🚀 go-pugleaf

Actually, by taking on the responsibility for illegal activity
originating from their systems, the Freenet has also taken on a major
liability as well.

Imagine a freenet user stalking someone. Imagine child pornography
posted from freenet. 

Now imagine freenet being sued for this. Other ISP's have policies about
illegal usage, but it is stated as etiquette and includes fine print
exempting the provider from actual responsibility for these illegal
activities. Freenet better have gotten some good legal advice about this
new policy.

-- 
Mark Denman ~E Aho Laula~ <"wider is better">
=======================================================================
the ALARUMS-L mailing list - a chatty forum about pencil and paper RPGs
For info, send message INFO ALARUMS-L to MAJORDOMO@ICAN.NET
=======================================================================
I have the body of a Greek God --- Bacchus!


*unsolicited e-mail advertising will lead to a complaint to your
postmaster*

In article <3597F02C.999@pacbell.net>, mdenman@pacbell.net says...
>
>Actually, by taking on the responsibility for illegal activity
>originating from their systems, the Freenet has also taken on a major
>liability as well.
>
>Imagine a freenet user stalking someone. Imagine child pornography
>posted from freenet. 
>
>Now imagine freenet being sued for this. Other ISP's have policies about
>illegal usage, but it is stated as etiquette and includes fine print
>exempting the provider from actual responsibility for these illegal
>activities. Freenet better have gotten some good legal advice about this
>new policy.
>

This is hardly about taking resposibility for illegal activity. It is the 
reminder to users of the pertinant Canadian Laws that we must ALL obey. The TFN 
reserves the right to terminate accounts, suspend them, issue warnings, etc, 
for ANY REASON AT ALL. This would include capricious whim. While the board has 
never done that (capricious whim) it does have the right to terminate accounts 
for whatever reasons it deems fit. 

The apparant breaking of laws is a pretty damned good reason to boot a user.

Plus, your example is incomplete. it should read:

>Imagine a freenet user stalking someone. Imagine child pornography
>posted from freenet and the freenet being fully aware of it. 
>
>Now imagine freenet being sued for this. Other ISP's have policies about
>illegal usage, but it is stated as etiquette and includes fine print
>exempting the provider from actual responsibility for these illegal
>activities. Freenet better have gotten some good legal advice about this
>new policy.

Liability only occurs after the ISP (in this case, the Freenet) is made aware 
of it. That is to say, if I posted something illegal via the TFN and you (Mark 
Denman) sent a note to the TFN making them aware of it, liability starts there. 

If, however, my illegal activities go unnoticed, the TFN is not liable since 
it is analagous to making Bell Canada responsible for all the drug-deals and 
murder-plots that happen over it's phone lines. 

The AUP is basically stating that we support the laws of Canada and will do 
everything in our power to aid enforcement agencies when illegal behaviour is 
brought to our attention. We also have a moral responsibility not to allow the 
continuance of illegal activities on our systems. I don't know about you, but 
as a parent, KNOWING that there is a kiddie-porn creator on our systems, and 
not doing a thing about it would drive me insane. 

If sick and twisted people like Dmytri want to defend the rights of stalkers 
and child-pornography creators, that's their souls, not mine, but I will have 
nothing to do with bastards like that.



-- 
Marc Bissonnette
InternAlysis
Corporate Internet Research and Results!
http://www.internalysis.com

Marc Bissonnette wrote:
> 
> The AUP is basically stating that we support the laws of Canada and will do
> everything in our power to aid enforcement agencies when illegal behaviour is
> brought to our attention. We also have a moral responsibility not to allow the
> continuance of illegal activities on our systems. I don't know about you, but
> as a parent, KNOWING that there is a kiddie-porn creator on our systems, and
> not doing a thing about it would drive me insane.

Ah, but the moral and ethical requirement to report criminal activity
always exists. Elevating it to a formal written policy brings with it a
higher liability. It also brings about a nasty conundrum - will the ISP
become liable for activity which it ought reasonably to have known was
occurring? Does the freenet allow access to the many child pornography
and borderline child pornography newsgroups? Since mere possession is a
criminal offense in Canada, even possession of simulated child
pornography, or text only child pornography, allowing access to such
groups opens up the ISP to liability, especially when they have a
written policy of assisting law enforcement.

And, proving in a court of law to an uneducated jury that millions of
bytes of information are passed through the system which the ISP has no
knowledge of might not be as easy as it sounds. After all, juries never
ignore sound scientific and logical arguments, like, oh, O.J. Simpson's
DNA. 

The policy must be written carefully to limit liability.

I also question the value of putting such a policy in writing at all.
The moral and ethical duty to report is sufficient in Canada. Perhaps a
statement to the effect that all data passing through the ISP is not
confidential and may be accessed, saved, or used by the ISP for any
purpose, notwithstanding copyright laws.

-- 
Mark Denman ~E Aho Laula~ <"wider is better">
=======================================================================
the ALARUMS-L mailing list - a chatty forum about pencil and paper RPGs
For info, send message INFO ALARUMS-L to MAJORDOMO@ICAN.NET
=======================================================================
I have the body of a Greek God --- Bacchus!


*unsolicited e-mail advertising will lead to a complaint to your
postmaster*

In article <35981165.2F55@pacbell.net>, mdenman@pacbell.net says...

>I also question the value of putting such a policy in writing at all.
>The moral and ethical duty to report is sufficient in Canada. Perhaps a
>statement to the effect that all data passing through the ISP is not
>confidential and may be accessed, saved, or used by the ISP for any
>purpose, notwithstanding copyright laws.
>
The value is in letting the members know of which laws govern, limit or affect 
their use of the TFN. It's quite scary to think of the literal reams of laws 
that the average Canadian is completely unaware of. 

By re-stating these laws, we are not making ourselves 'more' liable than we 
already are. After all, ignorance of the law is no defense. The AUP is simply a 
reminder and an education to users of their rights and freedoms, as well as 
those that cannot be violated by others (or themselves)
-- 
Marc Bissonnette
InternAlysis
Corporate Internet Research and Results!
http://www.internalysis.com

In article <3597F02C.999@pacbell.net>,
Mark Denman  <mdenman@pacbell.net> wrote:
|Actually, by taking on the responsibility for illegal activity
|originating from their systems, the Freenet has also taken on a major
|liability as well.
|
|Imagine a freenet user stalking someone. Imagine child pornography
|posted from freenet. 
|
|Now imagine freenet being sued for this. Other ISP's have policies about
|illegal usage, but it is stated as etiquette and includes fine print
|exempting the provider from actual responsibility for these illegal
|activities. Freenet better have gotten some good legal advice about this
|new policy.


	Yes, this is a serious concern.  It appears that
	politics are influencing common sense a bit more
	that one might be comfortable with...  Thanks
	for the advice.


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker		Toronto, Ontario	1 416 699 1868
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@gts.org	Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "...and then we had to reformat the Ontario government
 _< /_	 		'cos it had a boot-camp virus"		- Gully Foyle

In article <6n977j$s14$1@news.interlog.com>,
Marc Bissonnette <dragnet@internalysis.com> wrote:
|In article <35981165.2F55@pacbell.net>, mdenman@pacbell.net says...
|
|>I also question the value of putting such a policy in writing at all.
|>The moral and ethical duty to report is sufficient in Canada. Perhaps a
|>statement to the effect that all data passing through the ISP is not
|>confidential and may be accessed, saved, or used by the ISP for any
|>purpose, notwithstanding copyright laws.
|>
|The value is in letting the members know of which laws govern, limit or affect 
|their use of the TFN. It's quite scary to think of the literal reams of laws 
|that the average Canadian is completely unaware of. 
|
|By re-stating these laws, we are not making ourselves 'more' liable than we 
|already are. After all, ignorance of the law is no defense. The AUP is simply a 
|reminder and an education to users of their rights and freedoms, as well as 
|those that cannot be violated by others (or themselves)


	Um, Marc, I don't think you quite heard what he is
	saying.  He's pointing out that if improperly worded,
	such a document could in fact bring *more* liability
	to the TFN.  Perhaps this is true, perhaps not - but
	given the facts of situations like the Prodigy case,
	his warning that sound legal advice is needed in this
	area seems prudent indeed.


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker		Toronto, Ontario	1 416 699 1868
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@gts.org	Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "...and then we had to reformat the Ontario government
 _< /_	 		'cos it had a boot-camp virus"		- Gully Foyle

In article <EvCHKJ.C4B.0.hotlips@GTS.Net>, bdb@GTS.Net says...
>
>        Um, Marc, I don't think you quite heard what he is
>        saying.  He's pointing out that if improperly worded,
>        such a document could in fact bring *more* liability
>        to the TFN.  Perhaps this is true, perhaps not - but
>        given the facts of situations like the Prodigy case,
>        his warning that sound legal advice is needed in this
>        area seems prudent indeed.
>
Ok, help me out here, as this is an honest question to the part of this 
counter-argument that I don't understand:

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

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. 

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)

How does this make us *more* liable?


-- 
Marc Bissonnette
InternAlysis
Corporate Internet Research and Results!
http://www.internalysis.com

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.

>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.

>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.

>How does this make us *more* liable?

It certainly doesn't make us *LESS* liable does it?

Marc Bissonnette (dragnet@internalysis.com) wrote:

: Ok, help me out here, as this is an honest question to the part of this 
: counter-argument that I don't understand:

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

	1.  if you give an interpretation of the law (as opposed to the 
actual piece of legislation).
	2.  if you do not provide it in all languages in use by the membership.
	3.  if you omit pieces of legislation.
	4.  if it suggests the tfn will do something it is incapable of 
(including due process to all complaints).

: 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. 

: 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)

: How does this make us *more* liable?

	1.  wording
	2.  suggestion it can be responsible for everything stored on it.
	3.  suggestion it can meet legal requirements re: obscenity laws, 
restriction to minors laws, ..

	these are undoables.
	
-- 

Marc Bissonnette) had written:

: >We already reserve the right ...

Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) responded:

: Reserving rights and exorcising them are two different things,

Kleiner has stated elsewhere in this debate that his words are clear and 
precise.  So I must accept the above.

But I still have this nagging feeling that he meant to say, "exercise" .. in 
this context, "exorcise" means almost exactly the opposite.

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"

Jim Butterfield (fjb@torfree.net) wrote:
: Marc Bissonnette) had written:

: : >We already reserve the right ...

: Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) responded:

: : Reserving rights and exorcising them are two different things,

: Kleiner has stated elsewhere in this debate that his words are clear and 
: precise.  So I must accept the above.

: But I still have this nagging feeling that he meant to say, "exercise" .. in 
: this context, "exorcise" means almost exactly the opposite.

	ummm, isn't that what he said - "reserving rights and exorcising 
them are two different things" ..

	you can exercise your rights until they've been exorcised.
-- 

dmytrik@syntac.net (Dmytri Kleiner) wrote:


>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.

There may be further questions involved.

As a hypothetical example (but one I don't think is too far fetched):
Suppose a posting appears in a TFN newsgroup saying something like "A
doctor who performs abortions lives at 1234 Anywhere Street .. I think
somebody with a rifle should visit him/her".  The poster may be
readily identifiable, or may not.  The posting may originate from
within the TFN, or not.

Now consider:  this posting is drawn to the attention of the TFN
Executive and Board of Directors, who decide to let it sit there until
"a judge rules on the matter".  Perhaps they tell the complainant that
it's nothing to do with the TFN, and if such person is concerned he
should go to the police; meanwhile, the message will be left in place.
And should the posting appear to have originated from a TFN member,
that member wouldn't even be asked about it.

It's clear that other ISPs in the Toronto area would deep-six such a
posting FAST.  But at least some directors seem to be saying that it
would be an abrogation of free speech to do _anything_.

Meanwhile, an MD living at 1234 Anywhere Street is shot.  Do the
directors of the TFN _really_ believe that no liability would accrue
to them?

We have had a mild case of this sort of thing already, as has been
mentioned by Wendy Guy.  A posting was made whose nature would be
likely to encourage stalking and sexual harassment, if not worse.
Should such events have occurred (and they didn't, as far as I know),
the directors would have been faced with some difficult questions, and
possibility both civil and criminal liability.  At the time, I checked
other newsfeeds; the offending message was not seen on other ISPs, and
I assume it had been removed.  So the good ol' TFN appeared to be the
major publisher of this forgery.

The directors are free to call their own strategy.  But I trust they
will not do so in a manner that will cause themselves personal
liability, or bring the TFN into disrepute.

			  --Jim

On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 16:14:47 GMT, fjb@torfree.net (Jim Butterfield)
wrote:

>>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.
>
>There may be further questions involved.
>
>As a hypothetical example (but one I don't think is too far fetched):
>Suppose a posting appears in a TFN newsgroup saying something like "A
>doctor who performs abortions lives at 1234 Anywhere Street .. I think
>somebody with a rifle should visit him/her".  The poster may be
>readily identifiable, or may not.  The posting may originate from
>within the TFN, or not.
>
>Now consider:  this posting is drawn to the attention of the TFN
>Executive and Board of Directors, who decide to let it sit there until
>"a judge rules on the matter".  Perhaps they tell the complainant that
>it's nothing to do with the TFN, and if such person is concerned he
>should go to the police; meanwhile, the message will be left in place.
>And should the posting appear to have originated from a TFN member,
>that member wouldn't even be asked about it.

Jim, what you're basically saying is UseNet is so new and different
that the justice system can't protect people from being hurt on it,
and so therefore you're advocating that the Free-Net's BOD augment the
justice system, deputize themselves to uphold the law because the
justice system can not.

Please reflect on this point of view, reflect on the fact that the
*EXACT* same justification is used by lynch mobs, vigilantes, street
gangs. You know the routine; "the Cops can't protects us so we got to
protect ourselves. We got to take the law into our own hands."

This is wrong headed thinking, if you feel the justice system is
lacking, then work towards fixing it, by attempting to work around it
you only extend and compound the problem in addition to undermining
justice.

>It's clear that other ISPs in the Toronto area would deep-six such a
>posting FAST.

Other ISPs are not publicly funded, are not volunteer supported, do
not posses the status of a charity, their responsibility is to their
stake holders, *OUR* responsibility is to the greater good of our
community, and unless we serve as a vanguard of free speech and
justice, we are *NOT* working in the best interest of our community.

[remaining sensationalism snipped]

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,

[Silly quibbling mode on]

bt351 (bt351@torfree.net) wrote:
: Jim Butterfield (fjb@torfree.net) wrote:

: : Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) had said:

: : : Reserving rights and exorcising them are two different things,

: : But I still have this nagging feeling that he meant to say, "exercise" .. in 
: : this context, "exorcise" means almost exactly the opposite.

: 	ummm, isn't that what he said - "reserving rights and exorcising 
: them are two different things" ..

: 	you can exercise your rights until they've been exorcised.

Yes; but if he really meant that it's a tautology.  That little voice 
still whispers to me, "Bet he meant to say 'exercised' and got it 
wrong".  But you have to be careful with Dim Kleiner's stuff; like Nabil, 
he has assured us repeatedly that he means _exactly_ what he says, and 
gives us golden statements like "I _never_ make misteaks", and, "My 
writings could not possibly be construed in whatever manner to be 
considered ambiguous, or maybe not".

So you may be right, bt351 .. we should take every word at its face value.

[Silly quibbling mode off]     :-)

			  --Jim

In article <35a06ec6.39395417@news.alt.net>, dmytrik@syntac.net says...
>

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

No, I was having a great day. dmytri, if you had said something to the effect 
that you would oppose in every way at your disposal the motion or AUP, that 
would have been fine. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, after 
all, this is a free country and we're allowed to express our opinions. 

However, you have threatened illegal action against the TFN, in a most 
hyppocritical way, as well, I might add. You are, by your threats, attempting 
to repress our (Mine, the BoD's and the memberships) right to vote, right to 
freedom of expression, by saying you will attack every element of the TFN, it's 
financial resources and volunteers, in order to shut it down. You are stating 
that you will enforce *your own vision* of freedom of expression, despite the 
fact that it tramples on the other 45,000 of us. That is hyppocrasy at it's 
utmost. 

The fact that you would resort to illegal means suggests a level of cowardice 
not seen in a lot of radical activists in Canada since the FLQ.

>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.

Hyppocrasy again. Breaking system security is *ILLEGAL*. It falls under the 
'theft of data' section of the Criminal Code of Canada (Or some similar name 
like that) So you are saying that you will support the enforcement of these 
laws, on our own, but not those involving theft, child pornography, copyrioght 
infringement, murder, etc, etc. 

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

Precisely. See above.


-- 
Marc Bissonnette
InternAlysis
Corporate Internet Research and Results!
http://www.internalysis.com

In article <359a6b2a.38470456@news.alt.net>, dmytrik@syntac.net says...
>

>
>Other ISPs are not publicly funded, are not volunteer supported, do
>not posses the status of a charity, their responsibility is to their
>stake holders, *OUR* responsibility is to the greater good of our
>community, and unless we serve as a vanguard of free speech and
>justice, we are *NOT* working in the best interest of our community.
>
So, to continue Jim's example, having this doctor shot and killed is to the 
greater good of our community? Or that person in Wendy's example stalked and 
sexually harassed/abused? This is for the benefit of the communicty?

Your problem, dmytri, is tunnel vision. Remember, your rights end *exactly* 
where mine begin. Therefore, your right to freedom of expression ends when that 
expression will or may cause direct bodilty harm to me (or that doctor, or that 
person Wendy citred, etc). You may not like it but you have _zero_ choice.

-- 
Marc Bissonnette
InternAlysis
Corporate Internet Research and Results!
http://www.internalysis.com

Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:

: 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.

it was about how what seemed to be your responce to marc's draft brought 
up issues that didn't appear in marc's draft - ie. an interpretation of 
marc's intent...

: >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",

may i suggest, then, in the interest of not making enemies unnecessarily 
that when you respond to someone you respond to *their* ideas first and 
foremost... i accept that you were trying to make a point to the general 
public and those censorious board members, but i only just found that out 
now, it wasn't made clear in the original post...

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

from my vantage point it had to do with misdirecting your reply... if you 
feel you need to make a point to censorious board members, then it would 
be best to reply to articles in which those specific board members made 
censorious suggestions...

marc got the impression you were directing your criticisms at him - and 
no wonder, you followed up his post and quoted his text when you did it...

anywho, it's good that your intent has been clarified - perhaps some of 
the hostility will be abated...

-- 
"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"

On 2 Jul 1998 15:13:12 GMT, dragnet@internalysis.com (Marc
Bissonnette) wrote:

>>Other ISPs are not publicly funded, are not volunteer supported, do
>>not posses the status of a charity, their responsibility is to their
>>stake holders, *OUR* responsibility is to the greater good of our
>>community, and unless we serve as a vanguard of free speech and
>>justice, we are *NOT* working in the best interest of our community.
>>
>So, to continue Jim's example, having this doctor shot and killed is to the 
>greater good of our community?

Marc, please, the answer is obvious, having a doctor killed is not in
the greater good of the community, which is why we have law enforcers
and a justice system

You and Jim are just making sensationalized examples to try and
justify vigilantism.

If you think that our community needs more/better/different law
enforcement methods to protect "doctors from being killed on usenet"
then you should be working within the law enforcement establishment,
not "taking the law into your own hands" and attempting to remedy your
perceived security needs by implementing some haphazard system of wild
west justice via the board of a community service.

> Or that person in Wendy's example stalked and 
>sexually harassed/abused? This is for the benefit of the communicty?

Ditto.

Stalking and sexual harrassement/abuse is a police matter, not one for
the Free-Net Board of Directors.

>Your problem, dmytri, is tunnel vision.

And you Marc, have sunk to the level of Jim Blubberfield. Attempting
to use pithy snubs to replace thought and logic.

> Remember, your rights end *exactly* 
>where mine begin. Therefore, your right to freedom of expression ends when that 
>expression will or may cause direct bodilty harm to me (or that doctor, or that 
>person Wendy citred, etc). You may not like it but you have _zero_ choice.

Marc, as I;ve said, *WE ALREADY HAVE A JUSTICE SYSTEM* to look out for
our safety and rights, the Free-Net Board of Directors does not need
to undertake this responsibility.

On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:50:40 GMT, cr764@torfree.net (Kurt Wismer)
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.
>
>it was about how what seemed to be your responce to marc's draft brought 
>up issues that didn't appear in marc's draft - ie. an interpretation of 
>marc's intent...

[snip]

>from my vantage point it had to do with misdirecting your reply... 

[snip]

The part of Marc's article that I quoted was:

	> I think what some people in this 'debate' fail to understand
	>  is that it is our right (and that of any member) to put a
	>  motion before the membership for  voting. Like it or not
	> (And obviously, some people do NOT like it very much) 
	> there will be an Acceptable Use Policy before the membership
	>  next AGM to vote on. 

And I prefaced my response with:

	Fine and good, in that case I will make the following
	 statement of intent so that you all know what you are getting
	 into:

While I certainly regret any misunderstandings, the reason I posted
the way that I did was because Marc was saying that come hell or high
water there was going to be a  motion and seemed to be saying that
"debate" (his quotes) was pointless, because it would not effect his
resolve, basically saying that from his point of view the case was
closed.

Therefore, I stated  my position for the record as well, not because I
wanted to debate his draft, but because I wanted it to be known what
my position was.

While I can understand how a misunderstanding can happen, even in
retrospect I think the context of my message was correct.

>if you 
>feel you need to make a point to censorious board members, then it would 
>be best to reply to articles in which those specific board members made 
>censorious suggestions...

I have, do and will, That was not the only article I responded to,
plus parts of the debate were on the boards internal mailing list.

It was Marc's insistence that there *WILL* be a motion that I was
responding to. If there is to be a motion, I would like all involved
to know how I feel about the issue. Most importantly that I will act
against the TFN adopting censorious policies no matter how they came
to be, and I will consider all possible actions, possibly even the
gravest; working towards the downfall of this new censorious Free-Net.

>marc got the impression you were directing your criticisms at him - and 
>no wonder, you followed up his post and quoted his text when you did it...

Even so, I fail to see how I have criticized *HIM*

I have expressed ideas that are different from his, but how that
justifies being called a coward, a cretin, a terrorist, "worse than a
KKK member", stupid, evil, and saying that he was "ashamed to know me"
and speculating that I "sold my soul" not to mention  many other
delightful smears, is not clear to me.

What's worse, is that he immediately and repeatedly claimed my actions
were "Illegal," and therefor actionable under the AUP he was
presenting, meaning that his AUP could be used to silence me and the
ideas that I am presenting.

His over-the-top hostility clearly demonstrates that if such an AUP
were in place he certainly WOULD HAVE used it to punish me, claiming
he was upholding the law. 

Forcing *ME* to *PROVE* that my actiones were *NOT* illegal.

I guess "innocent until proven guilty" is not a concept that we wish
to preserve in this new medium. Gone like the pony express as we rush
into the digital era with only the Board of Directors of our local
Free-Net holding the keys to justice.

Welcome to Napoleon's new domain.

I really can't think of clearer example of the folly built in to the
thinking he's promoting than this Board member's  own actions in this
debate.

>anywho, it's good that your intent has been clarified - perhaps some of 
>the hostility will be abated...

I hope so.

Cheers,

On 2 Jul 1998 15:09:40 GMT, dragnet@internalysis.com (Marc
Bissonnette) wrote:

>In article <35a06ec6.39395417@news.alt.net>, dmytrik@syntac.net says...

>However, you have threatened illegal action against the TFN, in a most 
>hyppocritical way, as well, I might add.

No matter how times you repeat it, the that I have done anything
"hypocritical" or "illegal" remains your unsubstantiated opinion, and
by no means explains the gushing spew of insults, invective and
vitriol that you have employed to try and make your "point."

> You are, by your threats, attempting 
>to repress our (Mine, the BoD's and the memberships) right to vote, right to 
>freedom of expression, by saying you will attack every element of the TFN, it's 
>financial resources and volunteers, in order to shut it down.

In my opinion, neither you, the BoD, nor even the membership have the
right to hijack a community service built with public money and make
it into their own little censorious empire.

It is not your "right" to steal what was built with public money and
the volunteer efforts and donations of our community to build your own
renegade kangaroo court.

> You are stating 
>that you will enforce *your own vision* of freedom of expression, 

I am not enforcing "my own vision" I am stating the obvious, that law
enforcement is a matter for the courts, not the Board of a community
service.

>despite the  fact that it tramples on the other 45,000 of us. That is hyppocrasy at it's 
>utmost. 

Oh please, Marc, when pray tell, have you consulted with "45,000 of
us"

I ask you again, in simple terms, please explain how I am behaving
"hypocritically."

>The fact that you would resort to illegal means suggests a level of cowardice 
>not seen in a lot of radical activists in Canada since the FLQ.

Again, that I have done or plan to do anything "illegal" is nothing
more than your biased opinion.

>>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.
>
>Hyppocrasy again

No Marc, just you stretching desperately for another excuse to use
insults in lue of actually having a point.

>. Breaking system security is *ILLEGAL*. 

Breaking system security may or may not be illegal, that is not
relevant since I have already stated that legality is a matter for the
courts to decide.

As a public service, we have *NO*  right to dictate what you *SAY* via
our system, or to determine the legality of that speech.

We do however have a right to control *HOW* our system is used, what
services we make available, and to protect our equipment and
configuration from being damaged.

Anyone that blatantly attempts to compromise our system design is
therefore refusing  to use the system as it was designed to be used,
in which case we are justified in preventing them from using it. 

This has nothing to do with interpreting the law or freedom of speech
Marc and is clearly yet more evidence that you're not really
discussing the issue but just looking for any old thing as a reason to
disagree with me or call me more names.

[remaining red hearings snipped]

dmytrik@syntac.net (Dmytri Kleiner) wrote:

>Marc, please, the answer is obvious, having a doctor killed is not in
>the greater good of the community, which is why we have law enforcers
>and a justice system

And the law enforcers and justice system are likely go after the
directors of an organization who, knowing that such a posting had been
made, insisted on keeping it in the public view.  To repeat: the
organization need not police all postings; but when one is drawn to
its attention, it can't pretend to go blind.

>You and Jim are just making sensationalized examples to try and
>justify vigilantism.

Ya got me there, Dim .. the shooting of a doctor is an unheard of
event that could never possibly happen.  The posting of the address of
a house where such a doctor is claimed to reside couldn't possibly
cause any harm, right, Kleiner?  You'd just leave it right up there
for any interested parties to see.

>Stalking and sexual harrassement/abuse is a police matter, not one for
>the Free-Net Board of Directors.

Yet if the directors are told of a posting which might be the cause of
such stalking/harassment and do not remove the posting, they become
agents in causing the event.

Let me assure you that the law enforcement authorities are not skilful
surgeons in removing such offending material.  The TFN's equipment
will be hauled away as evidence, and the hard drive contents examined
at the convenience of the constabulary.  I have a feeling that this
would please Che Kleiner, since it would give him another soapbox to
scream from; but many thousands of TFN subscribers would be denied
service while this happens.

>And you Marc, have sunk to the level of Jim Blubberfield. Attempting
>to use pithy snubs to replace thought and logic.

I hope Marc feels complimented.  I hope his spelling is better than
Dimmy's.

>Marc, as I;ve said, *WE ALREADY HAVE A JUSTICE SYSTEM* to look out for
>our safety and rights

The justice system might not behave the way Kleiner thinks.  And his
fine ideals might seriously cripple the free communications presently
enjoyed by TFN members.

Sure, he has another ISP account, so when the TFN is hauled away he
won't be inconvenienced.  But some of us do care about that 8,000 and
more regular users of the TFN system who will lose their service.

>           ... the Free-Net Board of Directors does not need
> to undertake this responsibility

Any sensible board member should look closely at his or her personal
liability under such circumstances.  There is no liability insurance
for directors in the TFN.  There's never any insurance which will
cover criminal liability.  Dimmy's a firebrand, not a lawyer .. keep
in mind what Tim Pinos said two years ago (it's in the minutes of the
TFN board meeting of February 15, 1996).

On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 03:05:53 GMT, fjb@torfree.net (Jim Butterfield)
wrote:

>dmytrik@syntac.net (Dmytri Kleiner) wrote:
>
>>Marc, please, the answer is obvious, having a doctor killed is not in
>>the greater good of the community, which is why we have law enforcers
>>and a justice system
>
>And the law enforcers and justice system are likely go after the
>directors of an organization who, knowing that such a posting had been
>made, insisted on keeping it in the public view.  To repeat: the
>organization need not police all postings; but when one is drawn to
>its attention, it can't pretend to go blind.

First of all you know perfectly well that our ability to remove such a
posting is imperfect at best, secondly if you *REALLY* are concerned
that posting such as this are a realistic occurrence  then make a
motion that makes posting such material against  a TFN By-Law, don't
use this sort of extreme examples to put the TFN in a position
upholding the laws of Canada when simply passing a by-law against
death threats would do the trick, no?

>>You and Jim are just making sensationalized examples to try and
>>justify vigilantism.
>
>Ya got me there, Dim .. the shooting of a doctor is an unheard of
>event that could never possibly happen.  The posting of the address of
>a house where such a doctor is claimed to reside couldn't possibly
>cause any harm, right, Kleiner?  You'd just leave it right up there
>for any interested parties to see.

More of Jim typical attempt top manipulate with exaggeration and
sensationalism, attempting to suggest that because I oppose his point
of view that I'm not interested in the welfare of doctors. Sigh.

I am against the TFN having a policy that it will disciple users based
on "illegal" activities, when no court of law has ruled whether said
activities are illegal or not.

I am not in principal against the TFN having rules and upholding it's
own by-laws, though I admit I would be very suspicious of rules that
govern content, I would likely support (or at least not spend much
energy to oppose) a clearly worded by-law that would make it
specifically against *OUR* rules to use *OUR* equipment to issue death
threats,

But this is *NOT* what is being discussed, no matter how much you
bluster on, what is being discussed is a blanket policy to discipline
users based on our interpretations of *CANADIAN LAW,* which we have no
qualifications or jurisdiction to do.

>Let me assure you that the law enforcement authorities are not skilful
>surgeons in removing such offending material.  The TFN's equipment
>will be hauled away as evidence, and the hard drive contents examined
>at the convenience of the constabulary.  I have a feeling that this
>would please Che Kleiner, since it would give him another soapbox to
>scream from; but many thousands of TFN subscribers would be denied
>service while this happens.

Here you go again with using the alleged inadequacies of the law
enforcement agencies as an justification for taking the law into our
own hands. I don't buy it Jim. Once again, this  reminds me too much
of the rhetoric of street gangs, vigilante groups and lynch mobs.

>>And you Marc, have sunk to the level of Jim Blubberfield. Attempting
>>to use pithy snubs to replace thought and logic.
>
>I hope Marc feels complimented.  I hope his spelling is better than
>Dimmy's.

I hope not Jim, you really are a  pompous, controlling, bitchy,  and
petty little  man who holds long grudges and always acts from his own
personal biases.

I would hope nobody aspires to this.

I will admit you do have your good points though, namely your
volunteer efforts and helpfulness to your fellow users.

Take that for what it's worth, although I'll bet giving me any credit
is far beyond your self serving horizons.

>>Marc, as I;ve said, *WE ALREADY HAVE A JUSTICE SYSTEM* to look out for
>>our safety and rights
>
>The justice system might not behave the way Kleiner thinks.  And his
>fine ideals might seriously cripple the free communications presently
>enjoyed by TFN members.

Once again you're saying the cops are bad, badges we don't need no
stinkin' badges. 

Fuck the Justice system, We got to look out for ourselves eh Jim?

Hang the murdered! He doesn't deserve justice! Get 'em boys!

[snip]

On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:29:25 GMT, Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:

: 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.

A court order to remove a post from the newsgroups would, presumably, 
also be enough to cause the TFN to remove the offending post.

-- 
	Chris F.A. Johnson
	bq933@torfree.net               http://www.interlog.com/~cfaj
	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
	       Everything in moderation - including moderation  

Marc Bissonnette (dragnet@internalysis.com) wrote:
: In article <35a06ec6.39395417@news.alt.net>, dmytrik@syntac.net says...

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

: No, I was having a great day. dmytri, if you had said something to the effect 
: that you would oppose in every way at your disposal the motion or AUP, that 
: would have been fine. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, after 
: all, this is a free country and we're allowed to express our opinions. 

as i think dmitry attempted to state - he was not disagreeing with you or 
your idea specifically - apparently he used the opportunity to decry the 
more censorious ideas that he feels are floating around the bod...

: >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.

i didn't have time to say this in my direct reply to dmitry's article so 
i'm doing so here...

when arrested, one is forced by police to cease one's illegal (or more 
precisely *questionably* legal since the police are judge and jury) 
activities.. i'm of the opinion that number one should be augmented to 
include such orders by police officers deemed necessary pending the 
outcome of criminal proceedings...

: Hyppocrasy again. Breaking system security is *ILLEGAL*. It falls under the 
: 'theft of data' section of the Criminal Code of Canada (Or some similar name 
: like that)

criminal mischief (i believe)... section 430, subsection 
1.1, 5, 5.1, and 8 pertain to data according to my sources...

: So you are saying that you will support the enforcement of these 
: laws, on our own, but not those involving theft, child pornography, copyrioght 
: infringement, murder, etc, etc. 

interesting point... we're willing to forgo legalities in some 
circumstances but not in others... 

(and totally unrelated to any of this, nfs at yonge stopped responding 
while i was composing this article - i wonder if anything will go awry 
when i post it)

-- 
"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"

Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:

: On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:50:40 GMT, cr764@torfree.net (Kurt Wismer)
: wrote:


: The part of Marc's article that I quoted was:

: 	> I think what some people in this 'debate' fail to understand
: 	>  is that it is our right (and that of any member) to put a
: 	>  motion before the membership for  voting. Like it or not
: 	> (And obviously, some people do NOT like it very much) 
: 	> there will be an Acceptable Use Policy before the membership
: 	>  next AGM to vote on. 

: And I prefaced my response with:

: 	Fine and good, in that case I will make the following
: 	 statement of intent so that you all know what you are getting
: 	 into:

which doesn't say "this has nothing to do with marc's draft 
specifically", and since replying to marc's message does imply that your 
responce will have something to do with the meat of marc's message (which 
was not about aups in general but his draft in particular)...

yes he gives the impression that he's going to put the motion to the 
board come hell or high water but it comes down to this - he said what he 
was going to do, then you replied and said what you were going to do and 
you didn't make it clear that your actions would be conditional on 
something altogether different from what marc was going to do...

: >if you 
: >feel you need to make a point to censorious board members, then it would 
: >be best to reply to articles in which those specific board members made 
: >censorious suggestions...

: I have, do and will,

good...

: It was Marc's insistence that there *WILL* be a motion that I was
: responding to. If there is to be a motion, I would like all involved
: to know how I feel about the issue.

but marc was not saying there will be a motion, marc was saying there 
will be *his* motion... thus the misunderstanding about your responce not 
being to *his* motion...

: >marc got the impression you were directing your criticisms at him - and 
: >no wonder, you followed up his post and quoted his text when you did it...

: Even so, I fail to see how I have criticized *HIM*

you may not have, but you gave the impression that you were doing so 
implicitly by responding to his plans specifically and not explicitly 
stating that your position was a general one against censorship...

: I have expressed ideas that are different from his, but how that
: justifies being called a coward, a cretin, a terrorist, "worse than a
: KKK member", stupid, evil, and saying that he was "ashamed to know me"
: and speculating that I "sold my soul" not to mention  many other
: delightful smears, is not clear to me.

i imagine it was at least in part reactionary...

: What's worse, is that he immediately and repeatedly claimed my actions
: were "Illegal," and therefor actionable under the AUP he was
: presenting, meaning that his AUP could be used to silence me and the
: ideas that I am presenting.

my recollection is that he said it was illegal and actionable under 
canadian law (something to do with the corporations act)..

: His over-the-top hostility clearly demonstrates that if such an AUP
: were in place he certainly WOULD HAVE used it to punish me, claiming
: he was upholding the law. 

: Forcing *ME* to *PROVE* that my actiones were *NOT* illegal.

i don't see how he can silence you... you post from outside tfn, tfn only 
has authority over itself... the only punishment i could see coming about 
is the possibility of having you convicted in a court of law - which 
would mean that you really did do something wrong and deserve punishment...

: I guess "innocent until proven guilty" is not a concept that we wish
: to preserve in this new medium.

he's questioned the legality of your actions to date, he hasn't silenced 
you or convicted you... he's exercised *his* freedom of expression and 
voiced his concern...

isn't that the kind of medium you were looking for? where people can say 
whatever they like as long as they don't break the law?


-- 
"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"

In article <EvIzvL.HIs.0.sheppard@torfree.net>, cr764@torfree.net says...

>: So you are saying that you will support the enforcement of these 
>: laws, on our own, but not those involving theft, child pornography, 
copyrioght 
>: infringement, murder, etc, etc. 
>
>interesting point... we're willing to forgo legalities in some 
>circumstances but not in others... 
>

My point to it all (and this is what disturbs me about the naysayers in this 
debate) is that there must be a point in a citizens life in which s/he must do 
something about illegality. I mentioned this in the Board list and I'll mention 
 it here. If there were pictures of my wife, daughter, sisters or mother posted 
to the net, depicting rape, murder, abuse, etc, etc, and the Board decided to 
do *nothing* until a judge forced them to, I'd GUARANTEE I'd sue the TFN and 
anything even *Imagined* to be related to the TFN so that the following five 
generations were indebted. And that's just the *legal* stuff I'd do. 

I'd like to see dmytri's reaction (and the other naysayers) to this debate if 
and when they ever became parents. What about the other readers of this thread? 
What if it was your daughter or wife or son being threatened or being depicted 
being threatened/abused/etc. Would you still be satisfied in waiting for those 
abominations to be removed by a judge? What would you think of the TFN for 
allowing such things to remain online? Would you, despite that it's your 
precious child, or wife, or sister, or mother, etc, being abused, harrassed, or 
depicted being abused, still feel the TFN was doing the 'right' thing by not 
acting as "Judge, Jury and executioner" a dmytri puts it? 

What if someone posted your credit card information, your credit history, your 
bank account numbers, your S.I.N. number, your medical records online (None of 
which, BTW, are all that hard to get, if you're of the mind)? Would you be 
content to allow your most important and vital information to remain online, 
doing God-knows-what damage to you and yours, while the TFN sat around and 
waited for a judge?

It's one thing for dmytri to argue that we are not enforcement agents, but lets 
face it, folks, this is the Internet. It's not like we're talking about forming 
vigilante gangs and walking around beating up people we don't like the look of.

Despite the above examples to the Board mailing list, dmytri STILL says he'd 
wait for a judge. THAT is the type of thinking that makes me ashamed to know 
him.

I made the promise to the BoD, and I'll make the same to any of you in the TFN: 
If I saw anything like that being posted by a TFN member, depicting such horrid 
crimes to your family or posting all your vital information, dmytri's martyr 
act be damned, I'd bloody well make sure the TFN removed the information. 

There is a certain point at which people have to take a step back and realize 
that some morals look really good on paper, but in practice, there are ALWAYS 
exceptions to the rule.

-- 
Marc Bissonnette
InternAlysis
Corporate Internet Research and Results!
http://www.internalysis.com

Jim Butterfield (fjb@torfree.net) wrote:

: And the law enforcers and justice system are likely go after the
: directors of an organization who, knowing that such a posting had been
: made, insisted on keeping it in the public view.  To repeat: the
: organization need not police all postings; but when one is drawn to
: its attention, it can't pretend to go blind.

	mr. butterfield.

	you appear to be alluding to a recent case - which - dealt with 
under present policy (and potentially could not be dealt with in similar 
manner if policy is changed by the proposed aup) which federal 
investigations are now dealing with.

: Ya got me there, Dim .. the shooting of a doctor is an unheard of
: event that could never possibly happen.  The posting of the address of
: a house where such a doctor is claimed to reside couldn't possibly
: cause any harm, right, Kleiner?  You'd just leave it right up there
: for any interested parties to see.

	jim.  freebd discussion is privileged - ie.  it is not to be 
communicated.  present vehicles dealt with this efficiently.
	advocating change in present vehicles must be very carefully 
considered.  

: Yet if the directors are told of a posting which might be the cause of
: such stalking/harassment and do not remove the posting, they become
: agents in causing the event.

	aup proposals will potentially interfere with the present vehicle.

: Let me assure you that the law enforcement authorities are not skilful
: surgeons in removing such offending material.  The TFN's equipment
: will be hauled away as evidence, and the hard drive contents examined
: at the convenience of the constabulary.  I have a feeling that this
: would please Che Kleiner, since it would give him another soapbox to
: scream from; but many thousands of TFN subscribers would be denied
: service while this happens.

	rebuilding tfn in the image of compuserve only restricts 
political ideology - this should not be pursued.

: >And you Marc, have sunk to the level of Jim Blubberfield. Attempting
: >to use pithy snubs to replace thought and logic.

: I hope Marc feels complimented.  I hope his spelling is better than
: Dimmy's.

	here we go.  tfn members should (as a requirement of posting) 
learn spelling and grammar.
	can you say "exclusionary policy"?

	quirk's mention of principals was not at all grammaticly 
incorrect.  principals refers to those who voted for him (obvious in 
the context given).

: >Marc, as I;ve said, *WE ALREADY HAVE A JUSTICE SYSTEM* to look out for
: >our safety and rights

: The justice system might not behave the way Kleiner thinks.  And his
: fine ideals might seriously cripple the free communications presently
: enjoyed by TFN members.

: Sure, he has another ISP account, so when the TFN is hauled away he
: won't be inconvenienced.  But some of us do care about that 8,000 and
: more regular users of the TFN system who will lose their service.

	and i was privy to an email from you for the help desk dated jul 
1.  so would you prefer we limit system access when system memory is at a 
premium?
	the better likelihood is that compuserve users scream bloody 
murder against tfn (without knowledge - or ignoring the same).

: >           ... the Free-Net Board of Directors does not need
: > to undertake this responsibility

: Any sensible board member should look closely at his or her personal
: liability under such circumstances.  There is no liability insurance
: for directors in the TFN.  There's never any insurance which will
: cover criminal liability.  Dimmy's a firebrand, not a lawyer .. keep
: in mind what Tim Pinos said two years ago (it's in the minutes of the
: TFN board meeting of February 15, 1996).

	yet another black hole for cash when directors act irresponsibly - 
by increasing exposure to liability.

	increasing liability of the freenet is a BIG error.  changing 
something which works increases exposure.
-- 

In article <6njahc$1dl$1@news.interlog.com>,
Marc Bissonnette <dragnet@internalysis.com> wrote:
|In article <EvIzvL.HIs.0.sheppard@torfree.net>, cr764@torfree.net says...
|
|>: So you are saying that you will support the enforcement of these 
|>: laws, on our own, but not those involving theft, child pornography, 
|copyrioght 
|>: infringement, murder, etc, etc. 
|>
|>interesting point... we're willing to forgo legalities in some 
|>circumstances but not in others... 
|>
|
|My point to it all (and this is what disturbs me about the naysayers in this 
|debate) is that there must be a point in a citizens life in which s/he must do 
|something about illegality. I mentioned this in the Board list and I'll mention 
| it here. If there were pictures of my wife, daughter, sisters or mother posted 
|to the net, depicting rape, murder, abuse, etc, etc, and the Board decided to 
|do *nothing* until a judge forced them to, I'd GUARANTEE I'd sue the TFN and 
|anything even *Imagined* to be related to the TFN so that the following five 
|generations were indebted. And that's just the *legal* stuff I'd do. 


	Urk.  Marc... what you've just said in its own way
	is completely similar to what you complained about
	Dmytri's statements.


	You've got your points of intense reaction, he's got
	his, & others may vary greatly from either of these
	issues when it comes to their points of no return.


|There is a certain point at which people have to take a step back and realize 
|that some morals look really good on paper, but in practice, there are ALWAYS 
|exceptions to the rule.


	That cuts many more ways than one.


	Blowing things up out of context is futile & unproductive.
	No matter what rules we make there will always be some
	scenario we can imagine which if it occurred would be
	completely terrible were it to occur.  The example you've
	given is most unlikely to happen, although of course it
	is _possible_.  It's a straw man argument which after it
	catches fire burns down to no visible remains.


	There are real issues to explore - pointing the
	finger'o'doom at Bad Dmytri won't get us anywhere
	useful as far as I can see.  Please let's get on
	to some constructive ground where we have a chance
	to see & value one another's points of view -
	otherwise while we're out in the yard fighting
	somebody might sneak in the house & steal our
	goodies, which in this case is the reasonably
	smooth operation of the TFN so far.  We could end
	up making all kinds of rules & regs that no sane
	volunteer would ever bother to show up to try
	to administer...


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker		Toronto, Ontario	1 416 699 1868
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@gts.org	Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "...and then we had to reformat the Ontario government
 _< /_	 		'cos it had a boot-camp virus"		- Gully Foyle

In article <359a5c72.403753@news.pathcom.com>,
Jim Butterfield <fjb@torfree.net> wrote:
|dmytrik@syntac.net (Dmytri Kleiner) wrote:
|
|
|>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.
|
|There may be further questions involved.
|
|As a hypothetical example (but one I don't think is too far fetched):
|Suppose a posting appears in a TFN newsgroup saying something like "A
|doctor who performs abortions lives at 1234 Anywhere Street .. I think
|somebody with a rifle should visit him/her".  The poster may be
|readily identifiable, or may not.  The posting may originate from
|within the TFN, or not.
|
|Now consider:  this posting is drawn to the attention of the TFN
|Executive and Board of Directors, who decide to let it sit there until
|"a judge rules on the matter".  Perhaps they tell the complainant that
|it's nothing to do with the TFN, and if such person is concerned he
|should go to the police; meanwhile, the message will be left in place.
|And should the posting appear to have originated from a TFN member,
|that member wouldn't even be asked about it.


	It's my understanding that in very recent events
	I read of an incident where people reported just
	such a verbal utterance to the police, ant they
	answered that such statements were not illegal.
	The results were unfortunate, yet the police were
	not indicted.


|It's clear that other ISPs in the Toronto area would deep-six such a
|posting FAST.  But at least some directors seem to be saying that it
|would be an abrogation of free speech to do _anything_.


	Get this through your head: we are NOT an ISP.
	We do not have the same sense of responsibilities
	at all.


|Meanwhile, an MD living at 1234 Anywhere Street is shot.  Do the
|directors of the TFN _really_ believe that no liability would accrue
|to them?


	It's your movie, Mr. Zanuck; what do you say?


|The directors are free to call their own strategy.  But I trust they
|will not do so in a manner that will cause themselves personal
|liability, or bring the TFN into disrepute.


	That's MISTER smarm to you, fella.  Jim, you are
	in the wrong business, you should be working for
	politicians so that your penchant for the spin
	has something like relevance.  Here, people try
	to talk straight without the bullshit wallpaper.
	You're setting a bad example.


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker		Toronto, Ontario	1 416 699 1868
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@gts.org	Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "...and then we had to reformat the Ontario government
 _< /_	 		'cos it had a boot-camp virus"		- Gully Foyle

bt351 (bt351@torfree.net) wrote:

: 	jim.  freebd discussion is privileged - ie.  it is not to be 
: communicated.

I don't understand.  Are you suggesting that I have disclosed material 
from FreeBD, Geoff?  I don't see FreeBD, and have no knowledge of what 
goes on there.  Any responses I made are to material posted publicly on 
the newsgroups.

Perhaps you should draw our attention to whatever material is there that 
you feel is "FreeBD secret".  Then we can stop discussing it ...

: 	rebuilding tfn in the image of compuserve only restricts 
: political ideology -

Such a thing hadn't crossed my mind.  But I do spend time on Compuserve 
and AOL forums, and I often find these moderated forums have more solid 
information than can be found on comparable unmoderated usenet groups.  
Similarly, the moderated download areas are almost completely free of 
copyright material or virus-infested programs.

If you have a problem with moderated newsgroups, Geoff, this could be an 
interesting new thread .. but I don't see that it has much to do with the 
current AUP thread.

: 	quirk's mention of principals was not at all grammaticly 
: incorrect.  principals refers to those who voted for him (obvious in 
: the context given).

Gosh, this puts a whole new light on things.  You must recall how Dim 
Kleiner used to brag on these newsgroups about how he used to hang around 
the now-defunct fetish bar, Boots.  I had this image of the principals of 
his former schools showing up with their canes and straps to discipline 
naughty boy Dim.

I never for a moment thought it was grammatically incorrect.  :-)

: 	increasing liability of the freenet is a BIG error.

The liability is there now.  An AUP will have the effect of controlling it.

			  --Jim

Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:

<snip>
: Other ISPs are not publicly funded, are not volunteer supported, do
: not posses the status of a charity, their responsibility is to their
: stake holders, *OUR* responsibility is to the greater good of our
: community, and unless we serve as a vanguard of free speech and
: justice, we are *NOT* working in the best interest of our community.

Now you are discussing. Much better than threats IMHO. The TFN being 
publicly funded makes it more responsible to the public and not vice 
versa. 

Who said that the TFN is a "vanguard of free speech and justice"? I do 
not recall seeing that in any of the documentation. May be this is 
Dmytri's TFN, but not TFN the community network that it was intended to 
be. 

I find that your last paragraph is ...... We should be working to the 
best interest of our community; that best interest includes giving the 
chance to any group with something to say - whether or not we agree with the 
subject or the substance - a forum (a menu item) to express their view. 
They can also have their 'special/own' newsgroup to interact with users. 
Through this peaceful way of discussing ideas exchanging arguments and 
other means of civil exchange can 'bad' ideas be exposed and actually 
this would be a 'safety valve' preventing these groups from resorting to 
other forms of action (violence or any other illegal outlet).

Having said that, this does not by any means give the right to groups or 
individuals to push their ideas to the users by posting in irrelevant 
newsgroups or by using unconsented mailing lists. They also cannot resort 
to defamation, insulting, be-littling, etc of any one who has a different 
opinion and/or present different data that does not support the group's 
issues. This is totally unfair. It is a silencing technique which leaves 
the 'battle field' - IMHO an intellectual one -  to those with the 
sharpest tongue (or worse still with the technical wizzardy to post fake 
posts looking as they have originated from their 'opposition'). We have 
seen that so many times in the short history of TFN and we have seen no 
action taken in all of them. 

We need to have clean newsgroups. If it is impossible to clean the 
current newsgroups from the weeds that are preventing the useful crops 
from flourishing, then by all means we should allow moderated newsgroups. 
This is not censorship as those who participate in these groups are 
welcoming the 'rules' of such newsgroup. It is more like 'freedom of 
association' of decent - or may be on the opposite some indecent people 
who do not want flame of their believes = people. I believe this is a 
positive action, a win/win situation; those who want the status quo has 
it, those who want a rather 'controlled' forum should have it.

I do not think that the discussion of AUP would bring any concensus, but 
may be discussion - and call for moderators - of moderated groups will 
bring much better results.
-- 
Nabil M. El-Khodari. 
"Men use thought to justify their injustices, and
speech to conceal their thoughts"        Voltaire

Chris F.A. Johnson (bq933@torfree.net) wrote:

: A court order to remove a post from the newsgroups would, presumably, 
: also be enough to cause the TFN to remove the offending post.

 .. but not necessarily enough to excuse the TFN directors from prosecution, 
for failure to remove material when it was drawn to their attention prior 
to the issuance of such a court order.

  There is a question of law here (and the manner in which enforcement 
takes place); and none of us here appear to be practicing law at the 
present time.  The only words we have so far on the subject from a 
qualified barrister and solicitor are those of Tim Pinos, made in a board 
meeting of 15 Feburary, 1996.  I am dismayed by the chorus of "Tush, tush 
.. he probably wasn't qualified to speak on the matter .. we know 
better".  Tim said that the question of directors' liability could indeed 
arise from material in postings; can't we take such a statement seriously?

			 --Jim

Hi Jim

I went back in the thread to see if the report had been referred to in
any posts (I noted your name from our earlier exchange) and could find
no reference so I posted it along with material from David Potts.  If
TFN is looking for legal expertise it appears David Potts could provide
them with this and he lives in Toronto.

For a US perspective on these sorts of issues you may also wish to look
at the URL below.  Bear in mind however our freedom of expression case
law differs from that of Americans.

http://www.gahtan.com/techlaw/

BTW as I understand the progress of the libel case by the professor in
England, the Canadian student (University of British Columbia?) who
allegedly libelled him on a newsgroup and the Canadian ISP were found
liable for defamation per a default judgment by the English courts.  It
is my understanding that the ISP has now retained counsel in England and
set aside the default judgment so that the ISP may file a Statement of
Defence leading to a full trial on the issues.  ISP's should recognize
since posts are published to the world at large, they may also be
subject to both civil and criminal foreign laws as well as domestic laws
for the actions of their subscribers as has occurred in this case.   As
foreign judgments from many countries may be registered and enforced as
if issued by a Canadian court, this is not simply an intellectual
exercise.

It is often said but it bears repeating - freedom of expression is NOT
an absolute right.  In Canada it is proscribed by the civil law of
defamation and criminally under the Criminal Code for such things as
criminal libel and hate propaganda and the Charter specifically notes
that the rights and freedoms described therein are... "subject only to
such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be deminstrably
justified in a free and democratic society." ( See section 1).  Other
countries may proscribe the conduct more or less strictly.  For example
Germany has specific criminal laws which prohibit denial of the
Holocaust and foreign nationals have been prosecuted for breach of these
laws in the past.  Posting such materials to a German newsgoup or even
directing these comments to a person in Germeny may be sufficient to
engage the jurisdiction of the German criminal courts.  Some people seem
to have the mistaken (and potentially costly) notion that posting to the
Usenet or the Internet per web pages somehow insulates them from
liability - it does not.  If you breach civil or criminal law then you
may be held liable civilly or prosecuted.

This is not an easy area to understand nor for counsel to give legal
advice on potential liability given the multi-jurisdictional aspects. 
Those who postulate freedom of expression as an absolute value do not
have a clue about how the real world operates and the competing values
at issue.  Such people may freely propagate their views should they wish
but they should not expect others to act as guarantors for their
conduct.  There is nothing to prevent anyone from setting up their own
ISP to say whatever comes into their minds but they should not expect
others to sit back and allow themselves to be put a risk.  Vicarious
criminal or civil liability could attach to an ISP despite its pure
intentions and even having a policy and procedure (TOS, AUP, etc.) in
place to try to prevent such problems.  Simply burying one's head in the
sand is not a recommended approach.  You could not pay me enough money
to act as an officer or director of an ISP given the potential for
liability and i would insist at a minimum that the ISP provide insurance
in the event of my being found vicariously liable for the actions of a
member or subscriber.  Ultimately the courts may strike some balance
here but I for one would not like to be the one being made a test case.


Randy


Jim Butterfield wrote:
> 
> Randy Wittchen (wittchen@direct.ca) wrote:
> 
> :                                         ...    Industry Canada has
> : produced a report which looks at potential criminal and civil liability
> : for persons posting to Usenet and website content as well as potential
> : liability for ISP's.  This should be required reading for any officer or
> : director of an ISP.
> 
> Thanks, Randy.  Your comments are useful.  I believe I've already made
> reference to the Industry Canada document.
> 
> The directors of the TFN would be well advised to read it, if they have
> not done so already.  If they find they disagree with it, they should
> seek legal advice, since the document was prepared by persons with
> substantial legal expertise.
> 
> I'm not a director, just a TFN member.  But I sincerely hope that the
> directors, and the TFN, do not run into serious difficulty by adopting
> the belief that "inaction will keep us safe".  This past week, "Jane Doe"
> collected $220,000 from the Toronto Police because they did not take
> action to warn her of a rapist who was active in the region.  Not the
> same thing, of course, but it does point out that inaction will not get
> you off the hook.
> 
>                           --Jim
> 
> : Each freenet's death diminishes me; for I am involved in Freenets :

Posted and e-mailed.

Randy Wittchen <wittchen@direct.ca> wrote:

[massive snippage]

>It is my understanding that an Canadian ISP has been successfully joined
>to an action by an English professor who claims he was libelled by a
>Canadian poster on a newsgroup.  The last information that I had was
>that the ISP had retained counsel in England to file a defence.  This is
>the suit to which David Potts refers in his article.
>
>Randy Wittchen

It's not a Canadian ISP being sued, it's Cornell University.  Lawrence
Godfrey is suing Cornell  (He's very good at this sort of thing.)
because a Canadian student, who now lives in B. C., posted messages he
(Godfrey) thought were libellous.

Cornell has retained counsel in the UK.

An excerpt from the June 11, on-line (London)Telegraph:

Lawrence Godfrey, who lectures in Britain on physics and computer
science, is suing Cornell University and Michael Dolenga, a
postgraduate, over allegations posted on the soc.culture.canada
newsgroup.  He is claiming �50,000 for the "extremely damaging, false
and malicious postings".  The court has already issued a default
judgment against Dolenga.

Sheila Paterson
Note:  Address transmogrified.

In article <EvMM2B.Izp.0.sheppard@torfree.net>,
Jim Butterfield <fjb@torfree.net> wrote:
|Randy Wittchen (wittchen@direct.ca) wrote:
|
|:                                         ...    Industry Canada has
|: produced a report which looks at potential criminal and civil liability
|: for persons posting to Usenet and website content as well as potential
|: liability for ISP's.  This should be required reading for any officer or
|: director of an ISP.
|
|Thanks, Randy.  Your comments are useful.  I believe I've already made 
|reference to the Industry Canada document.
|
|The directors of the TFN would be well advised to read it, if they have 
|not done so already.  If they find they disagree with it, they should 
|seek legal advice, since the document was prepared by persons with 
|substantial legal expertise.
|
|I'm not a director, just a TFN member.  But I sincerely hope that the 
|directors, and the TFN, do not run into serious difficulty by adopting 
|the belief that "inaction will keep us safe".  This past week, "Jane Doe" 
|collected $220,000 from the Toronto Police because they did not take 
|action to warn her of a rapist who was active in the region.  Not the 
|same thing, of course, but it does point out that inaction will not get 
|you off the hook.


	More irrelevant sensationalism.  Your example
	has *nothing* to do with what we are discussing.


	Let's look at 2 parts of the Industry Canada
	document for a second.  The first is the intro
	to the whole thing:


Internet Content-Related Liability Study

The views expressed in this Study are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect government policy.


	The second is the conclusion to the Liability
	section:


However, in the present state of the law, it remains difficult to
distinguish the circumstances in which an access provider should
act to prevent prejudice from those situations which do not present
a sufficiently clear case to justify an intervention which often
could result in severe censorship. Without having access to the
viewpoints of all those involved, it is indeed very difficult to
determine whether a specific content is actionable. The access
provider thus finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being
criticized at some point for having permitted a content harming a
person to circulate, when it is really very poorly placed to
intervene in order to suppress a content of which the harmful
nature is often far from obvious. Moreover, the principle of
freedom of expression as it is understood in democratic societies
concords poorly with practices in which access providers would
pass judgment on the potentially actionable or harmful nature
of information passing through their facilities. 


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker		Toronto, Ontario	1 416 699 1868
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@gts.org	Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "...and then we had to reformat the Ontario government
 _< /_	 		'cos it had a boot-camp virus"		- Gully Foyle



-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker		Toronto, Ontario	1 416 699 1868
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@gts.org	Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "...and then we had to reformat the Ontario government
 _< /_	 		'cos it had a boot-camp virus"		- Gully Foyle

Yello Biennual (bdb@GTS.Net) wrote:

: 	More irrelevant sensationalism.

Yello Biennual (bdb@GTS.Net) wrote:

:	Knock off the insulting language - it just makes you look bad.

In article <Evp66o.E8B.0.spadina@torfree.net>,
Jim Butterfield <fjb@torfree.net> wrote:
|Yello Biennual (bdb@GTS.Net) wrote:
|
|: 	More irrelevant sensationalism.
|
|Yello Biennual (bdb@GTS.Net) wrote:
|
|:	Knock off the insulting language - it just makes you look bad.


	Erm.  No doubt if we mine this current discussion
	further, we can find many such, um, non-diplomatic
	words & phrases from a number of participants.


	I have in general no particular intention to directly
	insult anyone here; but I do have an intention to
	speak directly & at times forcefully.  I thought that
	Chris was crossing that line - I've been informed that
	the word he used may have been given with less force than
	I took it - another one of these cultural differences
	as far as I can see.  With the inability of this medium
	to transmit gestures, tone of voice, facial expressions,
	etc., there is more room for interpretation (not always
	correctly 8^) as to the intention of others.


	There are things which to me are obscene which have
	nothing to do with pornography, but rather to do with
	bad ideas that can lead to unjust relations among people.
	Sometimes such ideas are carried forth with the best of
	intentions - thus when one attacks the ideas, those who
	identify with them may find it difficult to avoid taking
	such attacks personally.  Part of the problem is also
	that we've inherited some fairly invasive means of
	persuasion from other more controlled media, so when they
	get used here it can easily (even if unintentionally)
	imply that the users of such techniques have inherited
	the attitudes of control behind the methods of persuasion.
	This may well be largely false perception, but unfortunately
	the low communication bandwidth of this medium is often
	not up to the task of such distinctions.


	It would be nice to be able to say that one always
	assumes the "best" in each of these exchanges, but really
	it is all too simple at times to just react.  In fact it
	seems that things flow best when one waits for a given
	posting to reveal itself both in its own terms as well
	as its place in the ongoing context;  at these times
	one or two re-readings can often provide, if not always
	a better understanding of what was said, at least a
	better chance to try structuring the dialogue to larger
	purposes where appropriate.


	"Afgrty ulpfdnorn, ixoprefla r womvili: audrit sa
	plingor wre tlinsorit!"


	...some Freedom of Expression quoted above - but without
	the accompanying gestures & facial expressions, it's
	entirely meaningless.  What if it's a truly illegal
	utterance in its place of origin?  What if it's Vogon
	poetry (perhaps also illegal 8^)?  The truth is that
	even a collection of words that we know to be utterances
	in our own language can have vastly different meanings
	in differing contexts, even to the point of direct
	contradiction - moreover, as we have been observing
	within these discussions, the same set of words can
	have very different meanings to different individuals.
	Cultural differences & habits of assumption due to one's
	particular upbringing serve to highlight the ambiguities
	in situations like this one, where attempts to be concrete
	may nevertheless be the desired activity.


	In order to make sense of such contradictions, we
	need to develop some forms of shorthand in order to
	limit & shape ambiguity in a productive fashion.
	Devices such as emoticons are the beginning attempts
	to enrich communication in this media, but they do
	not go nearly far enough in expressiveness to be
	able to bear the weight of multi-layered verbal
	interactions.  No doubt in time the very language
	of online interactions such as here in Usenet will
	have evolved to the point where much of the real
	current frustrations of meaningful communication will
	be eliminated.  We are, in a very direct sense, doing
	the work right now towards such desireable outcomes,
	trying different things in order to carry on the
	discussions in these threads.  Viewed in this light,
	it would seem that a little conflict is not too bad
	a price to pay for the possibilities which may arise...


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker		Toronto, Ontario	1 416 699 1868
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@gts.org	Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "...and then we had to reformat the Ontario government
 _< /_	 		'cos it had a boot-camp virus"		- Gully Foyle

Yello Biennual (bdb@GTS.Net) wrote:
: In article <EvMM2B.Izp.0.sheppard@torfree.net>,
: Jim Butterfield <fjb@torfree.net> wrote:
: |Randy Wittchen (wittchen@direct.ca) wrote:
: |
: |:                                         ...    Industry Canada has
: |: produced a report which looks at potential criminal and civil liability
: |: for persons posting to Usenet and website content as well as potential
: |: liability for ISP's.  This should be required reading for any officer or
: |: director of an ISP.
: |
: |Thanks, Randy.  Your comments are useful.  I believe I've already made 
: |reference to the Industry Canada document.
: |
: |The directors of the TFN would be well advised to read it, if they have 
: |not done so already.  If they find they disagree with it, they should 
: |seek legal advice, since the document was prepared by persons with 
: |substantial legal expertise.
: |
: |I'm not a director, just a TFN member.  But I sincerely hope that the 
: |directors, and the TFN, do not run into serious difficulty by adopting 
: |the belief that "inaction will keep us safe".  This past week, "Jane Doe" 
: |collected $220,000 from the Toronto Police because they did not take 
: |action to warn her of a rapist who was active in the region.  Not the 
: |same thing, of course, but it does point out that inaction will not get 
: |you off the hook.

: 	More irrelevant sensationalism.  Your example
: 	has *nothing* to do with what we are discussing.

It has some bearing.

: 	Let's look at 2 parts of the Industry Canada
: 	document for a second.  The first is the intro
: 	to the whole thing:

: Internet Content-Related Liability Study

: The views expressed in this Study are those of the authors and do not
: necessarily reflect government policy.

Standard CYA for a study done under contract.  It doesn't necessarily 
*not* represent government policy, either.  And the weight of the study 
depends on the qualifications of the authors.

: 	The second is the conclusion to the Liability
: 	section:

: However, in the present state of the law, it remains difficult to
: distinguish the circumstances in which an access provider should
: act to prevent prejudice from those situations which do not present
: a sufficiently clear case to justify an intervention which often
: could result in severe censorship. Without having access to the
: viewpoints of all those involved, it is indeed very difficult to
: determine whether a specific content is actionable. The access
: provider thus finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being
: criticized at some point for having permitted a content harming a
: person to circulate, when it is really very poorly placed to
: intervene in order to suppress a content of which the harmful
: nature is often far from obvious. Moreover, the principle of
: freedom of expression as it is understood in democratic societies
: concords poorly with practices in which access providers would
: pass judgment on the potentially actionable or harmful nature
: of information passing through their facilities. 

Translation:  There are grey areas, and folks have to be very careful.
But there are also fairly clear-cut cases, and that is what Jim has noted 
as a potential area of liability (as does the study in question).

Current TFN "policy" would have us wait until a court comes to us for any 
action to be taken; the study seems to suggest that this is unreasonable 
and may result in liability where a clear violation has occurred (this 
does assume it is "clear," e.g., a death threat).

Ken
-- 

Kurt Wismer (cr764@torfree.net) wrote:
: Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:

: : On 2 Jul 1998 15:09:40 GMT, dragnet@internalysis.com (Marc
: : Bissonnette) wrote:
: : >>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.
: : >
: : >Hyppocrasy again

: : No Marc, just you stretching desperately for another excuse to use
: : insults in lue of actually having a point.

: : >. Breaking system security is *ILLEGAL*. 

: : Breaking system security may or may not be illegal, that is not
: : relevant since I have already stated that legality is a matter for the
: : courts to decide.

: but you also seem to be saying that with regard to at least one type of 
: criminal offence (breaking system security is covered under sections 342 
: and 430 of the criminal code of canada) you are willing to forgo legal 
: proceedings...

I'll try to clarify, I am not against the TFN having rules, I am against 
the TFN attempting to interpret the rules of the justice system, I support 
the TFN's right to say we can terminate youre account because you broke 
*OUR* rules, not because we *THINK* you broke the rules of Canada.

i.e. Good Rule: Though shall not violate our system security, bad rule: 
though shall not do anything illegal.

We *DO* have the qualifications and jurisdiction to determine of someone 
violated our system security, we *DO NOT* have the qualifications or 
jurisdiction to determine if someone violated Canadian law.

Get it yet?

Whether we have the due process to deal with either, however, remains a 
question in my mind.

: : As a public service, we have *NO*  right to dictate what you *SAY* via
: : our system, or to determine the legality of that speech.

: : We do however have a right to control *HOW* our system is used, what
: : services we make available, and to protect our equipment and
: : configuration from being damaged.

: : Anyone that blatantly attempts to compromise our system design is
: : therefore refusing  to use the system as it was designed to be used,
: : in which case we are justified in preventing them from using it. 

: but it would seem to be more in keeping with your views on speech that we 
: wait for the law to prove an individual actually compromisedc our system 
: design...

: : This has nothing to do with interpreting the law or freedom of speech

: no, it has to do with interpreting other laws... they may not pertain to 
: speech, but they are laws...

To simplify; it's OK if against our rules *AND* is against the law, it's 
not OK if it's against our rules *BECAUSE* it's against the law.

As long as our actions are based on the inerpretation of *OUR* rules, not 
interpretations of the law.

In article <EvqLDK.EF.0.bloor@torfree.net>, quirk@torfree.net says...
>

>As long as our actions are based on the inerpretation of *OUR* rules, not 
>interpretations of the law.

