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 <[1]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
     "[2]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
     <[3]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 <[4]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)
     > >    [5]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.
     > >
     > >

References

   1. mailto:zen@freedbms.net
   2. mailto:politico-punks@cpunks.org
   3. mailto:zen@freedbms.net
   4. mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com
   5. https://wisdomquotes.com/liberty-safety-benjamin-franklin/