A modest proposal re: IRC #scientology
David Gerard
The 'confidentiality' of IRC logs. Hmm.
1. These things ain't confidential.
2. #scientology is multiply logged 24 hours a day. Not only by the people
on-channel (e.g. Marina), but by unknown invisible lurkers. And I don't
just mean a hypothetical OSA lurker - I mean e.g. hackers who have an
interest in the CoS vs the Net and don't really want to announce their
presence. I mean, really. Let's be realistic here.
3. IRC is not like Speaker's Corner (e.g. a.r.s); it's more like a chat
in the pub. However, imagine you are having a chat on a specific topic
in a specific pub and you *know* there would be good reason for there
to be mulitple parabolic microphones pointed at the conversation.
A convention of assuming it's all confidential is fundamentally at
variance with reality.
Here is my proposal:
Post logs of #scientology to a.r.s regularly. Yep. The entire thing.
All the fluff and crap.
It's multiply logged. Anyone posting a doctored log will be called out
on it just about instantly.
MINUS POINTS:
1. The chattiness of #scientology will disappear. This will be unfortunate,
but then it's a bit silly chatting about personal details in such a forum
anyway. This is not just a generic IRC channel. Things are different there.
2. Marina has noted that #scientology has become noticeably quieter since
Modemac posted that slab of the log.
3. Contribution to the general decay of netiquette.
4. [put your own here]
PLUS POINTS:
1. It will bring home to people what a public forum #scientology is ALREADY.
I think people may need reminding of this.
2. If you want a more private conversation, there is /msg - in fact, at
any given 'quiet' time on #scientology the place is usually frothing with
private conversations. (Though how private these are is still debatable -
see above re: hypothetical OSA or hacker.)
3. It will obviate the 'did too'/'did not' crap spilling over into a.r.s -
with people arguing over what was or wasn't said on #scientology but no
sign of the log (the record of what WAS said or not said) in sight.
4. [put your own here]
OK, start flaming me.
--
http://suburbia.net/~fun/scn -- email me if it doesn't work for you
mailto: f...@suburbia.net f...@athene.glasswings.com.au
Ted Mayett
On 23 Sep 1996 04:43:30 GMT, f...@athene.glasswings.com.au (David
Gerard) wrote:
>Post logs of #scientology to a.r.s regularly. Yep. The entire thing.
>All the fluff and crap.
>
Post it with the same heading every time so it can be killfiled by
subject.
Marina Chong
f...@athene.glasswings.com.au (David Gerard) wrote:
>
>The 'confidentiality' of IRC logs. Hmm.
>
>1. These things ain't confidential.
>
>2. #scientology is multiply logged 24 hours a day. Not only by the people
>on-channel (e.g. Marina), but by unknown invisible lurkers. And I don't
>just mean a hypothetical OSA lurker - I mean e.g. hackers who have an
>interest in the CoS vs the Net and don't really want to announce their
>presence. I mean, really. Let's be realistic here.
I hope you are not implying that I log #scientology 24 hours a day.
It's one thing to log the channel and quite another to spew the log into a.r.s.
without a damned good reason. The fact that you *can* do it does not imply that
it's a good or tasteful thing to do.
>
>3. IRC is not like Speaker's Corner (e.g. a.r.s); it's more like a chat
>in the pub. However, imagine you are having a chat on a specific topic
>in a specific pub and you *know* there would be good reason for there
>to be mulitple parabolic microphones pointed at the conversation.
Sure, but logging does not automatically lead to broadcasting. If everyone
thought it did we would have had complete logs posted every day since #clambake
was started. #clambake and its successor #scientology have been around for more
than a year, and no unedited logs have been posted until now. Does that not say
something to you?
>A convention of assuming it's all confidential is fundamentally at
>variance with reality.
It may be not confidential but people there trust each other not to do anything
crass like posting logs to a.r.s. without informing them, or without having a
compelling reason to do so.
IRC is not Usenet. When you post to ARS you have the time to think about what
you're going to say, and you know you are broadcasting your views to a much
wider audience.
Yes, (almost) everyone logs. No, you can't stop people from posting their logs.
But the constraints on logging are mutual respect, common sense and plain human
decency.
>Here is my proposal:
>Post logs of #scientology to a.r.s regularly. Yep. The entire thing.
>All the fluff and crap.
>It's multiply logged. Anyone posting a doctored log will be called out
>on it just about instantly.
No two logs are the exactly the same. How do you decide whether a log is
"doctored" or not, especially in borderline cases? The sequence in which the
lines appear -- or whether they appear at all -- depends on your IRC client,
your IRC server, and stability of the IRC network at any given moment.
>
>OK, start flaming me.
* {devil} readies her flamethrower.
M
--
Marina Chong SP4(*), KoX, GGBC#13, KBM#5, Joker/Degrader
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientology is an abusive cult that responds to criticism with harassment,
barratrous lawsuits, home invasions, intimidation and conspiracy to murder.
Usenet: alt.religion.scientology
World Wide Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Marina's Manor: http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN MEMORIAM: Noah Lottick Richard Collins Albert Jaquier
mar...@singnet.com.sg mar...@pacific.net.sg mar...@super.zippo.com
Ray Randolph
David Gerard (f...@athene.glasswings.com.au) wrote:
: The 'confidentiality' of IRC logs. Hmm.
: 2. #scientology is multiply logged 24 hours a day. Not only by the people
: on-channel (e.g. Marina), but by unknown invisible lurkers. And I don't
: just mean a hypothetical OSA lurker - I mean e.g. hackers who have an
: interest in the CoS vs the Net and don't really want to announce their
: presence. I mean, really. Let's be realistic here.
: 2. If you want a more private conversation, there is /msg - in fact, at
: any given 'quiet' time on #scientology the place is usually frothing with
: private conversations. (Though how private these are is still debatable -
: see above re: hypothetical OSA or hacker.)
I've seen, since day one on irc, people railing about how the OSA _must_ be
monitoring #scientology... I think it's all paranoia. They simply
aren't, unless they're doing it with a "regular" who's an OSA plant.
There are a few ways to monitor the channel from OUTSIDE the channel,
but _all_ of them are detectable. About the only way they could really
pull off this monitoring in a reasonable way is with a hacked server,
and the last hacked server incident on EFnet marked the beginnings of
EUnet. There's other ways, (sniffers on server machines, etc.. ) but
I really think it's just paranoia...
Regardless, if you want more private conversation, and this is a
concern, try /DCC instead of /msgs... DCC is a direct client to
client protocol that operates independant of the IRC servers. It
doesn't protect you from someone sniffing on your local machine, but
you don't have to worry about the "hackers" on IRC.
Just as an example.. When the NOTS were still a very hot issue
I said, multiple times in #scientology where they could be found
ON irc.
You'd think if we had such a plant, action would have been taken.
But those documents are still there today. They aren't watching..
-Ray (AKA Black)
--
"This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is
not an official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the
Hewlett-Packard Company. The text is provided for informational
purposes only. It is supplied without warranty of any kind."
M. Ray Randolph -- IT Solutions Specialist
Phone -- (970)229-6339
Hewlett Packard
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dan McKinnon
mar...@super.zippo.com (Marina Chong) wrote:
>It may be not confidential but people there trust each other not to do anything
>crass like posting logs to a.r.s. without informing them, or without having a
>compelling reason to do so.
Well, again, who defines "compelling reason"?
THe poster, or the people he quotes?
Informing a person is only reasonable if you are willing to let
them censor _your_ posting, or will let them add explanatory notes to
your initial post quoting IRC. People who disagree with the content of a
post can, and will, follow up! <G>
>IRC is not Usenet. When you post to ARS you have the time to think about what
>you're going to say, and you know you are broadcasting your views to a much
>wider audience.
IRC is not Usenet - _if_ you mispeak on IRC, and are called on it,
you can correct yourself/make an explanation immediately! <G>
Misunderstandings can be quickly cleared up.
The size of the audience isn't _necessarily_ a consideration for
me, it depends on the issue.
>Yes, (almost) everyone logs. No, you can't stop people from posting their logs.
>But the constraints on logging are mutual respect, common sense and plain human
>decency.
Marina, if the three attributes in that last sentence _were_
widespread among the human race, there would not be many problems in the
world, including the problems crtics have with $cientology.
Unfortunately, we live in the real world.
Although I think that posting of IRC logs is not forbidden, I would
hope it is used specifically, concisely, and rarely.
As you say - nobody sees the conversations on IRC the same way, the
messages arriving in different orders for different people. That alone
could have subtle effects on what people say, and how they say it.
I would have to say that I tailor my conversation to the current
composition of the participants on IRC, unlike ars. When there is a
smaller group of people I may feel close too, I might be more open and
"loose". <G> With a larger number, and some unknowns, I will be more
formal, perhaps. So in that sense, certainly there are things I might
say on IRC that I would rather not say in ars.
I would hope that when IRC excerpts are ever used, it is for FACTUAL
information, not personal attacks.
Truth to tell, when somebody comes on IRC with an important tidbit,
they may come from just having posted it to ars, or are about to.
Occasionally, people are asked/reminded to post something they have
said. So the _need_ to post IRC logs should be rare, anyways, IMNSHO,
becuase the issue usually gets posted..
>No two logs are the exactly the same. How do you decide whether a log is
>"doctored" or not, especially in borderline cases? The sequence in which the
>lines appear -- or whether they appear at all -- depends on your IRC client,
>your IRC server, and stability of the IRC network at any given moment.
That's true. A sentence or two that are vitally important might be
lost at an inopportune time because of a "split".
Half of a converstaion on a subject might involve everybody on the
channel, then it may continue with a smaller group. (seen end of message
for definition of a "netsplit".)
Of course, I understand that the setup of Usenet, too, does not
guarantee that evereybody everywhere gets ALL of the messages sent to
the newsgroup, and not necessarily in the same order, especially if
people don't thhread by subject and date, but some other way, or don't
thread at all! <G>
>>OK, start flaming me.
Nawww - I think we are closer to agreement than apart! <G>
>* {devil} readies her flamethrower.
Dan readies his foam dispenser.
>Marina Chong SP4(*), KoX, GGBC#13, KBM#5, Joker/Degrader
Dan
Excertp on "Netsplits from a FAQ:
IRC INTRO File for Newbies using Windows
April 1996
by Tjerk Vonck
(Tjerk explicitly allows usage in the Etext)
What is a netsplit? Why does everybody keep signing on and off?
What does it mean when I see: ***NickName has quit IRC (*.bu.edu
eff.org)?
Netsplits are (unfortunately) a routine part of IRC life. The above
message means that NickName, who was on a channel with you, was on a
different server from you and this server split off from the part of
the net you are on.
A -------------- B ---- C
| |
D E
Lets assume a small IRC network where A, B, C, D and E are servers.
Let's say that you are on server D, and server A splits from server B.
In this case, you wil l see all users on the servers B, C and E, "sign
off". On large IRC networks and crowded channels you will see a huge
amount of people 'quiting IRC'. When A and B rejoin, you will see users
from B, C and E "rejoin" the channel you were on.
Note that netsplits are all from the point of view of the user. After a
netsplit rejoins people might ask where you went -- because from their
perspective, *you * split off. The only thing you can do during a
netsplit is wait for the net to merge itself. Changing your server
during a netsplit is a Bad Idea, because you are likely to have your
nickname collided. A "split" often occurs due to faults in the
underlying *physical* network. It can also occur due to other reasons,
s uch as if the machine on which the IRC server runs crashes, or if it
is too over loaded to handle connections as happens on bigger nets, or
if an IRC operator wi llfully disrupts the connection between two
servers to achieve better routing (s erver - server connections).
Bernie
mar...@super.zippo.com (Marina Chong) wrote:
>f...@athene.glasswings.com.au (David Gerard) wrote:
>>2. #scientology is multiply logged 24 hours a day. Not only by the people
>>on-channel (e.g. Marina), but by unknown invisible lurkers. And I don't
>>just mean a hypothetical OSA lurker - I mean e.g. hackers who have an
>>interest in the CoS vs the Net and don't really want to announce their
>>presence. I mean, really. Let's be realistic here.
Is it possible to be an "invisible lurker"? I know it is possible to
change your nick and people would not know anything about you except
the server from where you log on. But to check on a channel without
being seen I never heard of it.
>Yes, (almost) everyone logs. No, you can't stop people from posting their logs.
>But the constraints on logging are mutual respect, common sense and plain human
>decency.
Does this means that one could post the logs or not depending on the
content (if there is nothing someone could be hurt by), or does it
mean that just the fact of posting log is what you object to?
I am of two mind about this issue. On the one hand I like to see logs
posted because then I can have an idea of what is going on (I can't
get to the bloody efnet. It keeps telling me that I am not and
authorized user and I am allergic to authorizations. Undernet seems
better anyway). On the other hand, it's true that one wouldn't feel at
ease just chating around on a channel if he knew that someone will
broadcast it around the world. After all, one tends to speak
differently if the microphone is turned on or not. But then, isn't it
a constant threat? Even if a FAQ would entice people not to do it,
there is no absolute warranty that it would never happen.
To be on the safe side, and in view of the objections raised, I think
it fair to settle not to post logs unless individual agreement would
be gotten from each participant (and the names of un-agreeing edited
out).
What ya think?
---------
Bernie
Lance S. Buckley
The deeply suppressive mar...@super.zippo.com (Marina Chong)
managed to write during a rare fit of reasonableness:
[snipped here and there]
>I hope you are not implying that I log #scientology 24 hours a day.
Um.. I would if I could afford it :)
>Yes, (almost) everyone logs. No, you can't stop people from posting their logs.
>But the constraints on logging are mutual respect, common sense and plain human
>decency.
I Absolutely agree.
>>Here is my proposal:
>>Post logs of #scientology to a.r.s regularly. Yep. The entire thing.
>>All the fluff and crap.
>>It's multiply logged. Anyone posting a doctored log will be called out
>>on it just about instantly.
>No two logs are the exactly the same. How do you decide whether a log is
>"doctored" or not, especially in borderline cases? The sequence in which the
>lines appear -- or whether they appear at all -- depends on your IRC client,
>your IRC server, and stability of the IRC network at any given moment.
I mentioned this some time ago during the #mediation saga. Didn't
go down too well then either. I also suggested that interested
parties could PGP sign a common version of the log as a mark of
their approval prior to posting. Oh well. The point being that
logs -will- get posted. There's little point bemoaning the fact.
All we can hope to do is arrive at a protocol acceptable to most
parties, as regards the way it is done.
Having said that, I -still- believe posting logs of #scn to a.r.s
should only be done in exceptional circumstances. But who's to
judge when circumstances are exceptional?
Lance.
--
http://www.avalon.demon.co.uk/
"We would only destroy people who attempt to harm Scientology"
Jaques Vollet, Ex-head of GO-B1(Eu) currently head of OSA Invest(Eu)
[ SP4 : GGBC #26 : ARSCC(UK) : J&D : KoX : KbM #11 ]
My Other Hat's A Fedora
David Gerard
In article <32474c69...@snews.zippo.com>, Marina Chong wrote:
:f...@athene.glasswings.com.au (David Gerard) wrote:
:>The 'confidentiality' of IRC logs. Hmm.
:>1. These things ain't confidential.
:>2. #scientology is multiply logged 24 hours a day. Not only by the people
:>on-channel (e.g. Marina), but by unknown invisible lurkers. And I don't
:>just mean a hypothetical OSA lurker - I mean e.g. hackers who have an
:>interest in the CoS vs the Net and don't really want to announce their
:>presence. I mean, really. Let's be realistic here.
:I hope you are not implying that I log #scientology 24 hours a day.
My apologies - I thought you did. I take this back.
You are on-channel in one instance or another every time I go on,
day or night; and, as you point out below, nearly everyone logs
anyway. I added 2 and 2 and seem to have gotten 5.
(Projection of what I would do if I were on 24 hours a day. Still
trying to work out how to log in ircii. Duh ... press dis button ...)
:>3. IRC is not like Speaker's Corner (e.g. a.r.s); it's more like a chat
:>in the pub. However, imagine you are having a chat on a specific topic
:>in a specific pub and you *know* there would be good reason for there
:>to be mulitple parabolic microphones pointed at the conversation.
:Sure, but logging does not automatically lead to broadcasting. If everyone
:thought it did we would have had complete logs posted every day since #clambake
:was started. #clambake and its successor #scientology have been around for more
:than a year, and no unedited logs have been posted until now. Does that not say
:something to you?
Certainly.
:>A convention of assuming it's all confidential is fundamentally at
:>variance with reality.
:It may be not confidential but people there trust each other not to do anything
:crass like posting logs to a.r.s. without informing them, or without having a
:compelling reason to do so.
What's 'compelling' is an individual decision. Although certainly, third
parties would need a much higher benchmark on a given slab of discussion.
:IRC is not Usenet. When you post to ARS you have the time to think about what
:you're going to say, and you know you are broadcasting your views to a much
:wider audience.
:Yes, (almost) everyone logs. No, you can't stop people from posting their logs.
:But the constraints on logging are mutual respect, common sense and plain human
:decency.
:>Here is my proposal:
:>Post logs of #scientology to a.r.s regularly. Yep. The entire thing.
:>All the fluff and crap.
:>It's multiply logged. Anyone posting a doctored log will be called out
:>on it just about instantly.
:No two logs are the exactly the same. How do you decide whether a log is
:"doctored" or not, especially in borderline cases? The sequence in which the
:lines appear -- or whether they appear at all -- depends on your IRC client,
:your IRC server, and stability of the IRC network at any given moment.
Variation would be expected. However, someone trying to use a doctored
log to make a point that a non-doctored log would refute, would be
easily refuted. e.g. an important missing line or changed wording.
:>OK, start flaming me.
:* {devil} readies her flamethrower.
Certainly #scientology is not a battleground like a.r.s is. FWIW,
I don't even think it's really close yet ...
Bill Hudson
OK, I'm going to add my feeble voice to the fray...
n Tue, 24 Sep 1996 03:10:20 GMT, mar...@super.zippo.com (Marina Chong)
wrote:
[snipped]
>
>Yes, (almost) everyone logs. No, you can't stop people from posting their logs.
>But the constraints on logging are mutual respect, common sense and plain human
>decency.
>
[snipped]
I'm with Marina on this issue.
Posting IRC logs is a fundamentally bad idea. My reasoning is simple.
There are people who participate on IRC regularly who do not want
their conversations posted to A.R.S. Period. End of story.
While recognizing that it is impossible to prevent someone from seeing
the IRC conversation (say via a hacked server or packet sniffer) I
have a feeling that this is unlikely.
While it is also impossible to prevent someone from logging the
channel and posting the log to A.R.S., it will (and perhaps already
has) chill the conversation in #scientology.
I have heard at least two others on the channel say that when someone
comes in who has posted a log wholesale, they will not participate in
the conversation. This is *not* healthy for the channel.
IMHO, paraphrasing is ok, or a short excerpt (with the participants'
permission). I think it's just as rude to post IRC logs as it is to
post private e-mail.
Ok, now lemme see if I can still fit into this asbestos suit...
Bill Hudson
Systems Administrator; Robert Mann Packaging, Gilroy CA
Tel: 408/848-5440 Fax: 408/848-5448 E-Mail: bi...@rmp.com URL: http://www.rmp.com
Martin G. V. Hunt
All good reasons for not posting IRC logs; another is that on a newsgroup,
IRC logs amount to spam. I would hate to see everything on #scientology here
on that basis alone. I don't really care if anyone posts my IRC logs, as
what I say on #scientology I consider to be public information, as I do
with email and posts; there's no way to ensure privacy on the net, anyway,
so I just assume I don't have any, and that's always worked well for me.
I think IRC log postings are justified whenever mail postings are justified;
I have no problem posting death threats, for example. Also, if the person
being logged gives consent, as often happens, or maybe a brief excerpt
for some new information that should be known (but periphrasis would
be better in this case "overheard on #clambake: so-and-so goes to court
on the 28th" etc.).
But generally, I consider it rude and boorish to wholesale post IRC logs.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
Art Online oil paintings: http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/homepage.html
Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Samuel Kaplin
On 23 Sep 1996 04:43:30 GMT, f...@athene.glasswings.com.au (David
Gerard) wrote:
>
>The 'confidentiality' of IRC logs. Hmm.
>
>1. These things ain't confidential.
Snip...
I *NEVER* say anything in an open IRC channel that I wouldn't expect
to be broadcasted to ARS. If you live by this rule it really doesn't
matter if a log is posted or not. I would go absolutely ballistic if a
log of a /msg or a dcc chat was posted. I view these as the IRC
equivalient of email.
Tilman Hausherr
My opinion: post the logs when you feel they're meaningful. When not,
don't. Save your own logs if you can.
Tilman
--- Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.