|
Grex > Coop > #301: Move to remove TS from Grex staff. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 46 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 20 of 46:
| 
Dec 15 17:27 UTC 2010 |
I don't regard it as a 1st amendment issue, but I also don't see it as
the sort of poor judgement that requires removing someone from the
staff. TS could have posted the material like he did, regardless of his
position as a staff member. It has nothing to do with his performance,
or ability to do staff duties.
|
cross
|
|
response 21 of 46:
|
Dec 15 18:17 UTC 2010 |
So, these restrictions and the classification stuff extends to
servicemembers' personal computers as well. TS did what he did
just to prove an obnoxious point. In fact, it was in the context
of discussing my restrictions with seeing that data that TS posted
it; that's something of a personal afront. TS was in the military
at one point; he really should have known a little better. Yes,
he could have posted that as a normal user, but if someone who
should know better shows such poor judgement, do you really want
that person on staff, reading other users' files?
|
jep
|
|
response 22 of 46:
|
Dec 15 18:39 UTC 2010 |
Dan, I think it was impolite to post that right after you said it would
be a problem for you. I think TS saw that point and censored his responses.
I think ordinary usage of Grex allows people to post just about anything
here. I was once in the military, too, but I wouldn't expect to get in
any trouble with the law if I were to quote something from Wikileaks. I
wouldn't feel I had broken the law, or any ethical rules, given the
material is readily available on the Internet. I'm not likely to post
anything from Wikileaks because I'm not much interested in reading it.
I'm personally uncomfortable that the data was ever made public. But it
was. It's a public topic of discussion now. Even if your position
requires you to not read it because of military security rules, that is
not true for anyone else on Grex, and those rules don't apply to us.
|
cross
|
|
response 23 of 46:
|
Dec 15 18:58 UTC 2010 |
Unfortunately, that doesn't make it any less classified. And laws are being
broken by posting it; such is life.
But again, it's not about the data somuch as about having very poor judgement.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 24 of 46:
|
Dec 15 20:32 UTC 2010 |
BS, jep; tsty did NO censoring. I'm glad he wised up enough to delete
his responses, but the damage has been done.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 46:
|
Dec 15 22:38 UTC 2010 |
What damage?
|
unicorn
|
|
response 26 of 46:
|
Dec 16 04:09 UTC 2010 |
Dan, out of curiosity, might the government block your access to Grex
due to those postings?
|
cross
|
|
response 27 of 46:
|
Dec 16 09:59 UTC 2010 |
resp:26 Yup.
|
jep
|
|
response 28 of 46:
|
Dec 16 16:22 UTC 2010 |
I'm sorry, Dan, but that is a risk you assume by using Grex. TS could
have posted porn, and I would then run the risk of running afoul of my
company's policies. I would find it annoying of him to do so, as it
could be damaging to me, but that would be my problem.
People can post what they want on Grex. It's not going to change based
on whether TS is on the staff or not on the staff. There's no point and
nothing to be gained by penalizing him for this.
You said there were other reasons why TS should be removed, namely,
looking at private files. That seems more serious to me as it is a
violation of trust. It may be inappropriate to discuss it if it would
involve violating people's privacy further. I don't know if that is
true. I suggest limiting the discussion to that and deciding whether TS
should be removed for that. If there's a problem in that area, I hope
it can be resolved short of removing TS. He's the only treasurer Grex
has, for one thing
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 29 of 46:
|
Dec 16 16:40 UTC 2010 |
You don't have to be on staff to be the Treasurer.
|
jep
|
|
response 30 of 46:
|
Dec 16 16:58 UTC 2010 |
Okay, so that point doesn't need to be important.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 46:
|
Dec 16 18:53 UTC 2010 |
No one has to read anything they don't want to on Grex. That's the other side
of being able to post anything one wants.
|
richard
|
|
response 32 of 46:
|
Dec 16 19:52 UTC 2010 |
You can't have universal root access as a concept unless you accept that
files will or could be read. The honor system usually works but when it
doesn't there's no other way to enforce it. I mean how do you know that
other staffers with root haven't gotten bored and went snooping around
here.
|
krj
|
|
response 33 of 46:
|
Dec 16 20:50 UTC 2010 |
I think we should ask the court to reopen "Cyberspace vs. Engler."
We'd like to change our position. :-)
|
tsty
|
|
response 34 of 46:
|
Dec 17 14:57 UTC 2010 |
re 26 27
#121 of 137: by TS Taylor (tsty) on Wed, Dec 15, 2010 (10:44):
further .. on the remote off-chance that some activie duty american military
members -could be- somehow 'nicked' for having on their screens soemting
untoward, i have erased two resps. some hyper-hyper-vigilant fsckoff could
go ballistic in teh barracks. [ed: good grief, charlie borown]
note this wa paosted about 13 hours before 26 /27 ...
|
jep
|
|
response 35 of 46:
|
Dec 17 18:20 UTC 2010 |
TS, please say you're sorry.
Once we have protected the system from a staffer posting such material,
we will have saved Grex, because surely every other user will see that
it causes a tizzy and thus will avoid doing anything of the sort in the
future.
|
veek
|
|
response 36 of 46:
|
Dec 18 04:48 UTC 2010 |
is that how you think dalten would react?? this is silly :)
|
tstest
|
|
response 37 of 46:
|
Dec 18 07:43 UTC 2010 |
hey!
#21 of 36: by Dan Cross (cross) on Wed, Dec 15, 2010 (13:17):
So, these restrictions and the classification stuff extends to
servicemembers' personal computers as well. TS did what he did
just to prove an obnoxious point. In fact, it was in the context
of discussing my restrictions with seeing that data that TS posted
it; that's something of a personal afront.
#22 of 36: by John Ellis Perry Jr. (jep) on Wed, Dec 15, 2010 (13:39):
Dan, I think it was impolite to post that right after you said it would
be a problem for you. I think TS saw that point and censored his responses.
=====================
#121 of 137: by TS Taylor (tsty) on Wed, Dec 15, 2010 (10:44):
further .. on the remote off-chance that some activie duty american military
.....
back off! H O U R S before the spurious accuasatoins, they were gone!
i thoguht it thorugh way before being keelhuauled by his majhisty.
"just to prove an obnoxious point." ... " something of a personal afront."
protecting you was the sole rationale' --- quit pisisng into the wind.
|
cross
|
|
response 38 of 46:
|
Dec 19 04:16 UTC 2010 |
It doesn't matter whether you deleted it. It's the fact that you posted it
at all.
|
tsty
|
|
response 39 of 46:
|
Dec 20 05:06 UTC 2010 |
we can diasagree, peacefully.
|
cross
|
|
response 40 of 46:
|
Dec 20 14:01 UTC 2010 |
Not really.
|
richard
|
|
response 41 of 46:
|
Dec 20 21:29 UTC 2010 |
Yes you can. If the U.S. and the Chinese can disagree peacefully, then
so can TS and Cross. Shake hands guys.
|
veek
|
|
response 42 of 46:
|
Dec 21 04:38 UTC 2010 |
yeah, TS did delete the posts - that's what matters.. in the sense
that, it may not count in terms of the army, but he did try to fix
things!
|
lar
|
|
response 43 of 46:
|
Dec 27 21:29 UTC 2010 |
tsty has also invaded user privacy...how can he fix that?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 44 of 46:
|
Dec 27 21:30 UTC 2010 |
First, define what invasion of privacy is not allowed. Without that, I
don't think you can really make accusations.
|