, and Ann Colture.
Re: (Score:3)
No.
The death penalty is public torture and it does not stop murder.
I think we all want a "shadow" internet that includes all the features of the current one except that it would be off limits to monetization.
I don't think meshing is worth even grass root support because it would quickly become contaminated and pwned by retail.
Re: (Score:3)
"would be off limits to monetization."
Without monetization the current internet would not exist. It has taken enormous amounts of money to build the Internet infrastructure we use today. All the whiz bang functionality and services wasn't created by groups of volunteers and crowd funding efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not the ad money. It's the money of people paying for access.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Except we must ask if anything really useful has been added by all of the monetized services?
I have many more options to buy stuff. Is this good?
I have many more people telling me what to think. Is this good?
I have many more options for corporations to track all of the details of my life. Is this good?
Would we be better off with a much smaller Internet which provided only basic services?
(We'll never know.)
Re: (Score:2)
Define "basic services" and "smaller internet". And does "basic services" include internet search capabilities? If so search engines and the inevitable advertisements baked into the search results represent the on ramp to monetizing the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the difficult part.
I would start with "non-commercial"... that is, no ads, nobody trying to sell me stuff. That will make a much smaller Internet.
All I really need is Wikipedia, messaging, communication and access to service manuals for all of the junk I have. Access to the news is also useful.
What do you really need?
Not torture, also laughter (Score:2)
No.
Yes.
The death penalty is public torture and it does not stop murder.
For some time now the death penalty has been the opposite of torture, with great lengths gone to to insure it is eater painless or instant.
I think we all want a "shadow" internet that includes all the features of the current one except that it would be off limits to monetization.
HA HAHAHAHAHAH HAH HA AH AH AH AHAHA H AAH AH AHA HA AH AHAH AH A HAH HA *gasp*!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good example and drug companies perceive execution drugs are not good products for promoting their life-enhancing brand.
Amid the controversy generated by such cases, a number of pharmaceutical companies have restricted their drugs from use for capital punishment. [nytimes.com]
Re: You mean like Freifunk? (Score:1)
How do you know that ? BTW stats for countries with and without are apples and oranges, even stats for countries with pre and post stance don't count.
What if it deters one would be murderer that's enough right ?
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you for motivating me to do your goddam work:
It costs too much [nytimes.com]
It doesn't work. [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:1)
and a nice day to you too, a bit old but ...
The 1st article is an opinion editorial and doesn't count
The 2nd has this chart https://img.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] clearly US state that have are higher than those without, like I said it's not deterring every would be murderer but i find it hard to believe not a single person lived because of the punishment
Lastly if punishment isn't a deterrence why have prisons and fines, you've ever seen someone running around 'cause their library book was due .
Re: (Score:2)
It's what we have. Best is the enemy of good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say Wifi was good enough. I said it's what we have. Your claims about digging are silly: it's quite rare to be able to dig dirt the way you describe anywhere other than on virgin farmland with soft soil. Even there, digging trenches is expensive, and they are easy to attack if your global mesh becomes unpopular with the authorities.
Betteridge (Score:3)
I live in Australia, you insensitive drongo!
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed, all these mesh network fanatic seem to forget that outside the densely populated cities where they live there are vast sparsely populated areas. How does your mesh network reach those areas without being prohibitively expensive?
Also, no government is going to allow a mass communication network that they cannot control, especially not with the current political climate. They all want to clamp down harder on global network we have now.
captcha: economy
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is the definition of 'mesh'. (Score:1)
We could totally do a 'mesh network', however it would not be a mesh network containing all multi-directional antennas. It would require layering point to point nodes for long distance travel with localize links using either multi-directional antennas, or an array of narrow antennas (say 4x90 degrees, each driven by a separate wifi router.) There would be dead spots, and it would not be the mostly seamless experience of cell phone access. However it is certainly possible, especially with IPv6 module address
Re: The problem is the definition of 'mesh'. (Score:2)
100-300 buoys would be extrordinarily uneconomical. I think this is the dumbest things I've read today.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Betteridge (Score:4, Interesting)
Spanning oceans was the first thing I thought of.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in America and only say "drongo" in the arvo.
I lie.
I must Google, "drongo [wikipedia.org]."
clever bird those drongo (Score:2)
APRS (Score:2, Interesting)
Or APRS? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Packet_Reporting_System
Re: APRS (Score:1)
My first thought as well, it's down fall has always been bandwidth.
Re: APRS (Score:2)
Precisely, us ham types have had this virtually forever. Agreed as well, bandwidth is the limiting factor. Really even SSTV or traffic nets could be seen as a simple global network example from which to build upon. Relying on RF over infrastructure has its benefits, and even in a wireless mesh network there is still much heavier reliance on infrastructure than traditional amateur or military radio networks.
-- kc2kth
Anything like this would have to be guerrilla net (Score:1)
There is no business (ie. government) that would allow this to happen. Period...
Even if you somehow managed to get it started, it will be regulated away. I mean you can't have people doing their own thing, doing it cheaply, and helping others. That's the devil's work!
Re: Cryptocurrencies make it plausible (Score:3)
Just so we understand each other...
Are you proposing that various entities pay small amounts for their little connections to larger entities with larger connections, which in-turn pay to connect to even larger entities to interconnect them all?
Isn't that what we have now? Last time I looked at traceroute results, I connected via inexpensive residential link to inexpensive residential ISP, who connected to regional ISP, who connected to backbone provider, who connected to another regional ISP, who connected
The problem is lazy consumers (Score:1)
It is way too easy to just pay some cable company and not think for oneself.
That is not a technological problem. (Score:1)
You need to convince or persuade a lot of people. That is what makes this a hard problem. Geeks and nerds aren't particularly great at convincing or persuading people, but they're the people who would have to do it, because they're the kind of people who would want a global wireless mesh network. I know I've thought about it. Who hasn't?
Re: (Score:1)
Routing (Score:5, Interesting)
IPv6 addresses are allegedly distributed in a way that reduces the routing table bloat seen in IPv4. With no central authority, how do you manage that?
Storage and processing are both getting cheaper sorta fast-ish, so it may be practical now or in the near future to have a routing table with 2^36 entities (or whatever) and 3 or 4 entries per entity. But how do you pass it around? If my westbound link goes down, I'm no longer the fastest relay to half of the world from a not-trivial portion of my region. How many megabytes is that update?
I'm not sure that the problem is unsolvable, but I don't have any reason to believe that someone out there is sitting on a revolutionary global mesh routing algorithm, waiting for the right time to publish.
Re: Routing (Score:5, Insightful)
Routing was the first problem that came to my mind too. An unreliable network requires a fast routing protocol, but fast routing protocols are very traffic-intensive for large networks. A large wireless mesh network would spend an inordinate amount of it's bandwidth just keeping converged.
That's before dealing with security/trust issues. It's already proving a problem on slow routing protocols as the recent Russian incident shows where relatively few people have to be trusted, it would be much worse with every small player possibly being able to make adverse changes.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also been a few more recent papers about large IoT mesh networks and how to handle getting signals around without everything just blasting a central node with raw power to get heard. It's a pity the IoT people don't read such things before building their stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
If I surmise those projects correctly, there was a fairly important degree of central control and some kind of authority to make decisions, and the mesh networks were of limited scope. A mesh network of the size that the article presumes would be massively more complicated and would have to be able to react dynamically to outages.
The current Internet has a combination of a limited number of players for backbone and a fairly slow routing protocol that is fairly limited who gets to participate. A routing pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Super-peers and DHT solved this.
Essentially super-peers are high-bandwidth trusted nodes that can pass you routing information.
Of course, given we are speaking a system with a likely semi-fixed top bandwidth, we need a new system.
We could randomly allocate super-peers in the network.
A simple comparison between multiple super-peers will prevent people fucking with the records for abuse.
The larger the network, the harder it'd be to abuse. Even with everyone being intelligent. Even if everyone felt like the
Re: (Score:2)
VIrtual ring routing appears to solve some of these problems.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us... [microsoft.com]
I've been reading about this kind of stuff recently, and I'm considering attempting to implement it.
Right now though, I'm writing a test harness to compare various routing algorithms and see how many nodes they can scale to before they fail (also, how much churn they can support, how they handle partitions, etc)
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 addresses are allegedly distributed in a way that reduces the routing table bloat seen in IPv4. With no central authority, how do you manage that?
I'm not sure that the problem is unsolvable, but I don't have any reason to believe that someone out there is sitting on a revolutionary global mesh routing algorithm, waiting for the right time to publish.
I have a project in the works where a future piece of it is intended to address this issue. I'm essentially waiting for the right time to publish. Since it's the current discussion here, here's the relevant part...
My intention is to use a piece of IPv6 space and encode a lat/long into it in a way that: A) you only have to make sure that no one near you is using the same lat/long, and B) for networks far away from you, you can represent many of them in a single entry line in your routing table. A network
A network for the rest of us (Score:2)
Once all that is done its POE to the roof and getting a dish network ready.
The laws of physics greatly restrict bandwidth (Score:5, Informative)
A very large mesh network *used* to be possible. Not so much anymore.
