2nd RFD: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting moderated
adam brower
moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
[ Note: This RFD is posted to supersede <1036966...@isc.org> because
yours truly can't count expiration dates properly, and therefore
mistakenly submitted a brandnew RFD originally instead of a 2nd issue
one.
- piranha, n.a.n moderator ]
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.
Newsgroup line:
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting Blocklist issues. (Moderated)
CHANGES from previous RFD:
- Name changed from news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
- Exception to no binaries rule made for PGP signatures
- Rationale expanded to include additional history
- Charter expanded to clarify approval criteria
- Moderator approval changed to 2/3 majority
RATIONALE: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
The increasing use and popularity of methods to propagate and query a
list of data in an attempt to reduce network abuse has given rise to the
need for a group specifically devoted to the discussion of their use and
administration. These methods include dns-based blocklists (DNSBL),
right-hand side blocklists (RHSBL,) among others.
Historically, blocklists have long been used by local administrators to
regularize the habits of not only their local users, but the outside world,
at their local hosts and networks. Recently, the use of centrally
controlled lists has gained a measure of acceptance, notably in their use
to reduce unsolicited bulk email, commonly known as "spam." This practice
of blocking traffic from insecure sites, sites believed to have bad
policies in place, or sites hosting known abusers has grown in favor.
This conclusion follows not only from the large number of distributed or
queryable lists in use today, but from the ways in which they are used.
Blocklists are no longer used only to prevent spam.
Current forums in which discussions of these topics are held attract many
contributors whose strong dislike of network abuse and its perpetrators
results in the drowning out of more quietly-stated views with which they
may be in disagreement. As a result, new readers of these groups are often
faced with a bewildering cacophony of advice, ill-conceived technical
information, and outright flames. Far from contributing to the reduction
of abuse, this actually contribute to its perpetuation by driving away the
very participants who have entered the group for assistance. In
particular, news.admin.net-abuse.email has been overwhelmed by the volume
of discussion of blocklist-related topics. It is hoped that the new group
will serve as a more focussed forum for these discussions, thereby
returning n.a.n-a.e to the purpose stated in its charter as "a forum for
discussion of possible abuses of e-mail."
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting will exist as an alternative forum where
interested parties may exchange views and information in a civil
manner. It is anticipated that not only adminstrators with comments,
questions, and observations on the use of blocklists, but also those
affected by their use (e.g., those whose addresses are listed in
blocklists, and abuse personnel) will find such a forum useful, and that
the discussions in the group will yield benefits not only to
administrators, abuse personnel, and those who find their addresses
listed, but to the internet community itself, by focussing attention
solely on blocklist issues, promoting calm, rational, informed discussion
of those issues, and in the end contributing to the reduction of network
abuse.
CHARTER: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting is a newsgroup devoted to discussion
of subjects related to the use, administration, and effects of
blocklists in ameliorating the problem of unsolocited bulk email and
other unwanted or abusive network traffic. Any topic which is especially
of interest to those maintaining, using, or affected by blocklists
is welcome in this group.
The nature of the topic is such that expressions of anger and frustration
are expected, but vulgarity, ad hominem attacks, unwarranted generalisations
and non-productive displays of pique (however elegantly worded,) will be
rejected at the discretion of the moderators. Rejected articles will be
returned to the author. Where practicable, the moderator may include advice
on how to revise the article to better meet the criteria for acceptance.
In general, the moderators will not reject articles based on content, but
only on tone and language. However, some content may be deemed unsuitable.
Examples of content-related criteria for rejection may include ad hominem
attacks, repetitive expositions of largely identical arguments, and non-
informative expressions of opinion on the viability of one or another
list, method, provider, or listed entity. The focus will be on
information.
Although discussions in the group may focus on one or another listing in a
specific blocklist, the advice and opinions expressed in the group should
not be taken as authoritative for any listing or list. Maintainers of
various lists use their own various criteria, and may or may not be
influenced by postings in the group, however well-informed or accurate.
