[Lnc-business] DRAFT RESOLUTION on the use of "Big Data"

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Sun Jul 16 01:54:59 EDT 2017


Most people do consent, and how do you prove non-consent here?  I choose to
use Facebook and know it collects data.  Why wouldn't we use Facebook
targeting advertising?



-Caryn Ann

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> I believe that getting people's consent first, which is what the
> resolution I wrote calls for, before digging into their personal lives and
> using it to push products or messages on people, *is* a resolution to use
> big data ethically. Obtained in that manner, I too agree with Ken that it's
> not inherently evil. But it is dangerous.
>
> The Newsweek article mentions in passing that Cambridge Analytics, the
> firm doing the data manipulation for the Trump campaign, has received a
> $500,000 State Department contract to study the impact of "foreign
> propaganda". Aside from the obvious issue of crony politics, one wonders
> how long before the Trump administration, or some other government
> officials, decide *they* need to start using big data and
> "microtargeting". They, of course, will have more tools at their disposal.
> Not only will they be able to lean on data repositories like Facebook and
> Twitter and demand information on their users (do *you* trust that big
> companies will consistently stand up and oppose such "requests"?), they
> already have massive amounts of data on people collected and stored by
> myriad government agencies – NSA and other intelligence agencies with their
> records of calls, emails and texts, the IRS and its tax records, Medicare
> and its health records, other agencies with educational records, travel
> information, FBI files, firearms license applications, and much, much more
> data at their disposal. Imagine what targeted control they could exert if
> all that information were to be correlated, analyzed, and used for
> individualized propaganda, or for conveyance of warnings about illegal
> activity, etc.
>
> Libertarians will be in a much stronger place to speak out against any
> such efforts if we have clean hands ourselves, and if we have already been
> speaking out about non-consensual *corporate* harvesting of big data for
> the *relatively* benign purpose of selling us stuff, making money from
> the information they obtain and use without our consent.
>
> Sure, big data may increase our chances of finding a cute dress or shoes
> we like (sorry, Caryn Ann!) if we continue to choose convenience over
> privacy (do you know what information that app in your phone is collecting
> on you?). But if too many people consistently make that choice, it will
> move society as a whole that much closer to an Orwellian future. When
> governments start building big big data on people, much of the public will
> be like, "Oh, who cares, companies have been doing that for years." Most
> ordinary people won't think it's a big deal – until one day for them it is,
> at which point it may be too late to stop.
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>                                     ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                         RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                 (415) 625-FREE
>                                   @StarchildSF
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2017, at 11:18 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> Yes I agree with Ken.  I enthusiastically love the better sales ads.  I
> would actually like better political ads to issues I actually care about.
>
> It is a tool - for good and for evil.  A resolution to use ethically I
> could support.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:
>
>> We're already cultivating and using "Big Data" in the broad sense.
>> Professionally, I work in Enterprise Storage and Backup.  "Big Data" lives
>> in my realm.  So let's define "Big Data" both technically and colloquially.
>>
>> Technically, "Big Data" is the ability to cross-reference disparate
>> sources of data, stored in disparate formats, to make data conversion and
>> extrapolation more easy. In the past, we would transform data to fit inside
>> a rigid set of parameters.  Today, we can just cross-reference data across
>> disparate types.   So for instance, the voter tracking system I created in
>> LPKY is NOT "Big Data" because I normalized the format of all of the data
>> prior to combining it into one large database.  Big Data would say that I
>> should have just had data sources and had some software on top to correlate
>> the data.
>>
>> Colloquially, "Big Data" is about data collection and retention, and use
>> the data to determine certain likely behaviors or attributes.  How this is
>> applied can vary.  From a private sector standpoint, this is tailored
>> marketing to people. Typically, private organizations continue to be
>> divorced from the individual - we don't know these people unless they
>> decide to further engage with us.  However, "Big Data" from a criminal
>> justice standpoint is profiling and then tracking individual actions of
>> specific people without due process.  There's quite a disparity between the
>> public and private aspects.
>>
>> As an organization, like any other private organization, the use of
>> "micro-targeting" is about efficiency in marketing.  Instead of
>> broadcasting general messages, we send the particular message most likely
>> to convert an individual to libertarianism directly to that individual.
>> There is nothing inherently wrong with micro-targeting.  We identify a
>> person's hot-button issues and lead our messaging to them with that
>> hot-button issue.
>>
>> Like a firearm, "Big Data" itself isn't inherently evil.  It's how you
>> use it that determines morality.  If we're using it to doxx people, that's
>> bad.  If we're using it to spy on the specifics of a person's private life,
>> that's bad.  But if we're doing it just to try to lead with a successful
>> marketing message, that's not evil.  If anything, it saves donor money.
>>  (And in the private for-profit sector, it lowers consumer costs.)  These
>> are good things.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:41 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Caryn Ann,
>>>
>>> Agreed, Big Data in private hands has tremendous potential as an
>>> information service providing free data that can be voluntarily used or
>>> ignored.
>>>
>>> However, Big Data is a huge risk in the hands of authorities and bloated
>>> corporations that rely on government preferences to avoid competition and
>>> are complicit in authoritarian surveillance efforts.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2017 12:26 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am in agreement with Joshua on many points - particularly the
>>>> overbroad nature of the resolution.  It may be impossible to keep it.
>>>>
>>>> But where I disagree:
>>>>
>>>> Targeted ads to me have actually been great.  I see things now I might
>>>> actually buy and appreciate it.  The cutest dresses in ages have come
>>>> across my FB feed.  I actually click good ads now because I want more good
>>>> ads and now I rarely see things I am  not interested in, and yes, I have
>>>> bought a few things (cute shoes).
>>>>
>>>> My opinion of Snowden remains the same.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Joshua Katz <
>>>> planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A few thoughts:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.  I think the threats from big analytic data are oversold.  There
>>>>> are benefits (yay getting coupons I actually need!) but, for the most part,
>>>>> it's incredibly clumsy, even from the best in the field.  Do I really need
>>>>> to see suits for days after I buy one?  If I needed another, I would have
>>>>> bought it already, yet there's no ability, at least as of now, to instead
>>>>> show me relevant ads.  For example - if a person buys a suit and is
>>>>> unemployed, you might want to show them ads for transportation options to
>>>>> get to interviews, lines of credit available to the unemployed,and
>>>>> headhunters.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.  I think the benefits of big analytic data are oversold.  In my
>>>>> view, yes, campaigns are using it, and it will become a part of the
>>>>> landscape - but I think it will shrink from its current 'fad' status.
>>>>> Since campaigns do not use only one tool at a time, I think data is getting
>>>>> credit better reserved for other tactics, such as better efforts to find
>>>>> and exploit fat tails - which does not require heavy use of analytic data.
>>>>> I don't think it's going away, but I think it will fade from being seen as
>>>>> the pinnacle of smart campaigning.  I do not think we should copy these
>>>>> techniques, in which we cannot compete.  We should adopt the basic forms
>>>>> that are providing 90% of the benefit - say, good use of registration and
>>>>> turnout data in a seamless database like NB - where I can make a list of
>>>>> those who like a certain post, for instance, then send out an email on that
>>>>> topic - but nothing more.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.  My opinion of Snowden, while I do not want him prosecuted, has
>>>>> chilled over the last year or so.  I'm less inclined to praise him in these
>>>>> terms than I was in the past.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4.  I think, to the extent such "spiderwebs" exist, that they will be
>>>>> a part of the landscape, even outside government, and we should learn how
>>>>> to live with them (hello Torrent) and not fight a fruitless war.  I
>>>>> suggested in a speech many years ago that our society was having a war
>>>>> about information, with some wanting to lock it up and others wanting to
>>>>> free it.  Some, like FB, want it both ways - people provide it for free,
>>>>> yet FB monetizes and privatizes it.  We can win that war, I think, by
>>>>> pushing for openness, but with that comes loss of privacy.  Fighting
>>>>> against openness, on the other hand, means shifting power to the few with
>>>>> access to the information.  I think the trade-off works better if we lower
>>>>> our privacy expectations.  Think of it this way, to use a trivial example:
>>>>>  if 100 people apply for a job, and you find a picture of one of them with
>>>>> a lamp on their head, they will probably not be hired.  If you find
>>>>> pictures of all 100 with lamps on their heads, things level out.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5.  I would support a limited motion against big data, if it focused
>>>>> on what we do (the Resolved) portion, without all the Whereas.  I think the
>>>>> Resolved here, though, is too broad and unclear.  I'm not sure what it
>>>>> prohibits, and that's a problem - it's a bigger problem if staff is
>>>>> unclear.  Does it prohibit buying lists of registered Libertarians from
>>>>> Secretaries of State?  Buying lists of "(Reason subscribers OR GOA members
>>>>> OR NRA members OR homeschoolers) AND registered voters"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Starchild <realreform at earthlink.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever heard the following observation about George Orwell's dystopian
>>>>>> novel: "*1984* was not an instruction manual"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I much appreciated that dark witticism when I first heard it, and
>>>>>> still do. But lately it occurs to me that *1984 *actually *is* a
>>>>>> kind of an instruction manual. Not in the sense the original observation
>>>>>> intends to warn us against, of would-be totalitarian leaders using it as a
>>>>>> blueprint for imposing control, but in the sense of instructing the rest of
>>>>>> us about what kinds of developments to be on guard against; what kinds of
>>>>>> conditions we must not allow to come into being.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the spirit of trusting you my colleagues to grasp the implications
>>>>>> of this material enough to read it as a *pro-freedom* and not an
>>>>>> *anti-freedom* instruction manual, the following Newsweek story from
>>>>>> June 8 addresses a topic that I believe demands our attention as a
>>>>>> political party:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *http://www.newsweek.com/2017/06/16/big-data-mines-personal-info-manipulate-voters-623131.html
>>>>>> <http://www.newsweek.com/2017/06/16/big-data-mines-personal-info-manipulate-voters-623131.html>*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A couple excerpts (much more at the link, and well worth a read):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The speaker, Alexander Nix, an Eton man, was very much among his own
>>>>>> kind—global elites with names like Buffett, Soros, Brokaw, Pickens,
>>>>>> Petraeus and Blair. Trouble was indeed on the way for some of the attendees
>>>>>> at the annual summit of policymakers and philanthropists whose world order
>>>>>> was about to be wrecked by the American election. But for Nix, chief
>>>>>> executive officer of a company working for the Trump campaign, that mayhem
>>>>>> was a very good thing.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *He didn’t mention it that day, but his company, Cambridge Analytica,
>>>>>> had been selling its services to the Trump campaign, which was building a
>>>>>> massive database of information on Americans. The company’s capabilities
>>>>>> included, among other things, “psychographic profiling” of the electorate.
>>>>>> And while Trump’s win was in no way assured on that afternoon, Nix was
>>>>>> there to give a cocky sales pitch for his cool new product.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *“It’s my privilege to speak to you today about the power of Big Data
>>>>>> and psychographics in the electoral process,” he began. As he clicked
>>>>>> through slides, he explained how Cambridge Analytica can appeal directly to
>>>>>> people’s emotions, bypassing cognitive roadblocks, thanks to the oceans of
>>>>>> data it can access on every man and woman in the country...*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *To illustrate, he walked the audience through what he called “a
>>>>>> real-life example <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Dd5aVXLCc>” taken from
>>>>>> the company’s data on the American electorate, starting with a large
>>>>>> anonymous group with a general set of personality types and moving down to
>>>>>> the most specific—one man, it turned out, who was easily identifiable.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Nix started with a group of 45,000 likely Republican Iowa
>>>>>> caucusgoers who needed a little push—what he calls a “persuasion
>>>>>> message”—to get out and vote for Ted Cruz (who used Cambridge Analytica
>>>>>> early in the 2016 primaries). That group’s specifics had been fished out of
>>>>>> the data stream by an algorithm sifting the thousands of digital data
>>>>>> points of their lives. Nix was focusing on a personality subset the
>>>>>> company’s algorithms determined to be “very low in neuroticism, quite low
>>>>>> in openness and slightly conscientious.”*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Click. A screen of graphs and pie charts.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *“But we can segment further. We can look at what issue they care
>>>>>> about. Gun rights I’ve selected. That narrows the field slightly more.”*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Click. Another screen of graphs and pie charts, but with some
>>>>>> circled specifics.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *“And now we know we need a message on gun rights. It needs to be a
>>>>>> persuasion message, and it needs to be nuanced according to the certain
>>>>>> personality type we are interested in.”*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Click. Another screen, the state of Iowa dotted with tiny reds and
>>>>>> blues—individual voters.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *“If we wanted to drill down further, we could resolve the data to an
>>>>>> individual level, where we have somewhere close to 4- or 5,000 data points
>>>>>> on every adult in the United States.”*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Click. Another screenshot with a single circled name—Jeffrey Jay
>>>>>> Ruest, gender: male, and his GPS coordinates.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The American voter whose psychological tendencies Nix had just
>>>>>> paraded before global elites like a zoo animal was easy to find. Cambridge
>>>>>> researchers would have known much more about him than his address. They
>>>>>> probably had access to his Facebook likes—heavy metal band Iron Maiden, a
>>>>>> news site called eHot Rods and Guns, and membership in Facebook groups
>>>>>> called My Daily Carry Gun and Mopar Drag Racing.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *“Likes” like those are sine qua non of the psychographic profile.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *And like every other one of the hundreds of millions of Americans
>>>>>> now caught in Cambridge Analytica’s slicing and dicing machine, Ruest was
>>>>>> never asked if he wanted a large swath of his most personal data
>>>>>> scrutinized so that he might receive a message tailored just for him from
>>>>>> Trump.*
>>>>>> *Big Data, artificial intelligence and algorithms designed and
>>>>>> manipulated by strategists like the folks at Cambridge have turned our
>>>>>> world into a Panopticon, the 19th-century circular prison designed so that
>>>>>> guards, without moving, could observe every inmate every minute of every
>>>>>> day. *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The choice for us seems clear: Will we emulate Alexander Nix, or side
>>>>>> with Jeffrey Jay Ruest? Do we get on the big data bandwagon and attempt to
>>>>>> beat the authoritarians at their game by being cleverer at manipulating
>>>>>> people's personal information than they are, or do we condemn the practice
>>>>>> and put our trust in the public to appreciate those who refuse to engage in
>>>>>> such methods? Be manipulators, or speak out against manipulation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Newsweek piece discusses how big data analytics has advanced, and
>>>>>> will likely continue to advance at a rate such that by 2020, the analytics
>>>>>> used in the 2016 campaign will look like "horse and buggy" technology.
>>>>>> Already, writes author Nina Burleigh,* "On any given day, Team Trump
>>>>>> was placing up to 70,000 ad variants, and around the third debate with
>>>>>> Hillary Clinton, it pumped out 175,000 ad variants."*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it wasn't just the Trump campaign. According to the
>>>>>> article, *"The Democratic National Committee has used Catalist
>>>>>> <https://www.catalist.us/>, a 240 million–strong storehouse of voter data,
>>>>>> containing hundreds of points of data per person, pulled from commercial
>>>>>> and public records."  Further on, Bureigh tells us:*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Democratic strategists say Facebook’s microtargeting abilities,
>>>>>> behavioral science and the stores of data held by other social media
>>>>>> platforms like Twitter and Snapchat are tools that won’t go back inside
>>>>>> Pandora’s box. They, of course, insist they won’t be looking for
>>>>>> low-cognition voters high in neuroticism who are susceptible to fear-based
>>>>>> messages. But Big Data plus behavioral science plus Facebook plus
>>>>>> microtargeting is the political formula to beat. They will use it, and they
>>>>>> won't talk about how they will refine and improve it.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Panopticon be damned, if the temptations to a candidate, or a party,
>>>>>> of going down Nix's road aren't already obvious, read the article and I
>>>>>> think they will be. The dangers likewise. I hope it's no mystery which side
>>>>>> I come down on. I think we should listen to Edward Snowden, whose point of
>>>>>> view Burleigh's piece describes thus:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Speaking to a Big Data industry conference in Washington May 15,
>>>>>> fugitive National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden implored his
>>>>>> audience to consider how the mass collection and preservation of records on
>>>>>> every online interaction and activity threatens our society. “When we have
>>>>>> people that can be tracked and no way to live outside this chain of
>>>>>> records,” he said, “what we have become is a quantified spiderweb. That is
>>>>>> a very negative thing for a free and open society.”*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With all this in mind, I offer the following resolution. Does anyone
>>>>>> have any suggested changes in wording before I ask for co-sponsors?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>> *Whereas a growing ability to harvest, analyze, and manipulate data
>>>>>> has during the past few years increasingly enabled "microtargeting" in
>>>>>> which hundreds or thousands of data points about specific individuals,
>>>>>> harvested from online sources, are run through algorithms and analyzed
>>>>>> using behavioral science in order to sell people products, or push
>>>>>> political candidates or messages; and *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Whereas algorithms and data harvesting abilities are expected to
>>>>>> continue to rapidly increase in sophistication; and*
>>>>>> *Whereas our Republican and Democrat opponents in the 2016 United
>>>>>> States presidential election were already cynically mining "big data" to
>>>>>> employ "microtargeting" against millions of Americans without, in most
>>>>>> cases, the knowledge or consent of these individuals that their personal
>>>>>> data were being used to send them tailored messages different from those
>>>>>> sent to other voters; and*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Whereas such practices represent a clear and present danger to
>>>>>> freedom, with NSA whistleblower and libertarian hero Edward Snowden warning
>>>>>> that,“When we have people that can be tracked and no way to live outside
>>>>>> this chain of records, what we have become is a quantified spiderweb," and
>>>>>> calling this "a very negative thing for a free and open society"; and*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Whereas we reject the top-down, authoritarian mindset underlying
>>>>>> these and other unethical policies and practices of the "cartel parties"
>>>>>> and the government institutions they dominate, and exist instead to defend
>>>>>> the rights of the individual,*
>>>>>> *We therefore hereby resolve that the Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>> will not use "big data" under this or any other name, to engage in
>>>>>> "microtargeting" under this or any other name, by obtaining and analyzing
>>>>>> large numbers of data points about specific individuals without the
>>>>>> explicit consent of those individuals in order to market, advertise, or
>>>>>> promote our party or candidates to them, or to raise money from them, and
>>>>>> urge all Libertarian candidates and campaigns to make a similar pledge.*
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                                  ((( starchild )))
>>>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>>>                         RealReform at earthlink.net
>>>>>>                                 (415) 625-FREE
>>>>>>                                   @StarchildSF
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>>>
>>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>>> *We defend your rights*
>>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>


-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170715/cba09846/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list