[spectre] spectres partially uncovered?

peter@maxavision.com peter@maxavision.com
19 Nov 2001 13:27:06 -0800


Dear SJN -

The problem most folks have nowadays with technology is balancing their hunger for the enormous possibilities inherent in global communication with a corresponding paranoia about protecting their privacy. After a certain point of understandable precaution, you reach a fork in the road. You canít have it both ways. Committing yourself to interactivity brings with it the need for honest and ever more in-depth revelations about oneís true identity, feelings and beliefs. The world has had enough of double, triple and multiple standards. Technology is here to open doors, not to create a plethora of individual prison cells.

Keep the faith.

Peter

Peter Rubin
Visual Artist, VJ
Amsterdam/New York


On Mon, 19 November 2001, "Sally Jane NORMAN" wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Honor, dear Spectre
> 
> I'm perplexed that we have to go to such measures to preserve anonymity,
> when what we're trying to uphold/ relaunch (or at least as I see it) is a
> quality of dialogue. What reasons do people have for not wishing to publish
> their identities? There were some very good ones a couple of years ago, but
> where are the risks today? Are they the same reasons that 200+ people do not
> openly participate in exchange? If so, either there's something we can learn
> from or else what the hell are they/ we doing here? Are we becoming spectres
> twofold through sheer paranoia? Can we even hope to build up communication
> with people unwilling to say who they are? What about us idiots who
> repeatedly risk our electronic lives by sending emails with our full
> addresses on them? Sorry to sound cynical but I personally find this whole
> situation distressingly obscurantist. Need some sunlight. Bad timing for the
> northern hemisphere.
> 
> shady lady
> 
> sjn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : spectre-admin@mikrolisten.de
> [mailto:spectre-admin@mikrolisten.de]De la part de honor
> Envoye : lundi 19 novembre 2001 13:27
> A : spectre@mikrolisten.de
> Objet : [spectre] spectres partially uncovered?
> 
> 
> hi everybody,
> 
> in the last little while there's been some discussion about how it would be
> nice if we had some sense of who else is subscribed to the spectre
> list.  when the list started it was a mere 30 - 40 of us, and now we've
> blossomed to a group of about 250 or so.
> 
> many are interested in who they're addressing on the list. we've talked
> about sending a note to the list with the partial addresses of all the
> subscribers.  this will give interested spectres an idea of who roughly is
> on the list, and a vague (and quite possibly inaccurate) notion of domain
> demographics.
> 
> this is the format we're thinking of posting the addresses in:
> 
> abroeck@.....de
> inke@.....de
> honor@.....au
> 
> ie. - the portion of the address following the @ symbol and before the
> country domain is blocked out.
> 
> does anybody have any strong objections to having their address posted to
> the rest of the list in this way?
> if so, please send me <honor@va.com.au> an email by midday on wednesday,
> and let me know the address you subscribed to the spectre list with.  i'll
> remove your address from the list of addresses that i'll send to everyone
> else.
> 
> bestest
> 
> honor
> 
> ______________________________________________
> SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe
> Info, archive and help:
> http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
> 
> ______________________________________________
> SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe
> Info, archive and help:
> http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre