[Freedombox-discuss] blogging in the FB (was Re: Roadmap Brainstorming)
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 02:44:21PM +0000, Bjarni R?nar Einarsson wrote:
>FreedomBox is after all a very privacy oriented effort.
True - as an isolated statement. But in a context of private vs. public
facing communication it easily is misinterpreted:
FreedomBox is very _concerned_ about privacy - that things private are
properly treated as such.
FreedomBox is equally much about private and public communication,
however.
FreedomBox serves privacy issues related to all - private and public -
activities of World Citizens.
>For a traditional, open to the world blog, the existing cloud stuff is
>in many ways perfectly suitable.
I strongly disagree: FreedomBox is not only or mainly about private
communication.
The one core goal of FreedomBox is to (re)gain control of own log data.
A rise of physical domestic internet nodes is, In my interpretation,
what Eben Moglen coined as "the silverlining of the cloud". And one
tool to reach that is FreedomBox.
(all such tools as a whole, i.e. also non-Plug ones, I call "Freedom*")
Cloud computing is a buzzword that can mean anything and nothing. It
can mean "computing centralized and virtualized" but I prefer to use it
for "web of computers", i.e. the internet as intended: woven together
complex enough to be resilient to interruptions.
A pencil can be a tool dangerous to human beings if used cleverly.
Similarly with cloud computing. All things can be used or abused.
FreedomBox is not about avoiding cloud computing, or about tolerating it
in public sphere(s). FreedomBox is about _using_ cloud computing.
- 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: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110318/9cd6402e/attachment.pgp>
Reply to: