SecState Makes Comments Supporting O.S. Goals

In a recent Washington Post article, titled "Autocratic Regimes fight Web-savvy opponents with their own tools", Mary Beth Sheridan reported that Secretary Clinton has made comments in recent weeks that specifically legitimize the drive behind O.S:

“In a number of countries, democracy and human rights activists and independent bloggers found their e-mails hacked or their computers infected with spyware that reported back on their every keystroke. Digital activists have been tortured so they would reveal their passwords”, she said last month. (Emphasis mine)

Sounds like a clarion call for a method that wouldn't subject said democracy and human rights activists to repression, censorship, and torture, no?  Would you be comfortable acting as a whistle-blower if your compatriots were being watched and abused?  Perhaps an anonymous, self-perpetuating, peer-to-peer network would increase the confidence of dissidents and their willingness to report the gross excesses of their respective governments?

"For several years, Congress has given the State Department millions of dollars annually to provide technology to help activists evade Internet censorship by oppressive governments. But diplomats are increasingly realizing that the threat goes beyond blocked Web sites." (Emphasis mine)

I can't judge the success or failure of that funding and the projects it supports (it may well have made disrupting dissident communication more difficult for those tasked with the duty), but I can say, given the nature of the information provided, that what our Department of State (and other involved agencies) is doing certainly isn't full spectrum and it isn't effective enough.  One thing I took away from Red Team/Opposing Force training in the Army: never underestimate your opponents, and always learn from their successes and mistakes.


In case you didn't read/don't plan to read the entire article (which I encourage you to do) here's another notable quote:

“In the same way that, a few years ago, it became commonplace to talk about Web 2.0, we’re now seeing Repression 2.0,” said Daniel B. Baer, a deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor. (Again, emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, some Western companies have been all too happy to sell monitoring software and devices to bad actors (more on that in a later post).  I'm working to develop a map of Middle Eastern countries that exclusively provide web access though nationalized or state-controlled ISPs (Internet Service Providers) - those providers most easily able to watch internet traffic surreptitiously, and doubly cursed as the most vulnerable to pressure by internal security services  when "asked" for IP addresses and other digital identifying information.  The data may already be available; I just need to sort and verify it.  Expect the map posted by the end of the week, events permitting.


Exit question:  To put it in terms that average, politically-engaged democratic citizens can relate to - if you knew that sending an email complaining about, oh, something like this, to your local school superintendent or hometown newspaper would result in increased police scrutiny focusing on your family, what would you do?  Risk it to stand up for both common sense and basic freedom, or self-censor to protect your safety?  Honest question, no right or wrong answers.