<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Marc</div><div dir="ltr"><br><div>thanks for continuing this discussion, privacy is important, as well as trending</div><div>but its a complex, multidimensional issue</div><div><br></div><div>We are not dealing with honesty ignorance or simple fallacy but with vicious deviated powerful and criminal organisations operating within legal systems (such and govenrments) above and beyond the law- often in the name of national or global security, who have the power to distort/omit/manipulate information to influence the public opinion. This is done routinely, sometimes called politics,</div><div><br></div><div>Honest surveillance exists for example, when I entered a country last March they told me at the airport that my phone was going to be tracked by contact tracing apps because of Covid - they did not ask my permission, but they informed me, verbally</div><div>I may even have signed a card to say I agree in some foreign language I dont understand, but I dont remember, I was tired and wanted to get in</div><div><br></div><div>I may not like it, but I am not afraid of this situation, Basically now that I know, if I dont want to be tracked, I can leave the phone at home. Unless someone is going to misuse this tracking situation for other purposes, which nobody may ever know</div><div><br></div><div>Dishonest surveillance is when I dont know who is tracking my location, every movement I make every word I say, what they do with this info possibly feed it to networks which may contain disgruntled folks who may want to see me dead - for whatever reason , possibly ideological political personal</div><div>I am more afraid of this latter scenario.which is quite common, and undocumented. all done under the radar</div><div><br></div><div>Especially when the person being tracked is/was a journalist, or researcher who may have accidentally stumbled across </div><div>some dodgy fact and may have made some public disclosure in the public interest of such facts and is now the targed of some secret state</div><div><br></div><div>Privacy is a human right, but it is regularly infringed by we dont know who, why or how</div><div>They do not document breaches of privacy, they make sure not to leave any trail behind when they do</div><div><br></div><div> Marc Sunet <<a href="mailto:msunet@shellblade.net" target="_blank">msunet@shellblade.net</a>> wrote:.<br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>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.</div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>The privacy issue may benefit from being defined on a scale, degrees of privacy. </div><div>For me, based on my awareness of surveillance, even what I think in my mind or do in my bathroom may be or become public to some extent (not that I authorize this, is done without consensus). They can track my every online activity, every word I search for, every noise I make listen in through the microphone on my laptop next room, or by simply hanging something from the window.</div><div>(note: I am VERY paranoid, but have learned that surveillance is a fact and live with it)</div><div><br></div><div>Posting on a mailing list which is publicly accessible, for me is public. (cyberpublic)</div><div><br></div><div> Posting to a list that is accessible only members, is less public. etc, possibly on a scale</div><div><br></div><div>Private emails, or private conversations in public places, are not intended to be public, </div><div>however when someone snoops then posts to public lists, it becomes public</div><div>Everywhere I go, every train, every appointment with friends, I wonder if the person sitting next to us</div><div>is recording what we say - (veeery paranoid) I live with that and as you imagine, I do not have much of a life</div><div>and live far from people</div><div><br></div><div>Much information is not public - say wrongdoing of all sorts is carried out by governments and corporations privately but it should be, I think</div><div><br></div><div>There is nothing that can be done to prevent people with motivation and technology, or policy (say a mandate to carry out surveillance if you, your interlocutor or the conversations you have may be considered a matter of national security)</div><div><br></div><div>What is considered a matter of national security, should be of pubic concern</div><div>But it is not., is it?</div><div><br></div><div>It can get very complicated :-)</div><div><br></div><div>Even privacy advocates can be twisted to abuse privacy (say to spy or to stalk physically or virtually others) if <br></div><div>someone they trust tells them that spying on people is carried out to protect them or their privacy, ultimately for their own</div><div>safety some people infring your privacy with that justification</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>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></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div>for me, it is a surveillance technology that erodes the concept. Social media play a part, but its is what is not public</div><div>that may impact the public that needs to be better addressed</div><div> yes maybe, but at least public information is open to <a href="http://scrutiny.by" target="_blank">scrutiny.by</a> everyone not just a single party</div><div> </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>
</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></div></blockquote><div>the point here for me is not the information, but the attacks and the motives. </div><div>someone with a motive to attack will find or create information to use for that purpose</div><div>yes, public information may be easier , but those with motivation have budgets, big budgets</div><div><br></div><div>entire education systems, science, research funding, legislations are built on partial facts or false facts</div><div>and those who expose them, are persecuted and surveillance and breaches of privacy are the mechanisms</div><div>for this prosecution.</div><div>If its secret states, corporations or powerful political or economic lobbies who are after you, the fact that your</div><div>postsa may not be publicly accessible will not stop them, there are plenty of ways to get to people, much of the prosecution of innocent folks is done with public money but the justice system itself in democratice countries where</div><div>politics is controlled by money</div><div><br></div><div><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>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>no, I am referring to public information which is deliberately shared openly with the purpose to exercise freedom of speech and opinion, and/or to infor and it is recorded as in publicly accessible mailing list archives </div><div>or other public records. </div><div>A lot of person information is public or findable with little effort and incerasingly so. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Very big topic, not black and white</div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>PDM </div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<blockquote type="cite"><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" target="_blank">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">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">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">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">lt-owner@lists.liberationtech.org</a>.</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre cols="72">--
GPG: 9C2A AF1D CC91 0A53 AB0A B6A1 C457 0E01 081F 8F91
<a href="https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/" target="_blank">https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/</a></pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</div>