Katherine Maher wrote:
... If you have further questions about Victoria’s work with the U.S. Department of Defense, it is/should soon be a matter of U.S. Congressional record. Her findings and recommendations will also be a matter of public record, as all government work should be. However, the U.S. Congress isn’t always the speediest of institutions, so we will also keep an eye on when they publish further information.
Well, it's in the New York Times under her maiden name:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/22/world/threats-responses-surveillance-terro...
"The Pentagon research agency that is exploring how to create a vast database of electronic transactions and analyze them for potential terrorist activity considered but rejected another surveillance idea: tagging Internet data with unique personal markers to make anonymous use of some parts of the Internet impossible....
"The plan, known as eDNA, called for developing a new version of the Internet that would include enclaves where it would be impossible to be anonymous while using the network....
"Darpa awarded a $60,000 contract to SRI International, a research concern based in Menlo Park, Calif., to investigate the concept. SRI then convened the workshop in August to evaluate its feasibility....
"The workshop was led by Mr. Blaze and Dr. Victoria Stavridou, an SRI computer scientist, one of those who had originally discussed the eDNA concept with Darpa officials....
"At one point, Mr. Blaze reported to the group that he had been ''fired'' by Dr. Stavridou, of SRI, from his appointed role of writing the report presenting that consensus.
"In e-mail messages, several participants said they believed that Dr. Stavridou was hijacking the report and that the group's consensus would not be reported to Darpa....
"Dr. Stavridou told the other panelists, 'Darpa asked SRI to organize the meeting because they have a deep interest in technology for identifying network miscreants and revoking their network privileges.'...."
Also I would like to know what "Orwellian philosophy" is http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01211002
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian
The things that immediately spring to mind are: Big brother is watching you, All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, Newspeak Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Friday, 04 November 2016 7:19 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] DEITYBOUNCE and reader logs (was Re: Introducing Victoria Coleman, WMF Chief Technology Officer)
Katherine Maher wrote:
... If you have further questions about Victoria’s work with the U.S. Department of Defense, it is/should soon be a matter of U.S. Congressional record. Her findings and recommendations will also be a matter of public record, as all government work should be. However, the U.S. Congress isn’t always the speediest of institutions, so we will also keep an eye on when they publish further information.
Well, it's in the New York Times under her maiden name:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/22/world/threats-responses-surveillance-terro...
"The Pentagon research agency that is exploring how to create a vast database of electronic transactions and analyze them for potential terrorist activity considered but rejected another surveillance idea: tagging Internet data with unique personal markers to make anonymous use of some parts of the Internet impossible....
"The plan, known as eDNA, called for developing a new version of the Internet that would include enclaves where it would be impossible to be anonymous while using the network....
"Darpa awarded a $60,000 contract to SRI International, a research concern based in Menlo Park, Calif., to investigate the concept. SRI then convened the workshop in August to evaluate its feasibility....
"The workshop was led by Mr. Blaze and Dr. Victoria Stavridou, an SRI computer scientist, one of those who had originally discussed the eDNA concept with Darpa officials....
"At one point, Mr. Blaze reported to the group that he had been ''fired'' by Dr. Stavridou, of SRI, from his appointed role of writing the report presenting that consensus.
"In e-mail messages, several participants said they believed that Dr. Stavridou was hijacking the report and that the group's consensus would not be reported to Darpa....
"Dr. Stavridou told the other panelists, 'Darpa asked SRI to organize the meeting because they have a deep interest in technology for identifying network miscreants and revoking their network privileges.'...."
Also I would like to know what "Orwellian philosophy" is http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01211002
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13342 - Release Date: 11/03/16
James, thanks for bringing up that NYTimes article. Having taken a quick look at it, it does raise some concerns but I would consider it a matter worthy of further inquiry rather than a red flag. In Wikimedia we have our own issues with trying to have an "open society" type atmosphere while keeping a lid on sockpuppetry and other problematic behaviors, and if the goal of that program was to keep bad-faith individuals out of what should be highly secure systems then I would be more accepting than I would be if the goal was to do large scale surveillance of Internet traffic. I would consider it to be a big deal if someone applying for a WMF role was involved in facilitating large-scale intrusive surveillance, whether in the public or private sectors. The program described in that NYTimes link would be problematic from my perspective, but a bit less so than some of the other kinds of mass surveillance that have been implemented over the years by both government and private-sector actors.
I have some other thoughts on this topic, including about Katherine's comments, but I've got some other time-sensitive issues that I need to address in the next few days. Hopefully I'll have a chance to comment on other aspects of this thread by the end of Monday. Other people may want to share their thoughts in the meantime.
Thanks for your vigilance,
Pine
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:19 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Katherine Maher wrote:
... If you have further questions about Victoria’s work with the U.S. Department of Defense, it is/should soon be a matter of U.S. Congressional record. Her findings and recommendations will also be a matter of public record, as all government work should be. However, the U.S. Congress isn’t always the speediest of institutions, so we will also keep an eye on when they publish further information.
Well, it's in the New York Times under her maiden name:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/22/world/threats-responses- surveillance-terror-tracking-agency-weighed-but-discarded-plan.html
"The Pentagon research agency that is exploring how to create a vast database of electronic transactions and analyze them for potential terrorist activity considered but rejected another surveillance idea: tagging Internet data with unique personal markers to make anonymous use of some parts of the Internet impossible....
"The plan, known as eDNA, called for developing a new version of the Internet that would include enclaves where it would be impossible to be anonymous while using the network....
"Darpa awarded a $60,000 contract to SRI International, a research concern based in Menlo Park, Calif., to investigate the concept. SRI then convened the workshop in August to evaluate its feasibility....
"The workshop was led by Mr. Blaze and Dr. Victoria Stavridou, an SRI computer scientist, one of those who had originally discussed the eDNA concept with Darpa officials....
"At one point, Mr. Blaze reported to the group that he had been ''fired'' by Dr. Stavridou, of SRI, from his appointed role of writing the report presenting that consensus.
"In e-mail messages, several participants said they believed that Dr. Stavridou was hijacking the report and that the group's consensus would not be reported to Darpa....
"Dr. Stavridou told the other panelists, 'Darpa asked SRI to organize the meeting because they have a deep interest in technology for identifying network miscreants and revoking their network privileges.'...."
Also I would like to know what "Orwellian philosophy" is http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01211002
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Having looked at this situation further, I am glad to say that I did not find any information in Victoria's background that I considered to be a red flag.
However, I would appreciate hearing more from Victoria about her involvement in "Total Information Awareness" [0] and similar programs, past or present.
I would also appreciate it if the controversial email thread that was referenced in the article that James linked [1] could be made public.
I'd like to respond to a comment that Katherine made. Katherine said, "...Her findings and recommendations will also be a matter of public record, as all government work should be." Please keep in mind that some information is kept quiet with good reason in government and in other industries and organizations, including WMF and the Wikimedia community. I have pressed WMF repeatedly about transparency matters (particularly regarding its financial expenses, which I believe should be much more transparent), but even I agree that some information should be confidential.
Based on what I have learned so far, my inclination is to continue to assume good faith of Victoria and WMF regarding this appointment while hoping for responses to the queries above. I am glad to have a CTO, and I am hopeful that all will be well. In my comments in this thread, I am trying to balance the protection of the community with the wish to welcome someone who might be an important "net positive" for us and a good fit for the kind of public service that we do here.
Regards,
Pine
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/ <goog_94271447> 11/22/world/threats-responses- <goog_94271447>surveillance-terror-tracking- <goog_94271447>agency-weighed-but-discarded- <goog_94271447>plan.html
It looks like discussion of Wikimedia privacy policy issues are continuing on the Analytics mailing list, so if I may, I would like to circle back to my questions on Victoria's background, which I am repeating below. WMF has had a few problematic appointments to senior level roles; I am hopeful that this one will work out, and I would appreciate responses to my questions below.
Pine
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Having looked at this situation further, I am glad to say that I did not find any information in Victoria's background that I considered to be a red flag.
However, I would appreciate hearing more from Victoria about her involvement in "Total Information Awareness" [0] and similar programs, past or present.
I would also appreciate it if the controversial email thread that was referenced in the article that James linked [1] could be made public.
I'd like to respond to a comment that Katherine made. Katherine said, "...Her findings and recommendations will also be a matter of public record, as all government work should be." Please keep in mind that some information is kept quiet with good reason in government and in other industries and organizations, including WMF and the Wikimedia community. I have pressed WMF repeatedly about transparency matters (particularly regarding its financial expenses, which I believe should be much more transparent), but even I agree that some information should be confidential.
Based on what I have learned so far, my inclination is to continue to assume good faith of Victoria and WMF regarding this appointment while hoping for responses to the queries above. I am glad to have a CTO, and I am hopeful that all will be well. In my comments in this thread, I am trying to balance the protection of the community with the wish to welcome someone who might be an important "net positive" for us and a good fit for the kind of public service that we do here.
Regards,
Pine
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/ http://goog_9427144711 /22/world/threats-responses- http://goog_94271447su rveillance-terror-tracking- http://goog_94271447age ncy-weighed-but-discarded- http://goog_94271447plan.html
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:19 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Also I would like to know what "Orwellian philosophy" is http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01211002
From the paper (you can find download links with minimal effort): "*George
Orwell tells us of a language so crafted as not to allow the speakers to think "bad thoughts", thus preventing them from challenging the totalitarian nightmare of Oceania. This principle, although sinister when applied to human discourse, is quite benign and we argue beneficial when dealing with the design of complex artifacts such as real-time computing systems whose deployment has safety-critical implications.*"
To the extent I understood (which is very limited, I only skimmed it), this is more of a vague philosophical point which in practice boils down to "keep the language simple". The technical part of the paper describes an extension of the classic precondition/postcondition system of program specification which adds timing information. It does not relate in any way to surveillance.
(If you are further interested in Orwell's thoughts about the use of language in politics, Wikipedia has some good articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language )
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org