Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] Not another Haystack right?

Yosem Companys companys at stanford.edu
Tue Nov 29 11:30:16 PST 2011


Yes, because people realize that funding usually comes with strings
attached, and given a lack of transparency about how the funding came
about, uncertainty arises over what the attached strings are all about.

I will add, however, that extensive research in the social sciences has
shown that funding is more powerful from a certification/legitimacy
perspective than from a resource perspective.  By that, I mean that when
something gets funded, it tends to be deemed legitimate by the larger
community because the message the funding sends is that someone decided
that it was good enough to warrant incurring the risk of investment.  For
example, economist Josh Lerner's research has shown that this is the effect
of DARPA/ATP funding on startup firms.

I agree with Jillian, however, that any funding such as government funding
that is deemed ideological (and for some reason, business funding is not
deemed ideological even though it is tied to a set of neoclassical
economics assumptions about human behavior that empirical research has
shown to be incorrect) can have a de-certification or de-legitimizing
effect for its recipient(s), since it can then be labeled a tool of the
government that provides said funding.

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Jillian C. York <jilliancyork at gmail.com>wrote:

> Okay, whew.  I'm sure everyone saw the tweets from Syria following CNN's
> article about Psiphon (which was inaccurate in a few ways anyhow) -
> Psiphon, in my opinion, is a perfectly good *circumvention* tool (as
> opposed to all of the overblown attributes it was given by CNN) but the
> mention of the State Department in the article marked the tool immediately
> invalid in the eyes of most of the Syrians I know.  Something to think
> about.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Brian Conley <brianc at smallworldnews.tv>wrote:
>
>> No no, I think not being public about funding would make it less valid
>> and viable. you must have misunderstood me!
>>
>> B
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Jillian C. York <jilliancyork at gmail.com
>> > 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-- at gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the questions - answers below.
>>>>
>>>> On 29/11/11 18:22, Brian Conley wrote:
>>>> > 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 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 at 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian Conley
>>
>> Director, Small World News
>>
>> http://smallworldnews.tv
>>
>> m: 646.285.2046
>>
>> Skype: brianjoelconley
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> jilliancyork.com | @jilliancyork | tel: +1-857-891-4244 | google voice:
> +1-415-562-JILL
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20111129/766e8422/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list