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

[Karl]

I forgot to you remove you fron senders.  I have removed you in this
acknowledgement of error.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 5:15 AM Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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: 6787 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20200612/8f715f1f/attachment.txt>