[liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
Greetings, Though I imagine that the facebook use is significantly lower (and more judicious) among the libtech users than among a more generic tech-savvy population, this essay makes a rather good case on why quitting facebook entirely is the proper thing to do at some point - sooner rather than later. Best /P http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/25/opinion/rushkoff-why-im-quitting-facebook/index.html Why I'm quitting Facebook By Douglas Rushkoff, CNN (CNN) -- I used to be able to justify using Facebook as a cost of doing business. As a writer and sometime activist who needs to promote my books and articles and occasionally rally people to one cause or another, I found Facebook fast and convenient. Though I never really used it to socialize, I figured it was OK to let other people do that, and I benefited from their behavior. I can no longer justify this arrangement. Today, I am surrendering my Facebook account, because my participation on the site is simply too inconsistent with the values I espouse in my work. In my upcoming book Present Shock, I chronicle some of what happens when we can no longer manage our many online presences. I have always argued for engaging with technology as conscious human beings and dispensing with technologies that take that agency away. Facebook does things on our behalf when we're not even there. It actively misrepresents us to our friends, and worse misrepresents those who have befriended us to still others. To enable this dysfunctional situation -- I call it digiphrenia -- would be at the very least hypocritical. But to participate on Facebook as an author, in a way specifically intended to draw out the likes and resulting vulnerability of others, is untenable. Facebook has never been merely a social platform. Rather, it exploits our social interactions the way a Tupperware party does. Facebook does not exist to help us make friends, but to turn our network of connections, brand preferences and activities over time -- our social graphs -- into money for others. We Facebook users have been building a treasure lode of big data that government and corporate researchers have been mining to predict and influence what we buy and for whom we vote. We have been handing over to them vast quantities of information about ourselves and our friends, loved ones and acquaintances. With this information, Facebook and the big data research firms purchasing their data predict still more things about us -- from our future product purchases or sexual orientation to our likelihood for civil disobedience or even terrorism. The true end users of Facebook are the marketers who want to reach and influence us. They are Facebook's paying customers; we are the product. And we are its workers. The countless hours that we -- and the young, particularly -- spend on our profiles are the unpaid labor on which Facebook justifies its stock valuation. The efforts of a few thousand employees at Facebook's Menlo Park campus pale in comparison to those of the hundreds of millions of users meticulously tweaking their pages. Corporations used to have to do research to assemble our consumer profiles; now we do it for them. The information collected about you by Facebook through my Facebook page isn't even shared with me. Thanks to my page, Facebook knows the demographics of my readership, their e-mails, what else they like, who else they know and, perhaps most significant, who they trust. And Facebook is taking pains not to share any of this, going so far as to limit the ability of third-party applications to utilize any of this data. Given that this was the foundation for Facebook's business plan from the start, perhaps more recent developments in the company's ever-evolving user agreement shouldn't have been so disheartening. Still, we bridle at the notion that any of our updates might be converted into sponsored stories by whatever business or brand we may have mentioned. That innocent mention of cup of coffee at Starbucks, in the Facebook universe, quickly becomes an attributed endorsement of their brand. Remember, the only way to connect with something or someone is to like them. This means if you want to find out what a politician or company you don't like is up to, you still have to endorse them publicly. More recently, users -- particularly those with larger sets of friends, followers and likes -- learned that their updates were no longer reaching all of the people who had signed up to get them. Now, we are supposed to pay to promote our posts to our friends and, if we pay even more, to their friends. Yes, Facebook is entitled to be paid for promoting us and our interests -- but this wasn't the deal going in, particularly not for companies who paid Facebook for extra followers in the first place. Neither should users who friend my page automatically become the passive conduits for any of my messages to all their friends just because I paid for it. That brings me to Facebook's most recent
[liberationtech] Thoughts on expansion of WeChat in the U.S.?
Would be interested in your thoughts on what the expansion of Chinese internet tools to U.S. consumers mean for the user’s privacy? Other issues? (The article calls it “WeiChat” but that seems to be a direct translation. It is marketed in English as “WeChat”.) http://english.caijing.com.cn/2013-02-25/112528351.html Tencent Opens Office in U.S., Taking WeiChat onto Bigger Stage 02-25 16:36 Caijing WeiChat’s international strategy begun last year as Line, the Japanese messaging service came to China, home of its biggest rival. Tencent, a leading Internet company in China, is building an office in the U.S. for its popular instant message service WeiChat, a move to take the app onto a bigger stage. WeiChat, known in China as “Weixin”,said its users reached more than 300 million last month, and the fast-growing instant messaging app is poised to over take Sina Weibo--a twitter-like service in China--to be the largest social platform in China over the next few years. Weibo users topped an intimidating 500 million last month. The company’s Corporate Development Group (CDG) will open an office in the U.S. led by vice president Zhang Xiaolong whose responsibilities include building a user base and customer relations department for WeiChat in the world’s largest economy, said the company in an email sent to its staff on Monday. WeiChat begun its overseas expansion last year, when Line, the Japanese messaging service came to China, home of its biggest rival. Justin Sunza, a manager at the International Business Group (IBG) earlier said WeiChat mainly targets at Southeast Asian countries and areas including HK, Taiwan and Singapore, while the number of users in the U.S. and the Arab world is increasing fast as well. A heatmap by Chinese-oriented consultants Value 2020 showed that WeChat is gaining popularity in Malaysia with the number of users breaking one million within less than one year after it was launched. The second-most popular area for WeChat outside China is India, said the Value 2020. -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] // The 'Kill Packet' - feedback wanted //
Off the top of my head, I'd have major security concerns around this because essentially this makes it very easy for an adversary to destroy all data on a system. That said, in appropriate use cases, there's value for a kill switch or even a dead man's switch (if you don't take some action within every N hours, the device gets wiped). On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com wrote: Again, this is just a quick (1hr) sketch that could be developed into a simple Android application with a big red button, or even a swipe pattern (more discreet) that unlocks and sends the 'Kill Packet'. Security issues not addressed in the sketch would be dealt with in turn. -- Kyle Maxwell [krmaxw...@gmail.com] http://www.xwell.org Twitter: @kylemaxwell -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] // The 'Kill Packet' - feedback wanted //
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com wrote: Consider the case one has volatile data on a remote machine that needs to be removed as fast and as discretely as possible. The last thing you want to be doing is whipping out the laptop and logging in via SSH, an SFTP browser etc and manually deleting that data. Rather, it would be more convenient to just hit a single button on your phone or click a single icon that sends a network packet to the server, triggering a script that proceeds to delete your data and/or back it up to another trusted server. I think this project is roughly what you're looking for: https://github.com/qnrq/panic_bcast JC -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] Mexico's most vulnerable reporters lack digital security skills
Most Mexican journalists and bloggers reporting on highly sensitive topics (such as crime, corruption, violence and human rights issues) do not fully understand the risks and threats they face when they use digital and mobile technology, even though the topics they cover make them even more vulnerable, a new surveyhttp://www.icfj.org/resources/digital-and-mobile-security-mexican-journalists-and-bloggers by Freedom House http://www.freedomhouse.org/ and the International Center for Journalists http://www.icfj.org/ finds. http://ijnet.org/stories/mexicos-most-vulnerable-reporters-lack-digital-security-skills -- G.W. Schulz Center for Investigative Reporting Desk: 512-382-5969 E-mail: gwsch...@cironline.org About.Me/GWSchulz www.cironline.org -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
I think a subtle difference is what exactly the bargain entails. In the case of television advertising, it's a relatively straightforward exchange of your attention for entertainment. Facebook is asking for more than that. The marketing is less oppressive because they receive the addition payment of your personal information. No one really knows what that information in aggregate is worth or can be capable of achieving in the long term, so I suppose implicitly the users (at least those aware of this bargain) are betting on it being worth less than the services Facebook provides. I think Sterling is suggesting that most people are not cognizant of this trade-off and that as Facebook does more with your personal information, that trade-off becomes increasingly disfavourable compared to the relatively stagnant value of the service. On 25 February 2013 10:55, Jon Lebkowsky jon.lebkow...@gmail.com wrote: Left out a word... that should've read: I actually reject the notion... I was arguing with my own first paragraph. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jon Lebkowsky jon.lebkow...@gmail.comwrote: As Bruce Sterling was saying, from the perspective of Facebook the company, users of the system are cattle - they're product sold to advertisers. That kinda sucks, but here's the thing: Facebook is useful to its users, or they wouldn't be there. Doug is making an ideological argument, but ideologues often revel in ascetic rejection of the world and the agora. I love Doug, but I won't follow his lead here. But then (guilty admission), I also watch television. I reject the notion that Facebook users are cattle, and I'm not sure they're mere consumers. They accept a bargain, but it has benefits for them. And as with television, you learn to ignore the ads, or if not completely ignore, at least avoid being somehow enslaved by them, and as part of the bargain you're entertained. Facebook is more useful than television - I get more from the bargain and the marketing is even less oppressive. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Allucquere Rosanne Stone sa...@sandystone.com wrote: We've been on this bus before, in (perhaps) a less sophisticated incarnation. See Richard Serra and Carlota Fay Schoolman's 1973 film *Television Delivers People* http://www.ubu.com/film/serra_television.html. -sandy On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:52:14 +0100, Petter Ericson wrote: Greetings, Though I imagine that the facebook use is significantly lower (and more judicious) among the libtech users than among a more generic tech-savvy population, this essay makes a rather good case on why quitting facebook entirely is the proper thing to do at some point - sooner rather than later. Best /P http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/25/opinion/rushkoff-why-im-quitting-facebook/index.html Why I'm quitting Facebook By Douglas Rushkoff, CNN (CNN) -- I used to be able to justify using Facebook as a cost of doing business. As a writer and sometime activist who needs to promote my books and articles and occasionally rally people to one cause or another, I found Facebook fast and convenient. Though I never really used it to socialize, I figured it was OK to let other people do that, and I benefited from their behavior. I can no longer justify this arrangement. Today, I am surrendering my Facebook account, because my participation on the site is simply too inconsistent with the values I espouse in my work. In my upcoming book Present Shock, I chronicle some of what happens when we can no longer manage our many online presences. I have always argued for engaging with technology as conscious human beings and dispensing with technologies that take that agency away. Facebook does things on our behalf when we're not even there. It actively misrepresents us to our friends, and worse misrepresents those who have befriended us to still others. To enable this dysfunctional situation -- I call it digiphrenia -- would be at the very least hypocritical. But to participate on Facebook as an author, in a way specifically intended to draw out the likes and resulting vulnerability of others, is untenable. Facebook has never been merely a social platform. Rather, it exploits our social interactions the way a Tupperware party does. Facebook does not exist to help us make friends, but to turn our network of connections, brand preferences and activities over time -- our social graphs -- into money for others. We Facebook users have been building a treasure lode of big data that government and corporate researchers have been mining to predict and influence what we buy and for whom we vote. We have been handing over to them vast quantities of information about ourselves and our friends, loved ones and acquaintances. With this information, Facebook and the big data research firms purchasing their data predict still more things about us -- from our
Re: [liberationtech] // The 'Kill Packet' - feedback wanted //
..on Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:57:36PM -0600, Kyle Maxwell wrote: Off the top of my head, I'd have major security concerns around this because essentially this makes it very easy for an adversary to destroy all data on a system. In fact only selected folders defined in the script on the server can be deleted. As the code shows, there's no shell code going out in the payload.. It's true an adversary could steal your phone and aquire your unique key (which is the only thing in the payload) but this would be a risk of running the software on a phone without an encrypted hard disk. More so, as the code I posted shows any deletion on the server could trigger a backup routine over SSH (scp) to a jailed/restricted user on a remote host, deleting the server side SSH keys on completion. Setup would go something like this: 1/ User logs into https://mysite.com/killpacket.php on their server. 2/ Defines directories for deletion and backup 3/ Defines backup server, uploads a key 4/ Defines a KILLSIG/passphrase and notes it directly onto phone 5/ PHP updates deletion and backup server variables in the script or actually writes out the script directly if not SSH/CLI capable That said, in appropriate use cases, there's value for a kill switch or even a dead man's switch (if you don't take some action within every N hours, the device gets wiped). Yes, I agree! Thanks for your thoughts, Julian On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com wrote: Again, this is just a quick (1hr) sketch that could be developed into a simple Android application with a big red button, or even a swipe pattern (more discreet) that unlocks and sends the 'Kill Packet'. Security issues not addressed in the sketch would be dealt with in turn. -- Kyle Maxwell [krmaxw...@gmail.com] http://www.xwell.org Twitter: @kylemaxwell -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Julian Oliver http://julianoliver.com http://criticalengineering.org -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] // The 'Kill Packet' - feedback wanted //
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com wrote: Very nice! I would see this as a companion project as it doesn't quite do the same thing - it's whole disk focused rather than on deletion of directories themselves (which could be followed with a reboot cycle and killing the journal on EXT3/4). I agree it's not exactly what you requested, but it is rather easily patchable: https://github.com/qnrq/panic_bcast/blob/master/panic_bcast.py#L79-L84 At least you have the communications thing written for you. JC -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] // The 'Kill Packet' - feedback wanted //
..on Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 08:22:27PM +0100, Jens Christian Hillerup wrote: On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com wrote: Very nice! I would see this as a companion project as it doesn't quite do the same thing - it's whole disk focused rather than on deletion of directories themselves (which could be followed with a reboot cycle and killing the journal on EXT3/4). I agree it's not exactly what you requested, but it is rather easily patchable: https://github.com/qnrq/panic_bcast/blob/master/panic_bcast.py#L79-L84 At least you have the communications thing written for you. A great reference, thanks! I have the comm pretty much sorted on the server side (the sketch I posted functions) and would use something like Android's ServerSocket(port) on Android for the outgoing TCP4 packet client side. Cheers, -- Julian Oliver http://julianoliver.com http://criticalengineering.org -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] CNN writer on leaving Facebook
In case anyone's interested, I've written about this before too: my 10 reasons to leave Facebook. http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/10-reasons-to-leave-facebook/ There's quite a lot of stuff written on this in the academic world. Paul Dr Paul Bernal Lecturer UEA Law School University of East Anglia Norwich Research Park Norwich NR4 7TJ email: paul.ber...@uea.ac.ukmailto:paul.ber...@uea.ac.uk Web: http://www.paulbernal.co.uk/ Blog: http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @paulbernalUK On 25 Feb 2013, at 19:03, Raven Jiang CX j...@stanford.edumailto:j...@stanford.edu wrote: I think a subtle difference is what exactly the bargain entails. In the case of television advertising, it's a relatively straightforward exchange of your attention for entertainment. Facebook is asking for more than that. The marketing is less oppressive because they receive the addition payment of your personal information. No one really knows what that information in aggregate is worth or can be capable of achieving in the long term, so I suppose implicitly the users (at least those aware of this bargain) are betting on it being worth less than the services Facebook provides. I think Sterling is suggesting that most people are not cognizant of this trade-off and that as Facebook does more with your personal information, that trade-off becomes increasingly disfavourable compared to the relatively stagnant value of the service. On 25 February 2013 10:55, Jon Lebkowsky jon.lebkow...@gmail.commailto:jon.lebkow...@gmail.com wrote: Left out a word... that should've read: I actually reject the notion... I was arguing with my own first paragraph. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jon Lebkowsky jon.lebkow...@gmail.commailto:jon.lebkow...@gmail.com wrote: As Bruce Sterling was saying, from the perspective of Facebook the company, users of the system are cattle - they're product sold to advertisers. That kinda sucks, but here's the thing: Facebook is useful to its users, or they wouldn't be there. Doug is making an ideological argument, but ideologues often revel in ascetic rejection of the world and the agora. I love Doug, but I won't follow his lead here. But then (guilty admission), I also watch television. I reject the notion that Facebook users are cattle, and I'm not sure they're mere consumers. They accept a bargain, but it has benefits for them. And as with television, you learn to ignore the ads, or if not completely ignore, at least avoid being somehow enslaved by them, and as part of the bargain you're entertained. Facebook is more useful than television - I get more from the bargain and the marketing is even less oppressive. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Allucquere Rosanne Stone sa...@sandystone.commailto:sa...@sandystone.com wrote: We've been on this bus before, in (perhaps) a less sophisticated incarnation. See Richard Serra and Carlota Fay Schoolman's 1973 film Television Delivers People http://www.ubu.com/film/serra_television.html. -sandy On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:52:14 +0100, Petter Ericson wrote: Greetings, Though I imagine that the facebook use is significantly lower (and more judicious) among the libtech users than among a more generic tech-savvy population, this essay makes a rather good case on why quitting facebook entirely is the proper thing to do at some point - sooner rather than later. Best /P http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/25/opinion/rushkoff-why-im-quitting-facebook/index.html Why I'm quitting Facebook By Douglas Rushkoff, CNN (CNN) -- I used to be able to justify using Facebook as a cost of doing business. As a writer and sometime activist who needs to promote