On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Andreas Kuckartz <[email protected]>wrote:
> carlo von lynX: > > It is no longer clear if people in here are Social Swarm, GNU consensus > > or something else currently using the name #youbroketheinternet. The > > latter just seemed to be the most appropriate name since we can't get > > social off the ground without fixing the Internet first. > > > > In the past we worked out > http://libreplanet.org/wiki/GNU/consensus/berlin-2013 > > and reached a consensus on at least these points: > > > > - End-to-end encryption > > - Perfect Forward Secrecy > > - Social graph and transmission pattern obfuscation > > - Self determined data storage > > I unfortunately did not participate in that meeting but I probably would > have agreed with these items as goals. (I had seen the invitation but > considered most of the projects which were originally mentioned as being > mostly irrelevant.) > > But it is unlikely that I would have agreed that improvements of subsets > of this set of items are out of scope. > > > These four requirements make it such that any discussion of > "improvements" of > > the general situation that does not fulfil them should be seen as out of > > scope for this group of people. > > I wonder if all the participants agree with _that_ interpretation. I > guess that I would have been surprised by it... > > I did participate in the meeting in Berlin in August as part of the unhosted movement, specifically Sockethub and remoteStorage. Although we did agree on those 4 points listed, there was no consensus on the conclusion being "throw it all out and start over". Although I think what Carlo is doing is interesting and has a lot of potential, I think there are still many things to be done to improve privacy and improve or create new paradigms for the responsibility of developing for the web, and expectations of users. I think GNUnet is a huge undertaking and, like Melvin, wonder whether it's a realistic expectation to redesign everything and implement it with what I believe is only a couple developers (?). We discussed the possibility that somewhere down the road a lot of the work we're doing with remoteStorage and Sockethub might be applied to the app-level infrastructure of GNUnet, which is an interesting idea and one way to offload a bit of the work of starting over and re-implementing everything from scratch. > > Feel free to put some band aids around SMTP, XMPP and other established > apps, > > but don't discuss it here - especially not as a solution to our list of > basic > > requirements. Let us work on solutions that fulfil OUR basic > requirements for privacy. > > This is the only thing that differentiates us from dozens of other > similar groups. > > That meeting decided what is in scope for the GNU/consensus and the > Social Swarm mailing lists? Really? > > I am definitely not opposed to making decisions about requirements and > things which are out-of-scope in a discussion or for a working group. > Such decisions sometimes are necessary. But I doubt that these > out-of-scope decisions have really been made. > > And I am beginning to wonder if what I see here is representative for > the CCC... > > Cheers, > Andreas > -- > SocialSwarm mailing lists: https://socialswarm.net/en/participate/ > Websites: https://socialswarm.net/ https://wiki.socialswarm.net/ > Liquid Feedback: https://socialswarm.tracciabi.li/ > Digitalcourage, Bielefeld, Germany [email protected] >
