Re: Message: 9
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:05:34 +1000
From: nic <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Catherine Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Jacob Appelbaum's Ultrasurf Report
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Nic,
You're using the usual tendentious methods that are common to arguments in
favour of open source.
You've decided in advance, in an edge-casing, exaggerating fashion, that
Ultrasurf "harms" its users or is "broken" or "dangerous" because it doesn't
work in the way you wished it did or think it should work. But these notions of
"harm" and "broken" are themselves entirely subjective and manipulated.
All kinds of products in the world don't work as advertised, including Tor
--they don't tell you how slow it is or other problems easily Googled or that
the entire project is at risk because its main founder is under grand jury
investigation. But in a context where there are huge numbers of users, in a
context of pluralism, and a context where users are more savvy than you think,
the risk is spread more than you are prepared to believe.
You can be called out that software is "broken" only if the very notion
of "broken" -- which is a wildly common misused geeky notion applied to
just about anything they don't like from Congress to email. Why the medical and
food poisoning analogies when software is not a real toxin? The real
consequences in the real world start and end with something like the toxic
Chinese Communist Party, not the means by which people might circumvent it, and
it's important to keep that in view. There's a tendency to convert these very
real challenges of Communist state power into surrogate issues of Western
corporations or users, and technologize them, in order to make it seem as if we
can all "do something". Never forget that you are having a debate about
surrogates of the real problem -- the Chinese Communist Party.
You and others never confront the main issue here: that Chinese or Iranian or
Russian ISPs already have their custermers' data for the most part, and
people's identity is already "compromised". You continue to post a world in
which everybody is like you, desirous of anonymity/pseudonynmity and maximum
invisibility on the Internet. Not everyone has those cultural values or even
needs those cultural values.
Jacob Appelbaum obfuscated the dangers of Ultrasurf by completing ignoring
these realities and hyping the danger to users, as you are doing. It doesn't
matter if he did this under his own name, as there is a lot about the process
of reverse-engineering and attacking the flaws in Ultrasurf that he is *not*
telling us about.
I've never seen any compelling information that people circumventing their
oppressive governments are somehow naive about the dangers -- the activists
know the risks and take them, the ordinary users, far more numerous, have just
enough trust to make the challenge work, and don't need more. I remember when
the same gang of "Internet freedom" boosters were banging on the flawed program
Haystack, which indeed manifested the usual tekkie hubris. But no one was ever
able to demonstrate that a single dissident was harmed by its testing.
Catherine A. Fitzpatrick
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state
_______________________________________________
liberationtech mailing list
[email protected]
Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above)
next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?"
You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in
monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.
Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
