"There was a meeting yesterday, and there was no laptop....
- the result of the meeting was to stay in touch"
Technical server interchange, merged with the meeting on our communication channels. In a positive discussion that felt meaningful, there were decisions made below, and also discussion about Communication with users, a common visibility of autonomous servers - somehow.
- We wanted to stay together as a network of servers rooted in radical social movement
- Those groups fitting into the network would have their own channel of communication
- Those groups and others not fitting the definition could join a more open discussion channel
- Physical channels: annual meetings, sofa surfing
- Admit the limits of our tools for networking, so hardening the links more than websites and mailinglists, common projects and relationship through direct human communication.
- maintain the stamp-ds mailing list as a communication channel for everyone here, and create others for other purpose.
Notes from an important discussion between riseup and gitoyen notes made on the wiki http://stamp.poivron.org/SecurityProtocolsWorkingGroup/DraftTwo/Comments Workflow / implementation route to be agreed here.
Notes: Concern about security, and enforcing security. Developing a securitarian society. It is important as activists to be secure, but we shouldn't be encouraging a society with so many locks.
- Q: How to proceed with this? A: Issue flagged for discussion in the working group Q: Problem in publishing a logo that states "we do no logging" or what ever. It's good, but... it is not a good idea to give this information away. What's the point in it. A web of trust, why? A: The things about are best practises, that don't necessarily refer to privacy are important, but there should be something that just refers to specific. Something new groups can actually achieve. This concern should also be addressed and discussed It is always a discussion about how much you make public, which is then obvious to the state. But it is also a question of public education. As a user I would not known about the issue if there hadn't been this discussion within indymedia. For me it was important to learn about the discussion within autonomous servers to understand why they are important. Maybe they don't need to be in a document like this, but they need to be made known to the users. Logging IPs, it's not legal not to log in some countries under some cirucmstances. It is cool if there is a way of taking part and still logging IP Has the question of logging being good or bad been solved. The Basque group made an example of obvious logging. Q: I don't get why it is a problem not making it clear that you aren't logging? A: it is a technical issue I wouldn't want to make public, maybe conservative about this A: To explain to people what the differences between us and commercial hosts it is a clear easy way, we are not logging ip addresses is good. A: I feel like the question you ask is what is the point of the whole thing? We had the discussion here, it is voluntary. If there are some points you do agree with, and some you don't then we could have a discussion about which bits you need to subscribe to and which bits are obtional There is no consensus about logging, there can't be, there are different practises. The thing everyone agreed about was "reducing to the maximum extent to our data to the police" "We've coined something about the beer-to-beer network, it should continue there and go on the wiki too" We should have at least two servers who agree to this by the end of the conference.
Connections to legal internet people, and radical civil society groups. Where can this fit in. From UK server siezure situation, was helpful to have the wider network. This would be good to make more concrete - talk to Ionnek.
No further report, there is an outline. It will be bought back for discussion soon. "Water-Water network will commence again soon".