[Imc-uk-process] Re: [Imc-uk-video] video / file uploads report back from imc-uk ircmeeting, sunday 21 march 2004

[kriptick]

----- Original Message -----
From: <ben at riseup.net>
To: "uk indymedia video subgroup list" <imc-uk-video at lists.indymedia.org>;
"kriptick" <kriptick at beeb.net>
Cc: "uk indymedia video subgroup list" <imc-uk-video at lists.indymedia.org>;
<imc-uk-tech at lists.indymedia.org>; <Imc-uk-process at lists.indymedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Imc-uk-video] video / file uploads report back from imc-uk
ircmeeting, sunday 21 march 2004


> I must say I agree with kriptic that the publish form defaulting to
> encrypted is a problem - not just because of the video issue but also
> because of the intimidating messages.
>
> I propose we switch it round so the default is unencrypted and people have
> the option to encrypt. I can however see arguments for defaulting to
> encrypted and if there was a seperate publish form for video and a
> certification system for the encryption, then I'd agree it's best the way
> it is currently.
>
Yep, I was quite surprised to hear that the reason for encryption is just
so's peeps can upload from work without being spied on. Fact is many
capitalist workplaces would take a dim view of their employees just browsing
the site from work not just publishing to it so you could argue that all
access to the site should be encrypted which'd be absurd cos of the overhead
etc. So setting the default publish mode to non-encrypted would I think sort
it very well. 95% of publishers probably don't give a toss about encryption
or even understand it. If someone's uploading something really dodgy then
they can and should access the site from some back street internet cafe.