11 Apr
2013
11 Apr
'13
5:22 p.m.
Quick note, it is probably better to say the IRC channel is not KNOWN to
be logged. Tons of people log IRC privately for later perusal or other
reasons, and there's no way for any other IRC user to know if an
inactive user is a logging bot. In fact, I know plenty of people who
interact with IRC through a logging system of some kind, so the
difference between a human user and a logger isn't even distinct.
Someone's comment of, if you want it to be private, don't put it on the
Internet, is reasonable. Even email goes through any number of servers
on its way to its intended recipient, and you have no idea which of
these is keeping copies. Unless you are rigorous about using
encryption, *and* really know what you're doing (I don't, that shit's
hard), expect any electronic communication you make to be possibly
readable by some entity you don't know about, including governments,
your ISP's help staff, hackers, grad students, botnet operators, your
mom (she doesn't mean to snoop but you never TELL her anything).
Of course, even Google is gonna have an extraordinarily hard time
identifying, finding and collating it all; I do not want to sound too
alarmist here. The needle/haystack issue, which any attempt to track an
individual will run into, is also a *really* difficult one.
Rachel M
On 4/11/13 2:57 PM, Jenny Ryan wrote:
Great discussion this has started. Anon195714, my
apologies for getting
defensive and blaming you for not being aware.
The default Mailman messages are indeed unclear. I need to focus on
prior commitments today, but I encourage folks to suggest rewordings
themselves: http://lists.sudoroom.org. Same goes for scrubbing email
addresses and creating a robots.txt file. If anyone would like to
volunteer to hack on this, I volunteer as a point of contact for server
access and implementation.
Rabbit: the IRC channel is not logged and never has been, although we
have discussed a bot that would bookmark / record a point in the
conversation with another user's prompt.
Jenny
http://jennyryan.net <http://jennyryan.net/>
http://thepyre.org <http://thepyre.org/>
http://thevirtualcampfire.org <http://thevirtualcampfire.org/>
http://technomadic.tumblr.com <http://technomadic.tumblr.com/>
`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
"Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."
-Laurie Anderson
"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
-Hannah Arendt
"To define is to kill. To suggest is to create."
-Stéphane Mallarmé
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com
<mailto:rabbitface@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi everyone, I'm a new potential member (see you at the Python
meetup tonight).
I'd like to share an essay by Bruce Schneier:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/04/privacy_and_con.html
"To the older generation, privacy is about secrecy. And, as the
Supreme Court said, once something is no longer secret, it's no longer
private. But that's not how privacy works, and it's not how the
younger generation thinks about it. Privacy is about control. [...]
Your loss of control over that information is the issue. We may not
mind sharing our personal lives and thoughts, but we want to control
how, where and with whom. A privacy failure is a control failure."
With that in mind, here are my personal commandments for software
that I write:
-- If someone is ever surprised by the privacy outcome of a piece of
software, the software needs to be made more clear. Never blame the
user for not understanding things
-- Allow people to delete or take down their content
-- The extent to which content is indexed / searchable matters.
There's a practical difference between public-but-not-searchable and
public-and-appears-on-Google. Technically neither is secret, but
that's not the only thing that matters.
-- Things that people say in an ephemeral context, like small talk,
should stay ephemeral.
One way to move forward would be to have two lists -- a public
archived-forever one and a private ephemeral one.
(P.S. is the IRC channel logged too?)
-Rabbit
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:09 PM, William Budington
<bill(a)inputoutput.io <mailto:bill@inputoutput.io>> wrote:
issue,
On 04/11/2013 11:58 AM, aestetix wrote:
> There's also the use case issue (I'm sure there's a more proper
term).
I'm
totally ok with our list being transparent to people who want to
learn and teach others. I'm a lot less ok with it going to a large
company that will be using it to data-mine what products to target
consumers with. If you take that a step further you'll find a
quasi-analogy to Real Genius.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a clear separation between what
will be used to benefit others by being transparent and what will be
used to harm us personally. We can talk theoretically about this but there is no practical situation where we can
prevent someone
with a
disproportionate amount of power from using our
written words against
us. Based on these words, an employer can hire or fire us,
pressure us,
and political authorities can do whatever they
want to us. So
our words
don't operate in a vacuum where we can
control their lateral effects.
Words are not circuits, and have no control flow. Or if they do,
it is
by no straightforward mechanism that they
travel.
We can also develop policies and opt-out strategies (robots.txt for
example) to limit the archivability of our words, but this seems
to me
an imperfect solution. Primarily because it only
limits the
webcrawlers
that themselves opt-in to obeying these
requests.
> That said, this is part of a much larger "boundaries" discussion the
> internet is forcing the world to have right now.
>
> Anyhow, just my two cents, feel free to disregard at your
pleasure :)
>
> Hail Eris,
> aestetix
>
> User-agent: googlebot
> Disallow: *
>
> On 4/11/13 11:27 AM, Anon195714 wrote:
>
>> Sorry but a little more "transparency and openness" about what was
>> going to happen to emails to that list, rather than using overtly
>> misleading language, would have prevented this kerfluffle in the
>> first place.
>
>> "Categorically object" all you like, but that boils down to an
>> assertion that you have some kind of right to make and spread
>> copies of someone else's words _against their will_, and infringe
>> their privacy _against their will_, which is truly authoritarian.
>
>> Aestetix, if you're reading this, your input would be highly
>> welcome.
>
>> Meanwhile I have work to do today.
>
>> -G.
>
>
>> =====
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 13-04-11-Thu 10:58 AM, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:
>>>
>>> At the bottom of every email to this list is a link to
>>> 'listinfo' which opens with an archive of every post to the list.
>>> If the boilerplate seems unclear to people we can talk about
>>> changing it but I categorically object to removing anything from
>>> the archive.
>>>
>>> Transparency and openness are part of our core values, archiving
>>> emails is very standard, the listinfo page makes it clear that
>>> this is done using completely standard language, and if anyone
>>> wishes to have their statements go unattributed they are welcome
>>> to not enter them into the Internet, or to use a pseudonym.
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>> On Apr 11, 2013 10:53 AM, "Anon195714"
<anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net <mailto:anon195714@sbcglobal.net>
>>> <mailto:anon195714@sbcglobal.net
<mailto:anon195714@sbcglobal.net>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's be really clear about this:
>>>
>>> This is the explicit language in the sign-up document:
>>>
>>> "Subscribing to sudo-discuss Subscribe to sudo-discuss by filling
>>> out the following form. You will be sent email requesting
>>> confirmation, to prevent others from gratuitously subscribing
>>> you. This is a private list, which means that the list of members
>>> is not available to non-members."
>>>
>>> "THIS IS A PRIVATE LIST, WHICH MEANS THAT THE LIST OF MEMBERS IS
>>> NOT AVAILABLE TO NON MEMBERS."
>>>
>>> That's a representation of a material fact. And the link to the
>>> archive says NOTHING about that archive being anything that
>>> would violate or contradict the language I quoted above: no
>>> disclosure, no nothing.
>>>
>>> Blatant misrepresentation.
>>>
>>> "May need to be doing a better job" is the understatement of the
>>> year.
>>>
>>> The answer is, I'm going to hold SudoRoom to the terms &
>>> conditions I signed, and that material is going to be taken down
>>> immediately until such time as anything I've posted in it can be
>>> removed from any publicly searchable content. This is not
>>> optional, any more than free repair under warranty is optional,
>>> or the absence of horsemeat in "100% beef frankfurters" is
>>> optional.
>>>
>>> I'm holding SudoRoom to its stated language.
>>>
>>> -G.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ======
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13-04-11-Thu 10:42 AM, Marina Kukso wrote:
>>>> hi george,
>>>>
>>>> i'm very sorry that you feel that you did not consent to
>>>> having this information public. this list has been publicly
>>>> archived since it began and i think that we've tried to make
>>>> that clear (although it seems that we may need to be doing a
>>>> better job!).
>>>>
>>>> unfortunately i'm not sure to what extent the "welcome to
>>>> sudo-discuss list" email that new list members receive
>>>> includes information about content being publicly archived
>>>> (could someone help with this?), but perhaps we may need to
>>>> make this more explicit in that letter.
>>>>
>>>> for additional background on why we made the decision to
>>>> publicly archive contents, the idea is not necessarily to
>>>> promote "transparency and openness" as a matter of principle
>>>> only, but because part of what we wanted to do with sudo room
>>>> is to make our history as easy for others to use as possible so
>>>> that others who are starting and running hackerspaces can learn
>>>> from our experience and discussion. in other words, to
>>>> facilitate ctrl-c/ctrl-v of hackerspaces around the world.
>>>>
>>>> - marina
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Anon195714
>>>> <anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net <mailto:anon195714@sbcglobal.net>
<mailto:anon195714@sbcglobal.net
<mailto:anon195714@sbcglobal.net>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and when you slip LSD into the fruit punch at a party
>>>> and don't tell anyone, do you justify that by saying you're
>>>> trying to encourage enlightenment? Who needs informed consent
>>>> anyway, right? Hey, who needs consent of any kind?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry yo, that don't go. It's NON CONSENSUAL, like seducing
>>>> someone and failing to disclose to them that you have STDs.
>>>> It's a trust-break in a big way.
>>>>
>>>> I'm asserting my right to put this on the meeting agenda for
>>>> next Wednesday, and pull in any record of anything I signed
>>>> that contained TOS.
>>>>
>>>> Let me be really clear about this: I'm as serious as a fucking
>>>> heart attack about this, and anyone who thinks it's a joke is
>>>> fucking sick.
>>>>
>>>> This "open and transparent" stuff is starting to become a
chant
>>>> fit for a cult, that short-circuits reason and critical
>>>> thinking. In reality it's a house of one-way mirrors foisted
>>>> by the powerful on the masses to enable "prediction and
>>>> control" down to the level of the individual.
>>>>
>>>> Enough was enough long ago, just like muggings and the rest of
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> -G.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =====
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 13-04-11-Thu 10:07 AM, mattsenate(a)gmail.com
<mailto:mattsenate@gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:mattsenate@gmail.com
<mailto:mattsenate@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>>>>> We set the list up to be
public in an effort to remain as
>>>>> transparent and open as possible. This is a blessing and a
>>>>> burden. We should be mindful of the scope of our language and
>>>>> interested in maintaining private conversation off the list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, if you seek a lot of privacy, I don't recommend
>>>>> communicating over the internet if it can be helped.
>>>>>
>>>>> // Matt
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Reply message ----- From: "Tracy Jacobs"
>>>>> <kinetical(a)comcast.net <mailto:kinetical@comcast.net>>
<mailto:kinetical@comcast.net <mailto:kinetical@comcast.net>> To:
>>>>> "Romy Ilano"
<romy(a)snowyla.com <mailto:romy@snowyla.com>>
<mailto:romy@snowyla.com <mailto:romy@snowyla.com>> Cc:
>>>>> "sudo-discuss"
<sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>>
>>>>>
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>> Subject:
>>>>> [sudo-discuss] Michael Orange
- film events - Battle for
>>>>> Brooklyn - any sudo members interested in an intro? Date:
>>>>> Thu, Apr 11, 2013 9:54 AM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sudoers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does our discussion list have to be published on the
>>>>> internet? I don't personally want it to be that public. Who
>>>>> decided it should be done that way, and is there another
>>>>> option?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tracy On Apr 10, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Romy Ilano
>>>>> <romy(a)snowyla.com <mailto:romy@snowyla.com>
<mailto:romy@snowyla.com <mailto:romy@snowyla.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey here is one of the film events that Michael Orange
>>>>>> from top 10 social is presenting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
https://www.facebook.com/events/563556023675662/?notif_t=plan_user_invited
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> Michael's also working with the Oakland Library as well,so
>>>>>> I'll mention the history wki people from sudoroom are
>>>>>> there!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this probably isn't necessary for anyone here... but in
>>>>>> case one or two people gets the temptation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Michael Orange is an all around good guy--please treat
>>>>>> him well, minimize over the top business plans, "industry
>>>>>> type behavior", and approach him as you would a family
>>>>>> member. If we talk to him the wrong way it will be a smear
>>>>>> on my reputation and his opinion matters a lot to me. =D
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
>>>>>>
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>>
>>>>>>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss
>>>>> mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
>>>>>
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>>
>>>>>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss
>>>> mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
>>>>
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>>
>>>>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss
>>> mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
>>>
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>>
>>>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss
>> mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
>>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss