Poppsikle blog

To the Twitter Community


Geronimo was a longtime Twitter poster and had years of intelligent Tweets. He was a natural investigator and used Twitter to question Authority. He sure made them mad, but that has always been a part of questioning authority and why a Democracy, values and protects it so.

He was a very important PRISM investigator, using Twitter media to uncover inconsistencies and falsities that many players in the PRISM issue were using – there has been so much cover-up – they did not care for his hard questioning, but so what???

So what? Investigative Journalism has always been like that, the best of it seeks to out the truth, which is very often covered up by a web of lies. Its hard, difficult, dangerous work, extremely important work, a cornerstone of our Democracy.

Established press has a method of exposure when they are under attack, citizen journalists are being left very vulnerable. There has been a drastic decline in investigative journalism, citizen journalists have stepped in to fill this void, they have had to! The decline has been an open door to crime, and big crime.


The PRISM issue that Snowden (and myself) revealed is a very important one that affects our common future. The connected issues of privacy, surveillance, the potential for Authoritarian Control – Big Brother is very real. There has been a real need to continue the investigation, there has been real resistance to letting this happen, so much effort put out to hide the truth.


Hard, unafraid, Questioning is and has been needed to solve pressing contemporary problems.

Geronimo was forced to take down his profiles after a group of trolls went on the warpath against him, seeking to out his name, his place of work, his family names etc. I have seen the posts and they are very malicious and include death threats.

This kind of harassment has been going on for a long time, hidden from exposure, on Topix. The notable difference is the high-profile, paid media pundits, who participated in this Topix-level witch hunt, including The Guardian and the ACLU!! Its important to note, as if anyone would forget, that both of them have been heavily involved in the post-Snowden reporting. The Guardian won a Pulitzer prize for its Snowden-related reporting. The ACLU has engaged in reporting, lawsuits, related conferences.

Here is one of their paid staff members, Christopher Soghoian:


He was criticized by Geronimo and for a reason, he has actively been part of the post-Snowden distancing campaign, to distance the corporate culprits in the PRISM scandal. I have criticized him as well. The PRISM scandal is far from resolved – not even close – and the victims of this are every single Internet user. Snowden himself said his revelations were only the beginning of solving the problem. The immense corporate effort to hide their culpability, only proves how big the problem is.

The involvement of the Tor administration, is in itself, deeply troubling and hypocritical. Tor exists to further and protect anonymous bullying, I have long called this out.

I have seen the very worst of corporate tech repression and reprisal tactics used on Topix against critics, its nothing anyone wants to happen on Twitter or anywhere.


Virginia Hoge






Once there was a planet that was mostly Ocean and all of its inhabitants, were fish.

One day, along came this enthusiastic, brilliant group of Hippie programmers who made a brand, new Ocean, OceanNet.

Like everything Good, that is marketable or a coveted source of Power, in they came charging, the Profiteers, the Greedy, to OceanNet.

They had money like few times in History had such money been flowing, tons of money they had at their disposal, they built a white submarine, to patrol OceanNet


A white, cyber-submarine. It could spy on all the fish, it was enormous. It was so big and shiny, the fish were afraid of it.

As it turns out, was a good thing. This white cyber-submarine, had an insatiable appetite, for fish.

Then one day this fish, an absolutely ordinary fish, said: What they are doing is wrong. How can we take back our OceanNet?

But that big, white submarine was enormous, the fish were tiny next to it, it gave them things they liked once in awhile.

It played music and it had fashionable cafes it encouraged them to hang out on.


They did not understand, that if other fish could be eaten up, so could they. Their Safety, their Ocean, their World, was in danger.

The big white cyber-submarine also had fish on its staff, that swam among the fish and told them everything was OK, when it was not.

Everything that Fish who spoke out was saying was obvious, the big white submarine was patrolling everywhere, eating up fish, it was all public.

It won’t eat us, just them, the fish thought as they enjoyed the toys the big white cyber-submarine provided them with.

They could not see the fish it was eating and if they could, they looked away, they looked away from the danger they were in.

Their data, was in danger. Their Ocean was in danger. Their lives were in danger. OceanNet, was in danger. Some things you cannot look away from, if you want to have a Future.

Finally, enough fish saw that indeed other fish were being eaten by the big, white cyber-submarine and that they too could be eaten, that this was dangerous.

It was hiding what it was doing on its dark underside and enough fish swam under it and saw the foul, reeking mess there, the carcasses.


The fish said: Enough.

Oh, that made those in charge of the big, white cyber-submarine so mad! They got so mad!!! The Ocean raged with fierce storms for many days and nights.

Days of storms turned into months. The planet had never seen such a huge storm, a storm like never before, but the fish held on.


See, it was the expensive cyber-submarine, that was most jolted by the storms of its Own making.

The fish, they rode the waves, they bore out the storm and always would.

That expensive, gigantic, white cyber-submarine, started to crack, by a storm of its own making.

And by its inconsideration and violence towards its neighbors, its own neighborhood, towards the Ocean, OceanNet.

By its spying on them, its wanting to know them, wanting to be them, wanting to replace them, its not caring about their very lives. Thinking it was better than them, thinking it had all under its domination.

The big white cyber-submarine cracked in half and began to sink. It started to flip over and then everyone could then see, its dark, reeking underside. The white paint long ago replaced by oozing toxic rust and decay.

The loud volume on the rock music blasting as it was going down, its final attempt to lure them in, just made the whole scene that much more surreal.

It sank.

Japanese Ko-hyoteki class mini-submarine sunk by USS Ward at Pearl Harbor

All the fish were still. And then, all of OceanNet, breathed a sigh of relief.

OceanNet belonged once more, to the fish, and it thrived as never before.



Priorities in the Internet Crises. Draft 3

Third Draft*

*Thanks to Francis Jeffrey, for his good ideas and long history with the issue as an Internet pioneer. Thanks to Cari Machet for good input. Thanks also to Maciej Ceglowski whose excellent ideas I have reprinted.

No crises on the Internet exceeds the harm that is happening to innocent lives. There has been life-destruction going on for a long, long time, this has been sheltered, enabled, the stats are not even being kept (and this is coming from the SV, which claims to be so fond of Data…). This must end.

The collapse of Internet privacy has been ongoing for too long now, with raging, out-of-control profit interests grabbing up our personal data every single minute on a World-wide scale, a complete collapse is on the horizon. The situation is nothing less than dire, the future of the Internet is at stake, the future of personal and business interests connected to it, the future of the data they are hoarding, what will happen to it. Every single internet user is in danger, not only present and coming danger, but danger from what they’ve already got.

Awareness Raising

One of the giant issues is there is an oppression of information – just like with green energy way more is happening than people are aware of and yet much more could be happening if people were made more aware – especially of what they themselves can do to make a difference.

If only we had a 1st grade class entitled ‘you are personally responsible for life – do work hard the time you are here to protect it. That has been what is needed, for people to inform themselves and to act, since the forces in power have only been complicit, weak, and ineffective to this major problem.

There is great danger going on, the madness of unethical, unthinking, out-of-control Power. We cannot let them destroy the Internet.

This is a list of priorities, for us to fix, what is most urgent to solve, to end. All are very important.

1. Human Lives and their essential Rights, number One, the Right to Life, must be ensured and much better protected.

2. Ownership of Our data must be made into law.

Lets Solve the Problem of Restoring Internet Privacy! Francis Jeffrey, on How to do it


3. Protection of essential privacy. Companies like Google and Microsoft, our government’s NSA, need to immediately stop lifting and scanning all data that is personally identifiable, all emails, any private correspondence, all private messages, any private credit card information, all passwords and logins. People need to feel safe again writing and sending private messages, as they are not now, their passwords protected, they have been left extremely vulnerable by the data lifting. Everyone needs to understand that destroying internet privacy is a dangerous right’s invasion and will destroy the Internet.

4. Existing lifted data needs to be destroyed. Companies like Gigya need to stop the selling and sharing of personally identifiable data. They cannot store it, its too dangerous A. Because of potential hacking B. Because of potential future government corruption that could and would summon it for incrimination C. For potential corruption from the big data corporations themselves. No one wants to in any way, aid a future fascist State or corporation. Its not safe for any of us.

5. CyberCrime needs to be immediately addressed

CyberCrime Costs the World Economy hundreds of billions of dollars: http://time.com/2849814/cybercrime-costs-the-world-economy-hundreds-of-billions/

Cybercrime is already costing the World hundreds of billions of dollars. This is only going to get worse and worse. So long as our data is being stored it is clearly a commodity, companies like Gigya make no secret about this. The mentality is not different than a criminal’s, and this is where the big problem lies. Malware attacks are becoming more and more frequent. I have written for over 5 years about the mass destruction of human life happening on Topix. All this money is constantly being put, in the Silicon Valley, into “New” start-up, companies. What are needed are companies whose purpose is to Clean Up this Mess. I have long suggested, for instance, Rich Skrenta himself, should devote his resources and thinking, to solving the many problems, which he has either founded or invented (like Malware).

Hack-a-thons are being held, how about Save the Internet, a-thons? Seriously, there is only one Net, not one single user, wants it destroyed, wants it to be unsafe.

6. “Safe” data needs to be defined and distinguished, from “Unsafe” data.  Safe data would be data that could be shared. Not personally identifiable data, which has to be made private again. Untouchable.

7. Tracking reform. Tracking reform is urgently needed, people’s homes should not be in a search engine. This is a very basic safety precaution.

Some townships in the US have made new laws – the Google cars that film for the map were driving into peoples driveways and such. If you check maps for federal government sites you will find them blank on the map – they don’t show the people the government but the government gets to see all about the people.

8. Ownership of your data. A new clarification is needed, as to what belongs to a person, what needs to be private, and what is public. What is private needs to be the province of the individual or business, untouched, unsold, unmarketed.

9. Ownership of your own image. Google Glass presents a huge danger because there are currently no laws that say a photo taken of a person, belongs to that person. This is an open-door for blackmail and indeed, this has already happened.

10. Change of Consciousness/Awareness. The whole mentality that developed the invasion of personal data needs to be re-thought, its wrong, its destructive, its dangerous. It can, will and is, destroying the Internet, this will only further deteriorate.



Maciej Ceglowski had excellent ideas along the same lines he gave in a speech, I am reprinting his ideas for saving the Internet:

It should be illegal to collect and permanently store most kinds of behavioral data.

In the United States, they warn us the world will end if someone tries to regulate the Internet. But the net itself was born of a fairly good regulatory framework that made sure de facto net neutrality existed for decades, paid for basic research into protocols and software, cleared the way for business use of the internet, and encouraged the growth of the commercial web.

It’s good regulation, not lack of regulation, that kept the web healthy.

Here’s one idea for where to begin:
1. Limit what kind of behavioral data websites can store. When I say behavioral data, I mean the kinds of things computers notice about you in passing—your search history, what you click on, what cell tower you’re using.

It’s very important that we regulate this at the database, not at the point of collection. People will always find creative ways to collect the data, and we shouldn’t limit people’s ability to do neat things with our data on the fly. But there should be strict limits on what you can save.

2. Limit how long they can keep it. Maybe three months, six months, three years. I don’t really care, as long as it’s not fifty years, or forever. Make the time scale for deleting behavioral data similar to the half-life of a typical Internet business.

3. Limit what they can share with third parties. This limit should also apply in the event of bankruptcy, or acquisition. Make people’s data non-transferable without their consent.

4. Enforce the right to download. If a website collects information about me, I should be allowed to see it. The EU already mandates this to some extent, but it’s not evenly enforced.

This rule is a little sneaky, because it will require backend changes on many sites. Personal data can pile up in all kinds of dark corners in your system if you’re not concerned about protecting it. But it’s a good rule, and easy to explain. You collect data about me? I get to see it.

5. Enforce the right to delete. I should be able to delete my account and leave no trace in your system, modulo some reasonable allowance for backups.

6. Give privacy policies teeth. Right now, privacy policies and terms of service can change at any time. They have no legal standing. For example, I would like to promise my users that I’ll never run ads on my site and give that promise legal weight. That would be good marketing for me. Let’s create a mechanism that allow this.

7. Let users opt-in if a site wants to make exceptions to these rules. If today’s targeted advertising is so great, you should be able to persuade me to sign up for it. Persuade me! Convince me! Seduce me! You’re supposed to be a master advertiser, for Christ’s sake!

8. Make the protections apply to everyone, not just people in the same jurisdiction as the regulated site. It shouldn’t matter what country someone is visiting your site from. Keep it a world-wide web.


I was very taken with Bastian Allgeier’s talk yesterday on decentralization. And we’ll be discussing a lot of these issues at Decentralize Camp tomorrow.

Folklore has it that the Internet was designed to survive a nuclear war. Bombs could take out lots of nodes, but the net would survive and route around the damage.

I think this remains a valuable idea, though we never quite got there. A good guiding principle is that no one company, or one country, should have the ability to damage the Internet, even if it begins to act maliciously. – Maciej Ceglowski


Silicon Valley Magna Carta (2nd draft)


I love my Country and believe in it as a Democracy. A Democracy, guarantees certain essential liberties, understands that they are in the best interest of the Country itself and all of her People, its having a sustainable, healthy Future. They encompass Empathy, Equality. Justice, Safety and Humanity.

Essential Liberties include the right to Safety, the protection of innocent lives. The People have to be Safe, to not fear for their lives, not have their lives assaulted.

They have the right to be free from spying and surveillance, to have private thoughts, to dissent, to question, and not fear reprisal for it, to have trust again in the essential right to Privacy.

A Country without either of these, becomes a violent, chaotic, mess, as happened in Rwanda, for example.

As has happened here in America, in the Silicon Valley, due to the Greed of certain Silicon Valley business people. They have been out in the open in the Silicon Valley, carrying on crimes against Humanity. This must end.

They are destabilizing the entire Country, the entire World also.

I propose these as Essential Liberties that the Silicon Valley must agree to, must not invade, must support and must address with problem-solving action, where they are being violated.

1. Human life is sacred. It must be protected.

2. Children must be protected, as need to be their families.

3. Security. The right to Safety. Millions of people’s lives have been made unsafe, this is wrong, counter to our values and must end.

3. Privacy is a must. Spying and surveillance of innocent people needs to end, and we must have free thinking without fear of reprisal.

4. Data that has been put onto the Internet with the confidence that it is secure, must be made secure, without invasion or lifting.

5. Ownership of private data must be restored. See, Let’s solve the problem of restoring Internet Privacy, Francis Jeffrey on how to do it: http://poppsikle.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/lets-solve-the-problem-of-restoring-internet-privacy-francis-jeffrey-on-how-to-do-it-2/

6. Personally Identifiable Data which has been lifted and stored up until now, must be permanently deleted. A new leaf needs to be turned over, a mindset that has Sustainability, Reason, and Logic, in mind.

This is a second-draft, I welcome input and suggestions.

Virginia Hoge, August 2014



Comments disappeared on Wired post after it is called out on Twitter

I approached Wired reporter David Kravets on Twitter in March of 2014,  about 2012 comments of mine that begged Wired to report on Topix and its NSA data sharing.

At that point, March 11, 2014, all the comments were still on the thread, there were other comments there besides mine. This is the thread:

California Starts Up a Privacy Enforcement Unit

As you can see now, all the comments are gone. Where Comments are numbered on the post, the number is 0.

Here are my deleted comments, which I had fortunately screen-shot:



David Kravets said Wired deleted all the comments on its posts in a site update:

Why would they do that? As my comments prove, they are sometimes crucial information coming from whistleblowers.






Francis Jeffrey: President’s Review Group Finds Biggest NSA Program 100% Wasteful and Hazardous to National Security


Dear Colleagues,

I finally had a chance to read—

Report and Recommendations of The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies  { file:  2013-12-12_rg_final_report }*

–and recount here, following, the portions that seemed most pertinent to the issues I’ve expressed concern over and interest in addressing via the software, “stochastic” & “human factors” paradigms.  (In other words:  pulling signals out of noise via targeted sampling constrained by budget, etc.;  and, pattern recognition that results in patterns recognizable to typical humans.)    The relative efficacy of “Section 215”  and  “Section 702”  are touched-on herein. *+*  {my letter footnotes are at bottom of this document file.}

Herein, attached following, I highlight the key lines.

Best Regards,

Francis Jeffrey


{Note: The following are direct text copies from the published .PDF but I have inserted the page references in parentheses, dotted ellipses & curvy brackets containing my comments and  “f/n” number citation to the original documents own footnotes,  for clarity sake.  Throughout, “section 215” refers to telephony metadata aggregation.  The asterisks and crosses refer to my own, added footnotes at the bottom of this letter}  **

The President’s Review Group writes: Although NSA maintained that, upon learning of these noncompliance incidents, it had taken remedial measures to prevent them from recurring, Judge Walton rejected the government’s argument that, in light of these measures, “the Court need not take any further remedial action.”  Because it had become apparent that NSA’s data accessing technologies and practices were never adequately designed to comply with the governing minimization procedures, NSA Director General Keith Alexander conceded that “there was no single person who had a complete understanding of the  [section 215]  FISA system architecture.”  {f/n.104} (p 106)


PRG: NSA believes that on at least a few occasions, information derived from the section 215 bulk telephony meta-data program has contributed to its efforts to prevent possible terrorist attacks, either in the United States or  somewhere else in the world. More often, negative results from section 215  queries have helped to alleviate concern that particular terrorist suspects are in contact with co-conspirators in the United States.  Our review suggests that the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders.{**}   Moreover, there is reason for caution about the view that the program is efficacious in alleviating concern about possible terrorist connections, given the fact that the meta-data captured by the program covers only a portion of the records of only a few telephone service providers.  {++} (p.104)


PRG: Third, one might argue that, despite these concerns, the hypothetical mass collection of personal information would make it easier for the government to protect the nation from terrorism, and it should therefore be permitted. We take this argument seriously. But even if the premise is true, the conclusion does not necessarily follow.  Every limitation on the government’s ability to monitor our conduct makes it more difficult for the government to prevent bad things from happening. As our risk management principle suggests,  the question is not whether granting the government authority makes us incrementally safer, but whether the additional safety is worth the sacrifice in terms of individual privacy, personal liberty, and public trust. (p.114)
{para. refs. implicitly:  f/n.113–Church Committee Report at 778 (April 1976).}


PRG: There are two distinctions between the hypothetical and actual versions of section 215.   First, the total amount of data collected and retained in the hypothetical version of section 215 is much greater than the total amount of data collected and retained in the actual version. This means that the possible harm caused by the collection and the possible benefit derived from the collection are both reduced. Everything else being equal, this suggests that the balance between costs and benefits is unchanged.  {f/n.114}


{footnote here:}

PRG: 114 – It is possible, of course, for the government carefully to target its collection and retention of data in a way that maximizes the benefit and minimizes the cost, thereby substantially altering the balance of costs and benefits.  But there is  no reason to believe  that this describes the decision to collect bulk telephony  meta-data, in particular. (p.116)


PRG: We recognize that there might be problems in querying multiple, privately held data bases simultaneously and expeditiously. In our view, however, it is likely that those problems can be significantly reduced by creative engineering approaches. (p. 118)


{Conclusion is hidden in footnote here extending over bottoms of p.119–p.120:}

PRG: It is noteworthy that the section 215 telephony meta-data program has made only a modest contribution to the nation’s security. It is useful to compare it, for example, to the section 702 program, which we discuss in the next Part of our Report. Whereas collection under section 702 has produced significant information in many, perhaps most, of the 54 situations in which signals intelligence has contributed to the prevention of terrorist attacks  since 2007, section 215 has generated relevant information in only a small number of cases, and there has been no instance in which NSA could say with confidence that the outcome would have been different without the section 215 telephony meta-data program. Moreover, now that the existence of the program has been disclosed publicly, we suspect that it is likely to be less useful still.

{end of f/n that extends across the bottoms of p.119–p.120}

PRG: C. September 11 and its Aftermath

The September 11 attacks were a vivid demonstration of the need for detailed information about the activities of potential terrorists. This was so for several reasons.

First, some information, which could have been useful, was not collected and other information, which could have helped to prevent the attacks, was not shared among departments. 

Second, the scale of damage that 21st-century terrorists can inflict is far greater than anything that their predecessors could have imagined. {…} (p.71)

- – – – – – -

* Source:
Report and Recommendations ofThe President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies
{ 2013-12-12_rg_final_report }
Executive Office of the President
Washington, DC, 12 Dec. 2013


**Note: Bold emphasis added. In all of the above excerpts except one, “section 215” refers to the automated telephony metadata aggregation program, citing to the section number in the Patriot Act, now codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1861. The exception is “conventional section 215 orders” (on p.104) – viz: individualized orders to collect data, which were the apparent & original intent of that law. Underline emphasis added.

*+* The most obvious (& publicly disclosed) design defects and legal defects in the “Sec. 702” programs will be treated in a subsequent letter.—FJ 12.Feb.2014

++ On p.104, the hazard subtly alluded to is that “alleviating concern” this way is likely to amount to FALSE NEGATIVES, causing real threats to be discounted !

The Roots of the Problem. Francis Jeffrey on Internet development, DARPA, the early NSA and what happened next


How it all began. Government Contractors & Bureaucracy

The government buys lots of goods & services (“contractors”) who push whatever they have to offer.  The government also promotes and nourishes certain developments (for example, DARPA & university research grants). The bureaucracy (for example, Pentagon) is full of people with certain career specialties, and assigned certain tasks.

Who is guarding the People?

Congress is elected largely using money from contractors who supply goods and services to the government. So not only are the wolves guarding the chickens, but also the eggs. (and no one knows which actually came first!)


Remember when I worked for DARPA in the 1970s, we were developing the Internet (then called DARPA-NET & NSF-NET) because it was thought to be a communication method that (a) would survive a war [the parallel “.mil” side of it], and (b) accelerate the pace of collaboration among government, university & industry. I don’t really know whether anyone at that point was contemplating its potential for “data mining”, or even the prospect that it would become a public communication and mass-media system.

The Early NSA

What NSA was thinking in those days is largely documented in a book, “The Puzzle Palace,” which they tried to suppress AFTER it was published. SIGINT in those days seemed to be mostly about interpreting messages picked-out from telephone and radio signals. This required lots of translators (human) and s/w that scanned signals for “key words”. They had “listening posts” all over the world, but the domestic nexus seemed to be “telephone exchanges”, which in the 1960s & 70s were being computerized (UNIX operating system, developed by AT&T Bell Labs).

9/11-fueled Acceleration

The NSA was focused on ther SIGINT contribution to (real) military intelligence and counter-intel, with the identified threats being the USSR, etc. While there were some low-key “NSA snooping scandals” in the 1970 & 80s, i think they really got messed up in the 2nd Bush administration, and the way it played the “9/11″ catastrophe to its own advantage. Suddenly there was a permanent enemy and a permanent state of war — just as George Orwell envisioned.  So the Constitution was abandoned, and money flowed to anyone who was well-connected and seemed to offer a piece of the technology puzzle.

Change that needs to happen

We’d like all this current commotion to result in restoring the Constitution, reinforcing private ownership of our own data and bio-data, and a national SIGINT system that is focused, effective and efficient for its primary and stated purpose (i.e., REAL mil. intel & counter-spy ops). I would be for certain additional functions that are carefully and narrowly defined, only:  AGAINST human trafficking, abduction, torture, murder-for-hire and large-scale international organized crime that corrupts governments or traffics in (specifically) nuclear, biological or nanotech weapons.

- Francis Jeffrey

See also: Lets Solve the Problem of Restoring Internet Privacy! Francis Jeffrey on How to do it




Lets Solve the Problem of Restoring Internet Privacy! Francis Jeffrey, on How to do it


“What I am NOW proposing is that the law must be clarified to re-establish private ownership of all of one’s personal data, with limited and specific rights to use the data to be given in contractual situations.”

Francis Jeffrey, is an early internet pioneer, brilliant inventor/engineer/programmer and thinker.

“Francis Jeffrey is a pioneer and forecaster on the frontier interface between communication technologies and neuroscience. He is a consultant on ethical applications of science and technology, co-founder of civic and environmental organizations, and served as CEO of companies devoted to the application of biological principles in computer software & network design.” According to published accounts

Francis belongs in a fairly small category of highly innovative people I have been privileged to  know:  [Marvin] Minsky [Edward] Fredkin, Ted Nelson, John McCarthy come to mind…” – Jerry Pournelle, SiFi author and former Editor of BYTE magazine

He has some very good ideas, for solving the problems of data invasion, gathering and spying. Here is his concept:

In about 1982, I started talking around the idea of “Futures Leverage” as a networked interactive-creative format, and that each member would OWN their individual “information-action condominium” within a virtual, relational network. You could then invite people into your “condominium” for conversation, planning, etc.;  but you individually OWNED that piece of informational “real estate.”  And what guests brought in or took out, could be governed by agreement — as in the real world.

(Context:  this was with early Internet, but before the web format existed;  lots of BBS  [bulletin board systems, now named “Blogs”] in those days, connected through various dial-up data networks, or as pier-to-pier networks [“CommuniTree” was an early one when the Apple II came out], and eventually Compuserve and AOL, etc., came into action.  SO I quickly learned their limitations & complications.)

What I am NOW proposing is that the law must be clarified to re-establish private ownership of all of one’s personal data, with limited and specific rights to use the data to be given in contractual situations.

For example, if you have a business relationship with someone, then each of you is entitled to use the information exchanged in and necessary for that relationship;  but, no one automatically gets the right to give away, sell or otherwise exploit the data (except by explicit and voluntary CONTRACT). And once the business relationship, or individual transaction, is completed and settled, the data would remain in a CONFIDENTIAL state for some period that is necessary for business records.

This paradigm was assumed under English-American “Common Law”, but has been eroded (lately at an accelerating pace).  It is parallel with Common Law rights to Intellectual Property (“IP”) which supplement formal Copyright protection (etc.).

In addition to the obvious benefits, this approach solves many of what have become now pressing problems.  For example, the dubious “Third Party Doctrine” is a Fed. Ct. precedent that for about 30 years has been exploited to assert that once you give data to a business (or gov. agency), you no longer have “a reasonable expectation of privacy” regarding what was communicated. Courts subsequently have over-applied this idea to, even, situations when the information was given involuntarily, accidentally or unknowingly — or even when it was effectively extorted from you.  (It’s a crack-pot concept, but that is the current state of the Law in the U.S.!)

Much of the “legal basis” for the recently-revealed mass-spying, indeed hinges on the “Third Party Doctrine,”  BECAUSE the laws on privacy say that you have a right to privacy ONLY in communications situations where you “have a reasonable expectation of privacy.” (This comes from the idea that if you are having a quiet conversation at home, or on the phone, it’s private;  but if you are conversing loudly, out in a public place, they you are giving away the information to anyone who hears you..etc. etc.) This was an eminently reasonable view of the obvious the limits of privacy, until it was perverted into the “Third Party Doctrine” by judicial hyper-activism in support of governmental over-reach.

- Francis Jeffrey

Further info:

Software Designers Look for Connections at Event, Los Angeles Times, by Karen Kaplan, staff writer, 18 January 1999


An Interview with Francis Jeffrey, a 1997 interview


Again, you can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something – your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life. – Steve Jobs


New Year’s Eve Story



This is the New Year’s Eve story I told on Twitter.

Dec. 31, 2013

I am going to tell a New Year’s Eve story.

Its a Cherokee story, but as a footnote, my grandmother was an adopted American Indian, but the story is mine.

There was a Cherokee girl in a tribe, a tribe that was besieged by Grizzly bears, a very dangerous bear, deadly.

She had the ability, to face-down these bears, they had no power over her.

Now you would think, this girl would be very valued by the tribe, but what happened is, the Chief and wanna-be Chief’s,

had big Egos that could not bear, someone being better at bear defense, than they were. To the extent of shunning her, endangering the tribe

So all this carnage happened, that the girl had to witness, just because of Huge Egos, selfish to the point of being deadly.

They became the Grizzly bears. Inside the tribe, not outside of it.

Greedy to the point of being deadly. Profit over People, profit made on human suffering.

They were sooooo very concerned with their appearance, their socially acceptable “face”, they were nervous all of the time.


Meriwether Lewis, wrote about Grizzly bears in the journals he kept on his historic expedition.

He was blown away that the Indians were able to hunt them with the weapons they had, he knew how fierce they were.

Fierce, big, strong, brutal bears, blood-thirsty. Pure animal hatred.

Those Chiefs sure tried hard to mask this, but they were the ones responsible for all the carnage. Blood-money.

The Cherokee girl didn’t know what to do and fell asleep at last, after a long night up.

She had a dream where she was in the mountains, with bears, but they were the friendly kind, they were singing and partying.

They were singing the New Radical’s song, You Get What You Give “Wake up kids We’ve got the dreamers disease”

“One dance left This world is gonna pull through Don’t give up”


“Stop complaining” said the nice bear You’ve got the gift of stopping Grizzly bears, just use it, and stop acting like you are so special.

“We all have our gifts, yours’ is stopping Grizzly bears, lol” and the nice bear danced off into the night.




16 Essential Troll Busting Techniques

16 Essential Troll Busting Techniques

by Virginia Hoge


I have been very heavily trolled for the past four years. There was no way to escape this trolling, I had to deal with it. I have dealt with some of the most difficult trolls in the Country on one of the most violent forums – Topix, a virtual hate-machine – a forum where there was no option to block the trolls or to quickly remove their worst comments. I have learned (the hard way, making lots of mistakes along the way) techniques in how to counter and how to handle trolls in this time.

There are so many practical applications to learning how to counter-troll. For instance, so much has been invested in trolling, and this has not been enough reported on. Learning how to counter these pundits, is an important lesson for the year 2013. Cyber-bullying is ending too many lives and a lot of this could be halted with more training in countering/resistance techniques. I originally began this list 2 years ago, to help gay teens being cyber-bullied. Too many kids are dying and they could learn from learning how to fight back.

These are the techniques I use in dealing with trolls. There are those who would disagree with me, but these are the ones I use.

One:  A show of strength: I think the most important thing with trolls, is to be like a brick wall against them. You put up a verbal wall that says: Nope, you are not going to get away with this. No matter how much you threaten or insult me, I am not going to back down. A show of strength is important with them, they are less courageous than you are. Nothing anyone can say can get to you if you don’t let it. Trolls work to get under your skin, don’t let them. When dealing with trolls, you need to learn to take control of your own perceptions. This is hard and takes time so be patient with yourself.

Two:  All trolls can pretty easily be tripped with their own words. They are illogical and all you have to do, is to point out the illogic of their posts. Turn what they say around, work into it. You leave them frustrated with nothing to say in doing this.

Three:  Humor is a great tool with trolls. Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand. The importance of playfulness and humor, cannot be over-estimated. A collection of funny YouTube videos, of songs etc., is also a good thing to collect to have to use against trolls. A YouTube link makes a funny reply, also links to funny pictures.

Four:  Handling insults and lies. The natural response when insulted or when a troll tells a lie about you, is to say “No I am not” or “No I did not”. This ironically, becomes a way they have caught you up in a troll game. They will keep saying “Yes you are” “Yes you did” (because you have shown them what they said got to you). The best way to counter insults, is with humor and irreverence. Make a joke about it, show humility even, laugh at yourself. When a lie is told about you, say one time only No dude, I didn’t do it”. And walk off. No arguing.

Five:  Never show anger. This is a hard one. They are working very hard to make you angry. Showing anger gives them what they want. Stay as calm as possible, as irreverent as possible, but still being firm. It is very important to recognize when it happens, that a troll has gotten to you, and then to back off of the debate.  Walk away from the computer. There is always another day. Time is something you can us in your favor.

Six:  Never show hurt. The natural response when a troll has hurt you, is to appeal to the “audience”, be it the troll or a number of viewers of the thread on an open message board, about your hurt. Its called crying in trolling. Again, it shows the troll they have got to you and you cannot expect conscience, from the troll, you cannot expect them to feel sorry for you and I have found, you can expect very little sympathy from other audience members also, even if they are your friends. People are very uncomfortable with hurt feelings and your “crying” about them will not elicit the response you seek. Keep your hurt hidden, stay a brick wall. Walk away from the computer if they have gotten to you.

Seven:  Mocking. This is when it gets ugly, but is needed sometimes for stubborn, professional trolls. Mock them, they cannot stand it, and it shows them that you are as adept in their tactics as they are.

Eight:  Ignore them. When trolls keep posting hateful crap, when it gets the most ugly, ignore these comments. When they get really mean, you know they are putting their “all” into it, and your ignoring these comments will drive them the most crazy. I have likened it to a game of tennis. If they hit the ball to you and you do not return it, there is no game. They don’t get the perverse pleasure they seek in getting to you.

Nine:  The LOL. Learning the different meanings of lol (laugh out loud) are important when dealing with trolls. Lower-case “lol”, shows humility – important – it shows you are not being “preachy”. In the example above, adding a lower-case “lol” to “No dude, I didn’t do it, lol” helps to better convey your meaning, as strange as that sounds. It works. “Lol” is used for stronger emphasis and best used on its own. “No dude, I didn’t do it. Lol.” Its stronger so use it carefully. Upper-case LOL means the full out “laugh out loud”. This is used in mocking the troll. When the troll says something ridiculous, sometimes the best thing you can reply is “LOL”. And leave it at that.

Ten:  Back up other posters they are attacking. Back up is important with stubborn trolls, don’t just defend yourself, defend others. Agreement is a troll tactic, they often work in pairs, agreeing with each other. We can do that also.

Eleven:  Persistence. Trolls have all day and night to post away, and will and do. You need to stay on them, not just make one comment and leave, you need to debate with the troll to turn the argument into your favor. Time is something you can use in your favor, take time off, make the troll wait for you, don’t reply to every comment of theirs, be selective, reply to none sometimes. Talk about something completely different. That puts you in control.

Twelve:  Love. Trolls are human beings, as mean, ugly and nasty as they get. Do not hate them, your hatred will only hurt you, not them. You need to see beyond the front they are putting up, into their humanity and always remember it. It can be called on, especially with trolls you are countering for a long time. But do not use it early on, do not try to “win the troll over” too soon. That will not work. Only keep it in the back of your mind and in time, it can be possible to break through and find your common humanity. I have made friends with some trolls who used to troll me.

Thirteen (related to the above): Reconciliation/Understanding. Trolls are often hot-headed people and say hurtful things quickly, often have short tempers, have been hurt themselves by hurtful words and are lashing out. Its important to distinguish between a troll that has a good person underneath and a malicious hater, because one of the most under-looked but important tools in troll busting is Understanding. It is possible to make peace with someone you do not agree with, to find common ground and this is often very productive. 

Beware of biases in yourself, understand that there are going to be people you don’t agree with, don’t make every disagreement a cause for combat. Laugh off minor insults, don’t be too prickly. Again, stay calm, don’t get angry.

Fourteen:  Keep your replies as short as possible. Your reply to the troll is what they will base their “ammo” on for their attacks. The more “ammo” you give them, the worse it is for you. Keeping your replies as short as possible gives them less to work with and nails your point more efficiently.

Fifteen: Troll Crying. Crying, in troll terminology, is over-complaining, crying about someone (if the troll is your combatant, you). Its a show of weakness and I find it all the time in the biggest bullies. The biggest bullies are the biggest crybabies. This is a Win for you. Once a troll starts crying, you know they are weaker than you are and falling back, capitalize on this.

Sixteen:  Have fun with it. In essence, countering trolls is a cyber version of the Great Art of Debate. Read up on debate tactics, study the masters. Importantly: study how trolls fight with each other, find ones that are good at it. Trolls will often call trolling playing.

You can learn to play too.

© Virginia Hoge, Dec. 2013. All rights reserved.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.