I was intrigued by two issues on this thread: 1) Brian Conley's question about why BBG's support to Tor does not seem to undermine Tor. 2) Jillian York's statement that the Berkman Center has only received funding for research, which, pushed one step further, means that research of circumvention tools is somehow inconsequential to the broader debate about USG's support of such tools. To Brian's question: I'm also very intrigued by this. The common explanation that I heard many times is that Tor was conceived as a tool for protecting one's online anonymity , not for circumventing government censorship; the latter was something that users discovered and embraced on their own. While I found this explanation plausible in the past, I'm no longer sure I can buy it without some further evidence. Were Tor's developers really that narrow-minded as not to understand that the tool can also be used for circumventing censorship? We are talking some of the smartest guys out there - and they couldn't anticipate it? Something here doesn't compute. Or was the anonymity talk just a strategic rhetorical device to deflect attention from the intended use? I haven't read all the relevant mailing lists and am just articulating common wisdom so it would be good if some people who have been involved with Tor for a long time would comment. Secondly, there is another common explanation for Tor's resilience: the fact that instead of going after a particular country, they try to be comprehensive and guard against any threats to users' online anonymity regardless of their location (this is obviously my understanding - please correct if I don't get it right). By this logic, tools that take USG funding and go after a particular country (as, say, Haystack did) make themselves vulnerable to certain conspiracy theories. But this argument, too, doesn't convince me anymore now that Iran has been going after Tor quite systematically and the Tor team have been modifying their product to ensure it works there. My question is: for how long can Tor continue being seen as neutral and not targeting country X if so much of their resources is spent on making sure their tool works in country X? As for Jillian's assertion that research of circumvention tools is somehow conceptually and ethically different from tool-building or training, well, allow me to disagree. One doesn't need to get in bed with Foucault to grasp that a detailed study of circumvention tools - e.g. ranking of their security features and their choice of tools that they won't study or speculate upon (hello, Haystack!) - is not only performative but is also intricately implicated in the *production *of those very tools (and I'm using the word production here rather loosely). Are we really naive enough to believe that a "Tool X, as certified by Harvard University" is the same as a "Tool X, as certified by The State University of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan"? I'd venture that, all things being equal, a tool that is funded by USG and endorsed by Harvard is likely to be less suspicious (to local users) than a tool that is funded by USG and not endorsed by anyone. (There are, exceptions, of course). So I'd rather not spare the well-meaning researchers the scrutiny deserve Please note that this is not some meta-point about the ethics of taking (and offering) USG money to activists and NGOs; my views on this quite complex. It's simply an expression of my continued besument at some folks at the Berkman Center who keep pretending that none of this matters and that "they are only here to help". Evgeny On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Brian Conley <brianc@smallworldnews.tv>wrote:

Also, GV is avowedly opposed to taking USG funding, as it's been related to me recently by Ivan Sigal, their Executive Director. I believe they have always been opposed to it, including funding via a pass through or as a subcontractor or subgrant receiver. My understanding is that this is primarily due to the attitude about USG funding in the Middle East, whereas GV *does* receive funding from other organizations connected to governments other than the United States.

Brian

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Jillian C. York <jilliancyork@gmail.com>wrote:

...

Katrin,

First off, while this debate may not be pertinent *to this thread*(admittedly, I only brought it up because I misunderstood Brian's comments), I do think it's a useful discussion to have, as many tool developers don't seem to think about the impact of their funding on users.

Now, facts: I've been publicly critical of USG (and specifically, State/DRL) funding since I worked at Berkman, so I'm not sure what kind of "gotcha" you're trying to pull here. Berkman incubated Global Voices (but did not receive USG funding for it, nor has GV ever received USG money to my knowledge), and Berkman received USG funding for *research*. I don't see what either of those facts have to do with USG funding of *tools* *or trainings*, both of which have direct impact on individuals (whereas research does not, though of course impact may be indirect).

To be clear, I'm not wholly opposed to USG funding. There are obvious pluses and minuses, but speaking narrowly, if we take circumvention as a singular example, it's extremely clear that USG has in the past and perhaps continues to fund tools that are not vetted, not secure, and not safe. Add to that the fact that some folks in MENA, and likely elsewhere, don't trust the USG, tool developers would be well-advised to tread with caution.

