GNU Telephony Statement on new Internet Surveillance Laws (US)

[Nod]

Source: http://planet.gnu.org/gnutelephony/?p=8

“Privacy is ultimately about liberty while surveillance is always about control”

Good morning my relations. Today is not such a great day. In the United States the Obama administration is actively seeking a new law to legally mandate the forced introduction of insecure back doors and support for mass surveillance into all communication systems. Specifically targeted are Internet VoIP and messaging systems.

Speaking on behalf of the GNU Telephony project, we do intend to openly defy such a law should it actually come to pass, so I want to be very clear on this statement. It is not simply that we will choose to publicly defy the imposition of such an illegitimate law, but that we will explicitly continue to publicly develop and distribute free software (that is software that offers the freedom to use, inspect, and modify) enabling secure peer-to-peer communication privacy through encryption that is made available directly to anyone worldwide. Clearly such software is especially needed in those places, such as in the United States, where basic human freedoms and dignity seem most threatened.

In the United States the 4th amendment did not come about simply because it was impractical to directly spy on everyone on such a large scale. Nor does it end simply because it may now be technically feasible to do so. Communication privacy furthermore is essential to the normal functioning of free societies, whether speaking of whistle-blowers, journalists who have to protect their sources, human rights and peace activists engaging in legitimate political dissent, workers engaged in union organizing, or lawyers who must protect the confidentiality of their privileged communications with clients.

However, to fully appreciate the effect of such surveillance on human societies, imagine being among several hundred million people who wake up each day having to prove they are not a “terrorist” by whatever arbitrary means the government has decided to both define the terms of such a crime and whatever arbitrary methods unknown to you that they might choose to define you as such, and where even your prosecution is carried out under the immunity of “state secrets” that all police states use to abuse of their own citizens. Such a society is one who’s very foundation is built on the premise of everyone being guilty until proven innocent and where due process does not exist. It is the imposition of such a illegitimate society that we choose to openly oppose, and to do so in this manner.

David Alexander Sugar
Chief Facilitator
GNU Telephony

It seems that the American government is becoming very paranoid.

 

[The_Assimilator]

And where are all the Obamessiah followers claiming he was going to lead the nation into a new era of freedom and prosperity?

 

[sox63]

Source: http://planet.gnu.org/gnutelephony/?p=8

It seems that the American government is becoming very paranoid.

I would say they have reason to be. As was the case with the Saudis and India vs RIM, there have been cases where people up to no good have used those communications channels. We as individuals can only hope the authorities dont abuse their access in any way. Utopian idea, I know...

 

[ponder]

We as individuals can only hope the authorities dont abuse their access in any way. Utopian idea, I know...

Never trust governments.

They are not going make a GNU project give them back doors, not going to happen. They might ban GNU based apps in th USA but that would probably be unconstitutional but even if they could they still could not control what people use outside of the usa.

 

[Fudzy]

Becoming paranoid? They've always been paranoid.

 

[Nod]

Becoming paranoid? They've always been paranoid.

Yes, but "very paranoid"?

 

[s0lar]

Very very sad, pretty much goes against the core of GNU. :erm:

 

[ponder]

Very very sad, pretty much goes against the core of GNU. :erm:

:wtf: Did you read the article or is it more of a comprehension problem?

 

[s0lar]

:wtf: Did you read the article or is it more of a comprehension problem?

Admittedly I did skim read it, more worried about the proposed intent on the law rather than its current state.