[pp.int.general] Secure communication tools and the obligation to use them

carlo von lynX lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org
Fri Oct 30 11:56:51 CET 2015

Hello fellow pirates! Let's talk about something that we
really should be more careful about - the protection of our 
conversations and the potential consequences on exercising
our ability to form a meaningful political opposition while 
all our wisdom, insecurity and bickering bleeds into
XKEYSCORE, ready to be inspected by KARMA POLICE.

During the research for my presentation on constitutionality of
the Internet I bumped into a very relevant aspect. A mistaken
assumption that the '68 generation made that has repercussions
until today: the idea that all political work should be open
and transparent. Apparently during the period of Enlightment,
with all the experience of absolutist rule, the idea of Secrecy
of Correspondence may not only have been about giving a "right"
to the citizen but to create a platform where alternative
democratic thinking has a chance to form and grow before the
government in power can inspect and influence the process.

Given such a perspective in a world of XKEYSCORE and KARMA POLICE
it is maybe not so surprising that we hardly ever see alternative
democratic thinking actually manifesting itself in government.
>From this perspective I see that most government politics should
be open and transparent whereas all NGO and innovation thinking
should happen in a safe place from government scrutiny - and in
these days of globalization that includes all governments plus
their cloud-based helpers.

Whoever says they got nothing to hide may, seen with the eyes
of the 18th century, be walking all over the constitution with
their dirty feet - because they are impeding others from
bringing renovation to the democracy the way democracy is
intended to have it. Lobbyism is the unnatural way to renovate
democracy. Opposition and majority win-over should be the way.
But must democracies we know have opposition powers just as
statically radicated as government powers.

So I took a few days off to our comparison table of secure
communication tools.

While prism-break is great, but doesn't really explain what
the individual projects deliver compared to each other. While
the EFF messaging scorecard lacks metadata protection. While
the LEAP secure email report is heavily biased by priotization
of legacy compatibility, here is a comparison of free software
tools which goes technologically in-deep and focuses on trying
to protect our constitutional obligations and liberties for
real, without promoting broken technologies just because they
are popular. It has six sections on the following topics:

    Use Case: Social Networking
    Use Case: File Exchange
    Use Case: Instant Messaging
    Use Case: Asynchronous Messaging (E-Mail)
    Use Case: Telephony and Video Conferencing
    Use Case: Chatroom Idling

http://secushare.org/comparison is where you find it.
Feedback is welcome.

  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list