Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- articles:guest_article_1 [2025/06/05 14:16] – ipek
+++ articles:guest_article_1 [2025/06/05 14:19] (current) – ipek
@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 In most resources, guides and trainings, the tips and strategies used to protect ourselves from harm when using online tools and digital devices are usually presented using the terms “digital security” or “cybersecurity.” In this manual (and our previous guides), we prefer to focus on “self-defense” from a more self-empowered position rather than on the term “security.” For example, when we think about security we tend to think about something monolithic like a nuclear fallout bunker. While these shelters are certainly considered relatively safe in one of the worst scenarios imaginable, finding security in such a place means there is very little else you can do apart from passively hiding underground until the end of time. Additionally, from the surveillance of citizens in the name of “State security” and the violation of refugees rights in the name of “national security” to ”maximum security prisons” and ”security measures” used to restrict basic human rights for women and children, the word “security” has often been used to support policies that actually limit the freedom of migrants, minorities and even entire populations of totalitarian states.
-When used in the digital sphere, the term “security” additionally usually refers to a top-down vision of protection from digital threats that are often based on mainstream perceptions rather than on facts. For example, consider how [[https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/from-wargames-to-aaron-swartz-how-u-s-anti-hacking-law-went-astray/|the 1983 movie *WarGames* led then-US President Ronald Reagan to sign The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984]] whose interpretation would become so broad and vague that it would eventually turn online activism into a serious felony comparable to an armed attack.[27] As already discussed in the preface, we have more recently seen fighting the “sexual exploitation of children or sex trafficking” used to undermine net neutrality with FOSTA/SESTA, as well as a law package that the EU Commission is currently preparing, referred to as “chat control,” that would enable law enforcement access to all encrypted chat messages under the guise of fighting the “sexual abuse of children.”[28] However, these are just a few examples of how the internet has been demonized and “cybersecurity” has been used as an excuse to keep society under surveillance and control while undermining the usage of digital tools for social justice, individual liberation and free culture.
+When used in the digital sphere, the term “security” additionally usually refers to a top-down vision of protection from digital threats that are often based on mainstream perceptions rather than on facts. For example, consider how [[https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/from-wargames-to-aaron-swartz-how-u-s-anti-hacking-law-went-astray/|the 1983 movie *WarGames* led then-US President Ronald Reagan to sign The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984]] whose interpretation would become so broad and vague that it would eventually turn online activism into a serious felony comparable to an armed attack.[27] As already discussed in the preface, we have more recently seen fighting the “sexual exploitation of children or sex trafficking” used to undermine net neutrality with FOSTA/SESTA, as well as a law package that the EU Commission is currently preparing, referred to as “[[https://edri.org/our-work/why-chat-control-is-so-dangerous/|chat control,]]” that would enable law enforcement access to all encrypted chat messages under the guise of fighting the “sexual abuse of children.”[28] However, these are just a few examples of how the internet has been demonized and “cybersecurity” has been used as an excuse to keep society under surveillance and control while undermining the usage of digital tools for social justice, individual liberation and free culture.
 Without a deep reflection on these trends, often even technologists tend to apply the same top-down cybersecurity approach when using their skills to support grassroots movements and civil society. In the past few years, we have seen attempts at “teaching digital security” to activists and human rights defenders by training them on the use of “secure tools” without making sure that those tools actually matched their threat model with their needs and goals. In the end, this so-called “digital security” approach is counterproductive because tools that are secure but make life more difficult tend to be discarded in favor of less safe approaches that have proved to be good enough to reach a specific outcome. In other words, in emergency cases or when our stress level peaks, we tend to accept some risks as long as we can achieve what we need to overcome an acute crisis.