The problem is: US citizens can't (legally) contribute to OSS crypto projects. Why is this so hard for people to comprehend? Can't at all, period, even one character, by definition.
Will someone PLEASE post a mirror of the story so those behind cookie-disabling proxies can read it? (The ultimate solution is to NOT use cookie-required stories! How come/. hasn't caught on to that yet?)
Agreed. When I first followed the link in question, it was rather content-free, with the majority of the content being in the HTML comment. Now however, I revisited the site and find a good deal of (IMO) inaccurate information, which I find disconcerting.
"the tremendous work others have put into understanding how surveillance systems really work."
Again, agreed. Without the research of others, most educators in any field would have no material to teach their students. You obviously had greater exposure to this particular group than I however, since I was unaware of the (IMO) inaccuracies in their presentation.
"The conversation about surveillance regimes should be smarted up, not dumbed down."
But here I am torn.
This is certainly true in a topic where awareness is already at least marginally present in the majority of affected people. I feel that is, sadly, not the case here yet. What is worse, many otherwise-intelligent people dismiss the topic as "another of those computer techie things" and similar. Until we reach the point where the majority care about the issue, I believe there is a need to "hook" them, with discussion that won't be dismissed as "too technical" (or "irrelevant" by those not willing to admit they find it "too technical." I suspect many of the cries of "More Consipracy Theorists Again" come from people who find the material too intimidating for serious examination.)
Until the majority have learned to care, I think there is a valid place for both tactics.
In my years of activism, I have learned to speak in sound bites when interviewed at rallies and similar. John Q. Sixpack will not listen once bored, and needs to become invested in the subject matter in the first few seconds or can be considered "lost."
At the same time, I have learned that informative and credible content is important when talking with U.S. Senators on live television, since John Q. Cocktail (?) recognizes accurate and articulate presentation, and recognizes the subsequent backpedalling on the part of an otherwise-articulate politician. (BTW, the latter was quite enjoyable from my perspective, indeed!;-))
One could even say my last two paragraphs are something akin to my saying "See, I know what I'm talking about, believe me." And I suppose, in a sense, that would be accurate.:-) But the intent is to provide illustrations of the two principles each having their place in an overall campaign of public education, i.e., "consciousness raising."
(Broadcast) conversation with Senators draws a more intellectual audience and warrants a more intellectual coverage of the subject matter. Speaking to a news camera for the evening news warrants a more simplistic vocalization of the issues, since the target audience is comprised of a less-intellectual ilk, for the most part.
Each situation is intended to publicize the subject matter, but each has a different method, since each has a different intended target, with different characteristics. At present, with regard to the issue of government surveillance, I feel the overall American public to be on the level of John Q. Sixpack rather than John Q. Cocktail (in the examples above.) (Other countries will differ of course.) The one-day event strikes me as being on the order of a rally, a media-crafted event, intended for coverage on the evening news (even though the web site regrettably claims it is to actually overwhelm the Echelon project, which I feel is a ludicrous expectation.) As such, I feel a certain degree of "dumbing down" is warranted.
Had the intent of the event been to trigger discussion here on Slashdot, less dumbing down would certainly have been in order, and significantly greater accuracy would be imperative. (I happen to believe accuracy to be needed at any level, even when looking for the brief news clip, but that's me. heh)
While I am also guilty of dumbing down my usual discourse here on Slashdot, it is certainly a more intelligent forum than many which John Q. Sixpack would frequent. (I am trying to walk a tightrope between honesty and sounding elitist here.) Intellectual capacity here is greater than in front of most televisions, especially if the subject matter is technical. The simplistic comments necessary to "hook" John Q. Sixpack are likely to be flamed here, quite frankly. (Hence my view that this forum require a bit of dumbing down to reach, at least on non-technical matters.) I suspect there is a spectrum of appropriate content levels needed in covering this subject, since there are so many different venues the discussion should reach, if we are to saturate the apporpriate information channels.
After all, there are so many people affected.:-)
Once more people have learned to care about the issue, and have bothered to absorb the basic concepts, much of the dumbing down will no longer be necessary. It is sad that we are not there yet.
