FWEE! premature testing

Dewds,

Just a thought on Tim May's anonymous baptism by Stealth-fire of the WB!
project:

Tim: though I appreciate your enthusiasm, could you *please* wait until there
is something in place to actually _test_ before you test it? I know you
really wanted to post that nifty F-117A thing you OCR'd _somewhere_ but that
was not particularly helpful. It's not like I'm unaware of this issue.

Remember, we're still in Phase One (design & data collection) now. Help with
the design and data collection before you go off on your own and try to show
where the holes are or have some fun with it. Later on, you can be very
helpful if you want to play the Devil's Online Advocate.

[Also, could you please spell my name correctly for the NSA's records? It's
David Del Torto (not Deltorto). I promise not to spell your name "TiM aye" so
they can come and get you too.]

Someone suggested a set of WB guidelines should be posted. I began this
process, and will continue next week after CFP. I ask your patience while I
educate myself.

CFP News: I had a *very* interesting/enlightening discussion with Nicholas
Johnson, the former head of the FCC (under Johnson) last night about the WB!
project - he loves the idea and is willing to help out "somehow." Also, Ralph
Nader's organization is interested in what we're up to. Jim Settle (FBI
Computer Crime Squad) is also surprisingly supportive of the idea. Also,
believe it or not, a fellow from the CIA likes the idea and posits that, if
done "correctly," the system can 'perhaps be somewhat protected' from posting
by pranksters/attackers with bogus revelations - it might require someone to
preview postings (I would like to DE-nominate myself and suggest that MAYBE a
small review group be set up - let's discuss this, tell me what you think is
a good idea). I believe that the implementation of a simple WB Key system can
assist in this as well (refer to an earlier posting of mine). Of course, this
would require widespread dissemination of encryption software for anyone
needing that option. Dorothy Denning is there: does anyone have a question
for her? A statement? I can post her email address after tonight if y'all
like.

More Later, Gotta Run...

    dave (Del Torto)

Dave Del Torto writes regarding Tim May's whistleblower test:
>I know you
>really wanted to post that nifty F-117A thing you OCR'd _somewhere_ but that
>was not particularly helpful.  

I think it was extremely helpful.  Especially when we are in a design
phase, it is good to know just how strong a reaction there will be to
some of these posts.  It benefits us to have had the experience, not
just an awareness of the problem.

>Someone suggested a set of WB guidelines should be posted. 

Any guidelines must remain completely neutral about content of
postings.  A whistleblowers group is for expressing outrage.  The
things you are outraged about will be necessarily different from what
others are outraged about.  It is certain that one act of outrage will
itself be outrageous to another.  We have seen this already with Tim's
post.

A whistleblowers newsgroup must remain value-neutral with respect to
all values except the freedom to speak.  When all agree in advance
that freedom of speech is a good thing, then we avoid problems when
specific speech is to one party's disadvantage.

Value neutrality must be taught; it will not come automatically.
This, and the ability to teach the defense of privacy, are in the long
run much more valuable than any one specific whistleblowing.

>Nicholas Johnson, the former head of the FCC (under Johnson) 
>Ralph Nader's organization 
>Jim Settle (FBI Computer Crime Squad) 
>a fellow from the CIA  [his name's Ross Stapleton]

Dave mentions all these people are in favor of whistleblowing.  The
place where they can help the most is by affixing their signature to a
document that defends the whistleblowers group in advance of
"problems" with it.  If we can gather enough signatures from a wide
enough spectrum of the political process, the publication of the
document alone will be worth press coverage.  It might also be
worthwhile to take out a few big ads in major newspapers and print a
position paper.

[Re: comments from Ross Stapleton]
>done "correctly," the system can 'perhaps be somewhat protected' from posting
>by pranksters/attackers with bogus revelations - it might require someone to
>preview postings 

There's no need to preview anything.  Let people say whatever they
want.  Then, should the CIA wish to confirm something, they can issue
a statement with a digital signature attached to it, referencing the
post in question.

Review and verification is a valid concern; pre-review is not.

Eric