RE: InfoSec Twitter Handle Revealed for Kokesh Staff Director of Tech, @iamthenerd.
I don't have a twitter account, nor do I want one. Yet, if the "White Hat" was going to be the one to do all of these nasty things shouldn't they then be able to clarify whether or not they would have taken violent physical action against you or your family?
It seems like the question of whether or not violence was being requested would depend upon the services that Garion was offering, right? Also, the other stuff that the "White Hat" seemed to have been willing to perpetrate, are those things legal or just tantamount to harassment and online bullying, or a whisper campaign?
I know you and me have had arguments about whether or not flagging is an appropriate thing for voluntaryists to do on the blockchain. I see it as similar to theft and you see it as well a "market signal" is I believe what you called it.
Yet, what about bullies IRL that would use their free speech to fuck up somebodies life, which is apparently what you're claiming that Ben wanted to do. Where does the free speech begin and end? When does it cross the threshold of violating the non-aggression principle? I think Garion should be willing to tell you if s/he was willing to do violence or willing to violate the NAP.
Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the tactics that the "White Hat" made mention of. They seem tacky as fuck and not in line with the spirit of voluntarism. Yet, this is why I was like if they were doing a crime press charges. If you can't press charges and or it wasn't a crime, then it just sounds like they wanted to ruin your reputation with a whisper campaign.
Kind of like how Trump is portrayed as a white supremacist. It's a bunch of lies and everyone knows it. Yet if it wasn't Donald Trump if it was Joe Blow down the street and someone made it seem like he was a white supremacist, maybe Joe Blow would lose his job and it would fuck up his whole life.
I'm not saying that whatever they tried to do wasn't wrong, I'm just wondering if it in actuality violated the NAP. I would agree that morally and or spiritually it did. I'm just wondering what your opinion is as to whether or not they technically violated the NAP and that might have everything to do with whether or not Garion would have been willing to cause bodily injury and or commit a crime.
Do people have property rights on their peace of mind and their reputation? It seems to me that there is a lot of sketchy things a sociopath-type of person could get away with in a voluntaryist world without technically violating the NAP. It doesn't make them right, but it might make for a philosophical problem with respect to your ideas about principled voluntaryism.
They already told me.
This has been posted several times, and was released weeks ago.
I remember the list, there were implications made but
surely Garion would know for certain if s/he would have
been willing to assault you, or hire a thug to do similar.
Have you read the story at all? They are on another continent, with “assets” in Japan.
Physical violence and theft are included in that list.
Another thinly veiled wannabe attempt to continue your retarded crusade to prove that I am not a “spiritual” voluntaryist.
I don’t need more experts on the scene pathetically seeking attention here. This has not been easy for me. You now have direct access, including calling capability, to the infosec source themselves. You can ask them if you don’t believe me. I can assure you, they will let you know in no uncertain terms that it was not a “whisper campaign.”
Even if according to your weird definitions there was no potential NAP violation (there were) this situation would still merit the exact same exposé for its moral bankruptcy.
The fact that you are questioning it is not surprising, though, considering our past interactions.
Now, help me get some answers here, or go be a leech somewhere else.
Whatever man, they were honest questions and you accuse me of being a "leech" on a "retarded crusade." My point is, some things are wrong to do, but not technically illegal to do.
If the "White Hat" was willing to get assets to kill or to physically harm you, then you are potentially in communication with a highly criminal (maybe terrorist) entity and should probably be very careful!
I've personally had enough of your attitude and am no longer interested in your drama. I'm not saying that you deserved any of what you've experienced, but when you go around stirring the shit up and acting highly disrespectful to people you disagree with, then you'll lose sympathy from people on the fence, you've lost mine.
I'm glad that whatever Garion may have had done to you, that s/he didn't. As far as I'm concerned it's a non-issue to me now, I've no more mind space for it.
Good.