|
Grex > Coop11 > #173: Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 255 responses total. |
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.
|
spooked
|
|
response 57 of 255:
|
May 31 01:49 UTC 2000 |
Re-iterate, if there was no scribble, we wouldn't have a problem! And, we
shouldn't have a problem.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 58 of 255:
|
May 31 01:53 UTC 2000 |
I think Mary's resp:56 is the best example I've seen so far of the sort of
harm that a permanent scribble could do.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 59 of 255:
|
May 31 03:00 UTC 2000 |
Really? How? You think the libeled person would be happier if 500 other
people see the post?
Let people delete text permanently. It's their text.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 60 of 255:
|
May 31 03:10 UTC 2000 |
If someone posts something libelous on a flyer and tapes it up on a kiosk on
the diag, many people read it, then the person goes back at tears down the
flyer, what recourse does the libeled person have then? Can he get a court
order to turn over the flyer? In the case of a scribble log, I would say that
the libeled person would in fact have to produce such a court order before
the staff would be obliged to make available the offending text. Which, BTW,
I assume could be hacked by staff in the interim, and no one would be the
wiser. So what good is worrying about this hypothetical?
|
void
|
|
response 61 of 255:
|
May 31 03:28 UTC 2000 |
as has been pointed out earlier in this item (or maybe one of the
other items where this issue is being discussed), law enforcement knows
that records are, or can be, periodically destroyed.
the situation described by mary is #56 happened to me on m-net about
three years ago. i never saw the text, and no one has seen fit to
repost it even if they have it saved. i have not been traumatized or
scarred for life.
i *own* my text. grex does *not* own my text. nowhere, at no time,
have i ever expressly given grex ownership of my text. grex's current
policy effectively steals my text from me, since grex assumes that i
may not be grown-up enough to handle the english language responsibly.
if i want to stop publishing my text on grex, i should have that
right. if i have interpreted jmsaul's and aaron's comments correctly,
the law will probably even back me up on that.
users should be able to delete their own text, and delete it
completely.
|
spooked
|
|
response 62 of 255:
|
May 31 03:52 UTC 2000 |
This is stupid. How far are you going to take this? Oh, let's make
retraction possible in party. Party logs are not archived forever, but
there's nothing saying they couldn't be.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 63 of 255:
|
May 31 05:18 UTC 2000 |
Actually, party does raise an issue in that people in party probably don't
realize their words are being logged and potentially retained -- they
don't even *know* that a permanent record is being generated. If the logs
are only retained for a short period of time (say a day), that isn't too
big a deal. Now aren't you sorry you mentioned it?
|
gypsi
|
|
response 64 of 255:
|
May 31 05:35 UTC 2000 |
<laughs> Although, the private channels' logs can't be read by the public.
That's the trick. ;-)
|
spooked
|
|
response 65 of 255:
|
May 31 06:15 UTC 2000 |
But bbs is public, hence the analogy with party (main).
I re-affirm that I think censorship, or retraction, of any form mentioned
is just dangerous, ridiculed with ambiguities, and plain dumb.
Avoid it. Retract the retraction option!!
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 66 of 255:
|
May 31 16:47 UTC 2000 |
It's dangerous to let people remove their own text, but safe to force them
to keep that text here forever? Yeah, right.
It's dangerous to let users control their writings, but safe to give Grex
control over them so it can face suits over copyright infringement, subpoenas
in disputes between users, and lawsuits from users who want their material
deleted -- and, even if none of that happens, puts itself in the position of
maintaining evidence files for the benefit of government agencies, companies,
or anyone else who might some day, for some reason, want to nail a Grex
user to the wall for something the user posted? Yeah, right.
|
aruba
|
|
response 67 of 255:
|
May 31 17:23 UTC 2000 |
I'll be voting no.
|
aaron
|
|
response 68 of 255:
|
May 31 17:36 UTC 2000 |
re #64: But what if people are being defamed in the private channels?
Don't they have a right to see what has been said?
|
other
|
|
response 69 of 255:
|
May 31 19:11 UTC 2000 |
Joe (Saul), your whole approach to this issue is one reflective of a paranoia
usually reserved for government and profit-seeking organizations and their
excesses.
The basis of the status quo on this is maintaining a continuity and flow, and
trying to keep the quality of the discourse at a level which keeps it
interesting for those who use the system. Is there something wrong with that?
So there's a trade-off between the rights of individual users and the goals
of the systems in serving its user base, what of it?
The responses you are getting on this are the responses of individual people,
some of whom just happen to be part of the elected management of this
organization, but their opinions are the opinions of people who are users of
this system and want it to be interesting and functional for lively and
valuable public discourse.
A system like Grex can only continue to exist and function (like *any*
society) if the people of whom it is comprised are willing to accept certain
shortcomings inherent within it.
I have proposed a policy change which would implement an agreement between
users and Grex which formalizes the implied license Grex now enjoys to the
content of the BBS. The more I think about it, the worse an idea this seems
to be. But the kind of noise you're making about this makes it seem
necessary. I would rather have Grex remain susceptible to suit for copyright
infringment for maintaining the content of the BBS than make users agree to
formally license their postings to Grex. It is a bad solution to something
that is only a problem if someone chooses to make it one, and I can't imagine
how anyone who makes it one would want anything other than to destroy Grex.
Or, are you simply ignorant of the implications of this?
If you don't want something read by the entire fucking world, then don't put
it on Grex. If you do want it read by the entire world, and you put it on
Grex, and then you change your mind, then learn to live with the fact that
you fucked up. Period. Don't try to make Grex responsible for your mistakes
or your inability to make choices you can stand by.
My opinion on this is that hide/expurgate should be left unchanged except to
let users know more effectively how to view hidden text, and erase/scribble
should consign posts to bbs/censored which should be repermitted so that it
is only staff-readable, but that the erase/scribble command should only be
available for any given post for not more than one week after it is posted.
I think this is the only reasonable and practicable compromise which has
been offered which addresses the inconsistencies in the implied and actual
effects of the scribble/erase command, the desire/need to maintain the
continuity of discussion on Grex and the issue of user responsibility for
the content of postings.
|
aaron
|
|
response 70 of 255:
|
May 31 19:39 UTC 2000 |
This whole thing only became an issue because the "sleight of hand" was
revealed. There was, and is, no continuity in a system where only a few
people know that there is a "secret file" of scribbled comments, and
fewer know how to read it.
This whole discussion is the tail wagging the dog -- people who like to
look in the censored log trying to find reasons why it should remain open
to them.
If you don't like the policy implications of Grex asserting some form of
ownership over people's words, then let people control their words. You
can't have it both ways.
Right now, people can expurgate and scribble their comments, weeks or
months after the fact. Except for the few who are quirky enough to dig the
comments out of the censored log, the continuity is lost. Yet it doesn't
seem to be a problem. If it isn't a problem, why create a policy based
upon the premise that it is?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 71 of 255:
|
May 31 20:18 UTC 2000 |
My position is based on respect for individual users, who are real people,
who occasionally will make mistakes and want to remove those mistakes. Since
most of those real people have apparently believed scribble actually destroys
their text all along, the suggestion that the only thing standing between
Grex and a lapse into illiteracy and uncivility is the existence of that
publicly-readable censored log is a farce.
I'm not paranoid. I just want users to be able to control their own writings.
I mentioned potential legal consequences here because someone was claiming
that it was "safer" for Grex to keep scribbled text around, and I wanted to
explain why it isn't.
|
spooked
|
|
response 72 of 255:
|
Jun 1 00:09 UTC 2000 |
I'll be voting no to any of the proposed notions, except of course, if a
notion was proposed to remove scribble completely.
|
pfv
|
|
response 73 of 255:
|
Jun 1 13:35 UTC 2000 |
So... we have:
Deperm the log, or
censor censoring.
|
flem
|
|
response 74 of 255:
|
Jun 1 18:15 UTC 2000 |
What a confusing argument. All right, let's see if I understand what's being
said, beneath the rhetoric.
1. Grex should allow users to delete the contents of their own posts
because of illegal or "defamatory" content.
2. It should be possible to self-censor in case someone breaks in
to a user's account and does embarrassing or illegal things in that
user's name.
3. Users should be able to delete the contents of their posts because
they have a legal right to do so, under copyright laws.
#1 alone seems insufficient reason for a policy change, IMO. We already have
a policy (correct me if I'm wrong on this) regarding posts with illegal
content, such as credit card numbers: staff censors it, with an explanation
of why it was censored. As for "defamatory" content, I can't even believe
we're arguing about that. I'm sure not going to vote for a policy whose
purpose is to keep people whose fingers are faster than their brains from
having to apologize for what they said.
#2 seems to reduce to part of #1: hacking into accounts is AFAIK illegal,
and posts submitted while illegally impersonating a user are thus
subsceptible to censorship under existing policy. No need to vote in
new policy here.
#3 is the only part that seems to have any merit at all, to me. As
we all know, copyright laws regarding the internet are far from clear.
While it seems to me (using the little common sense I have) that things
said in a public forum such as Grex are subject to fair use, it's
entirely possible that the laws may be written or interpreted some other
way. To me, the proposed policy change is sufficiently disturbing that
I feel Grex should not implement it unless there is a clear, compelling
legal reason to do so, and this legal reason is any thing but clear
or compelling.
So, I think I'll be voting no on this one.
|