[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of women regarding *Appelbaum*
Rob M
veryprofessionalguy at gmail.com
Sun Jun 12 02:50:32 UTC 2016
Hi Andrey, did you honestly not read the statement released by the Tor
foundation yet?
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/statement
How about the website that his former non-profit setup to do the best
they can to gather more information about the extent to his sexually
abusive behaviors to help the victims who have yet to come forward?
http://jacobappelbaum.net
In the context of those writings, it makes some of the comments you've
made on this list come off as reprehensibly vulgar. I'm big on giving
people the benefit of the doubt so I'll just assume you haven't read up
on the entirety of the story yet. There's really nothing more to be
said until the meeting, where I expect we'll be able to gather a fuller
picture as to what kind of person Jacob really is from people who
actually had personal interactions with him.
For the record, I thought Jacob seemed like a pretty good guy based
solely on his charismatic stage presence. It looks like this may have
been a shallow understanding of who he actually was as a person on my
part =/
If it helps you any, you can think of him as a jet engine that sucked up
all these great ideas from actual great people in the crypto community
and then flew high into the sky at their expense. We're still a strong
community, we'll just be one less sociopath by the end of this nose dive
from the looks of it.
On 06/11/2016 07:11 PM, Andrey Fedorov wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Naomi Theora Most
>> naomi at nthmost.com <mailto:naomi at nthmost.com>
>> +1-415-728-7490 <tel:%2B1-415-728-7490>
>>
>> skype: nthmost
>>
>> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> yours truly ☆ alexglow.com <http://alexglow.com>
> my fave hardware projects ☆ hackster.io/lists/alex
> <http://sayat.me/alexglow>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20160611/beb65732/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list