🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:02:35 GMT, cr764@torfree.net (Kurt Wismer)
wrote:

>Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:

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

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

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

Yup, I want to make it clear that it was not my intention to attack
Marc, and in fact I have not attacked Marc, despite his hostility.

My comments had nothing to do with his draft AUP specifically, but
rather to do with the fact that this topic was being broached again
and many ideas were being discussed, including Marc's draft as well as
much more censorious minded ideas from other directors who wish to
silence "brutes" and "louts", I simply wished to (re)state my long
standing position so that my fellow directors would know how strongly
I felt about the issue and take that into account when making their
decisions.

Why Marc flipped out and started calling me all kinds of names, I have
no idea. Maybe he had a bad day?

>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:

I'm most comfortable with this (as presented on the BOD mailing list):

The following will result in your account being terminated:

 1. Being convicted of using the resources of the TFN in an illegal
    manner by a Canadian court of law with the appropriate 
    jurisdiction

 2. Any attempt to compromise the security of, or to gain unauthorized
    access to, any computer connected to the Internet.

Note that the key word is "convicted." This approach upholds, rather
than undermines justice.

>[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?

Well, certainly better, but still leaves gray area that I would rather
see removed, we are *NOT* a court of law and should *NEVER* act like
one.

>: >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... 

Yes, and I support kicking system abusers off the system, as long as
there abuse is clearly documented.

I would still like to see some kind of an appeal process though, even
this can be abused to silence a user by framing him or her with system
abuse.

>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...

As long as we don't indicate that *WE* will act to enforce these laws,
I have no problem informing the users about anything.

>: >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....

Well, now we're splitting hairs.

Cheers,