"...he failed to follow his own security rules. While seeking tech help
for his site, he used his personal email and gave his real name."
What was alleged Silk Road mastermind's 'fatal flaw'? Find out how FBI
tracked him down?
http://www.cbsnews.com/
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57605882/what-was-alleged-silk-road-masterminds-fatal-flaw-find-out-how-fbi-tracked-him-down/>
'We Are Anonymous'
Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber
Insurgency
by Olson, Parmy
Back Bay Books, 2013
'Tubes: A Journey to the Center of the Internet'
by Andrew Blum
Ecco, 2013
'PGP: Pretty Good Privacy'
by Garfinkel and Simson
O'Reilly, 1991
On 10/4/2013 1:08 PM, iranitea wrote:
---In [email protected], <[email protected]>
wrote:
Iranitea tries a different tack:
> Share, I really liked your comment about the PR anniversary.
It was pretty funny.
> I like that you don't give in to all the collective pressure, of
some of the group members here,
> that you are in fact NOT back peddling. I like you to know, that I
am completely with you on
> this issue.
Surprise!
> PR is a strong word,
(For those who weren't around at the time, "PR" stands for
"psychological rape.")
Repeating the word she finds so offensive.
> but I do think that it was needed, and can well be understood. Don't give in
to some wrong
> understood political correctness, which is basically the argument of your
opponents.
Not sure what's "politically correct" about objecting to a very
inflammatory accusation, especially given that it was false as could be.
In any case, the offensiveness of the term and its falsehood were only
part of the problem.
The phrase is just a characterizations of what has happened to her,
and how it felt to her. The offense, intrusion, was made by Robin, not
her. She is the victim, not Robin. There is NO chance this word can be
misunderstood, for example as physical rape. There is no falsehood at
all involved in it. If she felt this was a psychological rape, she has
every right to express this.
The other part was that Share lied /either/ about her initial reaction
to what Robin had said (which was utterly innocuous, BTW), or about
what she /said/ her initial reaction had been four weeks later. She
has never acknowledged the gross discrepancy, much less offered an
explanation.
You don't know about her initial reaction, you only know what she
wrote here. She might have felt it earlier, but wasn't able to express
it then. It sometimes needs time to become clear of one's feelings.
Were you around at the time, iranitea? I don't recall your having
commented on any of it.
And? I had seen it at some point, when I was not subscribed. I was
somewhat surprised, how you had managed to alienate yet another
follower .
> You are the one who clearly felt and perceived the kind of unwanted
intrusion, and it is you
> who have to draw the red line. All the bad mouthing of your character is
rubbish, you have
> not been the intruder in this regard. You had to deal here with a master
manipulator - and
> you were able to see through this, and free yourself from that influence.
Sometimes you have
> to step out of a prison, to realize you have been in a prison. There are
prisons of mental
> concepts and conditionings. To free oneself from these may sometimes take
years or
> decades. It doesn't matter how long you were exposed to these concepts, they
may still take
> roots in you - obviously many have a hard time to get rid of this. Consider yourself
lucky!
This is fascinating. I wonder if Share will set him straight. I doubt it.
Yeah, sure, people have to be 'set straight'. This attitude says
really all about you, that's why you are so much liked here. Consider
this to be talking also about myself.
