Statement on FBI backdoors, privacy, and civil disobedience
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dyfet May 09, 2012 9:28 AM EDT |
http://www.gnutelephony.org/index.php/Statement_on_FBI_backd... As project lead for GNU Telephony, a free software project that specifically enables intercept-free secure peer-to-peer VoIP communication over the public internet, principally through methods like our adaption of Phil Zimmerman's ZRTP protocol for the GNU ZRTP stack and as part of Jitsi (we provided the ZRTP java implementation it uses...), and in regard to our development of a secure self organized peer-to-peer communication infrastructure through GNU Free Call, naturally we are concerned about such misuse of law. Our tools and applications are used widely to avoid communication intercept by both private individuals and national governments, and we plan to continue making them available, complete, and unaltered, directly worldwide. As we have written directly to this administration in the past (http://www.examiner.com/article/scoop-gnu-telephony-challeng... http://techrights.org/2010/10/04/david-sugar-to-obama/ and http://www.gnutelephony.org/data/art.pdf) if such a law as proposed comes to pass, we will, as a matter of public civil disobedience openly violate such a law or mandate. Furthermore we will explicitly continue to help and enable others to do the same, even if threatened with arrest or facing imprisonment. In regard to prison, it is certainly not one I desire or seek, but I will simply note that when one lives in a true surveillance society, even outside the jailhouse everyone is already effectively imprisoned. However, I do have one clear choice; I will NOT so help imprison others, and that is precisely what these kinds of laws would demand me to do. No thanks. We have already discussed this with our immediate project participants, and we have come to consensus to stand our ground on what we see as a very basic question of basic human dignity. However, to shield our project participants, I have chosen to assert sole legal responsibility for all remaining assets and resources we have operating within the presently defined territory of the United States of America. We are now actively creating parallel infrastructure for project continuation that will be harbored in safer countries, should that become needed. I wished to take this moment simply to formally communicate to other organizations and groups what we are doing and why, as well as provide a formal and more current statement on this subject from our project as well as clarify and more widely inform about what we have communicated in the past on this topic. David Alexander Sugar Chief Facilitator GNU Telephony |
| Bob_Robertson May 09, 2012 9:38 AM EDT |
Beautifully said. |
| ComputerBob May 09, 2012 9:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:As project lead for GNU Telephony, a free software project that specifically enables intercept-free secure peer-to-peer VoIP communication over the public internet, principally through methods like our adaption of Phil Zimmerman's ZRTP protocol for the GNU ZRTP stack and as part of Jitsi (we provided the ZRTP java implementation it uses...), and in regard to our development of a secure self organized peer-to-peer communication infrastructure through GNU Free Call, naturally we are concerned about such misuse of law. Our tools and applications are used widely to avoid communication intercept by both private individuals and national governments, and we plan to continue making them available, complete, and unaltered, directly worldwide. Sorry, but I can't understand what you're saying -- that many words in one sentence cause my eyes to glaze over. |
| Bob_Robertson May 09, 2012 10:07 AM EDT |
ComBob, you never read James Fenimore Cooper? |
| lcafiero May 09, 2012 12:35 PM EDT |
Actually, ComputerBob has a point: They could have taken out from "principally through" through to the parenthetical, since we don't really need to know how it "principally works." That threw me off. On the other hand, they may want to be completely open to what they were doing (the "why" would be a good question). Anyway, James Fenimore Cooper is vastly underrated -- glad you brought him up, Bob_Robertson. |
| Bob_Robertson May 09, 2012 1:12 PM EDT |
Underrated now, certainly. Reading his books, though, used to be considered basic literacy, back when America was literate. |
| lxerguest May 09, 2012 1:16 PM EDT |
Uh,are we really quibbling about literary style,when some dude is putting his personal freedom and quality of life on the line to defend the constitutional rights of a nation's citizens??? Actually that is way more encouraging than the 90% of the population hero-worshipping jennifer anniston or some other celeb(not that I have anything against her),who did not have the interest or concentration span to read it. Maybe open government should include gnutelephony so we could save money,and we should also be able to hear every single conversation and email lawmakers have with lobbyists and each other. |
| tuxchick May 09, 2012 1:22 PM EDT |
Thanks dyfet, it's nice to know that rolling over is not yet the universal default. Quoting: I have chosen to assert sole legal responsibility for all remaining assets and resources we have operating within the presently defined territory of the United States of America. That's sticking your neck way out there. |
| Khamul May 09, 2012 1:56 PM EDT |
Personally, I think instead of risking prison time, it'd be more productive for these people to move out of the country and continue their operations there from a position of relative safety. Illicit software (which, in the future apparently means software that doesn't include backdoors for a tyrannical government to snoop on you) can be easily transmitted over networks with encryption, so it's not like you actually need people inside the police-state country to distribute this freedom-enabling software; you just need people to write and maintain it, and then a way for them to download it from your foreign servers. You'll be much more effective in this pursuit sitting in a civilized foreign country than in a prison cell run by a private corrections corporation. I think in the next 10 years, more and more people are going to be fleeing the USA like rats from a sinking ship. |
| albinard May 09, 2012 4:53 PM EDT |
It's getting to be time for the American Spring. |
| Khamul May 09, 2012 5:30 PM EDT |
@albinard: I don't know about that. Reading comments on various message boards, plus various actions of Americans, it seems to me that most Americans are actually OK with the way things are going, and are perfectly happy to sacrifice their rights and freedoms for promises of safety. Given the huge number of Americans that have left the country to work elsewhere, I'd say it's "getting to be time for the American Diaspora" instead. My wife and I are already very seriously looking at leaving the country; it just depends on various factors including what kind of work we can find in our professions, but both of us work in professions where there's a lot of very high-paying jobs outside the US. |
| jdixon May 09, 2012 5:31 PM EDT |
Must refrain from TOS violating comments. :) |
| Khamul May 09, 2012 5:43 PM EDT |
I know I'm riding a fine edge here, but when you have an article on the FBI wanting software companies to insert backdoors and discussion of Free software to allow secure (encrypted) communications and promises of civil disobedience by its authors, I don't see how you can avoid some measure of political discussion. I avoid talking about any current candidates or political parties and only discuss things at a higher level to attempt to avoid any censorship. I.e., my comments to the tune of "the USA is swirling the drain as evidenced by these happenings" seem to not be deleted, but if I said something like "Voting for Kodos will ruin everything! Vote for Kang instead, as he'll fix all the problems!", that'd certainly be going over the line. To me, any discussion of partisanship is probably over the line, but again, how do you avoid something that can be called "political" by some when the whole story is about actions by a government agency, which has direct implications for Free software, the very subject of this board? |
| albinard May 09, 2012 5:52 PM EDT |
@Khamul: I was expressing the need, not the probability. |
| lxerguest May 09, 2012 5:56 PM EDT |
Khamul,jdixon,I agree it's a fine line,and I'm not sure if bob_robertson ever got the crystal clear definition as to why he was censored and others are not.I feel a bit guilty for having expressed my somewhat political opinion and not being censored.oh well,this should do the trick: How about clustering up in Maine with like-minded people and a year's supply of food and ammo,and secceding from the Union?Course then you'd have to buy a TV network to avoid being portayed in the media as terrorists. |
| jdixon May 09, 2012 9:18 PM EDT |
> How about clustering up in Maine.... The winters in Maine are too cold for my wife. In fact, the winters here in West Virginia are too cold for my wife. :( |
| tracyanne May 09, 2012 9:51 PM EDT |
@Khamul, not sure where can go, as what happens in the US, will invariably happen in Australia and New Zealand, for example. As the governments there will be able to point to the US and say they are doing it, about time we did it. That or US instigated "Free" trade agreements will mandate that the governments do so in order to comply with the "free" trade agreement terms. |
| Khamul May 09, 2012 10:13 PM EDT |
The English-speaking countries are probably the worst ones if you really want to get away from US-style laws, because as you point out, they tend to ape all the US's actions (or like in the case of the UK, do even worse stuff). European (not UK) nations, including eastern Europe, and Asian nations are probably your best bet. There's a lot of Americans moving to places like Thailand and various eastern European countries. |
| BernardSwiss May 09, 2012 11:21 PM EDT |
I'd start learning Spanish &/or Portuguese... |
| caitlyn May 09, 2012 11:26 PM EDT |
Huge, giant TOS violation already, Khamul. Count me as sorry I submitted this for publication on LXer.com. I thought people could be informed without launching into anti-American political diatribes. I was wrong. I'm going to ask Scott to pull the article and this thread. My apologies for submitting this. I won't do anything like it again. |
