Re: [GNUnet-developers] Review of the new GNUnet website

[sva]

Thanks for your valuable contributions! Not the next part:

It took me a bit longer, as two things imho need to be discussed,
especially with those people that originally made those texts last year
(where I wasn't around).

To make that commenting easier I pasted the not-clear parts into the
file as html-comments and pasted the whole document here:
https://pads.ccc.de/gnunet-website

Just search for "proposal from Fabian Gerlach" to find the sections. I
also bolded them for your convenience.


It's also everything below, but maybe a bit easier to see in the pad :)



On 6/26/19 9:18 PM, Fabian Gerlach wrote:

> More appropriate:
> 
> Regarding https://gnunet.org/ , 2nd section, 3rd sub section:
> 7 - Change "GNUnet is made for an open society" to "GNUnet is made for a free 
> society"

I made: "free and open society"

> 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?


> 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.

Second part: Is "distributed by design" any existing term? Then I'd add
your change.

Group, please discuss and/or share opinions!


> Regarding https://gnunet.org/ , 3rd section "The Internet of tomorrow needs 
> GNUnet today", "Decentralization is hard" sub section:
> 10 - Simplify the 1st section, the 2nd section is already fine. Suggestion:
> "Instead of sharing common components and tools for building P2P systems, 
> every P2P project seems to re-invent the wheel. That highens effort and 
> number of vulnerabilities."
> By this change you convey same content with less words and in easier 
> language. The details are already covered in the 2nd section, no need for 
> mentioning them in 1st and 2nd section.

Ack, changed it that way :)



> Regarding https://gnunet.org/ , 3rd section "The Internet of tomorrow needs 
> GNUnet today", "Metadata is exposed" sub section:
> 11 - Add a short 1 sentence introduction before the current 1st sentence of 
> the sub section: "Metadata is just as revealing as the actual content; and it 
> gets exposed on the internet.". Or more personal: "Your metadata is just as 
> revealing as the actual content; and it gets exposed on the internet.".

=> took the "personal one" :) Thanks!

> The result is that the sub section looks like this: "Metadata/Your metadata 
> is just as revealing as the actual content; and it gets exposed on the 
> internet. Although transport encryption is increasingly being deployed on the 
> Internet, it still reveals data that can threaten democracy: the identities 
> of senders and receivers, the times, frequency and the volume of 
> communication are all still revealed.
> By this change the point is brought across more striking and easier. People 
> get "It's not 'just metadata'" and "I'm exposed".

In the source there is this comment:
  <!-- Looks like a weak argumentation to me:
          which <a

href="https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/websitefingerprinting-pets2016.pdf";>enables
          reverse-engineering pages visited via website
          fingerprinting</a>.
          -->
=> what do you (unknown editor) mean with this?


> Regarding https://gnunet.org/ , bottom section, law information:
> 12 - Sum up the years: "2015-2019", instead of "2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019"
> Both is correct, but the suggestion is shorter and conveys the same 
> information in a more clear way

=> done by someone else ;)

> 13 - Rather use the copyleft sign 🄯 / (ɔ)
> Judging by https://gnunet.org/philosophy of the old website that would fit 
> more to the GNUnet project

=> dont know how to edit this, can someone please give a hand?


Thats from me,

cheers & thanks,
sva.