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

[L. Aaron Kaplan]

On Nov 20, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Ross Schulman <rschulman at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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."

I think that was a misunderstanding. Nobody suggested that IMHO.

> 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?


I think you need to distinguish between the fact that some voices on this list said they don't like the sensationalist spin of the article vs. the fact that we (well many of us at least) *do* care a lot about privacy, user's rights and IT security. In fact the latter is even my day time job. 

Fact: our community mesh networks will *not* protect anyone in the world at the moment against targeted surveillance or hacking.
Fact: good IT security is really hard. Like, really really hard. Google tried to secure their systems, but it was so easy to p0wn them from multiple angles (given enough money to buy fiber taps).
Fact: many of us are trying hard to make IT security better and uphold principles of privacy.


However, that does not make it our community wireless mesh networks automatically resistant against snooping ("keep the snoops away"). In fact, Wi-Fi is a broadcast medium. They just need a good antenna ;-)
Suggesting in the article that they are secure is a massive oversimplification - actually just simply plain false.


In fact, I'd love to see NSA folks do some code reviews of COMMOTION / OLSR. I would know of no better qualified group of folks to do such a thing.
Alas, you might also get a backdoor this way (as we have seen with NIST).
Too bad. Really talented people. 

My 2 cents,
a.

> 
> -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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/commotion-discuss/attachments/20131120/cebf20f8/attachment.sig>