> Behind the scenes — where unknown administrators are accessing its data and devising and managing protest actions to distribute via the app — there may be an entirely centralized view of available human protest resources. But it’s not clear what the other side of the platform looks like. Our source was unable to show it to us or articulate what it looks like.
It doesn’t seem as decentralized as advertised. The authorities just have to coerce some of the admins and they have a very nice view of what is going on in the movement in real-time.
Torra is the Catalan premier isn't he? But the one to worry about is the Spanish PM. Even the Catalan authorities are subject to their anti-democratic, anti rule-of-law authoritarian whim and fancy: Some are living in exile and others are living in prison for work they did will Catalan authorities.
TLDR: Everyone seems to be assuming that there's a single point of failure, and someone gets to see all the information. I would definitely not build the thing like that if I was the one doing it.
There's not much information about how the application works. What we know is:
- The app seems to use a RetroShare network behind-the-scenes [1].
- RetroShare is a decentralized, serverless, peer-to-peer, meshed, distributed network. When you join you generate a pgp key for yourself and then add "friends" by grabbing their public keys.
- The app needs to be activated through a QR generated from another person's app who's already in.
- The app monitors your location and only shows you close-by actions.
What I would like to confirm:
- Whether the QR is the same for everyone, the same for every person sharing it, or generated on a by-share basis
- Whether RetroShare is actually used or not.
Assumptions I make:
- There's a non-trivial organization behind this
- The organizers do not want to be discovered, and want to have as much "plausible deniability" as possible (they are risking jail time)
Given all the above, here's how I would build this application:
- Create 3 (or 5) "root" keys. The very top people in the org get those.
- When you join the network (by scanning someone's QR), you join the RetroShare network, but also get the root keys id's.
- The app is now ready to handle some message types from the root keys:
1. STOP. Accepted when signed by any of the active root keys. The app stops sending messages.
2. ADD_ZONE. Accepted when signed by a majority of the root keys. Adds a new zone (a geographical bounding box) along with the public key of the zone's commander (someone who can organize stuff in that area).
3. REMOVE_ZONE. Accepted when signed by at least two root keys. Removes a zone because it either has no activity or has been compromised.
- During normal operation, the app tracks the currently active zones and the corresponding zone-masters. It monitors your location, and if you are within a zone it sends "in-zone" notifications to the zone-master.
- The zone-master collects such notifications and sends direct messages to people in their zone when an action is to take place.
As I see it, this would be the simplest setup to accomplish the organizations' goals without much possibility for compromise. As soon as a zone is compromized it can be nuked, and the whole thing can be nuked quickly if some root is compromised too.
You could then start refining this basic idea with extra functionalities. For instance:
- Add/remove root keys to avoid having to nuke everything if a root gets compromised.
- Get the app to send "in-zone" messages to random zones from time to time and then filter received actions according to actual location. This would prevent the organizers (or someone who gets to observe the traffic) from inferring the users' real location.
I have trouble with first world separatist/independence movements (Quebec, Scotland, Basque, Catalan, etc) where it seems there is little real present day issue other than what seems from the outside to be historical grievance and ego.
Scotland's movement can't be called a separatist movement (independence is a better term, but still not great). Scotland is a distinct country within the United Kingdom. It would be more of a withdrawal movement (similar to the UK withdrawing from the EU).
A major political issue in Scotland at the moment (especially in Edinburgh) is Brexit. The majority of Scottish residents voted to remain in the EU, which reignited a movement to leave the UK. I would call this a "real present day issue" and not just "historical grievance and ego".
No, I'm not arguing that Scotland is a "truer" country than Catalonia.
The comment I replied to claimed that most modern separatist/independence movements are caused by historical grievance and ego and not present day issues.
I made two points:
1. Scotland leaving the UK is not comparable to Catalonia leaving Spain. Scotland is a country within the UK. What I mean by country here is that the UK considers Scotland a distinct country. I made the comparison to the UK being a member of the EU because it's a closer example. Spain does not consider Catalonia a country (my opinion doesn't change that fact).
2. Scotland has a "present day issue" relating to the Brexit vote (not to claim there's no historical grievance and ego at play, but it can't be chalked up as just that).
so if the UK stopped "considering" Scotland as a country, would the scottish independence become suddenly illegitimate? Please, give me Boris' number, I have the definitive solution to the scottish problem!
I don't think it is always so clearcut. In many cases the separatist movement only gains traction when a particular region becomes richer than other parts of the country and complains about "supporting" the others.
It becomes a clear case of expecting others to support you when you are down but then keeping profits for yourself when things turn around.
To be clear, my comment below is about separatism in first world nations. If a region is attempting to separate from an oppressive regime, I 100% agree they should.
Generally I tend to support the idea of folks being in control of their own destiny, but I can see why a larger government would not want to allow it. The smaller local government only needs to worry about what is best for itself, while the larger government must think about the nation as a whole.
Looking at California, or New York. If the two decided to separate from the United States, what would be the economic impact to the remaining states in the nation? I’m no economist, but it doesn’t seem good. I imagine this is also true for regions or areas that have strong natural advantages as well. Such as ports which offer military and trade benefits.
I can see both sides. I can feel for folks that want to separate, but also can see why they would not be allowed.
> To be clear, my comment below is about separatism in first world nations. If a region is attempting to separate from an oppressive regime,...
In that case, we are talking about a first world state that is also an oppressive regime (jails political opponents, has paramilitary grops, engages in state terrorism against its own people, etc.)
What happens, then? Do you demote spain as third world (I would totally agreee with that) so you that you can still support the people who want to escape?
Yes, I am. I have lived more than 30 years under the illegitimate spanish occupation and I know what I'm talking about. Now, being an expat, I still follow the events closely, because a large part of my family is still there.
What is the minimum unit of land where you accept that a grouped majority should be allowed to separate? If Girona wants to separate and Barcelona doesn't do you accept the deal?
I think you are implying that if we let really small regions secede, then every town and village could ask for secession if they disagree with provincial or federal policies. And a world with every town/village/city it's own country will be much worse than the current one. I think it's a good question.
We can ask ourselves, what the competing principles here are, as the "right to political self-determination" is not the only principle. One competing principle is stems from the fact that secession requires reorganization of the economic relations between the larger country and the seceding region. As such, there is an economic cost to the country, that must be balanced with the benefit to the world from the region seceding. If the economic cost is high compared to benefit (as is likely for towns), then the country can reasonably deny the secession request.
Of course, if the country is highly oppressive to the region, then the marginal good to the world of a region seceding can be effectively infinite, and then we should always support the secession request.
> In Catalonia less than 50% of people want independence.
Citation needed. The main historical request by pro-independence people has always been for a vote to be held on the matter. Spain has always replied that there will never be such vote.
The results of the TRUE/LEGAL/non-SCAM elections are public for anybody to see it. Five millions of people can vote, 2 millions voted independentist parties. Three millions NOT. Is an easy calculus.
The majority of people do not want to lose their EU and spanish status, and they never wanted it.
"TRUE/LEGAL/non-SCAM" elections are not a referendum about independence, whether you like it or not. They are evidence, evidence that doesn't confirm the very strong claim that "less than 50% of people want independence".
According to the latest such election (2019 spanish general elections), we had [1]:
1.626.001 votes for parties clearly supporting independence (ERC + JxCat + Front Republicà)
678.451 votes for parties that claim other issues are more important (UP + PACMA)
The total numbers for/against independence are not clear and could swing either way. We would need either much more skewed results (to extrapolate from them) or an actual vote on the issue to support the claim that was made here.
Note that I haven't made the opposite claim (more than 50% of people want independence). I just said that in the current situation the way to know would be to hold a vote, and that Spain has always opposed this option.
Therefore the data support perfectly the statement that "In Catalonia less than 50% of people want independence". Nobody stopped they to freely vote other options.
But this is a trap, a fake discussion, because the independentist people in Catalonia don't own the place.
The spanish constitution grants rights to all citizens in Spain to share the whole territory, use the public spaces and infrastructures in their benefit, enjoy nature and stablish, work and live peacefully in any point of the nation that they would desire and choose, without being bullied by the local sheriff or politician.
Catalans did a referendum for independence. The Yes won by 90%. But the referendum was not legal according to the Spanish law. The spanish won't allow a legal referendum because they now there is a majority who want independence.
Again, this "referendum" was a scam designed to have an excuse to push their agenda further. Was totalitarism travestied as democracy carefully designed to steal 47 millions of spaniards from their constitutional rigths
When only people who want independence vote on the referendum, obviously you are going to get such results. If the people opposing independence don't consider the referendum to be legitimate (since you know, it is illegal and against the constitution, and not recognized by the central government), then they are not going to vote on it. And hence the question, why doesn't the Spanish government allow it? Because it is an issue that affects all Spanish citizens, therefore, we should all have a vote on the matter.
I will give you 5 millions of reasons. The lives and patrimony of oppressed non-separatist people living in Cuckoloonia that are exhausted of being harassed day and night by a minority of criminals in power and their army of brainwashed puppets.
Last night the separatists burned cars and bikes, really happy to have started finally their exciting new war in the real world. They crave for blood and having marthyrs to show to the word since years ago. They even have a name for it: WARcelona. Daddy's little psycho and mommy's little soldier.
Some days ago President Torra asked for rebellion against the same government that he swore loyalty. If is not surrealist enough, later he send the autonomic police against the same children. An adolescent lose an eye. A french tourist suffered a heart attack and died after being forced to walk 4 Km to reach the airport. A father must toke their baby and run away from his home in the middle of the nigth because the idiots were burning tires at the street and the smoke goes to the first floor of the next house. They were about to axfixiate the family living above without ever noticing it, or caring for anything. Do you know what was the answer that they gave to this father?: "take it easy, man"
Peaceful? Are you serious? Burned cars, streets on fire, ongoing brawls for the past 4 days. The separatist movement is anything but peaceful, and it is costing everyone in Spain.
The problem with Catalonia is that young people has been brainwashed in school for 40 years. Independence is neither a goal nor desired for the majority of the people living there
I've struggled to sympathize at times, on a case by case basis.
Interesting that the existence of these movements seems strongly tied to the historical granting of autonomy to the regions involved.
I.e, if some degree of autonomy was once granted (take the Basques), I imagine it solidified and now serves to justify the sense of uniqueness. Whereas if it isn't tolerated (i.e, the U.S), separatist movements are nonexistent despite similar cultural differences existing within a country.
Well each US state is more-or-less autonomous compared to the Spanish regions. I guess in America states don't, by and large, correspond to the cultural regions that could become independent.
Also, the movements demanding autonomy predate the autonomy in almost every case (where they subsequently demand independence).
Other times, perhaps the reason for the autonomy demand is not national difference like in the Spanish cases, but simply distance - therefore, it doesn't become a movement for independence. Not only is the autonomy sufficient, but perhaps a backstep is taken: For instance, in mid-19th century Australia the Port Phillip District of NSW demanded autonomy and received a parliament that could do almost anything domestically. Fifty years later, they began reuniting in a federation and there's been not even a hint of independence from Victoria since.
Ultimately I think the reason for separation demands in Europe is because Europe is now the federation level of government, and the regions (Flemish, Catalans, Scots) want a seat at the table. So they're not really demanding independence but separation. This is a normal consequence of forming a federation.
Are you aware of the Texan separatist movement? Basically a bunch of nutcackes and conspiracy theorists, Chuch Norris included but nevertheless it exists.
Who decides if there is an issue? Who decides that the status quo is the absolute best situation?
The answer to both of these questions is the same: established political and business interests.
If you believe in the political right of people to be self-governing, then I see no reason why you wouldn’t support any and all independence movements which sufficiently represent the populace. Of course, in order to minimize rash decisions, some restrictions might be necessary (e.g. only vote on the issue once a decade, when 85% of the population agrees, etc.)
Having said that, I can see other arguments which essentially say that forcing unification is ultimately beneficial for individual citizens, as larger states tend to have more power then smaller ones (i.e. unified Prussia was invaded far less than the loose confederation of German states.) But this seems a bit unlikely in the modern West; an independent Quebec or Scotland isn’t going to get invaded by its neighbors.
Thankfully you have learnt that when something doesn't make sense to you, you should investigate and read further. The fact that 2 of the examples you named are happening in the same country should give you a hint.
It wasn't so long ago that the Catalan language was banned. People who were alive then are still alive today. It's more convenient to buy an umbrella on a sunny day. If they get independence today, they can spend years building up the strength they need to keep out those who would try to destroy their community later on. To describe anything as "historical grievance" that isn't happening right now is naive. It hasn't taken long for formerly second world states like Poland and Hungary to prove that democracy rule of law, even in the EU, aren't things that you can count on for decades to come.
In first world European cases, though, I think it's much less about independence and far more about being a top level subdivision of a country. Catalan, Flanders, Scotland etc want to become member-states in the EU with a seat at that table. They're after a seat at the table that decides the rules that govern them, and want to be able to defend their own interests. This is, after all, the point of a federation, so it's a natural thing to want: If it weren't a valid desire, the heads of government of the member states would not have a role in the EU. It's fairly common for territories to be cut up and distinct parts removed once they join a federation, especially when they're at least as large and diverse as Europe (take a squizz at India's states).
The Second Spanish Republic (1931–1939) saw a brief period of tolerance, with most restrictions against Catalan being lifted.[6] Despite orthographic standardization in 1913 and the official status of the language during the Second Spanish Republic (1931–39) the Francoist dictatorship banned the use of Catalan in schools and in the public administration between 1939 and 1975.
You would be a separatist too if you were stolen 10% of your gross domestic product every year; you would be a separatist too if every law passed by your parliment was rejected by your spanish masters; you would be a separatist too if your language was being constantly attacked; if your media was threatened to be shut down; if your health care system was attacked; the list goes on an on. For Catalonia it is either independence or submission. Easy choice if you ask me.
It's basically high unemployment among the youth and a new economic crisis looming ahead. The whole issue here is jailing the separatist leaders, which was a very dumb thing to do. I haven't heard much from the basque movement since the 80s when they engaged in terrorist activities. Also expect Irish nationalists to re-emerge in Northern Ireland after Brexit. They already killed a journalist. Scotland will probably have another referendum.
If it was about that, they would have made a case for secession before Congress prior to attacking Fort Sumter. Surely the right of revolution should only be invoked after at least making an effort at a compromise before attacking.
The domestic political processes of the United States, even when they amount to a civil war, are not binding on other states, however similar or dissimilar they be. I can imagine California would be prevented if they asked for independence today, but Scotland looked pretty much free to go if they'd wanted it recently.
The Civil War was not about some kind of ideal of decentralization and certainly was not about today's pining for city-states. It was mostly about slavery, with some esoteric political theory tacked on to the Confederate Constitution to save face.
Not exactly. Those who wanted out of that fairly free arrangement did not want others to get out of literal bondage. The freedom to oppress is not what I was talking about.
It doesn’t seem as decentralized as advertised. The authorities just have to coerce some of the admins and they have a very nice view of what is going on in the movement in real-time.