You may think this debate is off the mark, and again, it is clearly not relevant to the original thread (and for that I apologize). But given that it's at the top of the list for discussion at *every single Arab blogging-type event I've ever been to*, I don't think you're in a place to call it irrelevant.

Best, Jillian

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Katrin Verclas <katrin@mobileactive.org>wrote:

...

Eh, Jillian - it's not that your former employer, the Berkman Center, ever received USG funding or supported a bloggers network...oh wait...

I think this debate is really off the mark, unhelpful and needlessly ideologically narrow as well as playing into all sorts of conspiracy theories. In the end, the ethics, quality of the work and the transparent conduct and legitimacy of the organization and any local partners speaks far louder than where the funding comes from. And yes, speaking as a USG grantee who treads very carefully to make sure that our work and conduct speaks for itself in the end.

Now, go ahead and beat on me as y'all are want to do ... :)

Katrin

On Nov 29, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Jillian C. York wrote:

...

I'm desperately curious as to why anyone thinks that USG funding makes something somehow more valid in the eyes of the tool's recipients/users. "Viability" perhaps, but validity? Surely you don't believe that.

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Michael Rogers <m--@gmx.com> wrote: Hi Brian,

Thanks for the questions - answers below.

...

1. what are some use-cases you see for Briar? That is not clear from your site, other than "Briar is a secure news and discussion system designed to be used by journalists, activists and civil society groups in authoritarian countries. "

How would they use it? What would they do with it? What are their goals, and for what reasons would they choose Briar over, say, secret Facebook groups run over TOR and HTTPS (there may be lots of problems with

On 29/11/11 18:22, Brian Conley wrote: that

...

example, its just an example that I think activists are likely to utilize, and I know of at least one case where a "secret facebook group" has been used to coordinate actions in an Arab country, though I doubt they were using any additional security in most cases)

I hope people will use Briar for anything they currently use blogs, mailing lists, Facebook groups and private emails for. But since it's inconvenient to adopt new tools, I'd imagine its main appeal will be to users who feel they're at risk of surveillance or censorship.

When compared to Facebook, the advantages of Briar would include: * Messages can be posted anonymously or pseudonymously * Facebook and its partners don't have access to private messages * Users in the same country don't need to "climb the wall" to communicate with each other

Of course, there are disadvantages too - not least of which is that Facebook can be accessed from any computer with a browser.

...

With regard to its use by journalists especially, how will sources be able to be identified? Although you may not want people to know that Brian Joel Conley who lives in Portland OR, etc said X, Y, and Z, a journalist will need to know that X, Y, and Z were all said by the same source, among other needs.

If someone needs to prove that two or more messages come from the same source, she can sign those messages with a pseudonym. The pseudonym doesn't need to be connected to her real identity in any way, and she can use multiple pseudonyms without anyone, including her trusted contacts, being certain that those pseudonyms belong to her.

If someone needs to confirm that a pseudonym belongs to a specific individual, she has to meet that individual face-to-face. Briar has nothing equivalent to PGP's web of trust that could be used to attest that "key X belongs to person Y according to person Z".

...

2. who is funding your project? Are you being public about this? If not, it raises some concerns for the validity and viability of the project, though it may also be understandable given the subject matter. If it's not being funded by the Broadcast Board of Governors already, and you're willing to consider USG funding, let me know and I'm happy to put you in touch with some folks who may be able to assist.

Thanks, that would be fantastic! The project has previously been funded by the Small Media Initiative but isn't currently receiving any funding. If we do, we'll be transparent about it.

Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu

Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?"

You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders.

Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.

Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech

-- jilliancyork.com | @jilliancyork | tel: +1-857-891-4244 | google voice: +1-415-562-JILL

_______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu

Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?"

You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders.

Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.

Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech

Katrin Verclas MobileActive.org katrin@mobileactive.org

skype/twitter: katrinskaya (347) 281-7191

Check out the new Mobile Media Toolkit at http://mobilemediatoolkit.org. To "Making Media Mobile!"

A global network of people using mobile technology for social impact http://mobileactive.org

-- jilliancyork.com | @jilliancyork | tel: +1-857-891-4244 | google voice: +1-415-562-JILL

_______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu

Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?"

You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders.

Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.

Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech

--

Brian Conley

Director, Small World News

http://smallworldnews.tv

m: 646.285.2046

Skype: brianjoelconley

_______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu

Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?"

You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders.

Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.

Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech

_______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE