Re: [sudo-discuss] privacy and violations; nym rights and other.

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" &lt;anon195714(a)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 >> &lt;anon195714(a)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> 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" >>> &lt;kinetical(a)comcast.net&gt; <mailto:kinetical@comcast.net> To: >>> "Romy Ilano" &lt;romy(a)snowyla.com&gt; <mailto:romy@snowyla.com> Cc: >>> "sudo-discuss" &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt; >>> <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 >>> &lt;romy(a)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 >>>> >>>> >>>>

_______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss