Scott: barrett, quick 2 questions. do you know if Tim held his meeting today? also, did you get the email I sent on Fri? me: I had to leave for a while today, let me look and see about the e-mail Scott: thanks me: what e-mail is it again? Scott: i sent it friday, subject was wrap up me: yes me: got that Scott: ok good Scott: know if the meeting was held today? me: everyone keeps sending me e-mails with subject lines or first lines that sound like they're going to quit or something and it keeps freaking me out because I'm always stoned me: no idea me: yours was "wrap-up," Campbell's was "bad news" me: some others I forgot me: and then it's some minor thing me: but yeah, wasn't around for meeting and not sure if it happened Scott: yea, i'd try to get whatever flavor they're selling that's supposed to instill calmness :) Scott: alright ill shoot tim an email and ask me: anyway, like I said the other day, the event in April and run-up campaign is going to be the main thing I'll be working on me: as there's potential here to really utilize this opportunity me: we could get hundreds of good recruits through this Scott: that sounds fantastic Scott: if it's okay with you, i'd like to not get as involved with it until i feel more comfortable Scott: i'm not educated enough on the subject to know where i stand me: ok Scott: if you have time to talk about it, i'd certainly be up for a discussion me: soitanly me: also me: do you think you can try to get in touch with this lady for us? me: Lisa Mumbach me: she wrote this article me: http://www.iftf.org/node/3676 Scott: Lisa looks a lot like a man. Scott: nvm me: yeah, seems to be very unsettling editorial error Scott: lol yes Scott: yea I'm sure I can hunt down her email address and send her an appropriate message Scott: is there a primary goal? Scott: just got get her onboard? to get her involved in covering the rally? etc Scott: with regards to wikileaks rally/anonymous here's some of the things I'm interested in learning more about. Scott: I certainly agree that transparency needs to be increased. me: just to get her involved in general me: I want to talk to her about her article Scott: I do believe Wikileaks will bet a net positive, but to think there isn't potential for at least a single negative is presumptive IMHO, whether it to be an individual or more. me: oh, also me: Emma is really mad at me right now Scott: yea, her institute looks interesting me: due to Nikki here me: And Nikki will now be in charge of running my life me: because I need girls to do that for me unfortunatelt Scott: you should go to polyamory counseling Scott: jk me: her e-mail address is on those articles I forwarded me: tell me about it me: she's half Asian so really competent Scott: and no worries, i agree, i generally prefer a woman to organize my life for me me: yeah, it just works better that way Scott: skipping formalities, does this mean we cannot rely on emma? me: not sure yet me: will let you know me: keeps changing Scott: got it Scott: ok,well I'm not sure I can tomorrow, but I'll send out an email to Lisa ASAP. Scott: Anyway we can get to Wiki/Anon as I think a discussion would lead to better understanding which will enable me to hopefully be more supportive. me: I hope so me: I think I can convince you Scott: It certainly would be an interesting exercise. Scott: ok so I have little problems with increases in transparency. Scott: my problem arises in the theory behind certain persons that releasing information is a no risk proposition, however, this is only an assumption on my part Scott: I don't know where you draw the line btwn invasion of privacy and uncovering suspect actions me: when the information stems from the actions of those who operate with the alleged consent of a population that is forced to support it with a portion of their wealth and are subject to the laws that are created under its auspices. Scott: slow down Scott: i have to read that 3 times Scott: ok so we're saying that the government has zero right to privacy (and i presume we agree that business privacy and personal privacy are two separate things?) me: I don't see from where it would obtain such a right me: I actually have no idea from where the rights of governments derive me: I suspect they derive from nowhere me: and are fictionalized into existence for convenience Scott: i know the coverage has been inexplicably broadened, but where has national security provisions come from? me: I don't understand the question Scott: also, and I recognize this isn't the mandate of voted representatives, but if a group within a repressive country is asking for assistance in order to overthrow their Gov't is that something we have a right to get involved in? if so, does secrecy come into play? me: it would if our government had a record of doing so properly Scott: i was wondering when the usage of we cannot share yada yada in the interest of national security came into play, if you knew me: or if it did so on a basis of justice rather than an expediency that allows for the deaths of hundreds of thousands me: existing does not grant a government any rights me: it is not a person Scott: good point me: it is the manifestation of the will of some number of persons me: I don't trust those persons enough to allow them a monopoly on power Scott: so far we're good Scott: basically rights are only given to individuals Scott: therefore government has no rights, including that of privacy me: no me: not because of that me: the government would be granted those "rights" by people such as myself if they acted in anything close to accordance of what I and others know that governments can proceed as me: but to the extent that one looks, one finds all manner of acts conducted by these governments that violate not only the demonstrable rights of individuals, but also their own laws me: And so me: I would ask you a question me: What does a government have to do before you consider it to be a criminal entity rather than a legitimate one? Scott: anything illegal Scott: but using the same framing, I'm a criminal as I've done illegal things. me: more importantly, that framing would lead to you already considering the government we're under to be a criminal entity Scott: correct me: in which case me: you might be inclined to refrain from providing loyalty to that government me: and, insomuch as that the rule of law is not being uniformly enforced me: you might seek to either work to establish the rule of law me: or work in accordance with whatever you'd like to see come about to address such a situaton me: or both Scott: right Scott: while the latter may be insufficient versus the former me: probably Scott: I'm not ready or righteous enough to take in the first task to form my own establishment, especially as I'd be a victim of my own laws unless I decided that a lot of things are legal which are currently illegal. Scott: which is certainly a possibility. me: that's fine me: as we're not doing that quite yet me: and it won't be involved with Project PM in any explicit fashion Scott: I'm not concerned with that. Scott: I'm just trying to better grasp it. me: you don't agree with the approach? Scott: I have no problem taking the approach of thetruth.com in terms of raising awareness. Scott: Now, to my knowledge, no one was been assassinated, etc, as a result of the cables release. Scott: So I continue to believe the ends justify the means as it's a net benefit, but I'd be concerned that we'd establish that everything must be 100% transparency and/or people will take it to the extreme of infringing on personal rights. Clearly, this is not an immediate concern. Scott: Then comes the pro-Wikileaks support. Scott: Initially I passionately disagreed with denial of service attacks, but the analogy, to which I think you either wrote or pointed to, that resonated with me that this is modern day civil disobedience as back in the day protests were used to disrupt the ordinary course of business and essentially that's what these approaches are doing. Scott: However, the legal framework hasn't quite kept up-to-date on the times so such actions are illegal. me: they were illegal then, too, Scott Scott: But to the extreme, this does bring up a major potential for abuses of power but those seeking to prevent such abuses. Scott: I did not know that. me: And they were returned with firehoses and dogs and official oppression Scott: Those are good points. Scott: I guess to get down the nitty gritty, what's stopping someone who gets fired from a job to tell a bunch of people to attack? me: nothing that we can implement me: that's not our responsibility me: as it's out of our control and not of our causing me: we're doing something for a very good reason Scott: Or what happens when the lines become a little more blurry and the subject is a lot more grey. me: we didn't invent the current environment and we don't advocate everything that occurs in that environment Scott: Is there a particular code of conduct? Scott: please note I'm siimly asking questions to learn. me: I know, I had to piss, I'm drinking beer me: we don't have a code ourselves but we're pretty honest and well-meaning people me: again, it's not our job to determine what happens with the internet and we can't decide that anyway Scott: I do think that raises a question. me: we're doing ethical and reasonable things in advancement of several good causes Scott: Should there be a sense of responsibility? Scott: Not for yourselves, per say, but for the environment which is existing. me: yes me: of course they should me: I'm telling you that we're doing things a certain way me: and almost all of us support what Wikileaks has done me: and we expect that more of it will be done me: and we want to help ensure that it is done right Scott: I certainly think those are admirable goals, and concur that more this will continue. Furthermore, as I said earlier, I believe it's a net positive. Scott: I guess I'll sum up my concerns by saying that I'd be frightful that while far from the case currently and in the future, a witch hunt is plausible. Scott: I very much look forward to seeing how thing unravel. me: me too me: just hang with us, yo me: seriously, I need your help with all of this, so we'll talk again about these issues Scott: I'd like that. me: word, I'm going to play Victoria 2 as Ireland