All messages removed by unauthorized cancels will be automatically reposted
by Dave the Resurrector or a similar program, or at the discretion of a group
moderator. Spams, gateway spews, and other attacks on the system itself will
be removed as appropriate, following standard Usenet guidelines.
Binary files will not be approved for posting in
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting, with the exception of PGP signatures.
The following are sample topics which will be addressed in
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting:
Blocklist creation and maintenence
Nomination and delisting procedures
Criteria used in listings
Discussions of blocklist listings
Effects of blocklist use on spam volume
Other technologies for propagation and querying of a list
New uses for blocklists
Cross-posting articles to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting is not
allowed.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
Moderators:
Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@romerstein.dynodns.net>
Moderator: Jim Seymour <2...@cluestick.org>
Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
Additional moderators are still being sought.
Moderation will be performed using the Secure Team-based Usenet Moderation
Program (STUMP) or similar technology, which will be supplied by Scott
Hazen Mueller. Where practicable, the following procedures will be
followed by the moderation team:
- The moderators will maintain the tone of discourse so as to minimize the
heated discussions to which the subject often leads.
- Although moderators themselves may have strong opinions on the efficacy,
application, or side-effects of one or another blocklist or other method
of reducing spam, they are expected to refrain from allowing such
opinions to influence their approval or rejection of articles.
- The moderators may use the tools provided (now or in the future) to aid
in moderation of the group. These may include "white lists," "black
lists," keywording of headers, and word-filtering.
- Moderators will be added to or removed from the team by a 2/3 majority
vote. In the case of a vote for removal, the moderator under review will
not be permitted to vote.
END MODERATOR INFO.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup should be
raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of
21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted to
news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted
by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. Please do not
attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How to
Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these documents
(available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any questions about the
process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
news.admin.net-abuse.email
Proponent: adam brower <ad...@hermes-grp.com>
Proponent: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
adam brower
moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.
Newsgroup line:
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting Blocklist issues. (Moderated)
CHANGES from previous RFD:
- No binaries rule reinstated without exceptions
- New moderator added
- Sample topics added to demonstrate equanimity
- Crossposting permitted at moderator discretion
RATIONALE: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
manner. It is anticipated that not only administrators with comments,
questions, and observations on the use of blocklists, but also those
affected by their use (e.g., those whose addresses are listed in
blocklists, and abuse personnel) will find such a forum useful, and that
the discussions in the group will yield benefits not only to
administrators, abuse personnel, and those who find their addresses
listed, but to the internet community itself, by focussing attention
solely on blocklist issues, promoting calm, rational, informed discussion
of those issues, and in the end contributing to the reduction of network
abuse.
CHARTER: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting is a newsgroup devoted to discussion
of subjects related to the use, administration, and effects of
blocklists in ameliorating the problem of unsolicited bulk email and
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
The following are sample topics which will be addressed in
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting:
Blocklist creation and maintenance
Nomination and delisting procedures
Criteria used in listings
Pros and cons of DNSBL usage
Reduction of "false positives"
Discussions of blocklist listings
Effects of blocklist use on spam volume
Other technologies for propagation and querying of a list
New uses for blocklists
Cross-posting articles to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting is not
allowed; exceptions may be made at the discretion of the moderators,
as for example in the case of FAQ's.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
Moderators:
Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@hanov3r.com>
Moderator: Jim Seymour <2...@cluestick.org>
Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
Moderator: Gary Callison <hu...@interaccess.com>
Anonymous
news:10433608...@isc.org...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
> This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
> Procedural details are below.
>
> Newsgroup line:
> news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting Blocklist issues. (Moderated)
>
> CHANGES from previous RFD:
>
> - No binaries rule reinstated without exceptions
> - New moderator added
> - Sample topics added to demonstrate equanimity
> - Crossposting permitted at moderator discretion
>
> RATIONALE: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
>
No. I don't want a new group for blocklists. I like having it all in 1
group. And news.admin.net-abuse.blocklists would be a better name.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>"adam brower" <ad...@hermes-grp.com> wrote in message
>news:10433608...@isc.org...
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
>group. And news.admin.net-abuse.blocklists would be a better name.
Given a choice between ".blocklists" and ".blocklisting", I think I'd
go with ".blocklisting" just to try to avoid the initial impression
that the group is for posting blocklists and similar ("it's moderated
and it's got the word 'lists', it must be an announcement group for
blocklists").
ru
--
My (updated) standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Kathy Morgan
> CHANGES from previous RFD:
>
> - No binaries rule reinstated without exceptions
This seems strange to me. I would expect a group in
news.admin.net-abuse is particularly likley to receive net abuse,
including forgeries and joe-jobs. Allowing people to use PGP signatures
would seem to be particularly valuable in nan* groups.
--
Kathy
visit news:news.groups.reviews to read reviews of other newsgroups
help for new users of newsgroups at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
OE-quotefix can fix OE: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
Larry M. Smith
> adam brower <ad...@hermes-grp.com> wrote:
>
>
>>CHANGES from previous RFD:
>>
>>- No binaries rule reinstated without exceptions
>
>
> This seems strange to me. I would expect a group in
> news.admin.net-abuse is particularly likley to receive net abuse,
> including forgeries and joe-jobs. Allowing people to use PGP signatures
> would seem to be particularly valuable in nan* groups.
>
Its been years since I've used PGP but isn't there a "clearsign" option?
And isn't that clearsign ASCII and not a binary?
SgtChains
ru.ig...@usask.ca
On usenet, all the binaries I have seen are ASCII formatted (have
to be, don't they?). As far as I can tell, clearsign is the format you
normally see on PGP signed usenet messages, and these are the kinds
of binaries of concern.
I too find an absolute binaries rule odd, even excessive. Why can't
"PGP and similar small binaries" be excluded from that rule?
Larry M. Smith
> I too find an absolute binaries rule odd, even excessive. Why can't
> "PGP and similar small binaries" be excluded from that rule?
>
This has been discussed several times. However, the one point that I
keep coming to is the restriction within news.admin.* that forbids them
in the hierarchy.
"Binaries are specifically prohibited from all groups in the
news.admin.* hierarchy, except as examples of other abuse."
Examples of the above can be found at... <
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/nana/ >
Seeing as how "examples of other abuse" is not 'on-topic' for
NANA.blocklisting, I see it as a non issue to exclude all binaries.
Also, I fail to see why the child groups should be allowed supersede the
parent on charter issues.
There have been other examples, in regards to binaries, pointed out over
the years on Usenet, but a fair amount seem to boil down to the "Is it
human readable" test. At this point you almost have to look at ROT-13,
and HTML posts... Heck even the URL I posted in this article really
isn't "human readable" and it wasn't meant to be (I had formatted it so
that most newsreaders that could pick it out as a URL would).
SgtChains
Erik Max Francis
> Its been years since I've used PGP but isn't there a "clearsign"
> option?
> And isn't that clearsign ASCII and not a binary?
All "binaries" posted to Usenet are converted to a 7-bit clean form,
which is human-unreadable but technically ASCII. By your implication
there is no such thing as a binary posting, ever.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ My life was better before I knew you.
\__/ Edith Wharton (to Morton Fullerton)
Bosskey.net / http://www.bosskey.net/
A personal guide to online multiplayer first person shooters.
Ned Ulbricht
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
>
> Moderators:
>
> Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
> Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@hanov3r.com>
> Moderator: Jim Seymour <2...@cluestick.org>
> Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
> Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
> Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
> Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
> Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
> Moderator: Gary Callison <hu...@interaccess.com>
Given the contentious topic for this proposed group, I believe that it
is more than likely that the moderators may find themselves the
targets of litigation.
I do not wish to comment on the merits of any such suit here.
(Although I believe that--with competent legal representation--the
moderators would be likely to prevail.)
But, I am opposed to any moderator who does not have litigation
insurance.
I would prefer that the list of moderators be withdrawn. Instead I
believe that a non-profit corporation organized for the purpose should
be the moderator of record for this newsgroup.
The people listed above who have volunteered to moderate could be the
employees of this non-profit, and do the actual work of moderation.
The non-profit would maintain such litigation insurance as seems
necessary and affordable through donations. Hopefully, one or more
attorneys would agree to serve the corporation pro bono.
--
Ned Ulbricht
mailto:ne...@netscape.net
Kathy Morgan
> ru.ig...@usask.ca wrote:
> > I too find an absolute binaries rule odd, even excessive. Why can't
> > "PGP and similar small binaries" be excluded from that rule?
> >
>
> This has been discussed several times. However, the one point that I
> keep coming to is the restriction within news.admin.* that forbids them
> in the hierarchy.
I suspect those who initiated the news.admin hierarchy simply failed to
consider or be aware of the potential need for PGP sigs. I don't think
we should be hobbled by their lack of clairvoyance--the charters
included in the CFV's are not set in stone. There is no way to change
the charter archived at isc.org, but charters do evolve over time.
nan.blocklisting is a group I'd like to read if it is created, so I
would like to vote YES, but I see this as an important issue especially
for groups in the nan* hierarchy.
> There have been other examples, in regards to binaries, pointed out over
> the years on Usenet, but a fair amount seem to boil down to the "Is it
> human readable" test. At this point you almost have to look at ROT-13,
> and HTML posts...
HTML or MIME-encoded posts are not human readable and I would be quite
happy with a ban on them. They are *not* in the same class as small PGP
signatures. (I've no objection to ROT-13, but I don't see the need for
it either in the proposed group, so I wouldn't find a ban on them
objectionable either.)
The point of allowing PGP sigs is that they are small and authenticate
who actually sent the message. I don't think PGP _posts_ should be
allowed, but the small PGP sigs should be.
Kathy Morgan
> But, I am opposed to any moderator who does not have litigation
> insurance.
>
> I would prefer that the list of moderators be withdrawn. Instead I
> believe that a non-profit corporation organized for the purpose should
> be the moderator of record for this newsgroup.
*shudder* No! Moderators set the tone for a moderated newsgroup and
absolutely control the group. Many of us would vote NO on a group where
the moderators are not known in advance.
> The people listed above who have volunteered to moderate could be the
> employees of this non-profit, and do the actual work of moderation.
In what jurisdiction would this non-profit be organized? Who would be
the voting members? How would you verify their eligibility and control
elections?
> The non-profit would maintain such litigation insurance as seems
> necessary and affordable through donations.
Are you volunteering to pay for the insurance? If you haven't priced it
recently, it runs to something in excess of $1500 per year.
> Hopefully, one or more
> attorneys would agree to serve the corporation pro bono.
If attorneys are available to serve pro bono, no insurance or
corporation is needed; they could just as well serve the moderators
directly in the unlikely event that attorneys are needed.
Gary S. Callison
: Given the contentious topic for this proposed group, I believe that it
: is more than likely that the moderators may find themselves the
: targets of litigation.
: I do not wish to comment on the merits of any such suit here.
: (Although I believe that--with competent legal representation--the
: moderators would be likely to prevail.)
The merits of such a suit ARE relevant, because they're necessary to
refute your initial point. I feel the likelihood of finding
myself the target of litigation, simply because I participate in a
discussion of blocklisting, is remote at best. You disagree.
Why? Who do you expect to sue me? On what grounds can I expect to be
sued? In what jurisdiction? What precedent is there for suing the
moderation team of a usenet newsgroup? Have any other properly-chartered
newsgroups suffered as a result of their moderation team being harassed
via the legal system?
: But, I am opposed to any moderator who does not have litigation
: insurance.
Thank you for your concern. I'll take my chances.
--
Huey
Phil Gustafson
>
>What precedent is there for suing the
>moderation team of a usenet newsgroup? Have any other properly-chartered
>newsgroups suffered as a result of their moderation team being harassed
>via the legal system?
About two years ago, the moderators of rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated
withdrew, citing legal pressure from a party as the reason. Since
they were the sole moderators, the group became dead. Details of the issue
are off-topic here; I mention it only say it can happen.
>Thank you for your concern. I'll take my chances.
If I were a potential moderator, I'd take those chances too.
