Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
Please let me clarify: I think it was the original collective decision that was ill-informed, and not the decision to vote on the issue, or to honour the result of that vote. But it now appears that safety is a concern (as Matt points out), which wasn't originally understood. Since it's a question of safety vs. convenience, then maybe it's better to revert immediately to the default setting (the safer one). The question then would be, Does anyone want to re-vote the issue? If not, we could just leave it there. Mike Yosem Companys said: Am I right to assume Mike and Matt are asking that the issue be put up for a vote again so that the default is changed back from reply-to-all to reply-to-poster? If so, I will get that survey going. Thanks, Yosem One of the moderators On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote: Matt said: Reply-to-list poses a significant usability risk that can escalate into a security issue, so it's unfortunate that it's being used here of all places. I agree. Some more information on Reply-To header munging: http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html It's non-standard too, as Joseph suggests. Joseph said: ... I wouldn't want to question that collective decision... I think the two stanford.edu lists I am on are the only ones out of a large number that default to reply-to list. I will be more careful. While well intentioned, the original decision seems ill-informed. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Matt Mackall said: On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 19:08 -0400, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: Has the possibility of reconfiguring libtech to not reply-all by default been broached? Reply-to-list poses a significant usability risk that can escalate into a security issue, so it's unfortunate that it's being used here of all places. Let me relate a personal example from several years ago: A: operational discussion on activist group list B: Right on! ps: how's extremely embarassing private matter going? B: Oh SH*#$#*T, I'm SO sorry, I didn't mean to reply-all!! I feel horrible!! It's quite easy to imagine extremely embarassing private matter being replaced by career-ending aside on most lists, but on this one in particular it might be replaced by potentially life-endangering datum. Now compare this to the typical fall-out that happens without reply-to: A: operational discussion on activist group list B: public reply accidentally sent privately B: Oops, sent that privately, sorry for the duplicate. How many such minor inconveniences equal one job lost or life endangered? In my opinion, no list should use reply-to-list. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. Joseph Lorenzo Hall said: On Mar 19, 2013, at 19:32, Yosem Companys compa...@stanford.edu wrote: We used to use individual replies rather than reply all, but the list members took a vote to change the default to reply all. If there's enough interest, we could always bring it up for another vote, as the decision was made a year or so ago, and the list has grown a lot since then. Cool. That is exactly the data that I was looking for; I wouldn't want to question that collective decision. I think the two stanford.edu lists I am on are the only ones out of a large number that default to reply-to list. I will be more careful. best, Joe -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote: But it now appears that safety is a concern (as Matt points out), which wasn't originally understood. Since it's a question of safety vs. convenience, then maybe it's better to revert immediately to the default setting (the safer one). How about no? Any decent mailing list uses reply-to-list as a default. The original survey stated: Reply to entire list or individual sender: - Advantage of replying to individual sender includes preventing personal replies from being inadvertently sent to the entire list. Advantages of replying to entire list include: - Preventing people who forward emails from the list from unnecessarily exposing subscribers' email addresses - Preventing list server from having to filter email to subscribers who are in To: or Cc: (if anything goes wrong, they get an email twice) - Reducing both the strain on the server and the risk of triggering spam filters So no new information has been brought in this thread. -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
I find myself agreeing. While emails that reply to all when the intentioned recipient is a just a specific friend are tragic, the default reply to behavior for most emails on this list(or at least mine) is to the entire list. That's what a mailing list is for? -Andrew On Mar 20, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Maxim Kammerer m...@dee.su wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote: But it now appears that safety is a concern (as Matt points out), which wasn't originally understood. Since it's a question of safety vs. convenience, then maybe it's better to revert immediately to the default setting (the safer one). How about no? Any decent mailing list uses reply-to-list as a default. The original survey stated: Reply to entire list or individual sender: - Advantage of replying to individual sender includes preventing personal replies from being inadvertently sent to the entire list. Advantages of replying to entire list include: - Preventing people who forward emails from the list from unnecessarily exposing subscribers' email addresses - Preventing list server from having to filter email to subscribers who are in To: or Cc: (if anything goes wrong, they get an email twice) - Reducing both the strain on the server and the risk of triggering spam filters So no new information has been brought in this thread. -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- 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 -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
The strain on server argument and the list server filtering argument seem silly to me (I doubt any configuration other than allowing very large attachments will substantially impact the server and Mailman does redundancy filtering quite well if you allow it)... and I'm on lists where forwarding requires manually removing email addresses and that seems to mostly work. Again, I'm happy to go either way, especially of there has been a formal poll... but I'm on a slew of decent mailing lists and none of them do this, primarily to avoid useless email traffic and embarrassment but also to avoid misconfigured precedence:bulk responses. best, Joe -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Senior Staff Technologist Center for Democracy Technology https://www.cdt.org/ On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:51, Maxim Kammerer m...@dee.su wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote: But it now appears that safety is a concern (as Matt points out), which wasn't originally understood. Since it's a question of safety vs. convenience, then maybe it's better to revert immediately to the default setting (the safer one). How about no? Any decent mailing list uses reply-to-list as a default. The original survey stated: Reply to entire list or individual sender: - Advantage of replying to individual sender includes preventing personal replies from being inadvertently sent to the entire list. Advantages of replying to entire list include: - Preventing people who forward emails from the list from unnecessarily exposing subscribers' email addresses - Preventing list server from having to filter email to subscribers who are in To: or Cc: (if anything goes wrong, they get an email twice) - Reducing both the strain on the server and the risk of triggering spam filters So no new information has been brought in this thread. -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- 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 -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote: Maxim Kammerer said: ... Any decent mailing list uses reply-to-list as a default. ... Pardon me, but that's not true. GNU Mailman is a decent list server and it ships with reply-to-sender. I wrote “mailing list”, not “mailing list software”. I am on quite a few mailing lists, and they all use reply-to-list. ... no new information has been brought in this thread. That seems unlikely. I think the new information is that *this* ... preventing personal replies from being inadvertently sent to the entire list. is now recognized to be a safety issue. Matt Mackall said: It's quite easy to imagine extremely embarassing private matter being replaced by career-ending aside on most lists, but on this one in particular it might be replaced by potentially life-endangering datum. ... How many... minor inconveniences equal one job lost or life endangered? ... Isn't that a valid point? No, it's a useless imaginary construct. A valid point would be an example (preferably, more than one) of such an email on this list, where it would be possible to debate whether the person actually deserved losing his job / life for hastily sending said email. Otherwise, my imaginary friend here says that his convenience is more important than your imaginary construct. -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- 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
[liberationtech] Open Government Data Standards
From: James McKinney ja...@opennorth.ca I'd like to announce to this group a new community project aimed at people creating civic technology and (re-)publishing government data to adopt standards for their data and APIs: the Popolo project. http://popoloproject.com/ A major barrier to increased re-use of the growing number of open-source civic tools is the lack of agreement on how to name things. To give a very simple example: if one project's elected officials API calls a person’s name name and another calls it full_name, and you're writing a QA platform to ask questions to these elected officials, you'll need to write an adapter for each API. Committing to a standard way of naming things would maximize interoperability, reduce wheel reinvention and make re-use that much easier. The project's process is to (1) come up with use cases and requirements (for example, find an elected official by postal address), (2) identify existing standards addressing those use cases and requirements and (3) write specifications for how to combine and re-use those existing standards in a standard way, filling the gaps between those standards when necessary. The current spec addresses how to store/share information about people, organizations and memberships, and will soon expand to areas (e.g. districts) and events (e.g. elections). This is a consensus-based, community-driven project, so we are eager to receive your feedback and contributions on the draft spec and for you to help define and start work on new specs with the support of the group. A W3C Open Government Community Group (CG) has been created to host the community around the specs: http://www.w3.org/community/opengov/ Discussions happen through the CG mailing list at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-opengov/ To be clear, the Popolo project, for which I am responsible, covers only a subset of the specs relevant to open government data. Its general scope is data relating to the legislative branch. Health inspections data, for example, covered by Yelp's LIVES spec, would be out of scope of Popolo. Within its scope, its focus is on data that often appears together and that multiple sources publish; for example, Open States publishes data on people, committees (organizations), bills (documents), votes and events, as do many other projects. In terms of adoption and community, mySociety is working towards aligning PopIt (their people-organizations-positions web service) with Popolo. The Sunlight Foundation has been providing great feedback already, and there's a good chance (though still early) that the next version of the OpenStates API will align with Popolo and that the congress-legislators data will be available as Popolo-compliant JSON in addition to its current offerings. I'm also in discussion with the Google Politics and Elections team around these efforts. Through the CG mailing list linked above, I encourage those of you who consume data to submit new use cases and requirements, and those of you who publish data to provide feedback on the draft spec. Everyone can help decide what new specs the group should focus its efforts on, and to work on those following the rough three steps described above. To be clear, the Popolo name is only tied to the spec which I am the editor of, and the Popolo spec is just one of the specs that the CG can come up with. The CG is meant to be a shared workspace for open government data spec editors. Last few notes: In order to support the research, development, maintenance and improvement of the Popolo spec and the outreach and facilitation of the community group, I've submitted the following to the Knight News Challenge. The News Challenge is in its feedback phase for the next ten days, so I look forward to your comments! https://www.newschallenge.org/open/open-government/submission/legislative-open-government-data-standards/ The Popolo spec is managed on GitHub where you are welcome to report specific issues: https://github.com/opennorth/popolo-standard/tree/gh-pages If you will be attending Transparency Camp, please comment and vote up the proposed session about data standards at http://transparencycamp.org/ideas/10/ If you have any questions, please let me know either on this list or the CG mailing list at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-opengov/ Best, -- James McKinney http://opennorth.ca/ James McKinney Montreal About/contact James McKinney: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/4OaJU9ZzfbPaUrJ3nTke7M-- 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
[liberationtech] NATO defines Cyberwar
Remember the Cyberwar discussion we had some weeks ago? Now the NATO official defines the Cyberwar: http://ccdcoe.org/249.html Andreas -- 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
[liberationtech] // Most comprehensive IPv4 mapping project made with illegal botnet //
I'm very impressed by this project: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/19/carna_botnet_ipv4_internet_map/ http://internetcensus2012.bitbucket.org/paper.html http://internetcensus2012.bitbucket.org/images.html A hardcore but, as many note, 'necessary' strategy if one wishes to get such a comprehensive map of the (IPv4) Internet. You can't expect millions of people to install and use port scanning software - potentially breaking the law in their juristiction - to contribute to your mapping project. So a 'malware' (if you can consider it that) is the better means to acheive that coverage. The anonymous researcher(s) provide 68M traceroute records and 9TB of scan data for download. 420 000 hosts were infected by scouring for default passwords (also using telnet). Routers were a common target. First, find your external Internet IP here: http://www.hostip.info/ And then type it into the 'Add Marker' field in their impressive Hilbert Browser: http://internetcensus2012.bitbucket.org/hilbert/index.html Cheers, -- Julian Oliver http://julianoliver.com http://criticalengineering.org -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 18:02 +0200, Maxim Kammerer wrote: Isn't that a valid point? No, it's a useless imaginary construct. A valid point would be an example (preferably, more than one) of such an email on this list, where it would be possible to debate whether the person actually deserved losing his job / life for hastily sending said email. Am I reading this correctly? You need to personally witness someone make a potentially fatal mistake before you'll take a risk seriously? If you're unwilling to employ foresight as a decision-making aide, you may not be taking full advantage of your prefrontal cortex. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
Maybe I have a hard time understanding since I don't use email to discuss anything that would be embarrassing, career ending, and most certainly not life threatening. However, it would seem that even if someone /does/ talk about those things using email -- they should be doing it with encryption and thus wouldn't be a problem on the main list. Conversations often get broken up when you disable reply-to-list because people just click reply instead of reply-all and we miss what could be very enlightening conversation. If I was to vote on a matter like this I would either abstain or vote to keep it the way it is, so clearly it's not so important to me that I want to fight about it. I don't view this as a security risk, no more than a person could reveal the same information using reply-all (anyone who has worked at a large company before probably knows countless times when someone has clicked reply all when they only meant to click reply) for recent example http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/11/28/reply-all-nyu-student-emails-school I see zero need to change it. Travis McCrea Pirate Party of Canada The Ultimate Ebook Library Kopimist Church of Idaho Phone: 1(206)552-8728 US Call/Text IRC: irc.freenode.net, irc.pirateirc.net (TeamColtra or TravisMcCrea) Web: travismccrea.com IM: teamcol...@451.im (jabber) teamcoltra (AIM) On 2013-03-20, at 1:37 PM, Matt Mackall m...@selenic.com wrote: On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 18:02 +0200, Maxim Kammerer wrote: Isn't that a valid point? No, it's a useless imaginary construct. A valid point would be an example (preferably, more than one) of such an email on this list, where it would be possible to debate whether the person actually deserved losing his job / life for hastily sending said email. Am I reading this correctly? You need to personally witness someone make a potentially fatal mistake before you'll take a risk seriously? If you're unwilling to employ foresight as a decision-making aide, you may not be taking full advantage of your prefrontal cortex. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- 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 -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
If we're going to require people to use their brains, perhaps its not too much to ask that individuals take responsibility for paying attention to who they are speaking to. This is not a personally configurable setting on the mailing list software, and we're relegated to a dualistic choice that cannot satisfy all participants, yet we still must choose and have previously chosen. If this will be a recurring issue, perhaps we should structure a yearly survey/vote. gf On 3/20/13 12:37 PM, Matt Mackall wrote: On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 18:02 +0200, Maxim Kammerer wrote: Isn't that a valid point? No, it's a useless imaginary construct. A valid point would be an example (preferably, more than one) of such an email on this list, where it would be possible to debate whether the person actually deserved losing his job / life for hastily sending said email. Am I reading this correctly? You need to personally witness someone make a potentially fatal mistake before you'll take a risk seriously? If you're unwilling to employ foresight as a decision-making aide, you may not be taking full advantage of your prefrontal cortex. -- Gregory Foster || gfos...@entersection.org @gregoryfoster http://entersection.com/ -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
Strange how so many are citing security norms for (say) encryption but not the one that systems should always fail to the safest setting. (Which isn't always the most functional.) I actually prefer it the way it is. Yet I certainly appreciate the alternative concern and would support the change in deference to .. -Ali On Mar 20, 2013 1:52 PM, Gregory Foster gfos...@entersection.org wrote: If we're going to require people to use their brains, perhaps its not too much to ask that individuals take responsibility for paying attention to who they are speaking to. This is not a personally configurable setting on the mailing list software, and we're relegated to a dualistic choice that cannot satisfy all participants, yet we still must choose and have previously chosen. If this will be a recurring issue, perhaps we should structure a yearly survey/vote. gf On 3/20/13 12:37 PM, Matt Mackall wrote: On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 18:02 +0200, Maxim Kammerer wrote: Isn't that a valid point? No, it's a useless imaginary construct. A valid point would be an example (preferably, more than one) of such an email on this list, where it would be possible to debate whether the person actually deserved losing his job / life for hastily sending said email. Am I reading this correctly? You need to personally witness someone make a potentially fatal mistake before you'll take a risk seriously? If you're unwilling to employ foresight as a decision-making aide, you may not be taking full advantage of your prefrontal cortex. -- Gregory Foster || gfos...@entersection.org @gregoryfoster http://entersection.com/ -- 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 -- 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
[liberationtech] Seeking Nominations for the 2013 ITP Outstanding Software Development and Learning Innovation Awards
