7 ms·

Financial pain. We forget how powerful this is. We have shown that we collectively can protest by adding a bit of JavaScript to our webpages and some of you cal

by junto 13y ago

Financial pain. We forget how powerful this is. We have shown that we collectively can protest by adding a bit of JavaScript to our webpages and some of you called you senators. Great start, noble, but I guarantee that nothing will change. What really hurts is loss of revenue to global companies. We need to collectively boycott firms until THEY resolve the problem. It is their tax write-down lobbying donations that keep these jokers we call senators in power. If we really want to protest against say, monitoring, then we should be building free tools for people to easily move their email away from GMail or building something better than email as an alternative. If we want to discourage Concast from throttling Netflix, then we should all collectively dump Comcast and move to a company that promises they won't. If we want to discourage the NSA then lobbying government as individuals isn't going to cut it. That horse has already bolted. That horse needs a bullet to the head. Corporations are the only entities powerful enough to stop government. We need to empower them to fix the problem. We think that protesting within the confines of the system will work. It doesn't. We think that protesting in the street will work. It doesn't (Iraq War protests anyone?). It works outside the western world because they aren't kept within what I call "the sheep bubble". Western governments know how to keep the people within a bubble that provides just enough comfort to keep the vast majority happy. Places where we have seen revolutions haven't maintained that bubble. Since we don't have direct control over the bubble in the western world, we have few options for collective revolt. I would like to see this (very cool) system that you have collectively put together for yesterday's protest, to be pivoted and used to actively boycott companies that we collectively see as damaging to the us sheep. Then we become the wolves.

motters 13y ago
I'm not sure that companies are the answer here, because companies suffer from The Levison Problem. Some goons show up with a gagging order and attach a "special box" to the server or implement some other kind of intercept in order to carry out "bulk collection". Or they simply demand copies of the private keys. This isn't a problem which a company can easily overcome. There isn't a simple solution to mass surveillance but one mitigating strategy may be to encourage more people to run their own web services, a la freedombox/freedombone/arkOS, and encourage a "friends host friends" policy. If enough people went down that route then it could affect the bottom line of various companies, and hence apply some pressure for meaningful change.
atmosx 13y ago
> [...] but I guarantee that nothing will change. No, that you can not guarantee. No one can predict the series of events of that this or any other form of protest might enable[1]. These social unrest situations initialize events that can only be approached by chaos theory since we can't even count the variables involved. In mathematics of chaos we have the notable butterfly effect. The 'Arab Spring' was initialized by a guy who set himself on fire on a small town after suffering what he considered to be a misjudgment (Mohamed Bouazizi[3]). I know my examples are far-fetched by I'm trying to show the bigger picture here: When the police officer was harassing Bouazizi for the n-th time, even if he told that he will set himself on fire, I'm sure that she would not care less. She may even call some friends to enjoy the show... What she couldn't foresee is that a few months later Ben Ali would have to step down for something a corrupted, insignificant in the bigger picture police officer had initiated. We might argue that if it were not for Bouazizi something else would have happened to spin the wheels of the Tunisian revolution, but we don't know for sure and when you add to many 'if' you end up writing a romance. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxQX9fYf2aI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxQX9fYf2aI [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi
- junto 13y ago
  These environments are notably different to western countries. The UK hasn't had a real revolution since 1642. 1688 doesn't count since it was more of an invasion. The US is also extremely stable since the American Civil War. The Arab spring was different because the vast majority of the people had nothing to do and their government's used brutal oppression rather than the sheep bubble I talked about above. Idle hands and brutality are are poisonous mix.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    Sure, but the issue at hand is a law that will introduce some accountability to a state organization not civil revolution.
d0 13y ago
Very manifesto-ish. It's almost like I'm reading the words of the wolf. If we really want to protest against say, monitoring, then we should be building free tools for people to easily move their email away from GMail or building something better than email as an alternative. Don't build better. Make what is there unusable. Remember the enemy can use it too. If we want to discourage Concast from throttling Netflix, then we should all collectively dump Comcast and move to a company that promises they won't. Stop buying Netflix. Steal all the films you want and start distributing them on USB sticks. If we want to discourage the NSA then lobbying government as individuals isn't going to cut it. That horse has already bolted. That horse needs a bullet to the head. Corporations are the only entities powerful enough to stop government. We need to empower them to fix the problem. Hang both the government and the corporations. Corporations and government are at one when there is as much inbreeding and crossover as there is. We think that protesting within the confines of the system will work. It doesn't. We think that protesting in the street will work. It doesn't (Iraq War protests anyone?). Very true but isn't that what you're promoting. Destroying infrastructure works well (Afghanistan war, not the US for example). It works outside the western world because they aren't kept within what I call "the sheep bubble". Western governments know how to keep the people within a bubble that provides just enough comfort to keep the vast majority happy. Places where we have seen revolutions haven't maintained that bubble. Make it uncomfortable for people. Take down their luxury items, their phone networks, their ability to pay for things. Since we don't have direct control over the bubble in the western world, we have few options for collective revolt. All we need to do is make it uncomfortable for people. The only reason we as technology people don't do this is because we're comfortable as well. We're cowards. We're talkers, not do-ers. There should be no wolves be it us or them. Now I patiently await to be bagged and tagged.
- junto 13y ago
  > Make it uncomfortable for people. Take down their luxury items, their phone networks, their ability to pay for things. I agree, but how do you do this? I think that my point was hidden within my ramblings, so I'll try and condense it. The singular power that every individual has, is to choose what they buy and what they consume. The whole system is built upon the premise that we consume. Hence, I would like to see consumers work together as a powerful block, that can effectively combat the power of both government and corporations. First we influence corporations to control the government. Once you've done that you can keep turning the screws on the corporations that don't fit to our ideal. We are the populous. Collectively we have more power than any government and any corporation. You just need to find a way to turn this picture upside down: http://i.imgur.com/yStRSPk.jpg http://i.imgur.com/yStRSPk.jpg
elorant 13y ago
Let’s get realistic here shall we? Building an alternative to Gmail? Nope. We can’t do that. We don’t have the resources. And if we were to charge people for a service like that in exchange of extra security the majority wouldn’t give a damn. The thing is that NSA has the ability to attack the infrastructure. If for example they can go to carrier providers and monitor the pipe no matter what we’d do on top of that would be futile. Furthermore, they can backdoor cryptography algorithms-which to my opinion is the scariest from all the revelations regarding NSA. So even if we move everyone to SSL we wouldn’t know if that’s enough. The financial pain you’re referring to cuts both ways. If you were to boycott commercial solutions then you’d have to go and find alternatives. Which could be relatively easy for tech-savvy individuals but what about companies? They wouldn’t do it. Simply as that. No one would go out of their way to install an alternative to Exchange Server in order to put pressure on Microsoft. It’s not realistic. Basically what we need is a new Internet. We have to change everything. I don’t know if that’s even feasible but my guess is that even if it was it will take a lot of time.
- blowski 13y ago
  I agree with most of what you say, but this is a bit pessimistic: > Building an alternative to Gmail? Nope. We can’t do that. We don’t have the resources. When you think about it, most of the internet depends on open source software built by "us". Programming languages, databases, web servers, content management systems, statistical analysis, image manipulation, and yes, email clients/servers. Given all that, a self-hosted email application should be possible. I suspect the reason we don't do it is not because we don't have the resources, but because... actually I don't know why we don't. Perhaps all the investment slush funds have made us lazy and selfish. Perhaps the social networks and mobile games have made us less creative. Perhaps some of the fanatical open source software wars have put us off doing the same thing.
  - Retric 13y ago
    The actual answer relates to the email protocol. Sure, you can setup your private messing system and there are plenty of them out there, but if you want to receive email from someones gmail account you need to hook into DNS which is under a government's control you also need a few dedicated machines to handle the load. Granted you may trust .TV or wherever, but as the pirate bay found out when the US and it's allies really want something it's surprisingly hard to find someone that's really willing to stand up to them.
andyroid 13y ago
> We think that protesting within the confines of the system will work. It doesn't. We think that protesting in the street will work. It doesn't (Iraq War protests anyone?). None of those are mutually exclusive (and neither is boycott). It's perfectly fine to do all of them. In fact that's probably the most effective thing to do! (And I'm pretty sure most people who protested the war in Iraq didn't actually believe that their protest would stop the war. Sometimes you want to show the world you care about something because it's the right thing to do)
- junto 13y ago
  My problem with the democratic system is that it is a false dichotomy. Neither party (in the case of the US) offer a real alternative. The people argue till they are blue in the face as to which one is right or wrong, but the differences between them are negligible. What's funny is that we waste unbelievable amounts of energy and time in making believe that there is a difference. In the case of the US, politics is not too dissimilar to football or any team sport. You side with one or the other. Without both sides the game is boring. The US lowers the risk of dissent and instability by discouraging the possibility of more than two sides. I have come to believe that none of the traditional routes are effective. They are merely a trap. They are simply a big brick wall to shout at.

by junto 13y ago

motters 13y ago

I'm not sure that companies are the answer here, because companies suffer from The Levison Problem. Some goons show up with a gagging order and attach a "special box" to the server or implement some other kind of intercept in order to carry out "bulk collection". Or they simply demand copies of the private keys. This isn't a problem which a company can easily overcome. There isn't a simple solution to mass surveillance but one mitigating strategy may be to encourage more people to run their own web services, a la freedombox/freedombone/arkOS, and encourage a "friends host friends" policy. If enough people went down that route then it could affect the bottom line of various companies, and hence apply some pressure for meaningful change.

atmosx 13y ago

> [...] but I guarantee that nothing will change. No, that you can not guarantee. No one can predict the series of events of that this or any other form of protest might enable[1]. These social unrest situations initialize events that can only be approached by chaos theory since we can't even count the variables involved. In mathematics of chaos we have the notable butterfly effect. The 'Arab Spring' was initialized by a guy who set himself on fire on a small town after suffering what he considered to be a misjudgment (Mohamed Bouazizi[3]). I know my examples are far-fetched by I'm trying to show the bigger picture here: When the police officer was harassing Bouazizi for the n-th time, even if he told that he will set himself on fire, I'm sure that she would not care less. She may even call some friends to enjoy the show... What she couldn't foresee is that a few months later Ben Ali would have to step down for something a corrupted, insignificant in the bigger picture police officer had initiated. We might argue that if it were not for Bouazizi something else would have happened to spin the wheels of the Tunisian revolution, but we don't know for sure and when you add to many 'if' you end up writing a romance. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxQX9fYf2aI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxQX9fYf2aI [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi

junto 13y ago
These environments are notably different to western countries. The UK hasn't had a real revolution since 1642. 1688 doesn't count since it was more of an invasion. The US is also extremely stable since the American Civil War. The Arab spring was different because the vast majority of the people had nothing to do and their government's used brutal oppression rather than the sheep bubble I talked about above. Idle hands and brutality are are poisonous mix.
- atmosx 13y ago
  Sure, but the issue at hand is a law that will introduce some accountability to a state organization not civil revolution.

d0 13y ago

Very manifesto-ish. It's almost like I'm reading the words of the wolf. If we really want to protest against say, monitoring, then we should be building free tools for people to easily move their email away from GMail or building something better than email as an alternative. Don't build better. Make what is there unusable. Remember the enemy can use it too. If we want to discourage Concast from throttling Netflix, then we should all collectively dump Comcast and move to a company that promises they won't. Stop buying Netflix. Steal all the films you want and start distributing them on USB sticks. If we want to discourage the NSA then lobbying government as individuals isn't going to cut it. That horse has already bolted. That horse needs a bullet to the head. Corporations are the only entities powerful enough to stop government. We need to empower them to fix the problem. Hang both the government and the corporations. Corporations and government are at one when there is as much inbreeding and crossover as there is. We think that protesting within the confines of the system will work. It doesn't. We think that protesting in the street will work. It doesn't (Iraq War protests anyone?). Very true but isn't that what you're promoting. Destroying infrastructure works well (Afghanistan war, not the US for example). It works outside the western world because they aren't kept within what I call "the sheep bubble". Western governments know how to keep the people within a bubble that provides just enough comfort to keep the vast majority happy. Places where we have seen revolutions haven't maintained that bubble. Make it uncomfortable for people. Take down their luxury items, their phone networks, their ability to pay for things. Since we don't have direct control over the bubble in the western world, we have few options for collective revolt. All we need to do is make it uncomfortable for people. The only reason we as technology people don't do this is because we're comfortable as well. We're cowards. We're talkers, not do-ers. There should be no wolves be it us or them. Now I patiently await to be bagged and tagged.

junto 13y ago
> Make it uncomfortable for people. Take down their luxury items, their phone networks, their ability to pay for things. I agree, but how do you do this? I think that my point was hidden within my ramblings, so I'll try and condense it. The singular power that every individual has, is to choose what they buy and what they consume. The whole system is built upon the premise that we consume. Hence, I would like to see consumers work together as a powerful block, that can effectively combat the power of both government and corporations. First we influence corporations to control the government. Once you've done that you can keep turning the screws on the corporations that don't fit to our ideal. We are the populous. Collectively we have more power than any government and any corporation. You just need to find a way to turn this picture upside down: http://i.imgur.com/yStRSPk.jpg http://i.imgur.com/yStRSPk.jpg

elorant 13y ago

Let’s get realistic here shall we? Building an alternative to Gmail? Nope. We can’t do that. We don’t have the resources. And if we were to charge people for a service like that in exchange of extra security the majority wouldn’t give a damn. The thing is that NSA has the ability to attack the infrastructure. If for example they can go to carrier providers and monitor the pipe no matter what we’d do on top of that would be futile. Furthermore, they can backdoor cryptography algorithms-which to my opinion is the scariest from all the revelations regarding NSA. So even if we move everyone to SSL we wouldn’t know if that’s enough. The financial pain you’re referring to cuts both ways. If you were to boycott commercial solutions then you’d have to go and find alternatives. Which could be relatively easy for tech-savvy individuals but what about companies? They wouldn’t do it. Simply as that. No one would go out of their way to install an alternative to Exchange Server in order to put pressure on Microsoft. It’s not realistic. Basically what we need is a new Internet. We have to change everything. I don’t know if that’s even feasible but my guess is that even if it was it will take a lot of time.

blowski 13y ago
I agree with most of what you say, but this is a bit pessimistic: > Building an alternative to Gmail? Nope. We can’t do that. We don’t have the resources. When you think about it, most of the internet depends on open source software built by "us". Programming languages, databases, web servers, content management systems, statistical analysis, image manipulation, and yes, email clients/servers. Given all that, a self-hosted email application should be possible. I suspect the reason we don't do it is not because we don't have the resources, but because... actually I don't know why we don't. Perhaps all the investment slush funds have made us lazy and selfish. Perhaps the social networks and mobile games have made us less creative. Perhaps some of the fanatical open source software wars have put us off doing the same thing.
- Retric 13y ago
  The actual answer relates to the email protocol. Sure, you can setup your private messing system and there are plenty of them out there, but if you want to receive email from someones gmail account you need to hook into DNS which is under a government's control you also need a few dedicated machines to handle the load. Granted you may trust .TV or wherever, but as the pirate bay found out when the US and it's allies really want something it's surprisingly hard to find someone that's really willing to stand up to them.

andyroid 13y ago

> We think that protesting within the confines of the system will work. It doesn't. We think that protesting in the street will work. It doesn't (Iraq War protests anyone?). None of those are mutually exclusive (and neither is boycott). It's perfectly fine to do all of them. In fact that's probably the most effective thing to do! (And I'm pretty sure most people who protested the war in Iraq didn't actually believe that their protest would stop the war. Sometimes you want to show the world you care about something because it's the right thing to do)

junto 13y ago
My problem with the democratic system is that it is a false dichotomy. Neither party (in the case of the US) offer a real alternative. The people argue till they are blue in the face as to which one is right or wrong, but the differences between them are negligible. What's funny is that we waste unbelievable amounts of energy and time in making believe that there is a difference. In the case of the US, politics is not too dissimilar to football or any team sport. You side with one or the other. Without both sides the game is boring. The US lowers the risk of dissent and instability by discouraging the possibility of more than two sides. I have come to believe that none of the traditional routes are effective. They are merely a trap. They are simply a big brick wall to shout at.