Re: [GNU/consensus] Map of Projects / Sessions at 30C3

[carlo von lynX]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:47:42AM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> I have added "FederatedSocialWeb" as a project, which stands for the
> "W3C Federated Social Web Community Group".

hehe.. http://secushare.org/federation

> Some comments regarding youbroketheinternet.org:
> 
> 1. "We are preparing a EU law proposal to require obfuscated and
> end-to-end encrypted communications in all telephony and computer
> appliances sold after 2014. The law shall include ways to ensure its
> correct implementation and a transition path from the existing
> unencrypted systems."
> 
> I can guess who "we" is, and I do not support this. It is extremely
> likely that such a proposal will not lead to a positive result. If such
> a law is accepted it will contain legal requirements to implement
> backdoors in end-to-end encrypted communications for so-called "law
> enforcement" purposes.

that is off the point. the point to make here is to make people
understand that a legislation that actually implements the
constitution is feasible. it's not about who manages to mess it
up in which way. of course the moment you have it in parliament
it will suffer from harsh attacks on its solidity.. but that
ain't new. and it only gets worse if you didn't even try.

> 2. "We like the Pirate Party, but we are not a project of the Pirate
> movement."
> 
> I (and probably some of the projects on the map) do not like the Pirate
> Party. I can elaborate on that, but that probably would be off-topic.
> But let me just mention that I do not like _any_ party which has a
> chairperson defending the German secret services.

the pirates have non-representative chair persons saying stupid things.
where did he say anything like that? the official PP-DE position on
secret services is to abolish them, so you must be at least partially
wrong.

> 3. Some of the light red colors on the map regarding "faulty
> technologies that we shall replace" are not appropriate. I don't want to
> prevent other people from trying to replace "Web Browsers", for example.
> But sometimes it is better to improve existing technologies than to
> attempt to replace them.

web browsers are not suitable for private communications. they should
be used for accessing websites. by making that clear in the design
requirements we work towards our goal, creating an alternative to
abusing the web for things it wasn't designed for.