[Freedombox-discuss] Rouge Freedomboxes and government intervention

[bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:21:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-06-28 at 02:55pm, bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 07:39:43PM +0800, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > > Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My point is that one point (out of several!) in the vision of 
> > > > FreedomBox is that the world becomes a better place even if not 
> > > > directly addressing then needs of activists ...
> > > >
> > > > I want to address the problem of central logging of the activities 
> > > > of the masses _separately_ from the more complex problem of 
> > > > activists needing secrecy, anonymity and other powerful features. 
> > > >  Because the first is easier and quicker solved than the second. 
> > > >  And because the first helps solve the second!
> > > 
> > > Exactly.
> > 
> > Well, I guess it depends on what "central logging of the activities of 
> > the masses" means. First, there is no real "central" logging, no 
> > unique big brother that the freedombox might want to defeat, but a lot 
> > of different (from size to content) logging databases out there, 
> > maintained by a lot of different actors.
> 
> When logs are controlled by a single entity, for 1000 people posting 
> microblogging entries and 1000 other people reading the posts and 
> tagging some authors as interesting to "follow", I consider the logging 
> "central".

Well, please read the rest of my previous email for an objection...

I fail to understand the thread model, I guess (even if I already did for
your definition of "central logging"). Your description doesn't address
the other "central" logging entities which are able to bring as many
informations, not to say more, about what you're talking about. Not sure
it's that easy to use this definition to separate implementation that are
not that unrelated, and even that evading "central logging" is that easy
to solve/implement.

bert.