BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Incentives are the best way to produce effective, affordable software

The West has clear reasons to seek to provide the software necessary for anonymity to people involved in uprisings, and it has the means. Western countries are the most advanced technologically and have been the leaders in creating and developing the internet and thus they are best suited to producing and disseminating this technology. Firstly, as they are more advanced in software development, the products they distribute will be much more difficult for the target regimes’ to hack or subvert to their own advantage, or at least significantly more difficult to than were it produced in any other locale.1 Secondly, the efficient production of software requires special industry clusters. These exist almost exclusively in the West. Silicon Valley, for example is the high tech capital of the world, and were companies there incentivized to produce software for the participants of uprisings it would be a simple matter of efficient distribution, which these firms are best in the world at doing. The need for subsidy is also clear. People involved in uprisings tend not to have huge amounts of disposable income, so to date there has been little market for the production of these sorts of software devices. With a subsidy from Western governments the incentive is created and a top quality product that will save lives and make the uprising more likely to succeed is born. 1Paul, I. and Zlutnick, D. “Networking Rebellion: Digital Policing and Revolt in the Arab Uprisings”. The Abolitionist. 29 August 2012. http://abolitionistpaper.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/networking-rebellion-digital-policing-and-revolt-in-the-arab-uprisings/
It is a means of vocalizing support for uprisings and liberty at a remove, preventing the backlash of direct intervention

By enacting this subsidy, the West makes a tacit public statement in favour of those involved in uprisings without coming out and publicly taking a side. This is a shrewd position to take as it blunts many of the fall-backs opposed regimes rely upon, such as blaming Western provocateurs for instigating the uprising. Rather than making a judgment call involving force or sanction, the simple provision of anonymity means the people involved in the uprisings can do it themselves while knowing they have some protections to fall back on that the West alone could provide. This is a purely enabling policy, giving activists on the group access to the freedom of information and expression, which aids not only in their aim to free themselves from tyranny, but also abets the West’s efforts to portray itself publicly as a proponent of justice for all, not just those it happens to favour as a geopolitical ally. In essence, the policy is a public statement of support for the ideas behind uprisings absent the specific taking of sides in a particular conflict. It throws some advantages to those seeking to rise up without undermining their cause through overbearing Western intervention. And that statement is a valuable one for Western states to make, because democracies tend to be more stable, more able to grow economically and socially in the long term, and are more amenable to trade and discourse with the West. By enacting this policy the West can succeed in this geopolitical aim without making the risers seem to be Western pawns.
Justice demands that those who seek actual political redress be sorted from opportunistic marauders

The technology of anonymity can have the effect of providing needed security to dissidents seeking to make their country a better place, but it is just as likely to provide cover for the violent opportunists that arise in the midst of the chaos. When the state is unable to locate the culprits, and even to sort between those who are dissidents from those who are mere criminals, everyone involved gets blamed for the worst excesses of the chaos, discrediting the people with legitimate claims. Anonymity is a dangerous tool to give anyone, but particularly so in the context of violent uprising where it can be taken up by anyone. All governments, even authoritarian ones, have a right to defend their citizens from violent criminals capitalizing on mayhem. Western governments only make the cause of justice, often a tenuous one in these countries, all the more likely to go undefended, as governments are forced to clamp down on everyone, and find excuse in the looters to discredit the entirety of uprising with the same brush of destruction. Worse still is the possibility that the technology could fall into the hands of dangerous groups such as terrorists and militants who might use the greater safety of anonymity to increase their reach and scope of violence so turning the software against its creators.
Clandestine aid to dissidents will serve to alienate and close off discourse on policy

Reform in oppressive regimes, or ones that have less than stellar democratic and human rights records that might precipitate an uprising, is often slow in coming, and external pressures are generally looked upon with suspicion. The most effective way for Western countries to effect change is to engage with repressive regimes and to encourage them to reform their systems. By not directly antagonizing, but instead trading, talking, and generally building ties with countries, Western states can put to full use their massive economic power and political capital to good use in coaxing governments toward reform.1 Peaceful evolution toward democracy results in far less bloodshed and instability, and should thus be the priority for Western governments seeking to change the behaviour of states. Militant action invariably begets militant response. And providing a mechanism for armed and violent resistance to better evade the detection of the state could well be considered a militant action. The only outcome that would arise from this policy is a regime that is far less well disposed to the ideas of the West. This is because those ideas now carry the weight of foreign governments seeking actively to destabilize and abet the overthrow of their regimes, which, unsurprisingly, they consider to be wholly legitimate. A policy of flouting national laws will demand a negative response from the regimes, leading them to take harsh measures, such as curtailing access to the internet at all in times of uprising, which would be a major blow to domestic dissidents who, even with heavy censorship, still rely on the internet to organize and share information. This action would serve simply to further impoverish the people of useful tools for organization and uprising, such as occurred in Russia when the government ejected American NGOs they perceived as trying to undermine the regime.2 1Larison, D. 2012. “Engagement is Not Appeasement”. The American Conservative. Available: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/engagement-is-not-appeasement/ 2Brunwasser, M. “Russia Boots USAID in a Big Blow to Obama’s ‘Reset’ Policy”. September 2012. http://www.theworld.org/2012/09/russia-boots-usaid-in-a-big-blow-to-obamas-reset-policy/
Aiding of the agents of chaos will allow the government to discredit the uprisings as being instigated and abetted by the West

The fact that dissidents can be conflated with other rioters gives real power to the government to discredit the uprising. Firstly, they can report the rioting and looting in tandem with the uprising, as they hide behind anonymity, making it difficult to ascertain specific agents and their directives. Secondly, the regime can identify the West as the instigator of the unrest. This is what Iran’s leaders did during the Green Revolution, when it blamed the foreign tools of dissent like Twitter and other social media for aiding in the rebel protests.1 This two-pronged attack can be used to drive a wedge between the general public and the leaders and primary agents of dissent seeking to build a broad base of support, a necessary prerequisite for an uprising to succeed. While anonymity gives some ability for individual leaders to hide themselves in the crowd, they lose their moral authority and impact when they can be easily construed as cowardly Western-backed agénts provocateur. 1Flock, E., “Iran Gets Back E-mail Access, But Other Sites Remain Blacked Out Ahead of Protest”. Washington Post. 13 February 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/iran-gets-back-e-mail-access-but-other-sites-remain-blacked-out-ahead-of-protest/2012/02/13/gIQAgxz5AR_blog.html
Western businesses will be forced out of lucrative markets

The Western firms being incentivized to produce and distribute this software will require at least some market penetration to be able to reach these dissidents. This means they have business interests in these countries that may well be important to their own bottom line and to jobs back home. Putting these relationships and long-standing business arrangements at risk through a risky gamble like software specifically to help rebels is foolhardy. When regimes that are the target of these efforts get wind of these efforts, they will no doubt sever ties, damaging long term business interests, which is particularly damaging considering it is in authoritarian regimes like China and Vietnam that technology companies see the greatest room for growth.1 The illusory benefits of catalysing regime change are far outweighed by the huge potential business costs. Furthermore, the ability of businesses to help effect change in these countries is hampered by this policy. It is the business interests linked directly into these economies that generate the most sharing of ideas and principles. It is through these channels that eventual reforms shall flow. It is best not to cut the tap for an all-or-nothing play. 1The Star Online. “Intel Upbeat on South-East Asia, Sees Double-Digit Growth for Processor Manufacture Next Year”. 12 November 2012. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/12/11/business/12441053&sec=business
Anonymity software helps to guarantee protection for people involved in uprisings

First it is wrong to simply assume that this will guarantee protection for people involved in uprisings. Previous attempts at providing software to help dissenters have had security vulnerabilities that could have allowed the regime to expose its users identities. This was the case with Haystack a tool that was meant to keep users anonymous during the failed green revolution in Iran.1 Second providing anonymity and thus snubbing the regimes that survive uprisings means those states will be less willing to envision working with the West toward reforms. When an uprising occurs clearly something needs to change. But when the West is putting such undue pressure on a government, it will not react in a way that would benefit the civil rights of the people. Operating from a position of weakness, it will seek to retrench its strength, through force if necessary. Anonymity means little in this scenario, as governments can simply round up all participants in protests and enact harsh punishments to deter future acts. 1Zetter, K., “Privacy Tool for Iranian Activists Disabled After Security Holes Exposed”, WIRED, 14 September 2010. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/haystack/
Western states have a duty to aid those striving for the ideals they cherish

Western states, like all states, owe their primary responsibility to their own citizens, not those in a distant land claiming to be striving for common notions of rights. It is difficult for Western states to ascertain the actual motivations of the body of risers in any given scenario, let alone the motivations of specific individuals utilizing the technology. The West is not necessarily aiding seekers after freedom by providing this technology, but may rather be abetting crimes and violence worse than the regime being challenged. The nature of the technology is that it would have to be indiscriminate, making it unsuited to the task of aiding in the liberation of oppressed peoples.
Incentives are the best way to produce effective, affordable software

All software can be hacked, even with cruder hardware and software. The ability of Chinese hackers to undermine businesses’ advanced firewalls in the United States, having demonstrated a potent ability to penetrate several major media companies.1 Products made in the West with government subsidy will just have a bloated price tag thanks to the extra costs of production in the West, and the tendency to overrun costs that tends to occur when government is involved. The incentive may not even be enough to persuade many software companies to work on such a project, as they will wish to maintain their markets in authorotarian states such as China which such an innitiative would annoy. China in particular has a history of blacklisting and retaliating against companies that are involved in activities that it sees as being against its national interests. 1Pakzad, X. “Depth of Cyber Attacks from Chinese Hackers on American News Outlets”. IVN. 9 February 2013. http://ivn.us/2013/02/09/depth-of-cyber-attacks-from-chinese-hackers-on-american-news-outlets/
It is a means of vocalizing support for uprisings and liberty at a remove, preventing the backlash of direct intervention

Whether the West thinks it is being clever by hiding behind the intermediary of private companies and acting as if the software they are creating is not for use in destabilizing undemocratic, or perhaps just unfriendly, regimes, that story will not fly on the ground. If the west wants to support uprisings then it is better for it to do so in the open. Without open western support authoritarian regimes will feel they are enabled to crack down on uprisings when they occur. When such crackdowns occur democratic states can either stay silent and so tacitly endorse the regime or condemn it so supporting the uprising.
Justice demands that those who seek actual political redress be sorted from opportunistic marauders

Regimes will paint everyone as looters and disturbers of order irrespective of anonymity. This software changes that status quo by offering the political dissidents, the real people regimes will be trying to root out during and in the aftermath of uprisings, a means of not falling immediately foul of the state security forces. They are the people that need protection in this scenario because it is on them that the success of the uprising and its ideals rest.
Forcible "liberation" is contrary to the principle of self determination

There are certainly difficulties in seeing how an independent North Korea could be reasonably expected to joined the global community of nations. However, that is not the case here. There are still ties between the North and South, of blood and kindred if nothing else, two potent forces in Korean culture and Confucian thought. The situation is different from Iraq and the lessons of the De-Ba’athication process appear to have been learnt; that middle ranking, and often senior, apparatchiks do not necessarily have a loyalty to the former regime. De-Ba’athication was much more extensive than its equivalent in post-communist Europe where generally only those over a certain level were excluded[1] while after World War II very few Japanese were excluded from the bureaucracy.[2] It seems unlikely that the mistake would be repeated. The closest analogy to where the North is now is not the oft-cited East Germany but South Korea’s own prodigious economic growth. On the basis of which there should be huge optimism at the prospect of reunification. Reunification looks almost inevitable as the state quietly implodes. The leadership in North Korea are not fools, they see the economic data and know that change is needed. There is even talk of not accepting Kim Jong Un’s designated successor. As a result reunification can take place after a long period of decline which leaves the country needing even more effort and money to rebuild or following decisive action. There is every reason to suspect that there is genuine dissatisfaction in the North and certainly the accounts and actions of defectors would suggest this to be the case. [1] Williams, Kieran et al., ‘Explaining Lustration in Eastern Europe: ‘A Post-communist approach’’, SEI Working Paper No 62, 2003, p.2 [2] Arato, Andrew, ‘The Occupation of Iraq and the Difficult Transition from Dictatorship’, Constellations, Volume 10, Number 3, 2003, p.9
There is little interest in unification among young people in South Korea

Although the younger generation in South Korea doesn’t have the hunger for reunification of their parents and grandparents, very few are hostile to the prospect per se, they are only concerned about the cost. It seems unlikely that this would in any way reflect the ‘50-53 war which was a battle between the US, the Soviet Union and China and just happened to be hosted on the peninsula and to its huge cost. One of the advantages of involving China is that it would be the clearest possible demonstration to the South Korean people that the superpower was committed to the long process of rebuilding their mutual neighbour. This answers several of the possible objections. China gets the benefits of security and South Korea gets an important ally in the process of rebuilding the North.
North Korea represents a clear danger to its neighbours and their allies and that is unlikely to change

[1] Tania Branigan The Guardian 23 November 2010 [2] Green, Shane, ‘North Korea North Korea is virtually the definition of a rogue state. It remains technically at war with the South and frequently this manifests itself in acts of aggression. In any other situation the regime bombing of Yeonpyeong island would have been considered an act of war and met with a military response[1]. The regime’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weaponry poses a very real threat. The regime has tested missiles at least capable of reaching Tokyo and Seoul and has indicated a desire to be able to reach Washington,[2] James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is worried that they will be able to hit the west coast within a few years.[3] It seems reasonable to assume that, with the limited resources of the state being spent on these two goals, rather than feeding the people, the regime will ultimately succeed in their ambitions. Waiting until they can actually bomb North America or Europe would make Kim Jong-Un or his successor far too secure. Although it seems unlikely that he would ever mount an attack with conventional weapons, access to an appropriate delivery system and a nuclear warhead would make his removal by military means virtually impossible. Removing him from office before this happens is essential for the security of the region and the world. [1] Tania Branigan The Guardian 23 November 2010 [2] Green, Shane, ‘North Korea threatens to attack US’, The Age, 8 March 2003 [3] Barnes, Julian E., ‘U.S. may be within N.Korea missile range in 3 years, official warns’, Los Angeles Times, 17 June 2009 threatens to attack US’, The Age, 8 March 2003 [3] Barnes, Julian E., ‘U.S. may be within N.Korea missile range in 3 years, official warns’, Los Angeles Times, 17 June 2009
Kim Jong Un is unlikely to consent to any form of unified government that does not include him and his family

Although the regime in Pyongyang has expressed an interest in a reunified country, progress has been painfully slow. It took twelve years to get from initial contact to the first meeting. It seems likely that any suggestion of reunification is more a negotiating ploy than emblematic of any serious commitment. If reunification is to be achieved, it will happen in spite of the current leadership in the North rather than because of it. The continued separation of the two Koreas is, in many ways, an accident of history. They were only divided in 1945 for administrative convenience. If the Soviet and American leaderships had been able to develop a more sensible agreement then the two would never have been separated in the first place. This means that for the sake of administrative convenience sixty years ago, four thousand years of history has been torn apart. From the perspective of Korean culture and the Confucian beliefs that underpin it the nations should be reunited. It is clearly in the interests of the citizens in the North, whether they are aware of the fact or not. It is an idea that speaks to natural justice but is obstructed by the fact that one half of the country is run as the private fiefdom of one family. The only realistic way it will happen is through military intervention to compel the North and remove Kim Jong-Un and his cronies.
Despite the tyranny of Kim Jong-Un, the control he exercises over his people has eliminated the possibility of revolution

There is grinding poverty in the North as well as brutal repression and all the other trapping of a military dictatorship. The only alternative future for the North is of a failed state going economically and socially in the opposite direction from the rest of Eastern Asia but now armed with nuclear weapons. The security threat this poses to the region is terrifying. However, it seems unlikely that the regime has any intention of surrendering their absolute power and the people are unlikely to remove him however bad things get, North Koreans do not have access to the tools such as mobile phones and the internet that made the Arab Spring possible.[1] Instead the people will continue to be fed a diet of propaganda and not much else. As well as the security implications there is a simple issue of morality, in any other situation where the actions of a government were impoverishing a people to, quite literally, the point of starvation, the world would feel moved to act. It is as clearly in the interests of North Koreans not to starve to death by the hundreds of thousands as it is in the interests of the South not to see similar numbers irradiated by a bomb on Seoul. [1] Zakaria, Fareed, ‘Zakaria: Will the North Koreans rise up?’, CNN World, 14 November 2011
Reunification of the Korea peninsular is unaffordable

Estimates of the cost of reunification vary wildly but one thing is clear, they’re all very large. One recent estimate put it at $5 trillion – or $40,000 per capita for South Koreans for 30 years.[1] The economy of the North is virtually non-existent, it was never that healthy even when Moscow was propping it up, in 1992 it collapsed completely. Now only the military has any money at all. A whole series on unfinished and unnecessary vanity projects are the only thing resembling an infrastructure and roads and factories would simply need to be built from scratch. Although it is tempting to make the comparison with the reunification of Germany, the two situations are very different. Incomes in the East were about one third to one half of those in the West and the population was about a quarter that of its more populous neighbour. The population of the North is about half of the South and incomes are at about 5 per cent.[2] The Republic of Koreas simply could not pay the bills and so the burden would fall on other nations, presumably China and the US. Such a commitment would seem unlikely, it would be fantastically unpopular in the United States and unlikely to be supported for more than a couple of years. In the case of China, since they have shown little interest in developing many of their own backward, rural provinces it seems unlikely that they would commit to someone else’s. [1] Beck, Peter M., ‘The Cost of Korean Reunification’, Atlantic Council, 7 January 2010 [2] Ibid