-=-=-=-=-=-
I hope I managed to convey both sides of an issue upon which I am genuinely torn. (Normally, I am opposed to the "dumbing down" I see in mass media.) In the process, I realize I gave "them" the ability to say "Yep, rallies, senators, he's the same guy we thought he was!" heheheh
"The site must be down already. There is no other information than this."
I too saw that (and thought to use \ (SOURCE) in lynx before the comments posted here about that) but it appears the site has changed drastically since earlier. You may want to revisit the site (and force a reload, if cached) Ms. Anonymous Coward. There is content now and abundant links.
You mean like those people in the 1770s that took out their guns and shot at the representatives of the government that was in power at that time, because they didn't like what that government was doing? That kind of patriotic?
"Since project Echelon rises above the USA's (official) territory (by definition), why not make it a World Jam Echelon Day?"
If you follow the link given, you will see that it is called "Jam Echelon Day" there, with no "National" limitation. It was only the link on/. that added the "national" part for some reason. (C'mon Hemos,. don't be US-centric.)
These days, any form of activism involves events intended to disseminate your message to as broad a base of listeners as is possible. Whether we like it or not, this generally includes specifically-crafted "media events" targetted toward being picked up by mass-market information disseminators, such as the news media.
Like it or not, at this point in time, the general populus still is either unaware or unconcerned about the steady erosions of their online (and offline) privacies and the increasing trend of Orwellian monitoring of even the most simple interchanges by Three Letter Agencies and others.
A one-day action certainly isn't going to overwhelm the NSA's filesystems, and I am certain no one actually believes that it would. But it does have merit nonetheless. In a sense, it enables "the little guy" to feel a sense of empowerment by making an (admittedly token) gesture, somewhat akin to making obscene gestures at surreptitious surveillance cameras. Obviously this doesn't directly change the underlying problem, except in the small measure that the individual is that much more likely to take a slightly larger "rebellious" action the next time. Don't forget that so-called resistive actions are frequently the precursors to more active (and effective) attempts to effect change of the undesirable situation. (Think, "baby steps.")
More importantly, these events bring the subject to the forefront of conversation. How many water cooler conversations might happen in offices thoughout the land, somewhat like this, the day after a similar event gets national coverage on the ubiquitous evening news?
"Hey, you're into computers; did you see that thing on the news last night about how we can prevent the government from spying on us by jamming their computers?"
"Well, actually, it's more like this...."
At this point, an accurate explanation (in nontechnical terms if needed) can be made of the various issues, such as how to actually effect change via contacting representative government.
This also provides the opportunity to educate those with recently-awakened awareness of the issues to the importance of routine use of strong cryptography, since it is one of the most effective means of ensuring privacy against such Orwellian systems. Providing a link to GNU Privacy Guard (or even its less-free predecessor you mentioned) as well as an offer of assistance in setting it up, or acting as a mentor, will go a long way toward acheiving the goal of widespread use of cryptography being the norm, rather than the exception.
Oddly enough, your post here on Slashdot is indication that the "Jam Echelon Day" event succeeded, at least from my perspective. The story is covered here, and will generate discussion, hence awareness of the underlying issues is being increased, with opportunity for followup discussion. Obviously, being picked up both other major information dissemination channels will increase the effectiveness.
Emacsen's Mx-spook and its ilk may not directly affect the NSA, but indirect effects via increased public awareness are likely. An idealist would say that Echelon can be ended through the process of representative government. A realist may doubt that, and feel Echelon can be ended only by making it no longer cost-effective, due to the routine use of strong cryptography. Either way, the first step is to bring the issue to the eyes of the populus, as often as possible.
Again, again, again, this does NO good for those behind cookie-filtering proxies, or who choose to disallow cookies for personal (and diverse) reasons. NYT sites are highly undesireable for/., IMO.
You neglect to mention one important fact. The wine is *good* wine! Here is a perfect example of product quality winning out over marketing clout. (Walter "Bully Hill" T. : PepsiCo:: Linux : Win*)
Because geographic orientation is foolish. Society is no longer tied to birthplace these days, except perhaps in backwoods areas. Of course, your solution also fails to address the case of the "John Smiths" out there. Many of us were cursed with common names.
Here is the reality test: if you're running a project and someone sends you a patch, will you stop to enquire whether that person is a member of the correct faction before you apply it? I don't think so...
Lazarus replies:
I'm sorry, but that scenario actually happened to me.
I submitted a patch to an upstream author, who wouldn't accept it because I had GPL'd my patch. Ultimately, the solution was that I chose to dual-license the patch, "like Perl," and it was accepted and included in the next release.
It is amazing to me to see how many sexist comments have been made here, by people who probably feel their comments are anything but sexist.
Why must supposedly-intelligent people view their world in simplistic dualities anyway? Must everything be us-vs-them to be comprehensible? Pick any significant characteristic of "some people" and I'll have no trouble naming five of either gender that possess that characteristic. (Obviously "possesses {gender-specific part}" isn't eligible for inclusion.)
I'll keep this short, so as to keep rant-mode off. Anything else would undoubtably enter into the realm of ridiculing what others had said already.
"Voila! Now all printed documents are tracable to the printer.
Sounds similar to the "we nailed the big bad virus writer" method used by tracking electronic files generated by {some closed-source app whose name I've forgotten} in the news not all that long ago.:-/
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is: US citizens can't (legally) contribute to OSS crypto projects. Why is this so hard for people to comprehend? Can't at all, period, even one character, by definition.
Who cares? Quite frankly, I do.
The US citizens who WANT to (legally) contribute to OSS crypto projects are the ones who suffer here.
Will someone PLEASE post a mirror of the story so those behind cookie-disabling proxies can read it? (The ultimate solution is to NOT use cookie-required stories! How come /. hasn't caught on to that yet?)
"the two approches aren't mutually exclusive"
Agreed. When I first followed the link in question, it was rather content-free, with the majority of the content being in the HTML comment. Now however, I revisited the site and find a good deal of (IMO) inaccurate information, which I find disconcerting.
"the tremendous work others have put into understanding how surveillance systems really work."
Again, agreed. Without the research of others, most educators in any field would have no material to teach their students. You obviously had greater exposure to this particular group than I however, since I was unaware of the (IMO) inaccuracies in their presentation.
"The conversation about surveillance regimes should be smarted up, not dumbed down."
But here I am torn.
This is certainly true in a topic where awareness is already at least marginally present in the majority of affected people. I feel that is, sadly, not the case here yet. What is worse, many otherwise-intelligent people dismiss the topic as "another of those computer techie things" and similar. Until we reach the point where the majority care about the issue, I believe there is a need to "hook" them, with discussion that won't be dismissed as "too technical" (or "irrelevant" by those not willing to admit they find it "too technical." I suspect many of the cries of "More Consipracy Theorists Again" come from people who find the material too intimidating for serious examination.)
Until the majority have learned to care, I think there is a valid place for both tactics.
In my years of activism, I have learned to speak in sound bites when interviewed at rallies and similar. John Q. Sixpack will not listen once bored, and needs to become invested in the subject matter in the first few seconds or can be considered "lost."
At the same time, I have learned that informative and credible content is important when talking with U.S. Senators on live television, since John Q. Cocktail (?) recognizes accurate and articulate presentation, and recognizes the subsequent backpedalling on the part of an otherwise-articulate politician. (BTW, the latter was quite enjoyable from my perspective, indeed! ;-))
One could even say my last two paragraphs are something akin to my saying "See, I know what I'm talking about, believe me." And I suppose, in a sense, that would be accurate. :-) But the intent is to provide illustrations of the two principles each having their place in an overall campaign of public education, i.e., "consciousness raising."
(Broadcast) conversation with Senators draws a more intellectual audience and warrants a more intellectual coverage of the subject matter. Speaking to a news camera for the evening news warrants a more simplistic vocalization of the issues, since the target audience is comprised of a less-intellectual ilk, for the most part.
Each situation is intended to publicize the subject matter, but each has a different method, since each has a different intended target, with different characteristics. At present, with regard to the issue of government surveillance, I feel the overall American public to be on the level of John Q. Sixpack rather than John Q. Cocktail (in the examples above.) (Other countries will differ of course.) The one-day event strikes me as being on the order of a rally, a media-crafted event, intended for coverage on the evening news (even though the web site regrettably claims it is to actually overwhelm the Echelon project, which I feel is a ludicrous expectation.) As such, I feel a certain degree of "dumbing down" is warranted.
Had the intent of the event been to trigger discussion here on Slashdot, less dumbing down would certainly have been in order, and significantly greater accuracy would be imperative. (I happen to believe accuracy to be needed at any level, even when looking for the brief news clip, but that's me. heh)
While I am also guilty of dumbing down my usual discourse here on Slashdot, it is certainly a more intelligent forum than many which John Q. Sixpack would frequent. (I am trying to walk a tightrope between honesty and sounding elitist here.) Intellectual capacity here is greater than in front of most televisions, especially if the subject matter is technical. The simplistic comments necessary to "hook" John Q. Sixpack are likely to be flamed here, quite frankly. (Hence my view that this forum require a bit of dumbing down to reach, at least on non-technical matters.) I suspect there is a spectrum of appropriate content levels needed in covering this subject, since there are so many different venues the discussion should reach, if we are to saturate the apporpriate information channels.
After all, there are so many people affected. :-)
Once more people have learned to care about the issue, and have bothered to absorb the basic concepts, much of the dumbing down will no longer be necessary. It is sad that we are not there yet.
-=-=-=-=-=-
I hope I managed to convey both sides of an issue upon which I am genuinely torn. (Normally, I am opposed to the "dumbing down" I see in mass media.) In the process, I realize I gave "them" the ability to say "Yep, rallies, senators, he's the same guy we thought he was!" heheheh
"The site must be down already. There is no other information than this."
I too saw that (and thought to use \ (SOURCE) in lynx before the comments posted here about that) but it appears the site has changed drastically since earlier. You may want to revisit the site (and force a reload, if cached) Ms. Anonymous Coward. There is content now and abundant links.
"red-blooded patriotic American"
You mean like those people in the 1770s that took out their guns and shot at the representatives of the government that was in power at that time, because they didn't like what that government was doing? That kind of patriotic?
PS: cheek, tongue
"Since project Echelon rises above the USA's (official) territory (by definition), why not make it a World Jam Echelon Day?"
If you follow the link given, you will see that it is called "Jam Echelon Day" there, with no "National" limitation. It was only the link on /. that added the "national" part for some reason. (C'mon Hemos,. don't be US-centric.)
"I'm suprised that no one has mentioned M-x spook in Emacs yet."
Actually, "someone" did. Here"Anyway, I think most of my non-geek acquaintances would find it rather strange with all those spooky words at the end of every mail. :-)"
Exactly! That gives you the opportunity to educate them on the issues. That is the whole point after all, is it not?
"Obviously, being picked up both other major information dissemination channels will increase the effectiveness."
s/both/by/
"What preview button?" ;-)
These days, any form of activism involves events intended to disseminate your message to as broad a base of listeners as is possible. Whether we like it or not, this generally includes specifically-crafted "media events" targetted toward being picked up by mass-market information disseminators, such as the news media.
Like it or not, at this point in time, the general populus still is either unaware or unconcerned about the steady erosions of their online (and offline) privacies and the increasing trend of Orwellian monitoring of even the most simple interchanges by Three Letter Agencies and others.
A one-day action certainly isn't going to overwhelm the NSA's filesystems, and I am certain no one actually believes that it would. But it does have merit nonetheless. In a sense, it enables "the little guy" to feel a sense of empowerment by making an (admittedly token) gesture, somewhat akin to making obscene gestures at surreptitious surveillance cameras. Obviously this doesn't directly change the underlying problem, except in the small measure that the individual is that much more likely to take a slightly larger "rebellious" action the next time. Don't forget that so-called resistive actions are frequently the precursors to more active (and effective) attempts to effect change of the undesirable situation. (Think, "baby steps.")
More importantly, these events bring the subject to the forefront of conversation. How many water cooler conversations might happen in offices thoughout the land, somewhat like this, the day after a similar event gets national coverage on the ubiquitous evening news?
- "Hey, you're into computers; did you see that thing on the news last night about how we can prevent the government from spying on us by jamming their computers?"
- "Well, actually, it's more like this...."
At this point, an accurate explanation (in nontechnical terms if needed) can be made of the various issues, such as how to actually effect change via contacting representative government.This also provides the opportunity to educate those with recently-awakened awareness of the issues to the importance of routine use of strong cryptography, since it is one of the most effective means of ensuring privacy against such Orwellian systems. Providing a link to GNU Privacy Guard (or even its less-free predecessor you mentioned) as well as an offer of assistance in setting it up, or acting as a mentor, will go a long way toward acheiving the goal of widespread use of cryptography being the norm, rather than the exception.
Oddly enough, your post here on Slashdot is indication that the "Jam Echelon Day" event succeeded, at least from my perspective. The story is covered here, and will generate discussion, hence awareness of the underlying issues is being increased, with opportunity for followup discussion. Obviously, being picked up both other major information dissemination channels will increase the effectiveness.
Emacsen's Mx-spook and its ilk may not directly affect the NSA, but indirect effects via increased public awareness are likely. An idealist would say that Echelon can be ended through the process of representative government. A realist may doubt that, and feel Echelon can be ended only by making it no longer cost-effective, due to the routine use of strong cryptography. Either way, the first step is to bring the issue to the eyes of the populus, as often as possible.
george w bush and cocaine perhaps?
Again, again, again, this does NO good for those behind cookie-filtering proxies, or who choose to disallow cookies for personal (and diverse) reasons. NYT sites are highly undesireable for /., IMO.
So you are proposing the use of an immoral Universal IDentifier that so many of us have been fighting for years? Sheesh!
.per? .ind? Hello! Can you say "John Smith"? (Am I the only one who sees this obvious aspect?)
You neglect to mention one important fact. The wine is *good* wine! Here is a perfect example of product quality winning out over marketing clout. (Walter "Bully Hill" T. : PepsiCo :: Linux : Win*)
Because geographic orientation is foolish. Society is no longer tied to birthplace these days, except perhaps in backwoods areas. Of course, your solution also fails to address the case of the "John Smiths" out there. Many of us were cursed with common names.
and none of them work for those whose upstream proxies filter cookies! :( PLEASE no more NYT articles!
"www.rainbowLinux.org"
This site perhaps? I can attest it is by a real Rainbow OSS user/coder/advocate.Lazarus replies:
I'm sorry, but that scenario actually happened to me.
I submitted a patch to an upstream author, who wouldn't accept it because I had GPL'd my patch. Ultimately, the solution was that I chose to dual-license the patch, "like Perl," and it was accepted and included in the next release.
It is amazing to me to see how many sexist comments have been made here, by people who probably feel their comments are anything but sexist.
Why must supposedly-intelligent people view their world in simplistic dualities anyway? Must everything be us-vs-them to be comprehensible? Pick any significant characteristic of "some people" and I'll have no trouble naming five of either gender that possess that characteristic. (Obviously "possesses {gender-specific part}" isn't eligible for inclusion.)
I'll keep this short, so as to keep rant-mode off. Anything else would undoubtably enter into the realm of ridiculing what others had said already.
"...and 90% of the public never objects."
That's the real problem, however I believe the percentage is sadly much higher. :-(
"Voila! Now all printed documents are tracable to the printer.
Sounds similar to the "we nailed the big bad virus writer" method used by tracking electronic files generated by {some closed-source app whose name I've forgotten} in the news not all that long ago. :-/
Thanks for a well-spoken post.
You learned how to subvert the system.