"I think it should actually be possible to break the law."
August 1, 2016 6:38 PM Subscribe
The Anarchist Sailor “Imagine if there were an alternate dystopian reality where law enforcement was 100 percent effective, such that any potential offenders knew they would be immediately identified, apprehended, and jailed,” he wrote. “How could people have decided that marijuana should be legal, if nobody had ever used it? How could states decide that same-sex marriage should be permitted?”
How could people have decided that marijuana should be legal, if nobody had ever used it
Marijuana wasn't always illegal.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:02 PM on August 1, 2016 [27 favorites]
Marijuana wasn't always illegal.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:02 PM on August 1, 2016 [27 favorites]
My God yes.
Why are there so many cowards?
posted by grobstein at 7:11 PM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why are there so many cowards?
posted by grobstein at 7:11 PM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Everybody has something to hide... except John Lennon and his monkey.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:12 PM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:12 PM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Can't know iff'n you don't take to murder iff'n you don't try it.
posted by wotsac at 7:14 PM on August 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by wotsac at 7:14 PM on August 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
Hello, sailor!
posted by octobersurprise at 7:14 PM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by octobersurprise at 7:14 PM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
How could people have decided that marijuana should be legal, if nobody had ever used it? How could states decide that same-sex marriage should be permitted?
Emigration and immigration are good ways for learning these things without breaking any laws, unfortunately no-one wants to listen to people who have the most experience with various ways of doing things (because those people are immigrants) so they're generally a wasted resource.
posted by -harlequin- at 7:17 PM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Emigration and immigration are good ways for learning these things without breaking any laws, unfortunately no-one wants to listen to people who have the most experience with various ways of doing things (because those people are immigrants) so they're generally a wasted resource.
posted by -harlequin- at 7:17 PM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Pilot studies.
posted by amtho at 7:20 PM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by amtho at 7:20 PM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
How could states decide that same-sex marriage should be permitted?
This makes no sense. There was no actual same-sex marriage in the US until same-sex marriage was made legal. There was no need to break the law, and there was no way to break the law, since marriage in the sense that's relevant for "legalizing same-sex marriage" is a legal contract recognized by the state. Same-sex marriage was made legal by states because they recognized that gay people should have the same rights as straight people.
Not saying he doesn't have a point in general, but this is a horrible example.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 7:21 PM on August 1, 2016 [28 favorites]
This makes no sense. There was no actual same-sex marriage in the US until same-sex marriage was made legal. There was no need to break the law, and there was no way to break the law, since marriage in the sense that's relevant for "legalizing same-sex marriage" is a legal contract recognized by the state. Same-sex marriage was made legal by states because they recognized that gay people should have the same rights as straight people.
Not saying he doesn't have a point in general, but this is a horrible example.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 7:21 PM on August 1, 2016 [28 favorites]
This is true but nitpicky. Homosexual "sodomy" was a felony in every US state until 1962.
posted by grobstein at 7:37 PM on August 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by grobstein at 7:37 PM on August 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
If you haven't watched his sailing movie, do yourself a favor.
posted by alex_skazat at 7:40 PM on August 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by alex_skazat at 7:40 PM on August 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
OK so I have spent much of my life just outside the circle of Radical Anarchist Activists who are Doing Cool Things, for whatever reasons, never actually being of them. This has led me to a life of being kind of grumpy and feeling left out a lot, but let me seize on what little glitter my anarcho-adjacent life has dappled on me, by sharing my Moxie Marlinspike story:
For a second he was dating my roommate. I recall him coming by the house a couple times, drinking some kind of horrible orange juice and malt liquor cocktail, and telling the following anecdote, which perhaps was featured on one of his autobiographical audio documentaries, I don't know:
Once, he said, he developed some alarming skin discoloration on his neck. Time passed, and noticing that it didn't go away, and was in fact growing darker and maybe bigger, he sought out a doctor. Increasingly worried, he finally secured and attended the appointment, with a dermatologist I believe. After giving the doctor the full history, how long he had had this problem, when it came on, what he had tried to do about etc, the doctor moistened a cotton ball with some rubbing alcohol, and with one firm swipe, cleaned the patch of what turned out to be grime off his neck, and then threw the cotton ball in Moxie's face and yelled, "Take a bath!" before stomping out of the office. I assume Moxie Marlinspike would approve the sharing of this story.
On one hand, I instinctually found him to be incredibly annoying: like the personification of boyzone, macho, white/anarcho/masculine ethics and ego all wrapped up in one under-bathed dude who was trying to mack on my roommate. A humble-bragging, aggrandizing, space sucking up anarchist Batman, or I guess, Joker. I don't know why all the Bay Area anarchists got into boats at a certain point, but suffice to say, Moxie Marlinspike was not the only patch-wearing, white-dread-having, pierced youngster on the sea. Anarchists are in my book an oddly conformist bunch, I guess we all like to be near like, and the self impressed vibe he projects is... annoying to me.
On the other hand, watching his work over the years, again from the outside of those in the know, I am certainly glad and grateful that there are those out there who tell Twitter to fuck their million dollars off, and who are actively, verbally, meaningfully working against the encroaching Surveillance State. In particular, Moxie Marlinspike seems to have a lot of really wise analysis about politics, economics, history and as I'm seeing in this article, about the whole idea of law and legality. I'm listening to his boat movie in the background and I think he is a good storyteller - there's a lot to be said for telling stories.
I wish we had more models, that you could fight this shit without playing an extra from a Neil Stephenson novel. I am so bummed that many of the biggest players in privacy and, oddly related, busting open redacted and secret records weren't a bunch of fucking bros. But at this point I will certainly take the Neil Stephenson characters over the central casting villains that are running the show.
In the mean time I'll light a candle for Chelsea Manning, or better yet send a donation.
posted by latkes at 8:19 PM on August 1, 2016 [50 favorites]
For a second he was dating my roommate. I recall him coming by the house a couple times, drinking some kind of horrible orange juice and malt liquor cocktail, and telling the following anecdote, which perhaps was featured on one of his autobiographical audio documentaries, I don't know:
Once, he said, he developed some alarming skin discoloration on his neck. Time passed, and noticing that it didn't go away, and was in fact growing darker and maybe bigger, he sought out a doctor. Increasingly worried, he finally secured and attended the appointment, with a dermatologist I believe. After giving the doctor the full history, how long he had had this problem, when it came on, what he had tried to do about etc, the doctor moistened a cotton ball with some rubbing alcohol, and with one firm swipe, cleaned the patch of what turned out to be grime off his neck, and then threw the cotton ball in Moxie's face and yelled, "Take a bath!" before stomping out of the office. I assume Moxie Marlinspike would approve the sharing of this story.
On one hand, I instinctually found him to be incredibly annoying: like the personification of boyzone, macho, white/anarcho/masculine ethics and ego all wrapped up in one under-bathed dude who was trying to mack on my roommate. A humble-bragging, aggrandizing, space sucking up anarchist Batman, or I guess, Joker. I don't know why all the Bay Area anarchists got into boats at a certain point, but suffice to say, Moxie Marlinspike was not the only patch-wearing, white-dread-having, pierced youngster on the sea. Anarchists are in my book an oddly conformist bunch, I guess we all like to be near like, and the self impressed vibe he projects is... annoying to me.
On the other hand, watching his work over the years, again from the outside of those in the know, I am certainly glad and grateful that there are those out there who tell Twitter to fuck their million dollars off, and who are actively, verbally, meaningfully working against the encroaching Surveillance State. In particular, Moxie Marlinspike seems to have a lot of really wise analysis about politics, economics, history and as I'm seeing in this article, about the whole idea of law and legality. I'm listening to his boat movie in the background and I think he is a good storyteller - there's a lot to be said for telling stories.
I wish we had more models, that you could fight this shit without playing an extra from a Neil Stephenson novel. I am so bummed that many of the biggest players in privacy and, oddly related, busting open redacted and secret records weren't a bunch of fucking bros. But at this point I will certainly take the Neil Stephenson characters over the central casting villains that are running the show.
In the mean time I'll light a candle for Chelsea Manning, or better yet send a donation.
posted by latkes at 8:19 PM on August 1, 2016 [50 favorites]
marriage in the sense that's relevant for "legalizing same-sex marriage" is a legal contract recognized by the state
Alternatively, forming lifelong bonds of loving partnership is a phenomenon which predates the modern nation-state. People got married before the state took an interest. People got married even though the state tried to stop them, and refused to recognize their rights. "What God hath joined together let not man separate."
This is not hypothetical. Elaine Vautour & Anne Vautour, Joe Varnell & Kevin Bourassa bent/broke the law to get themselves married contrary to law (via reading of the banns), and the government's failure to issue them marriage certificates provided Canadians with the test cases (2001) that got the law changed in Canada.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 8:27 PM on August 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Alternatively, forming lifelong bonds of loving partnership is a phenomenon which predates the modern nation-state. People got married before the state took an interest. People got married even though the state tried to stop them, and refused to recognize their rights. "What God hath joined together let not man separate."
This is not hypothetical. Elaine Vautour & Anne Vautour, Joe Varnell & Kevin Bourassa bent/broke the law to get themselves married contrary to law (via reading of the banns), and the government's failure to issue them marriage certificates provided Canadians with the test cases (2001) that got the law changed in Canada.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 8:27 PM on August 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Answers like "pilot studies" assume you can radically alter human nature, so that voters stop being racist, politicians cannot boost their careers with fear mongering, and prison operators quit lobbying for more prisoners. You might as well parrot some libertarian quotes about no victim-less crimes, as least such narrow ideological arguments helped move forward legalization.
Yes, politicians have listened to sense, experiment, etc. when they've exhausted all alternatives, their backs were up against the wall, and powerful lobbies ignore them, like in Portugal, but so far the normally pretty rational Germans are well behind on pot legalization.
I favor radical transparency for any armed branch of law enforcement. Yet, investigative efforts frequently require a degree of secrecy, or even anonymity, be they for law enforcement or journalistic purposes, meaning incidentally that our police should be split into separate investigative and armed organizations.
If you cannot enforce that anonymity for investigators with mathematics, then eventually you'll develop organized criminals who exploit the state's surveillance power to protect their criminal enterprise. Anyone remember the power of the MAFIA during prohibition? Anyone wonder why the SEC never has effective investigations into Goldman Sachs, etc.? Just too much information and power on the criminals' sides in both cases. There is no keeping such criminals out because they develop by virtue of the power itself.
At the level Moxie is discussing, investigating the powerful often-beloved MAFIA boss or Goldman Sachs VP whose fingers run throughout government is much like breaking the law, in that it's breaking unwritten social norms with real enforcement mechanisms. And it often leads to real world consequences for the investigator, maybe being murdered in the MAFIA case, maybe just being assigned to paper shuffling in the Goldman Sachs case, but real none the less.
Uber hired CIA-linked research firm to investigate Seattle union politics
posted by jeffburdges at 8:57 PM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, politicians have listened to sense, experiment, etc. when they've exhausted all alternatives, their backs were up against the wall, and powerful lobbies ignore them, like in Portugal, but so far the normally pretty rational Germans are well behind on pot legalization.
I favor radical transparency for any armed branch of law enforcement. Yet, investigative efforts frequently require a degree of secrecy, or even anonymity, be they for law enforcement or journalistic purposes, meaning incidentally that our police should be split into separate investigative and armed organizations.
If you cannot enforce that anonymity for investigators with mathematics, then eventually you'll develop organized criminals who exploit the state's surveillance power to protect their criminal enterprise. Anyone remember the power of the MAFIA during prohibition? Anyone wonder why the SEC never has effective investigations into Goldman Sachs, etc.? Just too much information and power on the criminals' sides in both cases. There is no keeping such criminals out because they develop by virtue of the power itself.
