README: complete rewrite to make the argument more solid #244
Conversation
|
Oh, and I forgot to include a section that states that backdooring encryption means that there's just a high-value target for attackers to be able to gain access to large amounts of private information. I will include that in a bit. |
|
I have added a section on the attack surface, but the first section will need to be worked on -- currently I talk a lot about FOSS and how it works but there is a more practical point that criminals will self-select to not use services that are backdoored. Thus, the only people affected by these backdoors will be non-criminals (or criminals that are unsophisticated and likely could be caught by other means). |
|
This is really excellent work, but it is, effectively, an entirely new letter. IMO a large part of the charm of the original is that is is a short, emotive, rant. I'm guessing that's a major reason for why it got such coverage. I don't think the original letter should be replaced in this way; I think it's kinda OK to make minor tweaks, but the thing is (as you've already noted) we're in a position where a bunch of people put their name to a specific text. Now (given this is on github and PRs are accepted), all of us who signed it need to remain perpetually aware of changes, in case the text is altered to a point where we no longer want our names on it. What about keeping the original, but adding this more rigorous document as a "further reading" thing, either below the original letter and signatures, or on a separate page linked to prominently from the original? |
|
I have to agree with @tserong. Speaking to a few people that have already put their names down, they were worried about signing and then having the text changed from under them. Totally understand that you've move sigs away, but the current site is punchy. Also, totally agree that a "further reading" link would be the best way to add this new text. Best of both worlds |
|
That's fair enough (and I'd be fine with this being a "further reading document -- this draft is very long I will admit). H owever the current letter does have several factual inaccuracies (most importantly, it incorrectly states that noncompliance with a TCN could result in a criminal conviction) and also isn't argued very well (stock prices change all the time, for instance). So maybe we should still update the more punchy version of the letter to argue things better? |
|
One of the reasons I have been hesitant to sign my name (as opposed to just a tweet) was the 'rant'y nature of the letter, and I think this is amazing work. But I definitely can understand if the current signees would have objections - it looks like you might need to get sign-off from all the current people in order to do such a significant re-wording of the current letter. |
|
The other option would be to have a separate site that hosts this open letter, but that's just going to fracture the discussion of the problems. Not to mention that I actually want people's reviews of how things are expressed and what should be changed -- before people start signing their names to it. |
|
Really good work with the rewrite. It's coherent, well structured and explains the argument in a manner that perhaps a few politicians may make some sense of it (might be a stretch). I would encourage you to fork this site and deploy it to a new domain where the signees of this letter can opt to sign it. Something missed in the first version was a site that is politically agnostic — potentially deterring companies from being involved in the signature process. Modifying the contents would require consent of all of the signing parties. I would submit a PR to add a button to link to the new domain — perhaps "Further Explanation" or "Part II, The Great Government Foot-Gun". |
|
Sure, that'd also work. I'm trying to figure out a good domain. |
|
One thing I like about this version is that it makes it clearer that this is a preference issue. The problem with the existing letter is that it isn't clear that we are not necessarily encouraging people to put Labor below the Liberals in preferences, but we are however encouraging people to put sympathetic independents, minor parties, and the Greens before them on their ballot. It's been rather surprising just how many people think that they need to put Labor first in order to avoid a Liberal government. |
The current text of the website is very poorly argued, likely because it was written as a spur-of-the-moment rant. This is understandable, but if we want to be taken seriously we need much clearer arguments. This is an attempt to do exactly that -- by rigorously explaining each of the problems with this legislation. Due to the massive change to the text, I have moved all of the signatories under a section stating that they may not be in favour of the new text. But if they wish, they can move themselves to the main signatories section. Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]>
|
It turns out there's now another open comment period. I'm going to submit a variant of this letter (obviously changed to be written from my perspective) there. If you are reading this, PLEASE SUBMIT SOMETHING! https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/ReviewofTOLAAct |
|
How about this. Keep alp.fail as is, but link to a new site... They took everyone's submissions but ignored them, and hid most from the public. How about we start a new site, and alp.fail can link to it, where everyone can resubmit their original emails and future people can submit new ones. They want to hide the submissions, let's give them all a new place where they can be seen for all! And I'd say @cyphar is the first post on the new site. |
|
I just purchased aabill.fail. I am thinking that we should have a way for people to add their comments without needing to go through GitHub. |
terencehuynh
added
enhancement
|
Sorry for the delay on setting up https://aabill.fail, I've been preparing comments (it's almost 8 pages long now) for the new open comment discussion. I will post it publicly as soon as I can. |
The current text of the website is very poorly argued, likely because it
was written as a spur-of-the-moment rant. This is understandable, but if
we want to be taken seriously we need much clearer arguments. This is an
attempt to do exactly that -- by rigorously explaining each of the
problems with this legislation.
Due to the massive change to the text, I have moved all of the
signatories under a section stating that they may not be in favour of
the new text. But if they wish, they can move themselves to the main
signatories section.
Fixes #196
Fixes #132
Fixes #98
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai [email protected]