we are in the news again
39 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Gardner-Stephen
Jan 29, 2013, 10:05:54 PM1/29/13
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com
Corey Wallis
Jan 30, 2013, 2:28:02 AM1/30/13
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com
Hi Paul,
In your capacity as The Serval Project Co-Founder and Lead Researcher
could you write a few paragraphs to the list to address any concerns
members of the developer community may have in light of the news
article?
I'm referring to the potential collaboration of The Serval Project
with government agencies, and in particular the use by defence
personnel and members of the military.
With thanks.
-Corey
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Paul Gardner-Stephen
<pa...@servalproject.org> wrote:
> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/330468,wireless-mesh-researchers-target-defence-applications.aspx
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Serval Project Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to serval-project-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
In your capacity as The Serval Project Co-Founder and Lead Researcher
could you write a few paragraphs to the list to address any concerns
members of the developer community may have in light of the news
article?
I'm referring to the potential collaboration of The Serval Project
with government agencies, and in particular the use by defence
personnel and members of the military.
With thanks.
-Corey
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Paul Gardner-Stephen
<pa...@servalproject.org> wrote:
> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/330468,wireless-mesh-researchers-target-defence-applications.aspx
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Serval Project Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to serval-project-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
Paul Gardner-Stephen
Jan 30, 2013, 5:25:37 AM1/30/13
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com
Hello Corey,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Corey Wallis <co...@servalproject.org> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> In your capacity as The Serval Project Co-Founder and Lead Researcher
> could you write a few paragraphs to the list to address any concerns
> members of the developer community may have in light of the news
> article?
>
> I'm referring to the potential collaboration of The Serval Project
> with government agencies, and in particular the use by defence
> personnel and members of the military.
A very good idea.
It is true that the Serval Mesh could be used by military in the same
way that a can of sparkling water could be. We are not working with
any military to use the Serval Mesh. The closest we have come is
speaking with potential government users.
The only mention I have made of military here at LCA where I was
interviewed for the article has been describing our security as "like
military grade security". Thus the military emphasis is, as far as I
can recall, that of the publisher.
Paul.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Corey Wallis <co...@servalproject.org> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> In your capacity as The Serval Project Co-Founder and Lead Researcher
> could you write a few paragraphs to the list to address any concerns
> members of the developer community may have in light of the news
> article?
>
> I'm referring to the potential collaboration of The Serval Project
> with government agencies, and in particular the use by defence
> personnel and members of the military.
It is true that the Serval Mesh could be used by military in the same
way that a can of sparkling water could be. We are not working with
any military to use the Serval Mesh. The closest we have come is
speaking with potential government users.
The only mention I have made of military here at LCA where I was
interviewed for the article has been describing our security as "like
military grade security". Thus the military emphasis is, as far as I
can recall, that of the publisher.
Paul.
Paul Gardner-Stephen
Jan 30, 2013, 5:35:35 AM1/30/13
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com
Update: the article has been updated to more closely (but not perfectly) reflect what I said after I followed up with the reporter.
They are still sticking to their headline, which is their decision, and the text implies that we are specifically targeting military users, which we are not: we continue to target humanitarian organisations and other agencies (governmental or not) that can use our technology to help those in need.
On rereading I see they have quoted me as saying that the Serval Mesh could be used by military personel and related statements. This was in the context of protecting people by not leaking information about their movements in dangerous places, irrespective of who they worked for.
Paul.
Paul.
Romana Challans
Jan 30, 2013, 10:05:19 AM1/30/13
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com, serval-proje...@googlegroups.com
I suggest we simply clarify this in a blog post. This then gets disseminated to dev list, twitter, fb - and we have done our bit to clarify. I can write based on Paul's email, a bit of minor tweaking and I think that is ideal.
r:)
This message sent using my sonic screwdriver.Paul Gardner-Stephen
Jan 30, 2013, 1:50:44 PM1/30/13
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com
I'm happy with that.
Frieder Ferlemann
Jan 30, 2013, 5:50:02 PM1/30/13
to serval-proje...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
on the article:
"Wireless mesh researchers target defence applications"
(itnews for australian business, 2013-01-30)
It's so absurd that there should be no need to
publically debunk. Don't feed the trolls.
It should be pretty obvious that many design decisions
would not be the first choice for defence applications.
Rather among the last choices for defence applications.
The 2.4 GHz band was more or less unwanted worldwide
because of high absorption due to water. It's nicer
to communicate when the weather is fine, but I doubt
this a primary concern for military applications.
Many households possess devices (microwave ovens,
yes, it somehow has something to do with water) that
could be turned into effective (powerful, dangerous)
jamming devices for 2.4 GHz.
The signal to noise ratio on frequencies which
are used by commodity devices tends to be
suboptimal.
Well, it occasionally tends to be noisy in
defence applications anyway, maybe let's
consider signal:
The RF power for wifi signals is _way_ lower than
what Walkie Talkies have used more than a quarter of
a century ago.
Downsizing has my empathy and I like the retro
aspect of it as well:
In nowadays hectic it's nice to have something
that needs one or the other minute to boot.
(With solar cells the runtime of mobile phones
can be prolonged so shutdown/reboot because of
lack of wall plugs gets less of an issue.)
Now we pondered about time, how about location:
Wifi dongle/card/chipset/routers (preferrably one of
those cheap devices which have multiple (phase shiftable)
antenna) could be programmed to see the traffic
by batphones. Well rather "can" be programmed
than "could" be programmed to see the traffic
by batphones as that is what batphone is about.
No way to decode the content but ain't it nice
to see that and roughly where there is traffic?
Maybe some military camouflage spoilsport gets picky
about being located but why not opt for a little
transparency?
Ever heard of location based services?
Come on, don't be shy it's a new millenium!
And what seems to be a good grassroot approach
because of being (low budget) available everywhere
is a double edged sword because drones could
also lock onto wifi.
Hey that was the hidden plan, how did you know?
The objective of serval project to enable connecting
with anyone anywhere has not yet been the primary
focus of military communication.
That's about to change: now there is batphone!
One might consider renaming batphone though.
"bad phone" casts doubt whether the phone really
is for the good guys.
The funding seems to be unconventional too.
Maybe a little on the low side for military
projects. Has downsizing been mentioned lately?
And if military pays please pay attention to the
bad phone - good guy conflict.
Historically military has wanted to have an edge
over competing military. This traditionally
favoured secrecy over openness.
Open source development is on the opposite end
of that scale.
Military might have changed though.
On second thought maybe it's a nicely
investigated article and worth to talk
about but just got leaked 2 months
and 2 days early?
Greetings,
Frieder
on the article:
"Wireless mesh researchers target defence applications"
(itnews for australian business, 2013-01-30)
It's so absurd that there should be no need to
publically debunk. Don't feed the trolls.
It should be pretty obvious that many design decisions
would not be the first choice for defence applications.
Rather among the last choices for defence applications.
The 2.4 GHz band was more or less unwanted worldwide
because of high absorption due to water. It's nicer
to communicate when the weather is fine, but I doubt
this a primary concern for military applications.
Many households possess devices (microwave ovens,
yes, it somehow has something to do with water) that
could be turned into effective (powerful, dangerous)
jamming devices for 2.4 GHz.
The signal to noise ratio on frequencies which
are used by commodity devices tends to be
suboptimal.
Well, it occasionally tends to be noisy in
defence applications anyway, maybe let's
consider signal:
The RF power for wifi signals is _way_ lower than
what Walkie Talkies have used more than a quarter of
a century ago.
Downsizing has my empathy and I like the retro
aspect of it as well:
In nowadays hectic it's nice to have something
that needs one or the other minute to boot.
(With solar cells the runtime of mobile phones
can be prolonged so shutdown/reboot because of
lack of wall plugs gets less of an issue.)
Now we pondered about time, how about location:
Wifi dongle/card/chipset/routers (preferrably one of
those cheap devices which have multiple (phase shiftable)
antenna) could be programmed to see the traffic
by batphones. Well rather "can" be programmed
than "could" be programmed to see the traffic
by batphones as that is what batphone is about.
No way to decode the content but ain't it nice
to see that and roughly where there is traffic?
Maybe some military camouflage spoilsport gets picky
about being located but why not opt for a little
transparency?
Ever heard of location based services?
Come on, don't be shy it's a new millenium!
And what seems to be a good grassroot approach
because of being (low budget) available everywhere
is a double edged sword because drones could
also lock onto wifi.
Hey that was the hidden plan, how did you know?
The objective of serval project to enable connecting
with anyone anywhere has not yet been the primary
focus of military communication.
That's about to change: now there is batphone!
One might consider renaming batphone though.
"bad phone" casts doubt whether the phone really
is for the good guys.
The funding seems to be unconventional too.
Maybe a little on the low side for military
projects. Has downsizing been mentioned lately?
And if military pays please pay attention to the
bad phone - good guy conflict.
Historically military has wanted to have an edge
over competing military. This traditionally
favoured secrecy over openness.
Open source development is on the opposite end
of that scale.
Military might have changed though.
On second thought maybe it's a nicely
investigated article and worth to talk
about but just got leaked 2 months
and 2 days early?
Greetings,
Frieder
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages