Re: [liberationtech] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google
Shoshana Zuboff begins: We witness the rise of a new absolute power. Google transfers its radical politics from cyberspace to reality. It will earn its money by knowing, manipulating, controlling the reality and cutting it into the tiniest pieces. The exaggerated claim of absolute power sets a tone of hysteria, making it hard to take the author seriously. Recall those fabled frogs happy in the magic pond. Playful. Distracted. The water temperature slowly rises, but the frogs don’t notice. By the time it reaches the boiling point, it’s too late ... With this, I lose all confidence in the author. If Google is doing anything wrong, then (speaking for myself) I'll await a more sober report of it. carlo von lynX defends: What does it mean, when a conservative mainstream media newspaper sends such a dramatic message? You better should get started thinking about it, if you haven't already. FAZ does not play on alarmism, it sells newspapers for decades and doesn't need to go cheap. At best, it means they goofed. Even an invasion from Mars wouldn't warrant such an hysterical intro. (Sorry to disagree.) -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ -- Liberationtech is public archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
[liberationtech] As F.B.I. Pursued Snowden, an E-Mail Service Stood Firm
DALLAS — One day last May, Ladar Levison returned home to find an F.B.I. agent’s business card on his Dallas doorstep. So began a four-month tangle with law enforcement officials that would end with Mr. Levison’s shutting the business he had spent a decade building and becoming an unlikely hero of privacy advocates in their escalating battle with the government over Internet security. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/us/snowdens-e-mail-provider-discusses-pressure-from-fbi-to-disclose-data.html?pagewanted=all -- Liberationtech is public archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
Re: [liberationtech] Adam Curtis on the nature of espionage
For anyone unfamiliar with Curtis's work, many of his documentaries are streamed here: http://thoughtmaybe.com/by/adam-curtis/ His theme is power in society. His style often borders on theatre, which he takes to a whirlwind pitch in this 2009 immersive theatre piece: http://thoughtmaybe.com/it-felt-like-a-kiss/ He hits full stride when he combines that particular style with his essayist's insight, skills of documentary journalism (and access to the BBC's massive film archives) in his 2011 masterpiece on the modern constraints of human freedom: http://thoughtmaybe.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/ -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Gregory Foster said: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 BBC Blogs (Aug 8) - BUGGER: Maybe The Real State Secret Is That Spies Aren't Very Good At Their Jobs and Don't Know Very Much About The World by Adam Curtis: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER It's really nice to see Adam Curtis weigh in on recent events from his high-bandwidth cybershell plugged directly into the BBC archives mainframe. As usual, the documentary filmmaker and media maestro presents an unconventional take on events in long form that will leave you confused or better informed and often both. In this installment, his long arc points out the manner in which secrecy breeds confusion, suspicion, and treachery; and contrasts that with the open force of love most of us are more familiar with. Or as he puts it, In fact in many cases [the history of spies] is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us. He also has some trenchant warnings for journalists who tend to enjoy hearing and relaying fantastic stories: they may be serving to reinforce and perpetuate illusions of hidden power and secret knowledge, keeping intelligence budgets high even though the recipients are unable to demonstrate results (that's a state secret). More succinctly, Curtis cites one historian's description of a particularly credulous journalist's relationship with anonymous government sources: [He was a] kind of official urinal in which ministers and intelligence and defence chiefs could stand patiently leaking. I'm reminded of AP reporter Adam Goldman's statement during the confusion sown by the Daily Beast's reporting on a top sekrit AQAP Legion of Doom conference call that turned out not to be a call at all: https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanap/status/365115189709910016 As one former senior CIA official once told me: Who says we can't lie to reporters? It's not a crime. Yet despite the punking, Curtis leaves a piece of cheese for journalists at the end of his maze. HT Eugen Leitl via Cypherpunks (thanks!) gf - -- Gregory Foster || gfos...@entersection.org @gregoryfoster http://entersection.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJSCbRrAAoJEMaAACmjGtgjVvkQAJoofjCKrrvvLjPMDpL+KP/s oxE8CxO6pcS2QNjwvSIW7oTmd3xpPaOrU7SkMerWwxJMay4LoxO9gsZggm60fiho nl1tCYZp+T/rIoTF/fBXUJSQOFpW7eH0NwADv7ofbSfTKLcXNT3qXT50zkFwf09s sldqtzzFPERtJJkcz3YbqjilZA2WFbb4gaCTemEQz2ZnJ+18EnocDl/SyKipje7p xUEKwVgoLeIf0ynOWPNYop0hSsc6Dmsy2iNi02G4e1KdR5T39Qgg99Ucs4K4EseD wbIInqEA05GomOpV1PP5cChZ3sUykIfNxTN0J6ZQcN6iP9k/GxL/pXgfkuMR0j7p Gd333uDL85e+vmH/a7fvXggzXVYo9fJ0WCIgQy3pXbm3BJkm0JAY2Lp3BUbE/9Z6 PzlYkNZmTAUu6MPOBiC0vesxuVlYgMkkbLENBpCLw/NHVh++S/eP3kx2p3jgF8D+ fcyjJQ/3x13Aa/TfrmyoIZlgBGYdC5Ld0lan16de+apSPCPwC6dp+TGvYhsjRio7 lzfEN5eNTEU3nFk4VURB/wPT0ViB0W+0KpSMinL89DqtejVP5aeQP9m3+iue3sKV /ReSq1cyn7vOiOH+aP4gTV7wklQrTlft4TESd/ceMQMQraZOPidRN7R2HW/5Vhf0 y8npV0XyDdwT3vfqg+iF =w36q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
Re: [liberationtech] Self-determined publics
Thanks all, for the helpful pointers. I read each of the suggested texts, at least in part. Here's a summary: Heather Marsh (Concentric groups, knowledge bridges and epistemic communities); Chris Kelty (Two bits, recursive publics); Anthony Cohen (Symbolic construction of community); Sebastian Benthall (Weird Twitter); and Michael Warner (Publics and counterpublics). I posted a broader definition of self-determined publics to Air-L, one that allows formal boundary criteria (styles of communication, media, etc.) in addition to topical criteria. As Jack Harris notes, this broader definition would cover the Occupy movement (OccupySandy): http://listserv.aoir.org/pipermail/air-l-aoir.org/2013-July/028326.html Which got me thinking it would also cover the community of a mailing list, or of Twitter, and that this would be inconsistent. I think we can speak correctly of a self-determined public *on the topic* of Weird Twitter, but not *in the form* of weird, or *in the form* of Twitter. Restricting the public to a given form necessarily restricts access, which makes it less of a public. The weird form in particular seems more appropriate to the definition of a counterpublic (Warner). And Twitter is an external authority, something to which no self- -determined public may be bound. So I think I was wrong here and I shouldn't have introduced formal boundaries; publics are better identified by topical criteria. I constructed a prototype of a boundary proclamation, or what I call in this case a public mirror. Here's the front of the mirror where the public's image is reflected: http://www.reddit.com/r/MirMir/new/ The topic there is mirroring and the self-determination of publics; I'm thinking it might be possible to bootstrap one of these things. Mike Folks, Below I define what I call self-determined publics. Has anything similar been attempted before? A self-determined public is an open, topical community that proclaims the definitive bounds of its own communications. The proclamation takes the form of a timely sequence of references (e.g. web links) each pointing to a communication of the public, such that all references together define the total of that public's communications in time and space. For example: Ago Place Title (click to visit thread) --- - -- 17 min r/Foo How do we attach the doohickey? 5 hrFoo-L The problem with so and so's proposal. 1 day FuBarz Who are these Foos, anyway? 1 day r/Foo This, that, and the next thing. 2 days FooStack What's the best thingamy for such and such? . . . and so on The boundary proclamation is similar in form to a conventional news feed. It concerns a specific topic or category. Differences are in a) the exclusion of mass communications, b) the claim to totality, and c) the self-determination that redeems that claim. (a) A principle criterion for inclusion is that one may immediately join any of the referenced communications as a peer. One-way, mass communications are excluded. (b) The boundary proclamation claims to cover the entire public discussion of the topic across all communication media and sites. It claims to be the most complete, accurate and timely overview of the extended discussion that is available anywhere. (c) This claim is redeemed by the public members themselves who submit the references, self-organize the necessary labour, and self-constitute the necessary government. No aspect of this redeeming self-determination is controlled by an external authority. I'm looking for brief pointers, please. I don't know of any actual implementations of this, or projects that are working on it. I'll share what's found. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ -- Liberationtech list is public and archives are searchable on Google. Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] Self-determined publics
Folks, Below I define what I call self-determined publics. Has anything similar been attempted before? A self-determined public is an open, topical community that proclaims the definitive bounds of its own communications. The proclamation takes the form of a timely sequence of references (e.g. web links) each pointing to a communication of the public, such that all references together define the total of that public's communications in time and space. For example: Ago Place Title (click to visit thread) --- - -- 17 min r/Foo How do we attach the doohickey? 5 hrFoo-L The problem with so and so's proposal. 1 day FuBarz Who are these Foos, anyway? 1 day r/Foo This, that, and the next thing. 2 days FooStack What's the best thingamy for such and such? . . . and so on The boundary proclamation is similar in form to a conventional news feed. It concerns a specific topic or category. Differences are in a) the exclusion of mass communications, b) the claim to totality, and c) the self-determination that redeems that claim. (a) A principle criterion for inclusion is that one may immediately join any of the referenced communications as a peer. One-way, mass communications are excluded. (b) The boundary proclamation claims to cover the entire public discussion of the topic across all communication media and sites. It claims to be the most complete, accurate and timely overview of the extended discussion that is available anywhere. (c) This claim is redeemed by the public members themselves who submit the references, self-organize the necessary labour, and self-constitute the necessary government. No aspect of this redeeming self-determination is controlled by an external authority. I'm looking for brief pointers, please. I don't know of any actual implementations of this, or projects that are working on it. I'll share what's found. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Ensuring Free Access to Ideas in Public Spaces?
Hi Nick, In a recent search, I came across these folks: http://www.ifla.org/ See in particular their mailing lists and their FAIFE committee: http://www.ifla.org/mailing-lists http://www.ifla.org/about-faife Hope this is helpful, -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/in Hi folks, Thanks to the awesomeness that is TA3M [0], I've had a chance to talk with a few librarians who're somewhat disappointed by the fact that it's difficult to freely access knowledge at libraries: all Internet access is filtered and surveiled, reducing the freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas. So, I promised I'd reach out to folks to see what, if anything, we can do about the situation. First, what technologies could public libraries employ that would ensure or best facilitate intellectual freedom, free expression and free access to ideas when people use the library? Different libraries will have different connectivity structures, so this is a fairly broad question. I think there's a more fundamental question, though, which is figuring out how to make libraries again responsible for providing unencumbered access to ideas. I don't know how to do this. I could help draft standards-language for The Responsibilities of Libraries to the Public but perhaps there's already such a document out there that could be updated or re-enforced. At this point, I'm trying to start a discussion. Thanks for your time, Nick 0: http://wiki.openitp.org/events:techno-activism_3rd_mondays -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] (advice sought) Public safety and configuration of list
Brian and Elijah, Brian said: If Stanford University, who currently hosts the libtech mailng list decides to change the setup in contravention of democratic process of the list MEMBERS, then I would hope list members will move to one of many other options for hosting. ... Is it not worth considering that the constant rehashing of this discussion is in itself, something reminiscent of the behavior of bad actors attempting to derail effective organizing and discussion? Safety was hardly discussed in public; mostly only off list. Here's a short history of the public exchange between the subscribers and the university, thus far: Subs. When replying to messages sent via the list, I sometimes forget to hit Reply to List. Instead I hit Reply to Sender. When I realize my mistake, I must re-send my reply to the list. What a nuisance! How can we remedy this? Uni. It's possible to alter the sender's Reply-To headers, making it *appear* as though the sender had requested replies to be sent to the list. Then it no longer matters which button you press; your reply is directed to the list regardless. Subs. Yes, let's do that! Uni. But in our particular list, this may present a safety hazard to the public. Also it requires inserting false information into the mail that technically verges on fraud. Subs. (silence) Uni. Did you hear what I said? Subs. How dare you question our democratically reached decision! Did *you* not hear what *we* said? This is perhaps a little unfair. If a proper discussion had been held beforehand, then nobody could have *reasonably* agreed to alter the Reply-To headers without *first* refuting the public safety concerns. But this was not done; instead there was a vote. One subscriber even called for the vote as a means to end the discussion. And now, when the university is required to decide the matter, *again* public discussion is to be curtailed? That is fine, but remember that reasonable arguments of public safety and wilful mis-information are still standing. They have hardly been addressed yet, let alone refuted. (Again, pending that decision, I recommend that the configuration be returned to its default setting. The default is strongly recommended by the providers and its safety is unquestioned.) Elijah Wright said: Please don't reply-all on private mail (what this appears to be - interim mails did not go to Air-L), and then include lists in the CC line. ... it's unethical ... Apologies for cross-posting, but the mail I quoted was not private: https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-April/008257.html Mike Brian Conley said: +1 to both of Joe's comments. Michael, I'm not sure what world you live in, but in the world I live in, anyone who has information worth considering and is to be respected as a security adviser would NEVER follow the actions you've suggested. This is a strawman. The world is a dangerous place, and people get hurt. At least give them the agency to decide how best to protect themselves. Quite frankly I think there is a lot of hand-wringing going on, and it really wastes a lot of people's time. If Stanford University, who currently hosts the libtech mailng list decides to change the setup in contravention of democratic process of the list MEMBERS, then I would hope list members will move to one of many other options for hosting. I fully understand that Stanford University may now feel they have some sort of legal obligation, due, no doubt, in part to less than transparent actions by a few individuals, robbing the members of the list of agency. Its the University's legal decision, no doubt, but perhaps someone from the EFF can kindly call them and let them know this is a straw man. Is it not worth considering that the constant rehashing of this discussion is in itself, something reminiscent of the behavior of bad actors attempting to derail effective organizing and discussion? regards all. On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall j...@cdt.org wrote: (reply-to-list-only) On Apr 23, 2013, at 16:39, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote: Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. The list subscribers are not responsible for the safe administration of the list. The university alone is responsible. It could never pass that responsibility on to the subscribers, even if it wanted to. There's definitely a misunderstanding. I see mailing lists as fundamentally normative negotiations with a foundation of acceptable use, whether administered by Stanford or some other entity. Changing the entity that hosts a mailman list is one of the most frictionless changes which a community can agree to online. So, ultimately it's the list that requires persuasion (in my opinion). --Joe -- Brian Conley Director, Small World News http
[liberationtech] (advice sought) Public safety and configuration of list
To the experts in Liberationtech, Air-L and Mailman lists, (cc General Counsel of Stanford University) Stanford University has configured the Liberationtech mailing list in a manner that is potentially unsafe. University staff are aware of the problem and are evalutating the situation, but have yet to take action. I'm a subscriber to the list, and I ask your advice. SITUATION The Liberationtech mailing list is run by Stanford University in connection with its Program on Liberation Technology. That program investigates the use of IT to defend human rights, improve governance, empower the poor, promote economic development, and pursue a variety of other social goods. [1] Experts on the list advise and inform on matters such as encrypting communications, protecting infrastructure from cyber attack, and protecting onself from personal danger. Often those seeking help are in vulnerable situations. They include aid workers, reporters and activists who live and work in environments where human rights are not well respected, or where the government is too weak to protect people from organized criminals, rival militias, and so forth. The list software is GNU Mailman. The administration interface includes the following configuration items: [2] (a) Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message be stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an explict Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not. X No - Yes (b) Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is *strongly* recommended for most mailing lists. X Poster - This list - Explicit address (c) _ Shown above is the default, recommended setting of (1 No, 2 Poster). It leaves the sender's Reply-To headers (if any) unaltered during mail transfer. Instead of this, the Liberationtech mailing list is configured as follows: (b) Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is *strongly* recommended for most mailing lists. - Poster X This list - Explicit address (c) _ With this setting, whenever a subscriber Q sends a message to the list, the software adds a Reply-To header pointing to L, which is the address of the list itself. The message is then passed on to the subscribers. The meaning of the added Reply-To header is, Q asks that you reply to her at L. [3] Note that this is false information; Q does not ask that. EXAMPLE OF DANGER Matt Mackall has suggested that, here of all places, people might get hurt as a consequence of this configuration [4]. I agree. Here's a brief example of how people might get hurt: 1. Subscriber P is in a vulnerable situation. P is distacted by the situation and is not getting a lot of sleep. 