[Battlemesh] New name for the Battlemesh?

[yanosz]

Heiho,

Am 04/02/2020 um 13.09 schrieb Vincent Wiemann:
> Hi yanosz,
> 
> On 04.02.20 12:02, yanosz wrote:
>>> as long as mesh technology is mostly promoted by military suppliers, I like the name as it brings awareness.
>>> Battlemesh is a good place to share ideas and I would miss the military people.
>>
>> You misunderstood the origin - there is no military reference. It can be
>> understood regarding rap music, where artists perform in a given setting.
> 
> I didn't think that a reference to the military was intended, but it's funny that people from the military milieu do.

For me this sad - not funny.

> Some people even think the B.A.T.M.A.N. logo is a reference to drones...
> About 1/10th of the people I talked to did have a military or aerospace background.
> People researching on submarine and satellite communications, upgrading field telephones, building radar and WLAN locating mechanisms,
> building own radio boards, using transverters for using another spectrum, communicating in underground facilities,
> communicating over long distances with cross-polarized omni antennas...

That's the reason I've come up with COSLi - https://cosli.eu

> The reality is that WLAN and mesh technology are used for battlefield communication and that is open knowledge
> and it's naive and even dangerous to think these people don't attend Battlemesh.

I've no illusions here - but usually make very clear, that I'm not
interested in building weapons due to my conscious. A lot of stuff is
dual-use, but the case-by-base intentions definitely matter for me.

It's the use-case and the intention, which is making the difference in
dual-use situations.

> Thus I think it's good to be aware and there is no reason to change the name, as it doesn't change anything.
> It's better to be paranoid than naive and it's better when these people get in touch with people with critical thinking...

Your reasoning appears to be bouncing between two extremes. IMHO having
a nice and inviting name focusing on non-military use-case is open to
people and encourages them to participate.

>> Typically hitting civilians, mines effectively violate the Geneva treaty
>> and are understood to be a war crime.
> 
> Yes, that sucks. I totally agree with you...
> 
>>> You should keep in mind that only Russia, China and the USA have a good alternative to mesh technology (satellites).
>>
>> These countries are the prominent for not being subject to international
>> jurisdiction and cannot be made responsible for war crimes.
> 
> Thus I think the rest of the world should at least have a good mesh system without any backdoors.

For the purpose of controlling landmines? I don't think so.

>>> Would it be better to have "satellite mines"?
>>
>> I don't see, in what way a decision based on ethics could prefer one way
>> for committing war crimes over another.
> 
> Holding the balance of power is everything one can do for peace. 

I disagree. There are other things that you can do for peace.

If you look at history, peace among European nation states or in civil
wars (e.g. Nothern Ireland), does not solely exists due to a balance of
power. Economic interest and methods for resolving conflicts play a very
important role.

> One needs to increase the costs of war on both sides.
> Everything else leads to a one-world government restricting the freedom of the people in the long-run.

I don't see, why methods for resolving conflicts - being part of your
definition of "every thing else" - such as non-violent communication
will result to a one-world government restricting freedom. (c.f.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Rosenberg). This is just absurd.

> If we could somehow discourage the US government from using smart meshed land or sea mines, the best thing that could
> happen is that they switch to satellite communication and the worst thing that they use primitive mines which can't be defused just by sending a radio signal.

You can neither expect smart-mines to be defused with a 100% success
rate (hint: this is more than six-sigma), nor to avoid civilians while
there are armed.

The difference between a war crime and an act of war is whether the
Geneva treaty is respected, i.e. civilians are protected. That means
aiming at military personal, /only/. A mine cannot aim at somebody.

I'm against having war criminals and their collaborationist at battlemesh.

>>> What's worse? Having open access to and knowledge of military technology or building flawed systems in secret which decide
>>> on war or peace?
>>
>> It's worse to hand over decision on war in peace to technology.
> 
> Yes, but it has already been done (nuclear bombs) and there is no way back.
> The modern battlefield needs battlefield management and communication systems.
> Every country has them today. At least since Xiang Li sold cracked versions of AGI systems' battlefield management system for
> $1000 on CRACK99. For using battlefield management systems one needs a battlefield communication system.
> And these need to be deployable in an idiot-proof way. That's where mesh comes into play.
I'm not interested in building these systems and I won't attend
conferences on doing so.

Greetz, yanosz

-- 
There's a ripped off cord
To my TV screen
With a note saying:
"Im not afraid to dream"
-- Donkey Boy, Crazy Something Normal