[sudo-discuss] sudo-discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 4

[rusty lindgren]

Oakland reporters are fired.

On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Cyrus Farivar <cfarivar at gmail.com> wrote:

>  FWIW, here's the LA Times:
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lockpick-20130302,0,454000.story
>
> -C
>
> --
> Cyrus Farivar
> "suh-ROOS FAR-ih-var"
>
> Journalist and radio producer | cyrusfarivar.com
> Author, "The Internet of Elsewhere" | internetofelsewhere.com
> US: +1 510 394 5485 (m) | Twitter/Skype: cfarivar
> "Being a good writer is 3% talent, 97% not being distracted by the
> Internet."
> cfarivar at cfarivar.org
>
> On Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 3:22 PM,
> sudo-discuss-request at lists.sudoroom.org wrote:
>
> Send sudo-discuss mailing list submissions to
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>  sudo-discuss-request at lists.sudoroom.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sudo-discuss-owner at lists.sudoroom.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of sudo-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: It's Unconscionable (Anca Mosoiu)
> 2. Re: It's Unconscionable (rusty lindgren)
> 3. thunderbolt video cards (rusty lindgren)
> 4. Re: Friday Filosophy: Software as Speech (Steve Berl)
>  5. Re: Friday Filosophy: Software as Speech (Eddan)
> 6. Yelp Locksmiths Greatest Hits Vol. 1 (rusty lindgren)
> 7. Re: It's Unconscionable (Daniel Finlay)
> 8. Re: Yelp Locksmiths Greatest Hits Vol. 1 (Andrew)
>  9. Re: It's Unconscionable (Eddan)
> 10. Re: It's Unconscionable (rusty lindgren)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:27:54 -0800
> From: Anca Mosoiu <anca at techliminal.com>
> To: Michael Scroggins <michaeljscroggins at gmail.com>
> Cc: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>, eddan at eddan.com
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] It's Unconscionable
> Message-ID:
> <CALDsrHjzKjQAwAs-X5QMP8e+e0_w+ejxFaZJec_P1tS9a_invQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Michael Scroggins <
> michaeljscroggins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The sentence implicitly draws a difference of kind between the lock
> picking class and the other Workshop Weekend classes. Doing so invites the
> question: What is the difference that makes broadcasting this workshop (in
> the way it was) regrettable? In an environment where the mayor, the chief
> of police and the media have all given the same answer - the class breeds
> criminals - allowing that question is regrettable.
>
>
> It's regrettable because it gave some easy pickings for the people who want
> to portray Oakland, and the current administration, in a certain way. Many
> of the people who are upset about the workshop aren't upset about
> lockpicking, they're upset that Jean Quan appears to encourage crime in her
> newsletter.
>
> It's regrettable because it sucked up airwaves and mental effort that might
> have been better spent.
>
> Drafting a reasoned and reasonable response lowers the blood pressure of
> the people who are up in arms just because they aren't informed. Some of
> them will come around, especially if they understand the actual intent of
> the class.
>
> Eddan, I'd like to participate in writing a statement. I was really taken
> aback when I read some of the emails and talked to some of the people who
> were actually upset.
>
> The media storm will blow over with the next foot-in-mouth opportunity from
> a local politician, but we have a great opportunity to reach out while the
> world is looking.
>
> Anca.
>
>
> --
> -=-=-=-
> Anca Mosoiu | Tech Liminal
> anca at techliminal.com
> M: (510) 220-6660
> http://techliminal.com | T: @techliminal | F: facebook.com/techliminal
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130301/6d62d855/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 00:27:22 -0800
> From: rusty lindgren <rustylindgren at gmail.com>
> To: Anca Mosoiu <anca at techliminal.com>
> Cc: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>, eddan at eddan.com
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] It's Unconscionable
> Message-ID:
> <CADf_g6mfAQt8S8Sez+3GYoam0v0thUC2PphMj_gVG4pfEvGx_A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I agree with Michael, the way in which it was promoted was fine. I think
> we should stop apologizing to the people who are acting completely in bad
> faith, and certainly, I don't want to get lumped in with everyone else when
> they apologize. This is drowning out my opinion the same way these
> ass-wipes are drowning out our opinion in the media.
>
> SudoRoom could easily submit 3 or 4 different responses, or anonymously
> represent responses in one letter, but it shouldn't carry a single tone,
> and especially shouldn't make us look like we want to lay down and die
> every time "crime-watch" people post a stupid comment on a board somewhere.
>
>
> Side Note: where do these people get their money? Could it not be from
> hackers who invent all the shit that drives a secondary economy in the Bay
> Area for them to have sit down jobs where they can post on local media
> blogs all day about how their world isn't safe enough from all the people
> in Oakland, who don't ride the backs of hackers and then take them to the
> mat whenever possible. I'm sure they jumped on facebook the minute they
> were done with that news site tho.
>
> The kicker is that they even talked about how it's someone's whole life
> force to unlock things for them when they break. Why would THEY need to
> know how to do something like that, when someone will just come by and do
> it for them? Fuck that.
>
> Now, take a trip over to yelp, and read all of the comments about the
> sketchy locksmiths in the Bay Area... Same people complaining about how the
> "locksmith bot" wasn't programmed correctly, because they didn't get what
> they wanted. Fuck that too.
>
> The loudest voices on the interwebs are the stupidest... at least in the
> hacker community, you don't get judged for being loud, you get judged on
> your work, and so it stands to reason that maybe, in self preservation of
> mind and spirit I still submit that we STOP laying down for people who
> don't care about us, so we respect ourselves in the end.
>
> -Rusty
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Anca Mosoiu <anca at techliminal.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Michael Scroggins <
> michaeljscroggins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The sentence implicitly draws a difference of kind between the lock
> picking class and the other Workshop Weekend classes. Doing so invites the
> question: What is the difference that makes broadcasting this workshop (in
> the way it was) regrettable? In an environment where the mayor, the chief
> of police and the media have all given the same answer - the class breeds
> criminals - allowing that question is regrettable.
>
>
> It's regrettable because it gave some easy pickings for the people who
> want to portray Oakland, and the current administration, in a certain way.
> Many of the people who are upset about the workshop aren't upset about
> lockpicking, they're upset that Jean Quan appears to encourage crime in her
> newsletter.
>
> It's regrettable because it sucked up airwaves and mental effort that
> might have been better spent.
>
> Drafting a reasoned and reasonable response lowers the blood pressure of
> the people who are up in arms just because they aren't informed. Some of
> them will come around, especially if they understand the actual intent of
> the class.
>
> Eddan, I'd like to participate in writing a statement. I was really taken
> aback when I read some of the emails and talked to some of the people who
> were actually upset.
>
> The media storm will blow over with the next foot-in-mouth opportunity
> from a local politician, but we have a great opportunity to reach out while
> the world is looking.
>
> Anca.
>
>
> --
> -=-=-=-
> Anca Mosoiu | Tech Liminal
> anca at techliminal.com
> M: (510) 220-6660
> http://techliminal.com | T: @techliminal | F: facebook.com/techliminal
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Rusty Lindgren
> **
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130302/11f15f49/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:02:06 -0800
> From: rusty lindgren <rustylindgren at gmail.com>
> To: sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> Subject: [sudo-discuss] thunderbolt video cards
> Message-ID:
> <CADf_g6nqZXHUD=a6GOuvL4hqFRaMN-OxVw5rDWp3hC1EXhwmtQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Anyone done this on mac or linux(link below)? Would be cool to just send
> rendering jobs over thunderbolt... would be even cooler if I could build
> the pci-board set up myself, rather than spend a lot on this set-up.
>
>
> http://9to5mac.com/2012/12/11/mlogics-mlink-thunderbolt-expansion-chassis-now-available-for-399/#
>
>
> -Rusty
> **
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130302/e3ce253c/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:58:58 -0800
> From: Steve Berl <steveberl at gmail.com>
> To: Anon195714 <anon195714 at sbcglobal.net>
> Cc: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>,
>  "kopimism at lists.sudoroom.org" <kopimism at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] Friday Filosophy: Software as Speech
> Message-ID:
> <CAB4gGneLH4Aiv4HsYZO1o2B0q5k_XkJ835SvBJiPnXZyL5fB0A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Seems to me that the autonomous system is guilty of aiding and abetting a
> crime, or conspiracy, or something like that. Either it's a sentient being
> and must follow the law, or risk punishment of some sort, or it isn't, and
> Bob has to be responsible.
>
> -steve
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Anon195714 <anon195714 at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yo's-
>
> Since I couldn't make it in person...
>
> Hypothetical:
>
> Assume the existence of intelligent computers that can make autonomous
> decisions, which many folks believe will become a reality in the near
> future.
>
> Alice Analyst publishes virus source code in an online computer security
> publication. So far that's clearly protected speech, nobody here would
> argue otherwise.
>
> Bob Badguy reads the article and types the code manually into a computer,
> with the overt or covert intent for the computer to broadcast the virus and
> infect other computers.
>
> Does it matter whether the computer into which Bob enters the virus source
> code, is an ordinary computer that does what it's told, vs. an intelligent
> computer that has the capacity to make autonomous decisions?
>
> Clearly if the computer is an ordinary one that is not capable of
> autonomous decisions, then Bob's typing of the virus code into it would
> constitute an "action" rather than "speech," and would not be protected.
> He could be successfully prosecuted for unleashing the virus upon the
> world.
>
> But if the computer is an intelligent one that can make autonomous
> decisions, then could Bob rightfully claim that his typing of the virus
> code into that intelligent computer was _also_ protected speech, merely an
> exercise in communication with another sentient being, the same as Alice's
> original publication?
>
> -G.
>
>
> =====
>
>
>
> On 13-03-01-Fri 8:22 AM, Eddan Katz wrote:
>
> Dear Kopimists and the People who Love Them.
>
> For the featured Filo delicacy for Friday Filosophy, we will have potato
> burekas.
>
> I propose we talk about the difference between source code, object code,
> and executable code in regards to 1st Amendment protection. In other words,
> when is code speech and when is it a speech-act subject to less legal
> protection?
>
> Below is an excerpt from an essay by Lee Tien, a brilliant EFF attorney
> for more than a decade, on Software as Speech (2000). These two paragraphs
> are in the section: Viruses and other "dangerous" software.
>
> Of course, as always, we can talk about whatever else. Such as
> conscience and the unconscionable, perhaps.
>
> Lee Tien, Publishing Software as a Speech Act, Vol. 15 Berkeley Tech.
> Law Journal (2000)
> http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html
>
> Let?s return to the virus hypothetical.192<
> http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote193sym>
> The
> main concern lies in the fact that the software may be ?diverted? toward
> unlawful purposes, regardless of the speaker?s intent. This concern is,
> however, not unique to software. It also applies to other types of
> information usable for mischief or harassment, whether highly technical
> like information about nuclear weapons, or utterly mundane like a person?s
> name, address or telephone number.
>
> Even if the virus author merely posts the source code and fails to release
> it in active form, the issue remains whether the posting was done with an
> intent to communicate. If the author claims that she intended it to
> communicate, we would need to examine the context to decide the
> plausibility of that claim. There will often be a plausible claim. There is
> no question that people study viruses and other dangerous software in order
> to prevent or relieve harm.193<
> http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote194sym>
> One
> way to control a virus is to publish its source code so that systems
> operators can disable or protect against it. Communicating a virus? source
> code as part of such an effort qualifies as a speech act because the
> publisher intends to communicate how the virus works in a conventional way.
> In fact, one could imagine entire journals or Internet sites devoted to
> viruses and other dangerous software.194<
> http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote195sym>
> When
> such publications aim to alert the world to these dangers, their intent is
> clearly communicative.
>
>
> sent from eddan.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing listsudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.orghttp://
> lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> -steve
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130302/b732f360/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:25:15 -0800
> From: Eddan <eddan at clear.net>
> To: Steve Berl <steveberl at gmail.com>
> Cc: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>,
>  "kopimism at lists.sudoroom.org" <kopimism at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] Friday Filosophy: Software as Speech
> Message-ID:
> <CAMvNwqGmUxxxexx--5nA7Fte2ZeMjkdBwzmnV=CO72HQ3AOQfg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Do Robots Have Rights? - I'm planning to submit that as a suggested session
> topic for the next Workshop Weekend.
>
> It seems to me that whether or not an autonomous system is a sentient being
> seems like a primary hurdle that can't be passed in order to even answer
> the question of where responsibility should fall in a way that makes sense
> to us. I can't imagine computational entities will ever have the intent we
> mean in contemporary society for us to call the damages it causes a crime.
> Not only as a matter of the capacities of technical engineering, but even
> by definition of what we mean by: (1) act; and (2) intent; and (a-b) what
> knowledge is, in the context of both.
>
> As far as I can understand such a question in terms of motive, I think
> responsibility should lie with the anticipated capabilities of the
> technology created by the programmer(s)/designer(s). Software Malfunction
> Liability - we have become convinced that that kind of analysis is too
> remote and unfairly misguided. I most definitely agree that it's hard to
> say what an engineer should have known, especially if the act was committed
> by any further iteration of the program in the autonomous system in the
> example. But I think we can get closer to confident about reckless design,
> and even grossly negligent design - not to mention unconscionable, which
> would make the best case for assigning liability on the designer.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Steve Berl <steveberl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seems to me that the autonomous system is guilty of aiding and abetting a
> crime, or conspiracy, or something like that. Either it's a sentient being
> and must follow the law, or risk punishment of some sort, or it isn't, and
> Bob has to be responsible.
>
> -steve
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Anon195714 <anon195714 at sbcglobal.net
> >wrote:
>
>
>
> Yo's-
>
> Since I couldn't make it in person...
>
> Hypothetical:
>
> Assume the existence of intelligent computers that can make autonomous
> decisions, which many folks believe will become a reality in the near
> future.
>
> Alice Analyst publishes virus source code in an online computer security
> publication. So far that's clearly protected speech, nobody here would
> argue otherwise.
>
> Bob Badguy reads the article and types the code manually into a computer,
> with the overt or covert intent for the computer to broadcast the virus and
> infect other computers.
>
> Does it matter whether the computer into which Bob enters the virus
> source code, is an ordinary computer that does what it's told, vs. an
> intelligent computer that has the capacity to make autonomous decisions?
>
> Clearly if the computer is an ordinary one that is not capable of
> autonomous decisions, then Bob's typing of the virus code into it would
> constitute an "action" rather than "speech," and would not be protected.
> He could be successfully prosecuted for unleashing the virus upon the
> world.
>
> But if the computer is an intelligent one that can make autonomous
> decisions, then could Bob rightfully claim that his typing of the virus
> code into that intelligent computer was _also_ protected speech, merely an
> exercise in communication with another sentient being, the same as Alice's
> original publication?
>
> -G.
>
>
> =====
>
>
>
> On 13-03-01-Fri 8:22 AM, Eddan Katz wrote:
>
> Dear Kopimists and the People who Love Them.
>
> For the featured Filo delicacy for Friday Filosophy, we will have
> potato burekas.
>
> I propose we talk about the difference between source code, object
> code, and executable code in regards to 1st Amendment protection. In other
> words, when is code speech and when is it a speech-act subject to less
> legal protection?
>
> Below is an excerpt from an essay by Lee Tien, a brilliant EFF attorney
> for more than a decade, on Software as Speech (2000). These two paragraphs
> are in the section: Viruses and other "dangerous" software.
>
> Of course, as always, we can talk about whatever else. Such as
> conscience and the unconscionable, perhaps.
>
> Lee Tien, Publishing Software as a Speech Act, Vol. 15 Berkeley Tech.
> Law Journal (2000)
> http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html
>
> Let?s return to the virus hypothetical.192<
> http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote193sym>
> The
> main concern lies in the fact that the software may be ?diverted? toward
> unlawful purposes, regardless of the speaker?s intent. This concern is,
> however, not unique to software. It also applies to other types of
> information usable for mischief or harassment, whether highly technical
> like information about nuclear weapons, or utterly mundane like a person?s
> name, address or telephone number.
>
> Even if the virus author merely posts the source code and fails to
> release it in active form, the issue remains whether the posting was done
> with an intent to communicate. If the author claims that she intended it to
> communicate, we would need to examine the context to decide the
> plausibility of that claim. There will often be a plausible claim. There is
> no question that people study viruses and other dangerous software in order
> to prevent or relieve harm.193<
> http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote194sym>
> One
> way to control a virus is to publish its source code so that systems
> operators can disable or protect against it. Communicating a virus? source
> code as part of such an effort qualifies as a speech act because the
> publisher intends to communicate how the virus works in a conventional way.
> In fact, one could imagine entire journals or Internet sites devoted to
> viruses and other dangerous software.194<
> http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote195sym>
> When
> such publications aim to alert the world to these dangers, their intent is
> clearly communicative.
>
>
> sent from eddan.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing listsudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.orghttp://
> lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> -steve
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130302/ceaa8a1f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:39:57 -0800
> From: rusty lindgren <rustylindgren at gmail.com>
> To: sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> Subject: [sudo-discuss] Yelp Locksmiths Greatest Hits Vol. 1
> Message-ID:
> <CADf_g6mAZpW4uct-iXvEucWoS7S20LZpZcnsGO32UrXdDf6oPA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 1. *"These mother fuckers should burn in hell. *Quit scamming people.
> You'd make more money actually being nice honest and helping more people
>  that like your business instead of charging a shit load for 1 customer and
> losing 27490291.
> 2. "...The guy shows up in literally 10 minutes, pops open the door in
> about 30 seconds and then charges me $100 for the "labor" because opening a
>  door is a $100 charge. WTF... Such bullshit.
> *Two stars for him being super speedy though.*"
> 3. *"Since my cat was inside crying and needing to be fed*- I told him I
> would pay $200 for him to unlock it or I was going to call someone else.
> He ended up drilling the lock out and then wanting to charge another $190
> to replace it. *Preying on desperate people in bad situations.*"
>  4. "When he got here he said it would be 29 dollars service fee and 100
> to pick the lock, he spent exactly 30 seconds trying to pick the lock, said
> it was unpickable and went to his car to get a drill and another lock to
>  replace it. Took him may be 15 minutes to drill and replace the lock then
> he handed me a bill for 258 dollars. I said how could something that jtook
> under 30 minutes with very little effort cost so much. *He didn't care,
>  just took my credit card and charged it."*
> 5. IF I COULD GIVE THEM NEGATIVE STARS I WOULD NOT HESITATE! *This is my
> first review and I actually made a yelp account just to save anyone from
>  falling into their scam* they call a business.
> 6. They call themselves locksmiths, but that is a joke. They completely
> busted our font door lock (to the point that the handle was hanging loosely
>  off the door and no long worked to keep the door closed), then proceeded
> to
> charge (and demand!) $150 for the "service." *I could have gotten in a
> lot quicker and cheaper by borrowing a neighbor's hammer!*
>
> -Rusty
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130302/5553eb00/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:51:14 -0800
> From: Daniel Finlay <namelessdan at gmail.com>
> To: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] It's Unconscionable
> Message-ID: <94D1A465-57EC-4402-BFE0-7FDC76DFA1E0 at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Anca's right, this is a huge opportunity.