| BernardSwiss May 09, 2012 11:29 PM EDT |
"anti-American" diatribes? Where? |
| caitlyn May 09, 2012 11:31 PM EDT |
I respectfully request you read Khamul's statements again. If you can't see it I can't help you. P.S.: Huge numbers of Americans haven't left this country. There is no American diaspora. The hyperbole here is amazing. |
| tracyanne May 09, 2012 11:48 PM EDT |
Instead of worrying about Yank bashing, perhaps one's time could be better spent trying to stop this from happening. I scares me that the US might do this, for two reasons. 1) it affects me directly because so much of what I do requires the use of US based servers, and 2) If the Yanks do it, my country will inevitably follow suit. |
| BernardSwiss May 09, 2012 11:48 PM EDT |
On the other hand, I do quite regularly stumble over comments and articles by Americans, pointing out the steady decline in practical adherence to the classic American ideals and USA constitutional principles, often specifically identifying/going back to the "War On Drugs". And as a Canadian, I can say with some concrete justification that in fact some Americans (not political extremists) do actually move north of the border (and others at least explore options) at least partly (but explicitly and consciously) because of that clear decline. |
| tuxchick May 10, 2012 12:00 AM EDT |
Bernard, I think from time to time about seeing if Canada will have me. But TA's right-- I can't in good conscience jump ship, and anyway the "ship" will likely mow me down wherever I go. Might as well stay and try to do something about it. |
| BernardSwiss May 10, 2012 12:15 AM EDT |
Carla, I'm not sure how effective moving to Canada would be as a long-term strategy to avoid the consequences of the aforementioned trend. And in any case, the current Canadian "administration" appears committed to following the US example. |
| jdixon May 10, 2012 12:20 AM EDT |
> Huge numbers of Americans haven't left this country. Is 3 million people a year "huge numbers", Caitlyn? Or are you merely speaking in terms of percentages? "If the data collected in the seven polls conducted between 2005 and 2007 are fairly representative of the current decade, then, by a modest estimate, at least 3 million U.S. citizens a year are venturing abroad." http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/07/28/a-growing-tre... This was as of 2008. All indications are that the numbers are increasing, not dropping. |
| skelband May 10, 2012 2:40 AM EDT |
@caitlyn: If you don't like commentary on a story that is intrinsically political and specifically about the American administration, then I really don't know what you expected. This is a hugely important story and deserves proper and full discussion. So far, I've not read any overtly anti-American commentary. We may well be getting a little off the topic but these are highly charged issues. For others looking to Canada for sanity, I have to say that the legislation here, in terms of privacy, does tend to follow US (and indeed UK) fashions albeit a few years behind. It seems that the flavour of the day is privacy bashing and intrusive legislation of the type that the article is discussing. |
| Bob_Robertson May 10, 2012 9:41 AM EDT |
Tomorrow, the law mandating F/OSS and Open file formats takes effect in New Hampshire. It was sponsored by Seth Cohn, a member of the Free State Project. It rather surprises me that I only heard about it yesterday. Either Microsoft's efforts are slipping, or it was kept deliberately quiet so as not to attract the Ire of Bill. I'm glad to say that Oklahoma is following that example and working on their own F/OSS law. Maybe the martyrdom of Peter Quinn will have some small silver lining even now, so many years after his efforts in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. If I get a solid lead on the Oklahoma bill, I'll suggest it as an article. @TC, Canada, last I looked, has an immigration policy such that you can buy citizenship, by moving at least $500,000(CN) into the country with you. But that data is very dated, they may have changed the requirement by now. |
| Khamul May 10, 2012 12:34 PM EDT |
@Bob_R: Last I looked, you only needed about $300k (CAD or USD, they're about the same) to buy your way in, or if you had a job offer in specific areas it's pretty easy. Software engineers have a very easy time, and are on their list of in-demand professions. There's a lot of software work in the Vancouver area. Finally, does Caitlyn think it's "America-bashing" if we don't cheer FBI backdoors and intrusion? :-/ What did she expect? |
| caitlyn May 10, 2012 12:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:Finally, does Caitlyn think it's "America-bashing" if we don't cheer FBI backdoors and intrusion? :-/No, I don't. You went way, way, way beyond that and you know it. Don't treat my like I'm an idiot who can't read what you write. |
| jdixon May 10, 2012 5:10 PM EDT |
