Re: [ProgSoc] Progsoc AUP

[Anand Kumria <wildfire@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au>]

On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 07:18:28PM +1000, Christian Kent wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2000, Matt Beauregard wrote:
> 
> > A company I know of has a policy about swearwords in inbound emails --
> > they get rejected by the mail server.  Would you close somebody's
> > account if the postmaster complained that he used "fuck" in an email
> > to a mate who worked there?
> 
> Unfortunately you have to draw the line somewhere.  Let's remember that
> repeated incidents, where cautions have been issued, are much more serious

I think you are drawing the line two early in the AUP ...

> than one-off such incidents.  Now if one of our members is continually
> sending abusive emails, from her ProgSoc account, to someone in another
> company, and the company informs the ProgSoc Exec that this is not
> acceptable, what do the Exec do?  Nothing?

Lets not discuss the free speech implications of what youare suggesting.
Lets also not discuss the fact that the receiving network has a number
of options at its dispossal (i.e. dropping mail from our domain, dropping
packets from our addresses, etc.)

You don't need the second clause in the AUP ("... traffic to or from any 
connected network ...") when you have the 5th clause ("Any activity likely
to bring Progsoc into disrepute").

> > AUPs define what people with special privileges on a network have to
> > do/not do in order to keep their privileges.  They don't define what
> > members of the visiting public can/can't do.  It doesn't make sense to
> 
> No but that's no excuse to go beyond the bounds of the law and/or good
> taste and anything else in between.  Now because the law is such a
> sledgehammer, it won't be imposed often at all ... thankfully.  The
> reaction to breaking the AUP is much more subtle and might have to be used
> where a member brings the Society into disrepute.

I don't believe there is any situation that the 2nd clause of the AUP covers
which the 5th does not also cover. The 2nd clause committs Progsoc to a
much more onerous requirements than the 5th however.

> Let's never, though, go and say we as a Society should do something
> without talking about it and asking those involved first.  Remember that.

I am not sure I understand where you are coming from with this. Could
you clarify please.


> > expect progsoccers to comply with arbitrary policies on arbitrary
> > networks, policies that they've never seen, signed or otherwise agreed
> > to, even assuming that the network has policies which cover random
> 
> OK, simple solution ... find a spot in this part of the AUP where we can
> insert the words "reasonably expect to know".

Or choose the simpler solution of deleteing clause 2 of the AUP. Why try
to tie down ambiguous clauses when you can delete them without any
appreciable effect.

> > unknown visitors.  And, if a progsoccer has agreed to an AUP in exchange
> > for special privileges on another network, enforcement of that AUP and
> > revocation of privileges falls to that remote network, not progsoc.
> 
> Um, unfortunately, what happens if the Exec don't react (in a strong case)
> where a member is abusing the systems of someone else?  They probably

Then they take whatever action they deem is appropriate. I don't understand
why the reactions of the Executive to perceived violations of the AUP
are relevant to the discussion of modifying the AUP.

> react to the whole of ProgSoc and firewall the lot of us, and pass the
> word around.  I don't particularly want that.  In fact that's the reaction

Irrespective of what you what if they membership choose a poor executive
and Progsoc is cut off from a number of networks then it is a problem
for the membership to resolve. Nothing we add or remove from the AUP
prevents the sceanario you are trying to present.

But it is a classic example of FUD being used to maintain a flawed
status quo though. Perhaps you could submit the example to one of
the FUDwatch websites.

> we have to take if a member is doing suspicious activity on another
> network and we don't know which member -- we block ProgSoc.  In the
> absolute worst situations, the whole plug gets pulled upstairs, and
> ProgSoc isn't just blocked to the prone site, but to the world.

We aren't discussing Progsoc's (over?)reaction to various problems but if
the modification or removal of clauses 2 and 9 would impact what you are
able to enforce in any material way. I am arguing that their removal
will not.

Can you point out anything that either of those clauses covers which is not
already covered by other clauses in the AUP?

Anand
-
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au.
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au for help.