TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu> (05/21/91)
I've received various comments -- and read the comments of others --
regarding the posting of the message sent by Randy Borow which later
caused Mr. Borow to be disciplined by his employer, AT&T. With the
rush of stuff coming to the Digest, I'm just now taking a few minutes
to type in a response to what is obviously a valid question.
First, as of Monday, May 20, Randy has * NOT * been fired. He remains
in a state of limbo while the union continues to grieve. Two stages in
this process will be dealt with on Tuesday, May 21. Then, a third
appeal process can get underway should the events of Tuesday go
against Randy.
As a practical matter, review of messages submitted to TELECOM Digest
and a decision to use them or not can only receive about fifteen
seconds of my time per message. I scan the message, detirmine if it
is at least somewhat telecom-related; if editing will be a problem; if
the topic is useful and has not been 'talked to death' in recent
issues; and that it does not contain obviously 'illegal' information
-- that is, information which could be specifically used to defraud,
harass or otherwise violate the rights of a telephone company or
computer site, etc. I don't always make the same choices others would
make, but I try to present a reasonable cross-mix of ideas, attitudes
and news items. If I get a heavy load of submissions on one topic as
replies, then you get a heavy load of the same, to keep what appears
in the Digest reasonably consistent with what I actually receive.
With about a hundred submissions daily (of which 30-40 make it into
the group), spending even fifteen seconds each is an extravagance at
times, but there has to be *some* monitoring of what is used and what
isn't, to keep the group useful for readers and from getting unweildy
in size ... its almost that way now!
In Randy's case, I spent 45 minutes thinking about it! I passed him
over in the queue a couple times that evening, and tossed around my
own feelings on the matter, then reached these conclusions:
I am a Moderator/Facilitator/Editor/List Maintainer and jack of
all trades when the software is broken/net gets sluggish person.
I am not your personal savior, or anyone else's.
If Randy or anyone else wants to commit an act of virtual suicide
on my doorstep, there is little I can do to stop it, i.e.
A message I reject could just as easily go in any number of
unmoderated groups where telemarketing and privacy have been
discussed in recent days/weeks such as telecom-priv, or
misc.consumers, or alt.I.hate.the.telecom.moderator, or
many others. If I did not run his message, it would go in some
other group -- or maybe not. How can we second-guess this?
If I refuse a message, I run the risk of having many netters
call me a Facist Censor or worse ... and some of the same
people who now say I *should* have censored Randy are the
same people who on other occassions have said I should *not*
have censored someone else. I guess it depends on whose oxe is
being gored.
Basically, the message was good, and interesting. I knew from my first
reading -- the first fifteen second allotment given to it -- that the
message fitted in quite well with an existing thread. If it is going
to appear somewhere -- if Randy lacked the good judgment required to
keep such a message to himself -- then it might as well appear here. I
like good messages and controversial topics of discussion as much as
anyone else.
As I thought it over further, I tried to decide a few things:
Is this message *really* revealing anything that a dedicated
researcher could not find on his own? A few things, perhaps,
but nothing of any real consequence. After all, Randy did not
include complete phone numbers of people called; he did not
include the actual names of the people at the company who pay
the bills; he did not reveal the cost of their service. He did say
things that a person with a Caller-ID box could find on their own
regarding which trunks the company used for various types of calls,
and he did reveal some things that he learned from a conversation
with the people at the company itself.
Will this message in some way give impetus to readers who might
defraud AT&T or a local telco? Nothing like that was in the
message. No credit card PINS, etc appeared in the message.
Will this harass the company involved? No. How could one harass
or harm the company by knowing (for example) which line they use
for outgoing calls from 'customer service'?
Am I bound by any contractual agreements with AT&T or other telcos
in the way their employees are bound? No.
Don't assume for a minute I will run a message which could cause the
Digest itself to become embroiled in a legal dispute or a criminal
action. I've got enough problems this century without having to argue
with an AT&T lawyer about something. I refuse to jeopardize myself,
first of all, my hosts at Northwestern University second, or the
various other sites which carry TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom by
posting a message which could be the basis for one or more of us
getting sued, raided, arrested, etc. Randy's message did not fall
into this category in any way.
Then there was another consideration. A few months ago we had a
discussion on this very topic in the Digest: telco employees who
reveal confidential company information, and what happens to them.
Admittedly, that discussion involved 'for profit' transactions, and
this recent matter involves nothing other than an over-zealous
correspondent of the Digest. I pointed out back then that time after
time, telco has guarded the privacy of their subscribers closely.
Telco usually takes great umbrage at the release of information which
is considered confidential.
I think in that series of messages, a Moderator's Note said that
people of higher rank (in retrospect) than Randy soon found themselves
out of a job ... out on their ass! ... when they broke certain
cardinal rules, one of which pertains to violations of trust where
confidential records are concerned.
So Randy Borow provided an excellent object lesson for readers; an
example for telco employees.
Who got Randy disciplined?
I didn't get him disciplined. All I did was mirror or relate what
he said ... supposedly what a Moderator is to do. That is
what you pay me to do, no? His message was not repetitive, not
illegal (in the context of my use), not grossly inaccurate, not
a flame ... should I have saved him from himself? I am not in
the habit of doing it for others -- why Randy Borow?
AT&T didn't get him disciplined. The American Telephone and
Telegraph Company (as a corporate entity) hardly knows TELECOM
Digest exists; there are numerous employees reading the Digest,
but who did the first complaints come from: why, from a couple
readers right here, of course ... readers who make a habit of
flaming loud and noisily when he dislikes something printed here.
With that as the mesage which primed the new thread, of course AT&T
had to respond.
Maybe some of you who so 'graciously' saw to it that AT&T got
flooded with print copies of the message from Randy, to
'make sure they did not miss seeing it' helped get Randy in trouble.
Randy got himself in trouble. Randy is a big boy, and knows all the
rules. He broke the rules, albiet without meaning to, and without any
profit or personal motive whatsoever. For that reason, I think
dismissal is probably too harsh. He needs to have his hands slapped
officially, with a note in his file about this incident. Perhaps a
demotion, or a penalty of some sort -- other than discharge from
employment -- is warranted. His employer will make the decision after
negotiations with the union and Randy.
Would I run the message now, knowing what I do about the results? Yes,
I probably would. My allegiance is not to AT&T or the telcos. It is to
the TELECOM Digest: to try and present the best electronic journal I
can, with the resources and skills available to me.
I am not Randy Borow's personal savior, or yours. What you tell me I
will print if I find it interesting and/or think others will find it
interesting. Whatever is not to be printed should clearly indicate
that request in the message itself.
Please direct follow-ups on this to telecom-priv@pica.army.mil.
Patrick Townson