[okfn-advisory] Open Knowledge and Reset the Net

Thu Jun 5 19:36:39 UTC 2014

Glyn, Nat,

Thank you - super helpful and the quick responses are really appreciated.

We've endorsed Reset The Net on Twitter and will see what else we can do
tonight.

Best regards,

Laura

On 5 June 2014 17:42, Nat Torkington <nathan at torkington.com> wrote:

> How I see it ...
>
> It’s appropriate to have multiple levels of “support”: endorse, fund,
> cooperate.  Endorse = web splash and press release; fund = those + $;
> cooperate = staff time and possibly $ towards public or private activity.
>
> The closer to your core mission, the greater the support you can offer.
>
> Your organisation’s reputation is what you “spend” when you endorse
> another project’s actions.  Just as with money, you have to be conservative
> with how you spend your reputation lest it dissipate and your organisation
> stands for nothing but “lefty pinko hippies” or “outrage merchants".  (He
> says, as an outraged lefty pinko hippy)
>
> This means you probably can’t endorse or fund everything that has an
> overlap with your mission.
>
> I would support Reset the Net in particular, as its emphasis is on
> increasing the security of the users of the Internet and this is relevant
> to the subset of the OKFN audience who are data journalists and
> evidence-based pro-democracy activists.   As others pointed out, if the
> data is open but your use of it is surveilled, you won’t be able to effect
> the change you want.
>
> But I’d be cautious about embracing every anti-surveillance
> pro-net-neutrality anti-kettling pro-democracy anti-fox-hunting Internet
> campaign that wanders into your stakeholders’ attention.  You probably have
> room for one of those a year, and where possible a positive one—clicking
> through should HELP your audience, not merely add their name to a pledge or
> protest form.
>
> Cheers;
>
> Nat
> --
> Nat Torkington
> Sent on the hoof
>
> On 5 June 2014 at 9:21:58 am, glyn moody (glyn.moody at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> I feel strongly that you should support Reset the Net in particular,
> and similar moves in general.
>
> Open knowledge is negated by a Net that is subject to almost total
> surveillance - and we are already close that point. A Net where people
> are free to share without constantly looking over their shoulder is an
> essential pre-requisite for everything that Open Knowledge is trying
> to achieve. Refusing to join the efforts to rein in surveillance
> would be not just blinkered and short-sighted, but ultimately
> self-destructive.
>
> On 5 June 2014 17:02, Laura James <laura.james at okfn.org> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I'd love your opinions on this topic - should we formally support
> > initiatives such as Reset the Net which don't have a specific
> open-knowledge
> > aspect? What about Reset the Net specifically?
> >
> > In the thread below, I've followed the stance we've generally had in the
> > past, but perhaps it needs updating - your thoughts would be most helpful
> > and welcome.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Laura
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Laura James <laura.james at okfn.org>
> > Date: 5 June 2014 16:55
> > Subject: Re: [okfn-discuss] OKFN and Reset the Net
> > To: Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list <
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> >
> >
> > Hi Will,
> >
> > I'd be delighted to hear from others what they think and look forward to
> > more responses here.
> >
> > I totally take your point on government surveillance being counter to a
> > supportive environment for open data action, and of course there's lots
> of
> > other supportive environment elements for media and civil society, and we
> > need to figure out which we actively support as an organisation and
> which we
> > don't. My sense would be that 'is there an open knowledge element' is the
> > right line to draw, but that may be wrong if there are other
> non-contentious
> > support areas the full open knowledge community would whole-heartedly
> back.
> > The level of controversy is relevant because if we are representing the
> > whole open knowledge community, we need to have a sense as to whether the
> > whole community would reasonably back it; of course for specific chapters
> > it's their own call as they are only representing their constituency.
> >
> > In the case of Reset the Net specifically, I've seen some opposition
> online
> > to the initiative because it has the backing of Google - what do folks
> here
> > think about that? Is it a concern?
> >
> > Laura
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 June 2014 16:28, William Waites <ww at eris.okfn.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Laura,
> >>
> >> That is a pretty bizarre position to take and seems to show a
> >> surprising lack of understanding of the environment in which OKF
> >> operates. For example, suppose a journalist or civil servant wants to
> >> use some Open Data in order to draw attention to some problem in
> >> government. Do you think it is appropriate for the same government
> >> to be spying on them while they do this and if they are a civil servant
> >> perhaps dismiss them on a pretext before they can finish and publish
> >> their research? Do you think when the public sector publishes
> >> information that it is appropriate to keep tabs on who is using that
> >> information and for what?
> >>
> >> "Does not quite fit within [OKF's] remit" is alarmingly out of step
> >> with the rest of the 'net. Have a look at the list of which other
> >> organisations supporting this and ask yourself if it appears to be
> >> within you understand as their remit.
> >>
> >> Please reconsider :)
> >>
> >> -w
> >>
> >> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:30:40 +0100
> >> Laura James <laura.james at okfn.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Will,
> >> >
> >> > Reset the Net is an interesting initiative around freedom from mass
> >> > surveillance by government. We try to focus our Open Knowledge
> >> > endorsements on projects with a clear open data / open knowledge
> >> > element. There's lots of causes out there which we might well support
> >> > as individuals, especially around digital rights and so forth, but as
> >> > an organisation we feel it's best to focus our support on causes
> >> > directly related to our work and mission, which most likely means
> >> > that we can be confident that Open Knowledge folks would support the
> >> > cause. My sense is that Reset the Net doesn't quite fall within this
> >> > remit; what do others think?
> >> >
> >> > Of course, Local Groups and Chapters may make their own decisions on
> >> > such initiatives, in consultation with the appropriate local board of
> >> > directors and community, and to ensure if they do sign that they make
> >> > it clear what organisation or group they represent - ie the Chapter
> >> > or the specific Local Group.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> >
> >> > Laura
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 5 June 2014 12:19, William Waites <ww at eris.okfn.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > It's not too late, and it'd be really good to have the
> >> > > https://www.resetthenet.org/ banner or splash page up
> >> > > today on the okfn.org web site
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > okfn-discuss mailing list
> >> > > okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> >> > > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> >> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> okfn-discuss mailing list
> >> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> >> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/private/okfn-advisory/attachments/20140605/d37e0bf8/attachment-0003.html>