[liberationtech] creating an Internet issue template for Congress
hi all, I've been recently asked by some Senate offices to help them with cyber security and other Internet related issues. There's a great need right now to create some public good topline concepts and talking points that frame the larger sets of issues and that give Members a way to point out how important these tech issues are to broad audiences who, for the most part just want my gadgets to work and nobody to spy on me. It's also vital that we start making distinctions between issues and explaining exactly how they are related. This is a big long term task,and we hope to pull together a collaborative open tech hub for Congress at some point...with standard input templates-- but in the short term, I need help identifying the 3 best Internet related policy issues that have good domestic/local hooks and that illustrate the breadth of the issues involved. The need is greatest on the Homeland Security committee--and although I know lots of people dislike this whole notion --we must strengthen their civilian hand in the coversation, otherwise get ready to hear digital pearl harbor and cyber dystopian generalized scenarios accelerate. For example: Broadband Access Cyber Security Internet Freedom where/why in the USA are these most important? Keep in mind that Congress works in stovepipes because it is set up to view the world of the last century--we need to be able to talk about big blended and complex topics in a way that the institutions themselves can recognize them (either by committee jurisdiction or constituent need) Smart staff people will do the on the spot interpretation, but we should be giving them a curated and accurate starting point. all help and suggestions gratefully appreciated! Lorelei -- *Lorelei Kelly http://newamerica.net/user/452* * * * * *check out our SmartCongresshttps://www.newschallenge.org/open/open-government/submission/smartcongress.org/pitch! * *read about Congress' Wicked Problemhttp://newamerica.net/publications/policy/congress_wicked_problem * look at these cool maps about guns and powerhttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-groups-like-the-nra-captured-congressand-how-to-take-it-back/273623/in the Atlantic * *Open Technology Institute New America Foundation Tweeting @loreleikelly cell: 202-487-7728 -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] SECDEV FLASHNOTE: Syrian Regime Tightens Access to Secure Online Communications
The latest Flash Note from SecDev on the Syrian regime tightening access to secure online communications. Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Syrian Regime Tightens Access to Secure Online Communications SecDev Flash Note 23 April 2013 The Syrian regime continues to block popular internet-based secure communication tools, forcing secure communication providers to change their tactics and adopt sophisticated methods to avoid detection and blocking. The regime is also censoring websites that provide access to these technologies. However, despite the increasing difficulty of accessing secure communications, demand for these tools and services is increasing. Syrian awareness of the dangers of unsecured communication has likely been fuelled by reports of activists being arrested and of the regime’s sophisticated capabilities for censorship and cyber warfare. The Syrian civil war reveals the importance of the internet to all parties in the conflict. The fact the regime has chosen to throttle rather than shut off access to the internet suggests that it is sensitive to the impact closure would have for a country where some 5 million Syrians are online. Shutting down the Internet would also diminish the state's capacity for on-line surveillance. This suggests that providing Syrians access to robust and resilient secure communication technologies is important to preserving the connections between people and communities that will be vital to Syria’s future once the fighting ends. Please see the linked Flash Note for further information. SecDev Flash Notes are produced by the Syria Operations Group as part of an ongoing activity to support the safety and security of the Syrian people and to enhance the free flow of information in Syria. This activity is managed by The SecDev Foundation, a Canadian not-for-profit organization, with funding from granting bodies in North America. To access our work on Syria, please visit the following links: For a collection of previous Flash Notes and Briefings, please visit our website's publications page. Syria Digital Security Monitor - this interactive mapping geographically and temporally maps digital security and infrastructure reports using various technical and non-technical means. Syria Digital Security Project - this provides information and communication security resources, tools and services to communities and individuals in Syria. Our Syria Facebook page provides reporting on digital security events in Syria. follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend Copyright © 2013 The SecDev Group, All rights reserved. We send emails to our clients, partners, and those otherwise interested in our work. Our mailing address is: The SecDev Group 45 O'Connor Street, Suite 1150 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1A4 Canada Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] (advice sought) Public safety and configuration of list
Brian and Elijah, Brian said: If Stanford University, who currently hosts the libtech mailng list decides to change the setup in contravention of democratic process of the list MEMBERS, then I would hope list members will move to one of many other options for hosting. ... Is it not worth considering that the constant rehashing of this discussion is in itself, something reminiscent of the behavior of bad actors attempting to derail effective organizing and discussion? Safety was hardly discussed in public; mostly only off list. Here's a short history of the public exchange between the subscribers and the university, thus far: Subs. When replying to messages sent via the list, I sometimes forget to hit Reply to List. Instead I hit Reply to Sender. When I realize my mistake, I must re-send my reply to the list. What a nuisance! How can we remedy this? Uni. It's possible to alter the sender's Reply-To headers, making it *appear* as though the sender had requested replies to be sent to the list. Then it no longer matters which button you press; your reply is directed to the list regardless. Subs. Yes, let's do that! Uni. But in our particular list, this may present a safety hazard to the public. Also it requires inserting false information into the mail that technically verges on fraud. Subs. (silence) Uni. Did you hear what I said? Subs. How dare you question our democratically reached decision! Did *you* not hear what *we* said? This is perhaps a little unfair. If a proper discussion had been held beforehand, then nobody could have *reasonably* agreed to alter the Reply-To headers without *first* refuting the public safety concerns. But this was not done; instead there was a vote. One subscriber even called for the vote as a means to end the discussion. And now, when the university is required to decide the matter, *again* public discussion is to be curtailed? That is fine, but remember that reasonable arguments of public safety and wilful mis-information are still standing. They have hardly been addressed yet, let alone refuted. (Again, pending that decision, I recommend that the configuration be returned to its default setting. The default is strongly recommended by the providers and its safety is unquestioned.) Elijah Wright said: Please don't reply-all on private mail (what this appears to be - interim mails did not go to Air-L), and then include lists in the CC line. ... it's unethical ... Apologies for cross-posting, but the mail I quoted was not private: https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-April/008257.html Mike Brian Conley said: +1 to both of Joe's comments. Michael, I'm not sure what world you live in, but in the world I live in, anyone who has information worth considering and is to be respected as a security adviser would NEVER follow the actions you've suggested. This is a strawman. The world is a dangerous place, and people get hurt. At least give them the agency to decide how best to protect themselves. Quite frankly I think there is a lot of hand-wringing going on, and it really wastes a lot of people's time. If Stanford University, who currently hosts the libtech mailng list decides to change the setup in contravention of democratic process of the list MEMBERS, then I would hope list members will move to one of many other options for hosting. I fully understand that Stanford University may now feel they have some sort of legal obligation, due, no doubt, in part to less than transparent actions by a few individuals, robbing the members of the list of agency. Its the University's legal decision, no doubt, but perhaps someone from the EFF can kindly call them and let them know this is a straw man. Is it not worth considering that the constant rehashing of this discussion is in itself, something reminiscent of the behavior of bad actors attempting to derail effective organizing and discussion? regards all. On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall j...@cdt.org wrote: (reply-to-list-only) On Apr 23, 2013, at 16:39, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote: Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. The list subscribers are not responsible for the safe administration of the list. The university alone is responsible. It could never pass that responsibility on to the subscribers, even if it wanted to. There's definitely a misunderstanding. I see mailing lists as fundamentally normative negotiations with a foundation of acceptable use, whether administered by Stanford or some other entity. Changing the entity that hosts a mailman list is one of the most frictionless changes which a community can agree to online. So, ultimately it's the list that requires persuasion (in my opinion). --Joe -- Brian Conley Director, Small World News
Re: [liberationtech] [Air-L] (advice sought) Public safety and configuration of list
actually, usually, email users are responsible for their use of email, on a list or off, so they are responsible for knowing the settings and adapting their behaviors to them. the locus of action of the list is the user, the administrator just sets the terms. On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote: Joseph Lorenzo Hall said: ... if you don't accept the decision of the list members ... Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. The list subscribers are not responsible for the safe administration of the list. The university alone is responsible. It could never pass that responsibility on to the subscribers, even if it wanted to. ... to appeal to higher authorities that have much better things on which to spend their time ... Well, it was university staff who appealed to counsel some weeks ago, following an off-list discussion. As I mention, the university is evaluating the matter and has yet to make a decision. My purpose in posting is to ask advice from experts, and to remind the counsel's office (a busy place, as you say) of the need for a decision. Again, pending that decision, I recommend that the configuration be returned to its default setting. The default is known to be safe. Mike Joseph Lorenzo Hall said: I would suggest if you don't accept the decision of the list members to keep reply-to-list, you should not subscribe. It seems silly to raise it again and attempt to appeal to higher authorities that have much better things on which to spend their time than mediate disputes about mailing list policy. (I initiated the recent policy discussion of the mailing list configuration and accept the results, despite not agreeing with the decision (not on safety grounds).) best, Joe -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Senior Staff Technologist Center for Democracy Technology 1634 I ST NW STE 1100 Washington DC 20006-4011 (p) 202-407-8825 (f) 202-637-0968 j...@cdt.org PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key ___ The ai...@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] [Air-L] (advice sought) Public safety and configuration of list
Dear All, Michael asked that the Program on Liberation Technology at Stanford University overrule the list vote over safety issues because he said the position created a potential legal liability for the university. We informed Michael that we saw none and that the list subscribers had taken the perceived safety issue into consideration when voting; in fact, we included the links to the pros and cons that addressed the perceived safety concerns. Michael, however, insists that there are safety issues. We remained unconvinced. He asked that we discuss the issue internally at Stanford University. Our final decision is consistent with the view that Jeremy outlined below, which is common practice for mailing lists: Email users are responsible for their use of email, on a list or off, so they are responsible for knowing the settings and adapting their behaviors to them. The locus of action of the list is the user, the administrator just sets the terms. Moreover, we inform users of the risks associated with subscribing to public lists both when they sign up and in our list guidelines. We also clearly state that the list is configured to reply to all. As a result, the current option will remain as currently configured and voted upon by list subscribers -- that is, reply to all. As we have received numerous complaints over having administrative issues crowd out substantive discussion on the list, we are creating a separate liberationtech-admin list. As soon as that list is operational, we will let you know. In the meantime, out of respect to your fellow subscribers, we ask that you please refrain from further discussion about the issue here but encourage you to continue the discussion there, if interested. Best, Yosem One of your list moderators -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
