[AktiviX-discuss] proposals

[mp]

hi,

On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 22:42, ekes wrote:
> Max Gastone wrote:
> > It seems to me that without an agreed policy or
> > understanding of the exact security needs of the list
> > that this sort of discussion is jumping the gun.
> 
> I suspect the discussion should clear them up! There rightly isn't any 
> formal procedures for most of this stuff and it gets clarified through 
> action and open discussion.

yes, that is the way it's been going so far.

> > Personally, I dont see how I can get involved when I
> > do not even know what the ground rules are or what we
> > are trying to secure ourselves from.

imho, we are trying to secure ourselves from repression and plain
harassment, but we're also, i think, experimenting with ideas of a
technical architecture that can enhance the communicational capacity of
activists, which in a not-perfect world necessarily also means to
minimise problems with authorities who can impose limits on any form of
capacity/mobility/sanity.

> > There is little point elevating security measures into
> > security itself unless there is a coherent policy
> > underpinning it.

hen and egg: one could also say that there is no basis for articulating
a coherent security policy unless there has been experimented with
various forms of measures - because we might not all have the same ideas
of what to be secure from, why to be secure from it and what tools to
use for it, so perhaps it makes more sense, as ekes did above i think,
to suggest that measures and coherent policy must emerge together.
Perhaps a coherent policy is like a documentation of workable measures?

> > Personally, I dont see much point, other than to keep
> > email addresses out of the public arena and away from
> > spambots.
> 
> Hmmm... I felt it was to do with obfuscating individuals identities. 
> Which I think is cool, ok making it hard(er) on the searcher, but that 
> should not get in the way of openess, accountability and accessibility.
> 
> But that was my reading. Your right some more clarity would be useful.

i think it is summed up in your last paragraph. Compare the process at
riseup to the current one in aktivix - and then go figure :-)

mp