Phil
--
))
(( Phil Gustafson Urban Legends FAQ: http://www.urbanlegends.com
C|~~| Java FAQ: http://www.afu.com
`--' <ph...@panix.com>
Ned Ulbricht
> Ned Ulbricht <ne...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > I would prefer that the list of moderators be withdrawn. Instead I
> > believe that a non-profit corporation organized for the purpose should
> > be the moderator of record for this newsgroup.
>
> *shudder* No! Moderators set the tone for a moderated newsgroup and
IOW, the moderators exercise editorial control over newsgroup
postings.
Thus, they may be liable for publishing any allegedly defamatory or
libelous material.
> > The non-profit would maintain such litigation insurance as seems
> > necessary and affordable through donations.
>
> Are you volunteering to pay for the insurance? If you haven't priced it
> recently, it runs to something in excess of $1500 per year.
It's simply not fair to ask me to donate to say Kelly's personal legal
defense fund--if she volunteers to place herself in the position of
losing her house to some spamming scum.
I would donate in advance to a non-profit set up to shield the
moderators from personal liability.
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> ru.ig...@usask.ca wrote:
> > I too find an absolute binaries rule odd, even excessive. Why can't
> > "PGP and similar small binaries" be excluded from that rule?
> >
>
> This has been discussed several times. However, the one point that I
> keep coming to is the restriction within news.admin.* that forbids them
> in the hierarchy.
>
> "Binaries are specifically prohibited from all groups in the
> news.admin.* hierarchy, except as examples of other abuse."
Where does this appear? If it's in some na* charters, that's fine,
although not relevant (as noted below). If there is such a thing
as an na* charter, then it might be relevant -- but the original
charters predate PGP, so it might be assumed that the originators
didn't think of PGP signatures (or public keys, for that matter).
>
> Examples of the above can be found at... <
> http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/nana/ >
>
> Seeing as how "examples of other abuse" is not 'on-topic' for
> NANA.blocklisting, I see it as a non issue to exclude all binaries.
> Also, I fail to see why the child groups should be allowed supersede the
> parent on charter issues.
I fail to see why the parent group's charter is RELEVANT to the charter
of the child group.
--
Arthur L. Rubin 216-...@mcimail.com
Ned Ulbricht
> The merits of such a suit ARE relevant, because they're necessary to
> refute your initial point. I feel the likelihood of finding
> myself the target of litigation, simply because I participate in a
> discussion of blocklisting, is remote at best. You disagree.
I'm will to discuss the risks that such a suit will actually be filed
in some court somewhere in the world.
I just don't want this to degenerate into a flamefest about which side
would 'win'.
I believe that you're familiar with the Wayne Mansfield / T3 suit
against Joey McNichol for "complaining to SPEWS".
<http://www.netnacs.com/downunder/archive/du-0013.htm>
In the U.S., the Prodigy case reminds us that "editorial control" is a
significant factor in considerations of liability.
> : But, I am opposed to any moderator who does not have litigation
> : insurance.
>
> Thank you for your concern. I'll take my chances.
But they aren't just "your" chances.
First, if you get sued, there will be a public appeal for donations
for your legal defense fund.
If you say that you'd refuse any of my money in those circumstances,
then you're really being selfish--playing with the possibility of a
bad precedent.
There are enough cartooney threats in nanae right now, that I think
someone's going to hire a real attorney to file a real suit in a real
court of law. And it's going to cost real money to fight it.
adam brower
>
> adam brower <ad...@hermes-grp.com> wrote in message news:<10433608...@isc.org>...
> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
>
> > MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
> >
> > Moderators:
> >
> > Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
> > Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@hanov3r.com>
> > Moderator: Jim Seymour <2...@cluestick.org>
> > Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
> > Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
> > Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
> > Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
> > Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
> > Moderator: Gary Callison <hu...@interaccess.com>
>
> Given the contentious topic for this proposed group, I believe that it
> is more than likely that the moderators may find themselves the
> targets of litigation.
>
my goodness, that's a stretch. i don't follow
your reasoning. by whom might such an action
be brought against the moderators, and on what
grounds?
fwiw, i pay a retainer to a fine old white-haired,
avuncular barrister, who would be happy to hold
forth (at length, as is his wont) in any court
on any subject. but in light of recent traffic in
this group, i think it more likely that alpine
skiing would be the subject.
adam
--
Ned Ulbricht
> my goodness, that's a stretch. i don't follow
> your reasoning. by whom might such an action
> be brought against the moderators, and on what
> grounds?
As I understand it, this newsgroup is designed, as much as anything
else, to get the SPEWS-related posts out of nanae. It's going to be
moderated in order to create a calmer environment for the current
constant stream of newbies who suddenly have found their mail
bouncing.
SPEWS is anonymous.
If SPEWS points their faq at this newsgroup, then some posters are
going to misidentify the moderators as SPEWS admins.
IMHO, no amount of rational explanation will convince a few of those
that the moderators are anything other than a SPEWS front group.
So, part of the risk is tied to the likelihood of a suit against
SPEWS.
Some people, probably Vernon for instance, would argue that the reason
that no one has tracked down SPEWS yet is simply because nobody is
that motivated to actually sue them. And, you could point out that
(tbomk) nobody's even filed suit against Joe Jared--further support
for an argument that that part of the risk is slight.
But I disagree. I expect SPEWS and Osirusoft to be sued sooner rather
than later.
At what rate do you guesstimate nanae is averaging cartooney threats?
Do you really believe that no one's ever going to actually serve
papers?
If the moderators do get sued, are the ACLU and the EFF going to rush
to their defense? Or are those organizations going to file their
amicus briefs against the dnsbls and their ilk?
--
Ned Ulbricht
mailto:nedu@@netscape.net
Gary S. Callison
: If SPEWS points their faq at this newsgroup, then some posters are
: going to misidentify the moderators as SPEWS admins.
You're correct. This will certainly happen with sadly uninformed folks.
: IMHO, no amount of rational explanation will convince a few of those
: that the moderators are anything other than a SPEWS front group.
Okay, assume this occurs, and the injured party is a) very stupid, b) very
wealthy, and c) unwilling to be swayed by his own legal advisors.
He sues me to get removed from SPEWS.
Now, there is a wealth of evidence (now including your very own post that
I'm replying to!) that SPEWS predates this new group, and is a
contributing factor to its creation. There is _also_ a wealth of evidence
indicating both that I personally don't care for the SPEWS model all that
much, and that anybody with the brains God gave a piece of cheese ought
to be able to find the principals behind it in 20 subpoenas or less.
But, in this hypothetical situation, I'm involved in a lawsuit with a very
rich, very stupid person. In this case- I have the evidence I need to
defend myself, I know a few good technology lawyers, and I'm being sued
frivolously by a very rich, very stupid person?
I'd consider the defense of such a suit to be an investment. Countersuing
a very rich, very stupid person can be a profitable enterprise here in the
US of A.
: Some people, probably Vernon for instance, would argue that the reason
: that no one has tracked down SPEWS yet is simply because nobody is
: that motivated to actually sue them.
I often agree with Vernon. This'd be one of those times.
: And, you could point out that
: (tbomk) nobody's even filed suit against Joe Jared--further support
: for an argument that that part of the risk is slight.
And SPEWS has been in business for over a year, and pissed off a quite
large number of people.
: But I disagree. I expect SPEWS and Osirusoft to be sued sooner rather
: than later.
Based on what?
: At what rate do you guesstimate nanae is averaging cartooney threats?
If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a Harley-Davidson.
If threats were lawsuits, n.a.n-a.e would be the Federal District Courthouse.
: Do you really believe that no one's ever going to actually serve
: papers?
'never' is a long time. I expect that, should someone seriously attempt
to sue SPEWS, they'd either 1) first figure out who to sue, by a long,
expensive process involving a lot of subpoenas and possibly some computer
forensics, or 2) lose, very quickly, and possibly get countersued for the
crime of Being an Idiot.