> If you don't like commentary on a story that is intrinsically political and specifically about the American administration, then I really don't know what you expected. Sigh. As Caitlyn will be more than happy to tell you, she and I seldom agree about anything political. But in this case she's already answered your question. She's already apologized for submitting the story; effectively admitting that she was waving a red flag at a bull. What more do you expect her to say or do? For their part, Caitlyn, please remember that Khamul and a few others haven't been around as long as some of us, and haven't been through this process before. Oh, and if you would prefer to answer my question above in direct mail rather than post, that would be fine. I'm just curious as to the standard you were using for your comment. I can see where both positions could be considered valid. |
| skelband May 10, 2012 5:56 PM EDT |
@jdixon and @caitlyn: I can see why we have TOS restrictions on purely political debate. That's really not what Linux and Free Software is about. People argue endlessly about political issues and those arguments are so loaded with opinion and bias it is quite pointless. People do it because it is human nature, not because they seriously think that they will end up with agreement. The problem is this: Free Software and the Free Software Movement is a political movement. It is about "us" vs "them". Us being the users, them being those that wish to restrict and control us. "Them" used to be proprietary software companies. More and more though, "them" happen to be governments. It just isn't possible to talk about free software news issues like this without being in danger of crossing the line between free software and purely political debate. I think Scott does a pretty good job of policing the forums and I think that certain individuals walk (nay leap) over that line and intervention is required. Now I know that caitlyn has a bit of an itchy trigger finger over this issue. I don't really know why but perhaps there is some bitter history prior to my coming to this site. Sometimes, I think she is right and we do cross the line. Other times, less so, but of course that is opinion. In my personal view, as long as the topic being discussed is related to free software directly, and there is no finger pointing then I really don't see the problem. When we stray off the topic into irrelevent issues, then I think Scott needs to take action. |
| BernardSwiss May 10, 2012 6:00 PM EDT |
@ Skelband Seconded |
| gus3 May 10, 2012 7:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:there is some bitter historyNo "perhaps" about it. |
| jdixon May 10, 2012 8:53 PM EDT |
> Free Software and the Free Software Movement is a political movement, I'd say it can be, rather than is, but that's the crux of the problem, yes. |
| Khamul May 10, 2012 11:07 PM EDT |
Ok, this has gotten rather annoying; this makes at least 3 or 4 times someone has alluded to this "bitter history" in just the past couple days. Can someone please write up an extremely condensed, unbiased, in-a-nutshell version of this "bitter history" for those of us who haven't been here for years, so we can understand why some people are so jumpy about some topics? |
| caitlyn May 10, 2012 11:53 PM EDT |
In a word, no, not without rehashing old battles and creating more problems. Also, nobody is going to be unbiased on this one. Your best bet would be to e-mail Scott privately. |
| Bob_Robertson May 11, 2012 9:21 AM EDT |
Khamul, I agree with Caitlyn that it would be impossible to describe it without describing it from one's own point of view, which means that I would disagree with her characterization of events, and she with mine, etc. Trying to correct each other's characterizations would lead, quickly, to the very animosity which the TOS is there to avoid. That's funny, because I just realized it would be easy to honestly disagree with the last 10 words I just wrote, spurring even more incendiary verbiage. Sadly, threads which would have been exceedingly good to have available to reference, one particularly good one on copyright springs instantly to mind (weren't they all about copyright?), were deleted rather than just closed. So they're gone, like Aristotle's Second Book of Poetics, and all but a hint of the poetry of Sapho. |
| jdixon May 11, 2012 11:04 AM EDT |
> Can someone please write up an extremely condensed, unbiased, in-a-nutshell version of this "bitter history" for those of us who haven't been here for years, No. But you know all the major characters involved, and from our various expressed viewpoints and recent posts you should have no trouble figuring things out. |
| albinard May 11, 2012 12:57 PM EDT |
Do you think it's time for someone on this thread to say Good night, John Boy? |
| skelband May 11, 2012 1:23 PM EDT |
OMG! Please no! <cue *all* the responses from the Waltons end-credits> :D |
| Bob_Robertson May 11, 2012 3:34 PM EDT |
On the subject of big, well known online services _and_ the topic of over-reach, http://tinyurl.com/cf634ty Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook Inc. (FB) (FB), renounced his U.S. citizenship before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion, a move that may reduce his tax bill. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!