The security and privacy issues in current internet infrastructure are of course very serious, and a meaningful solution to them will probably need to be "full stack," but this project doesn't look like the solution we need. It doesn't seem like any serious thought has been put into how all these technologies will create an actual protocol stack; its just a list of a bunch of projects GNU people like.
Honestly, GNU might have the world's worst marketing:product quality ratio.
I empathize with their goals, but the jargon limits this to an audience consisting entirely of the choir, and the tone is so preachy that not even the choir will want to listen.
I think it's always been this way. GNU is mostly known for its userspace base system. They have a few higher level applications like MediaGoblin, Health and Octave, but those are outliers. Then GNOME is practically a separate project these days, despite ostensibly being part of GNU.
It's the FSF that reaches the wider audiences through their guerrilla tactics.
That is just an awful page and there really, really is no excuse for the sheer terrible.
The idea is nice but the delivery is so bad that I think you should go back to the drawing board. If you communicate this poorly it'll never see real adoption.
No offense but you've made life difficult for:
1) Screen readers.
2) Colorblind folks.
3) Anyone with poor eyesight, really, by basically making the font a different shade of the same color on the background.
Please fix the site before you try to publicize this more. :/
"Theory and practice of a completely encrypted and obfuscated new Internet stack..."
OK.
"... enabling us to unfold a carefree digital living."
With completely untraceable digital harassers. Lovely.
The thing is, the problem they're trying to solve is real. Governments aren't angels; they're composed of human beings who are selfish, manipulative, and power hungry, and who are far too often willing to step beyond the rule of law because "the situation demanded it" (or because they really wanted to). But the rest of the problem is, the people aren't angels either, and if you give them a completely anonymous internet, they won't just use it against governments that overstep their bounds. They'll use it against each other, too, in some spectacularly nasty ways.
That web site has the worst of both worlds. It has "modern" minimalist design optimized for cell phones, with lots of colored blank space, low contrast between text and background, and few links. Then the content is GNU-quality, strong on code and mechanism and weak on design intent.
This proposes a port-knocking scheme to deter port scanning. 20 minutes of sickly yellow on purple PowerPoint. That's an idea of limited value; port-knocking is security by obscurity. Any widespread use of port-knocking implies it will be known to attackers.
The legislative proposal is to require end to end cell phone encryption plus onion routing for all phones. Maybe for other devices; there are sections in the document labelled "Fixme" on that. Specific encryption standards are specified; unclear if those are good choices or not. The overhead and lag for onion routing for voice would be high.
It's worth having this out there, but it's not a plan, it's a collection of stuff in search of a plan.
I mean, was it ever not broken? The people who "broke" it were the designers, assuming we're following your definition of "does not provide strong guarantees about privacy" is broken.
There must be some mistake. The project map mentions "Microsoft", not "Micro$oft". Or perhaps they thought "Faceboogle" was so clever they didn't need to be childish with other names?
GNU has survived in spite of itself and not because of it's message. It succeeds because the products under the GNU umbrella are world class. Very few people and a good portion of the technical community does not subscribe to the ideology or is just not interested in it. Hell, even Linus isn't completely subscribed to the GNU philosophy. He made sideshows in Microsoft Powerpoint at Linux presentations in the early days.
Yes, but the point actually being made is that the name GNU (GNU's Not Unix) is esoteric && dated. Notwithstanding the org's prior accomplishments of course.
As a colorblind user who also wears glasses, I found this site very difficult to read. If you want your message to be accessible to all, please consider using larger text, not putting text in images, and using a text color that has significant contrast from the background.
