[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of women regarding *Appelbaum*

Andrey Fedorov me at anfedorov.com
Sun Jun 12 02:11:36 UTC 2016

When you say sexual exploitative behavior, are you sure you actually
mean sexual
exploitation <http://host.jibc.ca/seytoolkit/what.htm>? Ditto with Cosby --
he drugged women so that he could rape them and then he raped them. Do you
think it's fair to cite that as in any way comparable to "this thing he
said at dinner really upset me"?

Jacob, as far as I can tell, is accused of making forward advances and
humor that makes some people uncomfortable (and others quite OK with). This
would make me think twice before inviting him over for dinner with polite
society friends, but it's quite a different ballpark than "he's not allowed
in my house".

Due process is an ideal, like equality or free speech. It means being
measured and careful in one's application of power. In this case, the
decision to ban was made in secret, announced anonymously and without
specific justification on behalf of all of NB, then retroactively explained
as "officialy [sic] coming from noisebridge members", then only then
proposed for a vote next week. This is not process. It is chaos.

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Alex Merlin Glowaski <
alex.glowaski at gmail.com> wrote:

> The funny thing is: if it's a single allegation, the victim is
> discredited. "But everyone else thinks he's a great guy!"
> Yet when multiple accusers come forward with similar stories and
> corroboration, as often happens once one person speaks out (see: Cosby),
> then it's a "lynch mob."
> Years ago, I was warned about this person from a trusted friend in the
> community, who knows him, specifically citing sexually exploitative
> behavior. A classic missing stair.
> <http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Missing_stair>
> Noisebridge is not a court of law, and not dependent upon the US's legal
> "due process" system – a system that is deeply flawed when it comes to
> issues of sexual assault. For a glimpse into Noisebridge's actual
> established process for related incidents (albeit those that take place
> within the space), check out the anti-harassment policy.
> <https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Anti-Harassment_Policy>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Andrey Fedorov <me at anfedorov.com> wrote:
>> Obviously not, and please don't try to re-interpret my words as absurd,
>> as that is not constructive
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity>.
>> Let me try again: I am looking for verified accounts of Jacob's behavior
>> and a chain of reasoning which justifies a ban from the space. I'm not
>> defending Jacob's alleged behavior as universally culturally acceptable,
>> just asking for some semblance of due process, because without it, you have mob
>> justice <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g>. For example,
>> Alison Macrina seems to have substantiated that Jacob was once rudely
>> forward in a proposition during dinner, and then made an inappropriate joke
>> about 9/11. For most employee-level corporate cultures, this is wholly
>> unacceptable and HR would start building a case to fire him. At an dinner
>> with one friend I'm thinking of, he'd get quickly put in his place with the
>> coldest "that's not appropriate" imaginable. With another friend, he might
>> get eye rolls and a flirtatious "someone's feeling confident!" or something
>> similar.
>> I don't know which agencies would be involved in targeting dissenters /
>> leakers today and I don't wish to hypothesize about their methods, but when
>> people start conflating "he's rude and inappropriate and pushy" and "he's
>> clearly a rapist, ban him!", it perks up my "what's going on here?" sense.
>> Once more, *due process requires evidence and reasoning and time for
>> people to review the evidence and ponder the reasoning*.
>> Think of it this way: on one end, there is the perfect trial and on the
>> other is the Salem witch trials. Let's move this discussion a bit towards
>> the former.
>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:22 PM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> This line of reasoning posits that an unbelievable number of people in
>>> the infosec community — including Alison Macrina, Andrea Shepard, Shari
>>> Steele, Micah Lee, Bill Buddington, Yan Zhu, Karen Reilly, Leigh Honeywell,
>>> and Nick Farr, and that’s just off the top of my head in the past thirty
>>> seconds — are liars or dupes for unspecified intelligence agencies, which
>>> have decided to target Jacob Appelbaum in particular above all other
>>> privacy advocates for reasons unknown, and that the numerous friends and
>>> acquaintances of Appelbaum who see the accusations as matching up with
>>> patterns of behavior they have personally witnessed are also confused or
>>> lying.
>>> On Jun 11, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Andrey Fedorov <me at anfedorov.com> wrote:
>>> There is nothing to assume: a first hand account is more reliable than a
>>> third-hand interpretation of what happened between them, and her own words
>>> conclude in a way significantly more opinionated
>>> <http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sop8ps> than the tone of the article
>>> Ceci linked. The mental state of those gossiping about things they didn't
>>> understand is (a) not very flattering, (b) unknowable, and (c) completely
>>> beside the point.
>>> hackers ain't got time for this shit.
>>> Jacob leaks and publicizes classified information for a living. His
>>> professional adversaries are intelligence agencies who have not just time,
>>> but very large budgets and departments dedicated to "this shit".
>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> OK.  Let's assume Jill's refutation of the interpretation of the
>>>> witnesses is the true story -- that she was upset for her own reasons, not
>>>> because of Jake.
>>>> Here's what we're left with -- that 3 people felt deeply concerned for
>>>> an upset-seeming woman's well-being who was under Jake's spotlight, when
>>>> Occam's Razor would normally have produced reasoning that chalked up her
>>>> upset-ness to something more mundane.
>>>> So then you can reason two ways about the mental state of the 3
>>>> witnesses.  Either:
>>>> 1) they have, each of them, absorbed enough data in observing Jacob's
>>>> behaviors that their internal pattern-matchers were setting off warning
>>>> alarms, and they were willing to risk social awkwardness (and potential
>>>> backlash!) to save this woman a lot of trouble;
>>>> or
>>>> 2) they were participating in a conspiracy to take down a public figure.
>>>> Here's why I'm not apt to believe #2: hackers ain't got time for this
>>>> shit.
>>>> --Naomi
>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Cecilia Tanaka <
>>>> cecilia.tanaka at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, I can't resist more!  It's stronger than me!  :)
>>>>> Did you all read this statement?  :)
>>>>> Jill Bahring: I Was Not Assaulted by Jacob Appelbaum
>>>>> http://gizmodo.com/jill-bahring-i-was-not-assaulted-by-jacob-appelbaum-1781684838
>>>>> Quoting 'Mirimir', a voluntary collaborator of Tor Project:
>>>>> "I'd say that conspiracies among Tor Project employees and volunteers
>>>>> to force out and humiliate a key employee would be a serious matter, with
>>>>> obvious impact on Tor development.  So it's not just Jacob's behavior that
>>>>> must be reviewed.  It's also the behavior of the lynch mob.  And anyone who
>>>>> behaved dishonestly and/or recklessly in this matter needs to resign.
>>>>> There's no place in Tor Project for rapists.  But there's also no place
>>>>> there for lynch mobs."
>>>>> Tender kisses!  Sorry for my bad English!  :*
>>>>> Ceci
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "Cecilia Tanaka" <cecilia.tanaka at gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Jun 11, 2016 3:01 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of women regarding
>>>>> *Appelbaum*
>>>>> To: <tor-talk at lists.torproject.org>
>>>>> Oh, it is so lovely!  The world is really small, as I said times
>>>>> before!  <3
>>>>> Joana Varon  (not Veron)  is a lovely friend of mine and we both work
>>>>> voluntarily in different groups for *women's empowerment* using technology
>>>>> in general.
>>>>> I am a bad lawyer and tell lots of bad jokes, but Joana is a famous
>>>>> researcher, famous for her intelligence and her work in the privacy area.
>>>>> I didn't know about this statement, because I am being harassed for
>>>>> several "friends" of mine and, just in case, I avoiding contact with
>>>>> everybody.  :P
>>>>> Now, my day is much more beautiful and I think I love her even more,
>>>>> haha!!  ;)
>>>>> I bcc her in this message and  -  wow!  -  Jo, I do love you!  Thank
>>>>> you for being so fair and rational in all the moments.  You are an awesome
>>>>> professional and a gorgeous person.  Thank you for being, my dear!  :*
>>>>> Have a lovely weekend, shiny happy people!  <3
>>>>> Cecilia, la la la...  Yep, always "cecilying", Jo!  :D
>>>>> On Jun 11, 2016 2:26 PM, "carlo von lynX" <lynX at time.to.get.psyced.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Saturday 11th June 2016
>>>>>> We, the undersigned, are a group of women who have been friends,
>>>>>> colleagues, co-workers or partners of Jacob "Jake" Appelbaum over many
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>> We have decided that we must speak out due to the nature of this
>>>>>> coordinated and one-sided attack on his character and work. It has become
>>>>>> clear the mainstream media are unwilling to fact-check, and only too
>>>>>> willing to persist in spreading uncorroborated and unfalsifiable rumor.
>>>>>> This statement is to give our positive experiences with Jake from our
>>>>>> first-hand, long-term perspectives, over many public and private situations.
>>>>>> We do not claim to know what happened in precise situations that we
>>>>>> were not present for, and we do not want to trivialise and minimise any
>>>>>> pain that may have been caused. But we are observing – beyond the
>>>>>> allegations, that are not for us to comment on specifically – an egregious
>>>>>> character assassination is being played out with numerous defamations
>>>>>> online and offline. This is not how the truth can be determined, or justice
>>>>>> for anyone done, whether law enforcement is to be trusted or not.
>>>>>> We would like to state that our experiences with Jake are different
>>>>>> than what is often being portrayed. We know Jake to be a kind, loyal and
>>>>>> dedicated person. We do understand Jake can be outspoken and provocative
>>>>>> regarding a number of issues – which can come across as offensive –
>>>>>> however, we have never found Jake to be as is being alleged.
>>>>>> We are not apologists for any genuine wrongdoing, and as women
>>>>>> working in this community we know that there are struggles around sexism.
>>>>>> However, simple punitivism is not how the human rights that we all defend
>>>>>> should be enforced or framed.
>>>>>> We believe that an open and evidence-based discussion in this
>>>>>> situation is necessary to allow our community to develop better processes
>>>>>> to handle any allegations. Furiously targeting one person without allowing
>>>>>> for proper fact analysis will never solve the bigger structural problem
>>>>>> that has been highlighted. We should use this moment to grow and make
>>>>>> things better, not destroy the movement and create divisions. We need to
>>>>>> create a channel for discussions on how to make things better.
>>>>>> We stand in solidarity with Jake against the way this is being
>>>>>> handled and on the side of justice for all, in hope the truth on all sides
>>>>>> will be able to come to light in a rational and constructive manner.
>>>>>> Renata Avila, Human Rights Lawyer
>>>>>> Susan Benn, Artist
>>>>>> Cathleen Berger, Policy Advisor
>>>>>> Geraldine de Bastion, Policy Expert
>>>>>> Annegret Falter, Political Scientist
>>>>>> Marie Gutbub, Journalist
>>>>>> Sarah Harrison, Journalist
>>>>>> Christy Lange, Writer
>>>>>> Isik Mater, Infosec Specialist
>>>>>> Angela Richter, Theatre Director
>>>>>> Felicity Ruby, PhD Candidate
>>>>>> Joana Veron, Lawyer
>>>>>> The initial signatories to this statement (named above) have opened
>>>>>> an email address to receive additional
>>>>>> signatories as well as any other constructive comments.
>>>>>> Email: dueprocess at riseup.net
>>>>>> Key ID: 3D1CEF58
>>>>>> Key Fingerprint: 2A1D 7685 7AF0 ADD5 F3E5 D5B0 748C FAE0 3D1C EF58
>>>>>> https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2858953/Statement-Appelbaum-11-06.pdf
>>>>>> https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2858953/Statement-Appelbaum-11-06.txt
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk at lists.torproject.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
>>>>>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>> --
>>>> Naomi Theora Most
>>>> naomi at nthmost.com
>>>> +1-415-728-7490
>>>> skype: nthmost
>>>> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> --
> yours truly ☆ alexglow.com
> my fave hardware projects ☆ hackster.io/lists/alex
> <http://sayat.me/alexglow>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20160611/310b16a8/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list