[Freedombox-discuss] Rouge Freedomboxes and government intervention

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On 11-06-21 at 08:37pm, bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 07:43:43PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On 11-06-21 at 11:56am, Anthony Papillion wrote:
> > > Hi Everyone,
> > > 
> > > I've been following the discussion here on the list and one thing 
> > > I've not seen a lot of discussion about is government 
> > > intervention. Since the Freedombox will be open source and use a 
> > > peer to peer methodology, what's stopping a hostile government 
> > > from running their own 'Freedombox Honeypots' and 
> > > targeting/locating users for arrest?
> > 
> > "FreedomBox for Freedom Fighters" certainly need more thought in 
> > that area.  Not realistic for a first release of FreedomBox IMO.
> > 
> > "FreedomBox for consumers" need no special anti-government design, 
> > just the core implicit anti-centralized-logging design.
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure both use cases can be splitted that easily.
> 
> Or I'd like to see it from another point of view:
> 
> Most of the times "Freedom fighters" ARE "consumers". I mean the 
> separation isn't that clear. Your life isn't being a "Freedom 
> fighters".
> And they aren't the only one being watched or needing some of their 
> data or communication being kept private.

There are people in this world who never ever go to jail, and never ever 
fear that their government is hostile to their actions on internet.

Those I label "consumers".


Then there are people in this world that consume just as much as the 
so-called "consumers" but in addition to that fear their government.  
Maybe because theyt are paranoid, maybe because their government truly 
is hostile to them.

Those I label "Freedom Fighters".


I very much see the relevancy in separation of a "harmless FreedomBox" 
and an "activism FreedomBox".

My point is that one point (out of several!) in the vision of FreedomBox 
is that the world becomes a better place even if not directly addressing 
then needs of activists in circumventing being hunted down or whatever 
is their concrete needs.  The world becomes a better place *both* for 
non-activit consumers *and* for paranoid freaks *and* for true genuine 
heroes when the masses create a silverlining of the cloud.


I want to address the problem of central logging of the activities of 
the masses _separately_ from the more complex problem of activists 
needing secrecy, anonymity and other powerful features.  Because the 
first is easier and quicker solved than the second.  And because the 
first helps solve the second!



> There are maybe other ways to consider the problem:

[cut]

Yes, there are many many possible ways to segment, depending on what 
problem you want to solve.  You seem to segment public and private.  
What problem does that help solve? What is your point of segmenting like 
that?



 - 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/20110621/cb34c7d9/attachment-0001.pgp>