FWEE!: kiosks

[Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>]

Dave writes on public kiosks:
>[1] Strike One: Installation and maintenance costs (economics again). 
>[They are too high.]

I'm not talking about building a network of machines just for the
purpose of whistleblowing.  I'm talking about making interfaces to
existing systems.  In particular, the public machines at sfnet would
_also_ be interfaces to any whistleblowing system.  The incremental
cost is minimal; it's a small bit of software at the server.

>[2] Strike Two: Lack of Privacy while using the kiosks. 

There is a different kind of privacy in a public space than in private
space.  In a private space, everyone may know where you live, but
nobody knows what goes on inside.  In a public space, everyone may see
what happens, but no one knows who you are.  Please consider these
approximations to reality.

In particular, since it is anonymity which is desired, a public place
is sufficient.

>I think Eric Hughes' argument (with due respects to Eric) about the
>expensive economics of monitoring the kiosks falls down just a tad
>when you consider that these would not even be _moving targets_!

The cost of placing a video camera to monitor a computer inside a
coffeehouse must also include the possibility of negative publicity
and lawsuit when such an emplacement is discovered.  Monitoring a
public place in advance of any "crime" being committed is _very_ bad
for job security and department funding.

>[...] but any such defenses would pale in comparison with the Privacy
>inherent in the WB input from a single user's personal system.

I am also not talking about replacing the ability to post from home.
I am talking about expanding the number of entry points into the
distribution system.

The largest benefit for public-space access is that you can use this
if you don't have a computer at home.  You can also use it if you
don't have a computer at work.

>have the feeling that they would be a PRIMARY contributor to the overall
>bullshit noise that would clutter up a decent WB systems and exponentially
>increase the difficulty of filtering out the "good" stuff for proper use.

A whistleblower system, by default, must be free of judgements about
what is "good" to be on it and what is "bad".  If someone thinks that
something ought to be brought to light, then I say let them speak, no
matter how trivial or inappropriate it might be.

It is easy to ignore messages you don't want to consider.  It is much,
much harder to read messages that the author hesistates to write for
fear of reprisal.  A whistleblower system can tolerate more noise than
usenet, since the core content of it can be so extremely valuable.

If there is only access to a whistleblowing system for those who own
computers or are provided access to them, then any such system will
remain only a tool of the wealthy.  You do not hear of abuses in labor
law from anybody but the employees; these employees do not have
computers.

Anybody who has NATIONAL SECRETS to tell is, I would guess, a fool to
post twice from a particular location.  Anybody who has anything
lengthy or digitally copied to say cannot easily use this system.
It's not conducive to digital signatures.

Public kiosks are not a panacea.  To argue that they should therefore
not exist is nonsense.

Eric