[governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community"

[Riaz K Tayob]

Except that on this list it is fine to leave the public interest to the 
tech community. We have had great difficulty in simply getting 
acknowledgement that there is an intersection sometimes between the 
technical and the political or public interest.

This is not about your post only, and is more about this list and 
treatment of Norbert and historically folk who have been marginalised 
(American cowboy style) like Karl Auerbach.

For me there is a meaningful way to go forward, as we all must, but 
let's not pretend we share the same concerns or tactics. This list has 
been largely dominated by a world view that sought to exclude many of 
the issues that arose. Look at the aspersions cast at Michael Gurstein 
regarding selection on a tech committee - personalised, sour grapes, but 
nary anything about the lack of public interest issues adequately 
represented. This is.was the kitchen philosophy we deal with parading as 
civil reasoned engagement.

I am happy if people change their minds, but I am not a revisionist to 
make it palatable for people who acted to block issues and now when 
circumstances overtake them... G. Marx said, if you don't like my 
principles, I have others... muhahahahaa.

Unity is based on a shared set of values subject to paradiastol. On this 
list I will continue to maintain my scepticism of single rooters (as 
evolved), US apologists and exceptionalists (witting or unwitting). No 
internet regulation without meaningful representation. I take sides. 
Happy to engage with reason - as always. The call to unity and not to 
take sides is too coincidental. Let the tide go out, and we can see 
those (who were warned) who are not wearing bathing suits. This is a 
necessary process of credibility/analytical acumen. Why would you want 
to block those whose analytic was more on target than those who served 
you/us distraction or irrelevance? Did Norbert really mess up by 
creating spaces for Third World perspectives?

Of course one needs to be practical, but do you even think that the IGC 
could come up with a statement on this if we can't even agree that the 
technical might be political? Or that concerns over whistleblowers who 
reveal war crimes deserve some consideration on this list? Or that 
companies in MS need to be treated as part of the estate but with equity 
considerations for public interest? Or libertarians who take only state 
power rather than the marriage of state and corporate power seriously.

I like to temper my idealism with reality. American's of course have to 
watch out for the enemy within... i.e. whistleblowers... simple people 
of conscience who will be forgotten once Kim Kardashian gives birth that 
is...








On 2013/06/10 05:37 PM, Kerry Brown wrote:
> I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but it does provide a plausible technical scenario.
>
> As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them conversations. We are a community that is made up of communities. Many people have their fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes division when we should be seeking unification and consensus.
>
> Kerry Brown
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t