[p2p-research] Fwd: meeting on p2p risks to national sec

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Paul,

as usual, most interesting ...

it goes in too many directions to publish on the blog

would you consider a more tighter piece around the theme, 'p2p FOR national
security', I think that kind of message is important,

Michel

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Paul D. Fernhout <
pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:

> Michel Bauwens linked to:
> "Inadvertent File Sharing Over Peer-To-Peer Networks: How it Endangers
> Citizens and Jeopardizes National Security."
>
>> http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2554
>>
>
> Here are some comments on the p2p file sharing issue from my own thinking
> about it in the context of working towards peer-to-peer collaboration
> software.
>
> First, and mostly unrelated, one witness is listed as from "Center for the
> Study of Digital Property". Well, as Richard Stallman suggests, calling
> something "property" begs the question of how it should be treated by
> society. But, if it is "property', then how about taxing it annually?
>  http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/biplog/archive/000431.html
>  http://www.lessig.org/blog/2003/01/the_radicals_at_the_economist.html
>  http://www.lessig.org/blog/2003/01/on_building_rather_than_suing.html
> Let's see how fast we can get copyright and patent lawyers to say, "Oh, no,
> that's not what we meant by property. You can't tax Micky Mouse; it's just
> that he's like real estate only when it benefits us." :-)
>
> Anyway, and on to my main points, there are serious security risks to any
> system attached to the internet, obviously. So, the basis of this hearing
> is
> not without some merit.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LimeWire#Criticism
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing#Risks
>
> But, what is left out of the equation in terms of balance is how
> intentional
> sharing of information on peer-to-peer networks can enhance national and
> global security.
>
> For one example, one of the biggest early users of the Groove peer-to-peer
> software for collaboration was the US Defense Department. That itself
> caused
> some other issues:
>  "Software Pioneer Quits Board of Groove"
>  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/business/11PRIV.html
> "Mitchell D. Kapor, a personal computer industry software pioneer and a
> civil liberties activist, has resigned from the board of Groove Networks
> after learning that the company's software was being used by the Pentagon
> as
> part of its development of a domestic surveillance system. Mr. Kapor would
> say publicly only that it was a "delicate subject" and that he had resigned
> to pursue his interests in open source software. ... However, a person
> close
> to Mr. Kapor said that he was uncomfortable with the fact that Groove
> Networks' desktop collaboration software was a crucial component of the
> antiterrorist surveillance software being tested at the Defense Advanced
> Research Project Agency's Information Awareness Office, an office directed
> by Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter. ... "With the dramatic change of funding
> availability in the high-tech sector, it's become difficult for companies
> to
> turn down the funding opportunities presented by the federal government,"
> said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
> in Washington. "It does show that some people in the high-tech community,
> including some of the founders, are not happy with what's happening." ..."
>
> In the interests of full disclosure, we did work on aspects of that system.
>
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html
> http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2007/03/unwired.php
> However, my wife (an independent contractor) was upfront with Mr. P. about
> her focus of getting people to see things from multiple perspectives and
> working towards increasing global compassion. A more general effort she had
> helped with even before 9/11 had failed afterwards in convincing the
> Something-in-Chief that an activity like invading Iraq would be a really bad
> idea, with the resulting waste of the lives of thousands of idealistic
> young US Americans (and tens of thousands of US injured, many severely),
> let
> alone hundreds of thousands of Iraqi fatalities and injuries and millions
> of
> refugees), as well as trillions of US dollars in costs by the time it is
> over (an expense which causes its own suffering to the people of the USA).
> As I understand it, some official people wanted to get some information
> into
> that Lyme-addled mind of his about geopolitical reality using better
> presentation methods. The rest is my speculation based on later events. :-(
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+lyme
> I wish now I had taken her work even more seriously back then. By the way,
> Mr. ex-appointed-President, you might wish to read this book I've found
> helpful myself:
>  "Healing Lyme: Natural Healing And Prevention of Lyme Borreliosis And Its
> Coinfections "
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Lyme-Prevention-Borreliosis-Coinfections/dp/0970869630
> (It's an approach that relies mostly on Chinese-style herbs, as the
> standard
> medical treatments often don't work, perhaps because Lyme was possibly
> weaponized at Plum Island to be more awful?) I can only think (maybe in
> error) that such sensemaking and presentation ideas and technologies as
> were
> developed on that project (of which surveillance was only part) might have
> been of some small value in the fortunate prevention of follow-on US
> invasions into Iran and Syria which, depending on what sort of stuff those
> two countries keep in their refrigerators
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Biological_weapons
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Biological
> (presumably with better success than the US had on Plum Island with its own
> refrigerators),
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lyme+plum
> such invasions might in the worst case have led to another depopulation of
> North America, same as four hundred years ago. :-(
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squanto
> Which shows the potential value sometimes in seeing things from other
> people's points of view, or better yet, working towards mutual security
> among peers.
>
> Mitch Kapor made his decision. We made (or drifted into) ours. Whether it
> is
> easy to know who was right (even both, or neither) can be a tough call.
> It's
> also not always clear who is the real troublemakers in one of these
> situations. Or the real patriots. Or who are just the people trying to
> survive and muddle through in a mysterious and often confusing universe
> that
> appears to be unimaginably old and unimaginably big and yet still somehow
> seems to fit inside a human skull. :-)
>
> People sent a letter to President Johnson about this sort of stuff in 1964,
> so it's not like it is anything new, even if that letter is no doubt long
> forgotten by most:
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Triple_Revolution
> "The statement identified three revolutions underway in the world: the
> cybernation revolution of increasing automation; the weaponry revolution of
> mutually assured destruction; and the human rights revolution. It discussed
> primarily the cybernation revolution."
>  http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm
> "The Weaponry Revolution: New forms of weaponry have been developed which
> cannot win wars but which can obliterate civilization. We are recognizing
> only now that the great weapons have eliminated war as a method for
> resolving international conflicts. The ever-present threat of total
> destruction is tempered by the knowledge of the final futility of war. The
> need of a “warless world” is generally recognized, though achieving it will
> be a long and frustrating process."
>
> The Triple Revolution memorandum in three sentences above explains why the
> USA's current defense policy of unilateral dominance is ultimately
> suicidal.
> Instead, we get this machismo:
>  http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45289
> """
> WASHINGTON, June 2, 2000 – "Full-spectrum dominance" is the key term in
> "Joint Vision 2020," the blueprint DoD will follow in the future. ...
> Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone
> or
> with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the
> range of military operations.
> """
>
> Yeah right, this from a military still bogged down in the deserts and
> cities
> of Iraq years later after a supposed "mission accomplished", where Iraq as
> a
> country was not much of a threat or much of an oppositional force. These
> are
> the people who get (with interest on previous expenses and future incurred
> obligations) about a trillion dollars a year of US tax dollars? This is the
> best strategy US military planners can come up with to protect the US
> people
> from post-scarcity weapons like nukes, biowarfare, killer robots, and
> information warfare in a very complex world facing economic collapse?
> This is the best defense against the downsides of vast changes going on
> now?
> Antagonize and threaten the heck out of the rest of the world to the point
> where most people globally think the USA is the biggest threat to world
> peace? And now, indirectly threaten to shut down peer-to-peer networks that
> might help build bridges across the globe?
>
> Well, what else could they do with a commander-in-chief who said stuff like
> this:
>  "Bush: 'Bring on' attackers of U.S. troops"
>  http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm
> Besides impeachment?
> (Ignoring this is doctrine originating from the Clinton/Gore years. Or that
> we have a different president now.)
>
> Here is a better military strategy based on keeping relations between peers
> going indefinitely:
>  "James P. Carse, Religious War In Light of the Infinite Game, SALT talk"
>  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-962221125884493114
>
> Or, from Morton Deutsch, a focus on mutual security among peers:
>  "Beyond Intractability: Morton Deutsch"
> http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/morton_deutsch/?nid=2430
> "Q: You're starting to see the analogy to international conflict, or
> intractable conflict on a larger scale?
> A: Yes. Well, I wrote a paper about preventing World War III. That was
> during the height of the cold war, I think I wrote it in 1982, it was
> called
> "The Presidential Address to the International Society to Political
> Psychology." And there I took the relationship between the United States
> and
> the Soviet Union and characterized it as a malignant relationship, which
> had
> some of the characteristics that I was talking about with the couple. It
> was
> right for both the United States and the Soviet Union to think that the
> other was hostile, would undo it, would damage it, you know, all of these
> things. The relationship was a malignant one. They had to become aware of
> the malignancy, and the only way out really was recognizing that it's
> hurting, recognizing that there is a potential better way of relating. And
> that better way of relating involves having a sense that one can only have
> security if there's mutual security. And that's true in most relationships.
> That's particularly true to recognize groups that have had bitter strife
> where they've hurt each other. They have to deal with the problem of how to
> get to where they can live together. It may be ethnic groups within a given
> nation or community. They can only live together if they recognize that
> their own security is going to be dependent on the other person's security.
> So each person, each side, each group has to be interested in the welfare
> of
> the other. On a national level it has to deal with military and other
> economic security. At the group level and personal level, it often has to
> do
> with psychological security. It has to do with someone recognizing, I
> shouldn't be treating the other in an undignified, disrespectful way. So in
> an interpersonal relationship, that kind of security, recognizing that not
> only are you entitled to it, so is the other person entitled to it. And if
> you don't give that other person that entitlement the relationship is going
> to move in the other direction, back to bitter conflict."
>
> Or even from the book Disciplined Minds, on how individuals can help
> promote a better balance of meshwork-and-hierarchy among peers:
>  "Review of Jeff Schmidt's Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried
> Professionals and the Soul-Battering System that Shapes their Lives"
>  http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/01BRrt.html
> """
> Finally, Schmidt describes what is involved in being a radical
> professional:
> identifying primarily as a radical, having a critical perspective on the
> profession and institution, and doing things that make a difference, by
> connecting to opposition groups and working on the inside. For most
> teachers, then, doing things that make a difference would mean working in
> radical ways within a mainstream school. Schmidt gives a list of 33
> suggestions for radical professionals working in establishment
> institutions,
> such as helping on politically progressive projects during working hours,
> exposing the organization’s flaws to outsiders, and taking collective
> action
> to maintain the dignity of individuals. These are all eminently practical
> suggestions. Schmidt does not present a grand plan to transform professions
> or society. Rather, his suggestions, like his analysis, are grounded in
> day-to-day realities. That is what makes Disciplined Minds a really
> subversive book, much more so than other books that may seem more radical
> in
> theoretical terms but lack a tight connection to practice. How far to
> pursue
> any subversive step is a matter of judgment, and here Schmidt cannot
> provide
> much guidance since so much depends on an individual’s circumstances,
> opportunities, understanding, skills and alternatives. It is usually safer
> to be an activist about distant issues than confront the local power
> structure. Is this a cop-out? Going too far means risking one’s job and
> possibly the opportunity to pursue further change, but treading too softly
> is a prescription for gradually becoming a defender of the status quo.
> Schmidt encourages us to err on the side of action for change.
> """
>
> And of course, IMHO, the biggest creative challenge is ideally to find a
> path that both fulfills your hierarchically assigned task in a respectful
> way while at the same time moves towards some larger goal of mutual
> security
> and global abundance in an open and upfront way that the hierarchy has no
> significant justifiable reason to confront or impede, as you help restore a
> balance to the world. I'm proud that my wife found such a path for a time
> under difficult conditions, as fraught with ethical dilemmas as it has been:
> http://www.amazon.com/Trickster-Makes-This-World-Mischief/dp/0865475369
> http://blog.ted.com/2009/04/trickster_makes.php
> """
> The trickster is anybody who's a bit of an outsider. They're the ones who
> make change. They're not thinking about making change; they're almost doing
> it in a selfish way. But because they're working outside the rules, they
> change the rules. Everything around them is always new, everything is an
> opportunity. It's important to honor mischief-making, in a constructive and
> creative way, because that's how we effect change. And it's so important
> that we figure out our inner mischief maker. That's the creative part of
> us.
> And everybody's capable of it.
> """
>
> Yes, what I'm saying is that most US Americans may already owe their lives
> to the result of a project involving peer-to-peer technology. And maybe
> even
> to an all-too-clever person who organized it and who had previously been
> convicted of multiple felonies (for IMHO apparently justifiable reasons):
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Poindexter
> It must have been obvious from the start that GW Bush was clueless.
> Politics makes strange bedfellows and combined actions can often have
> unintended consequences. :-) Even this one.
>  "Where does the phrase "politics makes strange bedfellows" come from?"
>  http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/277516
>
> Not that all this is anything I'd be able to prove myself, or even can be
> 100% certain of as it is a complex chain of events involving lots of people
> and some degree of uncertainty as regards the capabilities of secretive
> countries, as well as the fact that more ordinary explanations might help
> explain stopping at Iraq. And I saw it all from a distance. But it does
> sound strange enough to be plausible, right? :-)
>
> But beyond peer-to-peer tools used directly in acknowledged conventional
> national security situations, if peer-to-peer tools are used to develop an
> alternative and more intrinsically secure infrastructure for the USA and
> the
> world, one supporting mutual security and global prosperity, the overall
> security benefits due to peer-to-peer may be enormous. That sort of idea of
> developing an intrinsically secure and sustainable infrastructure for
> global
> abundance is what I would like to use peer-to-peer systems for. So, one
> needs to balance the benefits of peer-to-peer against the risks.
>
> Everyone wants security. We often just define it differently using
> different
> assumptions. For example, I believe that it is foolish to spend vast
> amounts
> per year extrinsically defending the Persian Gulf oil fields (where much of
> "our" oil in the USA comes from) when just a few years of such expenses
> could insulate enough homes in the USA and upgrade enough cars to
> intrinsically reduce the need to import any of that oil at all. I am
> (personally) concerned about energy security, but looking at it from a
> different perspective, based on Amory and Hunter Lovins' ideas
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
> "Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security is a 1982 book by
> Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, prepared originally as a Pentagon
> study, and re-released in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. The book
> argues that domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to
> disruption,
> by accident or malice, often even more so than imported oil. According to
> the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible, costs less, works
> better, is favoured in the market, but is rejected by U.S. policy. In the
> preface to the 2001 edition, Lovins explains that these themes are still
> very current."
>
> So, sometimes peer-to-peer efforts can take the security high ground. :-)
>
> And that's exactly the sort of soft energy paths that Amory and Hunter
> Lovins recommended the USA adopt thirty years ago. Unfortunately, that
> advice was not followed quickly enough, although now many are listening to
> it.
>
> And of course, email is essentially peer-to-peer. And almost everyone uses
> that. :-)
>
> As Michel has said elsewhere, peer-to-peer is more about a relationship
> between people than whether there is a server somewhere in the middle.
>  "Michel Bauwens Explains Peer-to-Peer"
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL5hhlV94GI
>
> Google Wave is peer-to-peer in that sense too. As is Wikipedia too, in a
> sense.
>
> Little Big Planet is a somewhat peer-to-peer application in that sense --
> with the motto, "Play, Create, Share".
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LittleBigPlanet
> "In January 2009, Sony announced that the game had sold 611,000 units in
> North America up to the end of December 2008 and that there were 1.3
> million
> unique users playing LittleBigPlanet."
>
> Still, the rest of the world may not see it that way yet. By the phrasing
> of
> the meeting title, this does seem like something of a witch hunt.
>
> One can also talk about p2p risks to your own personal security. :-(
>
> While I believe this is a bad law, intentionally violating copyrights is
> now
> a felony in the USA. :-(
>  http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/CFAleghist.htm
> And there are other types of content that are also illegal in the USA.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse
>
> Personally, I would not run a peer-to-peer content hosting system like
> LimeWire or similar things where I was not reasonably sure of what content
> it was hosting, or where I was not sure where it was taking any content
> from
> on my own system, or where the source code or traffic was not inspectable,
> or where the collective content was not vetted by an active community
> process, or where I did not have time and energy to supervise it. So, I
> don't run one. :-) Still, that does not mean whether I think such systems
> are legal or not; I'm just being extra cautious, and I don't see any
> significant personal value for me to take on any risk in that area. Others
> might make that decision differently for legitimate reasons.
>
> That's why I personally prefer a workgroup model of peer-to-peer instead of
> supporting sort of anonymous network for arbitrary content cached locally
> like much software called peer-to-peer file sharing tools. A workgroup
> model
> system is what I am working towards with the Pointrel Social Semantic
> Desktop, where people would decide who is in a workgroup and what content
> was worked on in a workgroup (similar to a mailing list in that sense).
>  http://sourceforge.net/projects/pointrel/
>
> I have considered (in theory) a possible way to use Gnutella and similar
> file sharing networks as one of many backends for coordinating shared
> content (currently all the implemented ones are central server based in
> some
> way or just involve copying files from a shared drive). But having such a
> backend is not a priority for me to implement or use myself. Down the road,
> that might change if there was some big value there, but it is so hard to
> get anything going well, it's not an area I want to explore right now given
> extra controversy and risk.
>
> Anyway, I became interested in this model in part because of concerns about
> the types of designs people might put in a related system I wanted to do
> called OSCOMAK, related to free and open source physical technology. That
> project has had a trial Halo Semantic MediaWiki website (without too much
> success).
>  http://www.oscomak.net/
> It took a lot of time to deal with spammers to it too, and I just keep it
> up
> now for archival purposes without allowing more changes. I also don't want
> to host designs I don't approve of (most likely advanced weapons or various
> controversial biotech things). That does not mean others might not want to
> host various designs, of course based on different values or evaluations of
> risk (for example, explosives are used in mining, but I'm not interested in
> worrying about them and all the security implications). Again, it's so hard
> to get any content together, and I don't want to get bogged down in
> controversies about military or dual-use products or other issues from the
> start. I'd rather focus on the low hanging non-controversial fruit of
> straightforward helpful technology (if there is any such thing in the end?
> Tea cosies, perhaps? :-)
> "Beware of the tea cosy... it could put you in hospital - Scotsman.com
> News"
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/9450d466b34f374e
>
> Though even a workgroup has its sinister sounding side depending on how
> people decide to share their workgroup results or how open they make
> invitations to workgroups. One term there is "darknet":
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_(file_sharing)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_%28file_sharing%29>
> "A darknet refers to any type of closed, private group of people
> communicating; however, since 2002, the term has evolved to more
> specifically refer to file sharing networks in general, whether that
> network
> is private or (without respect to the legality of such) readily accessible
> to the public. The phrase "the darknet" is used to refer collectively to
> all
> covert communication networks."
>
> Most corporate communication systems could be considered "darknets" in that
> sense to an extent (as in, the public can't join in the network or access
> most of the content). And lots of web applications are like that, even
> private Google Groups or private Yahoo Groups. Yes, I know often people
> want
> to use that term to mean something about the network or encryption more
> than
> the accessibility of the content, but it's kind of like seeing the peer
> aspect more than the transport or server aspect as defining peer-to-peer.
> Although friend-to-friend is also another way of looking at this.
>
> I would not expect any data transmitted over public networks, even
> encrypted
> data, to be secure in the long term. Much stuff is undoubtedly archived,
> and
> quantum computing could in theory easily break any current crypto anyone is
> likely to really use. As I've said elsewhere,
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/ae28e8971f8f9669?hl=en
> I think activists should make their plans and conduct their lives under the
> assumption the intelligence agencies are watching everything they do. I'm
> not saying that is the actual case; I'm just saying it is the safest
> assumption, and I doubt much is gained of practical value assuming
> otherwise
> anyway (and some of value might even be lost, a chance to change opinions
> of
> the watchers). See:
>  "Social Movements and Strategic Nonviolence"
>  http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html
>
> I'm sure people can make arguments for these other systems with anonymous
> content broadly distributed, but it is not a space I personally want to be
> in. I'd rather see places like Wikipedia or ibiblio or Wikileaks with
> significant legal backup dealing with these issues of free speech or
> defending marginal content. Getting entangled in one of those issues early
> on is probably just a project hinderance as far as worry and divided
> attention.
>
> Likewise, one can also make arguments for principled civil disobedience
> with
> regard to infringing on copyrighted material or software patents (including
> by using peer-to-peer networks or tools), but that is not on my own
> priority
> list, given there is so much one can do within the law. The most popular
> content people want to share (mainstream music, movies) really ideally
> should be replaced with peer produced content IMHO, as it often reflects a
> certain set of values and world view. Fair use for parody or commentary or
> maybe even mixups may be a different issue than sharing commercially
> produced copyrighted works as-is, but at least in the USA, some of that may
> be legal. A different issue is the archiving or sharing of copyrighted
> material that is decades old and has had its copyright period extended by
> legal changes after its creation, given that you would think copyrights
> should be shorter in the fast-moving internet age than the twenty years or
> so common in the age of steamships and the pony express; but it might take
> another Supreme Court case to decide the legality of those laws under that
> test (Lawrence Lessig flubbed the last one). Likewise, materials developed
> in part using taxpayer or charitable funds might be in a different category
> too, given that the public has already paid for them in some way (another
> Supreme Court case?). I'm not recommending infringing on any copyrights;
> I'm
> just suggesting these different situations all might be thought about
> differently as one thinks about how the laws should change to better
> reflect
> peer-oriented values, or in contemplating which laws might in theory be
> more
> worthy of principled civil disobedience than others for those willing to do
> jail time for a felony charge with hopes of changing the law if it is
> unconstitutional or significantly against the public interest.
>  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=felony+copyright+infringement
> However, again, I am not encouraging anyone to break the law (and most US
> prisons are nasty places to be); I'm just pointing out the issue and how
> civil disobedience is one I am not interested in pursuing myself given I
> feel there are so many other alternatives one can do within the (bad) law.
> If anything, I'd suggest people think long and hard before violating any
> copyrights as there is rarely any reason that makes any sense given there
> are lots of free alternatives for most things these days -- even music and
> video, and if something is not free that you want it, it might be better to
> just make a free alternative of some sort and route around the damage of
> overly long copyright. Look at what Wikipedia has accomplished. For
> reference on this topic:
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
> "Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and
> commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to
> physical violence. It is one of the primary tactics of nonviolent
> resistance. In its most nonviolent form (in India, known as ahimsa or
> satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of
> respectful
> disagreement."
>
> One aspect I'm more interested in about licensing is tagging copyrighted
> content in various ways to know if it does not have a free license so it
> can
> be more easily purged from a peer workgroup focusing on free content. That
> is sort of like a free software version of DRM for peer-to-peer systems,
> looking at non-free content as contaminated stuff you want to get rid of as
> soon as possible, or maybe even filter out before it reaches your systems,
> as you treat non-free stuff as damage and work around it. :-)
> "License management tools: good, bad, or ugly?"
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/browse_thread/thread/df4b4363d544f766/1e499c6db59117a2
> Then you could set things up so your email client (or mailing list) would
> only accept emails that came with certain free licenses. :-) So, rather
> than
> use DRM to enforce restrictions on distributing content, you could use it
> to
> prevent accepting content with restrictions on redistribution.
>  "An animated short about Trusted Computing."
>  http://www.lafkon.net/tc/
>
> One can only fight so many battles at one time, and some of them may not be
> worth fighting anyway. Does that make me a fuddy duddy? :-)
>  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fuddy-duddy
>  "An old-fashioned, fussy person."
>
> Or maybe just potentially more effective within a small sphere? :-)
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People
>
> Anyway, I still find the title of the meeting worrisome, of course. I guess
> we will find out how much of a democracy remains in the USA. At least most
> of the people are still there to protest any change, even if we may never
> know exactly why. :-)
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens

Connect through http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090728/fc70c1c1/attachment-0001.html>