[hackerspaces] Out with the "hackers"... In with the, "makers" and the "fixers"

[Mars brown]

  "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.  "

SUCH AN IMPORTANT POINT!
I have been thinking the same thing for some time....
Look at PGP.
Perfect example... although public domain not OS technically.

But there are ALOT of things that can be worried about regarding open
source...
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 ...

How it relates here tho is that if any state agency plays too strong an
influence in a global and peaceful movement like HSpaces...
jeez... honestly it screws up my head enuff thinking about it that I can't
put the words together sensibly.

Anyhow, anything is available online.  And many of us know that isn't
limited to 0-day releases of harry potter films.
We're in a strange time culturally... very strange.  This new fangled
information superhighway has many exploits for us to surprise each other
with.
Like PGP - everyone has the same tools available in contrast to enigma
machine times.
Changes the game... but in the same respects does darpa endorse defense
tech to be developed "open source"?

I'm totally trolling today... sorry.... not making sense at this point.
Don't hit send..... oops slipped.



On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> "I just put the rockets in the air, I don't care where they come down..."
> - Maybe a von braun quote.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> Is something as wonderful as the Hubble or the MSL some sort of taboo
> technology now?  I say nay.
>
> 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.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
>       - Matt
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue.fan at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Mars brown <itcamefrommars at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Oh this DARPA stuff disturbs me on the deepest level.
>>
>> Wow, yeah, this is a bit, erm, odd...
>>
>> > It's not a big anti-military kind of opinion... so please don't take it
>> that
>> > way - but rather I want nothing to directly do with death and
>> destruction in
>> > any form for any cause.
>> >
>>
>> Personally, being a libertarian, I would never suggest that any
>> individual hacker shouldn't be
>> free to do whatever he/she wants, so long as they're not violating
>> anyone else's rights...
>> but I personally *hope* hackers steer clear of helping the US
>> government and it's
>> corrupt / evil / corporatist / cronyism-based / empire building /
>> civil-liberties-robbing
>> agenda.
>>
>> Now working on technologies that have military application in terms of
>> self-defense; I could
>> never argue against that.  The use of hacker skills to oppose tyranny,
>> well... That I could
>> never criticize.
>>
>>
>> Phil
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20111129/bcc2586f/attachment-0001.html>