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

Sascha Meinrath meinrath at gmail.com
Wed Nov 20 14:15:39 UTC 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

We are very well situated to push back on the inevitable national security
concerns -- FWIW, this is not a new phenomenon and dates back at least to 2005.
 What's crucial is that we continue to push out the positive angles of the work
we do -- we support low-cost connectivity, human rights workers and democracy
advocates, community empowerment, freedom of expression, Internet Freedom, etc.
 And let's not get distracted by intractable arguments.

I counter the argument by saying that Commotion is an incredibly powerful tool,
much like a computer or a pencil.  And like any powerful tool, there's a tiny
pool of people that will use it for malfeasance; however, the overall,
remarkable positive impacts on society writ large make it a no-brainer that we
should do everything we can to support R&D and adoption of these technologies.

- --Sascha

On 11/20/2013 02:15 AM, L. Aaron Kaplan 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
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=vpG9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Commotion-discuss mailing list