[tor-talk] Any updates from Tor Project on ioerror?

[carlo von lynX]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:58:41AM -0400, Griffin Boyce wrote:
> Chris Dagdigian wrote:
> >It's sorta disgusting to see the creep defenders come out in force on

I'm a defender of democracy and justice..

> >this list - especially the ones who talk big about anti-establishment
> >stuff and post anonymously from privacy friendly ISPs who suddenly and

I don't, so you must be talking about somebody else.

> >magically have decided to start proclaiming their love for the rule of
> >law and the need to stay silent until "real proof and evidence is
> >provided". How convenient.

Unfortunately humanity hasn't figured out a better justice
system than the one that comes with democracy. So I'm speaking
up exactly because these are the moments that show how chaos
and structurelessness (cit. Jo Freeman) do not lead anywhere.
Or rather, they're making us pawns in somebody else's game.

>   It *is* a bit strange, though not unexpected at this point.
> People are going to believe what they want to believe, and will lean
> on the lack of police involvement despite the fact that the number
> of rape victims who file a police report is vanishingly small.

Yes, it is a problem that victims frequently aren't successful in
court, but trying out public defamation instead makes it worse: if
they can't prove what they said before a judge, they stand a good
chance of getting convicted for public defamation.

That's why I suggested we should have our own court of arbitration
within the hacktivist community. A group of people that everyone
including the accused can agree upon to know those details that
the public must not know and to speak a verdict for the purposes
of the hacktivist community - to recommend a way how to handle the
case and the people involved.

The regular justice system cannot come up with recommendations,
it can only act on hard evidence, which is the intrinsic problem
here.

Also, such an approach is the only one I can think of that would
make our movement immune to JTRIG-style manipulation. If everyone
agreed to shut up until a court of trustworthy people we ourselves
selected produces their recommendation, there would be no shitstorms
that take the shit to the media, no flamewars that ignite life long
relationships of hatred - all based on prejudice and digital
misunderstanding (as in "if your opinion isn't as radical as mine
you must be a creep yourself!").

I've been on the Internet for over two decades now, managing digital
communities from MUDs over open-source to commercial projects up to
political parties.. and I just keep seeing the same mistakes
repeated over and over again.

>   Interestingly, this logic seems only to apply to rape survivors.
> I would guess that these same people defend Edward Snowden's
> decision to not go to the police about illegal surveillance
> practices and instead to talk about his experiences.

Well, that's quite a stretch. You can't expect the justice system
to work as well when it isn't figuring out trouble among regular
citizen but rather dealing with the wrong-doing of its commanders
in chief.

>   Also, the notion that Tor would be hoodwinked by some
> cointelpro/psyop/conspiracy bollocks is quite insulting.

You must be having evidence that I do not have to be so sure.

> >Got my fingers crossed that the more sensible and rational members of
> >this list are staying silent as they often do when the oddballs come
> >to play.

Here I am, speaking for the silent majority - if that was your allusion.
The silent majority would love to not see neither sexual misconduct
nor public defamation. They would love for a court to take care of
justice and them not having needed to know about anything of this.
Just guessing. You pulled a Nixon, and I jumped on it.


-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
         http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
          irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
         https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/