thad@cup.portal.com (06/09/88)
As more of the world enters the "Information Age", abuses such as those typified by "J-J" are inevitable. Guidelines, suggestions, and "Gentlemen's Use" of the net notwithstanding, from what I've seen during the past 3 years Usenet is an anarchy. (Some) people will ALWAYS break laws. Posted freeway speed limits in this area are 55MPH, yet the commute traffic averages 70+MPH (before 8AM). In a free society, people have to be accountable for their OWN actions and deeds. Let's not re-hash "prior restraint" again. For the record, PORTAL does REQUIRE a signed contract of all its subscribers (which provides more traceability than I've seen at several *.EDU sites).
root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) (06/10/88)
In article <1101@micomvax.UUCP>, ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: > > Why should we as a community, allow individual sites to profit from this > otherwise altruistic network while showing *no* control over how their > customers use it. > > It would not seem unreasonable for an organisation profitting *directly* > from USENET to at least be required to monitor the output from their > fee-paying customers (and to be charged by the USENET community for their > use ???). Great idea! Have you sent in your money yet? Oh, I see. That is supposed to apply only to public access systems but not to you, right? > How about a filter to look for excessive posting or cross-posting which > would cause system administration to be flagged prior to the articles going > out? And who would determine what's excessive? Ray Dunn of course, right? > Censorship? Perhaps, but we must create accountability. Yes, I have heard that before. I think there is a group in power in South Africa right now that's using a similar argument. "But that's different," I hear you say. Sorry, but selective freedom of expression doesn't work. > If these articles > had been truly seditious, or incitement to whatever, who would have been > responsible? But they weren't. The simple fact is that using your logic, we'd have to shut down the whole network. You can come up with "what if's" to create any situation, no matter how good and secure the network was, so the only real alternative is to shut down the network. And frankly, I like the network as it is. Well, there IS another alternative. If YOU feel that you might go to jail because of what someone else posts, either monitor everything that comes onto your system, or disconnect your newsfeed. But trying to censor US because your overactive imagination envisions you charged with treason ain't the answer. > Who knows? I know *I* don't want to lose my net feed because my management > decides the legal risks are not worth it, or that they don't want to pay > for this potentially hazardous dribble. And presumably you wouldn't want your potentially hazardous dribble censored either. So what we've reduced your dribble to is that you want others to censor (or preferably delete entirely) their users, but you don't want your management to do the same to you. You know what people are called that engage in that kind of double-talk? Hypocrites! > Normally there is a *reasonable* level of accountability because the posters > are employees, or students, of the host site's administration. With public > access sites, there is virtually no implied restraint. There clearly isn't in a commercial environment either, or at least nobody censored your post, did they? > How about *all* users being required to sign a contract acknowledging their > legal obligations, plus a few additional obligations and responsibilities > that we as a network community could stipulate? Okay, and how about fingerprinting them while we're about it. Even better, though, since we're assuming everybody is potentially guilty even before they do something wrong, why don't we just throw'em all in jail right away and throw away the key. At least we'll know that they won't post something Ray Dunn won't find offensive. What would you Canadians do without government intervention?
sam@murdu.OZ (Sam Ganesan) (06/11/88)
I was one of the people who objected to the level of crossposting by JJ but
arent we all getting a bit too carried away with JJ bashing and Portal
bashing? It has got to the point where all that everybody is writing seems to
be either bash JJ and Portal or everybody else on the net. Can we please stop
this extremely acrimonious flames and get on with it!!!
Sam Ganesan
*******************************************************************************
E - mail :
ACSnet: sam@murdu.mu.oz JANET: sam%murdu.mu.oz@uk.ac.ukc
ARPA : sam%murdu.mu.oz.au@uunet.uu.net sam%murdu.mu.oz@uk.ac.ean-relay
UUCP : {uunet,pyramid,mcvax,nttlab}!munnari!murdu.mu.oz.au!sam
Snail : Sam Ganesan, Microbiology Dept,Melbourne University, Parkville,
Victoria 3052, Australia.
******************************************************************************maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) (06/13/88)
In article <6380@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com writes: > >Guidelines, suggestions, and "Gentlemen's Use" of the net notwithstanding, >from what I've seen during the past 3 years Usenet is an anarchy. Near enough to be fun, anyway. If Prince Kropotkin were around, he'd be online.
ruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) (06/14/88)
In article <64@uisc1.UUCP>, root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) writes: > What would you Canadians do without government intervention? This statement served to negate what up until then I had considered an excelllent posting! Censorship in any form is unacceptable to the thinking individual and smacks of fear and the need to control. I agree with the parallels drawn to South Africa, but this last line totally lost me. I am an American, who spent years living in Toronto. While Canada is no Utopia, I assure you they see a lot less of government intervention than we do. Their news isn't censored to give an unbelievable pro-American slant on all international issues, and their bureaucracy serves, not rules. I fail completely to understand the relevancy of this statement, which may constitute me a member of Einstein's "majority of the stupid", if so I'd appreciate having explained what I obviously missed. ******************************************************************************** Despite what you think, a lobotomy would serve no useful purpose! ********************************************************************************
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (06/14/88)
In article <386@blic.BLI.COM> ruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) writes: >While Canada is no Utopia, I assure you they see a lot less of government >intervention than we do. Their news isn't censored to give an unbelievable >pro-American slant on all international issues, ... I fail to see any pro-American slant in news reporting in this country, as it relates to Iran/Contra, Panama, etc. If anything, the news media in this country seem to always assume the worst motives for anything the administration does, and the government seems helpless to change that. While I do not favor an attitude of "My country, right or wrong", the current tendency to assume "My country always wrong" is a bit shortsighted. I do agree with Ruth however that the comment about government intervention was an unwarranted snide remark -- unfortunately typical for the lack of courtesy on this network. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
adf@uisc1.UUCP (Andre Franklin) (06/15/88)
In article <386@blic.BLI.COM>, ruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) writes: > In article <64@uisc1.UUCP>, root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) writes: > > > What would you Canadians do without government intervention? > > This statement served to negate what up until then I had considered > an excelllent posting! Thank you, I think :-) > I fail completely to understand the relevancy of this > statement, which may constitute me a member of Einstein's "majority > of the stupid", if so I'd appreciate having explained what I obviously > missed. No, no, no need to beat yourself over the head yet :-) Canada has a tremendous amount of government intervention, in comparison with the United States anyway. Remember no 7 day shopping? Remember their laws on guns? And (one of the biggies) remember how they handled the case where that Montreal cop shot and killed that black teenage suspect who was facing him, standing still, unarmed? That same cop had beaten a black Ghanaen (sp: from Ghana) university professor savagely and without any provocation, and the department's reaction was to pay off the professor and to brush the whole issue under the carpet. No investigation, no disciplinary action, no reprimand, and the cop stayed on the force. I read that as a clear case where the establishment (cops, government, etc) can do and get away with anything they want, ie government control, police state.
max@trinity.uucp (Max Hauser) (06/15/88)
In article <113@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: | In article <386@blic.BLI.COM> ruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) writes: | >While Canada is no Utopia, I assure you they see a lot less of government | >intervention than we do. Their news isn't censored to give an unbelievable | >pro-American slant on all international issues, ... | | I fail to see any pro-American slant in news reporting in this country ... Exactly.
ruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) (06/15/88)
In article <80@uisc1.UUCP>, adf@uisc1.UUCP (Andre Franklin) writes: > In article <386@blic.BLI.COM>, ruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) writes: > > In article <64@uisc1.UUCP>, root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) writes: > > > > Canada has a tremendous amount of government intervention, in comparison > with the United States anyway. Remember no 7 day shopping? I lived in Virginia where there was also a "blue law" and I think you'll find this true of many parts of this country. Remember their > laws on guns? Canada has way stricter gun control laws than this country, which is probably a factor in being able to walk down Yonge St. in Toronto at 2:00 a.m. alone, without being in fear of one's life... Is the same true of Detroit? And (one of the biggies) remember how they handled the case > where that Montreal cop shot and killed that black teenage suspect who > was facing him, standing still, unarmed? That same cop had beaten a black > Ghanaen (sp: from Ghana) university professor savagely I have no problem with accepting this as a horrible violation of civil rights; however, you may also recall the public outrage over this incident, and how it garnered national attention throughtout Canada. Is the same true for the black father of 5 who was beaten to death in a Texas Jail before Christmas, when he was arrested on a drunk driving charge? How about the deputy in North Carolina who shot an unarmed black teenager during a raid on a house where gambling was going on? He was later exonerated by the county board of supervisors who consisted of two uncles and his father!!! Racism and police brutality are unfortunately endemic to all societys, I have to observe; however that in five years in Canada I observed less of it than I did in 10 years in Virginia. The thing to keep in mind here is that I'm not claiming Canada is such a superior country, simply that you picked an area to attack then on that is not substantiated by facts.... Now let's talk about the near ostracization of american children in many of their public schools and you'd have a captive audience!!
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/15/88)
In article <3939@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>, max@trinity.uucp (Max Hauser) writes: > In article <113@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > | In article <386@blic.BLI.COM> ruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) writes: > | >While Canada is no Utopia, I assure you they see a lot less of government > | >intervention than we do. Their news isn't censored to give an unbelievable > | >pro-American slant on all international issues, ... > | > | I fail to see any pro-American slant in news reporting in this country ... > > > Exactly. Uh, I'm sure Mr. Hauser thought he was being so clever, but Mr. Paul isn't an American. (I'm not sure *where* he's from, but I know he's not one of US. Therefore, my inclination is to think that perhaps his remarks may be meaningful when says he doesn't see a pro-American slant. Clayton E. Cramer
steve@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (06/16/88)
From article <64@uisc1.UUCP>, by root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user): > In article <1101@micomvax.UUCP>, ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: >> >> Why should we as a community, allow individual sites to profit from this >> otherwise altruistic network while showing *no* control over how their >> customers use it. >> >> It would not seem unreasonable for an organisation profitting *directly* >> from USENET to at least be required to monitor the output from their >> fee-paying customers (and to be charged by the USENET community for their >> use ???). > > Great idea! Have you sent in your money yet? Oh, I see. That is supposed to > apply only to public access systems but not to you, right? >> Normally there is a *reasonable* level of accountability because the posters >> are employees, or students, of the host site's administration. With public >> access sites, there is virtually no implied restraint. > > There clearly isn't in a commercial environment either, or at least nobody > censored your post, did they? > What would you Canadians do without government intervention? The points raised are real: Public access sites can add good participants to the net, but they can also add some real garbage users to.. JJ is an example of the latter. With one set of postings he's managed to create a near forest-fire within the USENET newsgrops. Being involved in discussions a few months ago about starting a public access system, one of my biggest worries about giving users access to usenet was the possibility of getting a user like JJ who manages to just insert garbage into the datastream. If JJ had posted his note from a work site chances are he would have been fired. He could have been similarly chastised if he posted from an institutional site. However, on a paid system, he just looks like a VISA number and all you can do is cut him off. USENET is a wonderful system, but it DOES eat resources. I would feel a bit guilty about taking money to give someone like JJ free reign to cause the furor he had and, although it's almost impossible to stop ALL abuse, a system that takes in money for USENET does owe it to the rest of the net to at least TRY to filter out some of the worst of it (without unduly limiting legitimate use). It's a minefield. -- ------------- Stephen Samuel Disclaimer: You betcha! {ihnp4,ubc-vision,mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve BITNET: USERZXCV@UOFAMTS
timim@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tim Lorello) (06/17/88)
Would it be possible to move this pro/anti Canadian/American discussion to some other newsgroup please. I don't believe comp.misc is the correct forum. "comp" does stand for "computers" after all - right? I believe there are a number of other news groups dealing with politics. The comments seen recently are very volatile and just asking for rebuttal. All well and good - just, somewhere else. Please? Tim Lorello AT&T Bell Laboratories
becker@ziebmef.uucp (Bruce Becker) (06/18/88)
In article <3939@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> max@trinity.UUCP (Max Hauser) writes: >In article <113@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >| In article <386@blic.BLI.COM> ruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) writes: >| >While Canada is no Utopia, I assure you they see a lot less of government >| >intervention than we do. Their news isn't censored to give an unbelievable >| >pro-American slant on all international issues, ... >| >| I fail to see any pro-American slant in news reporting in this country ... > >Exactly. Try looking at american news from a Canadian perspective sometime. I don't think american news is "censored", it is just "managed" along the lines of the current US belief system... not everyone shares those beliefs. Cheers, Bruce Becker UUCP: ...!ncrcan!ziebmef!becker!bdb, ...!utai!lsuc!humvax!becker BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (06/18/88)
In article <5482@ihlpg.ATT.COM> timim@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tim Lorello) writes: >"comp" does stand for "computers" after all - right? Apparently not...see comp.women. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! | adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Birthright Party '88: let's get spaced!
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (06/19/88)
In article <1988Jun17.172408.17658@ziebmef.uucp> becker@ziebmef.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes: >In article <113@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >| In article <386@blic.BLI.COM> ruthb@blic.BLI.COM (Ruth Bevan) writes: >| >While Canada is no Utopia, I assure you they see a lot less of government >| >intervention than we do. Their news isn't censored to give an unbelievable >| >pro-American slant on all international issues, ... >| >| I fail to see any pro-American slant in news reporting in this country ... >Try looking at american news from a Canadian perspective sometime. >I don't think american news is "censored", it is just "managed" along the >lines of the current US belief system... not everyone shares those beliefs. Ruth Bevan's posting (which I hadn't kept around, but which is sufficiently completely quoted above) clearly implies that U.S. news is "censored" by means of "government intervention". While I stand by what I said about an anti-American slant in the US media, because that's what I have observed, I admit that others may be reading other papers, magazines, TV stations, etc, and come away with a different opinion. I will also grant that the American media are largely indifferent to the rest of the world, but that's not quite the same issue. My main objection was to the charge of government censorship, which is a far cry from editorial decisions based on the owner's or editor's beliefs. I still maintain that it is slanderous and rude to imply that a newspaper's or other medium's editorial stance is due to censorship or other insidious outside pressures, even if Ms. Bevan feels that this makes me rude and slanderous. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
timim@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tim Lorello) (06/20/88)
I am really getting tired of this Canada/American news censorship topic. It is about as far off the original topic as you can get and is entirely inappropriate for this newsgroup. PLEASE CAN THE DISCUSSION!! If you choose to continue talking about this drivel, then at LEAST have the decency to change the SUBJECT LINE!!! That way I can hit the "n" key (and probably would not be as offended as I obviously am). I tried to ask you folks politely. It seems that politeness is often ineffectual on the net. Tim Lorello AT&T Bell Laboratories (All future responses will have different subject headings - I kept the heading the same this time to try to catch those who insist on taking this subject on a wild goose chase!)