|
|
|
I have emailed the board and staff moving that TS be removed from Grex's staff, for both violating users' privacy and for posting classified material on Grex.
46 responses total.
isn;t this topic more appropriate for staff.cf?
I don't think TS can be removed for posting classified material, since it was and is publicly available, doesn't break any laws, and doesn't break any Grex policies.
I'm pretty sure it actually broke this law: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793 But that's not the point. The point is that it shows a serious lack of judgement. And no, this isn't more appropriate to the staff conference.
?????????/ grex staff inapprppriate for staff.cf ?
Re #3: You really think that law will be applied in these cases? "Although the entire Pentagon Papers study has been published by various sources starting with the Times in 1971 and ending with the National Security Archive in 2002, the work remains classified.", but no one was convicted (well, a professor was jailed for a week...). In the course of all the proceedings, a Supreme Court judge wrote: "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell." --Justice Black
I don't know whether it would be applied or not. But I think TS's judgement is not suitable for what Grex needs on its staff.
I see nothing wrong with what TS did. If anything he should be commended. Oh well.. one more pointless thread, and if TS gets pissed, one more staff member who'll quit..
assuming of course this proposal is serious..
It is serious.
Everybody shows bad judgement now and then, no matter how smart and competent they are. This Wikileaks thing is a gray area at worst, and I'm really not comfortable with its being a factor in deciding whether somebody should be on staff or not. As to the other conduct issues raised, I think they're best handled by the Board in executive session. I believe the bylaws provide for such a process.
Ok.
i took a look at that link, could you point to the exact para where it says someone can't retransmit info already in the public domain.. I'll quote some bits: (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States ((( Intent to do harm is required))) (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, ((( now they are covering copy and not actual spying.. again intent to do harm ))) (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever,<SNIP>that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; ((( doesn't fit ))) ------------- My point is, it's not enough to just cast aspersions and point to a long document. Grex is a company, and assuming you guys want to court- martial him properly <g> an attempt should be made to point to the relevant bits that apply. Fortunately for me :) I dinna have to read that long thingie and neither does TS :) It's your job.. counsel fo' the prosecution and innocent until proven guilty. (<g> TS, my advice, sue the rats if they fire you without due process :p They have a 1000 bucks in cold hard cash! not to mention all the cool computer equipment! Now if we only had cute chicks as spectators, we could turn this into a gladitorial event *sigh* Oh well.. don't get too upset about this sweetie. I wonder now, where they are going to find a replacement button presser - no disrespect in the slightest intended!)
You're not a lawyer, veek. And the information isn't in the public domain. Like I said before, spilling classified information onto unclassified systems makes those unclassified systems classified; it doesn't make the information automatically "public domain". Just because the New York Times did it first doesn't make it illegal. If the NYT went out and defrauded people of thousands of dollars, would that all of a sudden make it okay to commit fraud?
But neither are you.. my point is that Grex is being forced to take a stand on the advice of a non-professional (unless you were with JAG in the marines) It's in the public domain (by virtue of this info not being patented, trademarked or under copyright[fair use enters the picture - also he posted to General and not under Grex's webRoot]) and is of questionable classification. Wiki public domain, also wiki "classified" (I've quoted it below). All I'm saying is, give people reasonable cause to kick him out (assuming you have the time to dig it up - the law does not demand that you find the time) by bringing to everyone elses notice the relevant section of the law, or get a lawyer to give you advice via email. It's not an unreasonable suggestion given that TS has been with Grex for donkeys years etc etc and is an employee. How do ordinary folk determine what is classified or if a law is broken?? By looking at a dictionary and using common sense! What harm has TS caused - that would be my rule of thumb. Also, has he done something likely to cause harm, or encourage harm. (wiki) "In a general context public domain may refer to ideas, information and works that are "publicly available", but in the context of intellectual property law," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information This is a link to what classified info is. Note: "Government classification The highest level of classification of material on a national level. Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available. Restricted Such material would cause "undesirable effects" if publicly available. Some countries do not have such a classification. "
The NYT is now classified because it published wikileak material?? So millions of people are traitors because they read and commented on it? Don't be silly.
I do not think that was what he was saying at all. He was referring to his government computer.
Just saw this on NYT online: "When Air Force personnel on the services computer network try to view the Web sites of The Times, the British newspaper The Guardian, the German magazine Der Spiegel, the Spanish newspaper El Pas and the French newspaper Le Monde, as well as other sites that posted full confidential cables, the screen says Access Denied: Internet usage is logged and monitored, according to an Air Force official whose access was blocked and who shared the screen warning with The Times." Does this mean the US government is blocking access to ALL of the NYT and other news outlets via services computer net? Isn't that violating the First Amendment? This is as bad as China.
Get a hold of yourself, Rane. The government blocking access from their own systems to certain websites is not a violation of the first amendment, nor is it anywhere near the type of censorship you see in China.
resp:17 Yup, that's right. You clearly don't understand the issues, or how classified information works. You seem to believe that the data wikileaks posted is now somehow public domain, but, as I've told you time and again, it's not. It remains classified. Just because it was published doesn't change that; it needs to go through a declassification process. Because that data has been posted to Grex, Grex could get banned from government computers, as well. If you could get past your self-righteous indignation for a fraction of a second and see it from someone else's perspective, maybe you could see that posting that data on Grex showed poor judgement.
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.
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?
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.
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.
BS, jep; tsty did NO censoring. I'm glad he wised up enough to delete his responses, but the damage has been done.
What damage?
Dan, out of curiosity, might the government block your access to Grex due to those postings?
resp:26 Yup.
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
You don't have to be on staff to be the Treasurer.
Okay, so that point doesn't need to be important.
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.
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.
I think we should ask the court to reopen "Cyberspace vs. Engler." We'd like to change our position. :-)
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 ...
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.
is that how you think dalten would react?? this is silly :)
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.
It doesn't matter whether you deleted it. It's the fact that you posted it at all.
we can diasagree, peacefully.
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss