<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
One of my favorite benefits of open source technology is that it is
available globally and at equal cost to everyone. I tend to agree
with Matt that, upon encountering a new technology, people will
think of positive uses for it first instead of inventing ways to
kill puppies (or other hackers or people in general) with it.<br>
<br>
If any military wants to fund research that will be shared with
everyone, then I think that is generally OK. My concern is when a
government gets involved in exercising its power over the spread of
information in order to maintain its own monopoly on power.<br>
<br>
I offer as examples:<br>
<a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_United_States</a><br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall_of_China">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall_of_China</a><br>
<br>
I am also concerned that research funded by military interests is
more likely to get silenced or secreted away. At the very least, it
can end up protected by patents and licensing deals which make it
inaccessible to anyone besides military interests or very lucrative
industries.<br>
<br>
With those concerns laid on the table, I would like to specifically
send thanks to Matt Joyce for helping me to see how DARPA and DOD
can facilitate research that benefits everyone. Historically, I have
turned down jobs that have any connection to the military in any
way. Due to this thread, I am softening some of those views and I am
curious to learn more about what my tax dollars are doing to promote
global benefit from open source technology.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Justis Peters<br>
<br>
On 11/29/2011 08:31 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP_sDUFnfaYsdCb00qK5Y9489Fe70zaj3HaxbBLL7Czd5HmcPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I work for a .gov that does open source dev. TOR was
originally a US Navy funded project. OpenBSD was at one point
almost sorta maybe DARPA funded.<br>
<br>
There is a long history of military in Open Source. In fact what
we know today to be POSIX is really just the natural evolution of
DOD standards on Berkeley BSD.<br>
<br>
Go figure.<br>
<br>
-Matt<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Mars
brown <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:itcamefrommars@gmail.com">itcamefrommars@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"> "Anything you do in the open source or
public domain in that field can be taken and reused with
minimal effort by others for nefarious purpose. "<br>
<br>
</div>
SUCH AN IMPORTANT POINT!<br>
I have been thinking the same thing for some time.... <br>
Look at PGP. <br>
Perfect example... although public domain not OS technically.<br>
<br>
But there are ALOT of things that can be worried about
regarding open source... <br>
Jaron Laniers book last year "You are not a gadget" is very
interesting and strongly criticizes open source as "digital
maoism"... and in some respects I completely agree... but am
not getting into his definition here... but great read -
actually... a very important read to all of us ...<br>
<br>
How it relates here tho is that if any state agency plays too
strong an influence in a global and peaceful movement like
HSpaces... <br>
jeez... honestly it screws up my head enuff thinking about it
that I can't put the words together sensibly.<br>
<br>
Anyhow, anything is available online. And many of us know
that isn't limited to 0-day releases of harry potter films.<br>
We're in a strange time culturally... very strange. This new
fangled information superhighway has many exploits for us to
surprise each other with.<br>
Like PGP - everyone has the same tools available in contrast
to enigma machine times.<br>
Changes the game... but in the same respects does darpa
endorse defense tech to be developed "open source"?<br>
<br>
I'm totally trolling today... sorry.... not making sense at
this point. Don't hit send..... oops slipped.
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:40 PM,
Matt Joyce <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:matt@nycresistor.com" target="_blank">matt@nycresistor.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt
0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
I'd like to point out that the US is still even in
it's reduced capacity putting far more effort into
grander ideals such as space exploration than most
other nations. And while you may not equate landing a
rover on mars with "the military", I can assure you
that any form of space exploration has very definite
military applications. Anything you do in the open
source or public domain in that field can be taken and
reused with minimal effort by others for nefarious
purpose. <br>
<br>
So, I don't really see the distinction sometimes
between "military application" and any other
application. Kind of an extension of guns don't kill
people. People do.<br>
<br>
"I just put the rockets in the air, I don't care where
they come down..." - Maybe a von braun quote.<br>
<br>
You can't promote open source development while at the
same time pretending that your work can't be co-opted
to do things you did not intend it to do. Possibly
things you do not like. That would be akin to Von
Braun telling himself... he just builds rockets to put
stuff in the air. If someone else decides to land
them in downtown london packed full of C4... well
that's on them. If you hate that... well shit you
and the unibomber have something in common, have you
read his manifesto? Fun read.<br>
<br>
This ties into the question... "Is knowledge always a
good thing". I think most of us here, would say that
the potential for knowledge is always going to be
varied. But I have general faith in my fellow man so
I believe that most folks when handed some new
knowledge will try to think of something awesome to do
with it, rather than... hrmmm... maybe I can use this
to destroy puppies. So I invoke "You can't stop the
signal Mal" level 9001.<br>
<br>
Now yes, some of what DARPA funds is designed
specifically to make killing people easier and more
efficient. Sometimes the by-product of that is, less
collateral damage. Sometimes, it's a greater level of
belligerence in foreign policy. Sometimes it's an
unpredictable hellish dystopian future. I am not
saying it's okay to support that. I am not saying
that you should ignore that. <br>
<br>
The reality is, DARPA funds research it is interested
in. If you are interested in it too, and would do it
in open source anyways... then I don't see the issue
with making that knowledge available to them. If they
are willing to fund your research, then yeah, you have
to weigh what the consequences of that are. That is
responsible. You obviously want to keep true to your
own goals and not become a slave to someone elses.
But, if the goals line up... why not?<br>
<br>
Stopping bullets. Reducing the damage IEDs cause.
Building a better mine remover. Any number of
emergency medical response / disaster response
technologies. Food preservatives.... etc etc. These
are research areas that could SAVE lives. Space
exploration relies on technology that allows us to put
mass into orbit, and mass in orbit alone can be used
as a terrifying weapon... that's ignoring the
strategic applications of an ICBM. Does that mean
that anyone who works in the field of exploring our
universe is some sort of puppy hating monster? Hell
most of them work with the US gov, and most of their
work is reviewed and passed on to defense industries
for a myriad of reasons. <br>
<br>
Is something as wonderful as the Hubble or the MSL
some sort of taboo technology now? I say nay.<br>
<br>
And I want to remind you. DARPA isn't in the business
of killing people. It's in the business of
engineering peace where there is none. War and chaos
do not achieve the objectives of DARPA or the US
military. Their goal is to END conflict. They don't
start it. They get tasked to "end it" usually on
favorable terms. You want to equate defense work with
"murder" I'd point the finger at the ambassadors,
senators, and other political entities that allow war
to happen. Some of them will own that responsibility
and some of them will shirk it. But to place blame on
DARPA for it is somewhat absurd. <br>
<br>
Just some thoughts.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
- Matt</font><br>
<div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at
3:32 PM, Phillip Rhodes <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:motley.crue.fan@gmail.com"
target="_blank">motley.crue.fan@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:
0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid
rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Mars
brown <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:itcamefrommars@gmail.com"
target="_blank">itcamefrommars@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> Oh this DARPA stuff disturbs me on the
deepest level.<br>
<br>
</div>
Wow, yeah, this is a bit, erm, odd...<br>
<div><br>
> It's not a big anti-military kind of
opinion... so please don't take it that<br>
> way - but rather I want nothing to
directly do with death and destruction in<br>
> any form for any cause.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>
Personally, being a libertarian, I would never
suggest that any<br>
individual hacker shouldn't be<br>
free to do whatever he/she wants, so long as
they're not violating<br>
anyone else's rights...<br>
but I personally *hope* hackers steer clear of
helping the US<br>
government and it's<br>
corrupt / evil / corporatist / cronyism-based
/ empire building /<br>
civil-liberties-robbing<br>
agenda.<br>
<br>
Now working on technologies that have military
application in terms of<br>
self-defense; I could<br>
never argue against that. The use of hacker
skills to oppose tyranny,<br>
well... That I could<br>
never criticize.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>