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

[carlo von lynX]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:39:36AM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> BTW: As long as this discussion is taking place using a federated
> communication system I do not think that federation has become irrelevant.

In fact relevant amounts of discussions are not taking place over federated
systems. I am super positive about abolishing these mailing lists and email
in general ASAP.

> > 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.
> 
> That does not convince me to support such a proposal. It is spreading
> illusions in the European Parliament not educating people.

i'm bored by the notorious incapacity of people to reach consensus
on just about anything. we will never fix the world if we don't start.

> > the pirates have non-representative chair persons saying stupid things.
> 
> Which by itself says a lot about the party.

it's like with any newbie party. the greens were a lot worse in the
early years. and no, it says close to nothing since these folks have
nothing to decide - they just end up being interviewed and taking far
too seriously. so the party isn't the bug.

> > where did he say anything like that?
> 
> http://www.freitag.de/autoren/felix-werdermann/die-empoerung-ist-geheuchelt

"Ich persönlich" ....he clearly states that it is his personal opinion.
And your interpretation of what he means by that seems rather excentric.

> http://www.piratenpartei.de/2013/07/22/piraten-fordern-reform-der-geheimdienste-und-der-parlamentarischen-kontrolle/

Same here. He just says IF secret services are to be kept at all
they need to have a decent form of control. And considering how other
journalists criticized the pirates for being too radical and populistic,
now here you are criticizing the chairman for using more diplomatic
wording. No matter which wording they choose, there's always someone
who finds the excuse to disagree.

It's boring to disagree just to incapacitate a whole slice of the
population to be represented in parliament and to bring forward
important policies concerning digital civil rights.

> > the official PP-DE position on
> > secret services is to abolish them,
> 
> Really? Where? Even if such an "official position" exists it obviously
> is irrelevant in practice: The secret service supporter Bernd Schlömer
> is still chairman of the German Pirate Party.

Humbug, he is not a supporter. He just isn't radical enough from your point
of view. Funny that you can at the same time be a proponent of W3C and 
federation.
You are diplomatic on technical issues (where it is not useful for nothing) and
radical on political issues (where it is bad for getting into parliament and
actually getting anything done). Try doing it exactly the opposite way, that
would be better for both.

No, in fact it's not an official position yet, there have ONLY been four surveys
on the topic but no Parteitag decision yet (that's why the permanent electronic
assembly is overdue):

        https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/initiative/show/3889.html
        https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/initiative/show/6442.html
        https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/initiative/show/3411.html
        https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/initiative/show/6477.html

Notice how several of these are older than this summer.

Here's also a person who actually has the opinion that you are attributing
to Mr Schloemer:

        https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/suggestion/show/12580.html

Notice the big fat red bar of disapproval?

But if you go tell the press you just want to abolish all that, they won't
even report your opinion. That's why you HAVE to criticize the government
for its lousy oversight AND MAYBE AS A SIDE NOTE mention that secret
services do not deserve to exist in the first place.

The communication the chairman does is strategy and marketing. The politics
the pirate party actually implements comes from the base of the activists,
so it isn't him actually deciding anything. He just tries to put it in
words that find acceptance.

Why do people think political parties work like corporations or army regiments?
Probably because several of the old parties actually do.

> > web browsers are not suitable for private communications. they should
> > be used for accessing websites.
> 
> They _are_ used for private communications. And I am not aware of any
> reason why they can not be sufficiently improved regarding security and
> privacy.

http://secushare.org/end2end - The web browser is designed to do what
the server tells it to. Privacy is about AT LEAST having end to end
encryption, which doesn't work if the UI is coming from the server.
So the web browser only makes sense if you simulate the server on
localhost, which is an architectural choice which is considered on
the http://youbroketheinternet.org/map in the third box. To avoid
risks of privacy loss we should however consider to disable http and
other surveillance technologies.

> > 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.
> 
> There are several good reasons why the (vast) majority of users does not
> want to install software in addition to a web browser to be able to
> communicate with others. Alternatives or design requirements which do
> not take that into account will not lead to a different situation.

There is no way to provide for decent privacy for users without installing
new software. Also, why do they trust a phony HTTP download when they install
the web browser? It makes more sense to install a solid cryptographic
foundation, then have it pull in the web browser and whatever else in a
secure manner.