Re: Spying, privacy, and Octave

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Against my better judgement, I am not going off-list with this. If you
> guys think this topic is inappropriate for the public list, we should
> continue in relative privacy.
>
> On 25 June 2013 20:28, Ben Abbott <address@hidden>
>> p.s. Jordi, I'm very unhappy about the NSA spying (particularly its
>> secrecy, and the apparent insensitivity to the rule of law),
>
> I am pretty sure we can't rely on the bullies to obey the laws they
> enforce themselves. The laws are always ultimately on the side of
> those with power. Any defence will have to rely on what Julian Assange
> calls a physical property of reality: just like we live in a universe
> where Maxwell's laws exist, we also live in a universe in which
> cryptography is possible. Physical laws can't be broken, and even
> Snowden has confirmed that point-to-point cryptography is still
> secure.
>
>> but don't think is relevant in our activities. Everything we do is
>> available to anyone.
>
> Not everything, no. For example, Rik is a very private person, despite
> working on Octave. He works hard to keep his privacy online, and he's
> a good example of what we should strive for. We also have a number of
> contributors who do so using pseudonyms. I still have no idea who is
> "forkandwait", despite being a prolific contributor on the help list.
> Possibly the NSA knows, but I hope they don't.
>
> In a similar vein, I think it should be possible for someone to attend
> OctConf, and if they so wish, not broadcast to the world what they are
> doing and where.
>
>> So while I object to PRISM in principle, the suggestion that we
>> boycott all modern communication systems
>
> I didn't suggest we should boycott "all modern communication systems",
> unless you think Jitsi and Ekiga are outdated communication systems.
>
> Skype's non-free nature makes it harmful to society in many ways, most
> obviously by being wiretapped. There are alternatives. We should
> consider them.
>
>> does not appear to be an effective means to protest (to me).
>
> I am not specifically advocating protest at this point. I'm advocating
> taking our privacy into our own hands.
>
> - Jordi G. H.

If there is an option (and there is) we should try it. The idea pop up
rather at in the last minute and people (I guess) defaulted to the
thing they found around. If we do it next time, we do it properly.

Privacy, if requested, can be maintained by blurring faces, and other
tricks. Also, we will just ask the speaker if he wants his talk
broadcast or not, and that's it.

I do think is good idea to increase visibility of the project using
most media available and simply stating that we do not endorse they
practices in any way.

Example: I tried with identi.ca last year and it just doesn't work. I
am not against it and I support it, but it just doesn't work, for
wathever reason. In this case G+ and other social networks are working
well. And anybody is free to use the media they want (is they freedom)
as long as there is no claim of endorsement.