4 ms·

I suppose the distinction isn't as much the freedom as intended by the originator, but the freedom as restricted by the country in which the originator exist an

I suppose the distinction isn't as much the freedom as intended by the originator, but the freedom as restricted by the country in which the originator exist and the destination is restricted from accessing. Yes, on paper it's politics and military and sanctions, but the real effect is that nobody wants to get burned by ITAR or EAR so if your country is on that list, you're just going to get banned, period. It's not great, but it's also not something you can easily solve. It does affect a lot of people, but in the end, a country is represented by its government and policies, and a sanction against breaking of some arbitrary rule isn't effective if it isn't applied to the country as a whole.

EGreg 5y ago
Perhaps not easily, but is definitely solvable using alternative systems to DNS and the Web: Freenet IPFS MaidSAFE Dat + Beaker Browser Scuttlebutt Tor? That last one is weaker because everything is still hosted on a server of an entity that could be found and made to comply. Then we have Blockchains Cryptocurrencies BitTorrent And then there are also federated solutions Matrix Mastodon
- kube-system 5y ago
  None of those are workarounds for the legal concerns at hand. If Fedora were interested in breaking the law, HTTP/S would do that just fine.
  - EGreg 5y ago
    I really doubt you have tried all of them. As for the legal concerns, these are technologies, and the author of the article was talking about actual access, NOT politics or laws.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      No technology can enable you to communicate with someone who will not communicate with you. In order to get "actual access" you need a willing participant on the other end of the wire. The law prohibits transfer "in any manner". Fedora isn't going to implement any of those in violation of the law.
      - EGreg 5y ago
        This isn't how these technologies work. There is no "other end of the wire" because this isn't about calling someone up and transferring a file. Rather, it's about autonomous networks, that are run by global nodes. Such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, MaidSAFE, Freenet and others. You can't really stop them -- unless you ban encryption and packet sniff all the traffic, and then prosecute people running the local nodes. Most countries, not even China or North Korea, do all of that. There are countries that ban encryption, such as Monaco or some of the Emirates, but they really don't go after people running nodes. And even if they did, all that has to happen is that the files have to end up being hosted and retransmitted by nodes in countries which don't block Iran. So file gets uploaded onto IPFS or MaidSAFE or BitTorrent, it's game over. To access it in Iran, you just need to access a node in Iran, which is communicating with nodes in those other countries. How are you going to prevent that?
        kube-system 5y ago
        I think you misunderstand what the law does. It doesn't functionally prevent Fedora from sending source code to Iran, it prohibits it. Inserting intermediaries into the custody chain is not always a solution. This is typically referred to as "sanction circumvention" and is often also illegal. I am not sure whether it would be in this specific case, but I do know one thing for sure: If the law does require a particular type of compliance, choosing a technology that makes it impossible to comply (or easier to hide) is not a defense. For another example: Using bitcoin does not absolve people in the US from their legal obligation not to send money to sanctioned entities. If you do so, you can be prosecuted. The protocol isn't above the law. None are. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this type of sanction circumvention is legal in the scenario -- does Fedora allow, or think it's a good idea to have anonymous contributors? Solely for the purpose of circumventing US law? I just can't see this being a reasonable decision.
        EGreg 5y ago
        If I send Bitcoin to someone in China, and they happen to send Bitcoin to someone in Iran, who broke the law? I am NOT talking about me intending to send Bitcoin to people in Iran when I pay someone in China. Just because someone makes something available to people in China, doesn't mean they are responsible for what other people in China will do later. So, if someone ORIGINALLY uploads a public domain file on BitTorrent, for instance, and sometime later, that file winds up being downloaded (via Chinese nodes) by Iranians or North Koreans, does that mean the original uploader broke ANY law?
- oneplane 5y ago
  None of this has to do with the prohibited status. Of course there are technical workarounds, but this isn't a technical problem, it's a policy one.

EGreg 5y ago

Perhaps not easily, but is definitely solvable using alternative systems to DNS and the Web: Freenet IPFS MaidSAFE Dat + Beaker Browser Scuttlebutt Tor? That last one is weaker because everything is still hosted on a server of an entity that could be found and made to comply. Then we have Blockchains Cryptocurrencies BitTorrent And then there are also federated solutions Matrix Mastodon

kube-system 5y ago
None of those are workarounds for the legal concerns at hand. If Fedora were interested in breaking the law, HTTP/S would do that just fine.
- EGreg 5y ago
  I really doubt you have tried all of them. As for the legal concerns, these are technologies, and the author of the article was talking about actual access, NOT politics or laws.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    No technology can enable you to communicate with someone who will not communicate with you. In order to get "actual access" you need a willing participant on the other end of the wire. The law prohibits transfer "in any manner". Fedora isn't going to implement any of those in violation of the law.
    - EGreg 5y ago
      This isn't how these technologies work. There is no "other end of the wire" because this isn't about calling someone up and transferring a file. Rather, it's about autonomous networks, that are run by global nodes. Such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, MaidSAFE, Freenet and others. You can't really stop them -- unless you ban encryption and packet sniff all the traffic, and then prosecute people running the local nodes. Most countries, not even China or North Korea, do all of that. There are countries that ban encryption, such as Monaco or some of the Emirates, but they really don't go after people running nodes. And even if they did, all that has to happen is that the files have to end up being hosted and retransmitted by nodes in countries which don't block Iran. So file gets uploaded onto IPFS or MaidSAFE or BitTorrent, it's game over. To access it in Iran, you just need to access a node in Iran, which is communicating with nodes in those other countries. How are you going to prevent that?
      - kube-system 5y ago
        I think you misunderstand what the law does. It doesn't functionally prevent Fedora from sending source code to Iran, it prohibits it. Inserting intermediaries into the custody chain is not always a solution. This is typically referred to as "sanction circumvention" and is often also illegal. I am not sure whether it would be in this specific case, but I do know one thing for sure: If the law does require a particular type of compliance, choosing a technology that makes it impossible to comply (or easier to hide) is not a defense. For another example: Using bitcoin does not absolve people in the US from their legal obligation not to send money to sanctioned entities. If you do so, you can be prosecuted. The protocol isn't above the law. None are. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this type of sanction circumvention is legal in the scenario -- does Fedora allow, or think it's a good idea to have anonymous contributors? Solely for the purpose of circumventing US law? I just can't see this being a reasonable decision.
        EGreg 5y ago
        If I send Bitcoin to someone in China, and they happen to send Bitcoin to someone in Iran, who broke the law? I am NOT talking about me intending to send Bitcoin to people in Iran when I pay someone in China. Just because someone makes something available to people in China, doesn't mean they are responsible for what other people in China will do later. So, if someone ORIGINALLY uploads a public domain file on BitTorrent, for instance, and sometime later, that file winds up being downloaded (via Chinese nodes) by Iranians or North Koreans, does that mean the original uploader broke ANY law?
oneplane 5y ago
None of this has to do with the prohibited status. Of course there are technical workarounds, but this isn't a technical problem, it's a policy one.