>> A lot of military software is built with tax money.
> And can that be opensource as well. What's your point?
Probably because military software likely contains military secrets that would be useful to an adversary.
A lot of espionage is focused on getting seemingly boring information like the performance characteristics of a radar system. If the radar system is run by software, and the software is made publicly available to anyone, an adversary country could learn what they want from the software (and do other things, like improve their jammers).
The government should definitely get the rights to the source code (and other IP) for military projects they fund, but I think it should still be kept secret (so not "open sourced" under a typical understanding of the term).
> PEPP-PT is purely funded by donations. It is a non-profit organization and completely transparent. Our strict guidelines preclude any influence from donors.
> As the formal organization is not yet established, we cannot yet provide links for making a donation or for downloading the guidelines for a donation. Please sign up below if you would like to be informed when you can support us.
a. They aren't even incorporated. b. Donations aren't public grants for which one has to apply.
The members listed on the page do include public entities such as universities and publicly funded research groups. However, membership to a non-profit organization doesn't necessarily imply that the non-profit needs to comply to policy rules that govern the funding of individual members.
Of course, if the majority of those members are public entities, adhering to open policies would enhance the credibility of such organizations. Even so, open source and open access are easier said then done. For starters, a significant portion of research ends up behind the paywalls of incumbent academic publishers.
Furthermore, you have to ask yourself why such an initiative suddenly springs to life exactly at this time. It's not the first infectious disease that causes a pandemic. The main reason is that it created public awareness in the Western World overnight. No more, no less. And so, there's suddenly an opportunity to rally funding, justify ethical shortcuts and do large scale social and technological experiments that are usually left to the realm of "what if".
The fact that this thing exists now shakes a shiver down my spine, regardless of any well meant intentions.
It’s specifically set up to protect privacy. If governments didn’t care, or had anything near the power and data that conspiracy theorists always assume they do, or felt justified to disregard the law, or empowered to change it, they’d tell Apple & Google to flip the switch and all location matching would happen tonight, in some unlucky eurocrat’s excel table.
> Furthermore, you have to ask yourself why such an initiative suddenly springs to life exactly at this time.
I don’t get this paragraph at all. It’s no mystery why this is happening now and didn’t happen last year: there’s a pandemic on.
I realize you say as much. But somehow, with the “no more, no less” and “technological experiments” you make it sound sinister. Like C-SPAN, but with an iMovie horror sound & lighting preset.
It can't protect privacy. A non-profit isn't a public authority. This initiative is meant to (a) create technology that adheres to existing legislation and (b) lobby - read argue or ask - with politics to use this technology.
The harsh reality is that authorities can happily ignore or cherry pick from such efforts, and that they are free to change or deprecate legal frameworks is such is deemed necessary "in the public interest".
This initiative sounds nice, but I don't read anywhere how they tie into the longstanding efforts of human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch.
That's why I feel this is a technological experiment. It simply doesn't even consider the social impacts: there's no mention whatsoever of social research or leveraging existing social research.
Free speech, in the US context, usually relates to the 1st Amendment, which precludes _govt_ censorship.
You can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater; if there is indeed a fire, it's fine — you're trying to help alert people to a dangerous situation. If there is not, and you cause a panic that results in injury to others, you could (should imo) be liable.
The US Supreme Court has a litmus test around when the line is crossed. Logically, there must be a balance to ensure one's rights do not infringe on another's, and when there is conflict, how to resolve it. In the case of party A threatening violence on party B, the line is if there is an imminent threat ('fighting words' — inciting an immediate attack), A is in the wrong. Otherwise, no 1A issue. It's much more difficult to prove in the case of stochastic speech targeting a person or group (eg Said before an audience: '$target is bad. Would be a shame if something happened to $target.' Implying someone in earshot should take care of it.).
I also want to highlight that free speech doesn't mean free of consequence — it only limits govt censorship. You can say what you want, but you may: incur financial loses (eg job or contract losses, boycotts), be ridiculed or shamed (ie become a pariah), be denied access to private properties / venues / events / forums (including web sites such as Twitter or Facebook), etc.
Do you have a source to disprove or challenge the UN's definition of torture?
Solitary confinement is often used during war. That Assange is incarcerated in a civilian prison doesn't necessarily diminish or change the effectiveness and impact.
An American dismissing a UN special rapport about torture. ... I really can't fathom why people would go through such extreme lengths to avoid getting extradited there ... /s
I also found the "A Universe Explodes - A blockchain book" a pretty cool experiment.[1]
Would be interesting to see a big game publisher like Blizzard experiment with an item trading interface built on a blockchain to really cement the feeling of ownership.
Though I suppose Blizzard in particular would be opposed to a lot of what that implies.
https://www.livingmap.com/technology/location-matters-geospa...