That's really splitting hairs, since we can simply regurgitate any relevant 
section of the criminal code and adopt them as *OUR* rules. 

Either way, see the revised AUP currently circulating.


-- 
Marc Bissonnette
InternAlysis
Corporate Internet Research and Results!
http://www.internalysis.com

It is strange, but again me and you do agree 100%. Marc's approach is 
wrong. I still want to hear from Ken and Wendy. Hopefully, they can 
provide the right balance.

Dmytri Kleiner (quirk@torfree.net) wrote:

<snip>

: I'll try to clarify, I am not against the TFN having rules, I am against 
: the TFN attempting to interpret the rules of the justice system, I support 
: the TFN's right to say we can terminate youre account because you broke 
: *OUR* rules, not because we *THINK* you broke the rules of Canada.

: i.e. Good Rule: Though shall not violate our system security, bad rule: 
: though shall not do anything illegal.

: We *DO* have the qualifications and jurisdiction to determine of someone 
: violated our system security, we *DO NOT* have the qualifications or 
: jurisdiction to determine if someone violated Canadian law.

: Get it yet?

: Whether we have the due process to deal with either, however, remains a 
: question in my mind.

<snip>
-- 
Nabil M. El-Khodari. 
"Men use thought to justify their injustices, and
speech to conceal their thoughts"        Voltaire

In article <EvpI7G.FD8.0.spadina@torfree.net>,
Kenneth Edward Smith <cg591@torfree.net> wrote:
|Yello Biennual (bdb@GTS.Net) wrote:
|
|: 	The second is the conclusion to the Liability
|: 	section:
|
|: However, in the present state of the law, it remains difficult to
|: distinguish the circumstances in which an access provider should
|: act to prevent prejudice from those situations which do not present
|: a sufficiently clear case to justify an intervention which often
|: could result in severe censorship. Without having access to the
|: viewpoints of all those involved, it is indeed very difficult to
|: determine whether a specific content is actionable. The access
|: provider thus finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being
|: criticized at some point for having permitted a content harming a
|: person to circulate, when it is really very poorly placed to
|: intervene in order to suppress a content of which the harmful
|: nature is often far from obvious. Moreover, the principle of
|: freedom of expression as it is understood in democratic societies
|: concords poorly with practices in which access providers would
|: pass judgment on the potentially actionable or harmful nature
|: of information passing through their facilities. 
|
|Translation:  There are grey areas, and folks have to be very careful.


	Good lord.  If that's all you have gotten from that
	paragraph...  *gulp*


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker		Toronto, Ontario	1 416 699 1868
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@gts.org	Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "...and then we had to reformat the Ontario government
 _< /_	 		'cos it had a boot-camp virus"		- Gully Foyle

Marc Bissonnette (dragnet@internalysis.com) wrote:

: That's really splitting hairs, since we can simply regurgitate any relevant 
: section of the criminal code and adopt them as *OUR* rules. 

	and this is where things fall down and increase exposure to 
further liability.

	tfn is in no place to interpret law.  
-- 

Yello Biennual (bdb@GTS.Net) wrote:
: 	I have in general no particular intention to directly
: 	insult anyone here; but I do have an intention to
: 	speak directly & at times forcefully.  I thought that
: 	Chris was crossing that line....

Well, Bruce, there's one pattern I keep seeing though. Anyone you 
disagree with, you attempt to call them on what you see as inappropriate 
content. But you have, I believe, not applied this "speaking directly and 
at times forcefully" equally to all. I have seen others' contents being 
much more offensive, hostile and instigative than those whose posts 
you've challenged. 

You have posted some thoughtful articles about this subject. But I must
say I question your true attitude or motives when I don't see your
criticism being applied as impartially as you like to present yourself to
be. 

And for someone who is apparently against any form of AUP, you certainly 
have an awful lot of complaints and criticism of others' posts.


Wendy
-- 
/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^|^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\
     Conservative: n. A statesman who is enamoured  |
      of existing evils, as distinguished from the  |  Ambrose
  liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.  |  Bierce

Marc Bissonnette (dragnet@internalysis.com) wrote:
: In article <EvqLDK.EF.0.bloor@torfree.net>, quirk@torfree.net says...
: >

: >As long as our actions are based on the inerpretation of *OUR* rules, not 
: >interpretations of the law.

: That's really splitting hairs, since we can simply regurgitate any relevant 
: section of the criminal code and adopt them as *OUR* rules. 

Actually I can see Dmytri's point. It may be splitting hairs but they're 
very consequential hairs.

If we state that someone must break the law before we take action, we put 
ourselves in the position of second-guessing the judicial system's 
handling of such a case. While I don't see this in quite the extreme way 
that Dmytri does, I do see problems with it.

On the other hand, if we create a set of guidelines which mirror and 
reflect key points in our justice system that apply to our little corner 
of the world, and call them our own policies, then we have drawn a 
boundary around what is acceptable within our walls without necessarily 
linking ourselves to any outside legal process.

This does not mean that seeking outside legal action is not an option --
on the contrary. TFN can choose to refer a complaint to the greater legal
system, or to handle it regardless within its own organisational
boundaries, or both. By creating a set of guidelines (called whatever you
want) that reflect Canadian laws, we draw our organisational boundaries in
a way that is in sync with our containing community, which makes a lot of
sense to me. 

Drawing up our own set of guidelines also enables TFN to more easily and
fairly take action when deemed necessary by our Board according to the
circumstances, rather than waiting to find out what the outside legal
system decides -- something you told me you support. 


Wendy

-- 
/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^|^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\
     Conservative: n. A statesman who is enamoured  |
      of existing evils, as distinguished from the  |  Ambrose
  liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.  |  Bierce

Wendy shut the fuck up.

Wendy Guy (cq915@torfree.net) wrote:
: Yello Biennual (bdb@GTS.Net) wrote:
: : 	I have in general no particular intention to directly
: : 	insult anyone here; but I do have an intention to
: : 	speak directly & at times forcefully.  I thought that
: : 	Chris was crossing that line....

: Well, Bruce, there's one pattern I keep seeing though. Anyone you 
: disagree with, you attempt to call them on what you see as inappropriate 
: content. But you have, I believe, not applied this "speaking directly and 
: at times forcefully" equally to all. I have seen others' contents being 
: much more offensive, hostile and instigative than those whose posts 
: you've challenged. 

: You have posted some thoughtful articles about this subject. But I must
: say I question your true attitude or motives when I don't see your
: criticism being applied as impartially as you like to present yourself to
: be. 

: And for someone who is apparently against any form of AUP, you certainly 
: have an awful lot of complaints and criticism of others' posts.


: Wendy
: -- 
: /^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^|^^^\^^^/^^^\^^^/^^^\
:      Conservative: n. A statesman who is enamoured  |
:       of existing evils, as distinguished from the  |  Ambrose
:   liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.  |  Bierce
-- 
____Graham-John Bullers____www.Freenet.Edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html____
Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.The courage
to change the things I can.And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people
I had to kill because they pissed me off.________alt.2600.moderated________

In article <EvxB93.BAB.0.spadina@torfree.net>,
Wendy Guy <cq915@torfree.net> wrote:
|Yello Biennual (bdb@GTS.Net) wrote:
|: 	I have in general no particular intention to directly
|: 	insult anyone here; but I do have an intention to
|: 	speak directly & at times forcefully.  I thought that
|: 	Chris was crossing that line....
|
|Well, Bruce, there's one pattern I keep seeing though. Anyone you 
|disagree with, you attempt to call them on what you see as inappropriate 
|content. But you have, I believe, not applied this "speaking directly and 
|at times forcefully" equally to all. I have seen others' contents being 
|much more offensive, hostile and instigative than those whose posts 
|you've challenged. 


	That is quite correct, I have deliberately not done so.
	I try to walk & chew gum at the same time, but the need
	for attention to detail can limit the amount of
	multitasking in order to deal with things as effectively
	as possible.


|You have posted some thoughtful articles about this subject. But I must
|say I question your true attitude or motives when I don't see your
|criticism being applied as impartially as you like to present yourself to
|be. 


	You are as welcome to question my motives as you
	like, but I might suggest that you try to take
	a more constructive view of my (& perhaps others)
	words in order to find your way to a better
	understanding of why I care.


|And for someone who is apparently against any form of AUP, you certainly 
|have an awful lot of complaints and criticism of others' posts.


	Of *some* others' posts.  And I would point out
	that complaints & criticism seem to me to be far
	more even-handed than an arbitrary set of rules
	which require a police-like role in order to enforce.
	I'm not enforcing, I'm exhorting - that's not the same
	thing at all because it requires no power relation.


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker		Toronto, Ontario	1 416 699 1868
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@gts.org	Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
 `\o\-e	 To a fish, water and god are the same thing.
 _< /_	 					- Mao TseTse Redbook

Wendy Guy (cq915@torfree.net) wrote:

: Well, Bruce, there's one pattern I keep seeing though. Anyone you 
: disagree with, you attempt to call them on what you see as inappropriate 
: content. But you have, I believe, not applied this "speaking directly and 
: at times forcefully" equally to all. I have seen others' contents being 
: much more offensive, hostile and instigative than those whose posts 
: you've challenged. 

	there is a difference between content and language.

: You have posted some thoughtful articles about this subject. But I must
: say I question your true attitude or motives when I don't see your
: criticism being applied as impartially as you like to present yourself to
: be. 

: And for someone who is apparently against any form of AUP, you certainly 
: have an awful lot of complaints and criticism of others' posts.

	and if you will review his posts, at no time is censure 
suggested.  
	
	but there is a repeated theme:  usenet is a worldwide phenomenon 
used by millions of people.

	and there are a (very) few people here at tfn who appear to be 
advocating this phenomenon adapt to their demands.

	let me repeat:  this is patently absurd.  the loudest of the 
objectors are relative newbies.  these are the ones who have to accept 
news is a phenomenon to itself.  

	the participants determine what is acceptable and what is not.  
not the wanna be kia mennies.
--