[liberationtech] New approach with Android Router to bypass GFW
Hi all, i just wanted to send a notice to the list about a project still not very known within the privacy/anonymity/censorship environment that's called FQRouter: http://fqrouter.com/ That's a novel approach to bypass GFW by using some of the low-level TCP hacking techniques from Philip Winter (pwr) [1] and from Claudio Agosti (vecna) [2], by creating a very easy-to-use access point using a cheap Android Phone. Fqrouter blog is at http://fqrouter.tumblr.com/ (it's in chinese, see it with google translate) and code is at https://github.com/fqrouter/fqrouter . I think that this is a very valuable approach that could, in the long term, pose serious threat to the GFW due to the need of the chinese to introduce very strong statefull reassembly technologies in order to detect and block those kind of bypass techniques (that means requiring an order of magnitude of more computation resources respect to current simple, stateless firewall). I invite people to look at that project and look for cooperation with that guy as it really seems to me a promising approach! -- Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) HERMES - Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights http://logioshermes.org - http://globalekas.org - http://tor2web.org [1] brdgrd https://github.com/NullHypothesis/brdgrd [2] Sniffjoke http://www.delirandom.net/sniffjoke/ -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] FYI Random Hacks of Kindness ... Fwd: RHoK Community Newsletter
At the local level I see lots of coders with a more or less open community interest that includes open government and working with community orgs or residents directly with the coding skills. So, if you don't have a CfA Brigade in your area, you might want to look for a RHoK group - http://www.rhok.org - (or a media focused Hack and Hackers - http://hackshackers.com - group) in your area. And with major events like hosting a local CityCamp - http://citycamp.com - or a local event with the National Day of Civic Hacking - http://hackforchange.org - developing local connections among these efforts has lots of potential. Steve Steven Clift - http://stevenclift.com Executive Director - http://E-Democracy.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/democracy Tel/Text: +1.612.234.7072 -- Forwarded message -- From: RHoK nore...@rhok.org Date: Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:00 AM Subject: RHoK Community Newsletter To: Steven cl...@publicus.net ** Random Hacks of Kindness June 2013 is approaching! Lots of exciting developments for the RHoK community. Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browserhttp://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0ef0d52d2ba4a113c6ab64f11id=6986a8a2b4e=b40dbd9a26. * *http://rhok.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ef0d52d2ba4a113c6ab64f11id=22dd21f153e=b40dbd9a26 Like RandomHackshttp://rhok.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ef0d52d2ba4a113c6ab64f11id=f05a162d72e=b40dbd9a26on Facebook! Apply for your June 2013 License to RHoK Today! The June 1-2 2013 RHoK Global Hackathon is quickly approaching. Sign up to host an event in your city today.http://rhok.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0ef0d52d2ba4a113c6ab64f11id=65ad2bfca2e=b40dbd9a26 OR Attend a RHoK locationhttp://rhok.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ef0d52d2ba4a113c6ab64f11id=b387672819e=b40dbd9a26near you! RHoK Comes of Age As the RHoK community has matured, it has become clear to sponsors and volunteers alike, that self-governance and democratic decision making by the community is the only path forward that will ensure the continued expansion of the volunteer base, the long term success of the project’s mission and push the boundaries of the hackathon model. With this in mind, we are proud to announce that throughout 2013 the RHoK Core Team will be facilitating the transition of strategic decision making over to the RHoK community. What will this transition look like? That's up to you! We are formally inviting the entire RHoK community to participate in the successful transition to self-governance. There are many details to be decided upon and we are confident that we can 'hack' the RHoK model. If you are interested in getting involved in this exciting process, please send a request to thea.aldr...@rhok.org. http://rhok.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0ef0d52d2ba4a113c6ab64f11id=cfb22f01afe=b40dbd9a26 RHoK US Participates in National Day of Civic Hacking During the June 2013 Random Hacks of Kindness event, many US-based locations will be participating in the National Day of Civic Hackinghttp://rhok.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0ef0d52d2ba4a113c6ab64f11id=e649ac0b1ae=b40dbd9a26. The event will bring together citizens, software developers, and entrepreneurs from all over the America to collaboratively create, build, and invent new solutions using publicly-released data, code and technology to solve challenges relevant to our neighborhoods, our cities, our states and our country. The event will leverage the expertise and entrepreneurial spirit of those outside federal, state and local government to drive meaningful, technology-based solutions for federal, state and local government. While this event is officially occurring in US cities, RHoK would like to encourage all locations to reach out to their local government agencies to solicit problem definitions and data sets that can be utilized during your hackathon. YOU can make a difference no matter where you live! http://rhok.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ef0d52d2ba4a113c6ab64f11id=1ebf2709dbe=b40dbd9a26 RHoK Introduces Office Hours Have you ever had a question or comment about RHoK and wished you could get an answer immediately? Well, we are now one step closer to that reality with the introduction of RHoK Office Hours. If you are a SKYPE user, please add us at *randomhacks*, our new official Skype account. This account will be online and open for live chatting through June 2013. Please feel free to ping us with your questions, comments or just to say hi! If these time do not work for your schedule, please email thea.aldr...@rhok.org to set up an appointment. *RHoK Office Hours Schedule* Monday 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm GMT Wednesday 8:00 pm - 10:00 pm GMT Friday 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm GMT Schoolhouse RHoK It was only a matter of time before hacking for humanity became an all ages endeavor. With this goal in mind, Fraser Woods Montessori School in Newtown, CT is presenting RHoK
[liberationtech] Online Collective Action and Policy Change - Special issue of 'Policy Internet': Now published
Sorry for cross-posting --- Now Published: ‘Online Collective Action and Policy Change’ - Special Issue of “Policy and Internet Guest Editors: Andrea Calderaro (European University Institute) and Anastasia Kavada (University of Westminster) Abstract The Internet has multiplied the platforms available to influence public opinion and policy making. It has also provided citizens with a greater capacity for coordination and mobilisation, which can strengthen their voice and representation in the policy agenda. As waves of protest sweep both authoritarian regimes and liberal democracies, this rapidly developing field calls for more detailed enquiry. However, research exploring the relationship between online mobilisation and policy change is still limited. This special issue of ‘Policy and Internet’ addresses this gap through a variety of perspectives. Contributions to this issue view the Internet both as a tool that allows citizens to influence policy making, and as an object of new policies and regulations, such as data retention, privacy, and copyright laws, around which citizens are mobilising. Together, these articles offer a comprehensive empirical account of the interface between online collective action and policy making. You can find the issue here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/poi3.v5.1/issuetoc and more information about it on the OII Policy Internet blog: - Introducing its contents: http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/policy/?p=854 - Framing the issue : http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/policy/?p=869http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/policy/?p=869#more-869 Table of Contents 1. Editorial: “Challenges and Opportunities of Online Collective Action for Policy Change” Andrea Calderaro and Anastasia Kavada 2. Networked Collective Action and the Institutionalized Policy Debate: Bringing Cyberactivism to the Policy Arena? Stefania Milan and Arne Hintz 3. Digital Protest Skills and Online Activism Against Copyright Reform in France and the European Union Yana Breindl and François Briatte 4. Activism and the Online Mediation Opportunity Structure: Attempts to Impact Global Climate Change Policies? Julie Uldam 5. Online Campaigning Organizations and Storytelling Strategies: GetUp! in Australia Ariadne Vromen and William Coleman 6. Hyperlinks as Political Resources: The European Commission Confronted with Online Activism Romain Badouard and Laurence Monnoyer-Smith 7. The Domestication of Open Government Data Advocacy in the United Kingdom: A Neo-Gramscian Analysis Jo Bates --- Andrea Calderaro, PhD | European University Institute Center for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom | European University Institute Chair Internet and Politics Standing Group - European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) NEWS: Guest Editor Policy and Internet special issue: Online Collective Action and Policy Change: http://bit.ly/XpQGSy --- Personal Page: www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/calderaro/http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/calderaro/ Twitter: @andreacalderaro [cid:image002.gif@01CD029E.D0C67DD0] Please, safe paper: do not print this email The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] [CCM-L] Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too)-nytimes
- Forwarded message from Rangraj Setlur rang...@gmail.com - From: Rangraj Setlur rang...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:23:33 +0530 To: International Critical Care Medicine Group cc...@list.pitt.edu Subject: [CCM-L] Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too)-nytimes Reply-To: International Critical Care Medicine Group cc...@list.pitt.edu Scientific Articles Accepted (Personal Checks, Too) By GINA KOLATAhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/gina_kolata/index.html The scientists who were recruited to appear at a conference called Entomology-2013 thought they had been selected to make a presentation to the leading professional association of scientists who study insects. But they found out the hard way that they were wrong. The prestigious, academically sanctioned conference they had in mind has a slightly different name: Entomology 2013 (without the hyphen). The one they had signed up for featured speakers who were recruited by e-mail, not vetted by leading academics. Those who agreed to appear were later charged a hefty fee for the privilege, and pretty much anyone who paid got a spot on the podium that could be used to pad a résumé. “I think we were duped,” one of the scientists wrote in an e-mail to the Entomological Society. Those scientists had stumbled into a parallel world of pseudo-academia, complete with prestigiously titled conferences and journals that sponsor them. Many of the journals and meetings have names that are nearly identical to those of established, well-known publications and events. Steven Goodman, a dean and professor of medicine at Stanford and the editor of the journal Clinical Trials, which has its own imitators, called this phenomenon “the dark side of open access,” the movement to make scholarly publications freely available. The number of these journals and conferences has exploded in recent years as scientific publishing has shifted from a traditional business model for professional societies and organizations built almost entirely on subscription revenues to open access, which relies on authors or their backers to pay for the publication of papers online, where anyone can read them. Open access got its start about a decade ago and quickly won widespread acclaim with the advent of well-regarded, peer-reviewed journals like those published by the Public Library of Science, known as PLoShttp://www.plos.org/. Such articles were listed in databases like PubMedhttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/pubmed.html, which is maintained by the National Library of Medicine, and selected for their quality. But some researchers are now raising the alarm about what they see as the proliferation of online journals that will print seemingly anything for a fee. They warn that nonexperts doing online research will have trouble distinguishing credible research from junk. “Most people don’t know the journal universe,” Dr. Goodman said. “They will not know from a journal’s title if it is for real or not.” Researchers also say that universities are facing new challenges in assessing the résumés of academics. Are the publications they list in highly competitive journals or ones masquerading as such? And some academics themselves say they have found it difficult to disentangle themselves from these journals once they mistakenly agree to serve on their editorial boards. The phenomenon has caught the attention of Nature, one of the most competitive and well-regarded scientific journals. In a news reporthttp://www.nature.com/news/specials/scipublishing/index.htmlpublished recently, the journal noted “the rise of questionable operators” and explored whether it was better to blacklist them or to create a “white list” of those open-access journals that meet certain standards. Nature included a checklist on “how to perform due diligence before submitting to a journal or a publisher.” Jeffrey Beall, a research librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, has developed his own blacklist http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/of what he calls “predatory open-access journals.” There were 20 publishers on his list in 2010, and now there are more than 300. He estimates that there are as many as 4,000 predatory journals today, at least 25 percent of the total number of open-access journals. “It’s almost like the word is out,” he said. “This is easy money, very little work, a low barrier start-up.” Journals on what has become known as “Beall’s list” generally do not post the fees they charge on their Web sites and may not even inform authors of them until after an article is submitted. They barrage academics with e-mail invitations to submit articles and to be on editorial boards. One publisher on Beall’s list, Avens Publishing Group, even sweetened the pot for those who agreed to be on the editorial board of The Journal of Clinical Trails Patenting, offering 20 percent of its revenues to each editor. One of the most prolific publishers on
[liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences
From: Nathaniel Poor natp...@gmail.com http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html The scientists who were recruited to appear at a conference called Entomology-2013 thought they had been selected to make a presentation to the leading professional association of scientists who study insects. But they found out the hard way that they were wrong This has been a problem for a while, but now it's big enough to be a newspaper story. --- Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D. http://natpoor.blogspot.com/ https://sites.google.com/site/natpoor/ -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences
Indeed, this would be a problem. However, it's already a problem, which is to say that poorer universities cannot afford subscriptions to EBSCO and whatnot to begin with, and thus their faculty have trouble keeping up with research in comparison to those at richer schools. What I'm suggesting here could at least alleviate this problem, because richer schools would subsidize /access/ to research. Moreover, I'm imagining that the cost of pay-to-publish would be far lower than for-profit schemes like TF and Elsevier, thus enabling poorer school's libraries to save money and actually increase their faculty's ability to do research (assuming that's their mission). However, I don't have numbers on this, so I could be wrong. - Rob Gehl On 04/08/2013 11:52 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: The problem with this is that faculty from wealthier universities will have much more capability to publish than faculty from less wealthy universities. And those who can get their work supported by those with money have an upper hand of getting more information out than those who do not have their work supported. There is already enough of this in grants perhaps. Maybe we could envision something like low cost subscriptions so that individuals or universities could pay a small fee to journals they use a lot. This works well on a number of political blogs. Michael From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] on behalf of LISTS [li...@robertwgehl.org] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:45 PM To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Or, potentially, university libraries could shift from buying subscriptions to paying for their university faculty's publication fees. If the ultimate product is an open access publication, then the issue isn't paying for access, but rather paying to produce the public good. - Rob Gehl On 04/08/2013 11:42 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Publishing may be dirt cheap but any systematic/formal e.g. academic publishing isn't free... So the problem is that while there is a necessary and valuable shift from commercial publishing (and outrageous profiteering) to open access online publishing there really aren't any good business models yet to cover the (much less but not totally trivial) costs of the new forms of academic publishing. If for whatever reason (and there are lots including the issues pointed to here) one doesn't want to go to a pay for play model that leaves advertising(???) or donations (???) or... M -Original Message- From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Brooks Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:34 AM To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences It's not curious. It is accurate. As the funding model moved from subscribers paying for access to authors paying for publication, the financial incentives changed as well. The loosening of standards is an obvious consequence of this decision. The question of how best to publish quality academic information is non-trivial. Like the question of where to get quality current affairs information. It will take a while for things to adjust to the ability of the Internet to make publishing dirt-cheap. On 04/08/2013 12:19 PM, James Losey wrote: I think it's curious how this article frames the journals as open access rather than a more appropriate pay to play On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Yosem Companys compa...@stanford.edu mailto:compa...@stanford.edu wrote: From: Nathaniel Poor natp...@gmail.com mailto:natp...@gmail.com http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-w orld-of-pseudo-academia.html The scientists who were recruited to appear at a conference called Entomology-2013 thought they had been selected to make a presentation to the leading professional association of scientists who study insects. But they found out the hard way that they were wrong This has been a problem for a while, but now it's big enough to be a newspaper story. --- Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D. http://natpoor.blogspot.com/ https://sites.google.com/site/natpoor/ -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu mailto:compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech --
Re: [liberationtech] Online Collective Action and Policy Change - Special issue of 'Policy Internet': Now published
On 4/8/13 3:21 PM, Calderaro, Andrea wrote: Sorry for cross-posting * * *---* *Now Published: * *'Online Collective Action and Policy Change' - **Special Issue of Policy and Internet * *Guest Editors: * *Andrea Calderaro *(European University Institute) and *Anastasia Kavada *(University of Westminster) /Abstract/ The Internet has multiplied the platforms available to influence public opinion and policy making. It has also provided citizens with a greater capacity for coordination and mobilisation, which can strengthen their voice and representation in the policy agenda. As waves of protest sweep both authoritarian regimes and liberal democracies, this rapidly developing field calls for more detailed enquiry. However, research exploring the relationship between online mobilisation and policy change is still limited. This special issue of 'Policy and Internet' addresses this gap through a variety of perspectives. Contributions to this issue view the Internet both as a tool that allows citizens to influence policy making, and as an object of new policies and regulations, such as data retention, privacy, and copyright laws, around which citizens are mobilising. Together, these articles offer a comprehensive empirical account of the interface between online collective action and policy making. You can find the issue here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/poi3.v5.1/issuetoc and more information about it on the OII Policy Internet blog: - Introducing its contents:http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/policy/?p=854 - Framing the issue : http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/policy/?p=869 http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/policy/?p=869#more-869 *Table of Contents* 1. Editorial: Challenges and Opportunities of Online Collective Action for Policy Change Andrea Calderaro and Anastasia Kavada 2. Networked Collective Action and the Institutionalized Policy Debate: Bringing Cyberactivism to the Policy Arena? Stefania Milan and Arne Hintz 3. Digital Protest Skills and Online Activism Against Copyright Reform in France and the European Union Yana Breindl and François Briatte 4. Activism and the Online Mediation Opportunity Structure: Attempts to Impact Global Climate Change Policies? Julie Uldam 5. Online Campaigning Organizations and Storytelling Strategies: GetUp! in Australia Ariadne Vromen and William Coleman 6. Hyperlinks as Political Resources: The European Commission Confronted with Online Activism Romain Badouard and Laurence Monnoyer-Smith 7. The Domestication of Open Government Data Advocacy in the United Kingdom: A Neo-Gramscian Analysis Jo Bates --- Andrea Calderaro, PhD | European University Institute Center for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom | European University Institute Chair Internet and Politics Standing Group - European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) NEWS: Guest Editor Policy and Internet special issue: Online Collective Action and Policy Change: http://bit.ly/XpQGSy --- Personal Page: www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/calderaro/ http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/calderaro/ Twitter: @andreacalderaro Please, safe paper: do not print this email The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech And it is paywalled? -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences
The model that most appeals to me at the moment is one that has been talked about for years by Doug Engelbart and others: Researchers publish in open access repositories whose costs are modest and can be funded through grants and institutional cost-sharing. Light moderation classifies articles for appropriateness in categories proposed by the authors. Secondary sites with their own reputations publish reviews, recommendations, and ratings, with trackbacks on the host repository, and these influence reading and citing by other researchers. The infrastructure for this largely exists already (arXiv, SSRN, etc.). Journals, in this environment, would become part of the post-publication review process, giving up the right of exclusivity, and would sink or swim based on whatever funding model they have. Todd Todd Davies *** email: dav...@stanford.edu Symbolic Systems Program *** phone: 1-650-723-4091 Stanford University *** fax: 1-650-723-5666 Stanford, CA, 94305-2150 *** web: www.stanford.edu/~davies USA *** office: 460-040C On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, LISTS wrote: Indeed, this would be a problem. However, it's already a problem, which is to say that poorer universities cannot afford subscriptions to EBSCO and whatnot to begin with, and thus their faculty have trouble keeping up with research in comparison to those at richer schools. What I'm suggesting here could at least alleviate this problem, because richer schools would subsidize access to research. Moreover, I'm imagining that the cost of pay-to-publish would be far lower than for-profit schemes like TF and Elsevier, thus enabling poorer school's libraries to save money and actually increase their faculty's ability to do research (assuming that's their mission). However, I don't have numbers on this, so I could be wrong. - Rob Gehl On 04/08/2013 11:52 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: The problem with this is that faculty from wealthier universities will have much more capability to publish than faculty from les s wealthy universities. And those who can get their work supported by those with money have an upper hand of getting more inform ation out than those who do not have their work supported. There is already enough of this in grants perhaps. Maybe we could e nvision something like low cost subscriptions so that individuals or universities could pay a small fee to journals they use a lo t. This works well on a number of political blogs. Michael From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] on behalf of LISTS [lists@robertwgehl .org] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:45 PM To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Or, potentially, university libraries could shift from buying subscriptions to paying for their university faculty's publication fees. If the ultimate product is an open access publication, then the issue isn't paying for access, but rather paying to produce the public good. - Rob Gehl On 04/08/2013 11:42 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Publishing may be dirt cheap but any systematic/formal e.g. academic publishing isn't free... So the problem is that while there is a necessary and valuable shift from commercial publishing (and outrageous profiteering) to open access online publishing there really aren't any good business models yet to cover the (much less but not totally trivial) costs of the new forms of academic publishing. If for whatever reason (and there are lots including the issues pointed to here) one doesn't want to go to a pay for play model that leaves advertising(???) or donations (???) or... M -Original Message- From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Brooks Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:34 AM To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences It's not curious. It is accurate. As the funding model moved from subscribers paying for access to authors paying for publication, the financial incentives changed as well. The loosening of standards is an obvious consequence of this decision. The question of how best to publish quality academic information is non-trivial. Like the question of where to get quality current affairs information. It will take a while for things to adjust to the ability of the Internet to make publishing dirt-cheap. On 04/08/2013 12:19 PM, James Losey wrote: I think it's curious how this article frames the journals as open access rather than a more appropriate pay to play On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Yosem Companys compa...@stanford.edu mailto:compa...@stanford.edu wrote: From: Nathaniel Poor natp...@gmail.com
Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences
Part of the problem is the use of publications to drive academic retention, tenure, promotion. Publications should be vetted by a set of peers that only allow publication of quality goods. The journals are supposed to be the gate-keepers and enforcers of quality. This means that the people trying to publish have an incentive to publish as much as they can. Having the authors pay gives the supposed gatekeepers an economic incentive to publish more and lower quality. If costs are not paid by the subscribers (who should in principle only pay for quality goods) then it is hard to find a model that is going to keep the bar high enough. Professional societies (IEEE, ACM, etc.) can probably maintain quality in this scenario. But that decreases the number of journals and the amount of available info... On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I'm wondering whether some global equivalent of the copyright collection societies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective might not work although they would need to be updated to reflect current issues around CC and related licensing… Richer institutionscould pay in for access to Open Access journals perhaps on a pay per usage basis and given a relatively modest cost structure for OA journals this might be sufficient to cover operating costs on a Robin Hood basis for poorer and LDC libraries. …just a thought. M *From:*liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of *LISTS *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 10:58 AM *To:* liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu *Subject:* Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Indeed, this would be a problem. However, it's already a problem, which is to say that poorer universities cannot afford subscriptions to EBSCO and whatnot to begin with, and thus their faculty have trouble keeping up with research in comparison to those at richer schools. What I'm suggesting here could at least alleviate this problem, because richer schools would subsidize /access/ to research. Moreover, I'm imagining that the cost of pay-to-publish would be far lower than for-profit schemes like TF and Elsevier, thus enabling poorer school's libraries to save money and actually increase their faculty's ability to do research (assuming that's their mission). However, I don't have numbers on this, so I could be wrong. - Rob Gehl On 04/08/2013 11:52 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: The problem with this is that faculty from wealthier universities will have much more capability to publish than faculty from less wealthy universities. And those who can get their work supported by those with money have an upper hand of getting more information out than those who do not have their work supported. There is already enough of this in grants perhaps. Maybe we could envision something like low cost subscriptions so that individuals or universities could pay a small fee to journals they use a lot. This works well on a number of political blogs. Michael From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] on behalf of LISTS [li...@robertwgehl.org mailto:li...@robertwgehl.org] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:45 PM To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu mailto:liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Or, potentially, university libraries could shift from buying subscriptions to paying for their university faculty's publication fees. If the ultimate product is an open access publication, then the issue isn't paying for access, but rather paying to produce the public good. - Rob Gehl On 04/08/2013 11:42 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Publishing may be dirt cheap but any systematic/formal e.g. academic publishing isn't free... So the problem is that while there is a necessary and valuable shift from commercial publishing (and outrageous profiteering) to open access online publishing there really aren't any good business models yet to cover the (much less but not totally trivial) costs of the new forms of academic publishing. If for whatever reason (and there are lots including the issues pointed to here) one doesn't want to go to a pay for play model that leaves advertising(???) or donations (???) or... M -Original Message- From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu
[liberationtech] Cloud encryption
I imagine people here might have thoughts about this. Comes from a Texas-based, civil liberties-oriented blog. Encryption for cloud communications may best protect Fourth Amendment rights via Grits for Breakfast by Gritsforbreakfast on 4/6/13 http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/04/encryption-for-cloud-communications-may.html Says readwrite mobile: With government requests for personal data on the rise, there are few guarantees in place that you or I won't have our private communications snooped through. Since the Fourth Amendment hasn't yet caught up with the lightning fast pace of technological change, some of the best privacy protections are often the ones implemented by tech companies themselves. Well put. The comment comes in response to a DEA complaint that encryption on the Apple iPhone's chat services made them indecipherable, even with a warrant. Continued writer John Paul Titlow: By architecting iMessage the way it did, Apple created a messaging protocol more secure and private than standard text messages, which is how millions of people communicate every day. As we fire those texts back and forth, we're all creating a digital trail that can be snooped upon or hacked more easily than we care to think about. But if they're being and sent and received from iPhones running iOS 5 or later, those messages are invisible to wiretaps by law enforcement or other prying eyes. Apple didn't have to build iMessage with end-to-end encryption. Gmail isn't encrypted this way, nor are the Facebook messages that are increasingly used like texts on mobile devices. Clearly, SMS text messages aren't particularly well-secured either. Whether winning privacy points was its motivation or not, Apple definitely racks up a few for this. Legislation like Texas Rep. Jon Stickland's HB 3164 to require warrants to access electronic communications is one way to protect privacy for third-party facilitated communications, but a far more effective one would be if Gmail, Facebook, and other major providers encrypted user messages. Those companies may or may not have an economic incentive to do so, but they're arguably in a better position in many cases than legislatures or the courts to protect privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. Frank SmythExecutive DirectorGlobal Journalist Securityfrank@journalistsecurity.netTel. + 1 202 244 0717Cell + 1 202 352 1736Twitter: @JournoSecurityWebsite: www.journalistsecurity.netPGP Public Key -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences
Oh-dear! Up to now, I have figured that the Internet revolution was mostly a good thing... The shakeup of the news paper industry at first seemed like it might help to open up Journalism to in some way perhaps more democratic... As I read here about potential confusion regarding the reputability of Journals... I sense cause for serious worry. ..Most of all for small just starting out journals that have all the intention to establish them selves as reputable. These well intending newer publications will now find them swamped by disreputable competitors that threaten to drag down the whole intellectual publication infrastructure. As for my own disposition as self educated individual, (who does not yet have letters behind his name)... I am truly frightened, as publication of my work in a reputable journal... in the end is all that I might might hope for... So the very last thing any of us would need would be for a sense of confusion as to what journals are considered reputable in the greater public eye... I'm not sure what actions Stanford might help take as an institution that clearly has a stake in the health of the academic publication industry Perhaps along with other institutions forming a fairly decisive advisory board would be good maybe something can be done before the whole pier reviewed publication system begins to falter? -- Peter L On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Richard Brooks r...@acm.org wrote: Part of the problem is the use of publications to drive academic retention, tenure, promotion. Publications should be vetted by a set of peers that only allow publication of quality goods. The journals are supposed to be the gate-keepers and enforcers of quality. This means that the people trying to publish have an incentive to publish as much as they can. Having the authors pay gives the supposed gatekeepers an economic incentive to publish more and lower quality. If costs are not paid by the subscribers (who should in principle only pay for quality goods) then it is hard to find a model that is going to keep the bar high enough. Professional societies (IEEE, ACM, etc.) can probably maintain quality in this scenario. But that decreases the number of journals and the amount of available info... On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I'm wondering whether some global equivalent of the copyright collection societies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective might not work although they would need to be updated to reflect current issues around CC and related licensing… Richer institutionscould pay in for access to Open Access journals perhaps on a pay per usage basis and given a relatively modest cost structure for OA journals this might be sufficient to cover operating costs on a Robin Hood basis for poorer and LDC libraries. …just a thought. M *From:*liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of *LISTS *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 10:58 AM *To:* liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu *Subject:* Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Indeed, this would be a problem. However, it's already a problem, which is to say that poorer universities cannot afford subscriptions to EBSCO and whatnot to begin with, and thus their faculty have trouble keeping up with research in comparison to those at richer schools. What I'm suggesting here could at least alleviate this problem, because richer schools would subsidize /access/ to research. Moreover, I'm imagining that the cost of pay-to-publish would be far lower than for-profit schemes like TF and Elsevier, thus enabling poorer school's libraries to save money and actually increase their faculty's ability to do research (assuming that's their mission). However, I don't have numbers on this, so I could be wrong. - Rob Gehl On 04/08/2013 11:52 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: The problem with this is that faculty from wealthier universities will have much more capability to publish than faculty from less wealthy universities. And those who can get their work supported by those with money have an upper hand of getting more information out than those who do not have their work supported. There is already enough of this in grants perhaps. Maybe we could envision something like low cost subscriptions so that individuals or universities could pay a small fee to journals they use a lot. This works well on a number of political blogs. Michael From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu mailto: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [ liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu mailto: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] on behalf of LISTS [ li...@robertwgehl.org mailto:li...@robertwgehl.org]
Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences
If we'd all stop using the verb publish when we really mean endorse, much conversation on this topic would be clearer. (Not aimed at anyone here, by the way; just a general observation :-) .) -Karl Richard Brooks r...@acm.org writes: Part of the problem is the use of publications to drive academic retention, tenure, promotion. Publications should be vetted by a set of peers that only allow publication of quality goods. The journals are supposed to be the gate-keepers and enforcers of quality. This means that the people trying to publish have an incentive to publish as much as they can. Having the authors pay gives the supposed gatekeepers an economic incentive to publish more and lower quality. If costs are not paid by the subscribers (who should in principle only pay for quality goods) then it is hard to find a model that is going to keep the bar high enough. Professional societies (IEEE, ACM, etc.) can probably maintain quality in this scenario. But that decreases the number of journals and the amount of available info... On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I'm wondering whether some global equivalent of the copyright collection societies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective might not work although they would need to be updated to reflect current issues around CC and related licensing… Richer institutionscould pay in for access to Open Access journals perhaps on a pay per usage basis and given a relatively modest cost structure for OA journals this might be sufficient to cover operating costs on a Robin Hood basis for poorer and LDC libraries. …just a thought. M *From:*liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of *LISTS *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 10:58 AM *To:* liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu *Subject:* Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Indeed, this would be a problem. However, it's already a problem, which is to say that poorer universities cannot afford subscriptions to EBSCO and whatnot to begin with, and thus their faculty have trouble keeping up with research in comparison to those at richer schools. What I'm suggesting here could at least alleviate this problem, because richer schools would subsidize /access/ to research. Moreover, I'm imagining that the cost of pay-to-publish would be far lower than for-profit schemes like TF and Elsevier, thus enabling poorer school's libraries to save money and actually increase their faculty's ability to do research (assuming that's their mission). However, I don't have numbers on this, so I could be wrong. - Rob Gehl On 04/08/2013 11:52 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: The problem with this is that faculty from wealthier universities will have much more capability to publish than faculty from less wealthy universities. And those who can get their work supported by those with money have an upper hand of getting more information out than those who do not have their work supported. There is already enough of this in grants perhaps. Maybe we could envision something like low cost subscriptions so that individuals or universities could pay a small fee to journals they use a lot. This works well on a number of political blogs. Michael From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] on behalf of LISTS [li...@robertwgehl.org mailto:li...@robertwgehl.org] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:45 PM To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu mailto:liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Or, potentially, university libraries could shift from buying subscriptions to paying for their university faculty's publication fees. If the ultimate product is an open access publication, then the issue isn't paying for access, but rather paying to produce the public good. - Rob Gehl On 04/08/2013 11:42 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Publishing may be dirt cheap but any systematic/formal e.g. academic publishing isn't free... So the problem is that while there is a necessary and valuable shift from commercial publishing (and outrageous profiteering) to open access online publishing there really aren't any good business models yet to cover the (much less but not totally trivial) costs of the new forms of academic publishing. If for whatever reason (and there are lots including the issues pointed to here) one doesn't want to go to a pay for
