[Freedombox-discuss] Rouge Freedomboxes and government intervention
On 11-06-22 at 02:28pm, Neophyte Representative wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Jonas Smedegaard - dr at jones.dk wrote:
> >
> > We should continuously have all possible use cases in mind, but
> > prioritize those easy to provide rather than those with most direct
> > benefit for users involved in most obvious freedom-enabling
> > activities.
> >
> > Both segments care, else they don't buy FreedomBox at all.
> >
> > Example: Karla is increasingly frustrated with her government, is
> > politically active, and may start an uprising in 3 months. ?Joanna
> > is supportive of political activism but is more into partying and
> > chasing guys, not willing to get up on the barricades. ?Joanna and
> > Karla both want a FreedomBox. ?FreedomBox-dating already exist in
> > Debian testing, but FreedomBox-stealth is still so flaky it is not
> > even packaged for Debian yet.
> >
> > Do we then...
> >
> > ?a) release FreedomBox 1.0 in 6 months with -dating only,
> > ? ?and FreedomBox 2.0 in maybe 1 year with -stealth added,
> > ? ?prioritizing all parts being reliable and maintainable.
> > ?b) release FreedomBox 1.0 in 6 months with -dating and -stealth,
> > ? ?prioritizing urgent features for urgent matters (even if flaky
> > ? ?and perhaps even dangerous for Karla to use).
> > ?c) release FreedomBox 1.0 in 1 month with -dating and -stealth,
> > ? ?prioritizing urgent features for urgent matters (even if flaky
> > ? ?and perhaps even dangerous for both Karla and Joanna to use).
> >
>
> You don't have any idea what quality or quantity of reliably available
> developmental labor units you will have available to even try to push
> the schedule around in this manner.
Yes, I do have an idea: Get stuff packaged for Debian so that it can be
qualified/quantified a.k.a. get some eyeballs to make all bugs shallow.
Stuff in Debian unstable is sensible to consider "unstable", and stuff
so thoroughly "starred at" that it has trickled down into Debian stable
is sensible to consider as "stable".
> The last thing I think you would want to do is put Karla in any
> serious danger of over-estimating the utility of FreedomBox in
> protecting her anonymity while facilitating her quest for governmental
> improvement, regardless of Joanna's uses. Joanna can probably be
> fully satisfied with reasonable use of today's spyware infected
> commercial offerings. Karla, in the most dangerous case, can't.
In my opinion only option a) makes sense (among above three options).
I agree that Joanna would be ok waiting a couple of years for a Facebook
replacement, but she is supportive of political activism so given the
option of FreedomBox 1.0 (a.k.a. "silly" edition without -stealth) she
would favor that, because it could help Karla slightly: Karla would lack
stealth (and a bunch of other features quite helpful for overthrowing a
regime) but would at least not be sold out by Zuckerberg - while we
reliably extended FreedomBox with more radical features.
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110623/dc097b86/attachment.pgp>
Reply to: