|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
ryan
|
|
response 51 of 79:
| 
Jan 27 04:49 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 52 of 79:
|
Jan 27 16:07 UTC 2004 |
You have a problem with oral sex, chump?
|
russ
|
|
response 53 of 79:
|
Jan 28 00:32 UTC 2004 |
Re #41: There is this little thing called something like the
Computer Fraud and Misuse Act of 199x, which criminalizes the
unauthorized access to, or abuse of, computer systems.
I don't see why we can't just explicitly yank the authorization
of the abusers to access Grex, then we can start yanking the
chains of the abusers AND their enablers AND all their ISP's.
How hard would it be to get their IRC buddies disconnected?
How many buddies would they have after that happened?
How many would refuse to tell us who they are, faced with a
subpoena?
|
polytarp
|
|
response 54 of 79:
|
Jan 28 00:41 UTC 2004 |
I'm polytarp.
|
gull
|
|
response 55 of 79:
|
Jan 28 01:15 UTC 2004 |
If you allow anyone to create an account on a system, how can any access
to it be unauthorized?
|
ryan
|
|
response 56 of 79:
|
Jan 28 01:28 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 57 of 79:
|
Jan 28 01:41 UTC 2004 |
Happy GreX staffers...
How would you capture the IP address of the user when the full IP isn't
logged?
|
twinkie
|
|
response 58 of 79:
|
Jan 28 01:58 UTC 2004 |
re: 53
You can't be serious. Please tell me you're playing devil's advocate here.
If they broke in to a system, destroyed a bunch of data, and caused serious
financial harm, you *might* be able to inflict the interstate and
multinational hellfire you're proposing.
But if you seriously think a judge is going to fire off a bunch of subpoenas
just because a handful of people in Birkenstocks show up to court and ask
nicely, you're sorely mistaken.
The Fraud and Misuse Act doesn't even come close to applying here. Right off
the bat, it says "Whoever knowingly accesses a computer without permission..."
Unless they were sent some sort of formal notice by Grex, they have permission
to use the system.
It continues to say "...with intent to defraud, or cause damage...". You'd
never prove in a million years that they intended to defraud anybody, and the
"damage" caused is so subjective, it would be laughed out of court.
You'd have an easier time accusing them of being Muslims using Grex as a
"cyberintelligence training ground" and nail them under the PATRIOT Act.
As far as their friends go, let's assume you've convinced an insane judge or
magistrate to subpoena ISP's for their names and addresses. Do you really
think they'll hop-to upon receipt? I can tell you from firsthand experience
at two ISP's that they won't. In fact, they'll probably send a letter back
that says (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Sorry, but we're not about to violate
the First and Fourth Amendment rights of our customer. Come back with a
subpoena from a REAL court."
That none of this takes in to consideration the time and money it would take
just to go to court. It's not as though you'd receive any money, because they
didn't cause any monetary damage. (Well, unless you pull a fast one like
Arbornet did, and accuse them of magically breaking the hardware.)
I really don't think you're going to get legal gears spinning over a few pages
of text.
P.S., they probably get a great deal of enjoyment out of conversations like
this. Please, learn from Arbornet for once, and let it go.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 59 of 79:
|
Jan 28 01:59 UTC 2004 |
resp:50 Could be, when they're desperate to prove the point. Sometimes
it's a duel between the Canucks and them anyways.
|
jp2
|
|
response 60 of 79:
|
Jan 28 02:09 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 61 of 79:
|
Jan 28 02:31 UTC 2004 |
I heard it was the misunderstanding by the court that got Arbornet so much
money.
|
styles
|
|
response 62 of 79:
|
Jan 28 03:43 UTC 2004 |
and le aa snooze.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 63 of 79:
|
Jan 28 03:58 UTC 2004 |
I still maintain that, as it stands, I'm entirely within my rights to run
various fun events like Greek Week and Grex Reads the Classics, and I will
continue to do so.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 64 of 79:
|
Jan 28 04:22 UTC 2004 |
60: Sure. I'm serious if you are.
|
gull
|
|
response 65 of 79:
|
Jan 28 23:48 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:63: Why don't you create your own conference to run them in, then?
|
polytarp
|
|
response 66 of 79:
|
Jan 28 23:50 UTC 2004 |
I ALREADY DID< IN FACT.
|
naftee
|
|
response 67 of 79:
|
Jan 29 05:28 UTC 2004 |
WOW
|
janc
|
|
response 68 of 79:
|
Feb 5 05:19 UTC 2004 |
Hmmm. The red words on Grex's home page are there because I put them there,
back when I designed that page. I don't remember consulting anyone about
it, but nobody else has objected to them or removed them. I'm a bit surprised
to see that these have somehow become the preamble to Grex's constitution in
the minds of some. If I changed it to "beer and pretzels" would the whole
issue go away? Does anyone care about the framers intent?
Seriously, this interpretation of what "free speech" means is absurdly
extreme and absurdly simplistic. Does removal of the record of a discussion
that ended two years ago really make Grex a less effective venue for free
discussion?
Actually, Grex might be a better venue for free speech if everything were
deleted after a year. People might feel more free to speak if they didn't
think their every word would be preserved in public view for all eternity.
Does anyone feel "freed" by jp2's position on this matter? If these items
are left deleted, will you feel less free to speak on Grex than you once
did? If not, what exactly is the damage done to free speech here?
|
other
|
|
response 69 of 79:
|
Feb 5 05:48 UTC 2004 |
What some people here are (intentionally?) missing is that free
speech as an ideal is not most effectively preserved by applying it
indiscriminately to ALL speech.
Certain forms of speech are clearly prohibited under the American
constitution, and rightly so because their destructive (as
distinctly opposed to disruptive) potential far exceeds any possible
value of those specific messages and specific forms of speech,
especially when there are so many other means by which to convey
ideas.
Shouting fire in a crowded thatre is not illegal because it will
interrupt the ability of the audience to enjoy the performance, but
because the sudden movement of a mass of people through the
bottlenecks of a few exits can easily result in the deaths of some
of those people (and has done so). Similarly, accounts are locked
on Grex for abuse of the system in a fashion which either ignores or
blatantly seeks to exceed the limitations to which the system is
subject, and which thereby presents a very realm potential to deny
access to the system to those who wish to use it.
The analogy is not direct in that loss of access to Grex does not
necessarily result in the death of any users, but it does result in
tangible degradation of the user experience. If that condition
persists unchecked, Grex's core user base would be faced with either
abandoning the system or enduring unnecessary delays which would
likely exceed their desire to participate in the community.
Therefore, it is quite reasonable that Grex should limit the
absolute freedom of expression within its borders in order to
preserve its ability to foster freedom of speech within its borders.
Abusers such as dah/polytarp/willcome/etc (and I would be inclined
to include naftee because I believe it is the same person) are
guilty of conscious and premeditated attempts to destroy Grex, so
any claims of violation of its free speech rights on Grex are not
only specious, but are callously and cynically calculated to further
its efforts to this end.
|
jp2
|
|
response 70 of 79:
|
Feb 5 13:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 71 of 79:
|
Feb 5 14:42 UTC 2004 |
Sure, if you cite where I said that "destructive" speech is banned
BY the constitution. (Seems to me I said "under," meaning within
the bounds of. As with all constitutional issues, this means as
determined by the SCOTUS.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 72 of 79:
|
Feb 5 14:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 73 of 79:
|
Feb 5 14:48 UTC 2004 |
You tell me. By the way, if you can't tell the difference between
backpedaling and clarification in the face of a straw man, then you
should stay out of politics.
|
jp2
|
|
response 74 of 79:
|
Feb 5 14:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 75 of 79:
|
Feb 5 15:06 UTC 2004 |
other is a jerkface. It's statement's about people trying to destroy GreX are
all wrong.
|