Yo Dewds, I guess it's time for me to throw in my two bits on the Public WB Kiosk idea... I guess I appreciate the intent of implementing such a system, but there are some BIG strikes against it: [1] Strike One: Installation and maintenance costs (economics again). Can you IMAGINE what it would cost to build and maintain a network (and it would have to be a big one!) of public kiosks? Better to piggyback on existing infrastructure for purely practical reasons. I have an account on the aforementioned SF Net (little tables in coffeehouses all over the San Francisco Bay Area) and I have come to the conclusion that it would be prohibitive to just maintain such a system. Wayne Gregori would back me up on this. If you think it's a pain to keep your baby-powdered PC at home in decent working order, imagine one with beer spilt on it daily, bozos who type like Paul Bunyan on Steroids and the occasional chairleg-yanking-the-plug-out-of-the-wall incident. Most of the time, I log in to SF Net from home anyway. [2] Strike Two: Lack of Privacy while using the kiosks. I think Eric Hughes' argument (with due respects to Eric) about the expensive economics of monitoring the kiosks falls down just a tad when you consider that these would not even be _moving targets_! (In both the literal and figurative senses.) Sure, it's expensive to "tail" someone and find out where they go and who they meet, but it's less than trivial to set up a discreet camera that just watches a stationary kiosk all day long or maybe photographically or electromagnetically (with a moderately sophisticated bug) monitor the keystrokes. Maybe you _could_ make them portable and move them around; maybe you _could_ come up with a clever physical design that would preclude keystroke photography (but bugs?), but any such defenses would pale in comparison with the Privacy inherent in the WB input from a single user's personal system. "Public Privacy:" now _there's_ an oxymoron for the 90's! All jocularity aside, it would be pretty difficult to convince anyone with serious information on Govt abuses to stroll into a Mall and spill their guts on a PC Junior in a plywood box - I sure as hell wouldn't, would you? Hell, you could put touchscreens on it and I STILL wouldn't take the chance. Anyone ever seen the "Human Jukebox" in SF? A guy dresses up in a huge cardboard refrigerator shipping box and when you drop a quarter in, he plays (on trumpet) some selection from a list on the outside. Very funny stuff: I suggest you ask for "Strangers in the Night." [3] Strike Three (yer OUT!): those ugly little plastic-encased keyboards get all that icky finger dirt on 'em. Sure you laugh NOW, but just IMAGINE where people put their fingers before typing on them little keyboards. Yuck! Think of the diseases! The nose pickings! The leftover popcorn-butter residue! The Jeri-Curl! Yeesh... makes me wanna HURL. But Serially, Folks: If a group COULD surmount these difficulties, it would then have to begin to focus on the TYPE of whistleblowing that would take place on such systems. I have the feeling that they would be a PRIMARY contributor to the overall bullshit noise that would clutter up a decent WB systems and exponentially increase the difficulty of filtering out the "good" stuff for proper use. Sure, you could rely on OTP's to provide relatively secure transmissions, but the big question is: do we really want a bunch of Valley Girls at the local Mall logging in and complaining that they "can't get the proper shade of eyeliner and, like, why doesn't the Federal Govurnmint toe-tully reform the Health In-fersure-ance System" so they could, like, get the bunyons burned off their right foot in time for the Prom. I think you get my point. We have a ot more to work on before I consider this to be a desirable, much less viable, idea. dave ------------------------------------------------ | | | no fancy-dan sig-stamps, just li'l ol' me. | | | ------------------------------------------------
Dave writes on public kiosks:
[1] Strike One: Installation and maintenance costs (economics again). [They are too high.]
I'm not talking about building a network of machines just for the purpose of whistleblowing. I'm talking about making interfaces to existing systems. In particular, the public machines at sfnet would _also_ be interfaces to any whistleblowing system. The incremental cost is minimal; it's a small bit of software at the server.
[2] Strike Two: Lack of Privacy while using the kiosks.
There is a different kind of privacy in a public space than in private space. In a private space, everyone may know where you live, but nobody knows what goes on inside. In a public space, everyone may see what happens, but no one knows who you are. Please consider these approximations to reality. In particular, since it is anonymity which is desired, a public place is sufficient.
I think Eric Hughes' argument (with due respects to Eric) about the expensive economics of monitoring the kiosks falls down just a tad when you consider that these would not even be _moving targets_!
The cost of placing a video camera to monitor a computer inside a coffeehouse must also include the possibility of negative publicity and lawsuit when such an emplacement is discovered. Monitoring a public place in advance of any "crime" being committed is _very_ bad for job security and department funding.
[...] but any such defenses would pale in comparison with the Privacy inherent in the WB input from a single user's personal system.
I am also not talking about replacing the ability to post from home. I am talking about expanding the number of entry points into the distribution system. The largest benefit for public-space access is that you can use this if you don't have a computer at home. You can also use it if you don't have a computer at work.
have the feeling that they would be a PRIMARY contributor to the overall bullshit noise that would clutter up a decent WB systems and exponentially increase the difficulty of filtering out the "good" stuff for proper use.
A whistleblower system, by default, must be free of judgements about what is "good" to be on it and what is "bad". If someone thinks that something ought to be brought to light, then I say let them speak, no matter how trivial or inappropriate it might be. It is easy to ignore messages you don't want to consider. It is much, much harder to read messages that the author hesistates to write for fear of reprisal. A whistleblower system can tolerate more noise than usenet, since the core content of it can be so extremely valuable. If there is only access to a whistleblowing system for those who own computers or are provided access to them, then any such system will remain only a tool of the wealthy. You do not hear of abuses in labor law from anybody but the employees; these employees do not have computers. Anybody who has NATIONAL SECRETS to tell is, I would guess, a fool to post twice from a particular location. Anybody who has anything lengthy or digitally copied to say cannot easily use this system. It's not conducive to digital signatures. Public kiosks are not a panacea. To argue that they should therefore not exist is nonsense. Eric
participants (2)
-
Eric Hughes -
internautï¼ aol.com