[cap-talk] Correlating Bitfrost with Threats

[James A. Donald]

Stiegler, Marc D wrote:
> OLPC has the power to decide, should we empower thugs.

If you make security available to thugs, and available to end users, you 
are not empowering thugs.  Those who get their computers via thugs are 
empowering thugs.  People have to free themselves.  You can make 
available to them the tools to free themselves, but if they are not 
going to go the extra mile to get those tools, @#$%^& them.

Bitfrost's source code is going to be available.  People will have a 
choice to run their version or the government's version.  Most people 
will run the government's version, and get what they deserve.  Most 
people are born to be slaves, and resent freedom.

> I confess, I made
> my choice over 20 years ago, when I worked for a company that wanted to
> put me to work on a project to build a national ID card system for the
> dictator of Egypt. I declined. Indeed, I declined rather, uh,
> ferociously, sending a memo to the CEO vigorously explaining why it was
> unacceptable for that company, with the code of business conduct that it
> held for itself, to engage in such activity.

That was the right thing to do with a tyrants ID card, and it would be 
the right thing to do if the government version of Bitfrost was going to 
be imposed on everyone's computer.

Bitfrost is not going to be imposed.  It is going to be given away by 
the government.  People will still be free to use some other version of 
software on their own computer, and, more importantly, free to get the 
Bitfrost source code and fix it so that it serves them and not the 
government that paid to have it written.

Bitfrost will make people free - it will make free those that want it to 
make them free.

> Having said all that, please note, I also pointed out other problems
> with the tyranny-friendly features, notably that, from a strictly
> software architectural standpoint, the centralized systems produce
> central points of failure. I also offered alternatives that met the
> stated goals as well or better. 

The stated goals are just a politeness.  The customer is not only right, 
but also handsome, charming, good hearted, and a pleasure to do business 
with.  Let us not mention the actual goals, speaking of them is bad for 
business.

 > If the governments don't really want
> anti-theft, but really really demand a national ID system, let us force
> them to state so clearly. 

But this is not a national ID system.  It is an ID system for computers 
that the government has bought and paid for.  People who want to be free 
should buy their own @#$%^&* computers.  You are never going to free the 
masses, and trying to do so will just bring you grief.