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

[Karl]

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 at 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 at 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 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: 6294 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20200612/e33faf72/attachment.txt>