Brian and Elijah, Brian said: > If Stanford University, who currently hosts the libtech mailng list > decides to change the setup in contravention of democratic process > of the list MEMBERS, then I would hope list members will move to one > of many other options for hosting. ... Is it not worth considering > that the constant rehashing of this discussion is in itself, > something reminiscent of the behavior of bad actors attempting to > derail effective organizing and discussion?
Safety was hardly discussed in public; mostly only off list. Here's a short history of the public exchange between the subscribers and the university, thus far: Subs. When replying to messages sent via the list, I sometimes forget to hit "Reply to List". Instead I hit "Reply to Sender". When I realize my mistake, I must re-send my reply to the list. What a nuisance! How can we remedy this? Uni. It's possible to alter the sender's Reply-To headers, making it *appear* as though the sender had requested replies to be sent to the list. Then it no longer matters which button you press; your reply is directed to the list regardless. Subs. Yes, let's do that! Uni. But in our particular list, this may present a safety hazard to the public. Also it requires inserting false information into the mail that technically verges on fraud. Subs. (silence) Uni. Did you hear what I said? Subs. How dare you question our democratically reached decision! Did *you* not hear what *we* said? This is perhaps a little unfair. If a proper discussion had been held beforehand, then nobody could have *reasonably* agreed to alter the Reply-To headers without *first* refuting the public safety concerns. But this was not done; instead there was a vote. One subscriber even called for the vote as a means to end the discussion. And now, when the university is required to decide the matter, *again* public discussion is to be curtailed? That is fine, but remember that reasonable arguments of public safety and wilful mis-information are still standing. They have hardly been addressed yet, let alone refuted. (Again, pending that decision, I recommend that the configuration be returned to its default setting. The default is strongly recommended by the providers and its safety is unquestioned.) Elijah Wright said: > Please don't reply-all on private mail (what this appears to be - > interim mails did not go to Air-L), and then include lists in the CC > line. ... it's unethical ... Apologies for cross-posting, but the mail I quoted was not private: https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-April/008257.html Mike Brian Conley said: > +1 to both of Joe's comments. > > Michael, I'm not sure what world you live in, but in the world I live in, > anyone who has information worth considering and is to be respected as a > security adviser would NEVER follow the actions you've suggested. > > This is a strawman. The world is a dangerous place, and people get hurt. At > least give them the agency to decide how best to protect themselves. Quite > frankly I think there is a lot of hand-wringing going on, and it really > wastes a lot of people's time. > > If Stanford University, who currently hosts the libtech mailng list decides > to change the setup in contravention of democratic process of the list > MEMBERS, then I would hope list members will move to one of many other > options for hosting. > > I fully understand that Stanford University may now feel they have some > sort of legal obligation, due, no doubt, in part to less than transparent > actions by a few individuals, robbing the members of the list of agency. > Its the University's legal decision, no doubt, but perhaps someone from the > EFF can kindly call them and let them know this is a straw man. > > Is it not worth considering that the constant rehashing of this discussion > is in itself, something reminiscent of the behavior of bad actors > attempting to derail effective organizing and discussion? > > regards all. > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <j...@cdt.org> wrote: > > > (reply-to-list-only) > > > > On Apr 23, 2013, at 16:39, Michael Allan <m...@zelea.com> wrote: > > > Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. The list subscribers are not > > > responsible for the safe administration of the list. The university > > > alone is responsible. It could never pass that responsibility on to > > > the subscribers, even if it wanted to. > > > > There's definitely a misunderstanding. I see mailing lists as > > fundamentally normative negotiations with a foundation of acceptable use, > > whether administered by Stanford or some other entity. Changing the entity > > that hosts a mailman list is one of the most frictionless changes which a > > community can agree to online. So, ultimately it's the list that requires > > persuasion (in my opinion). > > > > --Joe > > -- > > Brian Conley > > Director, Small World News > > http://smallworldnews.tv > > m: 646.285.2046 > > Skype: brianjoelconley Elijah Wright said: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Allan <m...@zelea.com> wrote: > > Joseph Lorenzo Hall said: > > > > > > Please don't reply-all on private mail (what this appears to be - interim > mails did not go to Air-L), and then include lists in the CC line. > > It's unethical and just makes other list members very, very cranky. As > does any thread that suggests changing the reply-to bit on any list. > > That aside - this ought to be a dead issue. Don't use mailing lists with > archives for private or might-need-to-be-private correspondence that might > endanger lives or well-being of others. The information *will* leak. In > fact - I would suggest not using mail for this sort of issue at all, > regardless of whether it's a list or has archives or not. The trail of > cleartext bits and routing information is too easily exploited. > > best, > > --e -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech