Back in the 1990s, the Clinton administration tried to snuff out PGP using the very same obscure regulation it’s wielding against Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed now.
Yes, PGP was (and IIRC, still is) a “munition.” The regs didn’t change; the fedgov just knew that was a battle it was going to lose so it backed off. Encryption is everywhere and Phil Zimmerman is a free man. But nothing’s new under the sun reeking pall of Mordor.
Now a new generation of regulators — and a new anti-gun president who has vowed to take covert action against firearms if he can’t get his way in the legislature (whimper, whine) — wants to use absurdly complicated ITAR once again to stop the unstoppable.
Question: What’s the outcome going to be in the case of Furiously Frustrated Fedgov vs Cody Wilson?
There are lots of aspects to consider here. Not only what will happen to Wilson and DefCad. Not just what will happen to the banned “blueprints” (we already know that).
But aspects like: Will the feds back off the their King Canute routine? Or will they end up drowning in this rising tide? Will the ATF get into the act? The FBI? Will there be some attempt to control/surveil 3D printers (e.g. force them to keep records for the feddies, as photocopiers do now)? Will the tech community wield its power — or will the big tech voices keep mum because this is “a gun-culture thing”? What kind of laws will be proposed or passed? Will people get that you can’t stop this any more than the Church could stop Gutenberg’s outrageous information diseminator? Will they laugh at the folly of the pols and bureaucrats? Or will the media buffalo them into hysterical fear? Even if they buffalo and legislate their little hearts out for a decade, where do technology, freedom, and the best sort of Bad Attitude take us from here?
So, is the movie of Ender’s Game going to be good? The trailer has possibilities. But I was never a fan of the book. Sorry, Orson Scott Card; you always put me to sleep. Doesn’t look like a sleepy film, though.
Anybody hereabouts use Jitsi? A friend’s working on a project with it and recommended it. But I don’t do any of the things it’s noted for (online chat, video or VOIP calls), so I dunno. He says it’s got super-good encryption.
But hey, Google is a big company, right? Practically like a government. So nothing could ever go wrong. And when it does, of course they’ll be just eager as little beavers to help one of their 343 million very important customers.
—–
Working on one of those blog posts that takes a lot of thinking about. So please pardon the apparent lack of productivity.
Anybody who’s ever met me or anybody who knows my famous camera-shyness knows that ain’t me.
There’s another woman out there who shares my name and does some public speaking in her professional specialty (nursing, I think). She’s probably long rued her accidental Google connections with me. My first thought was, What? Is Google now just grabbing photos of any old Claire Wolfe and pairing them with me? I figured that was probably a photo of poor Nurse Wolfe, who would no doubt now have even more reason to hope I get cooties and die.
Then Jim pointed out what media-avoiding me missed: that’s not a photo of any Claire Wolfe. Not Outlaw Wolfe. Not Nurse Wolfe. No. It’s Nazgul Sonia Sotomayor.
Now, much though I’d love to know how Google’s magical algorithm came up with that astoundingly inept connection, I’m wondering even more if it might be a useful bit of misdirection.
Hm. If “they” decide to ship us all off to camps, will they maybe toss Sonia in the boxcar instead of me? If they come to my house bearing Google images to ID the “domestic terrorists,” will they notice that I don’t have chipmunk cheeks or dyed black hair, say, “Sorry, M’am” and move on?
You tell me. Just plain creepy? Or creepy but potentially useful?
Or maybe just worth a few LOLs?
—–
* (If you can’t see what I’m chuffed about I think you can click the image to “embiggen” as Joel would say. On my system, I have to click twice; once to get a thumbnail, then once to embiggenate.)
With even “safe” states contemplating monstrous anti-gun crap like this, it’s heartening to see firearms and equipment makers (who in the past, with rare exceptions like Barrett, have tended to be compromising weenies), responding like this. (H/T JB)
And here’s a book you don’t have to wait for. And that’s free. And online. Security Engineering. Endorsed by Bruce Schneier, who knows whereof he speaks. For both uber-geeks and we more simple-minded folk who just want to protect ourselves and our technology. (Another tip o’ the hat to JB)
Finally, take THAT, DiFi! And all your state-level statist ilk.
Okay, then, this is for you. Thanks to those brilliant boys at Freedom Feens, you’ve now got an EZ tutorial for encrypting your instant messages with OTR (Off-the-Record) Pidgin.
The tutorial is long. But that’s because its steps are so comprehensive. They’ve been vetted and foolproofed.
I dislike instant messaging. Life (and the ‘Net) have enough other disruptions without that. I know I’m in the minority, though. And Michael W. Dean, who wrote the tutorial, points out its privacy advantages over email when done right. Then he shows Windows users exactly how to do it right. Full-service privacy protection!
