|
Grex > Coop11 > #173: Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 255 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 107 of 255:
| 
Jun 10 17:24 UTC 2000 |
Sure. Pete's is even more direct.
|
aruba
|
|
response 108 of 255:
|
Jun 10 18:15 UTC 2000 |
There needs to be enough leeway in the motion to allow staff to use the log
when an unusual circumstance comes up.
(Pete's motion mentions expurgated material, which is not at issue here. I
think that was a mistake?)
|
pfv
|
|
response 109 of 255:
|
Jun 10 19:12 UTC 2000 |
Damnfino, chief - the two seem to go together. All I meant to
imply was: user whacks it, it's gone for other than user.
HIDDEN is another problem I don't wanna' know about. All I can go
by is the crap I see on my screen as picospan mentions it's gone,
and the file that holds that tripe.
|
janc
|
|
response 110 of 255:
|
Jun 11 00:58 UTC 2000 |
The Picospan terminology is
scribble - removes text from an item and puts it in the log.
expurgate - leaves text in the item, but marks it so that it isn't
displayed unless the reader really wants it to be.
This is confusing. I made it more confusing by renaming both commands
in Backtalk
erase = scribble
hide = expurgate
So fixing the terminology in Pete's version of the motion gives:
Shall /bbs/censored be depermited to allow only root and cfadm
staff access to "scribbled" or "erased" material?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 111 of 255:
|
Jun 11 01:46 UTC 2000 |
OK, I can dispense with "permanently", given the possibility of
resurrection in certain rare circumstances. But I'm not interested in
the UNIX-speak aspect to other suggested wording. So here is my
new "final" motion wording, between the === lines:
=======================================================================
Shall the picospan "scribble" and backtalk "erase" commands
make the text of responses inaccessible to non-staff users?
Note: For the purpose of conference item administration cfadm's are
considered "staff".
=======================================================================
|
remmers
|
|
response 112 of 255:
|
Jun 11 13:35 UTC 2000 |
(I'm donning my voteadm hat again. Today (June 11) is the last
day of the mandatory pre-vote discussion period, so voting could
start as early as tomorrow (June 12). When it actually starts is
essentially up to the proposer (albaugh). So Kevin, as soon as
you have a final final wording, let me know unambiguously, and
I'll enable the vote program as soon as feasible thereafter.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 113 of 255:
|
Jun 11 15:09 UTC 2000 |
We're clear that the motion would allow staff/cfadm to use the contents of
the log in an unusual circumstance, at their discretion, right?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 114 of 255:
|
Jun 11 16:04 UTC 2000 |
Without any special language, the staff would presumably be held to the same
standards they usually are -- i.e. the guidelines on the website.
|
mary
|
|
response 115 of 255:
|
Jun 11 16:13 UTC 2000 |
What do you mean by the "guidelines on the website"? Are the
standards for privacy the same as if entries in the log were
private email? Is that what you are assuming?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 116 of 255:
|
Jun 11 17:36 UTC 2000 |
Dare I suggest that the staff be held to their usual standards of using good
judgment?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 117 of 255:
|
Jun 11 17:58 UTC 2000 |
Re #115: I'm referring to the staff guidelines Jan pointed me to in Agora.
|
mary
|
|
response 118 of 255:
|
Jun 11 19:05 UTC 2000 |
I agree with you, cmcgee. If this passes I'd like to see
the staff be able to use their good judgement when it comes
to allowing access to a closed censor log. I just want to
make sure that's what's being suggested here and that
afterword folks won't be all thinking they voted for a
different policy.
Treating it like personal email allows a lot less discretion
on the part of staff than simply stating they should use good
judgement.
|
remmers
|
|
response 119 of 255:
|
Jun 11 19:08 UTC 2000 |
http://cyberspace.org/staffnote/privacy.html
|
pfv
|
|
response 120 of 255:
|
Jun 11 19:26 UTC 2000 |
>>to allowing access to a closed censor log.
Hogwash, "allowing".. Either the "staff" needs to access it
for reposting, or they don't need it at all.
I'd expect the "scribbled"/"erased" material to get the same
staff-respect that email already enjoys.
Now, TECHNICALLY, perhaps it would behoove whomever to wangle
Picospan and Backtalk to use "/bbs/censored" for the above, and
"/bbs/hidden" for the expurgated/hidden drivel.. Waxin' the former
periodically, like any other logfile.
|
other
|
|
response 121 of 255:
|
Jun 11 20:31 UTC 2000 |
Pete, there is no logfile for hidden/expurgated responses. They are simply
not displayed by bbs or backtalk (flagged).
I think the quibbling here is over a distinction without a difference. The
censored log would be as inviolable as email (in practice) because unless a
user can show cause why something they appear to have scribbled should be
restored, there will never be anyone poking around in the log unless there
are security or legal necessities.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 122 of 255:
|
Jun 11 20:40 UTC 2000 |
That's what I would hope, but it sounds like Mary wants the rule to allow
staff members to haul the stuff back out if they think it shouldn't have been
scribbled or something. I don't see why it should differ from email at all.
|
mary
|
|
response 123 of 255:
|
Jun 11 20:45 UTC 2000 |
Then say that. Say it will be handled with the same sensitivity
as email. Just make your intention clear so folks know what
they are voting for.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 124 of 255:
|
Jun 11 20:46 UTC 2000 |
Every time I've suggested any additional clarification, people jump all over
me screaming that Grex Doesn't Want To Hamper The Staff With Specific Rules.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 125 of 255:
|
Jun 11 20:49 UTC 2000 |
The motion makes no attempt to say what staff might do with access to
erased response text, nor should it, nor will it. It simply says that
staff is the only entity having access. Mr. voteadm, consider my
motion wording unambigously final.
|
mary
|
|
response 126 of 255:
|
Jun 11 20:54 UTC 2000 |
So staff uses their judgement and has some discretion. Thanks
for the clarification.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 127 of 255:
|
Jun 11 21:26 UTC 2000 |
I'm curious. What specifically do you want staff to be able to do with it
that they wouldn't be able to do with email?
|
other
|
|
response 128 of 255:
|
Jun 11 22:20 UTC 2000 |
Correct me if I'm assuming, but I think that Mary's point is to make sure the
policy is unambiguous, not to make sure that staff can do something that they
wouldn't do anyway.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 129 of 255:
|
Jun 12 01:08 UTC 2000 |
I'm trying to figure that out. All the talk about "at their discretion"
suggests much broader latitude than Jan implied by pointing me at the
guidelines page earlier.
|
aruba
|
|
response 130 of 255:
|
Jun 12 03:27 UTC 2000 |
If the document you're talking about is the same one remmers referred to in
#119, I certainly think it's a good one. It doesn't say anything about the
censored log, though, so I don't think much of it applies to this situation.
That which is relevant, of course, should be applied.
I want to be sure that staff has the discretion to use the information in
the log if necessary so that they can handle unusual situations that might
come up. Some of the hypotheticals we've been talking about fit that
category, as do some things no one has thought of yet. I don't think that
means "broader" latitude, necessarily, since the document Jan wrote takes
pains to say it doesn't make any absolute promises about privacy.
|
mdw
|
|
response 131 of 255:
|
Jun 12 09:09 UTC 2000 |
I think people here are getting way *WAY* too tied up in lawyer-land.
There is a danger here, in that there are a lot of people who confuse
the rules for the deeper sense of right, or who enjoy twisting the rules
to see what breaks, or simply just don't want to deal with it and tune
out & drop out. To date, we haven't had a lot of problems with this on
grex. But it's not hard to find examples of this elsewhere, that have
caused real damage.
I believe there's a limit as to how far we should go to protect things,
how much we should protect the system, vs. how much we should protect
individuals, and I believe we ought to be especially careful about
creating additional liability for the system. To pretend that words
from a conference ought to be treated tread the same as e-mail could
present a real risk to us; there is a bunch of law that concerns the
privacy of e-mail, with some pretty sharp teeth. At the same time,
words from a conference are *not* private - they are no longer secret,
and are in fact public knowledge to a lot of people. Even if the actual
words can in fact be expunged from the universe, their impression
remains. It shapes the subsequent flow of discussion, and arguing about
who owns the thoughts that come out of that is like arguing over how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Like it or not, this is a system where the real value is not the storage
of material, but the *publication* of information, and most of our
community is in a very real sense surfing the wave of information. Most
of the stuff that is posted here is seen nearly at once by hundreds of
eyes, and even attempting to pretend that it's possible to "take back
words" is a lie. The liminality of experience is the reality here;
everything else is illusion.
As it happens, most people are already equipped with a perfectly fine
internal censor, that keeps them from blabbing things like their own
password, credit card number, or their lover's secret name to the world
at large. Indeed, in most people, this censor is sufficiently powerful
that the real challenge is not to keep people from saying what they
ought not say, but to get people to actually participate in the first
place. It is very rare for people to say things they shouldn't have
said, and even rarer for them to later wish they hadn't said it.
When we code things in policy, we are creating more should's and
shouldn'ts. This can't fix the problems with someone blabbing what they
shouldn't; that's a past thing. What we are instead creating is an
opportunity for someone to sue grex, in the name of violating their
privacy, when the fault is really their own. Is this really going to
help that person? Is it really going to benefit grex?
Whenever you create policy, you can't just ask "what do I think is
right?" You need to also ask "how will this help? and "how will this
hurt?" It's easy to make rules. It's a lot harder to make things
better.
|