|
Grex > Coop11 > #173: Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 255 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 32 of 255:
| 
May 29 17:34 UTC 2000 |
Okay, I see the cicumstances you were referring to in the previous item. If
you're going to keep them around for that purpose, a relatively short sunset
period (say two weeks) would be appropriate.
|
other
|
|
response 33 of 255:
|
May 29 17:54 UTC 2000 |
I am very strongly in the camp supporting responsibility by not allowing
ex post facto permanent removal of posted responses, however, I am also
sensitive to the concerns spelled out by Joe Saul.
The best solution I can come up with is a variation on hhsrat's delayed
posting suggestion:
Would it be possible to make adjustments to picospan and backtalk that
would allow users to censor their own responses (save to a staff-only
accessible logfile and remove from bbs) for some period less than one week
after intially posted, beyond which time the hide/expurgate command would
still be allowed but erase/scribble would not?
I think this could be a fairly straightforward modification, by adding a
subroutine to the commands which checks the date field of the response
against the current date and then either proceeds or exits.
This would allow posts to be reconsidered and removed within a reasonably
short period of time, before potential damage amasses, and also would
prohibit removal beyond some arbitrary point at which it could be assumed
that either the discussion has too deeply incorporated the response in
question or that it is simply no longer an issue and is merely part of the
record.
(I have written such date-checking logic, which is why I think it would be
a reasonable technical solution, though not in any language applicable in the
Grex environment.)
Thoughts?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 34 of 255:
|
May 29 19:48 UTC 2000 |
I don't think it's sufficient to protect the rights of posters. People
own their text, and they should be permitted to remove it at any time.
On the practical front, to use the example of the case of defaming a third
party, it might take more than two weeks for the poster to discover
there's a problem.
|
remmers
|
|
response 35 of 255:
|
May 29 20:00 UTC 2000 |
Re resp:20 - I suppose I should be flattered to have my "4 instead
of 5" comment elevated to being the sum total of Grex's "defense",
but I was only pointing out a typo in one of md's responses. Sheesh.
|
pfv
|
|
response 36 of 255:
|
May 29 21:33 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
goroke
|
|
response 37 of 255:
|
May 29 22:12 UTC 2000 |
Since it is possible that retracted text might conceivably be required as
evidence which could be subject to subpoena, complete removal is unwise.
However, permitting a user to hide his remarks from all but staff gives Grex
a defense of its own that it took all reasonable steps to mitigate the
situation by not preventing the user from lessening the damage by removing
it from view.
Jan's suggestion parallels my own thoughts.
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 255:
|
May 29 22:19 UTC 2000 |
(Since this is the discussion item for a formal motion, I'll
put on my voteadm hat for a moment and outline the procedure.
See Article 5 of the bylaws -- item:2 of this conference --
for details. The discussion period is two weeks, and so will
end on Sunday, June 11. At that time, the proposer may elect
to put forth a final wording and have the proposal voted on.
If he does, the vote takes place online by secret ballot over
a period of 10 days.)
|
aaron
|
|
response 39 of 255:
|
May 29 22:27 UTC 2000 |
re #25: Is there some reason you are unable to address the points I raised?
Perhaps you need a better lawyer?
re #35: I think perhaps you misunderstood md's post, then. I read him as
proposing two different solutions he would consider to rate "5"
on his scale.
re #37: "I subpoena your records on this issue." "Sorry. Our records were
destroyed, in accord with a long-standing policy, in the ordinary
course of business." It's not a problem.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 40 of 255:
|
May 30 00:03 UTC 2000 |
Even the FOIA recognises that records get destroyed now and again.
|
spooked
|
|
response 41 of 255:
|
May 30 00:54 UTC 2000 |
If you say something, you should have to stand by the consequences. My
opinion. Scribble and any hiding of information is dumb, in my opinion.
|
aaron
|
|
response 42 of 255:
|
May 30 01:21 UTC 2000 |
So you say, eliminate the "scribble" command? And what? Have staff
edit out any illegal content, or defamatory content that comes to
its attention?
|
spooked
|
|
response 43 of 255:
|
May 30 02:04 UTC 2000 |
How much illegal content is present, and/or eliminated now?
We are clutching at straws.
We either provide an open bbs, or we close down to the wills of those
persecuting us (remember our legal battle?)
|
spooked
|
|
response 44 of 255:
|
May 30 02:08 UTC 2000 |
Yes, I think scribble and commands similar can only cause controversy, and
we'd be better without them.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 45 of 255:
|
May 30 02:42 UTC 2000 |
I like janc's suggestion in response #31, and his and others' associated
reasoning. So I'm going to modify my motion accordingly:
Shall the picospan "scribble" and backtalk "erase" commands
permanently make the text of responses inaccessible to non-staff users?
|
md
|
|
response 46 of 255:
|
May 30 02:49 UTC 2000 |
Re #35, that was not a typo.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 47 of 255:
|
May 30 03:24 UTC 2000 |
> Since it is possible that retracted text might conceivably be required
>as evidence which could be subject to subpoena, complete removal is
>unwise.
Why? Grex has no responsibility to keep stuff around in case it's
subpoenaed some day. Grex has no responsibility to maintain an evidence
log in case someone wants to sue one of its users. I don't understand
where this line of argument comes from.
|
void
|
|
response 48 of 255:
|
May 30 05:20 UTC 2000 |
it would be better if the motion read, "shall picospan 'scribble'
and backtack 'erase' commands permanently make the text of responses
inaccessible?"
|
gypsi
|
|
response 49 of 255:
|
May 30 07:40 UTC 2000 |
Well, I think it should be made available to 'Staff' since they use it for
backups and such, but not to 'Non-Staff Users'. What interest is a scribble
log to non-staff people? Other than mere curiosity?
|
mary
|
|
response 50 of 255:
|
May 30 10:45 UTC 2000 |
" Shall the picospan "scribble" and backtalk "erase"
commands permanently make the text of responses
inaccessible to non-staff users?"
If this new motion passes it will make promises we cannot keep.
Anything which keeps a copy available but restricts access to it
must be accompanied with a warning that the text is indeed still
archived and may again be viewed and shared as staff sees fit.
Staff is taking on problems with this one that, up until now, we've
left to the responsibility of the poster. Exactly where it belongs.
|
remmers
|
|
response 51 of 255:
|
May 30 12:14 UTC 2000 |
Re #46: Ok, gotcha. Misunderstood your intent.
|
aaron
|
|
response 52 of 255:
|
May 30 13:27 UTC 2000 |
re #50: Why is it that you don't think that Grex can keep its word? If
a policy change is effected, why can't it apply prospectively?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 53 of 255:
|
May 30 14:27 UTC 2000 |
Re #50: So just let people permanently remove stuff, and don't keep a copy
around for staff. On the extremely rare occasions where someone
hacks into an account and deletes the user's posts, live with it.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 54 of 255:
|
May 30 18:29 UTC 2000 |
Yeah, sure, staff can do anything it wants. But why do you have so little
faith in staff? Staff could be posting contents of private e-mails in
conference items. But has it ever done so? I think not. Give 'em some
credit. With this proposal, staff would do nothing with the scibble log
until/unless some exceptional circumstance arose (author's account was hacked,
subpoena arrived, etc.). And if by then the log had been purged or whatever,
then it's a "so sorry" matter.
|
scg
|
|
response 55 of 255:
|
May 30 19:48 UTC 2000 |
I think what Mary is pointing out is that it's possible that somebody could
break in and read the file. It's a valid concern, and if somebody has
something they really care about not having anybody find out ever, they
probably shouldn't stick it in the scribble log, or in any other non-publicly
readable file on an Internet connected system. Probably they shouldn't ride
it down anywhere, since even if it's in their home, somebody could still break
in and steal the paper.
I don't think that has all that much to do with this policy discussion,
though. I'd be pretty upset if an e-mail service provider I was using didn't
have a policy saying that nobody else could read my e-mail without permission
from me. At the same time, I would recognize that there's no way they can
keep it completely secure from those violating their policies (although I
would expect them to deal with it accordingly if their policies were to be
violated), and I wouldn't expect them to stand firmly behind their privacy
policy in the face of a court order asking them to turn my mailbox over.
Policies are rules, not promises. If Grex has a policy saying that data won't
get out, then I think the staff will try to keep the data secure. It's not
a guarantee, but neither are any of the other rules Grex has.
|
mary
|
|
response 56 of 255:
|
May 30 23:17 UTC 2000 |
When you promise to make "...responses inaccessible to non-staff users"
you are saying that text will not be shared with a whole lot of people who
may have a legitimate reasons for needing to see it. Remember we're not
talking about private mail here but rather comments that were part of a
public discussion.
What happens when some angry sod makes a slanderous statement about
someone, the text sticks around for a few days and is read by lots of
folks, but is scribbled before the person being slammed has a chance to
see it? Does the slandered person have the right to see the text? I
would hope so. Staff will be put in nasty position of protecting users who
used very bad judgement in the first place and then hide behind this
policy. Will you instead refuse to allow the person being insulted to see
what was said? The response to this might be folks capturing text they
sense in volatile and making it public once again. In this case do we
start censoring responses? What a mess and I really don't see this as far
fetched paranoia. I much prefer we expect folks to think first and be
responsible for their own mistakes and not put staff in the middle as
social engineers and babysitters.
There are other folks who might have a legitimate interest in seeing once
public now hidden text as well, like law enforcement types and lawyers. To
say only staff will see scribbled responses is misleading.
|