2. P asks the mailing list for advice on the situation, because that's the purpose of the list. 3. Subscriber Q replies with helpful information. The mailing list adds a Reply-To header to Q's message that points to address L. Again, the mis-information is, Q asks that you reply to her at L. [3] 4. P replies with private information, including (as Matt puts it) a potentially life-endangering datum. Tired and distracted, P replies by hitting the standard Reply button. In the mail client, this means reply to Q. The reply goes instead to L, which is the public mailing list. Oh my god! What have I done! 5. People get hurt. Isn't this a danger? POSSIBLE EXPLOIT THAT INCREASES THE DANGER Suppose that P is actually a police operative in an authoritarian state, or a criminal operative in a failed state. He only pretends to be a vulnerable activist (say). His real aim is to hurt the activists and other opponents; damage the university's reputation; close down the mailing list; make democracy look foolish [5]; and finally make some money in the bargain [6]. The likelihood of his success is roughly proportional to the amount of harm suffered by the activists and other innocent people. If such an exploit were even *perceived* to be feasible, then the mis-configuration of the mailing list would not only be exposing the public to a haphazard danger, but also providing the means and incentive to orchestrate and amplify that danger. Might not this exploit be perceived as feasible? INTERIM RECOMMENDATION While Stanford University is evaluating these safety concerns and has yet to make a decision, it should return the configuration to its default setting. The default setting is known to be safe. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ NOTES [1] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech http://liberationtechnology.stanford.edu/ [2] The meaning of configuration variables (a,b,c) is defined
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on Reply to Question
Andrés said: The beauty of democracy! :-) Well, the decision is binding and must be respected. But the issue decided here is not the issue that was raised by Joseph Lorenzo Hall and defined by Matt Mackall. We can see this from the comments that accompany the public votes. One or two voters (such as Karl Fogel) have recognized that the question erroneously implies a reply-to- -poster setting in the configuration of the mailing list. This isn't just a technical error, it's a crucial point. The false distinction between replying to poster and replying to list has clearly confused many people into thinking that the issue boils down to a question of whether to retain the function of a mailing list at all. The issue raised by Joseph and Matt is quite different. It is whether to modify the sender's email headers against the standard practice of mailing lists, and against the advice of technical experts, and thus to infringe on the safety of the sender and other subscribers. Suppose we frame this issue as a question at some point, discuss it in a reasonable manner (subscribers here are intelligent and thoughtful), and then vote on it. It would be the first-ever vote on the issue. And if that's true, then isn't it *this* freedom to raise issues, to discuss them reasonably, and thus to inform voted decisions (and not the binding power of decisions) that's the real beauty of democracy? And what about the larger democracies in which many of us are fortunate enough to be citizens? Are we making ill-informed decisions for lack of reasoned discussion there, too? I'm thinking we ourselves might be in need of some liberation technology. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes said: The beauty of democracy! :-) On Mar 27, 2013 10:20 PM, Yosem Companys compa...@stanford.edu wrote: Dear Liberationtech list subscribers, Thank you for your vote on the following question, Do you want replies to Liberationtech list messages directed to reply-to-all or reply-to-poster? Here is the final vote tally: - Reply to All: 73% - Reply to Poster: 27% For perspective, the vote tally last time on August 20, 2012, was strikingly similar: - List: 69% - Sender: 31% As a result, the list default option will stay at reply to all. Thanks again, Yosem One of your moderators -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on Reply to Question
PS - A fellow list administrator kindly points out that I'm wrong about the actual configuration variables. And in that connection, I also misrepresented what Karl was saying. (Sorry for the added noise and confusion.) The actual config variables are: (1) Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message be stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an explict Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not. - No - Yes (2) Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is *strongly* recommended for most mailing lists. - Poster - This list - Explicit address (3) _ The meaning of these three variables is defined here: http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html The default and recommended settings of (1 No) and (2 Poster) leave the sender's Reply-to headers unaltered. My argument still stands, ofc. The issue decided by this vote is not the issue that was raised by Joseph and Matt. That issue, and that question, have yet to be discussed and voted: ... It is whether to modify the sender's email headers against the standard practice of mailing lists, and against the advice of technical experts, and thus to infringe on the safety of the sender and other subscribers. Mike Michael Allan said: Andrés said: The beauty of democracy! :-) Well, the decision is binding and must be respected. But the issue decided here is not the issue that was raised by Joseph Lorenzo Hall and defined by Matt Mackall. We can see this from the comments that accompany the public votes. One or two voters (such as Karl Fogel) have recognized that the question erroneously implies a reply-to- -poster setting in the configuration of the mailing list. This isn't just a technical error, it's a crucial point. The false distinction between replying to poster and replying to list has clearly confused many people into thinking that the issue boils down to a question of whether to retain the function of a mailing list at all. The issue raised by Joseph and Matt is quite different. It is whether to modify the sender's email headers against the standard practice of mailing lists, and against the advice of technical experts, and thus to infringe on the safety of the sender and other subscribers. Suppose we frame this issue as a question at some point, discuss it in a reasonable manner (subscribers here are intelligent and thoughtful), and then vote on it. It would be the first-ever vote on the issue. And if that's true, then isn't it *this* freedom to raise issues, to discuss them reasonably, and thus to inform voted decisions (and not the binding power of decisions) that's the real beauty of democracy? And what about the larger democracies in which many of us are fortunate enough to be citizens? Are we making ill-informed decisions for lack of reasoned discussion there, too? I'm thinking we ourselves might be in need of some liberation technology. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes said: The beauty of democracy! :-) On Mar 27, 2013 10:20 PM, Yosem Companys compa...@stanford.edu wrote: Dear Liberationtech list subscribers, Thank you for your vote on the following question, Do you want replies to Liberationtech list messages directed to reply-to-all or reply-to-poster? Here is the final vote tally: - Reply to All: 73% - Reply to Poster: 27% For perspective, the vote tally last time on August 20, 2012, was strikingly similar: - List: 69% - Sender: 31% As a result, the list default option will stay at reply to all. Thanks again, Yosem One of your moderators -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
Please let me clarify: I think it was the original collective decision that was ill-informed, and not the decision to vote on the issue, or to honour the result of that vote. But it now appears that safety is a concern (as Matt points out), which wasn't originally understood. Since it's a question of safety vs. convenience, then maybe it's better to revert immediately to the default setting (the safer one). The question then would be, Does anyone want to re-vote the issue? If not, we could just leave it there. Mike Yosem Companys said: Am I right to assume Mike and Matt are asking that the issue be put up for a vote again so that the default is changed back from reply-to-all to reply-to-poster? If so, I will get that survey going. Thanks, Yosem One of the moderators On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote: Matt said: Reply-to-list poses a significant usability risk that can escalate into a security issue, so it's unfortunate that it's being used here of all places. I agree. Some more information on Reply-To header munging: http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html It's non-standard too, as Joseph suggests. Joseph said: ... I wouldn't want to question that collective decision... I think the two stanford.edu lists I am on are the only ones out of a large number that default to reply-to list. I will be more careful. While well intentioned, the original decision seems ill-informed. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Matt Mackall said: On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 19:08 -0400, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: Has the possibility of reconfiguring libtech to not reply-all by default been broached? Reply-to-list poses a significant usability risk that can escalate into a security issue, so it's unfortunate that it's being used here of all places. Let me relate a personal example from several years ago: A: operational discussion on activist group list B: Right on! ps: how's extremely embarassing private matter going? B: Oh SH*#$#*T, I'm SO sorry, I didn't mean to reply-all!! I feel horrible!! It's quite easy to imagine extremely embarassing private matter being replaced by career-ending aside on most lists, but on this one in particular it might be replaced by potentially life-endangering datum. Now compare this to the typical fall-out that happens without reply-to: A: operational discussion on activist group list B: public reply accidentally sent privately B: Oops, sent that privately, sorry for the duplicate. How many such minor inconveniences equal one job lost or life endangered? In my opinion, no list should use reply-to-list. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. Joseph Lorenzo Hall said: On Mar 19, 2013, at 19:32, Yosem Companys compa...@stanford.edu wrote: We used to use individual replies rather than reply all, but the list members took a vote to change the default to reply all. If there's enough interest, we could always bring it up for another vote, as the decision was made a year or so ago, and the list has grown a lot since then. Cool. That is exactly the data that I was looking for; I wouldn't want to question that collective decision. I think the two stanford.edu lists I am on are the only ones out of a large number that default to reply-to list. I will be more careful. best, Joe -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Please Vote on Reply to Question
Please vote by submitting your preference to me by 11.59 pm PST on Sunday, March 24, 2013. Any votes received after this date and time will not be counted. reply-to-poster please -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Yosem Companys said: Dear Liberationtech list subscribers, Several of you have petitioned to change Liberationtech mailing list's default reply to option from reply-to-all to reply-to-poster. Given the debate (see links below), we have decided to put the issue up for a vote: - Do you want replies to Liberationtech list messages directed to reply-to-all or reply-to-poster? Please vote by submitting your preference to me by 11.59 pm PST on Sunday, March 24, 2013. Any votes received after this date and time will not be counted. Thanks, Yosem One of your moderators PS To read a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of reply-to-all, click on the corresponding links below: - Reply-to-all considered useful: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html - Reply-to-all considered harmful: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html If you'd like to read the entire debate on the Liberationtech list, please click on the links below: http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03767.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03768.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03769.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03771.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03772.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03773.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03774.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03775.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03776.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03777.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03778.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03779.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03780.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03781.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03782.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03783.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03788.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03789.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03790.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03791.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03799.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03801.html -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
Matt said: Reply-to-list poses a significant usability risk that can escalate into a security issue, so it's unfortunate that it's being used here of all places. I agree. Some more information on Reply-To header munging: http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html It's non-standard too, as Joseph suggests. Joseph said: ... I wouldn't want to question that collective decision... I think the two stanford.edu lists I am on are the only ones out of a large number that default to reply-to list. I will be more careful. While well intentioned, the original decision seems ill-informed. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Matt Mackall said: On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 19:08 -0400, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: Has the possibility of reconfiguring libtech to not reply-all by default been broached? Reply-to-list poses a significant usability risk that can escalate into a security issue, so it's unfortunate that it's being used here of all places. Let me relate a personal example from several years ago: A: operational discussion on activist group list B: Right on! ps: how's extremely embarassing private matter going? B: Oh SH*#$#*T, I'm SO sorry, I didn't mean to reply-all!! I feel horrible!! It's quite easy to imagine extremely embarassing private matter being replaced by career-ending aside on most lists, but on this one in particular it might be replaced by potentially life-endangering datum. Now compare this to the typical fall-out that happens without reply-to: A: operational discussion on activist group list B: public reply accidentally sent privately B: Oops, sent that privately, sorry for the duplicate. How many such minor inconveniences equal one job lost or life endangered? In my opinion, no list should use reply-to-list. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. Joseph Lorenzo Hall said: On Mar 19, 2013, at 19:32, Yosem Companys compa...@stanford.edu wrote: We used to use individual replies rather than reply all, but the list members took a vote to change the default to reply all. If there's enough interest, we could always bring it up for another vote, as the decision was made a year or so ago, and the list has grown a lot since then. Cool. That is exactly the data that I was looking for; I wouldn't want to question that collective decision. I think the two stanford.edu lists I am on are the only ones out of a large number that default to reply-to list. I will be more careful. best, Joe -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Looking for collaborators for free-range voting project
An update on this Knight News Challenge submission: The software company Wadobo has joined with its Agora Voting platform. We now have two strong service providers for the mirroring network. We also have the Metagovernment project on board as a neutral facilitator. If you're a provider of on-line, open-source voting services and could use some funding in order to join the mirroring network, please let us know. Adding more providers (up to a certain limit) can only help our chances of winning. See the submission page for contact details: https://www.newschallenge.org/open/open-government/submission/free-range-voting/ -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Looking for collaborators for free-range voting project
Ruben and Rich, Ruben Bloemgarten said: It seems I might have jumped the gun, assuming the discussion was about voting systems for use in political elections. Disclosing all voter data, including voter identity would solve much if not all issues regarding verifiability, however would that not also restrict the use of such a system to topics that have no political or social consequences ? Otherwise it seems that the removal of secrecy/anonymity would be extremely problematic if not out-right dangerous. Rich Kulawiec said: I'm with Ruben on this one. There are serious problems (in many cases) with disclosure of how someone voted; there are even problems disclosing *if* they voted or possibly if they were *eligible* to vote, even if that disclosure only (putatively) is done to the voter. I guess the main concern is coercion and vote buying. I've discussed this with others and we foresee some important mitigations. (These aren't obvious BAM, and it took us some time to see them.) * (a) Continuous primary voting: Vote sellers can shift their votes after taking the money, perhaps re-selling them to other buyers. This makes vote buying a poor investment. (b) Full disclosure: Buyers, sellers and systematic pressure by others (employers, unions, churches, and so forth) are detectable by statistical pattern analysis of vote shifts and dispositions in correlation with facts (known buyers and sellers, workforce structure and dynamics, and so forth). (c) Separation of primary from decision systems: Public and private voting may be interrelated through separate electoral systems: a public vote in the run-up (primary system) culminates in a private vote on election day (decision system). The final private vote (secret ballot) filters out instances of individual vote buying and coercion. A similar strategy may be applied to normative decisions. Here the decisive vote is often not private, but instead restricted to a small number of people, such as elected assembly members. Concerns of coercion and vote buying are thus *also* restricted to that smaller group of people, who may therefore be closely monitored and scrutinized. These should at least prevent skewing of decisions and other serious harm. Or have we overlooked something? I used to point to the harm caused by our faith in the secret ballot, but now I feel it's the wrong approach. Whatever we suffer on account of our political arrangements (we in the West, who have so much else to be thankful for) is our own fault. We have the wherewithal to fix things, and could even proceed a little faster if we wished. * From this footnote, which also links to discussions http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#fn-2 Mike -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