At the level Moxie is discussing, investigating the powerful often-beloved MAFIA boss or Goldman Sachs VP whose fingers run throughout government is much like breaking the law, in that it's breaking unwritten social norms with real enforcement mechanisms. And it often leads to real world consequences for the investigator, maybe being murdered in the MAFIA case, maybe just being assigned to paper shuffling in the Goldman Sachs case, but real none the less.
Uber hired CIA-linked research firm to investigate Seattle union politics
posted by jeffburdges at 8:57 PM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Once, he said, he developed some alarming skin discoloration on his neck. Time passed, and noticing that it didn't go away, and was in fact growing darker and maybe bigger, he sought out a doctor. Increasingly worried, he finally secured and attended the appointment, with a dermatologist I believe. After giving the doctor the full history, how long he had had this problem, when it came on, what he had tried to do about etc, the doctor moistened a cotton ball with some rubbing alcohol, and with one firm swipe, cleaned the patch of what turned out to be grime off his neck, and then threw the cotton ball in Moxie's face and yelled, "Take a bath!" before stomping out of the office. I assume Moxie Marlinspike would approve the sharing of this story.
I'm pretty sure I've heard that story too. I also find the persona... a little too on the nose? And of course fucking Wired isn't going to help that. But I've been to a talk him gave and chatted with him afterward and he's a smart guy who's doing some legit work.
posted by atoxyl at 9:16 PM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm pretty sure I've heard that story too. I also find the persona... a little too on the nose? And of course fucking Wired isn't going to help that. But I've been to a talk him gave and chatted with him afterward and he's a smart guy who's doing some legit work.
posted by atoxyl at 9:16 PM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
The story about the Doctor's visit is literally on his website, oh Sleuths of the Internet.
posted by alex_skazat at 9:20 PM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by alex_skazat at 9:20 PM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hey, sorry I didn't read his website. Not pretending to be sleuth, just riding my tiny moment of tangential interaction with the abovementioned subject of the post, for the purpose of giving my personal two cents on his personality. I know the story isn't a secret - he shared it - and apparently continues to do so - with pride!
posted by latkes at 9:26 PM on August 1, 2016
posted by latkes at 9:26 PM on August 1, 2016
At the risk of filling this entire post with my personal process, my lesson for the night is: don't talk negatively on the internet about living humans. They are real people who might read the internet themselves, and you are likely to remember the details wrong. Carry on Moxie Marlinspike and your supporters! You are a force for good!
posted by latkes at 9:47 PM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by latkes at 9:47 PM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
People need to break laws to recognize that laws are human constructions, not writs from God. That laws can be challenged and changed if they don't make lives better.
And people need privacy whether or not they're breaking the law. That bad people use privacy is no more an argument against privacy than bad people using money is an argument against money.
posted by klangklangston at 10:03 PM on August 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
And people need privacy whether or not they're breaking the law. That bad people use privacy is no more an argument against privacy than bad people using money is an argument against money.
posted by klangklangston at 10:03 PM on August 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
I've had a number of interactions with Moxie, all of them positive. More than that I use his code on a regular basis.
This definition of 'bro' meets my own understanding of the term, and couldn't be further from the Moxie that I know (albeit casually).
posted by el io at 10:04 PM on August 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
This definition of 'bro' meets my own understanding of the term, and couldn't be further from the Moxie that I know (albeit casually).
posted by el io at 10:04 PM on August 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
this is a horrible example
The argument seems in principle a very broad one, but most people want most laws enforced efficiently. It's not attractive to propose that we need to run a continuous indefinite test as to whether say, murder, fraud, etc might actually be OK. To make his argument appealing, I suppose he has to focus on cases where the law might plausibly impede desirable social change even if some of the examples don't work.
