It’s still on the agenda though, and the siren song of a decentralized internet is alluring. A digital world liberated from the claws of Big Tech, where you hold the keys to your own data and chart your own digital course. Before we pop the cork and celebrate this utopian vision, let’s hit the brakes. Frankly, I’m not convinced this is the panacea it’s made out to be, at least on national security grounds. In fact, I would argue a much more decentralized internet would in practice truly hamstring our efforts to protect ourselves.

Dark Web 2.0: Illegal Activities Thrive

Think about it. Today, law enforcement agencies are at a huge disadvantage when trying to stop illegal activity that takes place online. They follow money laundering through big banks. They’ve gotten into encrypted messaging apps and tracked dark web marketplaces that are run on centralized servers. Now, picture this situation in a world that is entirely decentralized. Data is currently fragmented, encrypted, and spread across trillions of nodes. It looks like the shards of an exploded mirror, showing a world nothing but broken.

P2P networks like IPFS could become the digital equivalent of international waters – a place where laws are difficult to enforce and bad actors can operate with impunity. We're talking about:

  • Rampant illegal marketplaces dealing in drugs, weapons, and human trafficking.
  • Unregulated cryptocurrency exchanges facilitating money laundering on an unprecedented scale.
  • The proliferation of disinformation campaigns designed to destabilize democratic institutions.

Okay, okay, advocates will respond with visions of community-driven moderation and reputation systems. Can these systems truly stand against the wealth and talent of advanced criminal networks and open antagonistic nation-states? I seriously doubt it. The internet already has a pretty big problem with misinformation. Decentralization just douses that flame with a bunch of gasoline.

Encryption Everywhere = Surveillance Blindness

End-to-end encryption is a bedrock principle of the decentralized web. I’m someone who deeply appreciates the importance of privacy. In fact, a completely encrypted internet is one of the most powerful tools available for criminals and terrorists to hide behind.

How do you track a terrorist cell planning an attack when their communications are shielded by unbreakable encryption and routed through a decentralized network? How do you identify a foreign influence operation? All of that becomes very difficult when the criminals are communicating via self-sovereign identities and decentralized, encrypted messaging apps.

In practice, we are starting to experience the consequences of “going dark” even with current encryption technologies. The issue is further compounded exponentially by a completely decentralized internet. That’s about as realistic as trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. This isn’t about taking away your rights, it’s about acknowledging that our security as a people depends on our collective security.

Cybersecurity Nightmares: No Central Defense

A centralized internet has vulnerabilities, no doubt. It allows for coordinated defense. Cybersecurity firms can identify and mitigate threats across entire networks, governments can issue warnings about emerging vulnerabilities, and large organizations can invest in sophisticated security measures.

A centralized internet looks like an efficient highway, maybe a smooth autobahn of free-flowing traffic. Who's responsible for security? Who invests in protecting the entire network? The answer is: nobody.

Proponents will drumbeat messaging about network redundancy routing and distributed resilience. Unlike the proposed alternatives, these are theoretical safeguards, not proven solutions. A more decentralized internet would be more vulnerable to cyberattacks. In reality, it would be much less secure than today’s internet. This isn’t just a hypothetical bureaucratic fine point—a concerted cyberattack could knock out our critical infrastructure, throw financial markets into chaos and even threaten lives.

  • Large-scale botnet attacks leveraging compromised nodes.
  • Sybil attacks where malicious actors create thousands of fake identities to control network resources.
  • Routing attacks that disrupt network traffic and isolate users.

One of the most concerning elements of a decentralized internet is the loss of accountability. Anonymity, self-sovereign identity, and decentralized governance structures make it incredibly difficult to hold individuals and organizations responsible for their actions.

Accountability Vanishes: Who Pays the Price?

Who is the defendant when a decentralized platform accommodates defamatory content? Who do you go after when a DAO is used to commit illegal acts? Where do you find accountability when a decentralized network is turned into a tool for propaganda and violence?

The answer, nine times out of ten, is no one. This absence of accountability fosters a moral hazard, creating perverse incentives for unlawful behavior while simultaneously eroding the rule of law. We’ve already witnessed this unfold in the crypto space, where many scams and rug pulls have gone largely unprosecuted. Now imagine that same scenario playing out across the entire internet.

The internet today is a geopolitical battleground and the United States is losing its moral high ground. They can exert astonishing power by controlling online activity within their borders, taking control of critical infrastructure, and projecting their influence over others through digital diplomacy. A decentralized internet fundamentally challenges this order.

Sovereignty Undermined: Geopolitical Chaos Ensues

A new world with data free-flowing across borders is a profound threat to national sovereignty. It poses new dangers for international collaboration. Imagine:

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites, like Starlink, offering WAN-level coverage without centralized ground stations sound revolutionary, but who controls that infrastructure? Who decides what data flows through it? These questions are vital.

  • Nation-states struggling to control the flow of information within their borders.
  • Cyber warfare being waged across decentralized networks, with no clear lines of responsibility.
  • International agreements on cybersecurity and data privacy becoming unenforceable.

This is not only a story of power and control. It’s about upholding a stable, secure international order. A balkanized internet would make for a balkanized world, with each of these competing digital realms locking in their power and influence.

All in all, the promise of a decentralized internet can’t be overstated. We need to be very deliberative about the implications these changes will have on national security. Whether it’s discrimination, privacy, security — the risks are just too high. Taking a libertarian approach, prioritizing a swift decentralization, could have deadly results. Without the right safeguards, we might find ourselves unable to defend against criminals, terrorists, or hostile nation-states. We should not race ahead blindly. Whatever the next iteration of the internet looks like, it should enhance security and accountability, as well as protecting privacy and freedom. Their stakes are too high to allow anything else.

In conclusion, while the promise of a decentralized internet is appealing, we must carefully consider the potential consequences for national security. The risks are simply too great to ignore. A rush towards decentralization without proper safeguards could cripple our ability to protect ourselves from criminals, terrorists, and hostile nation-states. We need to proceed with caution and ensure that any future internet architecture prioritizes security and accountability alongside privacy and freedom. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.