Progressive political movements and Tor - Uses, traps and necessity.

I have recently seen the BBC's Dark Web a documentary that details the development and use of the Tor encrypted virtual private network. Where privacy is needed, especially in communication with vulnerable people who are subject to persecution by government's this system represents a valuable tool and a life line to external support. Vulnerable people can refer to persecuted ethnic, and political groups, but also to whistle-blowers. The Tor network has been invaluable in exposing the Afghanistan and Iraq war logs(including “collateral murder”), as well as chapters of the Transpacific Partnership Agreement under negotiation.

What use is Tor to a progressive political movement outside of the above uses, and what if any are the risks?

Certainly, participating individuals could speak freely, openly, even crassly or with dark sarcastic humour, without fear of their words being taken out of context as was done in the “fit up” better known as Operation 8.
A risk is that such measures to preserve privacy rival the extent to which establishment reactionary institutions, fascists, and corporations protect their secrets from the public. With the example of the TPPA, being one where if the public knew what was in it, few of the participating governments would find supporting it politically tenable. A legitimate question would be, in the case of a progressive political movement in regard to the use of a tool like Tor, what is being hidden – from the public, or from the prying eyes of the political establishment or law enforcement? While it is unlikely and unforeseeable that anything of legitimate concern to the establishment or law agencies would be transmitted, the question could be pushed by external interests to harm public perception
That use of this technology for a movement's general, policy, strategic and tactical communications would look peculiar to the public, and segments of the media could and likely would play up the paranoia concerning the purpose for which this technology is being employed. In regard to these communications, it seems to me the risks offer greater political costs than the privacy gains.
Typically, the executive membership often lack the technical skill to deal with the management of encryption keys. Just as losing your car keys can ruin your day, failure to correctly deal with encryption keys can leave people completely locked out. However, this problem can be reduced through training, but it can not be eliminated from a large organisation.
The difficulties of managing encryption keys, will lead to frustration among users, and there will be a natural inclination to use other communication channels which may or may not be protected.
The public to which progressive movement are trying to attract are often wary of secrecy, it bothers them, because they have seen a history of secrecy used against the interests of ordinary people like themselves.

Hacking

While a communication technology may be for all intents and purposes, completely secure, people are not, Security experts and hackers, have been known to successfully break into systems by communication with authorised users, and administrators in order to gain credentials and access to secure systems.

In conclusion

This technology should be used sparingly, for what is known as back channel communication with vulnerable individuals and groups. To reduce political backlash, it may be wise to state up front that this is the purpose of this technology, to get ahead of fear-mongering that may have more media leverage if use of the technology was revealed accidentally or by hostile-investigation.
Public support for a progressive political movement, I believe, would be very likely harmed by loss of trust, if secure technology is used for work traditionally done in the open as the public that support progressive ideas, largely see openness as an important, even a core, value.
In short, use sparingly, and be clear about it.
This poorly form and inadequately expressed opinion is based on by experience as a software developer and information technology professional which does not include an in-depth understand of the Tor platform software. I welcome the advice an opinions of those who are more familiar with the technology.

Surveilance with a side of camp farce.

As the world pays attention to the big drama of Edward Snowden as he gains temporary asylum in Russia and Bradley Manning faces sentencing and a possible sentence of 134 years, a smaller scale drama is happening in New Zealand, and this one has a strong element of farcical Campanella.

We here are of course playing host  to the Kim Dotcom saga, in which foreign powers have pressured our authorities to spy on a New Zealand citizen - illegally according to the judgement of our courts.

But in the fallout from that judgement the Kitteridge enquiry was formed to investigate the practice of spying on New Zealanders by the GCSB. Far from a highlighting a supposed isolated nature of the Dotcom case, the Kitteridge report revealed that 88 New Zealanders are or have been spied on in recent time. All this despite current law prohibiting the GCSB from targeting New Zealanders.

The government were sitting on that report, until it was leaked to Parliamentary Journalist Andrea Vance.  The PM was livid, though you might not have noticed with that smile that Heath Ledger made famous in his last blockbuster gig.  The PM set up another enquiry to find the leaker. Eventually they came to the conclusion that MP Peter Dunne, a coalition partner that national actually kind of needs because of its weak majority.  In particular Dunne's vote was needed to get the GCSB Bill through its second reading vote this week.

There have since been revealed serious problems with how that enquiry gathered information from which it formed its conclusions.  First, phone call data, and now emails between Dunne and Vance. While the PM says that releasing this information to the enquiry was a mistake that should be blamed on a contractor, but oops John Key's Chief of Staff actually ordered the release of the information.

This farce isn't so much making the case that we need more survellance as much as it is making the case that governments, especially this government, cannot be trusted with private information.

And this is only when they should be on their best behaviour, while they put on a show to say "We can be trusted to spy on bad people to keep you safe from them." Instead the message that is coming across is "We are the bad people who should never be allowed to spy on anyone."

Never mind maliferous intent, incompetence and paranoia can lead to chilling effects on the exercise of rights to free expression and political criticism.

The last four years have been dotted with big privacy breaches by government departments, From publicly accessible kiosks with access to private information related to clients receiving social security assistance, to Accident Compensation Corporation sending clients files to other clients and in one case being blackmailed for the return of the files.

All this has made New Zealanders wary of claims that we need more surveillance, it just seems like another thing to screw people up.

Talking on morning talk radio in Christchurch the PM made the poorly substantiated claim that there are Al-Qaeda trained New Zealanders operating in New Zealand. If that were true the Police already have the instruments to deal with the threat. Even the dreaded Search and Surveillance Act is ample for their purpose. The Urewera case highlights the paranoia that is a work, after the raids, 18 people were charged, 14 cases fell apart, of the remaining four cases firearms charge did stick, but there was no indication of other crime.  These folks seem to have gotten slammed down for being amateur weekend warriors.

They seek him here, the seek him there...

Edward Snowden may not be the scarlet Pimpernel but that did not stop an unusual search and seizure of a head of state in pursuit of him. Today the plane of President Evo Morales of Bolivia was forced to land in Vienna after Portugal and France refused airspace entry rights. The plane was forced to stay over night while Vienna officials searched the plane  while President Morales was kept in the VIP lounge.

Finally the Spanish ambassador to Vienna when asked what needed to be done to allow the plane to leave the Ambassador said "Lets have coffee on your plane". Later when asked who asked who wanted this search the ambassador's reply was "Friends of Spain." The coffee request is simply a rouse to get on the plane to eyeball it and verify that Edward Snowden was not on board.

In diplomatic terms this is an extraordinary violation of Bolivia's sovereignty on the level of storming an embassy. Essentially, it is unheard of in diplomatic circles. Technically it constitutes an act of  war, but it is unlikely to provoke such an extreme response.

As the search for Edward Snowden continues, an unnamed source confirmed "We have elephant tranquillizers and endoscopes ready, in case he attempts to hide in a trunk. We have been talking to our team at McMurdoe base. The impression we get it those emperor penguins are pretty shifty, and keep hiding something under those feathers." It also our understanding, SETI has been suspended, and assets including the large radio telescope at Arecebo have been re-tasked by a CIA request to search the local galactic group for signs of Edward Snowden  while the public are being told the array is in "hibernation". Researchers at SETI are reported to be excited by a new project, "We have a new exciting line of enquiry SDCI - Search District of Columbia Intelligence". Analysis by observers from several liberal democracies criticize the SDCI project with one saying it is a "hopeless waste of time and resources."

But perhaps, US officials are missing something, about the size of an airport passenger lounge, in Russia. Their first clue should perhaps that Russian officials are get tetchy with Edward Snowden lollygagging on their turf.