Re: [liberationtech] Stability in truly "Democratic" decision systems
Hi Mitar- You ask good questions... I think I mentioned Wide open group choice ranking systems as a critical component in the effective function of crowd sourced "idea percolators"... That is, a wide open alternative spaces, under consideration, as you suggest is clearly key as a staring point if a group decision process is ever to be considered in any way truly democratic. My work in Social Choice theory, that is maximizing voter preference priority information flow is each voter's consistent representation across all possible group decision outcomes...turns out to be a critical component not only at the point of a group's eventual decision, but also during the group's deliberative process where the best of emerging alternatives are enduring further evaluation. Mitar suggests: *"I could argue that the biggest issue is assumption that we can based on preferences of individuals determine what would be the best for the group as a whole.*" .. In response, our work in social decision theory builds upon the thought exercise of a Social-Political circumstance where individual and group objectives have by means of social contract been co-aligned... While this is only the beginning of our reasoning, it certainly does in some way begin to address your argument... In a nut shell how can Wide Open alternative choice spaces, free from the problems of conditional representation (that induce the 3+ party spoiler effect) in any way be bad for a group's effectively more democratic group decision process?... Our work in the best form resolution of cyclical majority's effectively helps to address this challenge in maximizing each voter's representation of preference priorities.. This is not to say, that this is the only problem to be addressed in the designing of a truly democratic Social Decision System... That is, Trust maintenance in our Socio-political system will require the much tighter couplings of accountability that can be delivered by way of real time, Issue specialized social network proxy directives... I'm not sure why some are having trouble breaking the problem down into the individual issues concerning effective information flow...one thing for certain... in the end, Democracy* IS* about the flow of information regarding the desires of the electorate into the governance process... Our work takes the perspective that only when we choose to see the design of Social Decision Systems from this perspective, can we ever truly make any real progress in out understanding of what it means to be democratic. All the best -Peter --- On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Mitar wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Peter Lindener > wrote: > > At his point, while we could have discussions about how best to resolve > these > > cyclically ranked majority. > > It seems that you are assuming that the possibility of cyclically > ranked majority is the biggest issue with democracy? I could argue > that the biggest issue is assumption that we can based on preferences > of individuals determine what would be the best for the group as a > whole. Why exactly would this be related? Why exactly if we know what > each individual wants for him or herself, we would know what would be > best for the group? (For any definition of "best".) Of course you get > conflicts and cycles if everyone looks only at his or her own > interests. > > I found it a bit premature optimization that we are concerned how to > optimize voting among given choices when we should be maybe more > concerned how the choices are constructed. Because this is the big > question. Not how can we find fancy ways to sum up the votes among > given options. > > The issue is that we are always given options to choose from. But we > are hardly ever consulted in preparation of those options. Is this > really democracy? To be allowed to vote which among two kings or > queens (or hundred or whatever number) will rule you for next four or > five years? Beautiful. > > So my question is more: how can we get new ideas and new solutions to > issues from participation of everybody? How can we get people to be > able to contribute to the solution to the issue, not just to choose > among provided solutions? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k > > > Mitar > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > -- > 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 > -- 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] Stability in truly "Democratic" decision systems
Fascinating topic. Related: Henry Farrell and Cosma Shalizi's work on Cognitive Democracy http://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/23/cognitive-democracy/ On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Mitar wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Peter Lindener > wrote: > > At his point, while we could have discussions about how best to resolve > these > > cyclically ranked majority. > > It seems that you are assuming that the possibility of cyclically > ranked majority is the biggest issue with democracy? I could argue > that the biggest issue is assumption that we can based on preferences > of individuals determine what would be the best for the group as a > whole. Why exactly would this be related? Why exactly if we know what > each individual wants for him or herself, we would know what would be > best for the group? (For any definition of "best".) Of course you get > conflicts and cycles if everyone looks only at his or her own > interests. > > I found it a bit premature optimization that we are concerned how to > optimize voting among given choices when we should be maybe more > concerned how the choices are constructed. Because this is the big > question. Not how can we find fancy ways to sum up the votes among > given options. > > The issue is that we are always given options to choose from. But we > are hardly ever consulted in preparation of those options. Is this > really democracy? To be allowed to vote which among two kings or > queens (or hundred or whatever number) will rule you for next four or > five years? Beautiful. > > So my question is more: how can we get new ideas and new solutions to > issues from participation of everybody? How can we get people to be > able to contribute to the solution to the issue, not just to choose > among provided solutions? > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k > > > Mitar > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > -- > 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 > -- 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] Frank La Rue at New America
From: Carolina Rossini http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/human_rights_surveillance Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance The Open Technology Institute and Global Partners Present: Frank La Rue, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression -- *Carolina Rossini* Project Director, Latin America Resource Center New America Foundation and http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.ross...@gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -- 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] Traffic Analysis Countermeasures
