[Commotion-discuss] concerns about the NYT / mo jo mesh articles

[Ross Schulman]

I'm delurking to comment on this a bit (hi everyone!).

I have to be honest, I'm a bit disappointed that the tenor on this list
would be to fall right in line with the idea that anyone who doesn't want
all of their Internet traffic captured, stored, and analyzed by the NSA is
therefore a "renegade." Setting aside the technical mistakes of the article
(I can think of nothing in the Commotion software that would protect you
much from pervasive surveillance), I would hope that at least some people
here WOULD be thinking about how we can begin using the Commotion stack to
greater protect users from unwarranted surveillance. Why is that not the
case?

-Ross Schulman


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:15 AM, L. Aaron Kaplan <aaron at lo-res.org> wrote:

>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Anthony Townsend <amt3 at nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> > i agree - great this is being seen as a movement.
> >
> > is anyone else disturbed by the trend towards painting this as a
> potential threat to national security? you are all a bunch of renegades
> trying to hide from the NSA?
> >
>
> I am.
> I don't see myself as a renegade. Rather more of a researcher in this
> field.
>
> > whether that’s true or not, its an incredibly sensational angle and
> creates the potential for serious backlash. when i read both of these
> articles in my mind i immediately saw Verizon lobbyists descending on
> Trenton with re-prints and legislation blocking mesh networks attached.
> >
> > maybe I’m paranoid but this reminds me very much of the days when
> NYCwireless were being called “wireless pirates” even though we weren’t
> doing anything illegal. then Philly, then all the steakhouse bans on muni.
> >
> > maybe this is not the place for it, but just wanted to raise a
> counterpoint to all the high-5ing
>
> Well it is clear that the journalist created a sensationalist article, put
> us all into one box and said "they work against NSA spying". Of course that
> is B*S.
> I am not worried about any backlash, but I am disturbed that my quotation
> ended up in an article which has an overall message that I can not sign up
> to.
> Currently, these mesh networks would not be secure against any serious
> attack whatsoever. Nor would the users of these networks be able to handle
> any targeted attack.
> The article is not only sensationalist but also technically wrong.
>
> Not sure what disturbs me more.
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commotion-discuss mailing list
> Commotion-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/commotion-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/commotion-discuss/attachments/20131120/d349a75a/attachment.html>