[liberationtech] Decentralization/Federation

[Alberto Cammozzo]

Hi,
an interesting position from MIT Media Lab that is at least in part
relevanto to a thread launched by Yosem in Frebruary on this list [1]
Defending​ ​ Internet​ ​ Freedom​ ​ through​ ​ Decentralization: Back​ ​
to​ ​ the​ ​ Future?

 
 


I think this technical analysis should open a more wide debate before
jumping to "will work/ will not work" conclusions: issues of such
complexity could not have a purely technical solution.
Economic, social, juridical, political issues should also be taken into
account.
For instance the report does not consider the innovations introduced in
a global data market by the EU GDPR.

Bests,

Alberto


[1]


-- 

TagMeNot
http://tagMeNot.info
@dontTag

-- 
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 the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Disroot + OpenNIC Project + GoldBug

[Alberto Cammozzo]

Thank you Cecilia,
great resource!
Alberto


On 07/09/2017 06:58, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
> This is cute too!  <3
>
> https://www.privacytools.io
>
> ---
> "Don't let anyone rob you of your imagination, your creativity, or
> your curiosity.  It's your place in the world; it's your life.  Go on
> and do all you can with it, and make it the life you want to live."  -
>  Mae Jemison


-- 
TagMeNot
http://tagMeNot.info
@dontTag

-- 
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 the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Facebook: Building Global Community - What's your response to Mark Zuckerberg?

[Alberto Cammozzo]

There is a "privacy divide" emerging issue there.

Using FB may help to reach the masses, but some people (activists and
not) will never use a FB account and will be unreachable.
Same for Google: for instance, the link below to Google Docs is
unavailable with my privacy setting.

Some open source and selfhosted alternative to FB is listed here


Alberto


On 19/02/2017 20:36, Yosem Companys wrote:
> First of all, I want to commend Steven for all he has done over the
> years. He was a pioneer of e-democracy in the 1990s, when the Internet
> was a mere curiosity for most people. And Steven has worked arduously
> over the years to help foster e-democracy around the world. That is to
> be commended and thanked.
>
> That said, Thomas, you raise important points. If we look at the
> alternatives out there for grassroots organizing, they tend to be
> proprietary like NationBuilder. I do not know any open-source
> alternatives off hand.
>
> Please review Rand Strauss's list at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jz_X1ZVCtX2W3etsgjX5iCBylsMBPyUKD7I05ZF0FuI/edit.
> Kudos to Rand for putting the list together.
>
> If I want to look for good open-source solutions to start a movement
> and I'm not tech savvy, I need either someone to build it for me or I
> want it to be easily installed on a server.
>
> That is why Bram Wets' suggestions were so on point -- I repost them
> here in case you missed them:
>
> Idea 1:
> An idea list where the Liberationtech community can post ideas for
> projects, upvote (and downvote) them, put your name with an idea
> to contribute.
> This would facilitate your call for ideas/projects ;-)
> I actually like the format of software bugtracking. It maybe can
> be used for such an idea list. Or a github-like structure with
> pullrequests...
>
> Idea 2:
> An overview of tips, good practices, tools and apps for secure
> communication and digital privacy. And the organisations and
> platforms that work on this topic.
> Yes, there is a lot out there and some organizations already have
> done terrific work. So the focus has to be on the overview, not on
> doing all there work over again.
> Additionally we can add good practices in how to reach people and
> teach them those privacy tools.
>
>
> Just having a simple wiki of tools and people willing to help for free
> or a nominal fee would be a contribution. Being able to evaluate tools
> with up or down votes would also be a contribution.
>
> In the meantime, if you go to sites like Progressive Exchange, you
> will see that pretty much everyone recommends closed-source software
> with questionable security for online organizing. Putting all your
> activist friends on NationBuilder, for example, is a security risk. We
> don't know if NationBuilder under a different management team might be
> tempted or forced to give the entire list to the government for
> surveillance purposes. 
>
> And Rick has outlined the risks of Facebook already, as Thomas writes,
> so I won't reiterate those. Maybe we need to build another Diaspora
> and this time build it right: open-source, best encryption,
> Napster-like one-to-one capabilities, hosting of data in servers in
> privacy-friendly regimes, ability to connect to the large social
> networking sites like Hootsuite for widespread dissemination,
> non-profit or at least cooperative status, and so on.  
>
> If this is a project folks are interested in, we can start doing some
> research on what it should look like and look for funding sources to
> make it happen.
>
> Best,
> Yosem
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Thomas Delrue  > wrote:
>
> On 02/19/2017 01:46 PM, Al Billings wrote:
> > Someone remind me again what the alternatives are to Facebook that
> > are actually easy to use for "normal" users and which they will be
> > able to quickly sign up and use...
>
> Oh, and before I forget, why the need to "sign up"? Why is that a
> requirement? If you're doing something that at some point could be
> deemed subversive, why would you maintain a list of members of said
> activity/thinking that can easily be requisitioned or compromised?
>
> Why does everyone need everyone else to sign up and hand over
> information in order to use a simple website? Why does everyone
> want to
> lock up everything behind a login-wall?
>
> Maybe that's the big problem... Everyone thinks that you need to
> maintain a list of users and a login form in order to run a simple
> website...
>
> --
> 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 

Re: [liberationtech] [SPAM:####] Re: Decentralization

[Alberto Cammozzo]

le nature of the internet, people don't
> treat the privacy of their communications with the same bar they
> would treat (we assume) paper correspondence.
>
> Having said that, it's fundamental to understand that people won't
> leave Facebook, Gmail or Windows, simply because, beyond
> theoretical manifestos about abstract concepts such as 'privacy',
> they don't have any reason to do so.
>
> In fact, it's quite the opposite — people won't make the move from
> any of the aforementioned companies for the simple reason that
> everything will be more difficult. And let's cut the BS here —
> easy-to-use and functionality on the "alternatives" are not the best.
>
> That's why I think is critical that the hacker community start
> focusing more on UX. Until my mother can see that Linux is as
> nice, easy-to-use and practical as Windows, only then she will
> start making the change (and even that won't guarantee that she
> leaves Windows, but is a basic a mandatory step). The same can be
> said about IM, social media, email and practically everything.
>
> FL
>
> > On 08-02-2017, at 10:06, Alberto Cammozzo <ac+li...@zeromx.net
> <mailto:ac%2bli...@zeromx.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Richard, you are right: maintaining email servers requires some
> skill
> > and has a cost.
> > Gmail does this reliably and is attractive for most
> non-technical users.
> >
> > But now imagine this:
> > Your favourite snail-mail service offers your university paper
> letters
> > delivery, but at these conditions:
> > 1) being authorized to open the envelope you send
> > 2) reading the letter looking for keywords
> > 3) attaching targeted advertising to your letter, according to
> keywords
> > 4) build and keep a profile of you and your correspondents network
> > 5) eventually deliver the letter along with advertising
> > 6) deliver targeted advertising in envelopes directed to you
> > Would your university accept, even in front of major savings? I
> don't
> > think so.
> > Despite being free, attractive and convenient this would be
> illegal in
> > most countries (in Italy, where I live, secrecy of correspondence is
> > even a constitutional provision).
> > But, inexplicably, this is pretty much what we accept without
> hesitation
> > with Gmail and most free messaging services.
> > And still, secrecy of paper correspondence is socially required and
> > legally protected.
> >
> > Building a decentralized, reliable, secure, private, open and
> cheap (if
> > not free) infrastructure for delivering and preserving emails at
> least
> > as well as Gmail does is something we should have.
> > By infrastructure I mean something like railways, telephone, power
> > lines, roads, bridges, Internet connectivity: in certain cases they
> > should or may be privately held, but with a major public commitment.
> > Their main goal is providing a public interest service, build an
> > enabling environment for social and economic life, not only being a
> > business opportunity.
> > And of course I'm not saying we should have national Gmails!
> > I think something more similar to dn42.net <http://dn42.net> and
> zeroNet.io, but at least
> > as attractive and usable as Google services.
> > See also the paper by Aymeric Vitte in this thread.
> >
> > Bests,
> >
> > Alberto
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 07/02/2017 16:10, Richard Brooks wrote:
> >> On the other hand, why are they using gmail?
> >>
> >> Our university outsourced email to Google. They
> >> software up to date, handle the security, provide
> >> convenient cloud access (I personally dislike
> >> their GUIs),  etc. For our university, this decision
> >> probably did make our email traffic more secure
> >> as well.
> >>
> >> I am not wild about the decision our university
> >> made, but for most users using Gmail is probably
> >> the more reasonable and secure choice. Not the
> >> choice that I would make for myself. Being spied
> >> on bothers me.
> >>
> >> But, if you want to have the broad base of users
> >> move elsewhere, you need to address the clear
> >> advantages that Gmail provides.
> >&g

[liberationtech] [SPAM:####] Re: Decentralization

[Alberto Cammozzo]

Richard, you are right: maintaining email servers requires some skill
and has a cost.
Gmail does this reliably and is attractive for most non-technical users.

But now imagine this:
Your favourite snail-mail service offers your university paper letters
delivery, but at these conditions:
1) being authorized to open the envelope you send
2) reading the letter looking for keywords
3) attaching targeted advertising to your letter, according to keywords
4) build and keep a profile of you and your correspondents network
5) eventually deliver the letter along with advertising
6) deliver targeted advertising in envelopes directed to you
Would your university accept, even in front of major savings? I don't
think so.
Despite being free, attractive and convenient this would be illegal in
most countries (in Italy, where I live, secrecy of correspondence is
even a constitutional provision).
But, inexplicably, this is pretty much what we accept without hesitation
with Gmail and most free messaging services.
And still, secrecy of paper correspondence is socially required and
legally protected.

Building a decentralized, reliable, secure, private, open and cheap (if
not free) infrastructure for delivering and preserving emails at least
as well as Gmail does is something we should have.
By infrastructure I mean something like railways, telephone, power
lines, roads, bridges, Internet connectivity: in certain cases they
should or may be privately held, but with a major public commitment.
Their main goal is providing a public interest service, build an
enabling environment for social and economic life, not only being a
business opportunity.
And of course I'm not saying we should have national Gmails!
I think something more similar to dn42.net and zeroNet.io, but at least
as attractive and usable as Google services.
See also the paper by Aymeric Vitte in this thread.

Bests,

Alberto



On 07/02/2017 16:10, Richard Brooks wrote:
> On the other hand, why are they using gmail?
>
> Our university outsourced email to Google. They
> software up to date, handle the security, provide
> convenient cloud access (I personally dislike
> their GUIs),  etc. For our university, this decision
> probably did make our email traffic more secure
> as well.
>
> I am not wild about the decision our university
> made, but for most users using Gmail is probably
> the more reasonable and secure choice. Not the
> choice that I would make for myself. Being spied
> on bothers me.
>
> But, if you want to have the broad base of users
> move elsewhere, you need to address the clear
> advantages that Gmail provides.
>
> Political, social, and economics arguments will not
> convince most people.
>
> On 02/07/2017 07:06 AM, Andrés Pacheco wrote:
>> Signore Camozzo hit the nail on the head, twice. So then I have to draw the 
>> proper conclusion...
>>
>> 1. We need concerted action to set non-proprietary communication standards 
>> at the application level, much like the TCP-IP Protocols did for the lower 
>> layer(s)
>>
>> 2. This action HAS to be POLITICAL, since it's not just a matter of devising 
>> technical standards, but to have them ADOPTED by the majority. We need the 
>> 75% of his email correspondents to not use proprietary email platforms (and 
>> so forth and so on, and including me and this email itself!)
>>
>> Ergo, it is at best naive trying to separate "Technology" from "Politics:" 
>> all Technology is Political, and ignoring this only rubber stamps the 
>> technology of the proprietary powers that be.
>>
>> Not by chance it's Technology companies at the top of the "most valuable 
>> company of the world" food chain: Google and Apple. If that's not a 
>> political statement, then what is? Where is "the swamp?"
>>
>> Regards | Saludos,
>>
>> Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes
>> <a...@acm.org>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Alberto Cammozzo <ac+li...@zeromx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> So far so good, but what is it all for? ~75% of my email correspondents
>>> use Gmail ...
>>> You cant decentralize alone...
>>> We need to fix this quickly or the information revolution will be lost
>>> and archived as an annex of the industrial revolution.
>


-- 
-
TagMeNot
http://tagMeNot.info
@dontTag

-- 
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.

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[Alberto Cammozzo]

Thank you Lluís,

as you say, "likely-private communications": you can't trust proprietary
software, but even free software can't be trusted if it's run behind
closed doors.

I run all my servers, I sign my certificates, use only free software and
encryption.
All my DNS traffic runs through VPN to avoid ISPs DPI tampering.
I use alternative search engines and tracking protection plungins in my
browsers, installed Cyanogen Mod on my phone (no G apps), shut down
Gmail and Dropbox accounts and moved some servers in EU after Snowden
revelations.
Shut down Linkedin account after MS acquisition as well.
No Facebook, no WhatsApp.

So far so good, but what is it all for? ~75% of my email correspondents
use Gmail ...
You cant decentralize alone...
We need to fix this quickly or the information revolution will be lost
and archived as an annex of the industrial revolution.

Bests,

Alberto

fonts.googleapis.com is the center-node of my networking graph.

-
Alberto Cammozzo
http://tagmenot.info
@dontTag

On 07/02/2017 10:56, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> Thank you for this writing and the link to the blogpost. I feel quite
> identified.
>
> I also host my email and, moreover, I'm lazy to set up the ssl for all
> that. That's enough headache, and I also have to use a third-party MTA to
> be trusted, etc. And all the colleagues use email.
>
> But this means that I often face this situation: what is more important:
> to run free software, or to have likely-private (but I can't check)
> communications with my colleagues?
>
> I choose the free software, when I am faced with that question. And I get
> into that question quite often.
>
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:35:38PM +0100, Alberto Cammozzo wrote:
>> As Moxie Marlinspike put it: "cannibalizing a federated
>> application-layer protocol into a centralized service is almost a sure
>> recipe for a successful consumer product today."
>> Successful, but short-sighted. No federated or even interoperable
>> infrastructure will likely emerge from here.
>>
>> If e-mail system was to be built today, we would have one for Facebook,
>> one for Google, one for Apple...
>> All of them proprietary and probably non-interoperable: you would need
>> at least four accounts to talk to everybody.
>>
>> Our current Web-centered communication ecosystem is similar to the
>> balkanized pre-Internet: Bitnet, SNA, DECNET, Fidonet, OSI X.400, uucp...
>> IBM, Digital and others were then profitably competing over a
>> communication infrastructure and had no interest in cooperating to build
>> a federated one.
>> This impasse ended with government-funded TCP/IP: it was suitable,
>> simple, free, open. It won quickly (but ICT users were literate then).
>> What was the return on investment? On the immediate, zero.
>> On the long period? Huge. ROI was systemic.
>>
>> We are in a similar market failure condition: "centralized" dominant
>> companies won't drop profitable business, and "decentralized" startups
>> wont get zero-ROI funding.
>> Business can go an for a while in this ecosystem (where most users don't
>> care of the architecture).
>> It makes rather sense that governments, or non-profits or crowdfunded
>> initiatives sponsor systemic infrastructures upon which business can
>> evolve and competition thrive (as it makes sense that governments break
>> monopolies, too).
>> The EU should be a good candidate, only if it was rational about
>> competition.
>>
>> Bests,
>> Alberto
>>
>> [1] <https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alberto Cammozzo
>> http://tagmenot.info
>> @dontTag
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05/02/2017 21:17, Yosem Companys wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> One of the problems may decentralized startups are confronting in
>>> Silicon Valley is that venture capitalists are telling them that they
>>> need to be centralized because there is no business model in
>>> decentralization. 
>>>
>>> For an example, think Diaspora: The original vision of Diaspora was a
>>> social network where each person could have his or her own node in the
>>> network and connect to others to share data similar to how Napster
>>> connected people to download music. But the data would live in your
>>> machine, not Facebook's.
>>>
>>> Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable
>>> so folks on this list who are struggling with pitching
>>> decentralization as a business model can succeed?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yosem
>>

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[Alberto Cammozzo]

As Moxie Marlinspike put it: "cannibalizing a federated
application-layer protocol into a centralized service is almost a sure
recipe for a successful consumer product today."
Successful, but short-sighted. No federated or even interoperable
infrastructure will likely emerge from here.

If e-mail system was to be built today, we would have one for Facebook,
one for Google, one for Apple...
All of them proprietary and probably non-interoperable: you would need
at least four accounts to talk to everybody.

Our current Web-centered communication ecosystem is similar to the
balkanized pre-Internet: Bitnet, SNA, DECNET, Fidonet, OSI X.400, uucp...
IBM, Digital and others were then profitably competing over a
communication infrastructure and had no interest in cooperating to build
a federated one.
This impasse ended with government-funded TCP/IP: it was suitable,
simple, free, open. It won quickly (but ICT users were literate then).
What was the return on investment? On the immediate, zero.
On the long period? Huge. ROI was systemic.

We are in a similar market failure condition: "centralized" dominant
companies won't drop profitable business, and "decentralized" startups
wont get zero-ROI funding.
Business can go an for a while in this ecosystem (where most users don't
care of the architecture).
It makes rather sense that governments, or non-profits or crowdfunded
initiatives sponsor systemic infrastructures upon which business can
evolve and competition thrive (as it makes sense that governments break
monopolies, too).
The EU should be a good candidate, only if it was rational about
competition.

Bests,
Alberto

[1] <https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/>


--
Alberto Cammozzo
http://tagmenot.info
@dontTag



On 05/02/2017 21:17, Yosem Companys wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> One of the problems may decentralized startups are confronting in
> Silicon Valley is that venture capitalists are telling them that they
> need to be centralized because there is no business model in
> decentralization. 
>
> For an example, think Diaspora: The original vision of Diaspora was a
> social network where each person could have his or her own node in the
> network and connect to others to share data similar to how Napster
> connected people to download music. But the data would live in your
> machine, not Facebook's.
>
> Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable
> so folks on this list who are struggling with pitching
> decentralization as a business model can succeed?
>
> Thanks,
> Yosem
>
>


-- 
-
TagMeNot
http://tagMeNot.info
@dontTag

-- 
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.

[liberationtech] Fwd: Ethicomp/CEPE 2017 Call for Tracks

[Alberto Cammozzo]

 Forwarded Message 
Subject:Ethicomp/CEPE 2017 Call for Tracks
Date:   Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:20:01 +
From:   Volkman, Richard 



Call for Tracks: Ethicomp/CEPE 2017

Università degli Studi di Torino (University of Turin), Turin, Italy

May, 2017

The Ethicomp/CEPE 2017 planning committee invites proposals for program 
tracks.


Proposals are submitted by filling out this form:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1f3zTKvLLn6adisvOgMninQ_6uJV5IlG3v9F-33oqNlY/viewform

The deadline for full consideration of track proposals is March 31, 2016.

The Ethicomp series of conferences fosters an international community of 
scholars and technologists, including computer professionals and 
business professionals from industry. Since 1995, conferences have been 
scheduled across Europe and Asia, with our main events coming every 18 
months. Ethicomp considers computer ethics conceived broadly to include 
philosophical, professional, and practical aspects of the field. CEPE 
(Computer Ethics Philosophical Enquiry), as the name implies, is more 
narrowly focused on the philosophical aspects of computer ethics. 
However, the CEPE community overlaps considerably with the Ethicomp 
community, and it makes sense for the two conference series to work 
together. In light of this, our next conference will be a jointly 
sponsored event, hosted at the Università degli Studi di 
Torino (University of Turin), Turin, Italy in May of 2017.


Tracks offer members of the Ethicomp and CEPE communities an opportunity 
to participate in setting the program for our upcoming conference by 
proposing and taking responsibility for specific topics of interest. 
Track chairs will be responsible for organizing the review of papers 
submitted to their tracks through the EasyChair conference management 
website in accordance with conference review guidelines. You will need 
to assign at least 2 reviewers for a double blind peer review, per 
extended abstract submission and ensure high quality reviews. Decisions 
regarding which papers to accept will be made by track chairs in concert 
the conference chair and program chair of the appropriate conference.


Tracks will be considered for inclusion according to the following criteria:


- fit with conference

- relevance to the general field

- quality of the problem description / description of the theme

- likelihood of attracting submissions

- likelihood of attracting an audience

- likelihood of attracting new scholars or stakeholders to the conference

The submission deadline for track proposals is 31^st of March, 2016. The 
ETHICOMP steering committee will review proposals and choose appropriate 
ones. Proposers will be notified of the committee’s decision before 
early May, when the call for papers will be launched.


The tentative and rough timetable of the conference is as follows:

Call for abstracts early May 2016

Initial submission   early September 2016

Reviews due mid October 2016

Paper acceptance / rejection  late October 2016

Final full paper submissions early February 2017

Conference   May 22-25, 2017.

If you are interested in proposing a track, please provide the required 
information here:


https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1f3zTKvLLn6adisvOgMninQ_6uJV5IlG3v9F-33oqNlY/viewform

Questions and comments may be directed to:

Richard Volkman,

Ethicomp Conference Chair

volkma...@southernct.edu



--
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.

Re: [liberationtech] Hey, does the NSA own Germany? Because that would be bad.

[Alberto Cammozzo]

Thank you Kate,
this is an important resource for UE citizens.
A quite extensive and documented coverage on the NSA-BND issue has 
appeared in English on the Electrospaces blog following the hearings.

You may be interested in connecting with them and link their articles.







Bests,

Alberto

On 17/09/2015 03:59, Kate Krauss wrote:

Hi Liberation Tech,

I visited a German hacker conference recently, and it gradually became 
clear to me in talking to privacy advocates that the NSA has a very 
unhealthy relationship with German intelligence.


​
​It seems that the NSA is colluding with German intelligence agencies 
(the BND and others) to spy on German politicians, journalists, and 
citizens.


An inquiry committee of the German Parliament is in the midst of a 
major investigation to

​ get to the bottom of this​
. It’s also trying to learn whether the US is planning illegal drone 
strikes
​from German soil. And tapping the Internet directly in Munich to send 
data about Germans directly to the NSA.
There are even allegations that German intelligence agencies are 
exchanging citizens’ personal data for expensive surveillance 
equipment paid for by the NSA
​. And the roof of the US embassy in Berlin seems to be an NSA 
listening post (I guess that's not unusual). Then there's the undersea 
cable.


The Germans working on this investigation in Parliament are frustrated 
that news about it isn’t really reaching the international community.  ​



Spy agencies for the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia may also 
be involved (FVEY). But the NSA is by far the best funded and most 
powerful among them—Edward Snowden revealed that the US intelligence 
budget was $52 billion in 2013.


The central issue, however, is whether Germany, in bowing to the 
requests of the NSA, could be gradually turning over its independence 
to the United States. This is an outrageous claim—but if you let a 
foreign government spy on your head of government, Chancellor Merkel, 
and members of

​your ​
Parliament, and you intimidate German journalists who try to cover the 
story (two were recently investigated for treason)—at what point does 
that cross a bright line? And if the US has co-opted Germany, one of 
the most powerful countries in Europe—which other less powerful 
countries does it own, right now, in secret?


A tiny group of interested Germans and Americans has launched a web 
site (GermanTransparency.org) and a
​Twitter account (@GermanInq) to track this investigation and share 
information about it with English-speaking journalists, activists, and 
technologists.


Please read the blog post and news reports on the web site, and follow 
us on Twitter. The next hearings of this inquiry committee will be 
held in Berlin on September 2
​4, so you have a few days to get up to speed. Berlin is six hours 
ahead of New York. The hashtag for the inquiry is #GermanInq.


Thanks,

Kate Krauss
​for GermanTransparency.org
@GermanInq​






--
-
TagMeNot
http://tagMeNot.info
@dontTag

--
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.

Re: [liberationtech] The Research Bay #3

[Alberto Cammozzo]

Hello Marcin,

are you are aware that Italy is censoring thepiratebay.* ?
Perhaps it would be useful to have the survey available at some other
address, too.

bests,

Alberto


-
Alberto Cammozzo
http://cammozzo.com
http://tagMeNot.info



On 02/25/2014 12:35 AM, Marcin de Kaminski wrote:
 The survey can be reached through www.thepiratebay.se ofc… :)

 On 25 Feb 2014, at 24:33 , Marcin de Kaminski mar...@dekaminski.se wrote:

 Hey all,

 The Cybernorms research group and the Lund University Internet Institute 
 (LUii) is currently doing a survey on file-sharing in collaboration with The 
 Pirate Bay, the bitTorrent site. The survey runs from 25 to 27 February.

 The survey has been done twice before, and has been the largest of its kind 
 with over 96,000 respondents. The first Research Bay survey was performed in 
 April 2011, and it was followed by the Research Bay “re-loaded” about a year 
 later in 2012. The Cybernorms research group also released the data from the 
 first survey in a searchable database on this site, called the Survey Bay. 
 Forbes reported, along with TechDirt and others.

