|
Grex > Coop > #301: Move to remove TS from Grex staff. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
cross
|
|
Move to remove TS from Grex staff.
| 
Dec 13 14:32 UTC 2010 |
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. |
tsty
|
|
response 1 of 46:
|
Dec 13 18:44 UTC 2010 |
isn;t this topic more appropriate for staff.cf?
|
jep
|
|
response 2 of 46:
|
Dec 13 20:04 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 3 of 46:
|
Dec 13 23:06 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
tsty
|
|
response 4 of 46:
|
Dec 14 02:56 UTC 2010 |
?????????/ grex staff inapprppriate for staff.cf ?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 5 of 46:
|
Dec 14 05:35 UTC 2010 |
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
|
cross
|
|
response 6 of 46:
|
Dec 14 12:27 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
veek
|
|
response 7 of 46:
|
Dec 14 13:08 UTC 2010 |
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..
|
veek
|
|
response 8 of 46:
|
Dec 14 13:09 UTC 2010 |
assuming of course this proposal is serious..
|
cross
|
|
response 9 of 46:
|
Dec 14 13:24 UTC 2010 |
It is serious.
|
remmers
|
|
response 10 of 46:
|
Dec 14 13:42 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 11 of 46:
|
Dec 14 14:37 UTC 2010 |
Ok.
|
veek
|
|
response 12 of 46:
|
Dec 14 15:16 UTC 2010 |
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!)
|
cross
|
|
response 13 of 46:
|
Dec 14 15:43 UTC 2010 |
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?
|
veek
|
|
response 14 of 46:
|
Dec 14 16:58 UTC 2010 |
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.
"
|
rcurl
|
|
response 15 of 46:
|
Dec 14 20:48 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 16 of 46:
|
Dec 14 21:15 UTC 2010 |
I do not think that was what he was saying at all. He was referring to
his government computer.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 46:
|
Dec 15 05:10 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 18 of 46:
|
Dec 15 13:08 UTC 2010 |
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.
|