--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to qubes...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/cbdc13f7-6fcd-ebbf...@riseup.net.For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to qubes...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/20190131111054.64e034c6%40gmail.com.
Maybe I'm not getting something here. What is absolutely necessary in a "forum" that is not present in Google Groups? You can search it, it's archived, and threads are separated. The only thing I can think of that more complex forum software might give you would be categories of posts. Since you can set this up to send and receive emails just like a mailinglist, it seems to me you can use it however you want. I don't get what this is about.
A professional organization I belong to uses a mailinglist instead of a forum for two reasons:
1) A mailinglist is push, while a forum is pull. Once you have the mailinglist set up, you don't have to "do" anything to get it -- it just appears in your mailbox and you read and respond as you feel. In contrast, with a forum, you have to *go* to the forum, log in, and interact. That's effort. The organization found that about 25% of the mailinglist subscribers stopped participating when it tried out a forum.
2) This does not apply to this group, but the organization explicitly does not want to keep archives for legal reasons. A forum almost necessarily means archives, but you can set up a mailinglist to act as a nothing more than a relay.
Or stop believing in the false protectionof remaining anonymous.
It should probably be noted that those 2015 prosecutions were a bit novel, and it has not become common practice. In fact, the Supreme Court reigned it in a little with Yates v US (2015) in which they threw out the conviction of a fisherman who threw away an illegal catch to avoid prosecution. Sarbanes-Oxley was written for corporate stuff, to stop corporations from deleting emails and shredding documents in order to hide a crime that they knew would be, but had not yet been, moved forward for prosecution. The application of this to conspiracy to commit terrorist acts is not too far-fetched, but its application was novel, and was not tested in appeal as far as I know.
In terms of private citizens engaging in routine privacy measures, I know of no such prosecution. Sure, an aggressive DA can charge anybody with anything for any reason, and some pay no attention to truth, precedent or law at all. But if someone has a case of someone as a private citizen who routinely cleans up their files, I'd love to see it.
Since Oxley Sarbanes requires the intent to interfere in the investigation of a criminal act, it would seem to me that a private citizen who routinely cleans house for privacy reasons while not engaged in such acts would have an affirmative defense that continuing to do so does not indicate such specific intent. For instance, as I mentioned, a professional organization I belong to does not archive its mailinglist specifically to avoid people mining archives to look for embarrassing quotes for use in the newspapers and in court. The intent there is clearly *not* to cover up a crime, but instead to protect privacy. I'm no lawyer, of course, but I find it hard to generalize the idea that Oxley Sarbanes is that huge of a threat as it currently is enforced.
I'll also point out that if anything were this kind of violation, then the Hillary email stuff would have been ripe for prosecution under this law, and the DoJ clearly said that the presumption is that there isn't criminal intent, at least with respect to that kind of behavior. I suspect that most prosecutors know this, which means that egregious overapplication of this law will be unlikely, else it will be repealed -- since most Republicans hate the law as it stands and are looking for an excuse to get rid of it.
The only mail I get in my email, are those threads I have started or subscribed to. I think I check my google mail quarterly lol.