 See also post on www.cybernormer.se

 Scientific articles based on previous Research Bay data

  • Larsson, S., Svensson, M., de Kaminski, M., Rönkkö, K., and Alkan 
 Olsson, J. (2012) Law, norms, piracy and online anonymity – Practices of 
 de-identification in the global file sharing community, Journal of Research 
 in Interactive Marketing 6(4): 260-280.
  • Larsson, Stefan, Svensson, Måns and de Kaminski, Marcin (2012) Online 
 Piracy, Anonymity and Social Change – Innovation through Deviance, 
 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media 
 Technologies, 19(1): 95-114. 
  • Larsson, Stefan (2014) Conceptions of Copyright in a Digital Context. 
 A Comparison between French and American File-sharers, Lexis – E-journal in 
 English Lexicology.
  • de Kaminski, M., Svensson, M., Larsson, S., Alkan Olsson, J., Rönkkö, 
 K. (2013) Studying Norms and Social Change in Digital Age: Identifying and 
 Understanding a Multidimensional Gap Problem, in M Baier, Social and Legal 
 Norms. Towards a socio-legal understanding of normativity, Ashgate 
 Publishing.
  • Andersson Schwarz, J. and Larsson S. (forthcoming, 2014) On the 
 Justifications of Piracy: Differences in conceptualization and argumentation 
 between active uploaders and other file-sharers. In: Arvanitakis J and 
 Fredriksson M (eds.), Piracy: Leakages from Modernity. Los Angeles, CA: 
 Litwin Books.
  • Larsson, Wnukowska-Mtonga, Svensson, de Kaminski (forthcoming, 2014) 
 Parallel Norms: File-sharing and Contemporary Copyright Development in 
 Australia, Journal of World Intellectual Property.
  • Svensson, M., Larsson, S. and de Kaminski, M. (2013) 
 Professionalizzazione, gender e anonimato nelle comunità di file sharing 
 globale, in Roberto Braga and Giovanni Caruso (eds.) Piracy Effect, Milano, 
 Italy: Mimesis Editore.

 -- 
 Marcin de Kaminski
 PhDc Sociology of Law, University of Lund
 Lund University Internet Institute, Cybernorms Research Group
 Personal homepage - www.dekaminski.se

 Phone#: +46-(0)768-045151





-- 
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.

[liberationtech] Special issues on Surveillance

[Alberto Cammozzo]

Hello,

I'd like to share with you an interdisciplinary list of articles from* 
**special issues* on surveillance:
http://cammozzo.com/Papers/SurveillanceSpecialIssues.pdf
The initial list was posted in the SURVEILLANCE mailinglist and been enriched 
with many contributions. Sorry for crossposting.
If you are aware of other special issues that are not included in this list, 
please let me know: I'll be glad to extend it and keep an updated version 
online.
I'm planning to do some textual analysis work using a corpus built from this 
list and from Surveillance  Society articles.

Thank you!
Best regards,

Alberto

--
Alberto Cammozzo
http://cammozzo.com/en
http://tagMeNot.info

-- 
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.

Re: [liberationtech] Tech equivalent of Physicians for Social Responsibility?

[Alberto Cammozzo]

Hello Ringo,

IFIP ( International Federation for Information Processing) has a
working group on social accountability and computing: http://ifipwg92.org/
You also might be intrested in the ETHICOMP conferences:
Last one:
http://www.sdu.dk/en/Om_SDU/Institutter_centre/Idk/Arrangementer/Tidligerearrangementer/ethicomp2013
Next one: http://ethicomp2014.org/

bests,
Alberto

--
Alberto Cammozzo
http://cammozzo.com/en
http://tagmenot.info



On 10/15/2013 11:07 AM, Ringo wrote:
 Hey Liberation Tech,

 I was wondering if anybody here knew of any organizations for IT
 professionals/computer repair technicians that are in the same vein as
 physicians for social responsibility? Obviously there are civil advocacy
 groups like the EFF, but I was wondering if there were any more specific
 orgs that are membership/profession-based? And yes, I googled it first : )

 Thanks,
 Ringo

-- 
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.