So, does this have any bearing on the discussion? - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html
Or are we just partial to the US surveillance over PRC. The article does mention SSL, VPNs and 4G security. They even have a "Key recovery service" and it's been going on for a long while apparently, to the point that the NSA has been steering the release of encryption standards and tools. I suppose that should make the "politics of encryption" a bit less relevant? -Theo On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Erik Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Brion Vibber <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I would love to see Wikipedia content made available in China on Chinese > > infrastructure operated by a Chinese organization, with total ability to > > determine their own security and censorship policies. > > > > "But that's what Baidu did and we hate them!" you say? > > > > We could work *with* such an organization to coordinate, share content, > > etc, without compromising basic web security for our sites or giving up > our > > liberal content policies on Wikipedia "proper". > > I don't buy the argument. Last time I checked, Hudong (now just > "Baike") and Baidu Baike were the main wiki-like encyclopedias > operating out of and serving mainland China. Both use non-free > licensing terms, and both are subject to local censorship policies and > practices. That may include turning over contributors if they post > content that's deemed to be problematic by local authorities. > > At least on the surface, the projects are successful, with millions of > articles and lots of traffic. I have no idea what the quality of the > content is, but looking at an article like DNA, I'm guessing it > provides useful value to its readers: > > http://www.baike.com/wiki/DNA&prd=button_doc_jinru > > Where they are failing to do so, they can improve, if necessary by > copying Wikipedia content. But the one thing that they _cannot_ > provide, and that a neutral encyclopedia _must_ provide, is precisely > information of the kind that the Chinese government would censor. > Neutral information about people, politics and history, irrespective > of whether that information afflicts a comfortable bureaucrat > somewhere. > > I would posit a different argument. The problem of providing basic > information about any subject _is_ being solved for by local > information providers. China isn't some backwater waiting for us to > educate them about physics and disease control. The problem of > providing a neutral, uncensored encyclopedia in the Chinese language, > on the other hand, isn't being solved for by anyone but us. The answer > is not to water down our security or partner with local information > providers that allow censorship and are willing to turn over user > data. It's to find ways to get that information to people, including > the bits they'd rather have people not see. > > Erik > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
