*is quietly drowning in nostalgia* NK
On 10/9/2012 7:36 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: > Asher Wolf: >> >> Re: the book edit portal - I do not have control over the platform it is >> being edited on. The handbook project was launched by people in Berlin's >> CryptoParty, and I was brought on board at a later point. >> > > I think it isn't even clear where the portal is located. I think it > should be the first link on the web pages. > >> On 9/10/12 9:30 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: >> >>>> @samthetechie >>>> >>> >>> Why were you offended? >>> >>> Did you work on any of the software in the book? Did you try to help a >>> bunch of the first CryptoParty events out? >> >> Sam organised and ran CryptoParty London. He stepped up when nobody else >> did. He found a venue. He asked for access to edit the book repeatedly. >> >> He has run impromptu cryptoparty sessions with activists since. He >> should be commended for that. >> > > I think such efforts are commendable. My critiques about *some* of the > content in manual are not at all meant to suggest that an individual's > *efforts* aren't important. > >> I did those things - >> >> Jacob, I'm aware you had contact with at least couple of cryptopartie, >> which is great. Your work talking about privacy, surveillance and Tor >> was instrumental in beginning the conversations that lead to >> CryptoParty. Due to the respect many people have for you, it's >> reasonable to assume events around the world would approach you to >> speak. I'm not aware that you attended a party or spoke at one yet. Can >> you advise me if this is different? > > I did talk to a number of crypto parties - sadly, I did not speak at any > of the events due to time/connection constraints. I consider my > pre-event work to have been in support of the event that took place. > > With that said - I reject earning, collecting and wearing merit badges > as some kind of social reward. It doesn't matter if I helped with a > specific CryptoParty before, during, or after the hours of the event. My > critique is about the *content* and not the *energy invested* or the > *intention* of the people involved. I specifically said it was a good > idea and I think it is a noble goal. > >> >> We want your involvement, and are very grateful for your critical >> analysis so far. >> > > I think that is amazingly frustrating but I'm glad to hear it - I think > the above statements indicate an approach to dis-empower people not > wearing CryptoParty Helper Merit Badges. > >>> and you say that I should do more because I dared to not endorse it with >>> fanfare? >> >> I agree that the book doesn't need any more endorsements - only critical >> analysis and editing and content revision. >> > > >> I am concerned though that some of the ways in which the conversation is >> being framed around issues with the current edition are not particularly >> productive in encouraging people to continue. > > No kidding - a critique of work isn't a critique of effort or the > individual. Short of an *intentional* backdoor, anyway. > >> >> One of the things I believe is there's only a certain number of people >> with the correct skill set and motivation to successfully pull of >> certain projects. It's important to get the process of constructive >> criticism right - otherwise interaction becomes demoralising. >> > > I agree and I would extend the analogy against an elitist CryptoParty > vanguard - if there is only a certain number of people - we should > expand that group until it is the total number of people who have an > interest and beyond. > >> I did not work on the technical aspects of the book. I cannot. I do not >> have the right skill set. > > This attitude, I think, is a key issue this community and many others > face. You cannot? Or you will not? > > I believe that you are totally able to learn and I think that it is very > demoralizing when people say they are *unable* or *unwilling* to learn. > That isn't to say that you will become a developer of cryptographic > protocols. It is to say that many people will need to make choices about > security and trusting a vanguard is dangerous. We're always trusting > someone and I realize that reality. I didn't write my own compiler to > compile my email client before sending this email with hand crafted > electrons... However the high level view of most of this stuff is well > within the grasp of each person - it just requires an interest and > *educational resources* that empowers *all people* to learn. > >> I have fielded maybe 6 criticisms of current >> version of the book since Jacob's comments on twitter. I've tried to >> encourage people to write their own revisions and directed the concerns >> towards @julian0liver who was with the original team working on the >> handbook when possible. > > I appreciate that you're getting noise and handling it with grace. Thank > you. > > My comments were not meant as personal disrespect - I actually felt that > I was clear about my positive feelings for the effort with a serious > concern about the results. > > I have worked for around a decade on these issues. I am currently in a > room in South Africa training users who wanted to dig in deep. I firmly > believe it is possible to go from a user who rates themselves as > "non-technical" and take them to a verified OTR conversation with Jabber > over Tor *without* opening a computer science book. We did it today and > English is the second language for most people in the room. > > The first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem that needs > solving. In Australia, the problem according to the CryptoParty as I > understand it is the Surveillance State. > > The second step is to put the energy into learning about mitigations, > positive directions, reversals that are possible and so on. We might use > the law, we might use politics, we might use technology. In all of those > cases - it starts with us and an investment of our time and with us > believing that we might make such changes in *ourselves* first. > > I reject that you cannot do it - this handbook is for you - so the first > step - how do we know things in the book are good or bad? Do they make > sense? Are they true? Are they technically accurate? How do we know what > any of those things mean anyway? > > Until we have self-professed people who "cannot" do these things helping > to evaluate any handbook at hand - that book probably isn't reaching the > target audience and achieving a key stated goal: empowering people > through technology. > > I am more than happy to help edit the book in solidarity but not if the > goal is to preach or to argue as a vanguard. If the goal is to empower, > we will not do it by relying on such a vanguard. That is why we have so > many problems today - the vanguard is often wrong - that is why most of > the applications are badly programmed, not encrypted, log excessively, > and so on. That same kind of vanguard structure is why the laws are all > kinds of messed up. > > So how will we empower people with technology? I think we will do it by > relying on you Asher - so if you commit to learn, I'll commit to > contribute. If we all work together, we'll find that we all have > something to contribute and that critiques are due all around. > > I'm sorry if what I said previously was frustrating or upsetting to anyone. > > All the best, > Jake > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
