🚀 go-pugleaf

Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:
: On 30 Jun 1998 04:57:19 GMT, dragnet@internalysis.com (Marc
: Bissonnette) wrote:

: >How can the re-stating of Canadian Laws, already in existance, get us into 
: >trouble or make us liable?

: Simply restating the laws is fine, however unnecessary, but saying
: that *WE* will take *ACTION* and *DISCIPLINE* users based on our own
: *INTERPRETATION* of the laws is thuggery, no better than a lynch mob.

thank you, i'm sure we all appreciate the demonstration of how 
"interpretation" can be a bad thing...

as i recall marc is proposing a draft at this point - it's wide open to 
constructive criticism and suggestions...

perhaps you'd feel more comfortable with something along the lines of

"as a member of the toronto freenet the following canadian laws may pertain 
to one's use of the tfn's facilities and should be kept in mind:

[list of relevant criminal code citations]

should the board of directors receive a complaint that questions the 
legality of a member's actions that member may receive some sort of 
notification of the complaint and/or that the complaint has been 
forwarded to the proper authorities.

in the unlikely event that a user's membership is terminated, the most 
likely reasoning behind that termination would be that of legality or 
protection of the computer system integrity from abuse."

better? worse? what?

: >We already reserve the right to terminate accounts for any reason we see fit 
: >(though that power has only been excercised a couple of times, to my knowledge, 
: >and apparantly for (what the board felt was) good reason. 

: Reserving rights and exorcising them are two different things,
: *STATING* that these rights will be used to set up a kangaroo court,
: is much worse.

most likely the only kind of practicable tfn court would be one which deals 
with the issue of system integrity and only system integrity... 

the bit about notifications can be useful to the users, however, in 
helping them gauge when and where they may be crossing the line as far as 
the law goes, but the question of legality is most properly answered in a 
real court of law...

: >The draft AUP sets out a list of actions the board MAY take, if any action is 
: >taken at all. The actions are, IMO, quite reasonable, including; warnings, 
: >referral to enforcement agencies, referral to legal experts, arbitration, 
: >suspension, and termination. (I feel like I should be saying all of this with a 
: >Schwarzzennegellian accent)

: Thereby creating expectations and with them liabilities.

actually, since we already have documentation telling us what the board 
*may* do, perhaps it's sufficient to list reasons for why we *might* 
(emphasis on might) do such things....


-- 
"do as i say not as i do because 
 the shit so deep you can't run away
 i beg to differ on the contrary
 i agree with every word that you say"