11 Apr
2013
11 Apr
'13
12:27 p.m.
Indeed, thank you Jenny, Marc and perhaps others I don't know about for all the
volunteer time you've put in for almost a year and a half on the mail servers and
navigating all the newly created lists. I think that the change from hackerspace.org to
sudoroom.org may have left some threads that we didn't anticipate and now would in
fact be a good time to fix those.
I just had a long chat with George on the phone and I think we've come up with some
specific solutions that can be applied, further understanding of what is upsetting about
it, and a sense of what we need to emphasize to everyone in a way that would be clearly
understood.
Regarding a solution, George has agreed that a satisfactory solution to the problem would
be to simply wipe out his email address from the public archives. The mailing list
archives remain public, we fix the mailing list invite misunderstanding, and set up a
forum or activity or whatever to think about and share with each other our thoughts on
where the free flow of information intersect with other values.
I'm not technically aware of mailman server configuration to know what is possible and
what would be most efficient. If there is an option to mask all email addresses in the
public archive, that may be the ideal solution. If we have to take down the archive for a
bit until we scrub out all instances of George's email address, can someone tell me
how that would best be done and is there a way to script that.
The intersection between free flows of information and other values is perhaps one of the
most significant contributions this unlikely group can make, I believe. Both in terms of
policy, but more importantly in terms of privacy by design of our architecture. In
addition to privacy, it has been my experience in doing research on this intersection that
similar problems come up in regards to Bioethics, National Security, and other
minor-related areas. I volunteer to put together some workshop or whatever would be most
effective for us to work through these issues deliberatively and respectfully.
sent from eddan.com
On Apr 11, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, a little more research and calmness on your
end would have certainly prevented this 'kerfluffle'.
Fully concur with everything rachel said, here. If you don't want your words to be
potentially public, don't use the internet. I learned that one when I was 12.
I'll spend some time today rewording the list signup page to be more clear. Please
keep in mind we are a voluntary association of individuals *volunteering our time* to set
up things like mailing lists and wikis. And both of these are commonly known to be
publicly accessible.
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> 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:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)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 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> 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 wrote:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
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>
To: "Romy Ilano" <romy(a)snowyla.com>
Cc: "sudo-discuss" <sudo-discuss(a)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> 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
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)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