<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>That's interesting to think about. I am probably more paranoid
than you are, but I'd like to expand on some of your points.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMXe=Sq-pcZ4SyeugaENKqxDOweBVRpN0Uvz2EAv9RWsEXWH1A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Privacy for me is about data that I dont want to be public,
but does not apply to
<div>my opinions when I air them in public, that I dont want
to be covered by privacy</div>
<div>although yes, I do not want others to manipulate and
misrepresent what I writea or say</div>
<div>but thats another story</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think the question here is what is considered "public". To me,
this mailing list is not as public as, say, explicitly addressing
the crowd in a public event. Here, I am addressing a specific set
of people; that the email happens to be forever-archived and made
publicly available does not make it "public" in my opinion. It's
like having a conversation at the park; that the park is publicly
accessible does not mean you should be nosing around other
people's conversations. I think technology has eroded this
concept, in particular social networks like Facebook and Twitter
whose business model relies heavily on making everything "public"
so that the hate and the dissonance can spread and be consumed
like popcorn.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMXe=Sq-pcZ4SyeugaENKqxDOweBVRpN0Uvz2EAv9RWsEXWH1A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>It does not matter though if the messages are archived or
not, accessible or not, as far
<div>as the lynching is concerned, they ll find a way to lynch
you even if the messages are not archived</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In fact, they ll fabricate private messages that cannot
be verified and hire people to lie about you just to mob you
in other ways</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think it does matter, because it fundamentally shifts the
attack from retroactive to proactive/targeted, the latter being
orders of magnitude more expensive. That already shaves off a
large portion of the trolls. And if the remainder insist on
targeting you, they'll have to work harder. Like I mentioned in
the email, I think one can also draw parallels here with NSA
surveillance.<br>
</p>
<p>There have been numerous examples of retroactive attacks, like
somebody being fired from their job because of something they did
or said ten years ago, which also happened to be recorded for
posterity, surfaced from the depths of the web and taken
completely out of context (not to mention that the person might be
a different person 10 years later). The person gets doxed and the
company caves in to the pressure. Spanish author Juan Soto Ivars
devoted a whole book to this called "Arden las Redes"; I am not
sure if it has an English translation. Of course, the permanent
record here is not the root cause of the problem, nor does a lack
of it fully solve the problem, but I think the record does
facilitate the attacks to some degree.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMXe=Sq-pcZ4SyeugaENKqxDOweBVRpN0Uvz2EAv9RWsEXWH1A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>In that sense, having messages in the open for public
scrutiny means that anyone could verify what was said, and
expose the intentional
misrepresentation de-contextualization and the manipulation
for the deliberate purpose of putting the messenger in a
bad light.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I think this assumes that everything I say in public is recorded,
which is not exactly the kind of world I want to live in. And even
then, I don't see what problem this would solve.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMXe=Sq-pcZ4SyeugaENKqxDOweBVRpN0Uvz2EAv9RWsEXWH1A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>I am all for sticking to the right to say what we have to
say, and learning how to deal with deliberate targeting of
the folks who say what they have to say. We need to
continue to build civil society. and pay the price for doing
it</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To instil fear and to injure who are not afraid of free
speech is ultimately what they want, we need to learn and
teach civilization. Long way to go, it seems</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yeah, no question there.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMXe=Sq-pcZ4SyeugaENKqxDOweBVRpN0Uvz2EAv9RWsEXWH1A@mail.gmail.com"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 7:34 AM
Marc Sunet <<a href="mailto:msunet@shellblade.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">msunet@shellblade.net</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>It's a good one, here is a related one that talks about
the social effects:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.socialcooling.com/" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.socialcooling.com/</a></p>
<p>To me, part of the problem is that online communications
are constantly creating a permanent record, like Snowden
puts it. This list, for example, should really be regarded
as private, a conversation with the liberation folks. But
it's actually public by virtue of having an eternal record
of everything said here made available on a discoverable
part the Web. Any joke, criticism or statement can then be
taken out of context and copy-pasted somewhere else; in
the worst case, this results in a public lynching of the
author. The lack of privacy then leads to a chilling
effect, to self-censorship; every word must be carefully
measured, even the email address you send this from and
other metadata must be considered.<br>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, if the mailing list record just
self-destructed after a while (Signal does this with
messages), then the problem would not be as bad.
Copy-pasting something out of context and lynching the
author would now have to be a targeted attack as opposed
to something you can do retroactively any day and any
time. Most people would not bother unless you were a
high-profile target. The same arguments Snowden makes
about the NSA collecting a permanent record to then
retroactively find crime as opposed to looking for
evidence for an existing investigation apply to online
social communication just as well.<br>
</p>
<p>There is of course value in making the list publicly
available to build community, provide a learning resource
and so on, so automated self-destruction seems like a good
balance and default to me. Things become semi-private, or
semi-public; words are written on sand instead of stone.<br>
</p>
<div>On 10/2/20 8:57 AM, Yosem Companys wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><a
href="https://inre.me/why-privacy-is-the-most-important-concept-of-our-time/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://inre.me/why-privacy-is-the-most-important-concept-of-our-time/</a></div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</div>
-- <br>
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from
any major commercial search engine. Violations of list
guidelines will get you moderated: <a
href="https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt</a>.
Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by
emailing <a href="mailto:lt-owner@lists.liberationtech.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">lt-owner@lists.liberationtech.org</a>.</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
GPG: 9C2A AF1D CC91 0A53 AB0A B6A1 C457 0E01 081F 8F91
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/">https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/</a></pre>
</body>
</html>