All really well put, Shava, and I couldn't agree more. I actually met with Jessica this morning after requesting they change the title (almost missed my flight as a result!), and she spoke with her editor about it. They'd apparently have to do it through issuing a correction, which sounds a little unlikely, but we'll see. As I mentioned on Twitter<https://twitter.com/adamfisk/status/392742545236561921> yesterday, in the interview I really tried to emphasize that Tor is much better at anonymity than Lantern and that Lantern is focused on access and usability but that we encourage high risk users to run Tor. I think the body of the article reflected that, and I think Jessica overall did a really great job with the piece itself. We also tried to clarify this in a Tumblr post that actually went up yesterday<http://get-lantern.tumblr.com/post/64803849523/thanks-to-jessica-mckenzie-and-tech-president-for>discussing how we love you guys and don't see ourselves as competing at all.
We're talking with Jessica about a followup post today that will touch on all of the uProxy stuff but will also hopefully include more details about the strong collaboration taking place in this space. Roger was one of the very first people to give us feedback on Lantern, and you guys have always been so incredibly supportive and helpful with everything from technical details like overall architecture suggestions and specifics on SSL handshake fingerprinting to referring us to your amazing accountant who has been working with us for a couple of years now (we love her)! I and the rest of my team have very deeply appreciated that, and the last thing I would want to do is to be anything but helpful in return. I'll personally be much more vigilant about making both that support as well as the importance of Tor even clearer in all communications going forward. One thing I do want to be wary of too is that just because we all like and support each other that doesn't of course mean we always have to agree. Again we really would love to hear any criticisms of Lantern people may have, including anything technical or messaging related, as that's the only way we'll improve. Thanks Shava. -Adam On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Shava Nerad <shav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am with Jill -- and I wish more of the press and sponsors took that > attitude. Lantern has good expectations I think specified on their site, > and so does Tor. > > But if you look at the press or boosters or detractors, there is > misinformation, disinfo, and just a lot of glitter and FUD out there. > > Not to jump on TechPresident, but to use them as an example (but because > it was posted here...), there's a tendency to pit groups against one > another, too, which is freaking sad. > > From their headline: ""Could State Department Funded Lantern Be Bigger, > Better Tor?" > > > That's their font, for those with rich text email. Please see my comment > on the article, which I believe was measured and compassionate. I like > TechPresident a lot (hi, Micah! :). > > But we are not sports teams. Yes we compete for the same grant pool, but > ideally there is enough -- we are small groups and really, we are competing > for attention with other domains that are seeking funding from the State > Department that are not as strong as Internet Freedom. If we do well, that > pool of money will be larger next year. I hope all our projects find good > niches and learn good lessons in this space -- it's relatively very new. > > No haystacks. Other than that, let deliberate people of good faith, good > science, and good communication do well. > > I'd like to see fewer people suffering for their work for freedom in the > field, myself -- I know this is a broad coalition, and not all of it is > "liberation" in motivation. But it bothers me when journalists and > sponsors put territoriality in front of liberation when ideally they are > attracted to us as liberation workers in the first place? (well, when they > aren't coming at us as facilitators of child porn and drug mongerers... or > rebels who must hate the state, the NSA, law enforcement, the military,.. > Do you know I have had stalkers who think I must be something very much > like Lisbeth Salander? Twenty something, dour, kinky, something like > Trinity out of the Matrix, sociopathic, criminally minded, etc.? Because I > started Tor.. They obviously don't read.. My were they -- three of them, > so far -- surprised.. sigh) > > Tech President is trying to get away from the "horse race" election focus > in their political writing, but look -- the language permeates every part > of our culture. We promote game mechanics and send liberation to the > showers. > > The same here. I didn't join this league to play futbol, even if I did > incorporate a nonprofit named Tor. ;) > yrs, > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Jillian C. York > <jilliancy...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> "The more the merrier" is one thing. Making safety and security promises >> about a given circumvention tool is another. >> >> I accept that some circumvention tools are insecure, *if and only if* the >> developers disclose that information and make no false promises about what >> their tool can provide. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Eric S Johnson >> <cra...@oneotaslopes.org>wrote: >> >>> Without answering Jillian’s question directly, I have to say: “the more, >>> the merrier.”**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Right now, in cybercensored countries, it’s true many folks (though far >>> from all) have heard about one or more cybercircumvention tools. But most >>> folks’ attempts to use them are not entirely successful, either because* >>> *** >>> >>> **· **their proxies are blocked too, or**** >>> >>> **· **the proxy to which they can get access is overloaded.**** >>> >>> At this point, the need for more proxies to solve these two problems is >>> far from exhausted.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I still haven’t heard of any cases where someone’s been persecuted *because >>> they used a proxy*. I’m certainly not saying folks shouldn’t care about >>> anonymity, just remembering that for the vast majority of cybercensored >>> netizens, anonymity isn’t what they perceive to be the issue they face when >>> they browse; censorship is.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Best,**** >>> >>> Eric**** >>> >>> OpenPGP<http://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/DownloadKey.event?keyid=0xE0F58E0F1AF7E6F2>: >>> 0x1AF7E6F2 ● Skype: oneota ● XMPP/OTR: bere...@jabber.ccc.de ● Silent >>> Circle: +1 312 614-0159**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto: >>> liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jillian C. >>> York >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 08.01 >>> *To:* liberationtech >>> *Subject:* Re: [liberationtech] Google Unveils Tools to Access Web From >>> Repressive Countries | TIME.com**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Since I already have more skepticism of Google Ideas and Jared Cohen >>> than I need, let me pose this question:**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> With the understanding that uProxy provides no anonymity protections, *is >>> it providing anything that other circumvention tools do not already?* >>> What's unique about it?**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> -- >>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations >>> of list guidelines will get you moderated: >>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. >>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at >>> compa...@stanford.edu. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Note: *I am slowly extricating myself from Gmail. Please change your >> address books to: jilliancy...@riseup.net or jill...@eff.org. >> >> US: +1-857-891-4244 | NL: +31-657086088 >> site: jilliancyork.com <http://jilliancyork.com/>* | * >> twitter: @jilliancyork* * >> >> "We must not be afraid of dreaming the seemingly impossible if we want >> the seemingly impossible to become a reality" - *Vaclav Havel* >> >> -- >> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations >> of list guidelines will get you moderated: >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. >> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at >> compa...@stanford.edu. >> > > > > -- > > Shava Nerad > shav...@gmail.com > > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations > of list guidelines will get you moderated: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at > compa...@stanford.edu. > -- -- Adam pgp A998 2B6E EF1C 373E 723F A813 045D A255 901A FD89
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
