[liberationtech] CryptoParty Handbook

[Nadim Kobeissi]

*is quietly drowning in nostalgia*

NK

On 10/9/2012 7:36 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> Asher Wolf:
>>
>> Re: the book edit portal - I do not have control over the platform it is
>> being edited on. The handbook project was launched by people in Berlin's
>> CryptoParty, and I was brought on board at a later point.
>>
> 
> I think it isn't even clear where the portal is located. I think it
> should be the first link on the web pages.
> 
>> On 9/10/12 9:30 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>>
>>>> @samthetechie
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why were you offended?
>>>
>>> Did you work on any of the software in the book? Did you try to help a
>>> bunch of the first CryptoParty events out? 
>>
>> Sam organised and ran CryptoParty London. He stepped up when nobody else
>> did. He found a venue. He asked for access to edit the book repeatedly.
>>
>> He has run impromptu cryptoparty sessions with activists since. He
>> should be commended for that.
>>
> 
> I think such efforts are commendable. My critiques about *some* of the
> content in manual are not at all meant to suggest that an individual's
> *efforts* aren't important.
> 
>> I did those things -
>>
>> Jacob, I'm aware you had contact with at least couple of cryptopartie,
>> which is great. Your work talking about privacy, surveillance and Tor
>> was instrumental in beginning the conversations that lead to
>> CryptoParty. Due to the respect many people have for you, it's
>> reasonable to assume events around the world would approach you to
>> speak. I'm not aware that you attended a party or spoke at one yet. Can
>> you advise me if this is different?
> 
> I did talk to a number of crypto parties - sadly, I did not speak at any
> of the events due to time/connection constraints. I consider my
> pre-event work to have been in support of the event that took place.
> 
> With that said - I reject earning, collecting and wearing merit badges
> as some kind of social reward. It doesn't matter if I helped with a
> specific CryptoParty before, during, or after the hours of the event. My
> critique is about the *content* and not the *energy invested* or the
> *intention* of the people involved. I specifically said it was a good
> idea and I think it is a noble goal.
> 
>>
>> We want your involvement, and are very grateful for your critical
>> analysis so far.
>>
> 
> I think that is amazingly frustrating but I'm glad to hear it - I think
> the above statements indicate an approach to dis-empower people not
> wearing CryptoParty Helper Merit Badges.
> 
>>> and you say that I should do more because I dared to not endorse it with fanfare?
>>
>> I agree that the book doesn't need any more endorsements - only critical
>> analysis and editing and content revision.
>>
> 
> 
>> I am concerned though that some of the ways in which the conversation is
>> being framed around issues with the current edition are not particularly
>> productive in encouraging people to continue.
> 
> No kidding - a critique of work isn't a critique of effort or the
> individual. Short of an *intentional* backdoor, anyway.
> 
>>
>> One of the things I believe is there's only a certain number of people
>> with the correct skill set and motivation to successfully pull of
>> certain projects. It's important to get the process of constructive
>> criticism right - otherwise interaction becomes demoralising.
>>
> 
> I agree and I would extend the analogy against an elitist CryptoParty
> vanguard - if there is only a certain number of people - we should
> expand that group until it is the total number of people who have an
> interest and beyond.
> 
>> I did not work on the technical aspects of the book. I cannot. I do not
>> have the right skill set.
> 
> This attitude, I think, is a key issue this community and many others
> face. You cannot? Or you will not?
> 
> I believe that you are totally able to learn and I think that it is very
> demoralizing when people say they are *unable* or *unwilling* to learn.
> That isn't to say that you will become a developer of cryptographic
> protocols. It is to say that many people will need to make choices about
> security and trusting a vanguard is dangerous. We're always trusting
> someone and I realize that reality. I didn't write my own compiler to
> compile my email client before sending this email with hand crafted
> electrons... However the high level view of most of this stuff is well
> within the grasp of each person - it just requires an interest and
> *educational resources* that empowers *all people* to learn.
> 
>> I have fielded maybe 6 criticisms of current
>> version of the book since Jacob's comments on twitter.  I've tried to
>> encourage people to write their own revisions and directed the concerns
>> towards @julian0liver who was with the original team working on the
>> handbook when possible.
> 
> I appreciate that you're getting noise and handling it with grace. Thank
> you.
> 
> My comments were not meant as personal disrespect - I actually felt that
> I was clear about my positive feelings for the effort with a serious
> concern about the results.
> 
> I have worked for around a decade on these issues. I am currently in a
> room in South Africa training users who wanted to dig in deep. I firmly
> believe it is possible to go from a user who rates themselves as
> "non-technical" and take them to a verified OTR conversation with Jabber
> over Tor *without* opening a computer science book. We did it today and
> English is the second language for most people in the room.
> 
> The first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem that needs
> solving. In Australia, the problem according to the CryptoParty as I
> understand it is the Surveillance State.
> 
> The second step is to put the energy into learning about mitigations,
> positive directions, reversals that are possible and so on. We might use
> the law, we might use politics, we might use technology. In all of those
> cases - it starts with us and an investment of our time and with us
> believing that we might make such changes in *ourselves* first.
> 
> I reject that you cannot do it - this handbook is for you - so the first
> step - how do we know things in the book are good or bad? Do they make
> sense? Are they true? Are they technically accurate? How do we know what
> any of those things mean anyway?
> 
> Until we have self-professed people who "cannot" do these things helping
> to evaluate any handbook at hand - that book probably isn't reaching the
> target audience and achieving a key stated goal: empowering people
> through technology.
> 
> I am more than happy to help edit the book in solidarity but not if the
> goal is to preach or to argue as a vanguard. If the goal is to empower,
> we will not do it by relying on such a vanguard. That is why we have so
> many problems today - the vanguard is often wrong - that is why most of
> the applications are badly programmed, not encrypted, log excessively,
> and so on. That same kind of vanguard structure is why the laws are all
> kinds of messed up.
> 
> So how will we empower people with technology? I think we will do it by
> relying on you Asher - so if you commit to learn, I'll commit to
> contribute. If we all work together, we'll find that we all have
> something to contribute and that critiques are due all around.
> 
> I'm sorry if what I said previously was frustrating or upsetting to anyone.
> 
> All the best,
> Jake
> --
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>