[Freedombox-discuss] False dichotomy
+1
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Boaz <alt.boaz at gmail.com> wrote:
> Standard disclaimer: non-developer's thoughts follow.
>
>
>>We should not be segregating our work into systems for "normal people"
>>and "dissidents". ?To make that segregation implies two things:
>>
>>0) surveillance and corporate- or government-controlled communications
>>for "normal people" is acceptable, and
>>
>> 1) that these categories are fixed, mutually-exclusive, and static --
>>an individual cannot be both at once, or change from one to the other,
>>either voluntarily or involuntarily.
>
> Very insightful.
>
> It is my view that the distinction that some have made between
> ?dissidents? and ?normal people? or between people in ?oppressed
> places? and ?non oppressed places? is both imaginary and misleading.
>
> Unthinkably enormous data silos are being built as we speak in and
> about the people of Western ?democracies?, and the governments of
> these places are hard at work starting to use technical censorship of
> the internet as well.
>
> On the other hand, just because a place is under severe ?repression?
> doesn't mean that there is no internet, or that you're going to be
> arrested for encrypting your email or running your own mail server, or
> that there's a camera affixed permanently in every home.
>
> Repression comes in a vast spectrum of degrees and flavors, and the
> same tools that are useful for fighting it in a slightly less severe
> form will be helpful for fighting it in a slightly more severe form.
>
> Nearly every ?normal person? strives, if even in a very small way, or
> at least yearns, for social change of some kind or other.
>
> Every ?activist? still wants to have a conversation with his mother
> about recipes and the weather now and then.
>
> When change happens, it happens because the bulk of the population are
> acting as ?activists?, and doing so using the tools for access and
> distribution of information that they always normally use. ?Change
> doesn't happen because of the work of a couple shadowy mystery
> supermen using their godly special powers that the mere mortals don't
> need, that's just not how the world is.
>
> The same software that provides ?privacy? to a ?normal person? in a
> ?non oppressed place? provides ?secure communication? to a ?freedom
> fighter? in an ?oppressed place?. ?These distinctions are both
> meaningless and useless. ?Any time you extend any greater degree of
> privacy to any person, anywhere, you advance the cause of human
> freedom.
>
> Yes, some features might be more useful to someone in north Africa
> than someone in North America (though those features surely would be
> useful to both), but the absence of those features doesn't render the
> device no improvement over Twitter and Facebook.
>
> Consider a Freedom Box which provides every feature that Twitter and
> Facebook provides, in a decentralized and encrypted manner, but which:
> 1. Communicates solely over the internet, and in the absence of any
> kind of internet connection at all, is not able to communicate at all.
> 2. Loses every security property in the face of an attacker with
> physical access.
>
> Will it help someone in North Korea? ?No. ?But will it help someone in
> North Africa or North America? ?Of course. ?Might a North African user
> prefer if it could also communicate over a magical unstoppable mesh
> network and be disguised to look like a fleck of paint on the wall?
> Of course. ?Does that mean that it would be of no use to that North
> African user? ?Of course not. ?Might a North American user also prefer
> if it could do these extra things? ?Of course. ?But remember, the best
> strategy is to pick the low hanging fruit first.
>
> I think a moment of reflection on the truly awful state of the
> security practices of actual real live ?activists? is in order.
>
> The Freedom Box I've described does not do anything when all the ISPs
> shut the internet off. ?But it does circumvent censorship and
> surveillance, if and while the internet, in some form, is still
> operating. ?Well you know what? ?They don't keep the internet turned
> off all the time. ?And the gradual shifts in public opinion that lead
> to revolutions don't occur while the revolution is occurring. ?They
> occur in the years and decades before the revolution.
>
> The Freedom Box I've described doesn't prevent someone from being shut
> up or spied on by breaking into his house (although with the proper
> encryption, both the end-to-end and the anti traffic analysis flavors,
> they might not know whose house to break into).
>
> Well you know what? ?The state does not have the resources to
> burglarize every home and business in the nation. ?Or, perhaps better
> phrased:
>
> If we make it so that they need to burglarize every home and business
> in the nation to get the same capabilities that they already have
> right now without needing to, we've scored a victory for human
> Freedom.
>
> Let's devote our attentions to something specific, rather than vague
> generalization arising out of meaningless distinction. ?Because, at
> the risk of being overly critical, this discussion leads nowhere in a
> hurry.
>
> Let's stop trying to categorize the world's population into
> ?activists? and ?normal people?, and start building tools that the 1.9
> billion internet-connected normal activists can use to live their
> lives free of censorship and surveillance.
>
>
> Boaz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>
Reply to: