Democratic procedures? - Re: facebook related request
21 views
Skip to first unread message
M.Rausch
Jun 10, 2012, 1:58:52 AM6/10/12
to David Peterson, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson), discu...@pirateparty.org.nz, pp...@googlegroups.com
Dear Pirates,
the anti-Facebook disclaimer is still not showing on PPNZ's Facebook page.
This is an undemocratic behavior and this party is even discussing the
slogan "democracy 2.0".
The motion for this disclaimer passed unanimously on August 14th last year.
The president facilitated and asked for votes and no one voted against it.
@David
Please put the disclaimer up again until the members have chosen to omit it.
Even though other members might agree with you, you cannot just act at
your whim.
If you want the disclaimer to be amended or removed, put it on the
agenda for the next meeting.
This way the members have the opportunity to cast their vote on this matter.
Before you try to up-skill people you should check this:
http://tinyurl.com/7ctgvzt
@Bruce
I like your suggestion very much, please put it on the next agenda so I
can vote for it.
I am curious what you mean by "strong reservations about privacy
implications"?
Could you please specify?
Regards,
Matt
...
On 07/06/12 00:13, David Peterson wrote:
> Also... for now going to remove this from the very top:
>
> "Please be aware that facebook is tracking all activities on facebook
> and pages showing their like button and use of facebook removes your
> rights under the privacy act 1993."
>
> I think it starts off the page in a very negative way, too
> conspiracy/paranoid like.
>
> On 7 June 2012 00:09, David Peterson<mat...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>> Ok done now, and changed the tense.
>>
>> Also, we should change the name of the page to correct the English error!
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/?id=375203849167025&pageid=305641940721¤tname=The+Pirate+Party+Of+New+Zealand
>>
>> On 6 June 2012 23:59, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
>> <per...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>>> anything happen on this?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
>>> <per...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>>>> what? a PC member with no admin? *fix'd*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:45 PM, David Peterson
>>>> <mat...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>>>>> She would be referring to "The Pirate Party of New Zealand has 2
>>>>> candidates in the 2011 General Election on Nov 26. Vote Pirate in
>>>>> Wellington Central and Hamilton East."
>>>>>
>>>>> Just change it from present tense to past tense :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't though as not an admin, but I assume somebody else here is.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 June 2012 20:32, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
>>>>> <per...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>>>>>> Can The Pirate Party Of New Zealand please update their bio in the
>>>>>> "About"
>>>>>> section?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is about the main fb page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> leaving it here so people might know faster, haven't looked but I bet
>>>>>> she
>>>>>> has a point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to bed now and won't get a chance to check it till...
>>>>>> Wednesday?
>>>>>> hope someone else can sooner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pervach
>>>>
the anti-Facebook disclaimer is still not showing on PPNZ's Facebook page.
This is an undemocratic behavior and this party is even discussing the
slogan "democracy 2.0".
The motion for this disclaimer passed unanimously on August 14th last year.
The president facilitated and asked for votes and no one voted against it.
@David
Please put the disclaimer up again until the members have chosen to omit it.
Even though other members might agree with you, you cannot just act at
your whim.
If you want the disclaimer to be amended or removed, put it on the
agenda for the next meeting.
This way the members have the opportunity to cast their vote on this matter.
Before you try to up-skill people you should check this:
http://tinyurl.com/7ctgvzt
@Bruce
I like your suggestion very much, please put it on the next agenda so I
can vote for it.
I am curious what you mean by "strong reservations about privacy
implications"?
Could you please specify?
Regards,
Matt
...
On 07/06/12 00:13, David Peterson wrote:
> Also... for now going to remove this from the very top:
>
> "Please be aware that facebook is tracking all activities on facebook
> and pages showing their like button and use of facebook removes your
> rights under the privacy act 1993."
>
> I think it starts off the page in a very negative way, too
> conspiracy/paranoid like.
>
> On 7 June 2012 00:09, David Peterson<mat...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>> Ok done now, and changed the tense.
>>
>> Also, we should change the name of the page to correct the English error!
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/?id=375203849167025&pageid=305641940721¤tname=The+Pirate+Party+Of+New+Zealand
>>
>> On 6 June 2012 23:59, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
>> <per...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>>> anything happen on this?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
>>> <per...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>>>> what? a PC member with no admin? *fix'd*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:45 PM, David Peterson
>>>> <mat...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>>>>> She would be referring to "The Pirate Party of New Zealand has 2
>>>>> candidates in the 2011 General Election on Nov 26. Vote Pirate in
>>>>> Wellington Central and Hamilton East."
>>>>>
>>>>> Just change it from present tense to past tense :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't though as not an admin, but I assume somebody else here is.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 June 2012 20:32, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
>>>>> <per...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>>>>>> Can The Pirate Party Of New Zealand please update their bio in the
>>>>>> "About"
>>>>>> section?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is about the main fb page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> leaving it here so people might know faster, haven't looked but I bet
>>>>>> she
>>>>>> has a point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to bed now and won't get a chance to check it till...
>>>>>> Wednesday?
>>>>>> hope someone else can sooner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pervach
>>>>
David Peterson
Jun 11, 2012, 4:31:47 AM6/11/12
to Bruce Kingsbury, pp...@googlegroups.com, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson), discu...@pirateparty.org.nz
First of all apologies in upsetting people, I wasn't aware people
voted on this (certainly it is not my intention to go against past
votes in this manner, plus I should note the open and transparent
manner in which I refined the Facebook page, I sent out a mass email
out vs if I hadn't I bet nobody would be aware of this... :-P). I find
it very surprising that people voted on such a relatively smaller
detail *and* that people voted in *favour of* what was there! Thus you
can see why it didn't occur to me I'd be going against anything [plus
I believe the Wikipedia rule of "Be Bold" is a good one, it encourages
participation rather than shutting it down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold As certainly PPNZ has
a lack of *getting shit done*, thus we should encourage participation
and action vs opposing it].
But what I'm even surprised about is the lack of debate about *should
we even have it at all??* [like Mike Thomas it also makes me concerned
about the political maturity of PPNZ, but I try to be forgiving as
most here a new to this & PPNZ is still very young :-) ]
As we're currently a fringe party we really do not need the extra
burden of coming across as a member of the tin foil hat brigade! Tying
fringe party + tin foil hat wearers is just too easy for people to do.
Are we SERIOUSLY wanting to make it a policy of PPNZ to campaign for
people to not use Facebook? We'd have to be raving politically mad to
even think of doing that [sorry about being blunt, but it is true].
I kinda suspect that is the intent of it, to edge that in. But
regardless of the intention, that is the *impression* it gives. And in
politics impressions is (sadly) everything.
There is plenty of people in this group who can restore this text if
it felt so essential it must be done immediately, but instead I shall
propose immediately that the caucus votes on this:
That we do *not* have it on the Facebook Page's about tab (as to being
hostile to Facebook users on our main avenue of Facebook communication
is not productive to growing the party).
Cheers,
David.
On 11 June 2012 08:17, Bruce Kingsbury <zc...@zcat.geek.nz> wrote:
> outlining our concerns, or to an article somewhere reputable such as
> EFF. I agree with David so far as whatever we put there needs to be
> non-confrontational, factually correct, and verifiable. The current
> disclaimer is none of these things.
>
> The two main concerns, I think, are that the ubiquitous 'like' button
> allows Facebook to track Facebook users almost everywhere on the web
> because even if you don't click it the code and image are already
> fetched from Facebook's servers with Facebook's login cookie. And
> that when users log out of Facebook the login cookie is not simply
> expired as you might expect but instead replaced with a 'logout'
> cookie which still identifies the user. There are also some concerns
> about the amount of information that gets shared with 'apps' on
> Facebook.
>
> Many of the same concerns apply to Google+ and to a lesser extent
> thinks like paypal or even flattr. But Facebook tend to be singled out
> because they have such a huge userbase.
voted on this (certainly it is not my intention to go against past
votes in this manner, plus I should note the open and transparent
manner in which I refined the Facebook page, I sent out a mass email
out vs if I hadn't I bet nobody would be aware of this... :-P). I find
it very surprising that people voted on such a relatively smaller
detail *and* that people voted in *favour of* what was there! Thus you
can see why it didn't occur to me I'd be going against anything [plus
I believe the Wikipedia rule of "Be Bold" is a good one, it encourages
participation rather than shutting it down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold As certainly PPNZ has
a lack of *getting shit done*, thus we should encourage participation
and action vs opposing it].
But what I'm even surprised about is the lack of debate about *should
we even have it at all??* [like Mike Thomas it also makes me concerned
about the political maturity of PPNZ, but I try to be forgiving as
most here a new to this & PPNZ is still very young :-) ]
As we're currently a fringe party we really do not need the extra
burden of coming across as a member of the tin foil hat brigade! Tying
fringe party + tin foil hat wearers is just too easy for people to do.
Are we SERIOUSLY wanting to make it a policy of PPNZ to campaign for
people to not use Facebook? We'd have to be raving politically mad to
even think of doing that [sorry about being blunt, but it is true].
I kinda suspect that is the intent of it, to edge that in. But
regardless of the intention, that is the *impression* it gives. And in
politics impressions is (sadly) everything.
There is plenty of people in this group who can restore this text if
it felt so essential it must be done immediately, but instead I shall
propose immediately that the caucus votes on this:
That we do *not* have it on the Facebook Page's about tab (as to being
hostile to Facebook users on our main avenue of Facebook communication
is not productive to growing the party).
Cheers,
David.
On 11 June 2012 08:17, Bruce Kingsbury <zc...@zcat.geek.nz> wrote:
> On 10 June 2012 17:58, M.Rausch <ma...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>> Dear Pirates,
>>
>> the anti-Facebook disclaimer is still not showing on PPNZ's Facebook page.
>> This is an undemocratic behavior and this party is even discussing the
>> slogan "democracy 2.0".
>> The motion for this disclaimer passed unanimously on August 14th last year.
>> The president facilitated and asked for votes and no one voted against it.
>>
>> @David
>> Please put the disclaimer up again until the members have chosen to omit it.
>> Even though other members might agree with you, you cannot just act at your
>> whim.
>> If you want the disclaimer to be amended or removed, put it on the agenda
>> for the next meeting.
>> This way the members have the opportunity to cast their vote on this matter.
>> Before you try to up-skill people you should check this:
>> http://tinyurl.com/7ctgvzt
>>
>> @Bruce
>> I like your suggestion very much, please put it on the next agenda so I can
>> vote for it.
>> I am curious what you mean by "strong reservations about privacy
>> implications"?
>> Could you please specify?
>
> If we put in the disclaimer, it might be best to link to a page
>> Dear Pirates,
>>
>> the anti-Facebook disclaimer is still not showing on PPNZ's Facebook page.
>> This is an undemocratic behavior and this party is even discussing the
>> slogan "democracy 2.0".
>> The motion for this disclaimer passed unanimously on August 14th last year.
>> The president facilitated and asked for votes and no one voted against it.
>>
>> @David
>> Please put the disclaimer up again until the members have chosen to omit it.
>> Even though other members might agree with you, you cannot just act at your
>> whim.
>> If you want the disclaimer to be amended or removed, put it on the agenda
>> for the next meeting.
>> This way the members have the opportunity to cast their vote on this matter.
>> Before you try to up-skill people you should check this:
>> http://tinyurl.com/7ctgvzt
>>
>> @Bruce
>> I like your suggestion very much, please put it on the next agenda so I can
>> vote for it.
>> I am curious what you mean by "strong reservations about privacy
>> implications"?
>> Could you please specify?
>
> outlining our concerns, or to an article somewhere reputable such as
> EFF. I agree with David so far as whatever we put there needs to be
> non-confrontational, factually correct, and verifiable. The current
> disclaimer is none of these things.
>
> The two main concerns, I think, are that the ubiquitous 'like' button
> allows Facebook to track Facebook users almost everywhere on the web
> because even if you don't click it the code and image are already
> fetched from Facebook's servers with Facebook's login cookie. And
> that when users log out of Facebook the login cookie is not simply
> expired as you might expect but instead replaced with a 'logout'
> cookie which still identifies the user. There are also some concerns
> about the amount of information that gets shared with 'apps' on
> Facebook.
>
> Many of the same concerns apply to Google+ and to a lesser extent
> thinks like paypal or even flattr. But Facebook tend to be singled out
> because they have such a huge userbase.
mathmo
Jun 11, 2012, 4:45:17 AM6/11/12
to New Zealand Pirate Party
>
> >> On 6 June 2012 23:59, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
> >> <perv...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
> >> On 6 June 2012 23:59, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
> >>> anything happen on this?
>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
> >>> <perv...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
> >>>> what? a PC member with no admin? *fix'd*
>
> >>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:45 PM, David Peterson
> >>>> <mat...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
> >>>>> She would be referring to "The Pirate Party of New Zealand has 2
> >>>>> candidates in the 2011 General Election on Nov 26. Vote Pirate in
> >>>>> Wellington Central and Hamilton East."
>
> >>>>> Just change it from present tense to past tense :-)
>
> >>>>> I can't though as not an admin, but I assume somebody else here is.
>
> >>>>> On 4 June 2012 20:32, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
> >>>>> <perv...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:45 PM, David Peterson
> >>>> <mat...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
> >>>>> She would be referring to "The Pirate Party of New Zealand has 2
> >>>>> candidates in the 2011 General Election on Nov 26. Vote Pirate in
> >>>>> Wellington Central and Hamilton East."
>
> >>>>> Just change it from present tense to past tense :-)
>
> >>>>> I can't though as not an admin, but I assume somebody else here is.
>
> >>>>> On 4 June 2012 20:32, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
Bruce Kingsbury
Jun 10, 2012, 4:17:02 PM6/10/12
to pp...@googlegroups.com, David Peterson, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson), discu...@pirateparty.org.nz
On 10 June 2012 17:58, M.Rausch <ma...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:
> Dear Pirates,
>
> the anti-Facebook disclaimer is still not showing on PPNZ's Facebook page.
> This is an undemocratic behavior and this party is even discussing the
> slogan "democracy 2.0".
> The motion for this disclaimer passed unanimously on August 14th last year.
> The president facilitated and asked for votes and no one voted against it.
>
> @David
> Please put the disclaimer up again until the members have chosen to omit it.
> Even though other members might agree with you, you cannot just act at your
> whim.
> If you want the disclaimer to be amended or removed, put it on the agenda
> for the next meeting.
> This way the members have the opportunity to cast their vote on this matter.
> Before you try to up-skill people you should check this:
> http://tinyurl.com/7ctgvzt
>
> @Bruce
> I like your suggestion very much, please put it on the next agenda so I can
> vote for it.
> I am curious what you mean by "strong reservations about privacy
> implications"?
> Could you please specify?
>
> the anti-Facebook disclaimer is still not showing on PPNZ's Facebook page.
> This is an undemocratic behavior and this party is even discussing the
> slogan "democracy 2.0".
> The motion for this disclaimer passed unanimously on August 14th last year.
> The president facilitated and asked for votes and no one voted against it.
>
> @David
> Please put the disclaimer up again until the members have chosen to omit it.
> Even though other members might agree with you, you cannot just act at your
> whim.
> If you want the disclaimer to be amended or removed, put it on the agenda
> for the next meeting.
> This way the members have the opportunity to cast their vote on this matter.
> Before you try to up-skill people you should check this:
> http://tinyurl.com/7ctgvzt
>
> @Bruce
> I like your suggestion very much, please put it on the next agenda so I can
> vote for it.
> I am curious what you mean by "strong reservations about privacy
> implications"?
> Could you please specify?
Andrew McPherson
Jun 10, 2012, 9:21:48 AM6/10/12
to pp...@googlegroups.com
@Matt : Stating the obvious often gets mistaken for paranoia by the ignorant, admittedly we require a Facebook presence to promote our website.
I think it needs to be stated in a more friendly manner, rather than a blunt and "paranoid" statement.
I would suggest that we use this image , see attached.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
> To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send an email to
> ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit us at:
> http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en
M.Rausch
Jun 12, 2012, 7:36:08 AM6/12/12
to pp...@googlegroups.com, neural...@gmail.com
"Stating the obvious often gets mistaken for paranoia by the ignorant."
@Andrew: Great quote, thank you.
Sporting a disclaimer is an acknowledgement that we require a Facebook
presence.
I can't find an attachment,
Can you please send the image again?
...
On 11/06/12 01:21, Andrew McPherson wrote:
>
> @Matt : Stating the obvious often gets mistaken for paranoia by the
> ignorant, admittedly we require a Facebook presence to promote our
> website.
>
> I think it needs to be stated in a more friendly manner, rather than a
> blunt and "paranoid" statement.
> I would suggest that we use this image , see attached.
>
> On Jun 10, 2012 5:58 PM, "M.Rausch" <ma...@pirateparty.org.nz
> <mailto:ppnz%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
@Andrew: Great quote, thank you.
Sporting a disclaimer is an acknowledgement that we require a Facebook
presence.
I can't find an attachment,
Can you please send the image again?
...
On 11/06/12 01:21, Andrew McPherson wrote:
>
> @Matt : Stating the obvious often gets mistaken for paranoia by the
> ignorant, admittedly we require a Facebook presence to promote our
> website.
>
> I think it needs to be stated in a more friendly manner, rather than a
> blunt and "paranoid" statement.
> I would suggest that we use this image , see attached.
>
> On Jun 10, 2012 5:58 PM, "M.Rausch" <ma...@pirateparty.org.nz
> <mailto:mat...@pirateparty.org.nz>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ok done now, and changed the tense.
> >>>
> >>> Also, we should change the name of the page to correct the English
> error!
> >>>
> >>>
> https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/?id=375203849167025&pageid=305641940721¤tname=The+Pirate+Party+Of+New+Zealand
> <https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/?id=375203849167025&pageid=305641940721¤tname=The+Pirate+Party+Of+New+Zealand>
> >>>
> >>> On 6 June 2012 23:59, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
> >>> <per...@pirateparty.org.nz <mailto:per...@pirateparty.org.nz>>
> >>>
> >>> Ok done now, and changed the tense.
> >>>
> >>> Also, we should change the name of the page to correct the English
> error!
> >>>
> >>>
> https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/?id=375203849167025&pageid=305641940721¤tname=The+Pirate+Party+Of+New+Zealand
> <https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/?id=375203849167025&pageid=305641940721¤tname=The+Pirate+Party+Of+New+Zealand>
> >>>
> >>> On 6 June 2012 23:59, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> anything happen on this?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
> >>>> <per...@pirateparty.org.nz <mailto:per...@pirateparty.org.nz>>
> >>>>
> >>>> anything happen on this?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> what? a PC member with no admin? *fix'd*
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:45 PM, David Peterson
> >>>>> <mat...@pirateparty.org.nz <mailto:mat...@pirateparty.org.nz>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> what? a PC member with no admin? *fix'd*
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:45 PM, David Peterson
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> She would be referring to "The Pirate Party of New Zealand has 2
> >>>>>> candidates in the 2011 General Election on Nov 26. Vote Pirate in
> >>>>>> Wellington Central and Hamilton East."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just change it from present tense to past tense :-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I can't though as not an admin, but I assume somebody else here is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4 June 2012 20:32, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
> >>>>>> <per...@pirateparty.org.nz
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> She would be referring to "The Pirate Party of New Zealand has 2
> >>>>>> candidates in the 2011 General Election on Nov 26. Vote Pirate in
> >>>>>> Wellington Central and Hamilton East."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just change it from present tense to past tense :-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I can't though as not an admin, but I assume somebody else here is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4 June 2012 20:32, Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
> >>>>>> <per...@pirateparty.org.nz
> <mailto:per...@pirateparty.org.nz>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can The Pirate Party Of New Zealand please update their bio in the
> >>>>>>> "About"
> >>>>>>> section?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is about the main fb page.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> leaving it here so people might know faster, haven't looked
> but I bet
> >>>>>>> she
> >>>>>>> has a point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm going to bed now and won't get a chance to check it till...
> >>>>>>> Wednesday?
> >>>>>>> hope someone else can sooner.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Pervach
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the New
> Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
> > To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:pp...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can The Pirate Party Of New Zealand please update their bio in the
> >>>>>>> "About"
> >>>>>>> section?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is about the main fb page.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> leaving it here so people might know faster, haven't looked
> but I bet
> >>>>>>> she
> >>>>>>> has a point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm going to bed now and won't get a chance to check it till...
> >>>>>>> Wednesday?
> >>>>>>> hope someone else can sooner.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Pervach
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the New
> Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
> > To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:ppnz%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
mathmo
Jun 13, 2012, 11:13:32 AM6/13/12
to New Zealand Pirate Party
"Please be aware that facebook is tracking all activities on facebook
and pages showing their like button and use of facebook removes your
rights under the privacy act 1993."
I've now put that back.
and pages showing their like button and use of facebook removes your
rights under the privacy act 1993."
https://www.facebook.com/piratepartyNZ/info
However, I've put it at the bottom of that link rather than right at
the top where it used to be. As I'll note it says nothing here (http://
pirateparty.org.nz/wiki/14_Aug_2011_meeting_minutes#Actionables) of
where it must be on the page. I'll also note it is an *interim* item,
really should have an expiration date on that :-P And I urge the
policy committee to vote as soon as possible on my proposal of not to
have one instead. (as *any* kind of disclaimer like that is just going
to come off bad, plus we could even dispute the validity of the
current one :P)
I have however made a couple of modifications and changed it to this:
"Please be aware that Facebook is tracking all activities on Facebook
and pages showing their like button, and use of Facebook removes your
rights under the privacy act 1993."
And well, if you have a problem with that... well, I'll be stunned if
you're serious!
I'll repeat again:
a) I've been incredibly transparent with my actions at all points (it
was *myself* that pointed this out in the first place...)
b) never intended to go against the previously passed motion, as I was
unaware of it
c) I pointed out multiple times anybody else who can is free to
restore it and I of course wouldn't oppose it (surprisingly nobody
hasn't? Well, just a few days later & I've got around to it now)
Lukas Korsika
Jun 13, 2012, 6:34:03 PM6/13/12
to pp...@googlegroups.com
I think it definitely needs to be on the page. I'd be interested to
see some clarification on the Privacy Act 1993 bit though. Maybe that
can be a link to a blog post or something?
see some clarification on the Privacy Act 1993 bit though. Maybe that
can be a link to a blog post or something?
Bruce Kingsbury
Jun 12, 2012, 2:29:27 AM6/12/12
to pp...@googlegroups.com
which image?
Abe Gray
Jun 12, 2012, 5:47:40 PM6/12/12
to pp...@googlegroups.com
I don't think we need to 'campaign for people not to use facebook', but it is certainly our role to educate members and other interested parties about the true nature of facebook as a giant spying machine for the forces of internet censorship that we are supposed to be standing up against. Gaining support from a few clicktivist facebookers at the expense of maintaining credibility with our true support base would be a fatal mistake.
Abe
________________________________________
From: pp...@googlegroups.com [pp...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of mathmo [mat...@gmail.com]
Sent: 11 June 2012 20:45
To: New Zealand Pirate Party
Subject: [PPNZ] Re: Democratic procedures? - Re: facebook related request
Cheers,
David.
--
Hubat McJuhes
Jun 18, 2012, 9:40:57 PM6/18/12
to pp...@googlegroups.com
I really like the suggestion to offer some useful links alongside our
disclaimer.
Is there anybody out there who has some suggestions for some links that
explain our concerns about centralised commercial social networks and
facebook in particular?
If we can find a non-offensive and well-sourced diclaimer I would
strongly advocate for having it placed at a very prominent place, so
that nobody can get the mis-conception we woudn't know what we are doing.
Cheers,
Daniel
disclaimer.
Is there anybody out there who has some suggestions for some links that
explain our concerns about centralised commercial social networks and
facebook in particular?
If we can find a non-offensive and well-sourced diclaimer I would
strongly advocate for having it placed at a very prominent place, so
that nobody can get the mis-conception we woudn't know what we are doing.
Cheers,
Daniel
Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)
Jun 18, 2012, 10:41:38 PM6/18/12
to pp...@googlegroups.com
Responded in the appropriate place, since many people who joined in the last year or so aren't on this mailing list
Pervach
Danyl Strype
Aug 8, 2013, 10:36:30 PM8/8/13
to pp...@googlegroups.com
Kia ora koutou
Strypey here, new Communications Manager. I just realised this group existed, or I would have joined some time ago. I had thought that all party discussion was happening through the Forums on the website, or on FB (*cringe*)
Strypey here, new Communications Manager. I just realised this group existed, or I would have joined some time ago. I had thought that all party discussion was happening through the Forums on the website, or on FB (*cringe*)
On Sunday, June 10, 2012 5:58:52 PM UTC+12, Mathias Rausch wrote:
the anti-Facebook disclaimer is still not showing on PPNZ's Facebook page.
FB is an unethical global corporation, who continue to break every principle Pirates hold dear; ignoring privacy, arbitrarily censoring their platforms, refusing to federate their services, claiming copyright and trademark monopolies on other people's data, selling people's personal information to third parties, the list goes on. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason for the party to have any presence on FB is to offer a Fire Exit by which people can find their way to our self-hosted channels (note: I'm using "self-hosted" to mean hosted by the Party on a server we have secure control over the contents of, or hosted by an allied group we feel we can trust).
I would support some kind of disclaimer on all FB pages related to the PPNZ, along the lines I've what I've said here. I agree it shouldn't sound paranoid, it should sound principled. Perhaps it could include link to evidence of each of FB's crimes against free culture?
@David
Please put the disclaimer up again until the members have chosen to omit it.
Even though other members might agree with you, you cannot just act at
your whim.
If you want the disclaimer to be amended or removed, put it on the
agenda for the next meeting.
I'm not sure of how things have worked in the past, but the Board have been trialling Loomio as a decision-making platform. For those who aren't familiar with it, Loomio.org is a hosted platform, running on a free code web application (AGPL license), developed in a highly user-driven manner by a workers co-operative based at Enspiral in Welly. I think the trial is going well, and I'm going to propose we open up our Loomio group to all members.
If this is acceptable to all, an issues like the FB disclaimer can be discussed in its own Loomio threads, allowing us to tease out all practical and political considerations, and come to a decision that reflects the collective intelligence of everyone involved. Also, the thread remains, along with any proposals made, as a record of how and why the decision was made, in case it should need to be revisited at a later stage.
For those who would like to trial Loomio for other groups you are involved with, they are having their public launch today, and you will be able to request a new group at Loomio.org.
Hei kōnei rā
Strypey
BTW If you are going to top-post, can you *please* trim off all the excessive tail off the email before you send it? This is basic netiquette:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
Bruce Kingsbury
Aug 18, 2013, 5:49:09 PM8/18/13
to pp...@googlegroups.com
The eventual decision I think was that the admins running the facebook account are responsible for any disclaimer. I would suggest a well-worded statement such as Danyl has proposed.
The current disclaimer;
"Please be aware that Facebook is tracking all activities on Facebook
and pages showing their like button, and use of Facebook removes your
The current disclaimer;
"Please be aware that Facebook is tracking all activities on Facebook
and pages showing their like button, and use of Facebook removes your
rights under the privacy act 1993."
This is far from ideal, particularly that facebook 'removes' any rights. That's a meaningless statement. Facebook 'violates' your rights perhaps, only a change of the privacy act could remove those rights.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to
ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Zealand Pirate Party" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Danyl Strype
Aug 21, 2013, 11:22:59 AM8/21/13
to pp...@googlegroups.com
Kia ora koutou
On Monday, 19 August 2013 09:49:09 UTC+12, Bruce Kingsbury wrote:
The current disclaimer;
"Please be aware that Facebook is tracking all activities on Facebook
and pages showing their like button, and use of Facebook removes your
rights under the privacy act 1993."
This is far from ideal, particularly that facebook 'removes' any rights. That's a meaningless statement. Facebook 'violates' your rights perhaps, only a change of the privacy act could remove those rights.
To be pedantic, even an Act of Parliament can't remove rights. The whole idea of human rights is that we were born with them, as free human beings of this Earth, and they are inalienable. Like FB, governments can either respect them, or violate them.
<tangent>
I have heard "Freeman-on-the-land" theory explained this way: states like "New Zealand" or "USA" are service providers, like Google or FaceBook, which we have forgotten we are not obliged to have an account with or use, and their Boards of Directors and CEOs will do everything to prevent us remembering that, by having uniformed men assault or kidnap us whenever we try to log off, or delete our account.
</tangent>
Ma te wā
Strypey
Andrew McPherson
Aug 21, 2013, 12:54:55 PM8/21/13
to pp...@googlegroups.com
Perhaps someone more eloquent can rephrase our facebook disclaimer ?
I personally use the "Orwellian reference" to bureaucrats on my profile.
--
strypey
Aug 21, 2013, 9:16:45 PM8/21/13
to pp...@googlegroups.com
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:40:57 PM UTC+12, Hubat McJuhes wrote:
I really like the suggestion to offer some useful links alongside our
disclaimer.
Is there anybody out there who has some suggestions for some links that
explain our concerns about centralised commercial social networks and
facebook in particular?
Bruce Kingsbury
Aug 21, 2013, 10:21:07 PM8/21/13
to pp...@googlegroups.com
What Danyl said earlier in this thread was just about perfect;
"FB is an unethical global corporation, who continue to break every principle Pirates hold dear; ignoring privacy, arbitrarily censoring their platforms, refusing to federate their services, claiming copyright and trademark monopolies on other people's data, selling people's personal information to third parties, etc. We only have a Facebook presence because we necessarily must and we would encourage everyone who values our pirate ideals to move discussion to a more ethically run forum"
"FB is an unethical global corporation, who continue to break every principle Pirates hold dear; ignoring privacy, arbitrarily censoring their platforms, refusing to federate their services, claiming copyright and trademark monopolies on other people's data, selling people's personal information to third parties, etc. We only have a Facebook presence because we necessarily must and we would encourage everyone who values our pirate ideals to move discussion to a more ethically run forum"
Hubat McJuhes
Aug 22, 2013, 10:16:58 AM8/22/13
to pp...@googlegroups.com, strypey
Perfect, thank you. Exactly what we need.
Hubat McJuhes
Aug 22, 2013, 10:22:17 AM8/22/13
to pp...@googlegroups.com, Danyl Strype
Hi,
I'm not sure of how things have worked in the past, but the Board have been trialling Loomio as a decision-making platform.
Brilliant. I am looking forward to see us discussing our proposals
on a dedicated system.
I once have been looking into setting up a liquid feedback instance, but had the impression that it would be mega-overkill for the tiny organisation that we are right now. I have not seen loomio in action but have heard good thngs about it. It might be just right for the forseeable future.
Cheers,
Daniel
I once have been looking into setting up a liquid feedback instance, but had the impression that it would be mega-overkill for the tiny organisation that we are right now. I have not seen loomio in action but have heard good thngs about it. It might be just right for the forseeable future.
Cheers,
Daniel
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages