[Noisebridge-discuss] Statement by a group of women regarding *Appelbaum*

robb sf99er at gmail.com
Wed Jun 15 17:01:57 UTC 2016


this does not seems to be a cut & dry case by any means
i hope some sane information comes to light before this descends into
conspiracy land

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:00 AM, <
noisebridge-discuss-request at lists.noisebridge.net> wrote:

> Send Noisebridge-discuss mailing list submissions to
>         noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         noisebridge-discuss-request at lists.noisebridge.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         noisebridge-discuss-owner at lists.noisebridge.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Noisebridge-discuss digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Oculus development kit (Andrew Grosser)
>    2. Fix-It Hardware Repair Club this Thursday!!! (Zach R)
>    3. Re: Cryptoparty at Sudo Room on this Sunday,      the 19th
>       (Jehan Tremback)
>    4. Re: Best web app for verifying msgs and PGP       keys? (Jeff Tchang)
>    5. Re: Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of women
>       regarding *Appelbaum* (Simon C. Ion)
>    6. Re: Presentation, visit in june (Scotty Allen)
>    7. Re: Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of women
>       regarding *Appelbaum* (Hep Svadja)
>    8. Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of women regarding
>       *Appelbaum* (Andrey Fedorov)
>    9. Re: Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of women
>       regarding *Appelbaum* (Andrey Fedorov)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andrew Grosser <dioptre at gmail.com>
> To: NoiseBridge Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:24:14 +0000
> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] Oculus development kit
> Hey guys,
>
> I'm bringing in an oculus development kit for everyone to play with, and
> just wondering if I should leave it out or if I should give it to someone
> to end up in a locker?
>
> Andy
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Zach R <organicunity at hotmail.com>
> To: Noisebridge Announce <noisebridge-announce at lists.noisebridge.net>, NB
> Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:26:02 +0000
> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] Fix-It Hardware Repair Club this Thursday!!!
>
> Yep it's back!  Join the Rich, Zach, Mike, and the rest of the gang as
> they journey into the heart of the circuit board in a quest to uncover the
> hidden shorts of the evil Electro! :P
>
>
> This Thursday @ 2169 Mission Street around 6pm until 10pm (or later).
> Most likely to take place at the square shaped Noisebridge Logo table by
> the front entrance.
>
>
> It's a fun little community class where you get someone with 10+ years of
> experience to look at your broken junk and try to bring it back to life!
>
> See the updated page for all the info: Noisebridge.net/fix
>
>
> Flyer:
>
>
> http://s18.photobucket.com/user/Segasonicfan/media/NB%20Hardware%20Class/20150921_202953_zps1xpxsjmp.jpg.html?sort=3&o=17
>
>
>
> *== What do I need to know? ==*
> The class is more focused on an *Intermediate* level for those that
> already know how to solder. Everyone should be welcome though, and we
> recommend the class on how to solder
> <https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Circuit_Hacking_Mondays> which happens
> Mondays at Noisebridge. It helps a lot to have a working knowledge of the
> simple components like resistors, capacitors, etc.
>
> We will come together to share our knowledge on repairs. Some people have
> been doing electronic repairs for 10++ years!
>
> *Note:* this is a community class and not a "free repair shop." Also know
> that anything you bring it has the potential to be hacked, destroyed, or
> manipulated in some way, so it is important that you do not bring things
> for which holds for you monetary, sentimental, or any other kind of value.
> Repairs will be chosen based on interest and whim of the class, and your
> project is not guaranteed to be fixed of course. It's always fun though and
> everyone usually at least gets to diagnose what's going on. We've repaired
> many things already!
>
> *Things to bring:*
> Your Curiosity
> Something To Take Notes With
> Camera or Video device for recording repair procedures / steps
> Food or snacks since the class can go late sometimes
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback at gmail.com>
> To: noisebridge-discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:36:27 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Cryptoparty at Sudo Room on this
> Sunday, the 19th
> Sorry, I forgot to mention what time the cryptoparty is. It is at 1-4:30pm
> on Sunday, the 19th.