Most people would surely rather have good laws effectively enforced than bad ones you can evade? The possibility of evasion may even reduce the chance of reform (eg, maybe being able to get away with minor drug use reduces political pressure for wholesale legalisation). Good laws enforced effectively provide certainty about outcomes, whereas bad ones loosely enforced mean penalties fall more randomly, although smart, capable evaders may do well.
posted by Segundus at 12:01 AM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
The argument seems in principle a very broad one, but most people want most laws enforced efficiently. It's not attractive to propose that we need to run a continuous indefinite test as to whether say, murder, fraud, etc might actually be OK. To make his argument appealing, I suppose he has to focus on cases where the law might plausibly impede desirable social change even if some of the examples don't work.
Most people would surely rather have good laws effectively enforced than bad ones you can evade? The possibility of evasion may even reduce the chance of reform (eg, maybe being able to get away with minor drug use reduces political pressure for wholesale legalisation). Good laws enforced effectively provide certainty about outcomes, whereas bad ones loosely enforced mean penalties fall more randomly, although smart, capable evaders may do well.
posted by Segundus at 12:01 AM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
"The story about the Doctor's visit is literally on his website, oh Sleuths of the Internet."
It's also a story I well remember, as a kid in the 70's, being told about hippies. And then my father, who was a kid in the 50's, telling me he'd heard it about a local railway fireman.
It may not be apocryphal, but it's certainly not original…
posted by Pinback at 12:13 AM on August 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's also a story I well remember, as a kid in the 70's, being told about hippies. And then my father, who was a kid in the 50's, telling me he'd heard it about a local railway fireman.
It may not be apocryphal, but it's certainly not original…
posted by Pinback at 12:13 AM on August 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
“Imagine if there were an alternate dystopian reality where law enforcement was 100 percent effective, such that any potential offenders knew they would be immediately identified, apprehended, and jailed,” he wrote. “How could people have decided that marijuana should be legal, if nobody had ever used it?
I'm not sure this scenario is dystopian as reality, but only imagined so by comparing it to fascist attempts. With super justice, we wouldn't have a use for divine justice anymore (and the reams of dogma and doctrines it brings to the table). And if we didn't have rape, murder, robbery, assault, molestation, theft, and hard drugs, I doubt that marijuana laws, or any prohibitions on alcohol, would have been conceived in desperate attempts to curb actions associated with them. Freedom doesn't exist in the margins for lack of evidence, and it isn't simply the case that people are free merely because oppressors don't know what they are really up to. On the contrary, people are free because they don't want oppression, and some elites were in such a mood when they established the United States. The difficult part is knowing what hidden oppression looks like. The conservative movement in the US is currently enjoying the benefit of doubt when it comes to defining freedom, even as they mock the concept with theocratic overtones and trickle-down economics under a libertarian tax code, which is what hidden oppression looks like.
posted by Brian B. at 1:27 AM on August 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm not sure this scenario is dystopian as reality, but only imagined so by comparing it to fascist attempts. With super justice, we wouldn't have a use for divine justice anymore (and the reams of dogma and doctrines it brings to the table). And if we didn't have rape, murder, robbery, assault, molestation, theft, and hard drugs, I doubt that marijuana laws, or any prohibitions on alcohol, would have been conceived in desperate attempts to curb actions associated with them. Freedom doesn't exist in the margins for lack of evidence, and it isn't simply the case that people are free merely because oppressors don't know what they are really up to. On the contrary, people are free because they don't want oppression, and some elites were in such a mood when they established the United States. The difficult part is knowing what hidden oppression looks like. The conservative movement in the US is currently enjoying the benefit of doubt when it comes to defining freedom, even as they mock the concept with theocratic overtones and trickle-down economics under a libertarian tax code, which is what hidden oppression looks like.
posted by Brian B. at 1:27 AM on August 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
It may not be apocryphal, but it's certainly not original…
It seems to be one of those things that happens to all sorts of people. I'm no crusty soap-dodger (I shower and usually wear fresh clothes every day), but I noticed a patch of slightly darker skin on my left forearm about ten years ago. It didn't hurt or itch, but it gradually began to turn darker and grew to about the size of a credit card. I think I was probably a little worried that it might be something serious, but for some reason I didn't get round to mentioning it to my doctor. Probably a good thing, because one day, after a few weeks of mostly ignoring it, I was sat in a very boring meeting and absently scratched the weird darker patch of skin, and it started to rub off, a bit like the way glue from a sticker will. Ten minutes of surreptitious rubbing later, the whole thing was gone.
I've heard similar stories from other people, so I think it's a 'thing'. Maybe some combination of sunscreen and moisturiser reacted to form something that collected dirt and dead skin to form a kind of durable film that didn't wash off with soap. I don't know. But I can remember that it looked a lot more like a birthmark than anything else, and it just didn't occur to me that it might be dirt. Weird.
posted by pipeski at 2:46 AM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
It seems to be one of those things that happens to all sorts of people. I'm no crusty soap-dodger (I shower and usually wear fresh clothes every day), but I noticed a patch of slightly darker skin on my left forearm about ten years ago. It didn't hurt or itch, but it gradually began to turn darker and grew to about the size of a credit card. I think I was probably a little worried that it might be something serious, but for some reason I didn't get round to mentioning it to my doctor. Probably a good thing, because one day, after a few weeks of mostly ignoring it, I was sat in a very boring meeting and absently scratched the weird darker patch of skin, and it started to rub off, a bit like the way glue from a sticker will. Ten minutes of surreptitious rubbing later, the whole thing was gone.
I've heard similar stories from other people, so I think it's a 'thing'. Maybe some combination of sunscreen and moisturiser reacted to form something that collected dirt and dead skin to form a kind of durable film that didn't wash off with soap. I don't know. But I can remember that it looked a lot more like a birthmark than anything else, and it just didn't occur to me that it might be dirt. Weird.
posted by pipeski at 2:46 AM on August 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I just gotta say, the framing of this post makes it sound like a think piece, with a thesis ("It should be possible to break the law") that is obnoxiously obvious. (A law that is unjust is not a law that should be obeyed, etc)
It seems to be more like a bio piece about this dude's philosophy, which is more interesting than what I imagined.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 4:56 AM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
It seems to be more like a bio piece about this dude's philosophy, which is more interesting than what I imagined.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 4:56 AM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
"The story about the Doctor's visit is literally on his website, oh Sleuths of the Internet."
It's also a story I well remember, as a kid in the 70's, being told about hippies. And then my father, who was a kid in the 50's, telling me he'd heard it about a local railway fireman.
It may not be apocryphal, but it's certainly not original…
Just so.
posted by Herodios at 6:09 AM on August 2, 2016
It's also a story I well remember, as a kid in the 70's, being told about hippies. And then my father, who was a kid in the 50's, telling me he'd heard it about a local railway fireman.
It may not be apocryphal, but it's certainly not original…
Just so.
posted by Herodios at 6:09 AM on August 2, 2016
While Marlinspike may present himself as an eccentric outsider, his ability to write freakishly secure software has aligned him with some of the tech industry’s biggest companies.so the government isn't on your team but tech's biggest companies are?
To fund it, he turned to Dan Meredith, director of the Open Technology Fund, a group supported by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, best known for running Radio Free Europe.AKA the CIA. so, the government isn't on your team, but you should totally get into bed with national security spooks in order to make Facebook "secure".
“When we got past the hairstyle, we were like, ‘Let’s get down to business.’guys like Moxie are just so repulsive. the relentless narcissism, self-interest, sociopathy . he will literally do anything to keep playing the starring role in his own personal movie. silicon valley is the perfect place for him.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:30 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Afaik, OTF funding is State Department, not CIA. As a rule, open source software like GCC or Signal stands by itself, so attacking it for using government money is disingenuous.
There are certainly cases like Tor where prolonged ongoing government fundraising efforts bent the projects objective away from privacy activists interests, like onion services, and towards the funders' interests, like collecting metrics on surveillance. I think OTF itself acts as a partial shield here now, but obviously projects should consider how their funders' interest warp their own interests.
In this case, there is a tendency for closed source encryption messaging systems like Telegram and Threema to be acquired and take the Skype route of nerfing their encryption when asked by U.S.interests. Otoh, open source encryption tools like OtR have remained secure, thus making Signal itself a major step-forward.
We cannot know the route that WhatsApp will take, but starting out so near to Signal reduces the nerfing risk considerably. I think Moxie claims the future lies more with WhatsApp, etc. than with Signal itself. And folks like myself disagree. Yet, regardless we needed players like WhatsApp involved to help cut law enforcement off from their unhealthy addiction to wiretaps.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:59 AM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are certainly cases like Tor where prolonged ongoing government fundraising efforts bent the projects objective away from privacy activists interests, like onion services, and towards the funders' interests, like collecting metrics on surveillance. I think OTF itself acts as a partial shield here now, but obviously projects should consider how their funders' interest warp their own interests.
In this case, there is a tendency for closed source encryption messaging systems like Telegram and Threema to be acquired and take the Skype route of nerfing their encryption when asked by U.S.interests. Otoh, open source encryption tools like OtR have remained secure, thus making Signal itself a major step-forward.
We cannot know the route that WhatsApp will take, but starting out so near to Signal reduces the nerfing risk considerably. I think Moxie claims the future lies more with WhatsApp, etc. than with Signal itself. And folks like myself disagree. Yet, regardless we needed players like WhatsApp involved to help cut law enforcement off from their unhealthy addiction to wiretaps.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:59 AM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Afaik, OTF funding is State Department, not CIA. As a rule, open source software like GCC or Signal stands by itself, so attacking it for using government money is disingenuous.
the State Dept and the CIA have a close working relationship and Radio Free Foo has always been tightly integrated with the national security "community".
there are reasons enough for an "anarchist" to not take money from national security state institutions, but you would think, for a moment, that you guys would consider that maybe the government is well aware of what you are doing wrt encryption and considers it as advancing state aims. it's just colossal egotism to think somehow that you are pulling one over on the State by taking the money and doing what you want.
maybe the government is a lot better at social engineering than the hackers?
But then Telegram accounts have been hacked by the Iranian government, which just goes to show that encryption doesn't solve the fundamental "trust" problem... which governments have a set of unique tools to exploit: organizational communications are only as secure as the least savvy member. Further, metadata is perhaps more interesting to governments than data and a world that uses Facebook to communicate, even if that communication is perfectly encrypted, is an immense asset to the US government.
You encryption guys are working to convince the world the internet communication is private when it will never be. in doing so you have two employers: the national security state in the US and big US tech, who are growing closer every year.
it's either mendacious or incredibly incredibly naive.
posted by ennui.bz at 1:35 PM on August 2, 2016
the State Dept and the CIA have a close working relationship and Radio Free Foo has always been tightly integrated with the national security "community".
there are reasons enough for an "anarchist" to not take money from national security state institutions, but you would think, for a moment, that you guys would consider that maybe the government is well aware of what you are doing wrt encryption and considers it as advancing state aims. it's just colossal egotism to think somehow that you are pulling one over on the State by taking the money and doing what you want.
maybe the government is a lot better at social engineering than the hackers?
But then Telegram accounts have been hacked by the Iranian government, which just goes to show that encryption doesn't solve the fundamental "trust" problem... which governments have a set of unique tools to exploit: organizational communications are only as secure as the least savvy member. Further, metadata is perhaps more interesting to governments than data and a world that uses Facebook to communicate, even if that communication is perfectly encrypted, is an immense asset to the US government.
You encryption guys are working to convince the world the internet communication is private when it will never be. in doing so you have two employers: the national security state in the US and big US tech, who are growing closer every year.
it's either mendacious or incredibly incredibly naive.
posted by ennui.bz at 1:35 PM on August 2, 2016
there are reasons enough for an "anarchist" to not take money from national security state institutions, but you would think, for a moment, that you guys would consider that maybe the government is well aware of what you are doing wrt encryption and considers it as advancing state aims. it's just colossal egotism to think somehow that you are pulling one over on the State by taking the money and doing what you want.
One thing which I think is made fairly clear by the history of spooks, spies and TLAs, is that "The State" - and in fact any given organization of the state - has multitudinous aims and harebrained schemes, which can and do conflict with each other.
posted by atoxyl at 2:03 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
One thing which I think is made fairly clear by the history of spooks, spies and TLAs, is that "The State" - and in fact any given organization of the state - has multitudinous aims and harebrained schemes, which can and do conflict with each other.
posted by atoxyl at 2:03 PM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
No. We're trying to make internet communication as private as possible.
Encryption itself works. We warn everyone about the risks of metadata collection too : OWS reduced metadata exposure by switching from SMS to their own protocol. I personally work on mixnets and anonymous purchases. At least some OWS folk are interested in adding real metadata protections, ala mixnets.
I work of privacy technologies because : AIs built to manipulate people into spending money, or killing people, are predators. I want as much of this personal data pollution as possible to disappear behind of impenetrable mathematics before we develop some remarkably clever predators.
Ignore fears of strong AIs that design killer drones deciding that non-brown people might be threats too. Imagine a world surrounded by rat level AIs that nevertheless make better advertising, video games, movies, etc., and even conversation, than any human, but who dedicate all their basically unlimited mental time to wasting all of yours.
We must encrypt personal content, and protect metadata, now because there are too many forms of weak AI driven "dark ages" waiting for us if we do not. As Douglas Adams says "[arguably] this has already happened." I even suspect that, if such stupid slows us down enough, then we go extinct when some big ass rock finally hits us. A lack of encryption, and metadata protection, could indirectly be an existential threat.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:42 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Encryption itself works. We warn everyone about the risks of metadata collection too : OWS reduced metadata exposure by switching from SMS to their own protocol. I personally work on mixnets and anonymous purchases. At least some OWS folk are interested in adding real metadata protections, ala mixnets.
I work of privacy technologies because : AIs built to manipulate people into spending money, or killing people, are predators. I want as much of this personal data pollution as possible to disappear behind of impenetrable mathematics before we develop some remarkably clever predators.
Ignore fears of strong AIs that design killer drones deciding that non-brown people might be threats too. Imagine a world surrounded by rat level AIs that nevertheless make better advertising, video games, movies, etc., and even conversation, than any human, but who dedicate all their basically unlimited mental time to wasting all of yours.
We must encrypt personal content, and protect metadata, now because there are too many forms of weak AI driven "dark ages" waiting for us if we do not. As Douglas Adams says "[arguably] this has already happened." I even suspect that, if such stupid slows us down enough, then we go extinct when some big ass rock finally hits us. A lack of encryption, and metadata protection, could indirectly be an existential threat.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:42 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Unbreakable crypto was critical to the adoption of the US Bill of Rights"
Also : Deep Dive into Crypto “Exceptional Access” Mandates
posted by jeffburdges at 6:28 AM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also : Deep Dive into Crypto “Exceptional Access” Mandates
posted by jeffburdges at 6:28 AM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
"TPP .. has sunk to a new low, making criminals out of whistleblowers. How is this even a 'trade deal'?"
posted by jeffburdges at 6:20 AM on August 12, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 6:20 AM on August 12, 2016
"2016: when your dildo can spy on you"
posted by jeffburdges at 12:15 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 12:15 PM on August 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Awesome analysis by Edward Snowden of the recent public auction of hacking tools taken from an "equation group" attack server.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:50 AM on August 16, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 9:50 AM on August 16, 2016
« Older Cathedrals inside you | When Nature Happens, Live Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jeffburdges at 6:56 PM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]