tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/24/85)
Ordinarily, posting private correspondence is strictly verboten, unless the person who sent the message consents. There are exceptions to any taboo, though. If someone has been using the privacy of the correspondence as a tool to harass or conspire against another person, then the target of conspiracy or harassment is justified in revealing this by whatever means he or she deems appropriate, including publically revealing the evidence. If a person admits some illegal intent in a private message, the receiver (or anyone else who comes across it) is justified in revealing this as well. Such cases are extremely unusual, this being a largely civilized world. I should mention that these are merely my opinions. There is no formal standard accepted by the net at large on this issue. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) (02/26/85)
To post an alternate view -- there is nothing any more "private" about
email correspondence than a direct posting. If you say something in a
"private" email message that you wouldn't say in a group of 100 strangers
you are crazy or don't realy believe what you say. It should be assumed
that the receiver has the RIGHT to summarize EMAIL replies to the net on
any topic.
So - from my view point - if your uncomfortable with someone else hearing
any trash you put in some EMAIL message -- don't write it in the first place.
If you do feel strongly enough to write something -- then you had better
be PROUD of it if ends up public.
This should be common sense, but too many people use EMAIL as a shield in
dealing with people. Many reponses I've seen would have never been given
verbally (either over the phone or face to face) by a rational person.
BTW: some sites have (atleast in the past) used a "spy mode" in forwarding
mail -- as I remember their was some todo about rand doing this 6 years
or so ago because of internal security requirments. also some mail
tends to endup in a dead-letter action file on some sites for human
handling.
--
John Bass
DMS Design (System Performance and Arch Consultants)
{dual,fortune,idi,hpda}!dmsd!bass (408) 996-0557franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (02/26/85)
In article <286@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >Ordinarily, posting private correspondence is strictly verboten, unless the >person who sent the message consents. There are exceptions to any taboo, >though. If someone has been using the privacy of the correspondence as a >tool to harass or conspire against another person, then the target of >conspiracy or harassment is justified in revealing this by whatever means he >or she deems appropriate, including publically revealing the evidence. If a >person admits some illegal intent in a private message, the receiver (or >anyone else who comes across it) is justified in revealing this as well. >Such cases are extremely unusual, this being a largely civilized world. >Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center Thank you, Big Brother. By the way, are you the system manager (or do you have root privileges) for your machine? I want to make sure that I NEVER send anything through your site. Private mail should be PRIVATE. By the way, I am very happy that you have the "moral superiority" to make hard choices about what messages to reveal. If a teacher at a high-school somewhere makes a statement over the net that he is gay are you going to write a letter to that state's Department of Education if it is illegal for a gay to teach in that state? How do YOU make the decision as to what is dangerous enough to report? WHO are YOU to make such a decision? I used to think that most people were fair minded and (for the most part) minded their own business. When people start advocating opening another person's mail I'm not so sure. I hope Mr. Maroney rethinks his Gestapo/ Stalinist tactics, before he happens upon a root password for his system. Thanks for 1984, Tim... faa - mfotn
david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (02/27/85)
Mr. Bass suggests that there is nothing more private about electronic mail
than there is about posting an article. I disagree. By the same argument,
there is nothing more private about a single sheet of paper, folded and
stapled shut, left on my boss's chair than there is about a sheet of paper
on a bulletin board.
However the single sheet, folded and stapled, is intended by the sender to
be more private. If it were meant to be public, it would have been so
posted. Senders of E-mail have a reasonable expectation that their mail
will remain private. They do not have an absolute guaranntee: after all,
the networks are not encrypted nor is the software secure. However, I
believe that participants in electronic mail networks have a moral obligation
to respect the intended privacy of >private< letters. Morals are, of course,
made up by groups of people. If enough people disagree with my view of
e-mail privacy, then, by my previous description of morals, my view is wrong.
Is that clear? Or are the waters getting steadily murkier?
Another example of Mr. Bass's argument, translated to a different communications
medium is that of the telephone call versus a public address system. By Mr.
Bass's argument, wire-tapping is perfectly ok because it uses the same
medium (copper wire, 24 gauge) as the public address system.
Given the obvious fallacy of this approach and assuming Mr. Bass is an
intelligent person, I am probably mis-interpreting his argument. If I am,
others are. Mr. Bass, would you care to post a clarification of your
argument?
[Usual disclaimer.] {Good enough is perfect.}tim@conejo.UUCP (James T. Kehres) (02/28/85)
In article <162@dmsd.UUCP> bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) writes: >To post an alternate view -- .... > >.... It should be assumed >that the receiver has the RIGHT to summarize EMAIL replies to the net on >any topic. > >So - from my view point - if your uncomfortable with someone else hearing >any trash you put in some EMAIL message -- don't write it in the first place. >If you do feel strongly enough to write something -- then you had better >be PROUD of it if ends up public. > > ..... > >-- >John Bass >DMS Design (System Performance and Arch Consultants) >{dual,fortune,idi,hpda}!dmsd!bass (408) 996-0557 I think that you made a very good point regarding the contents of EMAIL messages, however I have to disagree with you about posting EMAIL on the net. The reason for this is that it is very easy (intentional or not), for the poster to post a quote that would be taken out of context. To quote an entire message is probably safe, but usually not good practice on the net. If a message is posted, the sender should be consulted prior to posting. Tim Kehres Conejo Office Systems San Jose, California {amd,intelca,nsc,sun,pesnta,twg}!conejo!tim (408) 286-5170 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jay@unm-la.UUCP (02/28/85)
> To post an alternate view -- there is nothing any more "private" about > email correspondence than a direct posting. If you say something in a > "private" email message that you wouldn't say in a group of 100 strangers > you are crazy or don't realy believe what you say. It should be assumed > that the receiver has the RIGHT to summarize EMAIL replies to the net on > any topic. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I guess I should have been more specific (tr verbose) in my original question. If someone posts an article seeking responses, there is probably an implication that mailed responses will be summarized or quoted in a followup. I assume that, lacking a specific request by the sender to *not* do so, there is also an implied consent to such publication. Anyone disagree? That, however, isn't the question I intended to ask. I meant to ask about the publication of private correspondence from one individual to another which was not initiated by a public request for responses and, presumably, with no corresponding implication that the reply is intended for publication. > So - from my view point - if your uncomfortable with someone else hearing > any trash you put in some EMAIL message -- don't write it in the first place. > If you do feel strongly enough to write something -- then you had better > be PROUD of it if ends up public. In private correspondence, I often assume some common understanding of context between myself and the recipient. In broadcasting, my assumptions are likely to be quite different. In either case, I try to say what I mean in a way that will be understood by my audience. It's hard to do that when I don't know who the audience is. I like to know when I am in a room with 100 strangers. Pride isn't involved. -- Jay Plett {{ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax, lanl}!unm-la!jay
zben@umd5.UUCP (03/02/85)
Sometimes I wonder whether it is worth it... In article <422@hercules.UUCP> franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) writes: >In article <286@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >>Ordinarily, posting private correspondence is strictly verboten, unless the >>person who sent the message consents. There are exceptions to any taboo, >>though. If someone has been using the privacy of the correspondence as a >>tool to harass or conspire against another person, then the target of >>conspiracy or harassment is justified in revealing this by whatever means he >>or she deems appropriate, including publically revealing the evidence. If a >>person admits some illegal intent in a private message, the receiver (or >>anyone else who comes across it) is justified in revealing this as well. > Note two cases here, the RECIPIENT makes the message public, and the "anyone else who comes across it" makes it public. I think the respondent in high-flame mode, forgot the differance. I think the RECIPIENT has the moral right (subject to his respect for SENDER) to make the information public. If he respects SENDER, he will keep it private. If SENDER is using it against RECIPIENT then RECIPIENT has right of self defense. "Anyone else who comes across it" has moral responsability to keep it private. But, if there is ILLEGAL INTENT (see above, criminal intent) then "anyone" is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to report it to authorities. Don't get into the moral <-> legal conflict here, thats the whole story behind the sanctuary movement. Sometimes ya gotta choose. And live by the choice. > >Thank you, Big Brother. By the way, are you the system manager (or do you >have root privileges) for your machine? I want to make sure that I NEVER >send anything through your site. Private mail should be PRIVATE. By the >way, I am very happy that you have the "moral superiority" to make hard >choices about what messages to reveal. If a teacher at a high-school >somewhere makes a statement over the net that he is gay are you going to >write a letter to that state's Department of Education if it is illegal >for a gay to teach in that state? How do YOU make the decision as to what >is dangerous enough to report? WHO are YOU to make such a decision? > As I state above, its a legal requirement to report known crimes - otherwise you have committed THE CRIME (can be charged as an "accessory after the fact"). I feel that a legal requirement to do something can raise a self-defense release from a matter of "courtesy" like mail privacy... > >I used to think that most people were fair minded and (for the most part) >minded their own business. When people start advocating opening another >person's mail I'm not so sure. I hope Mr. Maroney rethinks his Gestapo/ >Stalinist tactics, before he happens upon a root password for his system. > (This sort of ad-homenium stuff belongs in net.flame where we can ignore it.) The keys are the distiction between "recipient" and "anybody", and the three different levels by which we coerce human behaviour: CUSTOMS, MORALS, and LAWS. -- Ben Cranston ...seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!zben zben@umd2.ARPA
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/02/85)
Me hassle gays for teaching? Hoo boy, have you got the wrong guy! And the revealer of the Pentagon Papers was a Stalinist for making a moral judgment as to what private correspondence he had a right to reveal? In the absolutist terms you have stated it, there can be no other classification for him. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/02/85)
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: > Ordinarily, posting private correspondence is strictly verboten, unless the > person who sent the message consents. There are exceptions to any taboo, > though. If someone has been using the privacy of the correspondence as a > tool to harass or conspire against another person, ... > Such cases are extremely unusual, this being a largely civilized world. franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) replies in this vein: > Thank you, Big Brother. ...Private mail should be PRIVATE. ... > ... WHO are YOU to make such a decision? ... I hope Mr. Maroney > rethinks his Gestapo/Stalinist tactics, before he happens upon a root > password for his system. Well, Frank, Tim may be too modest to mention it, but as those of us who were on the net last summer know, he appears to have been a *victim* of "Stalinist tactics" in the past. He posted a series of long articles of correspondence between himself and various people at UNC, where he then was, and they made a prima facie case to the effect that some UNC faculty members conspired to censor him off the net; he says it is because of his religious views. (I don't state things any more positively than that because UNC chose never to reply, and the correspondence might have been misconstrued or even forged. However, I'm inclined to believe Tim.) He said, as I recall, that he felt justified in posting the email because he got it all from generally-readable files and because of the importance of the case ... and I'm inclined to agree with that too. Your turn, I think, Tim. Mark Brader
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (03/03/85)
Seems to me that sending EMAIL (assumings its not encrypted) is almost
exactly analogous to sending a postcard. Normally one would expect the
message to just be read by the addressee but there is nothing to stop any
person (or computer) that "handles" the message along the way from
reading. Thus if the message is libelous, you could be sued without the
addressee having to produce any particular other person who saw the
message, in the same way you can be sued for a libelous postcard.
On the original point, though, I think the originator of an individually
addressed piece of EMAIL would own the copyright on it and particularly
if they made it clear they did not want it published, could register
their copyright and sue for infringement.
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deegregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (03/03/85)
> From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) > He said, as I recall, that he felt justified in posting the email because > he got it all from generally-readable files and because of the importance > of the case ... and I'm inclined to agree with that too. Your turn, I > think, Tim. So that means that if I find some unprotected correspondence about me that I can feel free to post it to whomever I want? Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Just be- cause it's not protected doesn't mean it is for public viewing. If he thought the evidence was so important, he should have taken some legal action against UNC, but it was a definite mistake to post the correspondence. -- ... hey, we've gotta get out of this place, there's got to be something better than this ... Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpa
wcs@ho95b.UUCP (Bill Stewart) (03/07/85)
Frank "Jump the Gun" Adrian seems to have done it again. Is this discussion about "Finding Person A's mail to Person B and posting it", or about "Posting your own correspondence with Person A". Obviously, the first practice is offensive and deserves labels like "Stalinist"; I don't think any of us but Framk have been talking about that. The real issue is whether it's OK to post your own correspondence with someone. In my opinion; it's situation-dependent. Normally, it's courteous to ask first, but it's not uncommon to post things like "Joe Expert told me it works like this" without getting the correspondent's permission first. In Tim Maroney's case, he had been having a long argument with his supervision about whether or not they were censoring him; it was quite reasonable for him to post this relatively personal correspondence, and (I assume) there was *no way* he would get permission if he asked. Bill Stewart ihnp4!ho95c!wcs (P.S. I shouted "Hey, Tim" but he didn't answer.)
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (03/09/85)
I don't understand why just making public something which was intended to
be or perhaps should be confidential is called Stalinist. Seems to me it
would be a lot more Stalinist to fabricate fake messages attributed to
someone or to make some things public while maintaining the secrecy of
others by force or terror.
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!dee