convore.json/groups/socal-martial-law-alerts/mobile-tech-activists-wary-of-state-department-cash/messages.json

[{"user_id": 11626, "stars": [], "topic_id": 8688, "date_created": 1298529595.9271121, "message": "If technology advisers to online activists have their way, the mobile phones in the pockets of the democracy protesters reshaping the Middle East will have circumvention and anonymity tools built in to them, and they\u2019ll be able to go blank if pro-regime goons confiscate them. The State Department wants to fund the development of precisely such activist tools. Only the activists aren\u2019t exactly jumping to take the government\u2019s cash.\r\n\r\nIn a speech last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she\u2019d make available $25 million for a \u201cventure capital approach\u201d to underwriting new tools to keep the Internet open in repressive nations. She singled out mobile technologies as increasingly important. But some observers and developers, while lauding the move, aren\u2019t so sure the rigid bureaucracy of the State Department can accommodate the approach.\r\n\r\nNathan Freitas of the Guardian Project, which designs Android-based tools for mobile anonymity, says he\u2019s not going to apply for any of State\u2019s money. \u201cAccounting complexity of process means we\u2019d have to spend 25 percent of it\u201d on an accountant, he says, while praising the idea in theory.\r\n\r\nSame goes for Katrin Verclas of MobileActive.org, which advises activists and non-governmental organizations on how to minimize security risks on their mobile devices. Verclas likes where State is coming from, as she thinks it\u2019ll expand the pool of government funding recipients beyond the typical Beltway aid groups who \u201cknow how to navigate the system.\u201d But she\u2019s not seeking the aid herself until she has a \u201creally great project\u201d ready to pitch.\r\n\r\nWhich might be surprising, because both of them have lots of ideas for how activists need to protect themselves when using their mobile devices. The basic problem is that mobiles are \u201chighly traceable, trackable and centralized,\u201d as Verclas puts it, with carriers possessing a lot of information on their users and without many circumvention tools developed for mobile phones. One of Freitas\u2019 efforts is Orbot, a proxy tool for Android phones that uses Tor to block mobile carriers from accessing their data usage.\r\n\r\nAnd the phones are potential security risks even when they\u2019re switched off. Verclas sees a big need for a remotely activated \u201ckill switch\u201d that can cleanse a phone of its stored contacts or its recent Twitter or SMS activity when an activist gets arrested, so as not to alert authorities to the names of other dissidents. Activists tell her they\u2019d like to have some kind of phone wiping occur \u201cwith a simple command while an arrest is taking place, or for an ally to do that remotely via SMS or something.\u201d\r\n\r\nFreitas worries about the proliferation of camera phones \u2014 a somewhat counterintuitive concern, given the power of viral videos to inspire a protest movement or galvanize outside support. But impromptu video can reveal sensitive information like people\u2019s faces. He sees a need to \u201ctap on these faces and blur them out\u201d before an innocent upload accidentally gives away someone\u2019s identity and puts them in the crosshairs of a regime.\r\n\r\nThese are the kinds of ideas that the State Department says it wants to fund. But it\u2019s just not clear how nimble the department can really be in dishing out money responsibly \u2014 a good-government encumbrance, remember \u2014 or even what it really means by a \u201cventure capital approach,\u201d says Sheldon Himmelfarb, a technology expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace.\r\n\r\nWhen venture capital firms find a promising technology, they\u2019re \u201cable to turn lots of focus, attention, people, brainpower and resources to taking that to market, and the State Department doesn\u2019t work that way,\u201d Himmelfarb says. \u201cIt\u2019s really interesting to hear them talk about a venture capital-style approach, but try to unpack that. Apparently, they\u2019re going to give money to lots of organizations in the hope of bringing about breakthrough technologies, but how are they going to bring them to market?\u201d\r\n\r\nIndeed, just last week, Sen. Richard Lugar identified at least $8 million in money the department hadn\u2019t spent that Congress provided to help Chinese Internet users evade restrictions.\r\n\r\nThat\u2019s not to say State\u2019s approach doesn\u2019t have its virtues. \u201cVenture capital firms own half your company, while [here] the U.S. government owns nothing,\u201d Freitas says, \u201cso there is that benefit if you figure out how to make it work.\u201d\r\n\r\nAnd Himmelfarb notes that the $25 million pot of cash is a \u201csignificant amount of money for this effort.\u201d According to his research, the Tor Project\u2019s 2009 budget was $1.25 million, so it\u2019s not as if these tools are particularly expensive to develop. Rather, he says, \u201cwe have to make sure the approach is one we\u2019re in position to take advantage of.\u201d After the success of the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, there\u2019s not going to be any shortage of demand for tools that can keep activists off the radar of the tyrants they\u2019re trying to overthrow.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2011/02/mobileactivists.jpg\r\n\r\nhttp://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/02/mobile-tech-activists-wary-of-state-department-cash/", "group_id": 3920, "id": 195812}]