|
Grex > Coop11 > #173: Motion to make scribble permanently erase response text | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 255 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 99 of 255:
| 
Jun 10 04:28 UTC 2000 |
Looks very reasonable.
|
void
|
|
response 100 of 255:
|
Jun 10 05:24 UTC 2000 |
it's better than nothing.
|
krj
|
|
response 101 of 255:
|
Jun 10 06:01 UTC 2000 |
What does "permanently" mean in the case where an account is hacked
and a vandal deletes a bunch of stuff, and the original author wants it
restored?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 102 of 255:
|
Jun 10 13:12 UTC 2000 |
If you're keeping it in a staff-readable log, that shouldn't be a problem --
JUST LIKE NOW. Come on, Ken, weren't you reading that discussion?
|
krj
|
|
response 103 of 255:
|
Jun 10 15:55 UTC 2000 |
If staff can restore responses scribbled by a vandal who breaks into an
account, then by definition the text is not "permanently" inaccessible
to non-staff users. I'm quibbling with the wording of the proposition,
not with what you (seldon) seem to want.
|
pfv
|
|
response 104 of 255:
|
Jun 10 16:21 UTC 2000 |
As the true user would have to prove such to staff, and staff
would then reinstall the inaccessible material, I fail to see
point OR quibble: are you freakin' on a haqueer deleting, or the
haqueer restoring?
*sigh* Just deprem the frickin' log and move along, sheesh - if
you can't trust staff, then yer well and truly gefuckt.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 105 of 255:
|
Jun 10 17:00 UTC 2000 |
Here's better wording that addresses Ken's point:
Shall the PicoSpan "scribble" and Backtalk "erase" commands place the text
of responses in a file permitted only to staff and cfadms?
|
pfv
|
|
response 106 of 255:
|
Jun 10 17:14 UTC 2000 |
More apropos is:
"Shall /bbs/censored be depermed to allow only root and cfadm
staff access to "scribbled" or "expurgated" material?"
The entire issue balloned from that very simple suggestion.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 107 of 255:
|
Jun 10 17:24 UTC 2000 |
Sure. Pete's is even more direct.
|
aruba
|
|
response 108 of 255:
|
Jun 10 18:15 UTC 2000 |
There needs to be enough leeway in the motion to allow staff to use the log
when an unusual circumstance comes up.
(Pete's motion mentions expurgated material, which is not at issue here. I
think that was a mistake?)
|
pfv
|
|
response 109 of 255:
|
Jun 10 19:12 UTC 2000 |
Damnfino, chief - the two seem to go together. All I meant to
imply was: user whacks it, it's gone for other than user.
HIDDEN is another problem I don't wanna' know about. All I can go
by is the crap I see on my screen as picospan mentions it's gone,
and the file that holds that tripe.
|
janc
|
|
response 110 of 255:
|
Jun 11 00:58 UTC 2000 |
The Picospan terminology is
scribble - removes text from an item and puts it in the log.
expurgate - leaves text in the item, but marks it so that it isn't
displayed unless the reader really wants it to be.
This is confusing. I made it more confusing by renaming both commands
in Backtalk
erase = scribble
hide = expurgate
So fixing the terminology in Pete's version of the motion gives:
Shall /bbs/censored be depermited to allow only root and cfadm
staff access to "scribbled" or "erased" material?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 111 of 255:
|
Jun 11 01:46 UTC 2000 |
OK, I can dispense with "permanently", given the possibility of
resurrection in certain rare circumstances. But I'm not interested in
the UNIX-speak aspect to other suggested wording. So here is my
new "final" motion wording, between the === lines:
=======================================================================
Shall the picospan "scribble" and backtalk "erase" commands
make the text of responses inaccessible to non-staff users?
Note: For the purpose of conference item administration cfadm's are
considered "staff".
=======================================================================
|
remmers
|
|
response 112 of 255:
|
Jun 11 13:35 UTC 2000 |
(I'm donning my voteadm hat again. Today (June 11) is the last
day of the mandatory pre-vote discussion period, so voting could
start as early as tomorrow (June 12). When it actually starts is
essentially up to the proposer (albaugh). So Kevin, as soon as
you have a final final wording, let me know unambiguously, and
I'll enable the vote program as soon as feasible thereafter.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 113 of 255:
|
Jun 11 15:09 UTC 2000 |
We're clear that the motion would allow staff/cfadm to use the contents of
the log in an unusual circumstance, at their discretion, right?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 114 of 255:
|
Jun 11 16:04 UTC 2000 |
Without any special language, the staff would presumably be held to the same
standards they usually are -- i.e. the guidelines on the website.
|
mary
|
|
response 115 of 255:
|
Jun 11 16:13 UTC 2000 |
What do you mean by the "guidelines on the website"? Are the
standards for privacy the same as if entries in the log were
private email? Is that what you are assuming?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 116 of 255:
|
Jun 11 17:36 UTC 2000 |
Dare I suggest that the staff be held to their usual standards of using good
judgment?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 117 of 255:
|
Jun 11 17:58 UTC 2000 |
Re #115: I'm referring to the staff guidelines Jan pointed me to in Agora.
|
mary
|
|
response 118 of 255:
|
Jun 11 19:05 UTC 2000 |
I agree with you, cmcgee. If this passes I'd like to see
the staff be able to use their good judgement when it comes
to allowing access to a closed censor log. I just want to
make sure that's what's being suggested here and that
afterword folks won't be all thinking they voted for a
different policy.
Treating it like personal email allows a lot less discretion
on the part of staff than simply stating they should use good
judgement.
|
remmers
|
|
response 119 of 255:
|
Jun 11 19:08 UTC 2000 |
http://cyberspace.org/staffnote/privacy.html
|
pfv
|
|
response 120 of 255:
|
Jun 11 19:26 UTC 2000 |
>>to allowing access to a closed censor log.
Hogwash, "allowing".. Either the "staff" needs to access it
for reposting, or they don't need it at all.
I'd expect the "scribbled"/"erased" material to get the same
staff-respect that email already enjoys.
Now, TECHNICALLY, perhaps it would behoove whomever to wangle
Picospan and Backtalk to use "/bbs/censored" for the above, and
"/bbs/hidden" for the expurgated/hidden drivel.. Waxin' the former
periodically, like any other logfile.
|
other
|
|
response 121 of 255:
|
Jun 11 20:31 UTC 2000 |
Pete, there is no logfile for hidden/expurgated responses. They are simply
not displayed by bbs or backtalk (flagged).
I think the quibbling here is over a distinction without a difference. The
censored log would be as inviolable as email (in practice) because unless a
user can show cause why something they appear to have scribbled should be
restored, there will never be anyone poking around in the log unless there
are security or legal necessities.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 122 of 255:
|
Jun 11 20:40 UTC 2000 |
That's what I would hope, but it sounds like Mary wants the rule to allow
staff members to haul the stuff back out if they think it shouldn't have been
scribbled or something. I don't see why it should differ from email at all.
|
mary
|
|
response 123 of 255:
|
Jun 11 20:45 UTC 2000 |
Then say that. Say it will be handled with the same sensitivity
as email. Just make your intention clear so folks know what
they are voting for.
|