On 6/30/19 6:22 PM, sva wrote: >> Regarding https://gnunet.org/ , 3rd section "The Internet of tomorrow needs >> GNUnet today", "Imagine..." sub section: >> 8 - Keep the hole analogy, and replace the theft analogy with a surveillance >> camera analogy. Suggestion: >> "The conventional Internet is currently like a system of roads with deep >> potholes and surveillance cameras all over the place. Even if you still can >> use the roads (e.g. send emails, or browse websites) your vehicle might gets >> damaged. And the surveillance cameras will create a movement profile about >> your life: They recognize your car license plate, track you everywhere you >> drive, and save this information in a central data base." >> By replacing the incorrect theft analogy (copying is not theft) with an >> analogy, which is not only correct but also practically more invasive for >> every day people (it affects directly everyone using the infrastructure, no >> matter if normal person or person of special interest like whistleblowers), >> this section becomes more correct and striking. > > => this one we need to discuss. > I added it as a html-comment in the according section on the site. > > My 2cents: The database is (usually) not central, and the thief is > something much more "dangerous" than "just being tracked", esp for a > "normal" person. > > Other opinions?
Copying your personal data and using it is called "identity theft", and while we may dislike the "theft" terminology in the general domain of copyright, I think here it is appropriate as it is about private data. Also, I agree with Sva that using the "central data base" here would just make us sound clueless. >> Regarding https://gnunet.org/ , 3rd section "The Internet of tomorrow needs >> GNUnet today", "The Internet is broken" sub section: >> 9 - change text " Protocols from Ethernet and IP to BGP and X.509 PKI are >> insecure by default: protecting against address forgery, routers learning >> metadata, or choosing trustworthy CAs is nontrivial and sometimes impossible. >> >> GNUnet provides privacy by design, improving addressing, routing, naming and >> content distribution in a technically robust manner - as opposed to ad-hoc >> designs in place today." >> as follows: >> "The Internet is not designed with security in mind: The network generally >> learns too much about users; it has insecure defaults and high complexity; >> and it is centralized. That makes it very vulnerable for multiple attacks >> massively threatening our freedom. >> >> GNUnet is built "privacy by design" and "distributed by design". This >> improves addressing, routing, naming and content distribution in a >> technically robust manner." >> By this change the explanation in what way the internet is broken becomes >> more convincing and generally understandable. > > First part: Not sure if the new text makes it better - at this stage we > are still aiming at techies that should know what IP and BGP is, and > therefore get a clearer picture, I believe. Right, we cannot simply claim "it's all broken" without at least giving a rough idea of what we mean by that. Even people who don't know IP or BGP can at least take away the message that we have _specific_ concerns, which is important. After all, not understanding those specifics doesn't harm understanding the rest of the text. > Second part: Is "distributed by design" any existing term? Then I'd add > your change. Not really, but I'd not mind establishing that term, it rings nicely with "privacy by design" ;-).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
