[pp.int.general] pp.international.general Digest, Vol 46, Issue 8

[Pirate_ox at resist.ca]

 This subscription is taking up far too much inbox space. Please stop
sending me emails.

> Send pp.international.general mailing list submissions to
> 	pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	pp.international.general-request at lists.pirateweb.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	pp.international.general-owner at lists.pirateweb.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of pp.international.general digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks (Rados?aw Nadstawny)
>    2. Re: Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks (Erik L?nroth)
>    3. Re: Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks (Boris Turovskiy)
>    4. Re: Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks (Marcus Kesler)
>    5. Re: Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks (Andrew Norton)
>    6. Re: Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks (Amelia Andersdotter)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 20:22:31 +0100
> From: Rados?aw Nadstawny <radoslaw.nadstawny at o2.pl>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks
> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> Message-ID: <20101202202231.5e26853e at radek-laptop>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:16:07 +0100
> Boris Turovskiy <tourovski at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Radoslaw,
>> > In my opinion, there are too many rules protecting those who break
>> > other, more basic rules. They lead to situations in which a person
>> > can break the law freely, because in order to prove his crime, one
>> > would need to break the law himself.
>> Well, that is the drawback of a legal culture based on the assumption
>> of innocence - some criminals do get away. However, it hasn't been
>> designed that way without good reason: the philosophy behind it is
>> that it's better to let a criminal walk free than to falsely accuse
>> an innocent. Many regulations stem from that idea, for example that
>> police cannot simply search a home without a warrant (and if they do,
>> the evidence obtained is invalid).
>> One may argue where the line should be drawn, but I think you'll agree
>> to the horrible implications of switching to a legal system with the
>> reverse foundation ("better to imprison an innocent than to let a
>> criminal walk").
>>
>
> I didn't suggest anything like that. I was referring mainly to various
> officials, not ordinary citizens. I think that it is the way it is
> because governments always try to screen themselves from
> responsibility. And that's why they should be made more transparent and
> thus accountable.
>
>> > Just like you wouldn't expect privacy at your workplace,
>> Wouldn't I? There have been quite a few cases in Germany in the last
>> several years dealing exactly with the topic on what measure of
>> privacy an employee can expect at their workplace. For example, by
>> high court ruling video surveillance by the employer has been
>> strictly regulated so that the employer can only put video
>> surveillance when it is justified by security considerations, and
>> they must warn the employees of this surveillance; thus, hidden
>> cameras e.g. in bathrooms and changing rooms are prohibited. Also,
>> the employer has to treat the employees' personal data with
>> confidentiality, meaning that for the cases where the employer does
>> have a right of surveillance, the results have to be kept in-house
>> and not passed to third parties.
>
> Don't you think that employers should have the right to know what their
> employees are doing at work? I don't mean surveillance in toilets, I
> mean separating private issues from work. If you have something that
> you don't want your employer to know about, you don't do it at work.
> Isn't is simple enough? Of course, employers should make it clear where
> and when they might be watching you.
>
>> > the officials shouldn't expect privacy while carrying out their
>> > public responsibilities.
>> I think there are two different aspects which are getting confused
>> when talking about transparency of politicians:
>> 1. More data related to government activities should be open to the
>> public than is now the case
>> 2. Politicians should be monitored more closely to prevent corruption
>> and abuse of power
>> I agree with the first notion. The regulations and guidelines as to
>> what can be labeled "secret" or "confidential" regarding government
>> documents should be reviewed, and the "default setting" should be
>> that they are public unless there's specific reason to make them
>> restricted (and even restricted data has to be subjected to more
>> possibilities of cross-checking, with very few exceptions like secret
>> agents' personnel files or operational details which have to be kept
>> as tight as possible). I cannot, however, agree with the second line
>> of argument because it reminds me uncomfortable of the rhetoric used
>> for establishing all the surveillance mechanisms we're fighting
>> against (like data retention). I can't support the notion that all
>> politicians should be considered potentially corrupt any more than I
>> can agree that every citizen should be considered a potential
>> terrorist, any taxpayer a potential tax evader or any social security
>> beneficiary a potential rip-off.
>
> I think that wherever secrets are involved in operation of government,
> there is a high risk of corruption. So I agree that as little as
> possible should be labeled "confidential". The cross-checking would
> ensure that either everything's under control or the whole structure is
> corrupt (unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that unlikely).
>
> I also agree that being a *politician* should not make a difference in
> respecting someone's privacy. But as to government officials, I am not
> that sure. Ideally, responsibility should be proportional to the power
> held by given office. If you can not determine what the officials are
> doing as part of their duty, how can you hold them accountable?
>
> I'm not saying we should build another big brother house to put our
> presidents and ministers in 24/7. I'm saying that there should be a
> clear distinction between their duties as officials, and their private
> affairs. When performing duties they should be monitored as closely as
> possible (so that they can be held accountable for every word they say
> "in office"), but in private their rights would be no different than
> every other citizen's. Mixing of both should be considered fraud
> comparable to buying things for private with tax money.
>
>
> Of course, this is only an opinion, and I'm sure there's a room for
> improvement, but I hope you get the idea.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:31:06 +0100
> From: Erik L?nroth <erik.lonroth at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
> 	<pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTimo2baau3J0o-R6aQPGwtZ6aqOPXdA9+J0hYQHq at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> If Julian was not accused of rape. Would we support him?
>
> If you hesitate for a second, I believe that he is already guilty.
>
> /Erik
>
> 2010/12/2 Rados?aw Nadstawny <radoslaw.nadstawny at o2.pl>:
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:16:07 +0100
>> Boris Turovskiy <tourovski at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Radoslaw,
>>> > In my opinion, there are too many rules protecting those who break
>>> > other, more basic rules. They lead to situations in which a person
>>> > can break the law freely, because in order to prove his crime, one
>>> > would need to break the law himself.
>>> Well, that is the drawback of a legal culture based on the assumption
>>> of innocence - some criminals do get away. However, it hasn't been
>>> designed that way without good reason: the philosophy behind it is
>>> that it's better to let a criminal walk free than to falsely accuse
>>> an innocent. Many regulations stem from that idea, for example that
>>> police cannot simply search a home without a warrant (and if they do,
>>> the evidence obtained is invalid).
>>> One may argue where the line should be drawn, but I think you'll agree
>>> to the horrible implications of switching to a legal system with the
>>> reverse foundation ("better to imprison an innocent than to let a
>>> criminal walk").
>>>
>>
>> I didn't suggest anything like that. I was referring mainly to various
>> officials, not ordinary citizens. I think that it is the way it is
>> because governments always try to screen themselves from
>> responsibility. And that's why they should be made more transparent and
>> thus accountable.
>>
>>> > Just like you wouldn't expect privacy at your workplace,
>>> Wouldn't I? There have been quite a few cases in Germany in the last
>>> several years dealing exactly with the topic on what measure of
>>> privacy an employee can expect at their workplace. For example, by
>>> high court ruling video surveillance by the employer has been
>>> strictly regulated so that the employer can only put video
>>> surveillance when it is justified by security considerations, and
>>> they must warn the employees of this surveillance; thus, hidden
>>> cameras e.g. in bathrooms and changing rooms are prohibited. Also,
>>> the employer has to treat the employees' personal data with
>>> confidentiality, meaning that for the cases where the employer does
>>> have a right of surveillance, the results have to be kept in-house
>>> and not passed to third parties.
>>
>> Don't you think that employers should have the right to know what their
>> employees are doing at work? I don't mean surveillance in toilets, I
>> mean separating private issues from work. If you have something that
>> you don't want your employer to know about, you don't do it at work.
>> Isn't is simple enough? Of course, employers should make it clear where
>> and when they might be watching you.
>>
>>> > the officials shouldn't expect privacy while carrying out their
>>> > public responsibilities.
>>> I think there are two different aspects which are getting confused
>>> when talking about transparency of politicians:
>>> 1. More data related to government activities should be open to the
>>> public than is now the case
>>> 2. Politicians should be monitored more closely to prevent corruption
>>> and abuse of power
>>> I agree with the first notion. The regulations and guidelines as to
>>> what can be labeled "secret" or "confidential" regarding government
>>> documents should be reviewed, and the "default setting" should be
>>> that they are public unless there's specific reason to make them
>>> restricted (and even restricted data has to be subjected to more
>>> possibilities of cross-checking, with very few exceptions like secret
>>> agents' personnel files or operational details which have to be kept
>>> as tight as possible). I cannot, however, agree with the second line
>>> of argument because it reminds me uncomfortable of the rhetoric used
>>> for establishing all the surveillance mechanisms we're fighting
>>> against (like data retention). I can't support the notion that all
>>> politicians should be considered potentially corrupt any more than I
>>> can agree that every citizen should be considered a potential
>>> terrorist, any taxpayer a potential tax evader or any social security
>>> beneficiary a potential rip-off.
>>
>> I think that wherever secrets are involved in operation of government,
>> there is a high risk of corruption. So I agree that as little as
>> possible should be labeled "confidential". The cross-checking would
>> ensure that either everything's under control or the whole structure is
>> corrupt (unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that unlikely).
>>
>> I also agree that being a *politician* should not make a difference in
>> respecting someone's privacy. But as to government officials, I am not
>> that sure. Ideally, responsibility should be proportional to the power
>> held by given office. If you can not determine what the officials are
>> doing as part of their duty, how can you hold them accountable?
>>
>> I'm not saying we should build another big brother house to put our
>> presidents and ministers in 24/7. I'm saying that there should be a
>> clear distinction between their duties as officials, and their private
>> affairs. When performing duties they should be monitored as closely as
>> possible (so that they can be held accountable for every word they say
>> "in office"), but in private their rights would be no different than
>> every other citizen's. Mixing of both should be considered fraud
>> comparable to buying things for private with tax money.
>>
>>
>> Of course, this is only an opinion, and I'm sure there's a room for
>> improvement, but I hope you get the idea.
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:34:13 +0100
> From: Boris Turovskiy <tourovski at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
> 	<pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Message-ID: <4CF802C5.1010709 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi Erik,
>> If Julian was not accused of rape. Would we support him?
> My attitude towards Assange and Wikileaks is absolutely independent of
> the sexual crime charges against him. Concerning "rape" there seem to be
> different viewpoints in any case (e.g. [1]).
>
> Best regards,
> Boris
>
> [1]
> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 14:40:00 -0600
> From: Marcus Kesler <marcus at d-usa.info>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
> 	<pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Message-ID: <4CF80420.5050107 at d-usa.info>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> And even if Julian is found guilty of rape and a stack of other crimes,
> it does not make the contained in the war diaries and the cables any
> less accurate. The media is pushing the rape angle to draw attention
> away from the leaks, so even if he was guilty we need to keep the focus
> on the leaks.
>
> If a bad person does a good thing, it does not make the good thing any
> less good.
>
> And I still believe in innocent until proven guilty.
>
> Marcus Kesler
> Pirate Party of Oklahoma
>
> On 12/2/2010 2:31 PM, Erik L?nroth wrote:
>> If Julian was not accused of rape. Would we support him?
>>
>> If you hesitate for a second, I believe that he is already guilty.
>>
>> /Erik
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:41:30 -0500
> From: Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks
> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> Message-ID: <4CF8047A.8040703 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/2/2010 3:34 PM, Boris Turovskiy wrote:
>> Hi Erik,
>>> If Julian was not accused of rape. Would we support him?
>> My attitude towards Assange and Wikileaks is absolutely independent of
>> the sexual crime charges against him.
>
> Same. It's two separate issues, and trying to confuse and merge them is
> probably a major point of the red warning.
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Boris
>
> - --
> Andrew Norton
> http://ktetch.blogspot.com
> Tel: (352)6-KTETCH [352-658-3824]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM+AR5AAoJECjjuYTW3X5HyJsH/2DiDHIhhYOSkok5CTLEVast
> MG3USstup+kIDCv6KbOdtQYA4ApsTrJXQ3o40LOXKJtewGKzToXcvduU5N0Gwz90
> GP2fepQtXemUWDgfpIhOWiNh+EehNqTvKs0tDOv2g4BrNl2aNeLDWmgKQz28B7RH
> 0WkBbWR/qzIfhxyt0hlFGOHlv2bYLwXVcTnGw5ISZI+AUCiX9z/reiYv+c7u+0dB
> xtChZZI6J7NZZ77rpVSdN3bkuOPSzurimUgKciUkAMh9pYjoadbVajetQeWAVMSz
> m96DjYz/lP/7j0jjszpFSBrNVnMEL2WQ/Wm3e9hjY+mgMHedqPS3iblX/aH7fqo=
> =5rGu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:48:13 +0100
> From: Amelia Andersdotter <teirdes at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
> 	<pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTintiG81XE2hR9ghHLiVhpH49ewBknHuEoHp04NG at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
>
> On 2 December 2010 21:31, Erik L?nroth <erik.lonroth at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If Julian was not accused of rape. Would we support him?
>>
>>
> I support all of his information policies and actions fully and
> whole-heartedly. But I get very hurt when people call Swedish women whores
> and cocksuckers when he is thought to have not been as respectful as they
> thought they deserved.
>
> but it's really completely different issues. you can't mix the two. who's
> a
> saint? not even jesus managed to live his life non-violently, look at the
> temple.
>
>
>
>> If you hesitate for a second, I believe that he is already guilty.
>>
>>
> it is obviously wrong to publish the name and picture of a person who is
> not
> yet convicted, because he then ends up getting convicted by the media and
> the readers of media rather than the court of law. also judges get
> affected
> by policies happening outside their sphere, as is seen quite clearly in
> the
> Pirate Bay case, for instance. TPB is judged exceptionally harshely
> because
> the judges are afraid of looking bad in front of the US. Potentially
> there's
> something similar here.
>
> You're from Sweden right? You will remember the bondage case from a couple
> of years back that made a lot of people upset: a woman was drunk and
> drugged
> and dragged to an apartment by two men who violated her with bondage sex.
> She had previously had bondage sex with these two men, but this night she
> had protested. They did not care. Eventually there was a conviction, but I
> don't remember any names being published in that case even after the
> conviction despite it being covered extensively by media for almost two
> months.
>
> You wonder what is different with. I blame Expressen, fucken tabloid and
> lack of press ethics bag of shite.
>
> /a
>
>> /Erik
>>
>> 2010/12/2 Rados?aw Nadstawny <radoslaw.nadstawny at o2.pl>:
>> > On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:16:07 +0100
>> > Boris Turovskiy <tourovski at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Radoslaw,
>> >> > In my opinion, there are too many rules protecting those who break
>> >> > other, more basic rules. They lead to situations in which a person
>> >> > can break the law freely, because in order to prove his crime, one
>> >> > would need to break the law himself.
>> >> Well, that is the drawback of a legal culture based on the assumption
>> >> of innocence - some criminals do get away. However, it hasn't been
>> >> designed that way without good reason: the philosophy behind it is
>> >> that it's better to let a criminal walk free than to falsely accuse
>> >> an innocent. Many regulations stem from that idea, for example that
>> >> police cannot simply search a home without a warrant (and if they do,
>> >> the evidence obtained is invalid).
>> >> One may argue where the line should be drawn, but I think you'll
>> agree
>> >> to the horrible implications of switching to a legal system with the
>> >> reverse foundation ("better to imprison an innocent than to let a
>> >> criminal walk").
>> >>
>> >
>> > I didn't suggest anything like that. I was referring mainly to various
>> > officials, not ordinary citizens. I think that it is the way it is
>> > because governments always try to screen themselves from
>> > responsibility. And that's why they should be made more transparent
>> and
>> > thus accountable.
>> >
>> >> > Just like you wouldn't expect privacy at your workplace,
>> >> Wouldn't I? There have been quite a few cases in Germany in the last
>> >> several years dealing exactly with the topic on what measure of
>> >> privacy an employee can expect at their workplace. For example, by
>> >> high court ruling video surveillance by the employer has been
>> >> strictly regulated so that the employer can only put video
>> >> surveillance when it is justified by security considerations, and
>> >> they must warn the employees of this surveillance; thus, hidden
>> >> cameras e.g. in bathrooms and changing rooms are prohibited. Also,
>> >> the employer has to treat the employees' personal data with
>> >> confidentiality, meaning that for the cases where the employer does
>> >> have a right of surveillance, the results have to be kept in-house
>> >> and not passed to third parties.
>> >
>> > Don't you think that employers should have the right to know what
>> their
>> > employees are doing at work? I don't mean surveillance in toilets, I
>> > mean separating private issues from work. If you have something that
>> > you don't want your employer to know about, you don't do it at work.
>> > Isn't is simple enough? Of course, employers should make it clear
>> where
>> > and when they might be watching you.
>> >
>> >> > the officials shouldn't expect privacy while carrying out their
>> >> > public responsibilities.
>> >> I think there are two different aspects which are getting confused
>> >> when talking about transparency of politicians:
>> >> 1. More data related to government activities should be open to the
>> >> public than is now the case
>> >> 2. Politicians should be monitored more closely to prevent corruption
>> >> and abuse of power
>> >> I agree with the first notion. The regulations and guidelines as to
>> >> what can be labeled "secret" or "confidential" regarding government
>> >> documents should be reviewed, and the "default setting" should be
>> >> that they are public unless there's specific reason to make them
>> >> restricted (and even restricted data has to be subjected to more
>> >> possibilities of cross-checking, with very few exceptions like secret
>> >> agents' personnel files or operational details which have to be kept
>> >> as tight as possible). I cannot, however, agree with the second line
>> >> of argument because it reminds me uncomfortable of the rhetoric used
>> >> for establishing all the surveillance mechanisms we're fighting
>> >> against (like data retention). I can't support the notion that all
>> >> politicians should be considered potentially corrupt any more than I
>> >> can agree that every citizen should be considered a potential
>> >> terrorist, any taxpayer a potential tax evader or any social security
>> >> beneficiary a potential rip-off.
>> >
>> > I think that wherever secrets are involved in operation of government,
>> > there is a high risk of corruption. So I agree that as little as
>> > possible should be labeled "confidential". The cross-checking would
>> > ensure that either everything's under control or the whole structure
>> is
>> > corrupt (unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be that unlikely).
>> >
>> > I also agree that being a *politician* should not make a difference in
>> > respecting someone's privacy. But as to government officials, I am not
>> > that sure. Ideally, responsibility should be proportional to the power
>> > held by given office. If you can not determine what the officials are
>> > doing as part of their duty, how can you hold them accountable?
>> >
>> > I'm not saying we should build another big brother house to put our
>> > presidents and ministers in 24/7. I'm saying that there should be a
>> > clear distinction between their duties as officials, and their private
>> > affairs. When performing duties they should be monitored as closely as
>> > possible (so that they can be held accountable for every word they say
>> > "in office"), but in private their rights would be no different than
>> > every other citizen's. Mixing of both should be considered fraud
>> > comparable to buying things for private with tax money.
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course, this is only an opinion, and I'm sure there's a room for
>> > improvement, but I hope you get the idea.
>> > ____________________________________________________
>> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>> >
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20101202/746b8ae7/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> pp.international.general mailing list
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
> End of pp.international.general Digest, Vol 46, Issue 8
> *******************************************************
>