Just a constructive suggestion to potential Liberationtech entrepreneurs out there that is being raised from this debate:
- Non profits need some organization to help them deal with cyber attacks, so they don't have to spend $35,000 to protect themselves. Such an organization would tap into the best crypto expertise on a pro-bono basis to help these organizations. Anybody out there interested in taking something like this on? Yosem On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Yvette Alberdingkthijm <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi List, > > As someone who learns from and very much enjoys the community of this > list, but also someone who runs an NGO - always hungry for more funding…to > support the many out there who use video to document and protect human > rights, > I am a little concerned about the nature of this debate. Of course > transparency and facts are paramount in positioning any issue, fundraising > effort, or tech solution publicly. But the goal of this list's involvement > is hopefully - as some folks have done, to provide a critical eye, call out > the obvious untruths but then offer a helping technology hand. Not (in > extremis) to catch every non-profit on the literal accuracy of every word > it publishes. There is a debate to be had in this instance on the merits of > these kinds of calls for help (any fundraising calls and positions we take, > frankly) - from various angles (effectiveness, community building, or > reputation and credibility), but not sure if beyond that critical eye that > is the calling of this list… > > YAT > > > Yvette J. Alberdingk Thijm > Executive Director > WITNESS > 80 Hanson Place > Brooklyn, NY 11217 > phone: + 1(718) 783 2271 > europe: +31 619031122 > mobile: + 1 (347) 210 0152 > > skype: yvette-a or witnessyvette > email: [email protected] > twitter: @yvettethijm, @witnessorg, #video4change > blog: blog.witness.org > > > When elephants fight, the grass suffers > > On May 8, 2012, at 11:51 AM, jim youll wrote: > > Having dealt with these problems at various scales (but perhaps not at > this scale-the facts are fuzzy) i am made very uneasy by the amount of > money that is claimed both spent and additionally necessary for "DDOS > protection." Those would be appropriate sums to pay an extortionist as > "protection money" but they seem to be talking about technology spending > here, and the whole story is just too much hyperbole and not much that > seems reasonable at any scale, particularly the overt declaration that > "DDOS protection" (whatever that means) is a linear function of money > applied ( above a threshold that imo should have been passed several tens > of thousands of dollars ago) > > Yosem Companys <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> *Message from Ricken on Avaaz cyberattack: * >> >> Hi all - I've heard there's some concern on your list about Avaaz's DDoS >> trouble. Thanks so much for the offers of help, much appreciated and I know >> some of you have been great allies in the past, but I think we've got great >> people working on it and the attack ended last week. Also surprised to hear >> some of you thought we made this up! If you want to ask a third party, >> Datagram, Arbor Networks and to lesser degree Croscon were the three groups >> involved that we asked for advice and help from. >> >> The other concern I heard is, was this an exaggerated fundraising ploy? >> Datagram told our tech team it was one of the largest attacks they'd seen, >> and if we hadn't just 8 weeks ago spent $35k on much fancier DDoS >> protection it would have completely disabled our site for days. They also >> said the attacker was constantly adapting to our defenses, the attack was >> surprisingly sustained, and a key origin appeared to be Amsterdam where we >> were told some groups for hire operated from - suggesting someone was >> paying for this. All that triggered our level of concern in writing the >> fundraiser. Over the last 6 months, we've grown by an average of almost >> 300,000 people per week, so being disabled for a few days can be super >> costly. When we brought the guys from Arbor Networks in, they dialed down >> the concern a little bit, questioning the amsterdam part, and saying it was >> bigger than the large majority of DDoS attacks, but much larger ones were >> possible. But that last bit also dialed up our concern, because we knew we >> were at the limits of what we could handle and we didn't have budget for >> more. That had been the main reason for the fundraiser. >> >> And yes, of course we need the money - both for more DDoS protection and >> also for ramping up our tech security across the board - there was a short >> list of things in the email. That list also dealt with a wider range of >> needs, including the physical security of our staff in places like Russia >> and Lebanon, which also has a tech security component to it. Our community >> was extremely supportive so we ended up raising more than we need >> immediately, but this is the first appeal like this we've done in 5 years >> and we probably won't do another for a long while, so the money has to >> last. That's part of how online organizing works - you leverage bursts of >> engagement with particular campaigns and issues to support longer term >> objectives sustainably. If we find that our plans mean we don't anticipate >> using a lot of the money for the purpose raised, we email the donors and >> ask them to either request a refund or tell us what we can use the >> remainder of t he funds for. >> >> Hope that helps, and I hope you'll forgive us for a few days delay in >> replying and not being able to engage and collaborate with you all like we >> would if we were more a part of your community. We have a small team >> working in a dozen languages with staff spread across the world, and cover >> an enormous number of issues in an enormous number of countries. We run >> about 10-14 campaigns per week, and every campaign we run has a relevant >> civil society community and often several in different countries (e.g. a >> French tech community is also demanding our engagement on this one, and >> even threatening us with a DDoS attack if we don't!). So while I am told >> that you have norms about collaboration and engagement among you, I regret >> that we can't follow them. Hope you'll forgive us and judge us by the >> quality of our work over time. Good luck to you with yours. >> >> Ricken >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > >
_______________________________________________ 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