> There is nothing in the rules of mathematics or laws of physics that prevents such a system.
In fact there the laws of physics DO put some serious limitations on it, especially a true mesh network. In a nutshell, the frequencies that carry over distance and through walls have limited bandwidth, which must be shared by *everyone* who wants to use any kind of wireless communication. Frequencies above 10 Ghz have a lot of bandwidth, but don't go through drywall. Also of course high frequency waves have high energy - think microwave oven.
Mesh networks are horribly inefficient in how they use the limited bandwidth available in desirable frequency bands. You can do much, much better if you have local transmitters around 1 Ghz communicating with local towers which form a backbone connected via high power dishes, or better yet fiber optics. There is a lot more usable bandwidth to go around using the backbone topology rather than wasting most of the bandwidth by using a mesh. That brings up the issue of who owns and controls the backbones.
Given the physics of it all, back in 1990 you could have built a mesh network to replace the wired connections of the day - 48Kbps max bandwidth, with each person using it an hour or two per day, on average. On a new network built today, you'd want 100,000 to 10,000,000 Kbps, with each person using it ten hours per day. So roughly 40,000 times as much total bandwidth. Not going to happen. Not with the physics we know in this century.
There *is* a way we can 40,000 times as much bandwidth as we had in the the 1990s, though. We actually have such a system working in much of Texas. It involves setting the greedy corporate ISPs up in a situation where to make money, they have to compete with other greedy corporate ISPs. Customers choose the best one, so an ISP can't make money if they suck. It's not a perfect system, but it beats the hell out of what I hear people on the coasts complaining about - a single monopoly ISP protected by a government franchise, an ISP that sucks but they don't care because nobody is allowed to offer competing service.
Re: (Score:2)
When this site was still shiny and new there were mesh projects that had paths of designated nodes to make backbones of a kind that get around that problem of getting stuff from one end to the other of a mesh 100km wide or so.
You don't need a "true mesh" to get a mesh. A bit of redundancy is good but having thousands of possible paths over a relatively short range is overkill IMHO.
E=hn (Score:2)
> > Also of course high frequency waves have high energy
> What?
E=hn where E is energy in joules, n is frequency in hertz, and h is Planck's constant. In other words, energy is *directly proportional* to frequency.
Its quite intuitive when you think of a sound wave, rather than electromagnetic, especially a sound wave in water. Imagine a sound wave which moves 1 gram of water. Moving 1 gram of water 10 times in a second (10 hertz) represents a lot less energy than moving the water 1,000 times in tha
Overbuilders. Fiber makes this the right time (Score:3, Interesting)
On the coasts, many areas are still under legacy (and even new) franchise agreements. The New York City franchise map is a good example that is readily available - provider A is allowed to operate on one side of the street, on the other side only provider B can offer service. Customers get whichever ISP is assigned to their area by the bureaucrats (who get donations from the ISPs). The ISPs are free to suck, because there's no competition.
There was some hoopla around here a couple of years ago with people
Re: Overbuilders. Fiber makes this the right time (Score:1)
On the coasts, many areas are still under legacy (and even new) franchise agreements. The New York City franchise map is a good example that is readily available - provider A is allowed to operate on one side of the street, on the other side only provider B can offer service. Customers get whichever ISP is assigned to their area by the bureaucrats (who get donations from the ISPs). The ISPs are free to suck, because there's no competition.
Nope! The ISPs are the ones who divided up the streets, not bureacrats, they're almost powerless. They have to spend years getting ISPs to admit they aren't even living up to their contracts, let alone make them comply with the wishes of their customers. That's the price of disempowering government.
And in fact, less than one million New Yorkers have access to only one provider, while over four million Texans only have one.
True story.
There was some hoopla around here a couple of years ago with people saying "franchise monopolies are now illegal". Not quite. The rule from the Obama administration was "before issuing a *new* franchise monopoly, a city must hold a meeting."
Nope. Monopoly franchise agreements are illegal, and have been since
The five ISPs I can choose are lies? (Score:3)
> Texans have a problem believing too many lies, as usual.
The various ISPs I can order service from are lies, they don't actually exist? That's weird since I'm using the service to post this message.
Apparently *one of us* was lied to.
I work from home, so reliable service is important to me. For that reason I asked around to see which ISP is best in this area. Fellow customers didn't steer me wrong - I've not had any down time so far, nor have I had any billing issue.
Re: The five ISPs I can choose are lies? (Score:2)
Looks like you got a stalker.
No. (Score:2, Insightful)
Next question.
This is not a technical question (Score:3)
There are no laws of physics in the way.
