maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) (06/13/88)
In article <1101@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: > >The problem is not the posting itself, but the fact that these postings can >get onto the net so easily. [. . .] >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? > >Censorship? Perhaps, but we must create accountability. If these articles >had been truly seditious, or incitement to whatever, who would have been >responsible? Seditious? Incitement? What century or country are you living in? The net thrives on the unfettered flow of information, the presumption, as in valued American constitutional freedoms (such as press, speech, religion), being that the exercise of freedom is encouraged, and one restricts it only when grievous general harm has been or almost certainly will be done. (I don't pretend to understand the legal subtleties of such things, but I think my summary accurately catches the general tone of the thing.) Ask yourself whether "JJ" the would-be con man did any such harm. He irritated the hell out of many people, myself included, and he certainly "wasted bandwidth." We can stand the irritation more than we can stand any schemes to curtail freedom of expression, and bandwidth *exists to be wasted*. In fact, the swift resolution of the affair without the necessity for massive net.interference represents the strongest possible testimonial that the net *can* police itself. >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. >The whole thing is a major incident waiting to happen! Only if people run about in a state of panic demanding off with malefactors' heads. >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. I know. It's fabulous, an unprecedented set of opportunities for anyone who can afford the small fees for a Portal account. What I would like to see is *free* access for anyone who can get it together to lay hands on a terminal and modem. >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? How about we keep our heads? What makes the net--whether USENET, BITNET, or any other past, present or future nets--an intellectually stimulating and rewarding place to hang out is its incredible diversity in an environment of almost total freedom. Max Weber talked about an inevitable diminishing of organizational openness and excitement using the phrase "routinization of charisma." Old-timer hackers have seen enough of it already (that's not me, folks; I'm just reciting what I've heard and read, as in Levy's _Hackers_). It will continue: i.e., the net's arteries *will* harden with age and custom, and wizened old CRT-blind C programmers will sit around and talk about the great flame wars of the old days, and more importantly, about the way questions and answers and comments mixed into a worldwide and wide open intellectual stew. No need to accelerate the process; especially no need to do so because of one exceeding nitwit who didn't even have the rudimentary con man savvy to make his hustle slick and unobtrusive as possible.
larry@pdn.UUCP (Larry Swift) (06/17/88)
In article <556@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: >The net thrives on the unfettered flow of information ... > ... It's fabulous, an unprecedented set of opportunities > ... How about we keep our heads? Hear! Hear! Larry Swift UUCP: uunet!pdn!larry Paradyne Corp., LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-8605 P. O. Box 2826 Largo, FL, 34649-9981 She's old and she's creaky, but she holds!