Skip to main content

Home/ (HBSN) How to Build a Social Network/ Group items tagged forget

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Kurt Laitner

Liberationtech, How the Next Generation Diaspora* Should Be Built to Help High-Risk Act... - 0 views

liberationtech.tumblr.com/...on-diaspora-should-be-built-to

*YosemEduardoCompanys liberatontech *net diaspora Design

shared by Kurt Laitner on 02 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • design of information and communication technologies to foster freedom, democracy, human rights, development, and effective governance
  • it is important to differentiate between what activists do before a movement and what they do during a movement. 
  • This critical organizing task is done by a small group of people that need to be able to maintain strong ties to one another in a secure and private fashion if they are to succeed.
  • ...20 more annotations...
  • private, secure, and distributed social network
  • facilitate the communication of a small group of people seeking to organize social change and subsequently enable them to broadcast that message through larger mainstream social networking sites
  • communication must be machine-to-machine
  • In other words, the sender and recipient must have an easy and fast means to install and manage the software on their machines
  •  Furthermore, the sender and the recipient must have the ability to stop using their machines and seamlessly use new ones, should the original machines be compromised for whatever reason by an authoritarian regime
  • “self-destruct mechanism”
  • the “right to forget” would have to be embedded
  • mobile
  • capability of synchronizing data on multiple machines simultaneously.
  • capability to access her data from the alternate location
  • connectivity
  • significant work on data compression will be required to ensure that the software’s performance remains nimble under such disparate conditions
  • Western society gives us two main legal-institutional vehicles for tackling the problem:  i) a for-profit firm a la limited liability company or C corporation; or ii) a non-profit firm a la private foundation or 501(c) organization.  (Another possibility is a hybrid for-profit/non-profit model a la WordPress or Mozilla, but let’s set that aside for now.)
  •  The resources come at a cost in terms of the organization having to perform in a reliable and accountable fashion relative to the expectations of its shareholders.  In the pursuit of profit, principle can easily be abandoned since, at the end of the day, all the shareholders care about is obtaining superior returns
  • Nevertheless, a non-profit organization is still owned by a small group of individuals,
  •  The project may even create disincentives for open-source involvement by creating restrictive intellectual property (IP) assignment contracts that require developers to give up all rights to the code they produce.
  • non-profit organization cannot sell shares
  •  Given this predicament, what are we to do to ensure that the organization is accountable to the activists it serves and can mobilize developers to contribute in an open-source manner to the project?  One possibility is the cooperative, a business organization owned and controlled democratically by its members for mutual benefit.
  • when correctly designed and executed
  • The developers can transfer their IP rights to the cooperative, knowing that such rights will not be exploited for financial gain without them.
  • Kurt Laitner on 02 Dec 11
     
    excellent article on how to build the next generation of infrastructure and what some key themes are.
Jack Logan

apophenia: Facebook's move ain't about changes in privacy norms - 17 views

www.zephoria.org/...facebooks_move.html

shared by Jack Logan on 17 Jan 10 - Cached
  • When I learned that Mark Zuckerberg effectively argued that 'the age of privacy is over' (read: ReadWriteWeb), I wanted to scream. Actually, I did. And still am. The logic goes something like this: People I knew didn't used to like to be public. Now "everyone" is being public. Ergo, privacy is dead. This isn't new. This is the exact same logic that made me want to scream a decade ago when folks used David Brin to justify a transparent society. Privacy is dead, get over it. Right? Wrong!
  • Jack Logan on 17 Jan 10
     
    Ouch, David Brin ...
  • ...5 more comments...
  • Kurt Laitner on 17 Jan 10
     
    zucherberg's position cannot be taken seriously, it is too self serving
  • Jack Logan on 17 Jan 10
     
    David Brin has it right, if right means that we'll all have to give up a great deal more of our privacy - Internet, planes, personal ID (openID), credit cards, et al., - can you think of an area of life that has become more private in the last 10 years?
  • Kurt Laitner on 17 Jan 10
     
    I think the key here is that we cannot believe that this is acceptable or inevitable. 9/11 allowed the US government to remove freedoms with the consent of the population based on their fear. "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither" (forget the source of that quote, don't feel like looking it up, shouldn't a bot do that for me as soon as I put quotes in?) While I doubt they are this sophisticated, if the militant theocracies who control their populations wanted to destroy the freedoms americans had and make the US more like themselves, they have been winning this war with our consent. There are powerful forces destroying our privacy and freedom. It is time to wake up before the frog gets boiled. Sorry gotta go, black helicopter landing in backyard
  • Jack Logan on 18 Jan 10
     
    LOLROF! There's a black helicopter landing in my backyard too! LOL
  • frank smith on 20 Jan 10
     
    you guys may want to take another look at Brin. I believe his observation is that privacy is going away (has actually been gone for a while). the question he poses is who will have access and control of the surveillance systems. he is advocating that we ALL do rather than centrally controlled organizations.
  • Kurt Laitner on 20 Jan 10
     
    his book is on my shelf, my wife started reading it but stopped as she found it too depressing - it will likely be right up my alley - if we accepted the premise that we would be in a surveilled state then it would be enormously helpful that it was a commons- I do not accept that we should allow this surveilled state to happen, nor that we should accept it as good, even if it is a commons. I also don't believe that it will be a commons. It should not exist, and should be fought every step of the way by people whose minds have not opened so far that their brains have fallen out. It is completely possible with technology to give individuals the power to set levels of privacy to particular counter parties. It is politically possible to regulate the use of surveillance. One can make the argument that people can simply surveil with their camera phones, but you do not see that happening as it would be culturally unacceptable (rude if you will). I find the acceptance of big brother as inevitable troubling.
  • anonymous on 20 Jan 10
     
    David Brin used well thought out logic to make his argument. Zuckerburg is an idiot. He's the face of 1984's Big Brother, except at puberty.
Kurt Laitner

Siri: Virtual Personal Assistant Prepares For Debut - 2 views

www.readwriteweb.com/...sistant_prepares_for_debut.php

shared by Kurt Laitner on 18 Jan 10 - Cached
  • Kurt Laitner on 18 Jan 10
     
    while this is not a social network, MUCH to learn from here, architecturally, conceptually
  • Jack Logan on 18 Jan 10
     
    Great video; substantially, however, much as we are thinking about using APIs from the various groups we're a part of in the socnet areas (we like this, but don't like that, this is useful, forget this, et al.) This is remarkable stuff! I'm on the SIRI beta list - maybe by June they'll release the beta.
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20▼ items per page