Yesterday, Chris “Muesli” asked an interesting question that I thought can be a good blog post. If we were in power, what rules would be write?
Continue readingYou are to be born in 24 hours. You are also to write all the rules that will govern the society in which you will live. However, you do not know if you will be born bright or retarded, black or white, male or female, rich or poor, able or disabled.
How would you write the rules?
muesli
One of the problems we have about activists is that they don’t follow up on issues. A lot of people are aware of the problems but less and less people are trying to complete a task of problem-solving.
Many people are only listening and collecting some basic information about problems but they mostly get tired of repeated concerns. Because of social networks, people are now used to diverse ‘material’ that expresses things in a completely superficial, raw, and non-specific way. And it is only suitable for entertainment, not informative exchange.
We see less and less people who focus on a problem and try their best to finally solve it. Of course we can’t, nor we have the right, to stop people who want to be active in different fields but without guiding them, the bigger problem still remains.
Many of our audiences are tired of us repeating problems and us to go through one problem after another without actually doing anything about them. Some seem to expect the problems to be solved only by mentioning them.
The thing is that mentioning and talking about a problem is one thing, and actually trying to fix it is another. We can’t fix problems by talking about them. If you talk about math problems a lot, you won’t be a mathematician. The only way to fix those problems is to learn math and actually trying.
However, I should mention that gaining people’s attention about a problem is one way to fix it.
With public knowledge and global attention, we can have the power of people to change something. For example, in the matter of privacy, people’s attention is something that can fix the problem for good. It’s not enough of course but it’s an important precondition.
Anyway, many of us can’t stay active on one thing. We want to have activity and impact on various stuff and it can only, well not only but mostly, lead to being unsuccessful on all of them.
A good journalist is someone who does not give up a story until the whole truth is revealed, not someone who covers 100 different stories. Pick a problem, or even 5 problems if you can, and follow up on those issues till you do something effective, and don’t give up.
We don’t need to be a person who can do a lot of things, we should be a person who does one thing very good.
Lightweight and FOSS solution to make basic cryptography operations accessible to regular humans.
According to Wikipedia:
Surveillance is the monitoring of behaviour, activities, or information for the purpose of influencing, managing or directing.
It is by no means a new concept, as the ability to know what your population is doing at any given time is extremely useful when trying to enforce laws. This is why even in the Bible, there are examples of what is thought to be surveillance:
One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.”
2 Samuel 11-12
Later in the passage, David goes on to sleep with Bathseba, even though she was already the wife of Uriah. Cleary, in this example, surveillance was used for David’s own personal gain and pleasure rather than for the greater good.
There is even evidence to believe that the ancient Egyptians were using forms of surveillance, according to Terry Crowdy in his book The Enemy Within: A History of Espionage.
The Hittite king Muwatallis sent two spies into the Egyptian camp posing as deserters to convince pharaoh that the Hittite army was still quite distant. Rameses believed their story and unwittingly allowed part of his army to march into a Hittite ambush.
However this is not the same form of surveillance that we are used to today. David was not using CCTV to spy upon Bathseba, nor was Muwatallis when he sent spies to the Rameses.
If we want to figure out how long mass surveillance (as we understand it today) has been going on, we only need to look back to the 2000’s, and we know that the first CCTV was only used in 1927. We can even study the use of surveillance in Nazi and Communist regimes, but if surveillance is such a new concept then how do we explain the use of spies in Egypt or David in the Bible.
This then begs the question as how we define surveillance? If we use the definition at the beginning of this article then both of these cases count. However if both of these cases count, then why are some of us fine with our country spying, and yet not with the use of security cameras?
I think it comes down to a very human instinct. We don’t really notice if something bad is happening to someone else if it doesn’t affect us, it is only when it does that we take a stand.
I think the poem by Martin Niemöller sums it up well:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
So where did surveillance originate? It’s hard to tell. The issue has now become much more prominent thanks to works such as Orwell’s 1984 or Ed Snowden’s revealing of the NSA’s spying capabilities and the constant articles about Facebook and Google’s abusive privacy policies.
I think it is fair to say that the act of watching and monitoring others has been going on for longer than we can prove, it’s only recently that we’ve started to record it.
One of the most important parts of free software movement is license. Choosing a license is one of the constant concerns of the free software and free culture community. As you know, a work is considered libre only if it’s published under a free (as in freedom) license.
One of the problems is that it happens a lot that a developer forgets to distribute his work under a proper license. Well it can be solved easily by reminding the community the importance of providing a license but the bigger problem is the license itself.
Most of the times, developer distribute their works with weak licenses or licenses that are not fully compatible with free (as in freedom) culture.
As far as I know, the most popular software license is Expat (MIT), as of 2020. MIT is a great simple libre license. However, it’s weak and not copyleft. I personally license my works under the latest version of GNU General Public License (GPL) but some people may don’t like it as they may find it unpleasing.
Anyway, what I’m talking about is the importance of license as the license specifies the terms of the software. Whether it can be used for progress of technology or helping the people or be used to please corporations, it’s all can be defined by the license.
Continue reading
A lot of companies advertise their encryption of data. Encryption is a good practice for privacy and security but it’s worthless sometimes. For example, WhatsApp encrypts messages but it’s worthless as it’s Facebook (WhatsApp’s owner) who creates and manages the keys.
What a secure messenger or any service should do is to let the user create and handle encryption keys. Let me give you another example. Imagine you want to send a letter to a friend and I’m the mail person. You give me your letter and I promise you to hide it. Now, I may hide it from other people but I still have access to it.
Encryption is like that. If you want to hide your letter, you should do it yourself and not trust anyone. As long as other services do the encryption for you or manage your keys, you’re not truly secure and that encryption is worthless.
Lately, I see many people argue with each other about how people had different opinions in the past and now they have changed. Some people think that because some people had different opinions in the past, they do not have the right to comment on current issues or on the subjects they have changed their ideas about.
This is wrong. People change and that’s a good thing. In fact, if our ideas don’t change then we should check them. It wasn’t long ago that some racist people protested against a black child going to an all-white school. If one of those people comes to a Black Lives Matter protest and fights for black people, should we stop it?
Of course not. People change their opinions. It’s the beauty of an independent person and mind. Of course I believe people should be punished for wrongs they did but that doesn’t mean goods they do are worthless.
A lot of people around the world are under the influence of propaganda and false/fake news. Many still think borders, sexuality, race, skin color, etc. can separate us. It’s not people’s fault as it’s the governments/regimes that do this. What we should fight is propaganda itself. Governments have benefits in separating people and that’s exactly what we should fight.
If they kill us they won’t have any power over us. What they are afraid of is our belief and independence of thoughts. They separate us because they know if we share this independent thoughts, they won’t survive. They separate us because they know together we’re stronger.
In a week, Sweden will criminalize underage marriage even if marriages have taken place outside of Swedish borders. This is a great thing happening for Swedish people and world. Most underage marriages are forced by parents.
Even if underage marriage is not forced by parents, it’s still child abuse. Sadly, some countries don’t recognize such marriage as child abuse and they allow it.
Legal age for marriage is 18 in most countries. However I, personally, think it should be 21. Marrying a person when you’re young is not wrong but may have terrible impacts. Now imagine what terrible impact it has when you’re underage.