>
> https://sudoroom.org/events/cryptoparty-2/
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm putting on a Cryptoparty this Sunday at Sudoroom. I will give a
>> general overview of encryption for absolute beginners, and we have someone
>> who will give an introductory talk about threat models. Please come by, we
>> will have refreshments.
>>
>> -Jehan
>>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jeff Tchang <jeff.tchang at gmail.com>
> To: Rob M <veryprofessionalguy at gmail.com>
> Cc: NoiseBridge Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:06:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Best web app for verifying msgs and PGP
> keys?
> You can check out keybase.io
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Rob M <veryprofessionalguy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of a snappy web app that will aid in confirming/
>> validating/ looking up PGP keys and such?  I feel like there must be an
>> app out there that does everything from confirming msg+signature, then
>> appraising the signature, and reporting the owner of said signature and
>> displaying all that info in one view.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Simon C. Ion" <ion.simon.c at gmail.com>
> To: NoiseBridge Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:41:06 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a
> group of women regarding *Appelbaum*
> On 06/13/2016 11:30 AM, brianhenderson474 at yahoo.com wrote:
> > When I said I wasn't going to address her statement, I thought it was
> > clear I was referring to substance of it...
>
> Bähring's statement is the *entirety* of the document, not just the
> facts of the events of the evening. You took issue with the opinions
> expressed *after* the recitation of facts, so you addressed (and took
> issue with) her statement. :)
>
> > But she then goes from a description of what happened to pondering that
> > a bunch of women are lying about being assaulted.
> > That's ridiculously inappropriate, and she should be ashamed of
> > telling other women that they're lying about being assaulted.
> >
> > Again, by her OWN STATEMENT, these three witnesses did in fact see her
> > distressed for personal reasons and Jake physically coming on to her
> > as she desperately tried to find her missing bag. ...
> >
> > It's disgusting to take the account from three people who acted
> > reasonably and appropriately and use it to try and discredit
> > victims of sexual assault.
>
> You should remove the anger/disgust/other-negative-affect from your mind
> and *carefully* re-read Bähring's statement. Remember that Gizmodo
> apparently published Tan, Paterson, and Shepard's account of the events
> without even _bothering_ to speak to the person that the three witnesses
> identified as a victim.
>
> If you had an associate who told a *really* damaging (and *really*
> juicy) story to a widely-read gossip rag that was based on a
> *significant* misinterpretation of the events of an evening, wouldn't
> you be *rather* pissed at both the associate (for going to the gossip
> rag without speaking to you) and the rag (for failing to speak with you
> to verify the account before publishing)?
>
> If that associate was then _intimately_ involved with the relating and
> eventual publishing of similar sorts of equally damaging and juicy
> stories, wouldn't you have reason to question the accuracy of *those*
> stories?
>
> > Without the context she knew, it's easy to see how someone witnessing
> > this would come to a different conclusion.
>
> That element of uncertainty is why Gizmodo should have called her up to
> verify the account of the events of the evening before publishing the
> story. It's also why Gizmodo (and anyone else publishing these stories)
> should question the veracity of information that they've gotten from
> Tan, Paterson, and/or Shepard... assuming that they haven't yet gotten
> around to verifying the story they were handed (and maybe have already
> published).
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Scotty Allen <scotty at scottyallen.com>
> To: "François Revol" <revol at free.fr>,
> noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:03:59 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Presentation, visit in june
> Thanks! I'll definitely try and stop in next time I'm out that direction.
> It was great having you at Noisebridge - you're welcome anytime.
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:47 PM François Revol <revol at free.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 13/06/2016 22:45, Scotty Allen wrote:
>> > I'm looking forward to meeting you François - sounds like you've been
>> > doing some awesome hacking at nb.
>> >
>> > For the Usb cable, have a look on the hack shelves - we might have what
>> > you're looking for. There's a bin labeled misc use cables I think.
>>
>> Thanks Scotty,
>> I didn't find one but I charged it manually a little, will see how many
>> pictures it takes tomorrow :-)
>>
>>
>> Thanks again for the warm welcome, if you visit France be sure to check
>> the various hackerspaces around. If you want to visit us, our website is
>> there (french only, sorry :):
>>
>> http://l0ad.org/
>>
>> Some english infos here:
>> https://wiki.hackerspaces.org/Laboratoire_Ouvert_Ard%C3%A8che-Dr%C3%B4me
>>
>> And we have a nice fablab 30km away in a medieval building (yes, we are
>> crazy) ;-)
>> http://8fablab.fr/
>>
>>
>> François.
>>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Hep Svadja <hepkitten at gmail.com>
> To: "Simon C. Ion" <ion.simon.c at gmail.com>
> Cc: NoiseBridge Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:57:11 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a
> group of women regarding *Appelbaum*
> Why are we focusing on this one account to the exclusion of all the other
> accounts? OK, this account has been proven false. However there are like 50
> other accounts. Can we not waste any more time pushing this singular
> account as some sort of "get out of all your other sexual assaults free"
> card?
>
> -Hep
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Simon C. Ion <ion.simon.c at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/13/2016 11:30 AM, brianhenderson474 at yahoo.com wrote:
>> > When I said I wasn't going to address her statement, I thought it was
>> > clear I was referring to substance of it...
>>
>> Bähring's statement is the *entirety* of the document, not just the
>> facts of the events of the evening. You took issue with the opinions
>> expressed *after* the recitation of facts, so you addressed (and took
>> issue with) her statement. :)
>>
>> > But she then goes from a description of what happened to pondering that
>> > a bunch of women are lying about being assaulted.
>> > That's ridiculously inappropriate, and she should be ashamed of
>> > telling other women that they're lying about being assaulted.
>> >
>> > Again, by her OWN STATEMENT, these three witnesses did in fact see her
>> > distressed for personal reasons and Jake physically coming on to her
>> > as she desperately tried to find her missing bag. ...
>> >
>> > It's disgusting to take the account from three people who acted
>> > reasonably and appropriately and use it to try and discredit
>> > victims of sexual assault.
>>
>> You should remove the anger/disgust/other-negative-affect from your mind
>> and *carefully* re-read Bähring's statement. Remember that Gizmodo
>> apparently published Tan, Paterson, and Shepard's account of the events
>> without even _bothering_ to speak to the person that the three witnesses
>> identified as a victim.
>>
>> If you had an associate who told a *really* damaging (and *really*
>> juicy) story to a widely-read gossip rag that was based on a
>> *significant* misinterpretation of the events of an evening, wouldn't
>> you be *rather* pissed at both the associate (for going to the gossip
>> rag without speaking to you) and the rag (for failing to speak with you
>> to verify the account before publishing)?
>>
>> If that associate was then _intimately_ involved with the relating and
>> eventual publishing of similar sorts of equally damaging and juicy
>> stories, wouldn't you have reason to question the accuracy of *those*
>> stories?
>>
>> > Without the context she knew, it's easy to see how someone witnessing
>> > this would come to a different conclusion.
>>
>> That element of uncertainty is why Gizmodo should have called her up to
>> verify the account of the events of the evening before publishing the
>> story. It's also why Gizmodo (and anyone else publishing these stories)
>> should question the veracity of information that they've gotten from
>> Tan, Paterson, and/or Shepard... assuming that they haven't yet gotten
>> around to verifying the story they were handed (and maybe have already
>> published).
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>     HEPIC PHOTOGRAPHY
> 415 867 9472 || http://hepic.net
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andrey Fedorov <me at anfedorov.com>
> To: "Simon C. Ion" <ion.simon.c at gmail.com>
> Cc: NoiseBridge Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:46:08 -0700
> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a group of
> women regarding *Appelbaum*
> Andy: Jill is the alleged victim, speaking publicly, and I believe her
> story over someone else's interpretation. Did you read it?
>
> Naomi: I won't do anything with it, but it will make me feel a ton better
> about the community. I'm appealing to the notion that usage of
> institutional power like bans on politically active individuals be thought
> through and well reasoned. Words like "demand" and "proof" are very
> specific and not at all what I am doing or asking for. "Over half a decade"
> is a long time -- memories can shift and take on new meaning by then. Is
> this ban based on people's recollections of something Jacob did the better
> part of a decade ago? None of this seems even remotely like any of the
> stories on the /wiki/86 list.
>
> Rob: yes, I've read some of those, and for all you know, I wrote one, too.
> Ask any professional journalist, investigator, or lawyer about how much
> weight one ought to give uncorroborated anonymous accounts on the internet
> in finding the truth of a matter. Seriously -- do you know any? Ask them.
> That said, some of the stories appear to paint a personality type very
> different from the others.
>
> Oxblood's story is a good example of someone furthering and augmenting
> unsubstantiated rumors. First, he is clearly miffed by Jacob's networking
> in leu of "making movies, writing, coding", and then talks of "throwing him
> out" upon cDc becoming aware of "anonymous accusations of sexual assault".
> He follows up with a story of his own about making inappropriate remarks to
> a female colleague and a discussion of sexual assault. I see lots of
> confusion and emotions and not much reasoning in his account.
>
> It's fine to dislike Jacob for a variety of reasons personal and
> political, the same say it's fine to dislike Bill Clinton. Not liking
> someone and personally avoiding them is very different than using
> institutional power to publicly declare them unwelcome or banned.
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Simon C. Ion <ion.simon.c at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 06/13/2016 11:30 AM, brianhenderson474 at yahoo.com wrote:
> >> When I said I wasn't going to address her statement, I thought it was
> >> clear I was referring to substance of it...
> >
> > Bähring's statement is the *entirety* of the document, not just the
> > facts of the events of the evening. You took issue with the opinions
> > expressed *after* the recitation of facts, so you addressed (and took
> > issue with) her statement. :)
> >
> >> But she then goes from a description of what happened to pondering that
> >> a bunch of women are lying about being assaulted.
> >> That's ridiculously inappropriate, and she should be ashamed of
> >> telling other women that they're lying about being assaulted.
> >>
> >> Again, by her OWN STATEMENT, these three witnesses did in fact see her
> >> distressed for personal reasons and Jake physically coming on to her
> >> as she desperately tried to find her missing bag. ...
> >>
> >> It's disgusting to take the account from three people who acted
> >> reasonably and appropriately and use it to try and discredit
> >> victims of sexual assault.
> >
> > You should remove the anger/disgust/other-negative-affect from your mind
> > and *carefully* re-read Bähring's statement. Remember that Gizmodo
> > apparently published Tan, Paterson, and Shepard's account of the events
> > without even _bothering_ to speak to the person that the three witnesses
> > identified as a victim.
> >
> > If you had an associate who told a *really* damaging (and *really*
> > juicy) story to a widely-read gossip rag that was based on a
> > *significant* misinterpretation of the events of an evening, wouldn't
> > you be *rather* pissed at both the associate (for going to the gossip
> > rag without speaking to you) and the rag (for failing to speak with you
> > to verify the account before publishing)?
> >
> > If that associate was then _intimately_ involved with the relating and
> > eventual publishing of similar sorts of equally damaging and juicy
> > stories, wouldn't you have reason to question the accuracy of *those*
> > stories?
> >
> >> Without the context she knew, it's easy to see how someone witnessing
> >> this would come to a different conclusion.
> >
> > That element of uncertainty is why Gizmodo should have called her up to
> > verify the account of the events of the evening before publishing the
> > story. It's also why Gizmodo (and anyone else publishing these stories)
> > should question the veracity of information that they've gotten from
> > Tan, Paterson, and/or Shepard... assuming that they haven't yet gotten
> > around to verifying the story they were handed (and maybe have already
> > published).
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andrey Fedorov <me at anfedorov.com>
> To: Hep Svadja <hepkitten at gmail.com>
> Cc: NoiseBridge Discuss <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:51:36 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Re: [tor-talk] Statement by a
> group of women regarding *Appelbaum*
> Hep: because this discussion was started by Ceci about Bähring's
> experience as a minor victim of the unwanted rumors. I'm sure she didn't
> want to be caught up in this stuff as much as anyone.
>
> Also, it's an example of how people can misinterpret and blow things out
> of proportion. Many other accounts appear to be of a similar nature —
> political gripes that happen in many communities (He networked instead of
> working! He "stole" my work!), with just enough juicy bits and
> horrific anonymous accusations that emotions flame completely out of
> control.
>
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, Hep Svadja <hepkitten at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why are we focusing on this one account to the exclusion of all the other
>> accounts? OK, this account has been proven false. However there are like 50
>> other accounts. Can we not waste any more time pushing this singular
>> account as some sort of "get out of all your other sexual assaults free"
>> card?
>>
>> -Hep
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Simon C. Ion <ion.simon.c at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/13/2016 11:30 AM, brianhenderson474 at yahoo.com wrote:
>>> > When I said I wasn't going to address her statement, I thought it was
>>> > clear I was referring to substance of it...
>>>
>>> Bähring's statement is the *entirety* of the document, not just the
>>> facts of the events of the evening. You took issue with the opinions
>>> expressed *after* the recitation of facts, so you addressed (and took
>>> issue with) her statement. :)
>>>
>>> > But she then goes from a description of what happened to pondering that
>>> > a bunch of women are lying about being assaulted.
>>> > That's ridiculously inappropriate, and she should be ashamed of
>>> > telling other women that they're lying about being assaulted.
>>> >
>>> > Again, by her OWN STATEMENT, these three witnesses did in fact see her
>>> > distressed for personal reasons and Jake physically coming on to her
>>> > as she desperately tried to find her missing bag. ...
>>> >
>>> > It's disgusting to take the account from three people who acted
>>> > reasonably and appropriately and use it to try and discredit
>>> > victims of sexual assault.
>>>
>>> You should remove the anger/disgust/other-negative-affect from your mind
>>> and *carefully* re-read Bähring's statement. Remember that Gizmodo
>>> apparently published Tan, Paterson, and Shepard's account of the events
>>> without even _bothering_ to speak to the person that the three witnesses
>>> identified as a victim.
>>>
>>> If you had an associate who told a *really* damaging (and *really*
>>> juicy) story to a widely-read gossip rag that was based on a
>>> *significant* misinterpretation of the events of an evening, wouldn't
>>> you be *rather* pissed at both the associate (for going to the gossip
>>> rag without speaking to you) and the rag (for failing to speak with you
>>> to verify the account before publishing)?
>>>
>>> If that associate was then _intimately_ involved with the relating and
>>> eventual publishing of similar sorts of equally damaging and juicy
>>> stories, wouldn't you have reason to question the accuracy of *those*
>>> stories?
>>>
>>> > Without the context she knew, it's easy to see how someone witnessing
>>> > this would come to a different conclusion.
>>>
>>> That element of uncertainty is why Gizmodo should have called her up to
>>> verify the account of the events of the evening before publishing the
>>> story. It's also why Gizmodo (and anyone else publishing these stories)
>>> should question the veracity of information that they've gotten from
>>> Tan, Paterson, and/or Shepard... assuming that they haven't yet gotten
>>> around to verifying the story they were handed (and maybe have already
>>> published).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>     HEPIC PHOTOGRAPHY
>> 415 867 9472 || http://hepic.net
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20160615/dad74b26/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list