imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) (05/29/91)
Take a look in rec.games.trivial.<12520@uwm.edu>. I really wanted to cancel this article, but I didn't. So this brought to mind the following question: When, if ever, is it ethically OK to cancel an article posted by someone else? Warner -- Warner Losh imp@Solbourne.COM But there's no need for turning back cus all roads lead to where I stand. And I believe I've walked them all, no matter what I may have planned.
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May28.200304.25371@solbourne.com> imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes: > >Take a look in rec.games.trivial.<12520@uwm.edu>. > For that matter, take a look at a bunch of other articles with message-id ending in 'uwm.edu>'. The same jerk posted to multiple groups. >I really wanted to cancel this article, but I didn't. So this brought >to mind the following question: So did I. But I wrote an email complaint to {usenet,Postmaster}@uwm.edu instead. I haven't seen any action or response though. > When, if ever, is it ethically OK to cancel an article posted > by someone else? Not wanting to destroy the evidence of a possible illegality, I just made the local copies I could find publically unreadable. -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
wjb@cogsci (05/29/91)
In article <1991May28.200304.25371@solbourne.com> imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes: > >Take a look in rec.games.trivial.<12520@uwm.edu>. Couldn't find it on my system... >I really wanted to cancel this article, but I didn't. So this brought >to mind the following question: > > When, if ever, is it ethically OK to cancel an article posted > by someone else? 1. When you are the purported author of the article and it is in fact a forgery. 2. If you are the moderator of a newsgroup and someone forges an "Approved:" header in order to post to the newsgroup. 3. When the original author of the article is incapable of doing so and asks you to do so. The following might be reasonable... 1. When you are the administrator of the site on which the posting originated, and you believe it to be illegal or a forgery for some reason. Preferably you would contact the original author and have them do so. Basically, I don't think you should ever cancel someone else's article. In particular, the content (unless illegal) is not germane. Even when you think it is illegal, I'm not sure that you should cancel it. Removing it from your system and making sure that you don't forward it on should (hopefully) eliminate any liability that you might be concerned about. You may not know the circumstances of the posting and it may in fact be legal. If you leave the entry in your history file, it will be discarded if you receive it again from another newsfeed. Of course, flaming er, "contacting" the original author is a time honored USENET tradition... Bill Bogstad BTW, Postings from "thor@valhalla.mil" are not "forgeries"...
sven@cs.widener.edu (Sven Heinicke) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May28.200304.25371@solbourne.com> imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes:
Date: 28 May 91 20:03:04 GMT
When, if ever, is it ethically OK to cancel an article posted
by someone else?
I would think that if the article realy should of been stopped and it
got posted that the poster would get enough flames. But if the posed
wan canceled that that person will never learn his lesson and may post
a bad post again.
--
sven@cs.widener.edu Widener CS system manager
Sven Mike Heinicke and Student
(pssmheinicke@cyber.widener.edu (if you must))jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) (05/29/91)
From article <1991May28.203704.5535@mp.cs.niu.edu>, by rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert): > In article <1991May28.200304.25371@solbourne.com> imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes: >> >>Take a look in rec.games.trivial.<12520@uwm.edu>. > For that matter, take a look at a bunch of other articles with message-id > ending in 'uwm.edu>'. The same jerk posted to multiple groups. > >>I really wanted to cancel this article, but I didn't. So this brought >>to mind the following question: I wouldn't have minded if you did. > So did I. But I wrote an email complaint to {usenet,Postmaster}@uwm.edu > instead. I haven't seen any action or response though. Hey, Neil! Give us a break, eh? :-) Your message came in over lunch break -- and it _does_ take a _little_ time to process these things. (Your e-mail message arrived here at 1759 GMT, I answered it at 1843 GMT.) >>When, if ever, is it ethically OK to cancel an article posted by someone else? > > Not wanting to destroy the evidence of a possible illegality, I just made > the local copies I could find publically unreadable. Anyway, here's the story. A "newbie" user posted the article. He has been 'instructed' that this is Not Good. He has also learned how to cancel his own articles! In addition to having a simmering (nay, boiling) mailbox, he has had the Fear of the Lord put into him by all you kind people who sent him gentle missives. :-) ["Put him behind bars!" "Deep fry him!" My, my, my... such gentle persuasions you folks suggest. :-)] It took a little while for the cancels to be sent out as he had a) to learn how to do it, and b) do it from the two machines the articles were posted from. (Seems like rn [or whatever] is a little picky about ensuring the cancel is being done by the original poster. We don't want people _forging_ cancel messages now, do we? :-) ) On our local systems, all the offending messages are gone -- as far as I can tell. The cancel messages are on their way to the outside world, so stay calm. Here is the list of groups the person told me he sent the message to: general uwm.general milw.general wi.general * news.annouce.important news.misc news.newsites news.stargate * comp.archives comp.mail.misc comp.mail.elm rec.gambling # alt.cult.movies rec.aviation sci.electronics sci.misc rec.music.misc comp.terminals comp.periphs * news.lists rec.games.trivia rec.games.misc rec.misc soc.misc soc.college * - moderated groups -- presumably the moderator will kill the posting. # - This may or may not be his spelling. Anyway, no offending message in this group (alt.cult-movies) either. If there are any we missed, feel free to zap them on sight -- but please send me a note indicating what the additional group is. Thanks, and sorry for the annoyance. -- John G Dobnick (JGD2) -- News Janitor Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) (05/29/91)
From article <SVEN.91May28183105@shirley.cs.widener.edu>, by sven@cs.widener.edu (Sven Heinicke): > > I would think that if the article realy should of been stopped and it > got posted that the poster would get enough flames. But if the posed > wan canceled that that person will never learn his lesson and may post > a bad post again. Oh, he got *F*L*A*M*E*D* all right. From all sides. We have a very contrite user here at the moment. -- John G Dobnick (JGD2) -- News Janitor Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) (05/29/91)
When should someone else's article be cancelled? From article <28.May.91.165820.60@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>, by <somebody>: > 1. When you are the administrator of the site on which the posting > originated, and you believe it to be illegal or a forgery for some > reason. Preferably you would contact the original author and have > them do so. [Which is what happened in this case -- contacted user and had him cancel his own stuff. An "educational" procedure, if you will.] > Basically, I don't think you should ever cancel someone else's article. In > particular, the content (unless illegal) is not germane. Even when you > think it is illegal, I'm not sure that you should cancel it. Removing it > from your system and making sure that you don't forward it on should > (hopefully) eliminate any liability that you might be concerned about. You > may not know the circumstances of the posting and it may in fact be legal. > If you leave the entry in your history file, it will be discarded if you > receive it again from another newsfeed. Of course, flaming er, "contacting" > the original author is a time honored USENET tradition... [Which was more than upheld in this instance. :-) :-)] > Bill Bogstad > > BTW, Postings from "thor@valhalla.mil" are not "forgeries"... -- John G Dobnick (JGD2) -- News Janitor Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
randy@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush) (05/29/91)
imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes: > When, if ever, is it ethically OK to cancel an article posted > by someone else? When it is illegal material, i.e. credit card numbers, ... -- randy@psg.com ..!uunet!m2xenix!randy
de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (05/29/91)
In article <12569@uwm.edu>, jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes: > >Anyway, here's the story. A "newbie" user posted the article. He >has been 'instructed' that this is Not Good. He has also learned >how to cancel his own articles! In addition to having a simmering >(nay, boiling) mailbox, he has had the Fear of the Lord put into him >by all you kind people who sent him gentle missives. :-) > >["Put him behind bars!" "Deep fry him!" My, my, my... such gentle >persuasions you folks suggest. :-)] Could somebody please describe `the article', for those who missed it? >If there are any we missed, feel free to zap them on sight -- but >please send me a note indicating what the additional group is. Kinda hard, unless you know what to look for. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) It will be a great day when our schools have Martin Marietta Energy Systems all the money they need and the Air Force Workstation Support has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.
dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) (05/29/91)
In <1991May29.120232.16294@cs.utk.edu> de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) writes: >Could somebody please describe `the article', for those who missed it? It was a chain letter asking for money - you know, the "send $5 to the top person on the list and put your name on the bottom" scam. I mailed back a copy of the letter to the poster with my name in all 10 positions. I haven't received any money yet, but I'm hoping... -- David F. Skoll
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (05/29/91)
In article <12569@uwm.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <1991May28.203704.5535@mp.cs.niu.edu>, by rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert): >> In article <1991May28.200304.25371@solbourne.com> imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes: >>>I really wanted to cancel this article, but I didn't. So this brought >>>to mind the following question: > >> So did I. But I wrote an email complaint to {usenet,Postmaster}@uwm.edu >> instead. I haven't seen any action or response though. > >Hey, Neil! Give us a break, eh? :-) Your message came in over >lunch break -- and it _does_ take a _little_ time to process these >things. (Your e-mail message arrived here at 1759 GMT, I answered it >at 1843 GMT.) I guess one has to be REALLY careful about what one says. I suppose, in retrospect, I should have added a 'yet' to the end of my sentence on not having seen a response. Still, if I had added a 'yet' this would have suggested I was complaining. My intention was only to report an alternative to cancelling an article that originated elsewhere. In terms of time, I wrote to you at 1758 GMT. My posting was at 20:37 GMT. I saw the first cancellation at 20:47 GMT, with a posting date of 20:43 GMT. Other cancellations trickled through in the afternoon. In general, this was handled well by uwm.edu. I am gratified that my letter was "answered at 1843 GMT". Unfortunately I still have not seen this answer. If I had seen it by the time of my earlier posting, I am sure my wording would have been different. -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) (05/30/91)
In article <12570@uwm.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes:
"
"Oh, he got *F*L*A*M*E*D* all right. From all sides. We have a very
"contrite user here at the moment.
"
Thats a shame. Some people just don't know how to handle flamers. If
he got harassing e-mail, he should contact the sender's sysop and the
feed site of the system from which the posting came.
He should respond to his flamers and let them know that he has a RIGHT
to post anything he wants. How do we solve this problem: Post flames
in public newsgroups against the offender and also put him in your
system-wide kill file.
People who own the machines on this network have the right to determine
what stuff they allow to be stored on their hard drives. On the other
hand, NO ONE has the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot post.
PERIOD..................
--
CAT-TALK Conferencing System | "Buster Bunny is an abused | E-MAIL:
+1 313 343 0800 (USR HST) | child. Trust me - I'm a | jp@Michigan.COM
+1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP) | professional..." |
********EIGHT NODES*********** | -- Roger Rabbit | jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) (05/30/91)
From article <1991May29.150925.6793@mp.cs.niu.edu>, by rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert): > In article <12569@uwm.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes: >>From article <1991May28.203704.5535@mp.cs.niu.edu>, by rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert): >>> In article <1991May28.200304.25371@solbourne.com> imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes: >>>>I really wanted to cancel this article, but I didn't. So this brought >>>>to mind the following question: >> >>> So did I. But I wrote an email complaint to {usenet,Postmaster}@uwm.edu >>> instead. I haven't seen any action or response though. >> >>Hey, Neil! Give us a break, eh? :-) Your message came in over >>lunch break -- and it _does_ take a _little_ time to process these >>things. (Your e-mail message arrived here at 1759 GMT, I answered it >>at 1843 GMT.) > > I guess one has to be REALLY careful about what one says. I suppose, in > retrospect, I should have added a 'yet' to the end of my sentence on not > having seen a response. Still, if I had added a 'yet' this would have > suggested I was complaining. My intention was only to report an alternative > to cancelling an article that originated elsewhere. Yeah, this news stuff sometimes makes the subtleties of human communication difficult. My response, which was intended to be read in a "light-hearted" tone, was merely a gentle reminder that there is a time lag in these things. > In terms of time, I wrote to you at 1758 GMT. My posting was at 20:37 GMT. > I saw the first cancellation at 20:47 GMT, with a posting date of 20:43 > GMT. Other cancellations trickled through in the afternoon. One batch of cancels went out fairly quickly. Another batch took a little while longer. I think that by about 1600 local time (2100 GMT) all the cancels had been generated on our systems. Then it was a matter of sending them on to other systems. This takes varying lengths of time, as some of our outgoing feeds are batched. (Even so, I received notice this morning that we missed a few instances of "The Message". It's being taken care of.) > > In general, this was handled well by uwm.edu. I am gratified that my letter > was "answered at 1843 GMT". Unfortunately I still have not seen this answer. > If I had seen it by the time of my earlier posting, I am sure my wording > would have been different. Thanks for the kind words. I don't know what the delay was/is in my e-mail message to you -- it's off all our systems here. I would be interested in the timestamps in the headers, when you receive it. (If you don't receive it in another day, drop me a note and I'll resend it.) We're sorry about all the 'annoyance' this has caused. Still and all, it was an _interesting_ coincidence, coming in the middle of your discussion about 'cancelling other's postings', no? :-) [Gee! A real-life *example*! :-) ] -- John G Dobnick (JGD2) -- News Janitor Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
eifrig@cs.jhu.edu (Jack Eifrig) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May29.194655.16026@solbourne.com> imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes: >He posted an article that was way out of line (one of those >pyramid schemes) that was clearly against established USENET >guidelines. It also didn't fall into the charter of the group that he >posted it to. OK, I can see it now: a call-for-votes for "rec.letters.chain". The problem isn't that his posting was "inappropriate" for the groups it appeared in, but that it was _illegal_. It constituted WIRE FRAUD!!! >>He should respond to his flamers and let them know that he has a RIGHT >>to post anything he wants. > >No, USENET is not a RIGHT. It is a PRIVILEGE that can be revoked for >abuse, just like driving a car. These kind of statements really annoy me. What do you mean, "it's a privilege"? Do you mean that only people of royal blood can drive cars or post to Usenet or some such nonsense? While I'm sure that certain elements of the government would like to think that they can revoke people's driving licenses without due process, people get very unhappy when it attempts such. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "On the other hand, groups like Planned Parenthood, the Charter Party, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization of Women, are all part of an anti-Christian network whose cause is to work for anti-Christian goals. That network is overly peopled by members of the Reform Jewish Community and men whom I believe to be Freemasons." - James J. Condit, Jr. Cincinnatus Party's perennial candidate for city council --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) (05/30/91)
In article <12569@uwm.edu>, jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes: >Anyway, here's the story. A "newbie" user posted the article. He >has been 'instructed' that this is Not Good. He has also learned >how to cancel his own articles! In addition to having a simmering >(nay, boiling) mailbox, he has had the Fear of the Lord put into him >by all you kind people who sent him gentle missives. :-) Doesn't this belong in news.admin? The base note asked about policy, which was approriate here. Perhaps it was unwise to use a specific example, because that spawned an irrelevant finger-pointing session. -- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (05/30/91)
From article <eifrig.675550113@voronoi.cs.jhu.edu>, by eifrig@cs.jhu.edu (Jack Eifrig): >>No, USENET is not a RIGHT. It is a PRIVILEGE that can be revoked for >>abuse, just like driving a car. > > These kind of statements really annoy me. What do you mean, "it's > a privilege"? Do you mean that only people of royal blood can drive cars > or post to Usenet or some such nonsense? While I'm sure that certain > elements of the government would like to think that they can revoke > people's driving licenses without due process, people get very unhappy > when it attempts such. So the problem here isn't what was done. The problem is what is considered "due process" in usenet. Use of the Usenet is definately a privilege. No one has the RIGHT to electronic mail, (even though some people I know may want Usenet to be classified as a basic human right #8-) If it is a fee based system, and you don't pay your fees, then you are kicked off the system. If you purposely violate the posted rules for proper behaviour on the system, then you are kicked off the system. This ain't no democracy. The equipment is owned and operated and paid for by the owners of the equipment. If someone is sending pyramid mail, or envolved in other activities which could result in MY machine being confiscated, then damn rights I'm going to turf the user. I run a Fidonet BBS (not a Usenet node). I have to be VERY careful about the traffic on the BBS. For example, no business messages otherwise the telephone company will consider me a "business" and charge higher rates. I also have to ensure that my board doesn't turn into a "Pirate" board. The government would be quite happy to confiscate my equipment if they thought that I was aiding a criminal in illegal activities, like violating copyright, etc. This can be as simple as two users sending mail explaining how to crack copyrighted programs, or advertising that they will give away copies of their copyrighted program to people who ask ... I handle it this way. First, there are NO anonymous postings. I verify everyone before they can post on the newsgroups or use email. That cuts down on a lot of the juvenile behaviour I see from free-for-all public access places. I also post clearly in my policies for the BBS that there is no such thing as private mail on the bbs. EVERY message can be viewed by the sysop. That is not to say that it WILL be viewed, but it gives me the right to examine mail to ensure that my BBS is not being used illegally and thus putting me and my equipment in legal danger. My users understand this, and I have had no problems. The bottom line is that to handle these situations, make sure everyone knows the rules in advance. Set a policy for your node. Make it a condition of service that before anyone gets an account, they MUST read the policy. Once that is done, then its a simple matter. If someone violates the policy, then they get disconnected. No appeals, no arguments. It's all in black and white. There is no RIGHT for ANYONE to do ANYTHING on my system. I own it, I make up the rules. I decide who can use it, I decide who can't. If my rules are too restrictive, then users can get access on another machine. So far this has worked fine. I am in no way a monopoly here. There's a lot of systems available for people to use. If my restrictions were too severe, then they have plenty other places to go. The point is that they haven't. They recognise that its my machine, and they agree that my rules are reasonable, so they keep coming back. If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a computer to control how his computer is used. Its exactly the same as the bus driver who has the right to kick anyone off the bus if they are causing a problem. Claiming that the USERS have rights to get electronic mail, no matter how badly they act, is similar to saying that bus riders have the right to steal the bus, and use it to rob a bank. If someone is trying to use MY equipment in a way *I* consider is improper, then *I* have every right to kick those people off *MY* computer. - Kevin Lowey
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: > >Use of the Usenet is definately a privilege. No one has the RIGHT to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Uhmmm, well wait a minute! I don't think that this is necessarily true. No one has the right to deny anyone else access to USENET, only to a particular machine. >I run a Fidonet BBS (not a Usenet node). I have to be VERY careful about >the traffic on the BBS. For example, no business messages otherwise the >telephone company will consider me a "business" and charge higher rates. > Then cancel any articles that come into your machine that are business related. Don't have your feed site send you the biz. and ads. groups. > [.. descriptions of rules on his bbs] >There is no RIGHT for ANYONE to do ANYTHING on my system. I own it, I make up ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You are correct. Its your box, no one can tell you how to run it. All I'm saying is that you not try to dictate your rules to other systems. If some site consistently posts stuff you don't like, put them in your system-wide killfile. > >If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a computer to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >control how his computer is used. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bravo. Again, this means of course, that you have no RIGHT to tell any other sysop what she can and cannot allow to be posted and exported from her system. Again, if you don't like the stuff coming off her system, put it in your kill-file but don't think that you have a RIGHT to TELL ANYONE ELSE what they can and cannot allow on their system. >- Kevin Lowey Also, some people are claiming that "certain things should be prohibited because they may pass through the NSFNet as it may be inappropriate for that net." I put it to you that the only way it would be legal for NSFNet to limit USENET content would be to disallow all of USENET from NSFNet facilities. Why - because NSFNet is a government funded animal. 1st Amendment says that the govt. CANNOT stifle free speech. Therefore NSFNet cannot dictate the content of USENET postings (except of course, where allowed by laws such as transmitting stolen property, some material of a purient nature, etc). NSFNet can say "USENET as a whole violates the conditions of use of the NSFNet, so off it goes.." Thats what drives many of these doomsday fanatics insane. (Iminent Death of USENET Predicted (tm)) Peace, John Palmer -- CAT-TALK Conferencing System | "Buster Bunny is an abused | E-MAIL: +1 313 343 0800 (USR HST) | child. Trust me - I'm a | jp@Michigan.COM +1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP) | professional..." | ********EIGHT NODES*********** | -- Roger Rabbit |
snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: >If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a computer to >control how his computer is used. Its exactly the same as the bus driver who >has the right to kick anyone off the bus if they are causing a problem. >Claiming that the USERS have rights to get electronic mail, no matter how >badly they act, is similar to saying that bus riders have the right to steal >the bus, and use it to rob a bank. If someone is trying to use MY equipment >in a way *I* consider is improper, then *I* have every right to kick those >people off *MY* computer. And how about the bus driver/owner who makes black people sit in the back of the bus. Clearly it is not *always* up to the owner's notion of what is "improper". You cannot restrict the activities based upon sex, race, religion, creed, etc... Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud <snicoud@boeing.com> uw-beaver!bcsaic!snicoud Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Computer Science Bellevue, Washington USA
sincoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) (05/31/91)
Concerning whether USENET/EMAIL/NEWS/etc are a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE: Does it have to be one or the other? How about neither? Or Both? Maybe it ought to be viewed it as a SERVICE, that was bought and paid-for. Consider wanting to see a movie. I pay an fee with the explicit understanding/contract that a service is provided for me. Is that a right or a privilege? I guess that once the fee is paid, I have a right to use the service under the terms upon which the fee was made. Just some idle thinking... (of course, when I start thinking, that's when I get in trouble :-) Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud <snicoud@boeing.com> uw-beaver!bcsaic!snicoud Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Computer Science Bellevue, Washington USA
jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.181628.2931@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: > All I'm >saying is that you not try to dictate your rules to other systems. this from tygra/ddmi/michigan.com ? he must be learning. -- [ Jim Mercer jim@lsuc.On.Ca || ...!uunet!attcan!lsuc!jim +1 416 947-5258 ] [ Educational Systems Manager - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, CANADA ] [ Standards are great. They give non-conformists something to not conform to. ] [ The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer ]
chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) (05/31/91)
According to jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer): >All I'm saying is that you not try to dictate your rules to other systems. Oh, so I shouldn't post netwide cancel messages? Good advice, that. >NSFNet is a government funded animal. 1st Amendment says that the govt. >CANNOT stifle free speech. ... naw. It's too easy. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> perl -e 'sub do { print "extinct!\n"; } do do()'
jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) (05/31/91)
In article <48332@bcsaic.UUCP> sincoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes: >Concerning whether USENET/EMAIL/NEWS/etc are a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE: > >Does it have to be one or the other? How about neither? Or Both? >Maybe it ought to be viewed it as a SERVICE, that was bought and >paid-for. who are you paying? you are not paying USENET. -- [ Jim Mercer jim@lsuc.On.Ca || ...!uunet!attcan!lsuc!jim +1 416 947-5258 ] [ Educational Systems Manager - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, CANADA ] [ Standards are great. They give non-conformists something to not conform to. ] [ The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer ]
tar@math.ksu.edu (Tim Ramsey) (05/31/91)
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: [ I assume this wasn't yet another forgery in your name, John? It's so hard to tell. ] [ ... ] >Thats a shame. Some people just don't know how to handle flamers. If >he got harassing e-mail, he should contact the sender's sysop and the >feed site of the system from which the posting came. >He should respond to his flamers and let them know that he has a RIGHT >to post anything he wants. How do we solve this problem: Post flames >in public newsgroups against the offender and also put him in your >system-wide kill file. Let me try to get this straight. Everyone has the RIGHT to post anything they want, be it legal or illegal. However, no one has the RIGHT to mail anything they want to a particular person. I don't get it. Why does freedom of speech extend to posting but not email? You keep using this word "RIGHT". I do not think it means what you think it means. -- Tim Ramsey/system administrator/tar@math.ksu.edu/(913) 532-6750/2-7004 (FAX) Department of Mathematics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS 66506-2602
imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May30.181628.2931@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: >Again, if you don't like the stuff coming off her system, >put it in your kill-file but don't think that you have a RIGHT to TELL >ANYONE ELSE what they can and cannot allow on their system. THIS IS WRONG. Simple examples: 1) Canceling other people's articles. You, Mr. John Palmer, are guilty of this. 2) Posting 100's or large articles that are copies of core files that you generate. 3) Postings that are illegal. If your system generates articles that are illegal, then my system may be liable for passing them on if I knew about them and didn't do anything to prevent them. I could come up with others, Mr. John Palmer, but you obviously never listen to anybody anyway. Warner -- Warner Losh imp@Solbourne.COM Free to a good home: 10,000 Miller Moths. Must promise not to breed them.
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/01/91)
In article <48330@bcsaic.UUCP> snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes: In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: >> If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of >> the owner of a computer to control how his >> computer is used. Its exactly the same as the bus >> driver who has the right to kick anyone off the >> bus if they are causing a problem. claiming that >> the USERS have rights to get electronic mail, no >> matter how badly they act, is similar to saying >> that bus riders have the right to steal the bus, >> and use it to rob a bank. If someone is trying to >> use MY equipment in a way *I* consider is >> improper, then *I* have every right to kick those >> people off *MY* computer. > And how about the bus driver/owner who makes black > people sit in the back of the bus. Clearly it is > not *always* up to the owner's notion of what is > "improper". You cannot restrict the activities > based upon sex, race, religion, creed, etc... Flawed analogy; a city bus is a public accomodation within the scope of the law, either operated or licensed to operate by government entities to whom the anti-discrimination statutes apply. These same statutes don't tell me that if I operate a church school bus I have to provide service to other than the, perhaps tuition paying, students. I have a complete right to operate a private BBS for the benefit and use, only, of the KKK, the John Birch Society, the Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation League, the Freemasons, alt.activism participants (gag!) or people whose last name starts with "D" like mine. That is _not_ a public accomodation, it is not operated or licensed as one by a government entity. and the anti-discrimination laws should not be expected to apply. No more am I required (nor is USENet required) to _fund_ your _access_ to free speech on the BBS or the net, that corresponds to your right to be safe from _laws_ _abridging_ free speech in a medium either free or voluntarily funded by other participants and provided for you. Since USENet does not have, and probably does not want, the status of a common carrier, it is at least unclear that sites like The Well, Portal, Netcom, UUNET, UUPSI, etc. are under any obligation to provide equal access to service either, though frankly, it is a bit tough to discriminate before the fact against a person you are unlikely ever to see or know much about beyond the printed word, and loss of an account once granted would quite probably be based on unprotected behavior (non-payment of subscription fees, posting of unlawful material, being a complete pain in the ass and disrupting operations for other users, etc.), not on personal characteristics subject to anti-discrimination law coverage, in any case. This means if "we" don't like you enough to toss you off the net and pull the plug on your feed, you have no _legal_ recourse; your only recourse is to correct the behavior problems that elicited such a severe response enough to gull some sucker into providing you a feed again, at probable risk to his own feed, since the net is rather long on memory and short on forgiveness. Similarly for a cancelled account; you have to find a new site that will give you one, you have no inherent right, and should have no expectation, to get the old one back by means of any legal process. Compare it to the case of newspapers, which are in no way obliged to publish your obscene and abusive letter to the editor (though if you shop around, one may), although the law is pretty strict in allowing you to fund your _own_ newspaper in which you can rave, within the limits of the libel laws, to your heart's content. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) (06/01/91)
bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes: > In <1991May29.172400.24035@tygra.Michigan.COM> > jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: > > >In article <12570@uwm.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes: > >" > >"Oh, he got *F*L*A*M*E*D* all right. From all sides. We have a very > >"contrite user here at the moment. > >" > > >Thats a shame. Some people just don't know how to handle flamers. If > >he got harassing e-mail, he should contact the sender's sysop and the > >feed site of the system from which the posting came. Perhaps the flamers should be more responsible for their own actions, & hence wouldn't need sysops to look after them. > People make misteaks, even the more experienced, and those who "should > know better". Assuming that somebody is a fool because of one error, is > extreme prejudice. Don't say that in news.admin. 8) > Never over-react. Keep your cool (or borrow some if you don't have any). > Remember, we all start out being ignorant. THe USENet learning curve is fairly steep, but any "problems" with users' articles should be dealt with promptly. Sysadmins would probably have less damage control to do if they provided more education before the fact. > >He should respond to his flamers and let them know that he has a RIGHT > >to post anything he wants. How do we solve this problem: Post flames > >in public newsgroups against the offender and also put him in your > >system-wide kill file. > > The RIGHT is not without bounds. The purposes for which the net is > provided in many places, specifically exclude commercial exploitation > (and dirty pictures). What right you have in the USA, do not follow > you wherever you go. Exactly. There has never been such a thing as absolute free speech in America, & as long as news providers, not individual posters are paying the transport cost, they have a fairly absolute right to determine what goes over their outgoing (or even transfer) newsfeed. > On average, the net community has enough sense to know when to flame, > and when to keep quiet. Flames are appropriate for persistent > offenders and thick-skinned individuals. In general, a pleasant note > saying: > "Gee, you really oughtn't do that again, > here's how to cancel that naughty article" > are more productive than a note which causes one's hair on the back > of the neck to stand on end. Flamage rarely does any good, & only serves to make people angrier & more defensive of their actions. > >People who own the machines on this network have the right to determine > >what stuff they allow to be stored on their hard drives. On the other > >hand, NO ONE has the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot post. As long as one is paying for it, it doesn't matter whether the feed is incoming, outgoing, or simply transferring, one has very nearly absolute control over the use his or her resources are put to. > But they don't have the right to forge cancellation messages. Any > system administrator, with enough brains to tie his boot laces, knows > how to eliminate unwanted articles locally, without a net-wide > cancellation. > > You, above most people, should know this from experience. Ah. John Palmer's back. THis is going to be great fun. =========================================================================== Steven S. Brack sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu ===========================================================================
sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) (06/01/91)
snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes: > In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Ke > >If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a computer to > >control how his computer is used. Its exactly the same as the bus driver wh > >has the right to kick anyone off the bus if they are causing a problem. > >Claiming that the USERS have rights to get electronic mail, no matter how > >badly they act, is similar to saying that bus riders have the right to steal > >the bus, and use it to rob a bank. If someone is trying to use MY equipment > >in a way *I* consider is improper, then *I* have every right to kick those > >people off *MY* computer. > > And how about the bus driver/owner who makes black people sit in the > back of the bus. Clearly it is not *always* up to the owner's notion > of what is "improper". You cannot restrict the activities based upon > sex, race, religion, creed, etc... And in the case of a University computer system? I could see the logic developing: The owner is in control -> the computer is owned by the university the university is owned by the taxpayers -> the taxpayers have control over the computer -> students are taxpayers -> students control what use the computers are put to. Obviously, we need a more refined model somewhere between "I run the system & make all decisions regarding it" & "The users can do anything they want on the system." How do large universitys balance student rights & their responsibility to make efficient use of computing resources? As more students go "on-line," problems of this nature will only become more vexing. =========================================================================== Steven S. Brack sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu ===========================================================================
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (06/01/91)
From article <48330@bcsaic.UUCP>, by snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud): > In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: >>If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a computer to >>control how his computer is used. Its exactly the same as the bus driver who >>has the right to kick anyone off the bus if they are causing a problem. >>Claiming that the USERS have rights to get electronic mail, no matter how >>badly they act, is similar to saying that bus riders have the right to steal >>the bus, and use it to rob a bank. If someone is trying to use MY equipment >>in a way *I* consider is improper, then *I* have every right to kick those >>people off *MY* computer. > > And how about the bus driver/owner who makes black people sit in the > back of the bus. Clearly it is not *always* up to the owner's notion > of what is "improper". You cannot restrict the activities based upon > sex, race, religion, creed, etc... Notice that I said the owner of the system has the right to set any rules he wants on that system AS LONG AS IT'S LEGAL. The situation of racial discrimination is in many places ILLEGAL, so this whole sidebar about the hypothetical racist sysop doesn't really apply to my comments. I guess we've gone full circle here. The question now is whether or not it is legal for the sysop to read mail marked as "private". I get around that on my BBS by explicitly stating to the users of my system that there is no such thing as private mail, and the sysop can and will read any message he wants to on the system. As long as people know the messages are not private, then they cannot claim that I am invading their privacy. - Kevin Lowey
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (06/01/91)
From article <qDuu34w164w@bluemoon.uucp>, by sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack): > And in the case of a University computer system? > > I could see the logic developing: > The owner is in control -> the computer is owned by the university > the university is owned by the taxpayers -> the taxpayers have > control over the computer -> students are taxpayers -> > students control what use the computers are put to. That does not really apply here. Although our university is funded partially by tax money, partially by student fees, etc, that does NOT mean that any old taxpayer has the right to use our equipment. Try telling the government that since I paid for Airforce 1, I have the right to use it to go to the lake on weekends ... The UNIVERSITY bought the equipment. The UNIVERSITY owns the equipment. The UNIVERSITY gets to say how the equipment is to be used, who can use it, and what rules these users have to follow. - Kevin Lowey
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) (06/02/91)
In article <1991May31.133325.17462@lsuc.on.ca> jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes: "In article <1991May30.181628.2931@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: "> All I'm ">saying is that you not try to dictate your rules to other systems. " "this from tygra/ddmi/michigan.com ? " "he must be learning. " No, maybe its you thats learning. I've known the right way for years, its many of the other net.users who have had a problem. Its not my problem, its their's. Period. -- CAT-TALK Conferencing System | "Buster Bunny is an abused | E-MAIL: +1 313 343 0800 (USR HST) | child. Trust me - I'm a | jp@Michigan.COM +1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP) | professional..." | ********EIGHT NODES*********** | -- Roger Rabbit |
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (06/02/91)
From article <1991May30.181628.2931@tygra.Michigan.COM>, by jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer): > > You are correct. Its your box, no one can tell you how to run it. All I'm > saying is that you not try to dictate your rules to other systems. If some > site consistently posts stuff you don't like, put them in your system-wide > killfile. > > Bravo. Again, this means of course, that you have no RIGHT to tell any > other sysop what she can and cannot allow to be posted and exported from > her system. Again, if you don't like the stuff coming off her system, > put it in your kill-file but don't think that you have a RIGHT to TELL > ANYONE ELSE what they can and cannot allow on their system. I agree 100% there. Now lets extend this a little bit. My local situation is I own some equipment that I make available for free for people to use. We agree that I get to make up the rules because I own the equipment. However, the same logic also applies to networks. In Fidonet, Usenet, or whatever, there are rules and policy guidelines layed down. For example some Fidonet newsgroups have moderators. In Usenet, a moderator is the only person permitted to post to a newsgroup. In Fidonet, its a bit different. A Fidonet moderator OWNS the newsgroup. He sets policy for the group. If a node is consistantly violating that policy, the moderator has the power to cut that node from the newsgroup. The point is that as a sysop, I have full control over how my system is used. However, the same can be said about networks. If I decide to hook my system into Usenet, then my system becomes a "User" of the Usenet system. As such, I have to follow the policies layed down by Usenet (if there are any). If I don't, then my node gets kicked out, just as I have the right to kick a user off my BBS. Similarly, Usenet sometimes is carried over telephone lines, and sometimes is carried over lines paid for by NSF, or its equivalents in other countries. Since they pay for the physical wires, they have the right to say how those wires are used. If NSF says they don't want to pay for the transfer of X rated images (alt.sex.pictures), then it doesn't have to. So even if Usenet policy says that is OK, Usenet might be forced to CHANGE its policy to fall in line with the carriers it uses, or risk losing permission to use those carriers. Its identical to how I, as a sysop may have to modify my policies to fall in line with Usenet policies if I wish to keep using Usenet. Its precisely for this reason that special laws were used to define Common Carriers like the telephone company, and control the power they had. If these laws were not in place, then the telephone company could do whatever they wanted to their wires, including restricting access to a privileged few, listening in on conversations, etc. The laws protect our privacy, and limit how much power the owners of the equipment have over the information sent over their equipment. However, those laws do not yet apply to Usenet or Fidonet, as far as I know. These are still private organizations who can make up their own rules restrict who can access the services, and dictate what the people who access the services can and cannot do. I have to admit I didn't see the original messages in this theme. It appears that a System Administrator killed a message that he knew violated Usenet policies. If that is the case, then I think he had every right to do so. If not, then he risks being cut of from Usenet for violating Usenet policy. I admit I don't know a lot about the Usenet policy. I do know more about Fidonet. There is no network wide kill-message feature on Fidonet so this exact situation wouldn't occur. Instead it would go something like this. A person posts a message in a newsgroup that the moderator deems inappropriate. The moderator would send a message to the sender expaining the rules, and telling him to stop. If the sender does not stop, then the moderator would send mail to the sysop of the node asking the Sysop to handle this person by cutting off his posting privileges. If the sysop refuses, then the moderator would tell the node feeding mail to this sysop to disconnect that newsgroup from that node ... Thus, if I saw a chain-letter or some other illegal message, or message that I know violates policy, you can be sure I'll delete it before it leaves my board (if I catch it in time) and leave a stern warning to the user envolved. - Kevin Lowey
mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan) (06/02/91)
Wait a minute ... [sorry folks -- no LONG quotes of other's messages quoting other's messages ad infinitum -- maybe you'll all emulate me? :-) ] Driving is a privilege? Posting articles is a privilege? That's a very interesting point: who decided it was a privilege? I mean, _someone_ had to start all this "news" initially, right? Now it's *everywhere* on a *lot* of systems. Ditto for vehicles: initially they were very rare and a novelty. E-mail and "news" is becoming *very* common. So, who decides to whom the privilege is given? Do individual systems administrators get to decide what they think the users of their system need to read? Is it a higher level decision? Should the *government* scan _all_ the incoming "news" to see if the views violate federal law before the "news" is forwarded to federally funded educational facilities? All the news that's fit to print? See the problem? This is a brand new area that hasn't been subjected to any kind of legal scrutiny ... --------------------------------------------------------------------- mcmahan@cs.unca.edu for those of you who think in base 2 Scott McMahan to the rest. As always: #include "stddisclaimer.h" --------------------------------------------------------------------- ^-- Look! I only signed it *once* ! :-)
mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan) (06/02/91)
In article <whichever> Kevin Lowey mentions that he runs a BBS
on which he can do whatever he pleases. This is not meant as
scarasm, just necessary to make my point: Is it equipped for
the handicapped?
Sure, if you own your *own* computer, you can do whatever you want
with it. Try denying access to a black person sometime! You are
_still_ subject to _some_ laws! If you *did* deny access, and if
the person decided to take it to court, you'd be in *hot water* .
And if you received any federal funds, and wanted to *continue*
receiving them, then you'd do what the government required when you
set your policy!
Even private things like apartment complexes owned by private business
must go along with the government (or loose a *lot* of things like
subsidized insurance, even if they don't get direct federal money) .
A bus driver employed by the *city* couldn't kick someone off his bus!
Or if Greyhound got *any* kind of federal assistance, and a driver violated
federal law, it wouldn't be cut and dried.
Usenet may be privately owned, and may set their policy,
but as I said -- if they say "No Asians have a RIGHT to use our
computers to take over America" I'll be it wouldn't be their policy
for long! :-)
*You* don't have the right to use YOUR computer if it violates the
law!
Or your bus, or whatever ...
Scary?
#include "stddisclaimer.h"
#include "signature.h"
Scott McMahan
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (06/02/91)
From article <1991Jun1.174136.6258@rock.concert.net>, by mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan): > In article <whichever> Kevin Lowey mentions that he runs a BBS > on which he can do whatever he pleases. This is not meant as > scarasm, just necessary to make my point: Is it equipped for > the handicapped? Actually, I do have files on the BBS to help ease handicapped access. I don't see what your point is here. What does handicapped access have to do with anything? Also, you missed one important part of my message. I said the people that owned the systems can set any policy they want for using that system, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T BREAK ANY LAWS. Most of the rest of your message point out situations where laws could be broken and I'd be in hot water. I agree with you 100%. However, many of the situations you mention may not be so cut and dried legally. For example, the KKK as an organization right now does not allow non WASP people to join. There is no law saying that I have to allow purple people into my organization. There are still plenty of "Men only" clubs that do not allow women to join. I disagree with this, but its a fact of life. If it applies to clubs, it certainly can apply to computer systems run by those clubs. Here's another example. My BBS is owned and operated by the University of Saskatchewan. I have a policy stating that ONLY faculty, staff, students, and alumnus of the U of S have access to it. No other person has a "right" to use my equipment. I'm not forced by law to give any joe blow off the street an account. This is not being racist or anything, its simply a matter of the person responsible for this system limiting access only to the people that he purchased the system for. I assume that a KKK bbs would similarly not be forced to provide its services to people that are not its members. Absolutely no law can tell the KKK to provide its BBS services to any individual they don't want to, because it is a PRIVATE system. Similarly, the University of Saskatchewan is not forced to provide Usenet access to our students. There is no law that says that students are entitled to accounts on our campus computers. In fact, the only way students get accounts on our mainframe is through class accounts. They can't get accounts even if they are willing to pay because we don't have the computing resources. (That's one reason I put the BBS together, so undergrads can get limited electronic mail, etc.) THAT is what I mean when I say that NO ONE has a RIGHT to usenet. Usenet as an organization can decide who gets access to it and who doesn't. If a node is constantly violating Usenet guidelines, Usenet can simply kick him out. First amendment arguments notwithstanding. All the First Amendment says is the guy has the right to say what he wants. It doesn't mean he has the right to shout it out in my back yard all night, or to violate Usenet rules constantly so he can have his say. Similarly, the owner of any computer system has the right to say who can and cannot get accounts on those computers, and which of those people can or cannot get access to Usenet. Just because you are a janitor at a company with a computer connected to Usenet, that doesn't mean you have a RIGHT to usenet. Just because you are a secretary using a word processor on the computer, that doesn't mean we MUST also give Usenet access to her, even if she asks for it. The racism arguments here are extreme cases. Sometimes they may be covered by laws, which is fine. However, if they are NOT covered by law, then there is nothing anyone can do to stop someone from doing whatever he wants on his equipment, no matter how outrageous it may be. Sure, you can exert pressure by boycotts, pulling funding, etc, but you cannot FORCE the person to change his mind. This whole use of bigotry as a way to "prove" that everyone has rights to Usenet, and people cannot control their own equipment, is fatally flawed in one important area. Bigotry is now controlled by law. Of course a system administrator or owner cannot use his system for illegal purposes (including descrimination simply by race where that is applicable). I never argued that. However, that doesn't translate into prohibiting me from doing anything that IS legal. For example, if my policy tells my users that there is no such thing as private mail, and the sysop has the right to read and kill any message, and if accepting this policy is a condition of using this system, then there is nothing wrong with the system administrator killing messages he deems inappropriate. If there is NOT a policy on this, and people had the impression that private mail was private, etc., then the administrator might be in trouble. However, if policy is clearly set out, then there should be no problem in enforcing that policy. - Kevin Lowey
imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) (06/02/91)
In article <1991Jun1.171146.20818@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: >No, maybe its you thats learning. I've known the right way for years, its >many of the other net.users who have had a problem. Its not my problem, >its their's. Period. Get a clue. A small one. PLEASE. It is obvious that you haven't being doing the right thing for years, even though you claim to know what that is. I mean really, cancelling articles just because you didn't like the way they were posted. And none of them were yours or came from your site. Yes, Mr. John Palmer, this is really everybody's problem, too bad that you created it. Warner -- Warner Losh imp@Solbourne.COM Free to a good home: 10,000 Miller Moths. Must promise not to breed them.
snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) (06/02/91)
In article <1991Jun1.022548.28381@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >In article <48330@bcsaic.UUCP> snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes: >In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: > >>> If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a >>> computer to control how his computer is used. Its exactly the same >>> as the bus driver who has the right to kick anyone off the bus if >>> they are causing a problem. claiming that the USERS have rights to >>> get electronic mail, no matter how badly they act, is similar to >>> saying that bus riders have the right to steal the bus, and use it >>> to rob a bank. If someone is trying to use MY equipment in a way >>> *I* consider is improper, then *I* have every right to kick those >>> people off *MY* computer. > >> And how about the bus driver/owner who makes black people sit in >> the back of the bus. Clearly it is not *always* up to the owner's >> notion of what is "improper". You cannot restrict the activities >> based upon sex, race, religion, creed, etc... > >Flawed analogy; a city bus is a public accomodation within the scope ^^^^ Perhaps I wasn't clear in my analogy. I never claimed a "city" bus. >of the law, either operated or licensed to operate by government >entities to whom the anti-discrimination statutes apply. These same >statutes don't tell me that if I operate a church school bus I have >to provide service to other than the, perhaps tuition paying, >students. I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about whether or not to let someone "on the bus", but about how the owner/operator can treat someone who has already been allowed on board. If my church (or me or any person/entity) owned a bus and agreed to let a person on board (say a church member), I don't believe that church has the right to violate that person's civil rights (wrt, sex, race, religion, creed, etc...) regardless of the reason why the person was allowed on board ("public accommodation" or not). The claim was made that "improper" behavior, as determined by the owner/operator, was enough for the owner/operator to take action ("kick those people off"). If the owner/operator decides that the person's race is "improper", does s/he have the right to take that action because of it? I think not. Now, if someone violated an agreed-upon (by user and owner/operator) non-discriminatory rule/regulation I think an owner/operator probably does have the right to take action. I certainly don't have the answer to the dilemma (well, I kinda see it as a dilemma; your mileage may vary) of how "improper speech" is to be treated on these systems. I'd probably take action if I owned a system and I saw something that I felt was grossly "improper", but I know I'd be very careful and hesitant about doing it. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud <snicoud@boeing.com> uw-beaver!bcsaic!snicoud Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Computer Science Bellevue, Washington USA
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/02/91)
jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes: > jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: >> All I'm saying is that you not try to dictate your rules to other systems. > this from tygra/ddmi/michigan.com ? > he must be learning. No, he just doesn't see the inherent conflict between him trying to dictate for other sites which groups should be moderated and for which of their articles he should forge cancels, and this statement on the one hand; and the exact correspondence between other sites inviting him to clean up his act or get off the net, and this statement, on the other hand. When you think "jpp", and you think "thick", think "kilometers". Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
dfpedro@uswnvg.UUCP (Donn Pedro) (06/02/91)
In article <ygTu33w164w@bluemoon.uucp>, sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) writes: : bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes: : : > >he got harassing e-mail, he should contact the sender's sysop and the : > know better". Assuming that somebody is a fool because of one error, is : > extreme prejudice. : : Don't say that in news.admin. 8) : One error does not a fool make. It is the repeated refusal to recognise the error and correct it. It is the inability to say, "I was wrong," that makes the fool. : > Never over-react. Keep your cool (or borrow some if you don't have any). : > Remember, we all start out being ignorant. : : THe USENet learning curve is fairly steep, but any "problems" : with users' articles should be dealt with promptly. Sysadmins : would probably have less damage control to do if they provided : more education before the fact. Agreed. Everyone should read the guide to network news and have a full understanding of the site's particular posting policy. : Exactly. There has never been such a thing as absolute free : speech in America, & as long as news providers, not individual : posters are paying the transport cost, they have a fairly : absolute right to determine what goes over their outgoing : (or even transfer) newsfeed. And that is precisely the thing most fail to understand. If I own a machine I can transport what I wish over it. You can say what you wish but I am not obligated to echo it to the world. Before you hit 'f' read this. I don't care what you say. I probobly would echo your words worldwide but, I am not obligated to. Donn Pedro ...................{uunet, sequent, pn1}!uswnvg!dfpedro.
fenner@jazz.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) (06/03/91)
In article <1991May31.133325.17462@lsuc.on.ca> jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes: |In article <1991May30.181628.2931@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: |> All I'm |>saying is that you not try to dictate your rules to other systems. | |[...] | |he must be learning. No, he's just a hyprocrite. -- Bill Fenner fenner@jazz.psu.edu ..psuvax1!hogbbs!wcfpc!wcf wcf@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (+1 814 238-9633 2400MNP5)
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (06/03/91)
In <1991Jun1.164136.4553@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: [...] >The UNIVERSITY bought the equipment. The UNIVERSITY owns the equipment. The >UNIVERSITY gets to say how the equipment is to be used, who can use it, and >what rules these users have to follow. [...] I would only add that it is the policy of most universities to create and administer rules with the participation of faculty and students, to respect the privacy of faculty and students (by, for example, allowing searches of office space under certain very controlled conditions), to make rules clear and specific, to give students accused of violating rules a formal hearing (if the student so wishes), to promote free expression by saying that "[t]he institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship." In my opinion, any university employee who violates this policy should be disciplined. For example, a sys admin who expels a student from the general university computer system without recourse to a formal hearing should find him or herself subject to a formal disciplinary hearing. And, of course, any university computer policy that contradicts general university policy (i.e. almost every university computer policy I've ever read) is null and void. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (06/03/91)
>The UNIVERSITY bought the equipment. The UNIVERSITY owns the equipment. The >UNIVERSITY gets to say how the equipment is to be used, who can use it, and >what rules these users have to follow. This is far too extreme a view and naive. The UNIVERSITY also took money from students in the form of tuition, and from researchers in the form of overhead and/or direct charges. That's how they buy and pay for the equipment. In general, when you take money in a transaction, you lose certain rights of private ownership. Just like when a landlord rents you an apartment he can no longer put his friends up there, or even enter the premises without cause. If the UNIVERSITY (why are we shouting that word? sounds like the word of the day at pee-wee's playhouse), or any other organization, wants complete control of the equipment they are "free" to cease taking money for its use, indirectly or otherwise. The university is charged with the administration and dispensation of resources acquired for particular purposes from general funds. But that is soas to fulfill their obligations, not as a protector of private property in the simplistic sense you expound. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/03/91)
snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes: > xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >>Flawed analogy; a city bus is a public accomodation within the scope > ^^^^ >Perhaps I wasn't clear in my analogy. I never claimed a "city" bus. Doesn't matter; I just said "city" to make the point clear. >>of the law, either operated or licensed to operate by government >>entities to whom the anti-discrimination statutes apply. > I think you missed my point. ... I don't believe > that [analogous situation] has the right to > violate that person's civil rights > The claim was made that "improper" behavior, as > determined by the owner/operator, was enough for > the owner/operator to take action ("kick those > people off"). If the owner/operator decides that > the person's race is "improper", does s/he have > the right to take that action because of it? Nope. Like many considering the US law from a dewy eyed liberal viewpoint, you have an overwhelmingly overlarge concept of what constitute your "civil rights". It is not the case that whatever you think you should have constitutes a civil right. Your civil rights exist by inclusion, not exclusion; if it isn't in the law, then it isn't protected. Nowhere does the law give you, implicitly or explicity, a civil right to have a Usenet account on Kevin Lowey's private and personal BBS system. Kevin has reserved to himself the right to toss off whomever he wants, without providing any explanation whatever, and you and others have tried to drag in sex and race and religion and a lot of other red herrings. Kevin _doesn't_ _have_ _to _tell_ _you_ why he won't let you use his system, and there's exactly nothing you can do about it. Your suspicions that you were being discriminated against for race and not for the illegal chain letters you posted will avail you nothing; he doesn't _have_ to defend his reasons. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
rupton@zeus.calpoly.edu (R. Upton) (06/03/91)
One of the problems with sysops is that they hold to the concept of
"My System" I can do what ever I want. For the most part they are
correct but many forget that users make there "system" and without
them there would be nothing to feed there ego's. Something else...
Respect is something that can not be eliminated by having material
possesions (systems) which some feel is there RIGHT to disregard.
--
---- Robert Upton ------
rupton@nike.Calpoly.Edu
rupton@catisuf.Csufresno.Edu
------------------------------bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) (06/03/91)
In <1991Jun1.171146.20818@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: >In article <1991May31.133325.17462@lsuc.on.ca> jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes: >"In article <1991May30.181628.2931@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: >"> All I'm >">saying is that you not try to dictate your rules to other systems. >" >"this from tygra/ddmi/michigan.com ? >" >"he must be learning. >No, maybe its you thats learning. I've known the right way for years, its >many of the other net.users who have had a problem. Its not my problem, >its their's. Period. Take care that becoming entrenched in your own ideas and perspectives does not lead you to digging your own grave - metaphorically speaking (so save some dough on PIs :-)) It's surprising how some people react to an albeit sarcastic pat on the back. [ note followup-to ] -- Bernd Felsche, _--_|\ #include <std/disclaimer.h> Metapro Systems, / sold \ Fax: +61 9 472 3337 328 Albany Highway, \_.--._/ Phone: +61 9 362 9355 Victoria Park, Western Australia v Email: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) (06/03/91)
In <1991Jun1.171636.6232@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: >I have to admit I didn't see the original messages in this theme. It appears >that a System Administrator killed a message that he knew violated Usenet >policies. If that is the case, then I think he had every right to do so. If >not, then he risks being cut of from Usenet for violating Usenet policy. If the Sysadmin had alerted the posted, and requested him to cancel it himself, then it would have been an educational exercise. If _anybody_ notices something of an illegal nature being posted, they should immediately request the _originator_ to cancel it. Sysadmins are not omnipotent deities (except maybe jp@tygra :-)). You cannot reasonably expect them to control every byte of information flowing through their system. >Thus, if I saw a chain-letter or some other illegal message, or message that >I know violates policy, you can be sure I'll delete it before it leaves my >board (if I catch it in time) and leave a stern warning to the user envolved. If that is the agreed policy on your system, so be it. However, you are setting a dangerous precedent by taking responsibility for what users post. Who owns the article? -- Bernd Felsche, _--_|\ #include <std/disclaimer.h> Metapro Systems, / sold \ Fax: +61 9 472 3337 328 Albany Highway, \_.--._/ Phone: +61 9 362 9355 Victoria Park, Western Australia v Email: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) (06/03/91)
In <1991Jun1.174136.6258@rock.concert.net> mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan) writes: >Sure, if you own your *own* computer, you can do whatever you want >with it. Try denying access to a black person sometime! You are >_still_ subject to _some_ laws! If you *did* deny access, and if >the person decided to take it to court, you'd be in *hot water* . Certainly not if there were other reasons for the owner to reject access. e.g. He's the founding member of the secret "Computer Chaos in Government Society". Being in a minority doesn't automatically give people extra rights, does it? (It appears to because we don't wish to "offend".) >Usenet may be privately owned, and may set their policy, >but as I said -- if they say "No Asians have a RIGHT to use our >computers to take over America" I'll be it wouldn't be their policy >for long! :-) Gee, they sure wouldn't have rules like that around here :-) -- Bernd Felsche, _--_|\ #include <std/disclaimer.h> Metapro Systems, / sold \ Fax: +61 9 472 3337 328 Albany Highway, \_.--._/ Phone: +61 9 362 9355 Victoria Park, Western Australia v Email: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) (06/03/91)
dfpedro@uswnvg.UUCP (Donn Pedro) writes: > In article <ygTu33w164w@bluemoon.uucp>, sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack > : > : THe USENet learning curve is fairly steep, but any "problems" > : with users' articles should be dealt with promptly. Sysadmins > : would probably have less damage control to do if they provided > : more education before the fact. > > Agreed. Everyone should read the guide to network news and have a full > understanding of the site's particular posting policy. There are sites on the net that have never formulated a formal posting policy. Are their users free to do as they please? And what of sites like ddmi/tygra/Michigan.com, where the admin is part of the problem, not the solution? I don't have any answes to these questions, but I think the problem of user education is solvable. The problem of a rogue site probably can't be dealt with by anything less than isolation. > > : Exactly. There has never been such a thing as absolute free > : speech in America, & as long as news providers, not individual > : posters are paying the transport cost, they have a fairly > : absolute right to determine what goes over their outgoing > : (or even transfer) newsfeed. > > And that is precisely the thing most fail to understand. If I own > a machine I can transport what I wish over it. You can say > what you wish but I am not obligated to echo it to the world. > Before you hit 'f' read this. > > I don't care what you say. I probobly would echo your words worldwide > but, I am not obligated to. Precisely. What each site does has always been seen as its own baliwick, but when a site does things that affect the entire net.community, like running an open telnet server, or sending bad news batches, then it ceases to be that site's exclusive problem. What then? =========================================================================== Steven S. Brack sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu ===========================================================================
sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) (06/03/91)
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > In <1991Jun1.164136.4553@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) > [...] > >The UNIVERSITY bought the equipment. The UNIVERSITY owns the equipment. Th > >UNIVERSITY gets to say how the equipment is to be used, who can use it, and > >what rules these users have to follow. > [...] > > I would only add that it is the policy of most universities to create > and administer rules with the participation of faculty and students, > to respect the privacy of faculty and students (by, for example, > allowing searches of office space under certain very controlled > conditions), to make rules clear and specific, to give students > accused of violating rules a formal hearing (if the student so > wishes), to promote free expression by saying that "[t]he > institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a > device of censorship." But, that contradicts the prevalent attitude that mainframe access is a privelege that can be granted or revoked with no explanation. Even .edu sites do this sort of thing quite regularly (& I'm not referring to my own case, but to others I've seen first-hand, or heard of). > In my opinion, any university employee who violates this policy should > be disciplined. For example, a sys admin who expels a student from the > general university computer system without recourse to a formal > hearing should find him or herself subject to a formal disciplinary > hearing. Pity that isn't the case. The University holds that it's not obligated to give computing resources to anyone, & can therefore revoke account priveleges without resorting to higher authority. > And, of course, any university computer policy that contradicts > general university policy (i.e. almost every university computer > policy I've ever read) is null and void. If that be the case, then why haven't more students challenged their Universities academic computing policy? Simple. Like trying to turn the flow of a tsunami, students will accomplish very little, & most likely be swept aside. Some organizations are just too large to rein in, even if they are "guilty" of wrongdoing. =========================================================================== Steven S. Brack sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu ===========================================================================
snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen Nicoud) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun3.060303.8519@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes: >> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >>>Flawed analogy; a city bus is a public accomodation within the scope >> ^^^^ >>Perhaps I wasn't clear in my analogy. I never claimed a "city" bus. >Doesn't matter; I just said "city" to make the point clear. ^^^^^ Whose point? Certainly not mine. Since you were commenting on my point claiming "Flawed analogy" it is not appropriate to change my words or add new ones and claim they are part of my point. No real flame here (yet), but if you want to make your own point, fine; just please don't change or add to words I use and then claim your new version of my point is flawed and then attribute that flaw to my point. Also, if it "Doesn't matter", then why is it (the use of "city") necessary "to make the point clear"? But, I would agree that it really doesn't matter and is not important to the point I am making. However, it did seem crucial to the point your were making since you followed with paragraphs about "public accomodation". >> The claim was made that "improper" behavior, as determined by the >> owner/operator, was enough for the owner/operator to take action >> ("kick those people off"). If the owner/operator decides that the >> person's race is "improper", does s/he have the right to take that >> action because of it? > >Nope. Assuming this "Nope" is in answer to my question that immediately precedes it, then it looks like we agree. > Like many considering the US law from a dewy eyed liberal >viewpoint, you have an overwhelmingly overlarge concept of what >constitute your "civil rights". Hmmm. Interesting. Notice how this attempts to attach the stigma of a "dewy eyed liberal viewpoint" to me without actually calling me such. I kinda like that. It's a clever way of getting a zinger in. I'd like to borrow that if I may. It's also amusing because associates/family/friends laughed when I told 'em that someone claimed I held a view that was "from a dewy eyed liberal viewpoint". They felt that was a term worthy of use by me in my arguments against many liberal positions. > It is not the case that whatever you >think you should have constitutes a civil right. > >Your civil rights exist by inclusion, not exclusion; if it isn't in >the law, then it isn't protected. I'm not going to comment on Kent's civil rights explanation. Not because I don't agree with it (I'm intentionally not saying whether I agree or disagree), but because I don't feel it is germaine to the point I am/was making. >Nowhere does the law give you, implicitly or explicity, a civil right >to have a Usenet account on Kevin Lowey's private and personal BBS >system. Is this what is bothering you about my post? I never claimed that "the law give[s] [me], implicitly or explicity, a civil right to have a Usenet account on Kevin Lowey's private and personal BBS system." Perhaps I can allay your fears by saying that I agree on that point. In fact, I will state it explicitly just for you: "I do not believe I, Stephen Nicoud, or anyone else has, implicitly or explicity, a civil right to have a Usenet account on Kevin Lowey's private and personal BBS system." Do you think it is reasonably now to drop this point between us in this discussion? >Kevin has reserved to himself the right to toss off whomever he >wants, without providing any explanation whatever, and you and others >have tried to drag in sex and race and religion and a lot of other >red herrings. Kevin _doesn't_ _have_ _to _tell_ _you_ why he won't >let you use his system, and there's exactly nothing you can do about >it. Red Herrings? This whole paragraph is a red herring. Please, reread my words carefully. It is your right to make your own conclusions about what you read. But I ask that you, at least once, read the words. I wrote what I meant and meant what I wrote. If you read between the lines you do so at your risk. I, however, will not accept your rewordings of what you believe my position is. I have not claimed that Kevin didn't have "the right to toss off whomever he wants, without providing any explanation whatever". Please see Kevin's remarks that I've attached to the end of this note. Perhaps they describe more succinctly to you than I did the point I was trying to make. > Your suspicions that you were being discriminated against for >race and not for the illegal chain letters you posted will avail you >nothing; he doesn't _have_ to defend his reasons. <sigh> Here we go again. I have not claimed that Kevin had "to defend his reasons". Your repeated attempts to assign claims to me that I have not made is unworthy of reasoned debate. Putting words in someone elses mouth (so to speak, er read, er, uh, ... you know what I mean :-) isn't a very effective way to persuade me in a debate. Besides, it shouldn't be necessary to use my point to make your own points. Just make your points. You don't need me. If you want to use my post to expand the discussion and debate, fine. Go for it. Just please don't start attributing to my words and me your extensions. I have enough windmills of my own creation without having to slay ones created by others for me. I'm sorry that I've gone on and on about what I is probably a minor nit. I'm satisfied with just leaving it with Kevin's own words: From: lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) Subject: Re: Canceling someone else's article Date: 1 Jun 91 16:34:46 GMT Organization: University of Saskatchewan [...] Notice that I said the owner of the system has the right to set any rules he wants on that system AS LONG AS IT'S LEGAL. The situation of racial discrimination is in many places ILLEGAL, ... [...] If you want to debate it further, I beseech you to address Kevin's words. Stephen -- Stephen L Nicoud <snicoud@boeing.com> uw-beaver!bcsaic!snicoud Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Computer Science Bellevue, Washington USA "I ask unananimous consent to revise and extend my remarks."
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (06/04/91)
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: > The UNIVERSITY bought the equipment. The UNIVERSITY owns the equipment. The > UNIVERSITY gets to say how the equipment is to be used, who can use it, and > what rules these users have to follow. A more refined model: The computer equipment is under the direct control of the systems admins/programmers/operators. The a/p/o's are under the direct control of a supervisor ... who is under the direct control of the vice-president for ... who is under the direct control of the president of the University who is under the direct control of the Board of Trustees. So, directly (though through a chain of command) the BoT for the University is in control of the system. However, the Federal/State/City Governments are in INDIRECT control, in as much as they can change the level of funding which the University recieves from them to pay for computer systems. Two important points: 1) Indirect control is a lot less powerful (in some cases) than direct control. (Stuart Reges' case aside). 2) If you REALLY want to get some action out of the university, it's less likely to succeed through some sort of OUTSIDE intervention. It's much more likely to be effective if you take it to the school newspaper and then through the university. ----------------------------------|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | "He divines remedies against injuries; | "Words are drugs." | | he knows how to turn serious accidents | -Antero Alli | | to his own advantage; whatever does not | | | kill him makes him stronger." | "Culture is for bacteria." | | - Friedrich Nietzsche | - Christopher Hyatt | -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) (06/05/91)
In article <RqeZ34w164w@bluemoon.uucp> sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) writes: "dfpedro@uswnvg.UUCP (Donn Pedro) writes: " " " There are sites on the net that have never formulated a formal " posting policy. Are their users free to do as they please? " And what of sites like ddmi/tygra/Michigan.com, where the admin ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What the HELL are you talking about. How many times do I have to say it: ALL OF THE POSTS YOU REFERENCE WERE POSTED BY A DISGRUNTLED EX-USER. THEY WERE FORGERIES - REPEAT AFTER ME: THEY WERE FORGERIES . THEY WERE FORGERIES. *GOT IT??* -- CAT-TALK Conferencing System | "Buster Bunny is an abused | E-MAIL: +1 313 343 0800 (USR HST) | child. Trust me - I'm a | jp@Michigan.COM +1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP) | professional..." | ********EIGHT NODES*********** | -- Roger Rabbit |
tar@math.ksu.edu (Tim Ramsey) (06/05/91)
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) shouts: [ ... ] >What the HELL are you talking about. How many times do I have to say it: >ALL OF THE POSTS YOU REFERENCE WERE POSTED BY A DISGRUNTLED EX-USER. >THEY WERE FORGERIES - REPEAT AFTER ME: THEY WERE FORGERIES . THEY WERE >FORGERIES. *GOT IT??* Right. And this is a forgery too. There may someone on the net with less crediblity than you, John, but I sure doubt it. -- Tim Ramsey/system administrator/tar@math.ksu.edu/(913) 532-6750/2-7004 (FAX) Department of Mathematics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS 66506-2602 "Yes, you can take an axe to the 3084..." -- bav@ksuvm.ksu.edu, realizing the futility of CP/CMS
chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) (06/05/91)
According to jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer): >ALL OF THE POSTS YOU REFERENCE WERE POSTED BY A DISGRUNTLED EX-USER. >THEY WERE FORGERIES - REPEAT AFTER ME: THEY WERE FORGERIES . THEY WERE >FORGERIES. *GOT IT??* Actually, they were posted by John's wife... Morgan Fairchild. Yeah, that's the ticket! Listen, Dr. Roger John Rabbit Palmer Randall. Some of us remember all the way back to the time when you publically acknowledged that you posted those cancel messages. Of course, you claimed then that you didn't intend them to leave your system. The forgery story won't wash. Give it up. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> perl -e 'sub do { print "extinct!\n"; } do do()'
randy@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush) (06/05/91)
> What the HELL are you talking about. How many times do I have to say it: > ALL OF THE POSTS YOU REFERENCE WERE POSTED BY A DISGRUNTLED EX-USER. > THEY WERE FORGERIES - REPEAT AFTER ME: THEY WERE FORGERIES . THEY WERE > FORGERIES. *GOT IT??* Thanks, John. Your off-the-wall humor made my day. A flawless parody of pathalogical lying and sociopathy gone wild. Brilliant! A damn shame that the spittle and foam could not come across in ASCII. And we never have thanked you for actually providing folk out here on the cyberfrontier one small thing to agree with The Mouth from Rant about. Have a really *great* day, John. -- randy@psg.com ..!uunet!m2xenix!randy
dfpedro@uswnvg.UUCP (Donn Pedro) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun4.195815.18152@tygra.Michigan.COM>, jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: : In article <RqeZ34w164w@bluemoon.uucp> sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) writes: : "dfpedro@uswnvg.UUCP (Donn Pedro) writes: You include my name, yet you omit anything I said. I'm being non quoted? Your post tends to attribute Mr Bracks words as mine. Take care of attributions in the future. Steven Brack actually writes: : " : " There are sites on the net that have never formulated a formal : " posting policy. Are their users free to do as they please? : " And what of sites like ddmi/tygra/Michigan.com, where the admin : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : What the HELL are you talking about. How many times do I have to say it: : ALL OF THE POSTS YOU REFERENCE WERE POSTED BY A DISGRUNTLED EX-USER. : THEY WERE FORGERIES - REPEAT AFTER ME: THEY WERE FORGERIES . THEY WERE : FORGERIES. *GOT IT??* I heard it. I don't got it. It's just another story. I think another lie. I don't believe you. Not one bit. Donn Pedro ...................{uunet, sequent, pn1}!uswnvg!dfpedro.
igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun1.174136.6258@rock.concert.net> mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan) writes: > Sure, if you own your *own* computer, you can do whatever you want > with it. Try denying access to a black person sometime! You are > _still_ subject to _some_ laws! If you *did* deny access, and if > the person decided to take it to court, you'd be in *hot water* . Is US law really in the position where you can't choose how to use private property? Not company, or state, or federal, but private? If it isn't, do you think it should be? ian
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/07/91)
chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > According to jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer): >> ALL OF THE POSTS YOU REFERENCE WERE POSTED BY A >> DISGRUNTLED EX-USER. THEY WERE FORGERIES - REPEAT >> AFTER ME: THEY WERE FORGERIES . THEY WERE >> FORGERIES. *GOT IT??* Hitler died by his own hand in a bunker when telling the same lie over and over turned out not to be a way to convince the world. Is there a bunker in our Johnny's future? > Actually, they were posted by John's wife... > Morgan Fairchild. Yeah, that's the ticket! You actually think someone would marry this loser? Then again, Oleg has a fiancee; what do I know? > Listen, Dr. Roger John Rabbit Palmer Randall. Some > of us remember all the way back to the time when > you publically acknowledged that you posted those > cancel messages. Of course, you claimed then that > you didn't intend them to leave your system. Heck, some of us remember back before that, when he threatened to cancel the articles all over the net, and a bit later when he did, and a bit later when he sent email gloating over having done so. Then he got flamed to a crisp, and your part comes in. > The forgery story won't wash. Give it up. Right, what he said. Go back to claiming it is all that evil Kent Paul Dolan's doing; your odds of getting that fable believed are better; you can blame anything on a crazy person, even the acts of net terrorism you did that are physically impossible to accomplish from anywhere but your site using your account. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (06/08/91)
In article <48330@bcsaic.UUCP>, snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes... >In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: >>If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a computer to >>control how his computer is used. Its exactly the same as the bus driver who >>has the right to kick anyone off the bus if they are causing a problem. >>Claiming that the USERS have rights to get electronic mail, no matter how >>badly they act, is similar to saying that bus riders have the right to steal >>the bus, and use it to rob a bank. If someone is trying to use MY equipment >>in a way *I* consider is improper, then *I* have every right to kick those >>people off *MY* computer. >And how about the bus driver/owner who makes black people sit in the >back of the bus. Clearly it is not *always* up to the owner's notion >of what is "improper". You cannot restrict the activities based upon >sex, race, religion, creed, etc... This was one of my early disagreements with the violation of rights movement. If it were a government subsidized bus, then fine, prohibit them from discriminating. If a person uses his own earnings to pay for something, it should be his - to have and hold - i.e. to control without interference from others (until and unless it is used to attack someone else).
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (06/08/91)
In article <1991May31.161031.178@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>, tar@math.ksu.edu (Tim Ramsey) writes... >jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: >[ I assume this wasn't yet another forgery in your name, John? It's so > hard to tell. ] >>Thats a shame. Some people just don't know how to handle flamers. If >>he got harassing e-mail, he should contact the sender's sysop and the >>feed site of the system from which the posting came. >>He should respond to his flamers and let them know that he has a RIGHT >>to post anything he wants. How do we solve this problem: Post flames >>in public newsgroups against the offender and also put him in your >>system-wide kill file. >Let me try to get this straight. Everyone has the RIGHT to post anything >they want, be it legal or illegal. However, no one has the RIGHT to >mail anything they want to a particular person. >I don't get it. Why does freedom of speech extend to posting but not email? >You keep using this word "RIGHT". I do not think it means what you think >it means. Correct. It should be a consistent matter that people should be able to say, transmit or publish whatever they please, so long as it is not an attempt at fraud.
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (06/08/91)
In article <1991May31.133601.17606@lsuc.on.ca>, jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes... >>Concerning whether USENET/EMAIL/NEWS/etc are a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE: >who are you paying? >you are not paying USENET. But don't you see. That's just the problem. There's no well-defined ownership rights in netland.
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun1.022548.28381@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes... >In article <48330@bcsaic.UUCP> snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes: >In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: >> And how about the bus driver/owner who makes black >> people sit in the back of the bus. Clearly it is >> not *always* up to the owner's notion of what is >> "improper". You cannot restrict the activities >> based upon sex, race, religion, creed, etc... >Flawed analogy; a city bus is a public accomodation >within the scope of the law, either operated or >licensed to operate by government entities to whom >the anti-discrimination statutes apply. These same >statutes don't tell me that if I operate a church >school bus I have to provide service to other than >the, perhaps tuition paying, students. >I have a complete right to operate a private BBS for >the benefit and use, only, of the KKK, the John >Birch Society, the Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation >League, the Freemasons, alt.activism participants >(gag!) or people whose last name starts with "D" >like mine. That is _not_ a public accomodation, it >is not operated or licensed as one by a government >entity. and the anti-discrimination laws should not >be expected to apply. That's just what the private restaurant owners said in the 1960s. >No more am I required (nor is USENet required) to >_fund_ your _access_ to free speech on the BBS or the >net, that corresponds to your right to be safe from >_laws_ _abridging_ free speech in a medium either >free or voluntarily funded by other participants and >provided for you. Right. We should all be paying for what we use. >This means if "we" don't like you enough to toss you >off the net and pull the plug on your feed, you have >no _legal_ recourse; your only recourse is to >correct the behavior problems that elicited such a >severe response enough to gull some sucker into >providing you a feed again, at probable risk to his >own feed, since the net is rather long on memory and >short on forgiveness. This nonsense goes on?!? >Similarly for a cancelled account; you have to find >a new site that will give you one, you have no >inherent right, and should have no expectation, to >get the old one back by means of any legal process. >Compare it to the case of newspapers, which are in >no way obliged to publish your obscene and abusive >letter to the editor (though if you shop around, one >may), although the law is pretty strict in allowing >you to fund your _own_ newspaper in which you can >rave, within the limits of the libel laws, to your >heart's content. Right. So, how do I fund my own network? B-)}
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun1.164136.4553@herald.usask.ca>, lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes... >From article <qDuu34w164w@bluemoon.uucp>, by sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack): >The UNIVERSITY bought the equipment. The UNIVERSITY owns the equipment. The >UNIVERSITY gets to say how the equipment is to be used, who can use it, and >what rules these users have to follow. So, who's this UNIVERSITY fellow? Do you suppose we could do lunch together next week?
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun1.172809.6198@rock.concert.net>, mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan) writes... >Wait a minute ... >[sorry folks -- no LONG quotes of other's messages quoting other's > messages ad infinitum -- maybe you'll all emulate me? :-) ] >Driving is a privilege? Posting articles is a privilege? That's a >very interesting point: who decided it was a privilege? The first I heard this allegation regarding driving was about 12 years ago. Can you imagine George Washington or Ben Franklin going down to the government office to get a permit to drive a wagon on the street. Now, before you say "But cars and trucks are so much more dangerous." explain the hundreds of thousands of horse-related injuries that took place in the 1890s.
cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann) (06/08/91)
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: | Similarly, Usenet sometimes is carried over telephone lines, and | sometimes is carried over lines paid for by NSF, or its equivalents | in other countries. Since they pay for the physical wires, they | have the right to say how those wires are used. If NSF says they | don't want to pay for the transfer of X rated images | (alt.sex.pictures), then it doesn't have to. So even if Usenet | policy says that is OK, Usenet might be forced to CHANGE its policy | to fall in line with the carriers it uses, or risk losing permission | to use those carriers. This is a commonly-held but somewhat incorrect view. Usenet does not change its rules because some of its links are carried over the NSFNet; instead, Usenet sites using NSFNet resources to transfer news must be carefull to make sure they don't violate NSFNet rules when doing so. Usenet does not bend its rules to adapt to the restricted rules of some links, or to the restricted laws of some countries that have Usenet sites in them; that's always the site's business. Of course, if most of Usenet sites wind up in such a country, or using links that are so restricted, the net effect may be more or less the same and over time the "consesus rules" of Usenet change. -- "Anyone forging articles should be writing news software instead, if you get the headers right you're ahead of some implementations. Try writing a gateway, that'll test your skills." - Ed Vielmetti cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu ...!{utgpu,utzoo,watmath}!utgpu!cks
mem@zinn.MV.COM (Mark E. Mallett) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun6.215348.18519@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >Hitler died by his own hand in a bunker when telling >the same lie over and over turned out not to be a way >to convince the world. Is there a bunker in our >Johnny's future? To digress greatly: Hitler used the Big Lie to come to power, and tried to use force to take over the world (not necessarily to convince it of anything). He suffered a military defeat, but proved how very well the Big Lie does work. It was proven many times before, and many times since. -mm- -- Mark E. Mallett Zinn Computer Co/ PO Box 4188/ Manchester NH/ 03103 Bus. Phone: 603 645 5069 Home: 603 424 8129 BIX: mmallett uucp: mem@zinn.MV.COM ( ...{decvax|elrond|harvard}!zinn!mem ) Northern MA and Southern NH consultants: Ask (in mail!) about MV.COM
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/09/91)
mem@zinn.MV.COM (Mark E. Mallett) writes: > xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >> Hitler died by his own hand in a bunker when >> telling the same lie over and over turned out not >> to be a way to convince the world. Is there a >> bunker in our Johnny's future? > To digress greatly: > Hitler used the Big Lie to come to power, and > tried to use force to take over the world (not > necessarily to convince it of anything). He > suffered a military defeat, but proved how very > well the Big Lie does work. It was proven many > times before, and many times since. Well, our sociopathy poster child is still on the net, which must count as a major victory for mendacity after the powers that be at umich.edu met to consider whether or not to pull the net feed of ddmi.com, and failed to do so despite the scandal and legal exposure providing him a feed was bringing on that institution (and continues to bring, I suppose). Of course, he's had to change his domain name by registering as michigan.com, change his user-ID from jpp to jp, very likely wheedle new feeds from the more gullible sysadmins of the net, weave a skein of lies even a two year old would roll laughing on the floor to hear, make his partner appear a fool and liar as well in public, but still he keeps dancing on the highwire over the pungi stick filled pit. It is worth noting that the Big Lie of blaming the Jews for the failures of Weimar Republic economics wasn't the lie that brought Hitler to put a gun to his head, it was the tawdry little lies, ending in the lie that a failed painter knew more about the conduct of war than experienced ganerals, and including the lie of a peace treaty with Stalin so quickly violated, and that surrender was unthinkable, the Third Reich could prevail over superior force after the freeing of Paris. Similarly, it may not be John Palmer's big lie that everything he's screwed up to date was someone else's fault that brings him down in the end, but just the little lie that he's learned from his mistakes not to try to be a big shot on the net without the skills or ethical understanding to carry it off. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (06/20/91)
In article <1374@zinn.MV.COM>, mem@zinn.MV.COM (Mark E. Mallett) writes: > In article <1991Jun6.215348.18519@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >>Hitler died by his own hand in a bunker when telling >>the same lie over and over turned out not to be a way >>to convince the world. Is there a bunker in our >>Johnny's future? > > To digress greatly: > > Hitler used the Big Lie to come to power, and tried to use force to > take over the world (not necessarily to convince it of anything). He > suffered a military defeat, but proved how very well the Big Lie does > work. It was proven many times before, and many times since. Looking at the subject line, did somebody try to kill Hitler's article? dan
jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) (06/22/91)
In <1991Jun20.110540.4925@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > >Looking at the subject line, did somebody try to kill Hitler's article? > Don't you know your history? Hitler's biggest threat to the world was his wholesale cancelling of entire country's articles. These "blitzkreigs" of cancel messages destroyed the net presence of Poland, Czechoslovakia and France for years. This madness had to be stopped, especially when some crony of Hitler's (some even say it was Hitler himself) began posing as a giant rabbit and disturbing newsgroups with inappropriate postings. Those who can't learn from hiostory are doomed to repeat it. -- John Henders jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca MIND over MIDI Productions or ubc.cs!van-bc!jonh!jhenders Vancouver,B.C
howie@ssc-vax.UUCP (Howard S Modell) (06/24/91)
In article <A0b7dhxa@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca>, jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes: > In <1991Jun20.110540.4925@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > > > >Looking at the subject line, did somebody try to kill Hitler's article? > > > Don't you know your history? Hitler's biggest threat to the world > was his wholesale cancelling of entire country's articles. These And surely everyone remembers VE Day, "Virtual Environment" Day, newly liberated Eastern Europe was finally replaced by a computer-simulation so real that the Soviets were fooled into trying to annex it? (while all the time, the former inhabitants basked in the sun on the Riviera.) -- >>>ALL OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MINE ALONE<<< +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ INTERNET: h.modell@ieee.org COMPMAIL: h.modell UUCP: uw-beaver!bcsaic!ssc-bee!howie COMPUSERVE: 72376,252