[Air-L] (advice sought) Public safety and configuration of list

[Michael Allan]

Brian and Elijah,

Brian said:
> If Stanford University, who currently hosts the libtech mailng list
> decides to change the setup in contravention of democratic process
> of the list MEMBERS, then I would hope list members will move to one
> of many other options for hosting.  ...  Is it not worth considering
> that the constant rehashing of this discussion is in itself,
> something reminiscent of the behavior of bad actors attempting to
> derail effective organizing and discussion?

Safety was hardly discussed in public; mostly only off list.  Here's a
short history of the public exchange between the subscribers and the
university, thus far:

  Subs.  When replying to messages sent via the list, I sometimes
         forget to hit "Reply to List".  Instead I hit "Reply to
         Sender".  When I realize my mistake, I must re-send my reply
         to the list.  What a nuisance!  How can we remedy this?

   Uni.  It's possible to alter the sender's Reply-To headers, making
         it *appear* as though the sender had requested replies to be
         sent to the list.  Then it no longer matters which button you
         press; your reply is directed to the list regardless.

  Subs.  Yes, let's do that!

   Uni.  But in our particular list, this may present a safety hazard
         to the public.  Also it requires inserting false information
         into the mail that technically verges on fraud.

  Subs.  (silence)

   Uni.  Did you hear what I said?

  Subs.  How dare you question our democratically reached decision!
         Did *you* not hear what *we* said?

This is perhaps a little unfair.  If a proper discussion had been held
beforehand, then nobody could have *reasonably* agreed to alter the
Reply-To headers without *first* refuting the public safety concerns.
But this was not done; instead there was a vote.  One subscriber even
called for the vote as a means to end the discussion.

And now, when the university is required to decide the matter, *again*
public discussion is to be curtailed?  That is fine, but remember that
reasonable arguments of public safety and wilful mis-information are
still standing.  They have hardly been addressed yet, let alone
refuted.

(Again, pending that decision, I recommend that the configuration be
returned to its default setting.  The default is strongly recommended
by the providers and its safety is unquestioned.)


Elijah Wright said:
> Please don't reply-all on private mail (what this appears to be -
> interim mails did not go to Air-L), and then include lists in the CC
> line. ... it's unethical ...

Apologies for cross-posting, but the mail I quoted was not private:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-April/008257.html

Mike


Brian Conley said:
> +1 to both of Joe's comments.
> 
> Michael, I'm not sure what world you live in, but in the world I live in,
> anyone who has information worth considering and is to be respected as a
> security adviser would NEVER follow the actions you've suggested.
> 
> This is a strawman. The world is a dangerous place, and people get hurt. At
> least give them the agency to decide how best to protect themselves. Quite
> frankly I think there is a lot of hand-wringing going on, and it really
> wastes a lot of people's time.
> 
> If Stanford University, who currently hosts the libtech mailng list decides
> to change the setup in contravention of democratic process of the list
> MEMBERS, then I would hope list members will move to one of many other
> options for hosting.
> 
> I fully understand that Stanford University may now feel they have some
> sort of legal obligation, due, no doubt, in part to less than transparent
> actions by a few individuals, robbing the members of the list of agency.
> Its the University's legal decision, no doubt, but perhaps someone from the
> EFF can kindly call them and let them know this is a straw man.
> 
> Is it not worth considering that the constant rehashing of this discussion
> is in itself, something reminiscent of the behavior of bad actors
> attempting to derail effective organizing and discussion?
> 
> regards all.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> > (reply-to-list-only)
> >
> > On Apr 23, 2013, at 16:39, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> > > Maybe there's a misunderstanding here.  The list subscribers are not
> > > responsible for the safe administration of the list.  The university
> > > alone is responsible.  It could never pass that responsibility on to
> > > the subscribers, even if it wanted to.
> >
> > There's definitely a misunderstanding. I see mailing lists as
> > fundamentally normative negotiations with a foundation of acceptable use,
> > whether administered by Stanford or some other entity. Changing the entity
> > that hosts a mailman list is one of the most frictionless changes which a
> > community can agree to online. So, ultimately it's the list that requires
> > persuasion (in my opinion).
> >
> > --Joe
> 
> -- 
> 
> Brian Conley
> 
> Director, Small World News
> 
> http://smallworldnews.tv
> 
> m: 646.285.2046
> 
> Skype: brianjoelconley


Elijah Wright said:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> > Joseph Lorenzo Hall said:
> > >
> 
> 
> Please don't reply-all on private mail (what this appears to be - interim
> mails did not go to Air-L), and then include lists in the CC line.
> 
> It's unethical and just makes other list members very, very cranky.  As
> does any thread that suggests changing the reply-to bit on any list.
> 
> That aside - this ought to be a dead issue.  Don't use mailing lists with
> archives for private or might-need-to-be-private correspondence that might
> endanger lives or well-being of others.  The information *will* leak.  In
> fact - I would suggest not using mail for this sort of issue at all,
> regardless of whether it's a list or has archives or not.  The trail of
> cleartext bits and routing information is too easily exploited.
> 
> best,
> 
> --e