privacy, safety, and freedom -- Re: Whether To Design Open Source Public Records Equipment

[Karl]

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 at 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 at 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 3955 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20200611/6f8de14a/attachment.txt>