Re: [perpass] perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01

Bruce Perens <> Wed, 04 December 2013 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5981AE2D0 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:50:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.177
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lHvy4dYbWbf1 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9512B1AD8F5 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4DA650008A for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 12:50:05 -0800
From: Bruce Perens <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [perpass] perens-perpass-appropriate-response-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for IETF discussion of pervasive monitoring. " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 20:50:04 -0000

On 12/04/2013 12:29 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
Imagine if this was admissible in court and that someone else was telling this story about you? How would that have impacted your life? How could it impact your life in the future?
It is admissible in court. It's a public statement on a mailing list with a public archive. So I said it in public. Anyone who wants to quote my statement that I tapped phones in my early teens can now do so, in court or out of it.

I inhaled too. There it is, submit it to Slashdot or something. :-)
Not everyone is so lucky
as you - will you stand by their side or dismiss them simply because it
doesn't apply to you, in your view?
I support their right to use a web browser that requests https preferentially, if they think that will help. I would just like that to be their choice, not something that is imposed upon them.
Do you use the same computer for browsing the web as you do for your email? If so, I guess anyone who does would have some negligence to hide, no?
I sat on the jury of a negilgence case earlier this year. There are standards regarding common sense and what would reasonably be expected for someone to perform. My security practices fit such standards.