We cannot agree on global declarations of human rights, property rights, units of measurement, or basically anything else.
So, no. We could not build a global mesh network. It's physically possible with technology from 10-15 years ago, but it is clearly impossible with the current political concept of "global."
Maybe and most likely no. (Score:1)
Routing tables would be fairly hard to figure out how to handle effectively, especially if each device in the mesh network could move around ( like if we were using a cell phone as a node in the network ). The routes would have to update extremely fast with extreme variability in each nodes transfer speeds,
First answer this question: (Score:3)
packet radio (Score:2)
You mean like packet radio [tapr.org]?
too many nodes. (Score:3)
How would you persuade governments to allow for the use of say, 1%, of the spectrum for an unlicensed mesh experiment?
1% of the spectrum is HUGE. You don't need 1%. However, you don't have to convince anyone because you can just use one of the ISM bands because they are free to use for whatever.
However...
The problem with a large-scale mesh network is that you are going to end up needs to make a LOT of hops just to reach your destination. With every hop, you get a little bit of latency and that number adds up quickly. I think to do this on a global scale in a way comparable to our current system that you would need a ASIC to do all the routing quickly. If you are serious about this, you can start off by using an FPGA to manage the radio and routing. You need to design the routing so that it can restructure routes quickly based on throughput, including zero throughput.
If you build it, democratic governments would be hardpressed to try and stop the general public from using it, so they would approve it's use even if previously denied because they could easily be replaced by someone who will approve it.
Re: (Score:2)
ISM band has limits. In most of the world the bands available for data have duty cycle limits, usually 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
Because people are massive dickheads who don't even understand what kind of data requirements their devices have, like the tween girl that takes 1000 selfies a day on an iCloud connected iPhone and thrashes the living hell out of the upload bandwidth and has no idea it's even happening.
Even with tuned QoS that kind of crap is annoying, and who's tuning the QoS on a public mesh? No one.
You either have massive bandwidth or a lot of restrictions on it's use to keep it usable for your low bandwidth cases.
Silicon Valley (Score:2)
So you saw the new episode of Silicon Valley too, eh?
Prepare for Massive Assault (Score:1)
nodes and more nodes (Score:2)
sure, but you'd need nodes and supernodes and ultimately ultranodes to handle traffic distribution (probably one supernode per 350 users handling id handshakes and content cross filing) and although the each node would be network-selected on a adhoc basis they would generally be sticky (central server-like) and would be voluntary, in as much your personal node, if you were running one, would be saturated, swamped as it were with boring traffic and housekeeping duties as opposed to the fun stuff of p2p chit
Re: (Score:2)
This ultimately limits its value as a de-centralized system.
Lockout (Score:3)
It was seen as competition to be stamped out.
So to do it you need some sort of bargaining power, such as a government telling the ISPs to give you a chance, or some way to get around the ISPs completely. If there is a long way to the next major city it's a bit tricky to get there without an ISP providing the link.
Re: (Score:2)
Often requiring certified techs to do the work wich the only people capable of certifying are the incumbents. You might get a guy that can do the work for a little while after quitting an incumbent but he can not renew his certs. It thus sounds open but isn't.
Municipal fiber to the home with at least one dedicated strand per home. Something people don't get about ipv6 is multiple addresses is easy. You could get a muni ipv6 that via address localization would go to their gear for say school, library, go
Need adjustment to H.A.M. Licensing (Score:1)
Short answer: Yes. Longer answer below: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, in other words, the society you know needs the law enforcement because without law enforcement it could not self-organize and inevitably falls into chaos. Next question is where you should find the law enforcement personnel that is NOT the part of your society.
Re: (Score:2)
We probably could but would the TLA's let us? (Score:2)
Don't need to say any more really.
Maybe. (Score:3)
The above critics are right - while such a construct might be possible in theory, the practical difficulties may be insurmountable.
But there is one technology that could make it, if not feasible, at least a bit closer to that goal: Content-addressed networking. Build a decentralised store for static content into the network from the beginning. That way you don't need to get people from all over the world all trying to access one server to download a popular file - if the person next door already has it, they can take the file from that much-closer source automatically. I suggest using IPFS as the base for that functionality, as it's already decently mature, reliable, and has a very elegant data structure that can scale endlessly.
Now you still need your mesh to enable real-time communication, but you've taken almost all the load relating to static content distribution off if it. The capacity requirements are slashed.
Ham Radio Mesh Networks. (Score:4, Informative)
AREDN [aredn.org] The Amateur Radio Emergency Data Network, and a node map [aredn.org]
The still-widely-deployed predecessor, BroadBand Hamnet [broadband-hamnet.org]
A port of this mesh to the RaspberryPi, HSMMPI [wordpress.com]
Previous versions were called ARESNET and HSMMNET.
And there's also the European ham network, here [hamnetdb.net] and a map [hamnetdb.net].
Re: (Score:2)
Amateur Radio has the severe legal usage limitation. It could be used for exchange of amateur radio and emergency related information ONLY. So it could be used as an experimental base ONLY and then the technology should be transferred to commercial or community area.
I could spend my money for creation of general use network that could continue to operate in emergency but I have no motivation to make a network that could be used exclusively for emergency.
Why? And more importantly, why? (Score:2)
No, you cannot (Score:2)
Think about mesh networking. How far is your wireless range? Let's say 1km with good antenna. And how big is the latency? Let's say 10 ms. How many hops does your packet need to get to the target? How much latency is acceptable?
You won't get a usable network without cables.
And getting 1% of frequency spectrum ... globally? Do you think all countries use the same allocations?
Wrong: math and physics do impose limits (Score:2)
The math and physics _do_ restrict what is possible. There are limited frequencies available and bandwidth requirements limit what is usable and by how many. Mathematics (specifically information theory) quantifies the limits on the exchange of information and performance in noise.
In a vacuum, in the absence of any electromagnetic noise, in the presence of infinite number of frequencies, with error-free 1-bit encoding of all information, and a limitless supply of free energy to power transceivers, then va
In Soviet Russia, Roskomnadzor has YOU! (Score:2)
Well, let us imagine for some time that we have unlimited WiFi spectrum. But let's assume that the dipole antennas give maximum 250 meters. So in order to traverse Moscow (Yes, I said Moscow!) (about 25 km in diameter according to Wikimapia) you need 100 hops which require all equipment to not only work but to be placed in good high places. The ping times also would be quite.....
You could install a 20dB dish to access a local mesh router and it would give you about 2.5 km of distance. But it does NOT solve
Open Source Mesh Networking Platform in the Works (Score:1)
Check out FreedomBox, an open source hardware & software solution under development
https://www.freedomboxfoundati... [freedomboxfoundation.org]
A mass mesh network is one of the few methods society can ensure the tyranny of centralization does not continue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]
A solution to congestion is forming nodes with polygonal faces, each face mounted with it's own independent antenna, thus enabling more broad point to point communications as opposed to radial transmittance.
Re: (Score:2)
... and each face should have a separate outdoor-class WiFi router that costs about 0.25 of average monthly income. But you increase antenna gain 4* giving distance only 2*. 500m instead of 250m are not a solution. The problem of only 4 separate 2.5 GHz channels (1 5 9 13; 3 channels in USA) is secondary.
Exciting (Score:2)
Re: Exciting (Score:2)
No. (Score:2)
Australia.
New Zealand.
And other examples where it's not a mesh any more...
Technically yes (Score:2)
> Is this feasible?
Technically feasible, yes I think. Imagine a weatherproof box combining a $5 solar cell and a $5 tiny linux computer operating as a mote repeater and open wifi access point.
Place one on each utility pole running out and around the rural areas. Place one on the roof of every home in the burbs. Homeowner can provide an internet gateway if they choose.
> Would it amass enough volunteers, advocates, and enthusiastic users?
Unlikely. The stakeholders mentioned have already done so much. Th
Telstra (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sane decisions have to be made on infrastructure investment. Are telecoms companies nests of evil and incompetence, staffed by tumbling assholes everyone would love to see set on fire? Indubitably. Is it unreasonable of them not to build a $50,000 gigabit fiber link
Re: As the owner of a WISP... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just getting people together create and maintain a wireless network is a lot of effort.
Not only an effort but it also exposes all the community to the Competent Organs (Russian euphemism for law enforcement). You could do it relatively securely in countries with strong legal system somewhere in Europe or in countries where Organs are integral part of the community (as is in Havana and as it was in Russia in 90s when Office of Internal Affairs kept a Fidonet hub). But I doubt that it should be done in modern Russia, USA or, say, Turkey.
Re: (Score:2)
It's trivial to implement, but:
1) You have absolutely no motivation to do it during peace times (in condition that you are not a Revolutionary)
2) When the substance hits the fan you have absolutely no time and equipment to do it.
3) During the unrest the cell networks shall be blocked. So the only means of distant communications are CB radios.
4) You should resolve the legal conflict between you (the law abiding citizen) and Revolutionaries that use your node - both from your point of view that they use YOUR
Re: (Score:2)
Well do tell, AC. We would love to hear details on this system...