>From much earlier three threads ago when this all got started:<br><br>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>
<br>
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:40 PM,
Matt Joyce <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matt@nycresistor.com" target="_blank">matt@nycresistor.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
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>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Will Bradley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bradley.will@gmail.com">bradley.will@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<p>Active Project #2 on DARPA's Wikipedia page, ArcLight. "Its goal is to equip Aegis cruisers with a weapon system that is capable of striking targets nearly anywhere on the globe, thereby increasing the power of surface ships to a level comparable to that of ballistic missile-equipped submarines."</p>
<p>No offense, but which Kool-Aid did you drink, Matt? Technological superiority of our military means exactly that.</p><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 6, 2011 10:57 AM, "Matt Joyce" <<a href="mailto:matt@nycresistor.com" target="_blank">matt@nycresistor.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Via DARPA.mil :<br><br>
<span></span>
<span></span>
<p>DARPA’s mission is to maintain the technological superiority of
the U.S. military and prevent technological surprise from harming our
national security by sponsoring revolutionary, high-payoff research
bridging the gap between fundamental discoveries and their military
use. </p>
Over the years, DARPA has worked to enhance our national security by
funding research and technology development that not only have improved
our military capabilities but have changed the way we live. Since the
very beginning, DARPA has been the place for people with innovative
ideas that lead to groundbreaking discoveries.<br><br><br><br>Their mission does not extend to intelligence gathering, police keeping, or any form of ... kinetic warfare.<br><br>That's not what DARPA does.<br><br>-Matt<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Mars <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:itcamefrommars@gmail.com" target="_blank">itcamefrommars@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
This is reminiscent of the time I brought up the valid points of creative design at a skeptical inquirer meeting. Haha... jk<br>
<br>
Actually- was this thread in itself an assessment? Like a dream inside a dream...<br>
<br>
sram|mars<br>
<br>
Btw take these comments as lighthearted and silly- not trying to help ignite a can of thermite<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<div><div></div><div><br>
On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Thorsten Haas <<a href="mailto:chaos@skytee.de" target="_blank">chaos@skytee.de</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Am 06.12.2011 16:44, schrieb Jesse Krembs:<br>
>> Would the hacker space that you are a member of participate in a<br>
>> assessment of your hacker space if it was sponsored by DARPA?<br>
><br>
> Cui bono?<br>
><br>
> In what way would that be helpful to a hackerspace?<br>
><br>
>> DARPA would be the sole receiver of this the information collected<br>
>> during the assessment. It would not be shared with the general public<br>
>> or the participating hacker spaces.<br>
><br>
> I find it rather creepy to rather share such information with government<br>
> entities than the general public or other hacker spaces.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org" target="_blank">Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org">Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>