[liberationtech] the 14th reason not to start using PGP is out!

[Peter Lindener]

Guys...
   I'm feeling the need to chime in behind Yosem here..

   We need to appreciate that there might be validity, and for that mater
deeper levels of secure systems competency voiced by some, and others might
want to be humble enough to fully appreciate the view points of others.

   A ways back, I was completely caught of balance by a rather hostile
flame like response.. that came back at me on this list.....

   Then I am very grateful that Stanford's LibTech program provides this
very effectively moderated form....So lets keep our discussions up to par
with the level of civility that Stanford's divers community has come to
cherish....

   Thanks
      Yosem for doing  a great job!
         -Peter




On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Yosem Companys <companys at stanford.edu>wrote:

> Cool it, all.  No personal attacks.
>
> Yosem, one of the moderators.
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Ali-Reza Anghaie <ali at packetknife.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:24 PM, carlo von lynX
> > <lynX at time.to.get.psyced.org> wrote:
> >> On 11/21/2013 05:23 AM, Ali-Reza Anghaie wrote:
> >>> As it pertains to your response to me from over a month ago (below) -
> >>> we're just on different pages. I'm not arguing the strategic problem
> >>> statement, I'm saying you've made a tactical decision that was
> >>> damaging. *shrug*
> >>
> >> History will tell who is damaging the most, those who promote new
> >> solutions or those who, just like politicians, try to cling to a
> >> broken status quo.
> >
> > The status quo could also be said to "our" tendency to flitter from
> > one magical non-solution to another based on selfish ego and turf wars
> > and never sticking to the basics we took many years to get right. App
> > stores and toys. Oh - that would be you in that political anecdote.
> >
> > See? Two can play at that silly comparison and character argument
> > assassination. It's not valid ~either~ way.
> >
> > All I was saying is I disagreed with the tactical approach you took -
> > which is to declare something dead prematurely and without enough
> > context.
> >
> >>> Matters little now - so many new entrants into the ecosystem we're
> >>> already fighting the good fight against the bad fighters. Good luck,
> >>> Cheers, -Ali
> >>
> >> Fight? I didn't come to fight. I try to reduce the damage being done.
> >
> > I didn't mean you - I meant the flood of entrants into the "secure
> > email" or "email replacement" chain that have been enabled by generic
> > assassinations and false comparisons of other technology.
> >
> > Going back to my one of my original criticisms is that in the rush to
> > make this a ~tech~ issue we forgot to remind people that it's
> > primarily actually an OPSEC issue in most cases. If we're talking
> > ~history~ then you're on the wrong side of that fence at least - again
> > a ~TACTICAL~ comment because I'm sure you (and in YOU) know that OPSEC
> > plays heavily into it. I'm talking about the delivery of the message.
> >
> > I leave our particular sub-thread to you for the last word (should you
> > need / want it). Cheers and best wishes, -Ali
> > --
> > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations
> of list guidelines will get you moderated:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
> companys at stanford.edu.
> --
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations
> of list guidelines will get you moderated:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
> companys at stanford.edu.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20131122/67733095/attachment.html>