Charles Allhands: > Thanks for the link! Is there a reason why mix networks aren't commonly > used? Thanks for asking this interesting question. See this. Not written by me. Source [1] > Roger Dingledine Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:10:48 -0700 > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 04:15:04AM +0100, StealthMonger wrote: >> If the channel has low latency, no hacking can conceal the packet >> timing and volume correlation at the endpoints. It is high random >> latency and thorough mixing that gain mixmaster its anonymity. >> Dingledine and company would agree. > > > Your "thorough mixing" phrase is critical here. > > Once upon a time, when we were working on both Mixminion and Tor, we were > thinking of it as a tradeoff: Mixminion offers some protection against > end-to-end correlation attacks [1], but the price is high and variable > latency; whereas Tor offers basically no protection against somebody who > can measure [2] flows at both sides of the circuit, but it's a lot more > fun to use. > > (Another price of the mix design is that you only get to send a fixed-size > relatively small message rather than have a bidirectional flow.) > > So oversimplifying a bit, we thought we had a choice between "high > security, high latency" and "low security, low latency". But the trouble > is that while Mixminion's design can provide more safety in theory, it > needs the users before it can provide this safety in practice. Without > enough users sending messages to mix with, high and variable latency by > itself doesn't cut it. > > So oversimplifying a bit more, the choice may be better viewed as "low > security, high latency" vs "low security, low latency". And that's a > much easier choice to make. See [3] for more discussion. > > I haven't given up hope on end-to-end correlation resistance for > low-latency flow-based designs like Tor (but papers like [4] don't make me > optimistic for a quick fix). It's hard to see how we could end up with a > large enough and diverse enough population of Mixminion users to let it > fulfill its potential. Stay tuned to PETS [5] and related conferences, > but be patient. > > --Roger [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg00022.html -- 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] [cfabrigade] Mapping Sea Levels
SF non-profit SPUR keeps tabs on stuff like this as part of their focus on disaster planning and building a resilient city, and they've been publishing research papers that include scenarios for rising sea levels due to earthquakes and global warming. While research papers won't include up-to-the-minute data on sea levels, I'm sure they'll have some fairly updated maps and/or data you might find useful. Check here maybe. http://www.spur.org/disaster_planning Good luck! *Tina Lee* Phone: 415.407.7024 Email: ms.tina@gmail.com Twitter: @mstinalee Web: http://ldt.stanford.edu/~tlee3 On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Yosem Companys wrote: > Does anyone know of any maps that have been drawn up showing what the > SF bay area coastline will look like as a result of global warming? > Or do you know of anyone who might know the answer to this question? > > I'm looking for a map that changes contingent on the selected number > of feet of higher sea level anticipated. > > Thanks, > > Yosem > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Brigade" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to brigade+unsubscr...@codeforamerica.org. > To post to this group, send email to brig...@codeforamerica.org. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/a/codeforamerica.org/group/brigade/. > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/a/codeforamerica.org/groups/opt_out. > > > -- 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] Traffic Analysis Countermeasures
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:51:23AM -0500, Charles Allhands wrote: > Thanks for the link! Is there a reason why mix networks aren't commonly > used? I see mixminion hasn't been worked on in years. Most of the payload of mix was spam and malware. It's effectively an open relay as far as RBLs are concerned. So not very useful. -- 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] Traffic Analysis Countermeasures
Thanks for the link! Is there a reason why mix networks aren't commonly used? I see mixminion hasn't been worked on in years. -Charles On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Tom Ritter wrote: > Mix Networks are designed to do this, with remailers being > implementations of them (although quite out of date, and best studied > academically and not relied on. An intro, in blog form, is here: > https://crypto.is/blog/ > > Shared Mailboxes like the usenet group alt.anonymous.messages also are > designed to defeat traffic analysis, and are in the same state of > disrepair and academic study. I aim to present more about AAM this > month: http://defcon.org/html/defcon-21/dc-21-speakers.html#Ritter > > I agree, I think defeating traffic analysis and metadata collection is > crucial - but we don't have many mature tools that aim to do this. > Tor is the best example. > > -tom > -- > 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 > -- 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] Traffic Analysis Countermeasures
Mix Networks are designed to do this, with remailers being implementations of them (although quite out of date, and best studied academically and not relied on. An intro, in blog form, is here: https://crypto.is/blog/ Shared Mailboxes like the usenet group alt.anonymous.messages also are designed to defeat traffic analysis, and are in the same state of disrepair and academic study. I aim to present more about AAM this month: http://defcon.org/html/defcon-21/dc-21-speakers.html#Ritter I agree, I think defeating traffic analysis and metadata collection is crucial - but we don't have many mature tools that aim to do this. Tor is the best example. -tom -- 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] Traffic Analysis Countermeasures
Does anyone know of software designed to thwart traffic analysis? With all the recent news about metadata gathering this would seem like a useful privacy tool alongside Tor and good crypto. -Charles -- 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] Blackberry 10 Sends Full Email Account Credentials To RIM
This is only ~mildly~ new - this is how they're service always worked for most non-BEM addresses. From their design standpoint, for the delivery mode they were promising, it made more sense than having your device poll constantly (battery). Obviously it's still not cool - I'm just failing to see why the actual biggest-breakage here is "new"? -Ali On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:25 AM, staticsafe wrote: > Might be of interest to this list: > http://frank.geekheim.de/?p=2379 [source] > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/BlackBerry-spaeht-Mail-Login-aus-1919718.html > http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/07/18/1249236/blackberry-10-sends-full-email-account-credentials-to-rim > > Why, RIM, why? > -- > staticsafe > O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org > Please don't top post. > Please don't CC! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on. > -- > 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 -- 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] Blackberry 10 Sends Full Email Account Credentials To RIM
Might be of interest to this list: http://frank.geekheim.de/?p=2379 [source] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/BlackBerry-spaeht-Mail-Login-aus-1919718.html http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/07/18/1249236/blackberry-10-sends-full-email-account-credentials-to-rim Why, RIM, why? -- staticsafe O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org Please don't top post. Please don't CC! I'm subscribed to whatever list I just posted on. -- 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] [tahoe-dev] Dedicated LAFS nodes offer
- Forwarded message from Avi Freedman - Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:23:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Avi Freedman To: tahoe-...@tahoe-lafs.org Subject: [tahoe-dev] Dedicated LAFS nodes offer X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL8] Reply-To: Tahoe-LAFS development Hi... [I know this isn't a very tl;dr group but the summary is - we're doing beta of private LAFS clouds and if you want to give it a shot I'll get you some coupon codes for free service over the weekend or early next week] So the meat of the post - We wanted to let everyone in the community know that Havenco is launching storage (and VPN services) in beta this month, and the storage service is going to offer LAFS nodes (like rentanode.nl had been doing) as well as S3-compatible buckets. When the topic of relaunching Havenco came up back in January (which seems like a looong time ago - before mega launched and Aaron's trafic death), we were thinking that a smart client that could do per file or directory access controls and keys would be really great - not knowing about LAFS at the time. Zooko and the LA team, and the tahoe-dev community as a whole, have been great as we've investigated the capabilities and roadmap of LAFS and the ways to best run it in a provider setting, and we're going to try to return the favor by doing some additional FAQs and instructions which we'll contribute to the project as well as presenting at www.havenco.com. The architecture we're running for LAFS to do accounting is one that the LA team helped us validate - we're doing one Linux uid per customer and running 10 tahoe procs each in a separate directory across separate machines, and running RAID underneath so that we can ignore the potential performance issues with client-side resync right now. If there's a lot of interest the plan is to develop or fund development towards progress on the accounting-related tickets; we'd prefer to work in a mode where all the ciphertext from all the customers are interspersed. Just hard to see doing that now with no way to track usage. We've got the basics of node and introducer setup going but would love to have some LAFS users do some testing with us next week. I'll make sure that anyone who does it can have 50GB free of private backend for a few years; if you're on this list as an enthusiast, dev, or potential dev we'd just like to support the community so that LAFS can fulfill Zooko+team's vision of empowering user freedom [he puts it much better than I could though]. Also... We've had some conversations both with the LA team and with Guido recently (of rentanode) who has been generous with his time and has shared some thoughts about how he was running LAFS as a service provider. I kept some of that off the list because I was asking questions that were in some cases validating assumptions based on reading the docs and in some cases were asked without having time to read the history of all relevant TRAC tickets, but we'll try to put together a LAFS for service provider FAQ based on some of those discussions, and keep future silly questions and roadmap conversations on the tahoe-dev list. If we get some new-user usage of LAFS, we'll also try to summarize the questions we get about LAFS use and user/usability feedback to the list every so often. In our limited testing the first thing that sysadminnish people have asked for is the ability to have something like ssh key passphrases for caps. Thanks again to the LAFS team and the community... [Again as a summary - if you're interested in helping us test or just adding some free nodes to your play, test, dev, or prod pool for a few years, please send me an off-list note and we'll get you info in the next week] Thanks, Avi (working with the havenco tech team) ___ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-...@tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5 -- 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] Is Most Encryption Cracked?
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:47:28 -0500 Nick Daly wrote: > I swear I recognize that argument structure from somewhere... North Korea is best Korea? :F -- 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] Stability in truly "Democratic" decision systems
Hi! On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Peter Lindener wrote: > At his point, while we could have discussions about how best to resolve these > cyclically ranked majority. It seems that you are assuming that the possibility of cyclically ranked majority is the biggest issue with democracy? I could argue that the biggest issue is assumption that we can based on preferences of individuals determine what would be the best for the group as a whole. Why exactly would this be related? Why exactly if we know what each individual wants for him or herself, we would know what would be best for the group? (For any definition of "best".) Of course you get conflicts and cycles if everyone looks only at his or her own interests. I found it a bit premature optimization that we are concerned how to optimize voting among given choices when we should be maybe more concerned how the choices are constructed. Because this is the big question. Not how can we find fancy ways to sum up the votes among given options. The issue is that we are always given options to choose from. But we are hardly ever consulted in preparation of those options. Is this really democracy? To be allowed to vote which among two kings or queens (or hundred or whatever number) will rule you for next four or five years? Beautiful. So my question is more: how can we get new ideas and new solutions to issues from participation of everybody? How can we get people to be able to contribute to the solution to the issue, not just to choose among provided solutions? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m -- 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
