THREAD SPLIT--Ethics of applying for DARPA money as an organization

[Robin DeBates]

THREAD SPLIT-- THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE ETHICS of whether or not Jigsaw as an organization could, would, or should submit a proposal for funding from DARPA's Cyber Fast Track (CFT).

First, let me say that I LOVE that there is something we feel passionately about as a community to engage with like this! Anything that is active engagement trumps apathy any day in my book. I feel confident that we can have this kind of discussion, knowing it will challenge us, without destroying our relationships with each other personally or to Jigsaw as an organization.

DARPA is a military agency. While the stipulations of this proposal allow  retaining of intellectual property rights, it also enables government use of any ideas and processes and products that result from them.

I am a pacifist. I believe in nonviolence as a tactic for social change, as a way of being, and a value/ideal to uphold. I am a military tax resister and if I were required to register with Selective Service, would have been a conscientious objector. (Which definitely gives me pause in thinking about being part of an application to this funding source... except for the punk ass part of me who says, "Hell yeah! Take the money and subvert it to our purposes!" Swords into cybernetic plowshares or something.)

In my wild mind this AM, with the GPS glowing clothing example, I was imagining a horrible scenario where "smart clothes" were given to non-combatants, or even combatants without their knowledge or consent, got turned on, and made armed combat look like shooting fish in a barrel. I would be OUTRAGED by that kind of use of something I helped make.

Lion and I had a REALLY interesting (all too short) conversation about what happens when you share or "open source" your knowledge, processes, and products. There's no controlling who gets to use the information. The tool, process or knowledge itself isn't the dangerous part... Its the lack of shared ethics on the part of all possible end users.

So my outrage would be directed to the government and military leaders who have taken an instrument and used it to their own devices.

However, I'd also REALLY hate for Jigsaw to be cited 20 years down the line as a place where all kinds of cool innovations happened that military-industrial complex (via government defense) ended up co-opting.

Audre Lorde says you can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools... You must step outside the dominant paradigm and change it from the outside. I used to think that was the only truth. I now know that working for change both from outside AND inside is possible.

Let's keep talking!

Sorry--I don't have the technical prowess before coffee to make the rest of all that conversation appear below... I will cut and paste some for the sake of continuity.

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:26 PM, James Gray <gra...@uw.edu> wrote:

For that matter, do you ever use the internet?

Defense research funding was behind most modern technology at some point. I think it's good to be cautious, but I don't see there being many consistent ways to take an "all defense funding is bad and should be rejected" stance without taking a rather radical stance on technology as a whole.

James

"You seem to be implying that doing A is fine, but doing A with money
from the government is bad. This sounds a lot like you're saying that
the ethical status of A is inherited from where the money comes from."

Firstly, I did not express concern with money from "the government,"
but more specifically from DARPA.

Secondly, I do suppose that the history of a resource is important in
some contexts, and that if (to continue your hyperbole) you told me
that you were going to save ten starving orphans with the money you
gained from murdering another ten, then I would cease doing business
with you. I do not really conceptualize that as one act inheriting
ethics from another act, but that is an interesting conceptual blend.

Thirdly, I am not really interested in debating ethics or resolving
ethical discrepancies over this forum, except that I am interested in
discussing how we are going to act as an organization if members of
this organization find DARPAs money unethical for any reason. In other
words, I do not need for anyone to defend (or feel the need to defend)
her ethical stance on this, either way (in favor or opposed); at
least, not yet.

j

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:00 PM, James Gray <gra...@uw.edu> wrote:
> You seem to be implying that doing A is fine, but doing A with money from
> the government is bad. This sounds a lot like you're saying that the ethical
> status of A is inherited from where the money comes from.
>
> I'm not really interested in recapitulating the "but what if we study math
> and it leads to Hiroshima" conversation. I believe that the only reasonable
> escape from the problem is to take responsibility for your own work.
>

> James

To be clear, I have nothing to say about whether individual members of
Jigsaw apply for funding from DARPA. My concern is constrained to acts
done in the name of the organization.

In my opinion, the ends do not justify the means as simply as in the
(hyperbole) example you gave, but please let me know if you do
actually succeed in saving starving orphans with "dirty" money (as you
said). The statement about whether ethics are inherited or contagious
has nothing to do with anything I have said, so far as I can see.

Respectfully,

Joshua 

there was no chance that a single objecting doctor would have prevented experiments on live humans.  but if every single doctor had objected, the story would be different.

xoxo
dug

Many of you already know about my love for cybernetics, so I will omit
my usual rant about the use of the word 'cyber' here, except to say:
[groan].

The reason I asked about what parties will be applying, is that I have
reservations about receiving funding from DARPA. I have not been very
vocal about them, because I have not had all the facts, and have not
wanted to seem soap-boxy especially in the absence of facts. However,
my concerns are really more about ethics than facts; I am not sure I
want to be any part of the "military-industrial complex," regardless
of the statistical probability that my work or the work(s) of this
organization to which I belong and put a good deal of effort and
resources into making successful, will (directly) be used to kill
people or remove their civil liberties.

I think that if we are going to consider applying as an organization,
then we should at least be clear about our intentions and actions, and
invite (not merely allow) those members who might object to do so.

j

[Joshua Madara]

Robin, thank you for making a space for this conversation.

"Tell me, do you plan to report on the millions we've saved by
advancing medical technology or kept from starvation with our
intelli-crops? All those breakthroughs, military funding, honey."

I love Iron Man. I love the character that Stan Lee created
intentionally to perturb the war-protesting readers of Marvel comics
at that time.

The only thing I am absolutely certain of is the love I have for my
daughter. Of all else, I have doubt, and I am capable of assuming
differing and even opposing points of view until the exercise
incapacitates me as I vacillate between multiple ultimately arbitrary
alternatives. Sometimes, I employ intuition to break myself out of
such loops.

I am NOT saying that I am absolutely opposed to Jigsaw applying for
funding from DARPA. I said that I have reservations, and that we
should invite those with reservations to speak up if we are going to
pursue this funding as an organization.

I am not a pacifist, although I have been, and I still do (radically,
sometimes) favor non-violent solutions to conflicts. I am fully aware
of my citizenship within a nation that retains military forces for
(among other things) the purpose of keeping me from harm, and that my
consensual continuity of that citizenship implies at least my
acquiescence of that arrangement. However, I do not believe that the
United State military or the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
are on the whole forces for good in this world, and that is why I did
not join the military when I was presented an opportunity to, or
pursue a career with information security agencies when I was tempted
to, and it is why I have never considered seeking funding from a
military agency.

I did not join Jigsaw Renaissance because it was a hacker or maker
space; I joined because I jibed with the ethics of what we said we
intended to do: empower people with choices, especially choices
involving technology, and create an environment that fosters
creativity, learning, and collaboration (my paraphrasing). I agree
with Heinz von Foerster's cybernetics-based ethical imperative: "Act
always so as to increase the number of choices." (Incidentally,
Defense funding for Foerster's Biological Computer Lab ceased after
Heinz refused to disclose military applications of the lab's research,
following the Mansfield Amendment of 1969, which "prohibited military
funding of research that lacked a direct or apparent relationship to
specfic military function.") I support Open Source because even though
it empowers "good"and "bad" alike, it increases the number of choices.
On the other hand, I oppose military thinking because, in the last
analysis, it does not (although I appreciate the complexities and
subtleties of those ways in which it does).

Richard Bandler said, "The essence of being generative is to create a
world in which everybody gains because there are ways of creating
more, rather than having a limited amount to fight over and divide
up." As I see it, Jigsaw is founded on a deep sense of generosity and
the peace that entails, while DARPA is founded on a deep sense of
scarcity and the hostility that entails. I am not concerned that
Jigsaw will be credited for the invention of some future evil device
(although I should like to avoid that as well). I am concerned that
DARPA's purpose and agenda are disharmonious with Jigsaw's, regardless
of any local, temporal harmony found in the former funding a specific
project of the latter.

Joshua

[Joshua Madara]

Meant to say, "found in a specific project of the former funding a

specific project of the latter."

j

[Lion Kimbro]

  Very briefly:

  I don't know much about DARPA CFT, but what I understand is this:
  1. It's an easy process for getting solid funding for basic research.
  2. We can license what we make however we like.
  3. The only caveat is that the government or military gets unlimited
     license to use the ideas as well.

  My understanding of the conflict is this:
  * Several members of Jigsaw don't want to help the US military for
    myriad reasons, most of which I am entirely sympathetic to.

  I am basically "pro."  That is, I think on the whole that it'd be
  great if we could perform basic research using DARPA money.

  That said, I would want to make sure that people at Jigsaw felt okay
  with this.

  What I propose:

  1. DARPA funded projects using Jigsaw resources are approved by the
     board.

  2. A clear statement on our website that while some projects receive
     DARPA funding, this is not an endorsement by Jigsaw of US foreign
     policy.

  By 1, we can say "yes" to basic research into symbolic
  representations of software and control systems, "yes" to research
  into skin suits that sense subtle body motion, "no" to weapons
  manufacture, "no" to censorship software.

  Yes, both of the "yes"-es have military application, but -- so too
  does bread and iron.

  My main points:
  1. We are using DARPA technology right now:  The Internet.
     This proves that great things can come from DARPA.
  2. Any ideas we create and apply an open license to, the government
     and military will have access to by said open license, anyways.
  3. Acceptance of funds by DARPA does not mean that we approve of US
     foreign policy.

[Pierce Nichols]

A few thoughts...

-- Any work done by Jigsaw or its members and released under an open source license is likewise available to the government and military for unlimited use. Does anyone think Jigsaw, as an entity, would ever do work that wasn't open source? Anyone? Bueller?

-- The ethics of a particular coure of actions are independent of who is paying for it. An act that is unethical when done for private purposes is still unethical when done with government money... and an act that is ethical when done for private purposes is still ethical when done with government money.

-- It is unlikely that the amount of money flowing to Jigsaw from any proposed CFT work would exceed the net Federal taxes paid in the last year by the members of Jigsaw. If it makes you feel better, we're just redirecting the money we previously paid the Feds back into our community.

-- This discussion is already longer than the average proposal to award time in the CFT program.

-p

--
da Vinci -- the Jigsaw Renaissance mailing list
 
The da Vinci mailing list is for project / event proposal, and general Jigsaw announcements. You can also use our wiki at wiki.jigren.org for long-term planning and to see what we're up to. Small updates and general chatter should happen on IRC (freenode:jigsaw).
 
dav...@jigsawrenaissance.org
http://groups.google.com/a/jigsawrenaissance.org/group/davinci
 
To unsubscribe, email davinci+u...@jigsawrenaissance.org

[William Beaty]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011, Lion Kimbro wrote:

> Yes, both of the "yes"-es have military application, but -- so too
> does bread and iron.
>
> My main points:
> 1. We are using DARPA technology right now: The Internet.
> This proves that great things can come from DARPA.
> 2. Any ideas we create and apply an open license to, the government
> and military will have access to by said open license, anyways.
> 3. Acceptance of funds by DARPA does not mean that we approve of US
> foreign policy.

Yep, Internet is only robust as it is because it was designed so packets
would still reach destinations during a nuclear war.

Our decisions really come down to this simple choice: to halt a bad thing
do you resign and refuse to have anything to do with it, or do you stay
and fight, attempting to subvert and "transmute" it into something
beneficial? (The famous Sanford Prison Experiment directly shows the
consequences of this: ethical 'prison guards' resign their positions in
horror over what's happening, so the remaining population of guards are
human monsters.)

Also, new ideas cannot be protected or controlled. The only way to keep
things away from the military is to never develop them at all. Anything
patented ...is first passed by the military, and runs a chance of being
classified as a national security issue (there are about 3000 such "taken"
patents currently, although the number was twice that in the past.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act

New tools can save humankind or destroy us. China develops fireworks,
Europe turns it into cannons, then pistols. A large sailboat can make it
across oceans, and almost wipes out all human life in North America.
Skeptical anthropologists think the North American plagues of the 1500s
only killed 99% of the Native American population. Less skeptical ones
think the number was much, much higher. "The Pilgrims" only survived
winter because the landscape was covered with empty towns full of bones.
In 1400, would you have wanted to work on designing larger sailboats? At
the same time the Alchemists let out some secret research techniques, and
a century or two later the entire landscape is covered with petrochem
factories and automobiles. Tesla gives us wall outlets, but suddenly
factories can be anywhere at all rather than right next to large coal
plants.

(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

[Joshua Madara]

Lion and Pierce, thank you for your thoughts.

Am I really the only one here who a recognizes a difference between
putting something in the Commons that may be appropriated by a
military agency (as freely as it may be appropriated by anyone else),
and accepting money from a military agency to develop something for
that agency to use for military purposes? Perhaps I am in the wrong
company...

Earlier, I said to James that I would not do business with someone who
would save ten starving orphans with the money gained from murdering
another ten. I understand that mine was an unfair comparison in that
DARPA does not actually receive money from murdering orphans. But it
was an equally unfair comparison for James to make between DARPA and
rescuing starving orphans, because that is simply not the business
that DARPA is in. DARPA backs geniuses who develop technologies that
have military applications. Yes, I fully understand that bread and
iron (can) have military applications, but I maintain that there
exists a non-trivial ethical choice in inventing a resource to
generously help people, and inventing that same resource so that the
military can use it for military purposes.

This business about DARPA founding the Internet is moot as far as I am
concerned, because it is not a two-way street; using military
technology for non-military applications is not equal to using
non-military technology for military applications, precisely because
what you do with the technology matters (indeed, its characterization
as a non/military technology is entangled with non/military
applications), as others here have already said albeit in arguments
that seem contrary to mine. There have been plenty of good things to
come from military research, and I would still rather live in a world
in which every single invention from this moment forward is not made,
discovered, whatever... by a military agency, but for more noble
pursuits (I include "curiosity" and "delight" in the latter).

j

[Joshua Madara]

With no disrespect to Lion, I would call it hypocrisy to accept money
from a military agency to develop a technology that you have given
said agency license to do with whatever it likes, and then say that
you do not endorse what the agency does with that technology,
especially when you know fully well what sorts of things that agency
gets up to. That is the difference between developing the technology
for said agency, and developing it for the Commons; the former is an
(at least implied) endorsement of the legitimacy of the agency and its
activities.

j

[Pierce Nichols]

Josh,

I think I'm proposing a tougher ethical standard here. If it's not ethical to work on something with DARPA money, it's not ethical to work on it, period.

-p

[Joshua Madara]

I continue to not see how that is the case.

j

[Joshua Madara]

What are some actual projects that people here are considering getting
funded for? It might help (me) to continue the discussion with such
things in mind, and we can leave the starving orphans out of it.

j

[Lion Kimbro]

  Joshua, I think I hear your point, and if I may amplify it:

  If you created the technology in the common,
  and the military used it, you could say, "That wasn't what I intended,"
  whereas if they showed the receipt of payment for it,
  you can not say "That wasn't what I intended."


  I hear the argument, though I I cannot find it in myself to change my position -- Review on a case-by-case basis.
  "Would we feel shame if the military uses this technology?"


  If I do not feel particular shame in a particular use, I feel clean.  For example, if the military paid me to invent bread, and I invented bread, I would not feel particular shame if the military used bread, even if I disagreed with the very military that had paid me.  However, if bread was the technology that played a crucial role in winning a major victory, and if I was opposed to that military's effort, then I would feel shame.  But if it was just a "small helping factor," then I go back to feeling not so bad -- because the advantages to society as a whole are so great.  For myself, it all depends on the particulars, and how I feel in my conscience about them.

  (I have a lot in common with "situational ethics.")

  Nonetheless, in the name of community:
  If it makes Jigsaw Renaissance members uncomfortable, I would not move to block their veto.

[Kaleen]

The question of "is it ethical to accept government funding to make benign things?" is rich and interesting, and what I hear are a number of positions on both sides of the line. Some folks feel bad about association with our government and others would appreciate the funding to do amazing things.

There is a meta-debate going on about the ethics of group associations that I want to call attention to here.

Jigsaw is a group with which individuals may freely associate in a way that is largely decoupled from politics at present, 501c3 support notwithstanding. The decision to accept DARPA funding as an organization eliminates that neutrality. This reduces people's ability to associate with Jigsaw but not say "woohoo DARPA!" Anyone who says differently, I'd be happily proved wrong but we should have a Talk about hackerspace politics.

While I personally am in favor of some things DARPA does (they offer me the ability to change the world), I have friends who think this organization is yucky because they make yucky robots. While I would personally love me some DARPA money, I have a means to do that. I can personally talk to DARPA and get me some money.

The point is that nobody else *needs* to be coupled to this ethical choice. Where it is possible to allow folks to freely associate themselves with DARPA, their local school board, or the Nazis (godwins law! What now?)...freedom of choice regarding brand association has deep value.

I am as stifled by the possibility of forcing my buddies to kick it at a DARPA-approved site as I am excited about saving starving children. I may be hypocritical in that I'd be comfy taking the whole family to an EFF-associated hackerspace, but then I don't know any hackers who think the EFF is yucky.

Taking money from someone on a continuous basis is not neutral any more than campaign contributions are neutral. It's one thing for me to act a little silly on occasion because my hands are in deep pockets, and take that hit because im making better bread and a bright future for my children. But that's my life; you on the board speak for other people and therefore should be held to the highest standards. As a group you are choosing to endorse and be influenced; accept that if you accept cash.

As for the cause, you dont have to convince me that bread is awesome. But when you take dough from a government branch it is inescapably a group-wide endorsement of that branch's brand identity. You can walk your own line here and speak for the group if you feel it's worth it, but be ready to say "I am totally prepared to alienate the occasional DARPA hater to forward this good cause because my ethics are watertight."

what I hear is not that; i hear a rich debate. And on that basis alone i advocate against making DARPA Jigsaw's collective sugar daddy.

sent from my iphone

[Lee Ann Guertin]

I've been weighing in carefully on whether I would respond on this thread. But I want to show support now for Joshua's statement below, in a wholehearted way as someone who has worked for organizations academic, non-profit, and for-profit that required and obtained outside sources of funding (including government) on behalf of research, manufacturing, testing, and product development. His expression of the importance of "harmony" resonated with me, especially as within the context of my experience with Jigsaw and the people I have met there, etc.

 

These are hard times indeed. Do we need money for basic services, operations, research and development? Certainly. Do we care where that money comes from? We certainly should. Otherwise there is no distinction from going out and stealing it or lying to obtain it or even killing for it. Not only because we have a social conscience and a reputation to build on behalf of ourselves and Jigsaw, but also because we have personal and professional integrity and a shared set of values (hopefully). The choices we make in these matters affect others across the organization and community as well as bring in money and resources for an immediate individual goal. Can we look for other funding alternatives or income sources? It may take some more work, but we definitely should! That I know of, Jigsaw is not a company founded solely for the purposes of R&D. Am I correct? Technology is a delicate thing with a lot of potential and power. Precious and dangerous...

 

If you/we are willing to apply for, associate with, and accept DARPA funds then why not seek corporate or academic sponsorships or partnerships? Because we don't want to sell out to agendas or politics? That is exactly what would happen with DARPA. Only we would have no voice or control over conditions, uses or outcomes. At least with corporate sponsorships, partnerships, or academic alliances we can have negotiation power and potential to grow the organization as a whole. In that way, it is like a startup needing support. What's the difference and what led to DARPA?

 

On the idea of a "startup", is it possible or considered to create a separate corporate entity for that purpose to facilitate autonomy and separation of the sort needed here on behalf of R&D or product development? An entity affiliated to Jigsaw, but independent?

 

Personally, I would not wish to associate myself with an organization that I know directly and intentionally kills people, etc. (DARPA associated). I would rather seek other funding even if it meant pounding pavement and begging, soliciting academic engagement, selling my belongings, starting a small business, or providing educational services.

 

Thank you all for giving me a space to voice my opinion here and to support others. I hope that in some way this is helpful.

 

~Lee Ann

[Robin DeBates]

(loving that this conversation is flourishing)...

I haven't had a lot of screen time for personal email the last few days.

Please know I am continuing to cogitate and incubate about the discussion.

[hol...@gmail.com]

if bad or evil Darpa monies get used by  Jigsaw it will not be getting used to kill people, where if you do not it likely will go to making drones etc. and lots of the projects fail, all the projects developing evil tech could fail. Money is money it's all bloodstained, yet we use it, yes?

[Lee Ann Guertin]

I think perhaps you missed the spirit of my statement... Military use is military use. Jigsaw would have no say whatsoever on how anything is used by them if they enter into that explicit contract by accepting that funding. Includes killing people. It's not a matter of Jigsaw using the money to kill people, it is Jigsaw intentionally taking money from an organization that may use the technology it exclusively receives and claims right to to potentially kill people or harm them. All about intent. With corporate or academic engagement there is the capability to negotiate the context and scope of allowable use. Not same as "open source" but then military engagement isn't open source either.

 

Which is why I suggested creating a separate entity -- remove Jigsaw and the extended artistic and educational and member community from the blood stains. But give the freedom of choice. Not all money is blood stained. I have personally chosen not to work for companies that are producing products that are known to explicitly kill people. I have worked with them in the past, when I had no other source of income for my skillset at the time. Having worked in biopharmaceuticals and drug manufacturing regulatory affairs, as well as in government funded and independently funded biotechnology research, I can indeed make that claim. I actively choose not to work in such capacity anymore or accept money from a company in that context. I adapted. And I make a living. :)

 

Which begs the questions -- Is the Jigsaw community as a whole really so desperate or out of options that there is no other means of funding? (I highly doubt that!) What is the expected impact financially to the Jigsaw org as a whole to justify the means by obtaining DARPA money? If this is individual-driven, can that individual separate within this context for the purpose of isolating their project and remove the extended community from association with DARPA? Or is it the perceived "prestige" of this funding source that is sought after here?

[B Strand]

Compromise is ultimately what any discussion about taking money from an outside source asks us to do. So far, Jigsaw has been completely member-supported, which is an astounding thing for any non-profit, and especially astounding for one as esoteric as Jigsaw Renaissance is.

Thus far we've been an organization of breaking even, always getting the money for rent just before rent is due. It leads to cycles of desperation. It led to me burning out with trying to work with Jigsaw. Eventually we're going to need to make a decision to bring in more than just the rent, so that we can really invest in our organization, wether it's an investment in tools or people. How we choose to make that investment reflects on our ability to transform desperation into either dependancy or sufficiency.

Compromise can lead to bad decisions. There are good decisions to be had here, but it is less to do with wether accepting money from DARPA is ethical, and more to do with wether taking outside money is acceptable. I believe this organization can thrive without outside money, but that is a choice. 

As long as the budget requirements of Jigsaw are such that they keep us in month-to-month desperation, it doesn't matter if we're considering taking money from DARPA or Batman, we'll eventually try to find money from outside.

Compromise could be a good thing, if we find a partner or ally that is truly in line with the goals and values of our Jigsaw Renaissance. This is no small thing, there are many allies out there, but we would do better to find our independence and live with a lower budget than continue to choose eventual dependance by keeping our numbers at a stress point.

I haven't been keeping up on the specifics of the finances of Jigsaw, but we need to defer this decision until we have a real emergency fund. Anything else would lead to an undue compromise.

Regards,

Strand

[Willow Brugh]

Fascinating conversation, but DARPA CFT funds individuals, not organizations, so most is moot.

Willow Brugh // willowbl00

School Factory : GWOB ; GameSave ; Jigsaw ; Space Federation

Office Hours Tuesdays at 16:00

[Ryan Reggio]

Hello all!

Personally I say money is money. I think the argument against taking money has gotten wraped up in an arguement about weather Darpa kills people or not. (They don't by the way... they just pay for the inventions that help towards that end) its like saying the Smith and Wesson gun smiths have killed millions of people. On a side note darpa is a government funded and run organization, that means they are funded by taxes. Which means that anyone here who has payed taxes, ever, has directly funded darpa....

Now I do think that taking money from darpa could have other unintended Consequences. Darpa does have a history of taking over some of those non-military organizations that they have funded. That would be a problem for me, as I imagine it would for everyone here.

All that being said just because darpa has payed for things like bombs and rockets and that shark with a laser on it's head... doesn't take away from the fact that they pay for things that have nothing to do with killing, like the internet for example ( I know your heart broken to find out that it wasn't al gore who invented it). I think that it would be unfortunate if the only reason we don't realise this opportunity is because darpa also pays for guns.

But that's my opinion.
-Ryan

[Lee Ann Guertin]

Wow- My comment was not about "DARPA killing people" literally, it was about it and its activities openly supporting and actively enabling that purpose. Thanks for confirming though. Emotions often distort in paraphrase. There is a huge difference between consciously choosing to participate with DARPA by seeking and accepting money from it and with aligning with it and participating by way of government tax allocations, of which our taxes are distributed without our direct input and personal control. Not the case with Jigsaw! The people of Jigsaw do have a choice. If it is about an individual an not Jigsaw, the person should be doing it alone under their own organization and resources. Again, not the case here.

Regardless of funding "individuals" the publicity obtained by such association and the relationship in public to Jigsaw and its other members and associates is the point, which is not "moot" because it is directly related to Jigsaw's principal values and the values of most of its members. The "individual" would still be associated visibly with Jigsaw and Jigsaw would therefore be affected in public opinion and reference. 

The point is that funding is available elsewhere and individuals certainly have the ability to be individuals and the association to Jigsaw in public can be avoided if desired by creating a separate affiliate business entity to "professionally" associate with (or something like it). Jigsaw can or the individual can do this easily with a business license. If operating as a business initiative toward product development then it needs to be acknowledged as one... Then if DARPA takes that over as a part of it's domain in owning all related and contributing intellectual property, and often the material resources associated with it as well (which Jigsaw people would indeed be affected by), it would not harm the rest of Jigsaw and it would provide the autonomy needed to separate "church and state", so to speak. 

It is about conscience and responsibility as an organization. About respecting values. Individuals do affect it. That is the beauty and curse of an organization built around people and ideas. And that is also what corporations often face. It is indeed a moral dilemma.

Sent from my iPhone

[Robin DeBates]

"It is about conscience and responsibility as an organization. About respecting values. Individuals do affect it. That is the beauty and curse of an organization built around people and ideas. And that is also what corporations often face. It is indeed a moral dilemma."

I agree with Lee Ann's sentiments above.

I think it is a point worthy of consideration.

I'm not hearing any pitch a Jigsaw-wide project at this point. 

However, it could be a really easy way for Jigsaw to acquire some great resources (tools like laser cutter, functioning power tools, functioning 3-D printer, fat internet pipeline, functioning computers that talk to the printers we have, organizational tools (in case Amazon ever asks for all those bins back), projection/sound system, etc) if someone(s) applied for and got funding for a project that required those tools and DARPA allowed them to "age in place" instead of requiring them to be returned to the gov't warehouse.

It could be REALLY cool to have the publicity that goes along with a "high value" funder like DARPA. However, the possible negative aspect of that is that we may drive/turn people away because, without an explicit statement to the contrary and even with such, it is possible to view taking money from someone as an endorsement... or at least a non-boycott.

I like how Lawrence Lessig has outlined his ethics in his disclosure statement: http://www.lessig.org/info/disclosure/

I'm having some kind of anti-virus glitch at the moment, not being able to access pages that aren't in my cache, so I can't refer more clearly to it... but I think its worth a gander.

[Lee Ann Guertin]

Is there opposition to creating a separate business affiliate entity that acknowledges itself as for-profit and/or as R&D focused? Can share space with Jigsaw, allow for individual collaboration efforts and can be used to appropriate funds and resources autonomously, but not "be" Jigsaw. Yes it presents limitations but also protections. Everyone seems to be avoiding it...

Funding can also be obtained elsewhere and provide "high profile" or financial gain. But there also seems to be no discussion here of that either. Why is that? Do we not care where money comes from, just because it offers shiny toys? If not, I say we steal it or simply become whores. Plenty of places to do that. I think a lot of people agree it does matter. 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Lee Ann Guertin]

I should have also asked about the history of academic partnerships or corporate partnerships. I mentioned them a while back as funding opportunities but they fell off radar. They could be seen as selling out as well or endorsing questionable practices but also provide prestige and money or resources. They have seen many of the same criticisms elsewhere. Is there a history with Jigsaw? For or against, or just not executed on?

Sorry to send double email. Afterthoughts! 

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Joshua Madara]

Lee Ann,

I appreciate your ideas. I don't think anyone is intentionally
avoiding what you have proposed; I just think we're not in a place to
initiate something such as that right now. We're barely getting by on
what little admin we have working under School Factory. There has been
talk about becoming our own non-profit, but we're not near to
committing to that, and if we cannot even do that, then establishing a
for-profit entity is probably not high on anyone's (real) to-do list.

As far as DARPA goes, I have enjoyed considering the variety of
opinions presented here, but Willow's comment pretty much closed the
discussion for me for now. I already admitted that I have no interest
in deciding whether or not individual members of Jigsaw pursue DARPA
in their own names. I'm looking for a careful balance between
preserving (what I perceive as) the integrity of the organization I
love and work for, and respecting the autonomy of others -- including
fellow Jigsaw members -- to do what they feel is in their best
interest.

Anyone can do leg work re alternative sources of funds, so if people
want to do that, please bring your findings to the board and
membership for review.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Joshua

[Lee Ann Guertin]

Interesting. Illuminates a lot. If said individual gets or has an individual business license they can pursue as an individual. Remove Jigsaw from the mix then. It is pretty easy to get a registered personal business license. Then simply "rent" space from Jigsaw on behalf of that business as overhead costs. Anyone who uses equipment or resources provided by the partnership with DARPA acknowledges benefit and relinquishment of discoveries or accomplishments made with it. Simple enough contract.

Not such a high effort thing there to get a separate license and solves moral conflicts. If academic and corporate sponsorships aren't being pursued for lack of effort invested or time or interest then that is a whole other issue. Hoping to use the money for direct benefit to Jigsaw accounting and operations and not just at an individual level is where it gets sticky.

Personally I feel pretty darn uncomfortable with such conflict of values being considered "moot".

Sent from my iPhone

[Robin DeBates]

(nonprofit orgs can apply to the DARPA funding opportunity we're talking about, but I don't see anyone currently proposing a project from Jigsaw)

I would like to see Jigsaw creating a project that would look at how quickly a community of people can go from limited tech knowledge/production skills to fabrication of completed projects through running a series of "experiments" on knowledge/skill sharing. Anything that focuses on education would fit in the pervue of Jigsaw that could also overlap with this particular funding opportunity.

There are LOTS of funding opportunities. This one happens to be, I think, shiny because its sleek and DARPA... and comes with a certain weight in the maker/hacker world.

And at the same time, I feel torn about applying for funding as an individual or with a group affiliated with Jigsaw because I am otherwise a military tax resister on a path of peace. There is an instruction in the Buddhist (which I am not) eight-fold path that strongly suggests it is improper for those on such a path to be involved in the manufacture of any kind of weapon. 

The mission of DARPA is to support maintaining military superiority. This is the second of three evaluation criteria for Cyber Fast Track: 

Specifically, DARPA’s mission is to maintain the technological superiority of the U.S. military and prevent technological surprise from harming our national security by sponsoring revolutionary, high-payoff research that bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and their application. In addition, the evaluation will take into consideration the extent to which the proposed intellectual property (IP) rights will potentially impact the Government’s ability to transition the technology.

I don't like this.

But the punk-rock part of me REALLY REALLY likes the idea of taking money from this source, using it to get Jigsaw some awesome tools that we use for our own ends and to better the lives of the community in which we live.... sort of like turing swords into plowshares.

So that's why it feels dilemma-ish to me.

Maybe its more of a personal moral quandry than an organizational one?

Can I also say that I still LOVE being in a place where we can have these conversations and be interested in still hanging around each other?

I do love it. Wrestling with these kinds of things help us see each other and our own values more clearly, I think. And knowing ones values, in my world at least, helps shape action.

R