>
> Lower dues, anyone?
>
> Here's my caricature of opportunism, feel free to tune down the tone to
> your tact level of preference:
>
> The admonition of lockpicking classes by the Mayor and Police Chief of
> Oakland are as unconscionable as the thefts they purport to be in fear of.
> While the alarmists claim that publicly available lockpicking classes may
> promote criminal activity, they lose sight that this class is in the
> context of a larger public enrichment.
>  Despite being only a few months old, Sudoroom has already made itself
> host to a wide variety of educational, cooperative, and even marketable
> skill-building classes and events for hundreds of local residents. From
> programming computers and 3-D printing to curing cheese and modifying DNA,
> Sudo Room is a free, community sponsored place for fostering the
> collaborative creativity that comes with groups full of intellectual
> curiosity in a time of as much change and development as this one.
>  In a time where people's opportunities might lead them to crime, perhaps
> we ought to provide better alternatives rather than stupefying the public
> as a form of self defense.
> Let us address the cause of this sickness rather than try to snuff out its
> symptoms, and give ourselves access to an unfettered flow of knowledge and
> opportunity. We encourage you to participate in this local renaissance, by
> visiting the Sudoroom yourself, and taking part in any of the classes of
> your interest. You can always find the upcoming events at
> sudoroom.org/calendar, or just stop by almost any time to join your
> neighbors in their curious pursuits.
>
> Feel free to fork it at https://gist.github.com/flyswatter/5070131
>
> -Dan
>
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 11:27 PM, Anca Mosoiu <anca at techliminal.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Michael Scroggins <
> michaeljscroggins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The sentence implicitly draws a difference of kind between the lock
> picking class and the other Workshop Weekend classes. Doing so invites the
> question: What is the difference that makes broadcasting this workshop (in
> the way it was) regrettable? In an environment where the mayor, the chief
> of police and the media have all given the same answer - the class breeds
> criminals - allowing that question is regrettable.
>
> It's regrettable because it gave some easy pickings for the people who
> want to portray Oakland, and the current administration, in a certain way.
> Many of the people who are upset about the workshop aren't upset about
> lockpicking, they're upset that Jean Quan appears to encourage crime in her
> newsletter.
>
> It's regrettable because it sucked up airwaves and mental effort that
> might have been better spent.
>
> Drafting a reasoned and reasonable response lowers the blood pressure of
> the people who are up in arms just because they aren't informed. Some of
> them will come around, especially if they understand the actual intent of
> the class.
>
> Eddan, I'd like to participate in writing a statement. I was really taken
> aback when I read some of the emails and talked to some of the people who
> were actually upset.
>
> The media storm will blow over with the next foot-in-mouth opportunity
> from a local politician, but we have a great opportunity to reach out while
> the world is looking.
>
> Anca.
>
> --
> -=-=-=-
> Anca Mosoiu | Tech Liminal
> anca at techliminal.com
> M: (510) 220-6660
> http://techliminal.com | T: @techliminal | F: facebook.com/techliminal
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130302/ab04e1c2/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 13:02:58 -0800
> From: Andrew <andrew at roshambomedia.com>
> To: rusty lindgren <rustylindgren at gmail.com>
> Cc: sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] Yelp Locksmiths Greatest Hits Vol. 1
> Message-ID:
> <CADWgu_=-ztF12EoTpD_czpNm-SBYFw3uy=2+zYw8bOMwH-c_Uw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> http://hackerspa.com/yelp-locksmiths-greatest-hits/
>
> For linking :-)
> On Mar 2, 2013 12:40 PM, "rusty lindgren" <rustylindgren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 1. *"These mother fuckers should burn in hell. *Quit scamming people.
> You'd make more money actually being nice honest and helping more people
> that like your business instead of charging a shit load for 1 customer and
>  losing 27490291.
> 2. "...The guy shows up in literally 10 minutes, pops open the door in
> about 30 seconds and then charges me $100 for the "labor" because opening a
> door is a $100 charge. WTF... Such bullshit.
> *Two stars for him being super speedy though.*"
> 3. *"Since my cat was inside crying and needing to be fed*- I told him
> I would pay $200 for him to unlock it or I was going to call someone else.
>  He ended up drilling the lock out and then wanting to charge another $190
> to replace it. *Preying on desperate people in bad situations.*"
> 4. "When he got here he said it would be 29 dollars service fee and
>  100 to pick the lock, he spent exactly 30 seconds trying to pick the lock,
> said it was unpickable and went to his car to get a drill and another lock
> to replace it. Took him may be 15 minutes to drill and replace the lock
>  then he handed me a bill for 258 dollars. I said how could something that
> jtook under 30 minutes with very little effort cost so much. *He
> didn't care, just took my credit card and charged it."*
>  5. IF I COULD GIVE THEM NEGATIVE STARS I WOULD NOT HESITATE! *This is
> my first review and I actually made a yelp account just to save anyone from
> falling into their scam* they call a business.
>  6. They call themselves locksmiths, but that is a joke. They
> completely busted our font door lock (to the point that the handle was
> hanging loosely off the door and no long worked to keep the door closed),
>  then proceeded to charge (and demand!) $150 for the "service." *I
> could have gotten in a lot quicker and cheaper by borrowing a neighbor's
> hammer!*
>
> -Rusty
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130302/951cc235/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 13:37:00 -0800
> From: Eddan <eddan at clear.net>
> To: Daniel Finlay <namelessdan at gmail.com>
> Cc: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] It's Unconscionable
> Message-ID:
> <CAMvNwqF-n7S9Nt7Q+-swhnJ7nu3s9AGUf00U1=fkceqz=zaXOw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Not sure how to append or collate this with Daniel's section, but included
> below is a draft of suggested comments I tried piecing together. I think
> that if we are to have a statement, that we should merge our various
> contributions to represent one voice. I'm not sure what platform is best to
> do this kind of thing on, but have had some positive experience with
> http://www.co-ment.com/.
>
>
> sent from eddan.com
>
>
> ---
>
> To our community ?
>
> It is in good conscience that we, the members of Sudo Room, host the
> Lock-Picking session at the Workshop Weekend taking place at 2141 Broadway
> [and Tech Liminal] today. As even a quick glance at the rest of the program
> would make clear, we are a diverse community of technologists, artists, and
> activists joined together by the ambition of figuring things out for
> ourselves and teaching other people how to do it.
>
> A further step back would reveal a context of free and open to the public
> educational opportunities covering everything from sewing recycled fabric
> into sustainable clothing; making vanilla extract to experiment with new
> flavors of ice cream; creating a transparent and democratic corporate
> governance; and indeed yes ? taking locks apart and reverse engineering
> software.
>
> Regarding the option of calling a locksmith, an Oakland resident locked out
> of their house or car should be advised to read through the peer review
> websites carefully for reputable services before calling their number. It
> is our general belief that public safety is better served when the skills
> necessary to be hired as a locksmith, for example, are taught in classrooms
> rather than by picking it up in the actual commission of crimes.
>
> We share in our city?s mourning of the death of Kiante Campbell at the Art
> Murmur last month. Collectively and as individuals, we are also aware of
> and concerned about the alarming levels of crime in our neighborhoods. It
> is in fact those concerns that have made for the greatest challenges in
> offering an openly accessible entrance to our building. Being a
> horizontally-governed organization, the compromised option of only several
> people having the keys is problematic. We are now experimenting in our own
> space with ways that can increase security while preserving the privacy of
> the general public. We intend to share our results publicly on our website
> and wiki, as with all of our other projects, so that public safety in
> Oakland can be more effectively enforced.
>
> We regret that Mayor Quan stepped back from her support of the event,
> though we appreciate her support for our innovative programs that are
> bringing about an emergent start-up technology culture in downtown Oakland.
> We can certainly sympathize with the overwhelming task of responsibly
> editing a large amount of information such as what is in the Mayors?
> newsletter. We intend for this unfortunate series of misunderstandings to
> be yet another incentive for us to work on some of the projects we?ve
> already started ? those aimed towards more efficiently sorting through
> large volumes of information to allow for making editorial judgment calls
> more fairly.
>
> We would like to take this unsolicited opportunity to make our intentions
> clear with Police Chief Jordan and Mayor Quan. We have among us people who
> can contribute a great deal to solving our law enforcement technology
> problems and addressing the cyber-security concerns of critical
> infrastructure such as the Port of Oakland. We hope to get a chance to work
> together with our city?s leaders in bringing cutting-edge capacity building
> to the people of Oakland with sustainable and equitable economic
> structures. We are trying to be very conscientious about it ? we welcome
> you to drop by one of our many events or visit our website for information
> about our initiatives.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Daniel Finlay <namelessdan at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> Anca's right, this is a huge opportunity.
>
> Lower dues, anyone?
>
> Here's my caricature of opportunism, feel free to tune down the tone to
> your tact level of preference:
>
> The admonition of lockpicking classes by the Mayor and Police Chief of
> Oakland are as unconscionable as the thefts they purport to be in fear of.
> While the alarmists claim that publicly available lockpicking classes may
> promote criminal activity, they lose sight that this class is in the
> context of a larger public enrichment.
>
>
> Despite being only a few months old, Sudoroom has already made itself host
> to a wide variety of educational, cooperative, and even marketable
> skill-building classes and events for hundreds of local residents. From
> programming computers and 3-D printing to curing cheese and modifying DNA,
> Sudo Room is a free, community sponsored place for fostering the
> collaborative creativity that comes with groups full of intellectual
> curiosity in a time of as much change and development as this one.
>
>
> In a time where people's opportunities might lead them to crime, perhaps
> we ought to provide better alternatives rather than stupefying the public
> as a form of self defense.
>
>
> Let us address the cause of this sickness rather than try to snuff out its
> symptoms, and give ourselves access to an unfettered flow of knowledge and
> opportunity. We encourage you to participate in this local renaissance, by
> visiting the Sudoroom yourself, and taking part in any of the classes of
> your interest. You can always find the upcoming events at
> sudoroom.org/calendar, or just stop by almost any time to join your
> neighbors in their curious pursuits.
>
> Feel free to fork it at https://gist.github.com/flyswatter/5070131
>
> -Dan
>
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 11:27 PM, Anca Mosoiu <anca at techliminal.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Michael Scroggins <
> michaeljscroggins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The sentence implicitly draws a difference of kind between the lock
> picking class and the other Workshop Weekend classes. Doing so invites the
> question: What is the difference that makes broadcasting this workshop (in
> the way it was) regrettable? In an environment where the mayor, the chief
> of police and the media have all given the same answer - the class breeds
> criminals - allowing that question is regrettable.
>
>
> It's regrettable because it gave some easy pickings for the people who
> want to portray Oakland, and the current administration, in a certain way.
> Many of the people who are upset about the workshop aren't upset about
> lockpicking, they're upset that Jean Quan appears to encourage crime in her
> newsletter.
>
> It's regrettable because it sucked up airwaves and mental effort that
> might have been better spent.
>
> Drafting a reasoned and reasonable response lowers the blood pressure of
> the people who are up in arms just because they aren't informed. Some of
> them will come around, especially if they understand the actual intent of
> the class.
>
> Eddan, I'd like to participate in writing a statement. I was really taken
> aback when I read some of the emails and talked to some of the people who
> were actually upset.
>
> The media storm will blow over with the next foot-in-mouth opportunity
> from a local politician, but we have a great opportunity to reach out while
> the world is looking.
>
> Anca.
>
>
> --
> -=-=-=-
> Anca Mosoiu | Tech Liminal
> anca at techliminal.com
> M: (510) 220-6660
> http://techliminal.com | T: @techliminal | F: facebook.com/techliminal
>  _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130302/dbfcb95b/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 15:22:26 -0800
> From: rusty lindgren <rustylindgren at gmail.com>
> To: eddan at eddan.com
> Cc: sudo-discuss <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] It's Unconscionable
> Message-ID:
> <CADf_g6=ZvLSqQ9rapKvt4rKbGhWUJVQBMA4wA5czNCyJ_0J0Aw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Eddan,
>
> Would you consider revising to allow this POV?
>
> 1. Can you make it clear that not all members were okay with the
>  treatment by the press, and that we invite them to publicly address us?
> 2. Can you put something in about how knowing more about your locks and
> those services could be leveraged against further scams, and that community
>  programs can lead to less fraud, when awareness is raised?
> 3. Also, can we remove or revise this line: "We can certainly sympathize
> with the overwhelming task of responsibly editing a large amount of
>  information such as what is in the Mayors? newsletter."
> To me, I'm against apologizing for lock-picking classes, and this sounds
> like we're saying it shouldn't have been in there in the first place. I
>  know it's hooked to something else you wrote, but I don't agree with it.
>
> If you want, I could revise the wording and send it back to you, and if
> anyone else wanted to help they could.
>
> Other than that, it's well written and classier than my response would be,
> which is good for the group :D.
>
> -Rusty
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Eddan <eddan at clear.net> wrote:
>
> Not sure how to append or collate this with Daniel's section, but included
> below is a draft of suggested comments I tried piecing together. I think
> that if we are to have a statement, that we should merge our various
> contributions to represent one voice. I'm not sure what platform is best to
> do this kind of thing on, but have had some positive experience with
> http://www.co-ment.com/.
>
>
> sent from eddan.com
>
>
> ---
>
> To our community ?
>
> It is in good conscience that we, the members of Sudo Room, host the
> Lock-Picking session at the Workshop Weekend taking place at 2141 Broadway
> [and Tech Liminal] today. As even a quick glance at the rest of the program
> would make clear, we are a diverse community of technologists, artists, and
> activists joined together by the ambition of figuring things out for
> ourselves and teaching other people how to do it.
>
> A further step back would reveal a context of free and open to the public
> educational opportunities covering everything from sewing recycled fabric
> into sustainable clothing; making vanilla extract to experiment with new
> flavors of ice cream; creating a transparent and democratic corporate
> governance; and indeed yes ? taking locks apart and reverse engineering
> software.
>
> Regarding the option of calling a locksmith, an Oakland resident locked
> out of their house or car should be advised to read through the peer review
> websites carefully for reputable services before calling their number. It
> is our general belief that public safety is better served when the skills
> necessary to be hired as a locksmith, for example, are taught in classrooms
> rather than by picking it up in the actual commission of crimes.
>
> We share in our city?s mourning of the death of Kiante Campbell at the Art
> Murmur last month. Collectively and as individuals, we are also aware of
> and concerned about the alarming levels of crime in our neighborhoods. It
> is in fact those concerns that have made for the greatest challenges in
> offering an openly accessible entrance to our building. Being a
> horizontally-governed organization, the compromised option of only several
> people having the keys is problematic. We are now experimenting in our own
> space with ways that can increase security while preserving the privacy of
> the general public. We intend to share our results publicly on our website
> and wiki, as with all of our other projects, so that public safety in
> Oakland can be more effectively enforced.
>
> We regret that Mayor Quan stepped back from her support of the event,
> though we appreciate her support for our innovative programs that are
> bringing about an emergent start-up technology culture in downtown Oakland.
> We can certainly sympathize with the overwhelming task of responsibly
> editing a large amount of information such as what is in the Mayors?
> newsletter. We intend for this unfortunate series of misunderstandings to
> be yet another incentive for us to work on some of the projects we?ve
> already started ? those aimed towards more efficiently sorting through
> large volumes of information to allow for making editorial judgment calls
> more fairly.
>
> We would like to take this unsolicited opportunity to make our intentions
> clear with Police Chief Jordan and Mayor Quan. We have among us people who
> can contribute a great deal to solving our law enforcement technology
> problems and addressing the cyber-security concerns of critical
> infrastructure such as the Port of Oakland. We hope to get a chance to work
> together with our city?s leaders in bringing cutting-edge capacity building
> to the people of Oakland with sustainable and equitable economic
> structures. We are trying to be very conscientious about it ? we welcome
> you to drop by one of our many events or visit our website for information
> about our initiatives.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Daniel Finlay <namelessdan at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> Anca's right, this is a huge opportunity.
>
> Lower dues, anyone?
>
> Here's my caricature of opportunism, feel free to tune down the tone to
> your tact level of preference:
>
> The admonition of lockpicking classes by the Mayor and Police Chief of
> Oakland are as unconscionable as the thefts they purport to be in fear of.
> While the alarmists claim that publicly available lockpicking classes may
> promote criminal activity, they lose sight that this class is in the
> context of a larger public enrichment.
>
>
> Despite being only a few months old, Sudoroom has already made itself
> host to a wide variety of educational, cooperative, and even marketable
> skill-building classes and events for hundreds of local residents. From
> programming computers and 3-D printing to curing cheese and modifying DNA,
> Sudo Room is a free, community sponsored place for fostering the
> collaborative creativity that comes with groups full of intellectual
> curiosity in a time of as much change and development as this one.
>
>
> In a time where people's opportunities might lead them to crime, perhaps
> we ought to provide better alternatives rather than stupefying the public
> as a form of self defense.
>
>
> Let us address the cause of this sickness rather than try to snuff out
> its symptoms, and give ourselves access to an unfettered flow of knowledge
> and opportunity. We encourage you to participate in this local
> renaissance, by visiting the Sudoroom yourself, and taking part in any of
> the classes of your interest. You can always find the upcoming events at
> sudoroom.org/calendar, or just stop by almost any time to join your
> neighbors in their curious pursuits.
>
> Feel free to fork it at https://gist.github.com/flyswatter/5070131
>
> -Dan
>
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 11:27 PM, Anca Mosoiu <anca at techliminal.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Michael Scroggins <
> michaeljscroggins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The sentence implicitly draws a difference of kind between the lock
> picking class and the other Workshop Weekend classes. Doing so invites the
> question: What is the difference that makes broadcasting this workshop (in
> the way it was) regrettable? In an environment where the mayor, the chief
> of police and the media have all given the same answer - the class breeds
> criminals - allowing that question is regrettable.
>
>
> It's regrettable because it gave some easy pickings for the people who
> want to portray Oakland, and the current administration, in a certain way.
> Many of the people who are upset about the workshop aren't upset about
> lockpicking, they're upset that Jean Quan appears to encourage crime in her
> newsletter.
>
> It's regrettable because it sucked up airwaves and mental effort that
> might have been better spent.
>
> Drafting a reasoned and reasonable response lowers the blood pressure of
> the people who are up in arms just because they aren't informed. Some of
> them will come around, especially if they understand the actual intent of
> the class.
>
> Eddan, I'd like to participate in writing a statement. I was really taken
> aback when I read some of the emails and talked to some of the people who
> were actually upset.
>
> The media storm will blow over with the next foot-in-mouth opportunity
> from a local politician, but we have a great opportunity to reach out while
> the world is looking.
>
> Anca.
>
>
> --
> -=-=-=-
> Anca Mosoiu | Tech Liminal
> anca at techliminal.com
> M: (510) 220-6660
> http://techliminal.com | T: @techliminal | F: facebook.com/techliminal
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Rusty Lindgren
> **
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130302/1dae159f/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
> End of sudo-discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 4
> ******************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>


-- 
Cheers,

Rusty Lindgren
**
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130302/3e849a38/attachment.html>