From: Derrick L. Cogburn dcogb...@american.edu It is my pleasure to write to you on behalf of the APSA ITP Section committee to select the Outstanding Software Development and Learning Innovation Awards for 2013. These are two separate awards, and the committee and I encourage you to submit nominations (including self nominations) for either or both awards. The 2013 committee consists of Ioannis Andreadis, Erdem Erkul, Cecilia Manrique, and myself (as chair). We will include more information on the ITP website about deadlines and format for submission, but in the meantime, please start keeping an eye out for projects or initiatives you would like to nominate. Cheers, Derrick Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Associate Professor of International Relations International Communication Program Program Director: Masters of Comparative and International Disability Policy (CIDP) School of International Service American University http://www.american.edu/sis/faculty/dcogburn.cfm Executive Director Center for Research on Collaboratories and Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (COTELCO) American University http://cotelco.net/ Executive Director Institute on Disability and Public Policy (IDPP) for the ASEAN Region http://aseanidpp.org/-- 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
Re: [liberationtech] liberation tech and Congress
Hi Lorelei, You might be surprised to hear this, I certainly was. Apparently Representative Darrell Issa has been pushing a bunch of opensource development around WordPress and potentially other OpenGov applications. Brian On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Lorelei Kelly loreleike...@gmail.comwrote: hi all, Here at OTI, I'm spearheading an effort to find and cultivate 5-10 Members of the House and Senate so that they will be champions of open technology and other related policy issues. We'd like to make them authoritative and confident to stand up for our priorities by providing them with subject matter expertise and technical knowledge--the idea is to create some key nodes on Capitol Hill that will educate the institution over time. Its not a lobbying effort, but a long term policy education effort. Question: as a foreign policy wonk until recently, I'm not familiar with the scorecards or vote rating guides that might be available on open technology, Internet freedom, privacy, etc. Is anyone doing this? Also, does anybody have any recommendations for our list? The individuals don't have to be techies, though that is a bonus. We'd love to support members who are wonks and thoughtful systems thinkers and reformers in either party. LK -- *Lorelei Kelly http://newamerica.net/user/452* * * * * *check out our SmartCongresshttps://www.newschallenge.org/open/open-government/submission/smartcongress.org/pitch! * *read about Congress' Wicked Problemhttp://newamerica.net/publications/policy/congress_wicked_problem * look at these cool maps about guns and powerhttp://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-groups-like-the-nra-captured-congressand-how-to-take-it-back/273623/in the Atlantic * *Open Technology Institute New America Foundation Tweeting @loreleikelly cell: 202-487-7728 -- 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 -- Brian Conley Director, Small World News http://smallworldnews.tv m: 646.285.2046 Skype: brianjoelconley -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] liberation tech and Congress
Darrell Issa, Ron Wyden () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments On Mar 20, 2013 2:14 PM, Brian Conley bri...@smallworldnews.tv wrote: Hi Lorelei, You might be surprised to hear this, I certainly was. Apparently Representative Darrell Issa has been pushing a bunch of opensource development around WordPress and potentially other OpenGov applications. Brian On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Lorelei Kelly loreleike...@gmail.com wrote: hi all, Here at OTI, I'm spearheading an effort to find and cultivate 5-10 Members of the House and Senate so that they will be champions of open technology and other related policy issues. We'd like to make them authoritative and confident to stand up for our priorities by providing them with subject matter expertise and technical knowledge--the idea is to create some key nodes on Capitol Hill that will educate the institution over time. Its not a lobbying effort, but a long term policy education effort. Question: as a foreign policy wonk until recently, I'm not familiar with the scorecards or vote rating guides that might be available on open technology, Internet freedom, privacy, etc. Is anyone doing this? Also, does anybody have any recommendations for our list? The individuals don't have to be techies, though that is a bonus. We'd love to support members who are wonks and thoughtful systems thinkers and reformers in either party. LK -- Lorelei Kelly check out our SmartCongress pitch! read about Congress' Wicked Problem look at these cool maps about guns and power in the Atlantic Open Technology Institute New America Foundation Tweeting @loreleikelly cell: 202-487-7728 -- 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 -- Brian Conley Director, Small World News http://smallworldnews.tv m: 646.285.2046 Skype: brianjoelconley -- 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 -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] liberation tech and Congress
I believe Zoe Loffgrin (sp) has been pretty good on these sorts of issues lately as well. Wayne On 3/20/2013 12:23, xek3149 wrote: Darrell Issa, Ron Wyden () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org http://www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments On Mar 20, 2013 2:14 PM, Brian Conley bri...@smallworldnews.tv mailto:bri...@smallworldnews.tv wrote: Hi Lorelei, You might be surprised to hear this, I certainly was. Apparently Representative Darrell Issa has been pushing a bunch of opensource development around WordPress and potentially other OpenGov applications. Brian On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Lorelei Kelly loreleike...@gmail.com mailto:loreleike...@gmail.com wrote: hi all, Here at OTI, I'm spearheading an effort to find and cultivate 5-10 Members of the House and Senate so that they will be champions of open technology and other related policy issues. We'd like to make them authoritative and confident to stand up for our priorities by providing them with subject matter expertise and technical knowledge--the idea is to create some key nodes on Capitol Hill that will educate the institution over time. Its not a lobbying effort, but a long term policy education effort. Question: as a foreign policy wonk until recently, I'm not familiar with the scorecards or vote rating guides that might be available on open technology, Internet freedom, privacy, etc. Is anyone doing this? Also, does anybody have any recommendations for our list? The individuals don't have to be techies, though that is a bonus. We'd love to support members who are wonks and thoughtful systems thinkers and reformers in either party. LK -- Lorelei Kelly check out our SmartCongress pitch! read about Congress' Wicked Problem look at these cool maps about guns and power in the Atlantic Open Technology Institute New America Foundation Tweeting @loreleikelly cell: 202-487-7728 -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu mailto:compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Brian Conley Director, Small World News http://smallworldnews.tv m: 646.285.2046 Skype: brianjoelconley -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu mailto:compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- 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 -- Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt (1759-1806) -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] Qt TorBrowser
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:49:50 -0700 Brian Conley bri...@smallworldnews.tv wrote: C. Unless we are having a larger discussion about the risks/fallibility of trademark copyright and authorship in a global society, what are we talking about here? Tor's model is we give out code away for free, our content for free, and keep a trademark to keep control of our brand. So far this has worked well. We've been able to keep ahead of the random trademark violator and focus on making more tor. -- Andrew http://tpo.is/contact pgp 0x6B4D6475 -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] liberation tech and Congress
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Lorelei Kelly loreleike...@gmail.comwrote: Its not a lobbying effort, but a long term policy education effort. Lobbying: most generally, the right of the individual to petition Congress to redress grievances. In your case, larnin' them what they don't know and slowly steering the ship of state in the right direction. http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/the-right-to-lobby/ What you are doing is lobbying according to the original definition of the term. You buttonhole them in the lobby and say, Mr Senator, did you know that your constituents really care that...? and go on from there. This is where the term came from. Petitioning your concerns to those in power to whom you have delegated your voice in the American republic. Please do not cede it to the NRA and the moneybag idiots who are trying to buy their way into power. The term has been sullied in the public eye and conflated with shenanigans, corruption, and bribery to the point when Lessig launched Change Congress at Berkman, I had to point out to him that he was using the term incorrectly in his keynote. He blushed -- actually was taken aback -- and accepted the correction. Ideally, part of the power of our medium is to subvert the power of simple money in influencing the power of the lobby. Of course, mileage has varied wildly -- the verdict is at best in flux. But language is powerful, and I still believe that educating people that the lobby is the domain of all of us. Not petitioning for the Death Star might help...sigh. I am not sure about this White House popularity referendum social media thing... But yes, please, what you are doing is proper, what I did in the 90s lobbying for digital divide issues was lobbying on a very small nonprofit dime, what a retiree does going to DC to talk to his or her delegation on social security or gay marriage for his grandson on a vacation is also lobbying And taking (back) words like gay, pagan, black, hacker, nerd, queer, geek, lobbying -- can be powerful. yrs, -- Shava Nerad shav...@gmail.com -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] list reply-all
Can we just vote already? This is getting out of hand and a perfect example why this list is increasingly useless with too many flame wars and not enough substantive content... On Mar 20, 2013, at 13:52, Gregory Foster gfos...@entersection.org wrote: If we're going to require people to use their brains, perhaps its not too much to ask that individuals take responsibility for paying attention to who they are speaking to. This is not a personally configurable setting on the mailing list software, and we're relegated to a dualistic choice that cannot satisfy all participants, yet we still must choose and have previously chosen. If this will be a recurring issue, perhaps we should structure a yearly survey/vote. gf On 3/20/13 12:37 PM, Matt Mackall wrote: On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 18:02 +0200, Maxim Kammerer wrote: Isn't that a valid point? No, it's a useless imaginary construct. A valid point would be an example (preferably, more than one) of such an email on this list, where it would be possible to debate whether the person actually deserved losing his job / life for hastily sending said email. Am I reading this correctly? You need to personally witness someone make a potentially fatal mistake before you'll take a risk seriously? If you're unwilling to employ foresight as a decision-making aide, you may not be taking full advantage of your prefrontal cortex. -- Gregory Foster || gfos...@entersection.org @gregoryfoster http://entersection.com/ -- 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 -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] Please Vote on Reply to Question
Please vote by submitting your preference to me by 11.59 pm PST on Sunday, March 24, 2013. Any votes received after this date and time will not be counted. reply-to-poster please -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Yosem Companys said: Dear Liberationtech list subscribers, Several of you have petitioned to change Liberationtech mailing list's default reply to option from reply-to-all to reply-to-poster. Given the debate (see links below), we have decided to put the issue up for a vote: - Do you want replies to Liberationtech list messages directed to reply-to-all or reply-to-poster? Please vote by submitting your preference to me by 11.59 pm PST on Sunday, March 24, 2013. Any votes received after this date and time will not be counted. Thanks, Yosem One of your moderators PS To read a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of reply-to-all, click on the corresponding links below: - Reply-to-all considered useful: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html - Reply-to-all considered harmful: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html If you'd like to read the entire debate on the Liberationtech list, please click on the links below: http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03767.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03768.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03769.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03771.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03772.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03773.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03774.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03775.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03776.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03777.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03778.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03779.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03780.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03781.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03782.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03783.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03788.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03789.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03790.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03791.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03799.html http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03801.html -- 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
Re: [liberationtech] skype
One is tempted to suggest using other than Skype. Alternatives exist, and these are secure, at least according to their claims. As well, Skype's code is not transparent, in the way that other, open source, applications' are. louis On 13-03-20, at 22:39 , Eric S Johnson cra...@oneotaslopes.org wrote: Dear LibTechers, When Microsoft applied in 2009 for a patent on “recording agents” to surveil peer-to-peer communications, it was assumed they were talking about something they might implement in Skype. Skype in 2010 started rearchitecting its use of supernodes “to improve reliability.” MS stated in 2012 that the re-engineering is “to improve the user experience.” The recent report in the Russian media that MS can trigger individual users’ Skype instances to establish session-specific encryption key exchange not with “the other end” but with intermediate nodes (thus making possible inline surveillance of Skype communications—presumably VoIP, since MS already stores Skype IM sessions “for 30 days”)—dovetails nicely with suspicions that MS is making (or has made) Skype lawful-intercept-friendly. But wouldn’t the above evolution require changes in the Skype client, too? Does anyone know of any work to identify whether it’s possible to say “if you keep your Skype client below version 4.4 [for instance], any newer capability to remotely trigger individually-targeted surveillance-by-intermediate-node isn’t (as) there”? Best, Eric PGP -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings athttps://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- 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
