[liberationtech] Open letter to Phil Zimmermann & Jon Callas of Silent Circle, re: Silent Mail shutdown

[Ali-Reza Anghaie]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
> Ali-Reza Anghaie:
>> OK. I still disagree - in these threat models they don't care about effort.
>
> Who doesn't?

Any of the bodies we're talking about exerting pressure. They're going
to come at you in all sorts of ways up and until they effectively (or
really) kill you.

>> They dissuade people by killing a few first.
>
> If someone starts harming say, Ubuntu developers, I think very few
> Debian developers will worry. I think very few RHEL developers will
> worry. Or if they all worry, I doubt very few will stop working and if
> they do, someone else, someone anonymously, may continue their work - right?

On that account - probably to perhaps. I meant end-user account. Just
like the State condemning end-use by effectively making it the pattern
for collection. If it comes to bear any other system is being used to
harm the cartels, they'll punish end-users. I'm not sure those fit the
same model. And besides, for the end-user groups we're talking about
most of the time (non-techies in the harshest most in need regions) -
they are WAY more valuable relative to the cause they are representing
than developers. Strange equation yes - but worth considering.

>> The OPSEC model against
>> hostile State or non-State models has very little to do with issues like
>> we're increasing bringing to the forefront. The overlap becomes obscures
>> behind FUD and more obvious problems like connectivity.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree. I think that in the third party model -
> States pose one very specific threat and non-state actors pose another.
> Both would benefit from verification - though in the centralized third
> party model, most verification is practically impossible.

I don't think we disagree on that particular - I'm just stating that
most OPSEC problems haven't even gotten past the basics to worry about
(in this case) Silent Circle's situation.

So when we're redirecting more and more resources to these type of
discussions, we're leaving behind other things that are more pressing
IMO. This debate we've had - no sense re-opening it. I'm not sure
we're that far off except I seem to have taken the tact a bit harsher
than Zooko intended.

>> However, all the power to getting it done "right" across the board and
>> constantly improved.
>>
>
> Ok, so we generally agree on the solution but perhaps not on the models?

We even agree on those when it applies to the proverbial "us" in
geekdom. It's more the social tactic of beating the crap out of each
other in this libtech space and inadvertently chasing people into
actual snake oil solutions.

>> I'm just growing increasingly concerned with dog eat dog bite consumer
>> circles.
>
> I think Zooko wasn't trying to be a jerk and I'm glad he is starting
> these kinds of discussions. It sure is hard to talk about these topics.
> I guess it really took a global spying scandal to make it seem
> reasonable for a lot of people!

I hear you there - suddenly all manner of discussions make a heckuva a
lot more sense.

Cheers, -Ali