Juneteenth is the celebration of the end of slavery in the US. We should have more holidays that celebrate freedom for the sake of freedom.
So happy Juneteenth, everyone!
Juneteenth is the celebration of the end of slavery in the US. We should have more holidays that celebrate freedom for the sake of freedom.
So happy Juneteenth, everyone!
I’ve signed on to Access Now’s letter to the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, asking the Government of India to withdraw the draft amendments proposed to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules.
As they say in their press release:
Today’s letter, signed by an international coalition of 31 organizations and individuals, explains how the proposed amendments threaten fundamental rights and the space for a free internet, while not addressing the problems that the Ministry aims to resolve. A key concern is the requirement for intermediaries to “enable tracing out of such originator” of content that an intermediary hosts, which could lead to demands that providers weaken the security features of their products and services. This threat to privacy would in turn endanger free expression.
Lately, I’ve tried to stay away from the tire fire that American politics has become. I’m reasonably certain that I have more to contribute in other areas. But when the President tries to equivocate between those waving the Nazi flag and those protesting against them, we need to speak about what’s acceptable.
It ought to go without saying that when literal Nazis are on one side of a debate, the other side is in the right.
But apparently, that’s not obvious, so I felt I could share a plan for a march by the alt-left, under the ominous name of “Operation Overlord.” They were planning to overthrow the legitimate government all along the coast, and, through force, replace it with their own puppets.
More seriously, we can have disagreements about what’s best for the country, and it’s bad when we demonize those who disagree with us. Civilized society requires us to accept civil disagreement. It accepts that no one is privileged or disadvantaged by an accident of birth: “race, creed or color,” as the expression goes. But civil disagreement, by definition, precludes violence, advocacy of violence or threats of violence.
The Nazi flag is one such threat. Waving it has no purpose except declaring oneself outside society and at odds with the ideals and principles of good people everywhere.
If you’re in a crowd of Nazis, you should be asking why, and walking away.
If you have doubts about what a President should say, here’s a sample:
“In an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, leading technology experts represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University argue that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to prohibit the government from accessing location data tracked by cell phone providers — “cell site location information” — without a warrant.”
For more, please see “In Supreme Court Brief, Technologists Warn Against Warrantless Access to Cell Phone Location Data.” [Update: Susan Landau has a great blog post “Phones Move – and So Should the Law” in which she frames the issues at hand.]
I’m pleased to be one of the experts involved.
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Image: Washington’s copy of the Declaration of Independence, from the Library of Congress.
Hossein Derakhshan was recently released from jail in Iran. He’s written a long and thoughtful article “The Web We Have to Save.” It’s worth reading in full, but here’s an excerpt:
Some of it is visual. Yes, it is true that all my posts on Twitter and Facebook look something similar to a personal blog: They are collected in reverse-chronological order, on a specific webpage, with direct web addresses to each post. But I have very little control over how it looks like; I can’t personalize it much. My page must follow a uniform look which the designers of the social network decide for me.
The centralization of information also worries me because it makes it easier for things to disappear. After my arrest, my hosting service closed my account, because I wasn’t able to pay its monthly fee. But at least I had a backup of all my posts in a database on my own web server. (Most blogging platforms used to enable you to transfer your posts and archives to your own web space, whereas now most platforms don’t let you so.) Even if I didn’t, the Internet archive might keep a copy. But what if my account on Facebook or Twitter is shut down for any reason? Those services themselves may not die any time soon, but it would be not too difficult to imagine a day many American services shut down accounts of anyone who is from Iran, as a result of the current regime of sanctions. If that happened, I might be able to download my posts in some of them, and let’s assume the backup can be easily imported into another platform. But what about the unique web address for my social network profile? Would I be able to claim it back later, after somebody else has possessed it? Domain names switch hands, too, but managing the process is easier and more clear— especially since there is a financial relationship between you and the seller which makes it less prone to sudden and untransparent decisions.
But the scariest outcome of the centralization of information in the age of social networks is something else: It is making us all much less powerful in relation to governments and corporations.
Ironically, I tweeted a link, but I think I’m going to try to go back to more blogging, even if the content might fit somewhere else. Hossein’s right. There’s a web here, and we should work to save it.
[There are broader critiques by Katie Moussouris of HackerOne at “Legally Blind and Deaf – How Computer Crime Laws Silence Helpful Hackers” and Halvar Flake at “Why changes to Wassenaar make oppression and surveillance easier, not harder.” This post addresses the free speech issue.]
During the first crypto wars, cryptography was regulated under the US ITAR regulations as a dual use item, and to export strong crypto (and thus, economically to include it in a generally available commercial or open source product) was effectively impossible.
A principle of our successful work to overcome those restrictions was that code is speech. Thus restrictions on code are restrictions on speech. The legal incoherence of the regulations was brought to an unavoidable crises by Phil Karn, who submitted both the book Applied Cryptography and a floppy disk with the source code from the book for an export license. The book received a license, the disk did not. This was obviously incoherent and Kafka-esque. At the time, American acceptance of incoherent, Kafka-esque rules was in much shorter supply.
Now, the new Wassenaar rules appear to contain restrictions on the export of a different type of code (page 209, category 4, see after the jump). (FX drew attention to this issue in this tweet. [Apparently, I wrote this in Jan, 2014, and forgot to hit post.])
A principle of our work was that code is speech. Thus restrictions on code are restrictions on speech. (Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.) I put forth several tweets that contain PoC I was able to type from memory, each of which, I believe, in principle, could violate the Wassenaar rules. For example:
It would be nice if someone would file for the paperwork to export them on paper.
In this tweet, I’m not speaking for my employer or yours. I am speaking for poor, tired and hungry cryptographers, yearning to breathe free, and to not live on groundhog day.
So there’s a working set of plans for the “Liberator.” It’s a working firearm you can print on a 3d printer. You can no longer get the files from the authors, whose site states: “DEFCAD files are being removed from public access at the request of the US Department of Defense Trade Controls.
Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.” Cue Streisand Effect.
My understanding is that the censorship order was issued under the ITARs, the “International Traffic in Arms Regulations.” Cory Doctorow has said “Impact litigation — where good precedents overturn bad rules — is greatly assisted by good facts and good defendants. I would much rather the Internet-as-library question be ruled on in a less emotionally overheated realm than DIY guns.” I think that’s reasonable, but recall that Shaw claimed that all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Doctorow also refers to Bernstein, who did good work, but his lawsuit was the last nail in ITARs applying to crypto, not the first. (ITARs still do apply to crypto, but in ways that allow both open source and commercial software to ship strong crypto, which wasn’t the case in the 90s.) Me, I see lots of evidence that gun control doesn’t work any better than alcohol control or marijuana control. And I think that the regulatory response by the DoD is silly. (One can argue that the law gives them no choice, but I don’t believe that to be the case.)
So the right step was demonstrated for crypto nearly 20 years ago by Phil Karn. He filed a pair of “Commodity Jurisdiction Requests.” One for Applied Cryptography, a book, and one for a floppy disk containing the source code.
The State Department ruled that even though the book itself is “in the public domain” and hence outside their jurisdiction, a floppy disk containing the exact same source code as printed in the book is a “munition” requiring a license to export. It’s old news that the US Government believes only Americans (and maybe a few Canadians) can write C code, but now they have apparently decided that foreigners can’t type either!
In the past three years I have taken my case to all three branches of the federal government. Here is the full case history in the Executive and Judicial branches, including all my correspondence with the US State Department, the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) in the Commerce Department, the US District Court for the District of Columbia, and the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
I believe the analogy is obvious. The DefCad files are 2mb zipped, and the STL files can be opened with a variety of software. Unfortunately, STL looks to be a binary format, and it’s not clear to me after a few minutes of searching if there’s a trivially printed text format. But that’s a very low hurdle.
As Doctorow implied, reasonableness on all sides would be nice to have. But at home printing isn’t going to go away, and censorship orders are not a productive step forward.
[Previously here: “What Should a Printer Print?“]
I came across a fascinating post at Jon Udell’s blog, “Homicide rates in context ,” which starts out with this graph of 2007 data:
Jon’s post says more than I care to on this subject right now, and points out questions worth asking.
As I said in my post on “Thoughts on the Tragedies of December 14th,” “those who say that easy availability of guns drives murder rates must do better than simply cherry picking data.”
I’m not sure I believe that the “more guns, less crime” claim made by A.W.R. Hawkins claim is as causative as it sounds, but the map presents a real challenge to simplistic responses to tragic gun violence.
Around the 4th of July, some smart, public minded folks put forth a “Declaration of Internet Freedom“. And while it’s good in a motherhood and apple pie sense of good, wholesome fun for the whole family, it lacks the punch and panache of the Declaration of Independence to which men pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. As Randy Barnett points out in “The Declaration of Independence Annotated“, signing that document was a substantial and real risk to those who did it.
So where the Declaration of Independence got awfully specific about what they were objecting to (in that long list of grievances that no one reads as closely as they should), here we get “Don’t censor the internet.” But are the signers objecting to censorship of women without veils in Saudi Arabia? Nazis in Germany? How about Lese-majeste in Thailand?
We get things like “Protect the freedom to innovate and create without permission.” Does that mean that Apple should open their app store to all the malware that makes it into the Google store? Does that mean that someone like Amazon needs to publish Kindle APIs? That any API in a system is fair game, even if it’s officially not supported? If I use an unsupported API, does my freedom to innovate trump the creator’s freedom to innovate, and lock them into supporting that API in the future?
Whatever it might mean, it might mean different things to different people, but the unwillingness of the authors to really press into specifics might even make it meaningless.
Which is a shame.