my books and articles and occasionally rally people to one cause or another, I found Facebook fast and convenient. Though I never really used it to socialize, I figured it was OK to let other people do that, and I benefited from their behavior. I can no longer justify this arrangement. Today, I am surrendering my Facebook account, because my participation on the site is simply too inconsistent with the values I espouse in my work. In my upcoming book Present Shock, I chronicle some of what happens when we can no longer manage our many online presences. I have always argued for engaging with technology as conscious human beings and dispensing with technologies that take that agency away. Facebook does things on our behalf when we're not even there. It actively misrepresents us to our friends, and worse misrepresents those who have befriended us to still others. To enable this dysfunctional situation -- I call it digiphrenia -- would be at the very least hypocritical. But to participate on Facebook as an author, in a way specifically intended to draw out the likes and resulting vulnerability of others, is untenable. Facebook has never been merely a social platform. Rather, it exploits our social interactions the way a Tupperware party does. Facebook
[liberationtech] NYTimes: How Mexico Got Back In The Game
*From: *Patrick Kane Zambrano [pka...@gmail.com] I want to share a short article from the NYTimes. Last week I had great pleasure and fortune to speak with Thomas Friedman in a round table discussion on Mexico’s past, present and future. Today, Thomas Friedman’s NYTimes column “How Mexico Got Back In The Game”http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-mexico-got-back-in-the-game.html?hpw_r=0 makes note of Mexico’s progress amidst the challenges it has confronted in years past – opening of its markets, global economic downturn and drug violence – Mexico emerges resilient and well poised for growth for years to come. Tom also makes reference to work I, along with a dedicated group of folks in Monterrey, have been pushing hard on at CIC.MX http://www.cic.mx – leveraging technology to enable citizen participation and collaboration with government. It's a hyper-connected world we live in today (e.g., ubiquitous connectivity, proliferated access to affordable computing – cloud and mobile). It is fertile ground for innovation and an opportune moment for re-imagining every aspect of the world we live in... all that is needed is to step in and shape it. Exciting times lie ahead. I hope you enjoy the article! Saludos! PKZ-- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] NYC Remailer Event, Grants, HK Summit
A few items from the folks at OpenITP: *March 18 | NYC Event * *Remailers: a Tool for Anonymous Email ** *Tom Ritter will discuss how remailers work, what systems are available, their status and current issues, and whether they are still relevant. The presentation is part of Techno-Activism 3rd Mondays NYC. Tacos and beer will be served. RSVP: http://hacktivism.eventbrite.com/ *OpenITP Grants: * Just a reminder that OpenITP is accepting proposals for their first round of 2013 project funding. Project grants are meant to support specific technical efforts to improve users' ability to circumvent censorship and surveillance on the Internet. The application process is short and easy. http://openitp.org/?q=openitp_first_round_of_2013_project_funding_now_open_for_proposals *CTS III Travel Grant App Deadline: Feb 27* Travel grant applications for the Circumvention Tech Summit III are due Feb. 27. The summit will take place in Hong Kong on April 26-28. http://openitp.org/?q=node/32 -- *Sandra Ordonez* *Web Astronaut* (503)866-2697 @Collaboracion *Visual Me*: https://www.vizify.com/sandra-ordonez *Website:* www.collaborativenation.com Helping you rock out in the virtual, collaborative world. Need a website, digital strategy, social media help, or a open space workshop facilitator? Contact me! * * -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Mexico's most vulnerable reporters lack digital security skills
I'm curious how the infosec community, particularly those of us who speak and write Spanish, can assist in helping Mexican activists and journalists. I understand that a large portion of that community actively exchanges data on Twitter; any pointers would be appreciated. Feel free to contact me off-list if desired. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:02 PM, G.W. Schulz gwschul...@gmail.com wrote: Most Mexican journalists and bloggers reporting on highly sensitive topics (such as crime, corruption, violence and human rights issues) do not fully understand the risks and threats they face when they use digital and mobile technology, even though the topics they cover make them even more vulnerable, a new survey by Freedom House and the International Center for Journalists finds. http://ijnet.org/stories/mexicos-most-vulnerable-reporters-lack-digital-security-skills -- Kyle Maxwell [krmaxw...@gmail.com] http://www.xwell.org Twitter: @kylemaxwell -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] APT1s GLASSES – Watching a Human Rights Organization
Hi Lib Tech The Citizen Lab's Seth Hardy has authored a new research post, APT1s GLASSES – Watching a Human Rights Organization, which analyzes some malware targeting civil society that relates to data in the much discussed Mandiant report. Key Findings • Malware (“GLASSES”) sent in 2010 is a simple downloader that is closely related to the GOGGLES malware described by Mandiant in their APT1 report. • GLASSES was sent in a highly targeted email to a Tibetan human rights organization, demonstrating that APT1 is involved in more than just industrial and corporate espionage, with attacks against civil society actors documented as early as almost three years ago. • The methods and infrastructure of this attack are consistent with those described in Mandiant’s APT1 report, e.g., spear phishing against an English-speaking target, having an infrastructure of compromised machines for malware distribution and C2 operation. • The GLASSES sample analyzed shares a large percentage of code and an operational C2 server with a GOGGLES sample, indicating that they are from the same source. • The GOGGLES sample we discovered that communicates to the shared C2 server is not exactly the same as described in the Mandiant report, indicating that GLASSES may be a variant of GOGGLES, and that the software has been used while under active development. Link here for those interested in the further and complete details: https://citizenlab.org/2013/02/apt1s-glasses-watching-a-human-rights-organization/ Regards Ron Ronald J. Deibert Professor of Political Science Director, The Canada Centre for Global Security Studies and The Citizen Lab Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto r.deib...@utoronto.ca http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] Looking for collaborators for free-range voting project at Knight News Challenge:
From: Michael Allan m...@zelea.com I'm seeking collaborators for a Knight News Challenge proposal. As Steven mentions, this year's challenge is, How might we improve the way citizens and governments interact? https://www.newschallenge.org/ Below is a rough draft of the proposal. My own contribution to this would be to bring in Votorola as a technical provider for the mirroring network. We'd need at least one other such provider, plus some organizational support (in part because there's financing if we win). The submission deadline is March 18. Please let me know if you can help. My contact details are at: http://zelea.com/ PROJECT TITLE Free-range voting MAIN IMAGE http://zelea.com/project/outcast/vomir.png DESCRIPTION This is a proposal to apply the technology of vote mirroring in order to forestall a monopoly in the provision of online voting services. Online voting and its innovations are important to the field of participatory democracy. You might think that opening up the source code of a voting facility would be sufficient to ensure that the facility itself stays free and open, but that is not true. Voting is prone to network effects. It's like a telephone service in this regard. If I plug my telephone into a different network than everyone else is using, then it isn't going to work. Having a copy of the source code won't help. Unless something is done to tame the broader network effects, then online voters (like telephone customers before them) will become locked into the services of a dominant provider. The solution proposed here is vote mirroring. Votes cast at facility A are mirrored at facilities B, C, and so forth. This involves copying each vote and translating it from the format of the source facility (A) to that of the mirroring facility (B, C, etc.). Voting methods may differ hugely and the translation may therefore entail a degree of information loss, making for an imperfect image. Such imperfections cannot invalidate the overall technique, however, because a best effort at an image is always a better reflection of reality than no image at all. The upshot is that each facility now gets all the votes and can show the truest possible picture of the overall results. It no longer matters where I cast my own vote, because it shows up everywhere regardless. So I can range freely across all the available facilities and settle on whichever best suits my personal needs and preferences. Never again can I be trapped by a particular provider. We are [names of signatory providers and other supporting organizations]. Together we plan to build a lightweight mirroring network to loosely interconnect our various voting facilities. We'll begin with voting forms that are fully public; those are the simplest to handle and they allow for unrestricted technical freedom among providers. We'll work out the problems and gain experience with the technology. An immediate benefit will be to reduce the expectation of network effects that has long poisoned relations among technical providers and hampered their development work. Small projects will no longer be forced to devote scarce resources to attempts at tipping an unstable balance in their own favour. Instead, we may expect an improvement in the professional climate of the field and an increase in its attractiveness to talent, and other resources. WHAT IS YOUR PROJECT? (1 sentence max) To apply the technology of vote mirroring in order to forestall the formation of a monopoly in the provision of online voting services, improve the professional climate in the field of participatory democracy, and heighten its appeal as a career prospect for talented people. LINKS http://zelea.com/w/User:ThomasvonderElbe_GmxDe/Vote_mirroring http://zelea.com/w/User_talk:ThomasvonderElbe_GmxDe/Vote_mirroring http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/Vote_mirroring_as_a_counter-monopoly_measure ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Vote mirroring is the invention of Thomas von der Elbe. See: http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2009-December/000215.html The latest copy of this draft is at: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Michael_Allan/Knight -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/-- 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
