Thank you Zenaan.

Trying to memorize: keep discussions on-list, remove individual recipients

Curious how you learned of the two or three personal and very short off-list messages I vaguely recall sending yesterday.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 1:01 AM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:

Hi Karl, I am really appreciating your contributions to this list. Thank you.

Please keep your discussions on list unless requested by at least 2 un-opposed and public requests to 'please take it offline'.

There is a historical discussion on whether to create a "politico-punks@cpunks.org" mailing list, and the consensus ended up as "keep it in a single list, at least until otherwise discussed again and decided in some other way" - in this way, many can benefit from the discussions and tolks can filter, delete, or otherwise ignore as they wish.

(A minor request, if it is convenient enough for you to do so, please usually just reply to the list - then we do not have to take the extra time to manually delete the duplicate emails from you... this will be appreciated.)

Best,



On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 04:30:10AM -0400, Karl wrote:
> It is clear that surveillance by the powerful is deadly.
>
> Do you also disagree with public records made by the weak, like mailing
> list archives?  I would put personal black boxes in that category; I could
> be wrong.
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 12:49 AM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:34:03PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:05:52 -0400
> > > Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I'm not being clear.  I think I've been upsetting you too, something I
> > do
> > > > not want to do.  I'm a little crestfallen over the difficulty
> > communicating.
> > >
> > >       don't worry about upsetting me. As far as communication goes
> > though it seems you're ignorning my overall comments on 'technology' and
> > political power. Anyway, I won't repeat them again. At least today...
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think I understand that you know surveillance is stimulating severe
> > > > danger these days, and that you are very, very concerned around the
> > idea of
> > > > us building recording devices.
> > >
> > >       No, what 'concerns me' is the faulty reasoning.
> > >
> > > > We need to protect our privacy and safety, and we need to defend that
> > those are protected.  Am I on the right page  here?
> >
> >
> >
> > So there's an old adage (a saying, holding some truth and/or wisdom):
> >
> >    Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little
> > temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> >    Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
> >    https://wisdomquotes.com/liberty-safety-benjamin-franklin/
> >
> >
> > and some variations from the same link:
> >
> >    Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not
> > have, nor do they deserve, either one.
> >
> >    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little
> > security will deserve neither and lose both.
> >
> >    He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
> >
> >
> >
> > The simple technical issue here is the fact that surveillance is
> > inherently destroying.
> >
> > And it is natural for folks to want safety - but heed the Franklin warning
> > above!
> >
> > In principle, if our (as humans) default position when faced with threats
> > to our safety is to clamour for "solutions" which remove or reduce one or
> > another of our freedoms, then the likely (towards certain) outcome (at
> > least over the medium term) shall be the loss each freedom so sacrificed,
> > and quite likely also that coveted safety.
> >
> > To the extent we are able to obtain either the ability or means to protect
> > ourselves, or to correct wrongs, withOUT giving up any freedom - THIS must
> > be our first port of call!
> >
> > And further, every proposal by anyone, that we "ought give up freedom A, B
> > and or C", must be treated with the greatest of suspicion, and in the very
> > very least must be thoroughly evaluated and examined and tested from this
> > perspectiv of "are we giving up, or even encroaching upon, any basic human
> > right and/or freedom?"
> >
> > If WE do not uphold and protect our own basic human rights, then who will?
> >
> > For any who missed the memo, privacy is a basic human right, fundamental
> > to our dignity.
> >
> >
> >
> >    I don't have to be doing anything wrong, to want my privacy.
> >
> >