When I get bad news, I don't sue the Washington Post. When I get bad milk
from the grocery store, I don't sue the cows. I am no longer responsible
for the blocking of any email, public or private, and maintain no DNSBLs
or any other kind of blocking list, public or private. Should anyone
attempt to sue me for something having to do with the actions of any
blocking list - they'd lose. Sure, it may be expensive. I may have to
forego getting a new car for another year, I may have to shelve the
plans for a greenhouse and an aviary in the backyard. But I'll win,
and such a suit would be so incredibly frivolous and stupid that I'll
probably win damages back. It's that simple.
: If the moderators do get sued, are the ACLU and the EFF going to rush
: to their defense? Or are those organizations going to file their
: amicus briefs against the dnsbls and their ilk?
Pile on more hypotheticals all you like. Doesn't change my initial answer.
"Thanks for your concern. I'll take my chances."
--
Huey
Bill Cole
hu...@interaccess.com (Gary S. Callison) wrote:
>Ned Ulbricht (ne...@netscape.net) wrote:
>: If SPEWS points their faq at this newsgroup, then some posters are
>: going to misidentify the moderators as SPEWS admins.
>
>You're correct. This will certainly happen with sadly uninformed folks.
>
>: IMHO, no amount of rational explanation will convince a few of those
>: that the moderators are anything other than a SPEWS front group.
>
>Okay, assume this occurs, and the injured party is a) very stupid, b) very
>wealthy, and c) unwilling to be swayed by his own legal advisors.
Or aware of the fact that lawsuits are not always about legal merits.
None of the lawsuits against MAPS had legal merit. None ever made it to
a judge for anything more than a preliminary injunction. MAPS is rightly
perceived to have 'lost' at least some of those suits because they had
to give up without tests on the merits.
>He sues me to get removed from SPEWS.
He sues you as publisher of someone's statement in the newsgroup that he
is a spammer. The moderators exercise editorial control. people have
been saying for a long time that moderators are or should be legal
publishers of their groups. I don't know if there's any case law on that
but the argument is strong enough that it could probably get a lawyer
unencumbered by ethics to press a case hard enough to cause a world of
hurt for the moderators, if there are no steps taken to thwart such a
case.
If SPEWS points at the group as a place its operator looks for relevant
discussion of listees, than gernally credible voices in the group
calling listees spammers could reasonably be claimed to be doing damage
to those listees. It could come down to requiring a court somewhere to
determine the definition of 'spam' and 'spammer' anmd 'spam support' and
to determine whether those definitions apply in specific cases. If you
get to the point of needing a judge to decide whether unconfirmed
affiliate signups make entities like Experian 'spammers' then you've
lost.
>Now, there is a wealth of evidence (now including your very own post that
>I'm replying to!) that SPEWS predates this new group, and is a
>contributing factor to its creation. There is _also_ a wealth of evidence
>indicating both that I personally don't care for the SPEWS model all that
>much, and that anybody with the brains God gave a piece of cheese ought
>to be able to find the principals behind it in 20 subpoenas or less.
>
>But, in this hypothetical situation, I'm involved in a lawsuit with a very
>rich, very stupid person. In this case- I have the evidence I need to
>defend myself, I know a few good technology lawyers, and I'm being sued
>frivolously by a very rich, very stupid person?
>
>I'd consider the defense of such a suit to be an investment. Countersuing
>a very rich, very stupid person can be a profitable enterprise here in the
>US of A.
But that's not the situation. The situation is a very smart very venal
corporation with a lot of money and no intention of ever getting the
case to a real trial, whose case hinges on 3 questions:
1. Are moderators primary publishers for the purposes of defamation law?
2. What does 'spam' really mean in a Usenet post?
3. What is the public perception of the meaning of the word 'spam' in a
Usenet post?
Those are subtle enough to not get tossed out in a preliminary hearing.
Those are subtle enough to generate extensive discovery processes. A
large wealthy corporation with a lot of money invested in borderline
bulk mailing operations might well see the silencing of a newsgroup and
punishment of individuals who it might see as dangerous enemies (for
example, people who are not easily dismissed as kooks) as worth a
significant amount of legal harrassment.
>: Some people, probably Vernon for instance, would argue that the reason
>: that no one has tracked down SPEWS yet is simply because nobody is
>: that motivated to actually sue them.
>
>I often agree with Vernon. This'd be one of those times.
Me too. However, I think it is risky to see this as purely a matter of
SPEWS. SPEWS seems careful to NOT make enemies of the known dangerous
targets. The well-heeled spammers with a history of Hubbardesque
litigation are not significantly covered by SPEWS. They MIGHT be called
spammers in this new newsgroup.
>: And, you could point out that
>: (tbomk) nobody's even filed suit against Joe Jared--further support
>: for an argument that that part of the risk is slight.
>
>And SPEWS has been in business for over a year, and pissed off a quite
>large number of people.
Most of whom are less wealthy and/or more ethical than Experian.
[...]
>: Do you really believe that no one's ever going to actually serve
>: papers?
>
>'never' is a long time. I expect that, should someone seriously attempt
>to sue SPEWS, they'd either 1) first figure out who to sue, by a long,
>expensive process involving a lot of subpoenas and possibly some computer
>forensics, or 2) lose, very quickly, and possibly get countersued for the
>crime of Being an Idiot.
3 of the proposed moderators spent time working for MAPS and had some
view into the mechanics of the lawsuits against MAPS. I suspect that
they can all disabuse you of the above misconception.
>When I get bad news, I don't sue the Washington Post.
No, but if they were to publish a letter to the editor calling you ugly
and you happened to be particularly vain and needing to live off yuour
looks, you might have a case for libel that would survive long enough to
cost them some money and which would not be grounds for a counter-suit.
> When I get bad milk
>from the grocery store, I don't sue the cows. I am no longer responsible
>for the blocking of any email, public or private, and maintain no DNSBLs
>or any other kind of blocking list, public or private. Should anyone
>attempt to sue me for something having to do with the actions of any
>blocking list - they'd lose. Sure, it may be expensive. I may have to
>forego getting a new car for another year, I may have to shelve the
>plans for a greenhouse and an aviary in the backyard. But I'll win,
>and such a suit would be so incredibly frivolous and stupid that I'll
>probably win damages back. It's that simple.
I think it is not so simple.
Winning damages for a frivolous case is never a slam-dunk, and on a case
that would be deciding and hinging on a still-grey area of law (are
Usenet moderators primary publishers?) and a subjective question of fact
(is what a particular mqailer does consistent with the common perception
of what is meant by the word 'spam?') it would be near impossible to get
a judge to call the case frivolous.
>: If the moderators do get sued, are the ACLU and the EFF going to rush
>: to their defense? Or are those organizations going to file their
>: amicus briefs against the dnsbls and their ilk?
>
>Pile on more hypotheticals all you like. Doesn't change my initial answer.
>"Thanks for your concern. I'll take my chances."
It is that which makes me see this issue as NOT a reason to vote against
the group.
As I mentioned, 3 of the proposed moderators know very well from their
time at MAPS what sort of trouble can be caused by spammers who don't
wish anyone to call them spammers. I believe that these people are smart
enough to understand the risk. I hope that they will share that
understanding with the other moderators, some of whom I believe are very
intelligent and sane people capable of assessing their own risk and of
making good decisions where necessary to balance the needs of good
moderation of the group with that risk. I believe that the moderation
team as a whole is more than capable enough to take care of themselves
on this matter without a paternalistic 'no' vote to stop you all from
making your own decisions.
--
The answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an
unwilling recipient. -- Chief Justice Berger, SCotUS
Bill Cole bi...@scconsult.com
Andrew Gierth
Ned> In the U.S., the Prodigy case reminds us that "editorial
Ned> control" is a significant factor in considerations of liability.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
another information content provider." -- 47 USC 230(c)(1)
"One of the specific purposes of this section is to overrule
Stratton-Oakmont v. Prodigy and any other similar decisions ..."
-- House conference committee report on the above section
The Prodigy ruling was negated as a precedent (in as much as it ever
was one, since it was only in a state court and not even at appellate
level) within a matter of a few months, but still, more than six years
later, people are still quoting it as though it were relevent, and
ignoring the long list of more recent cases such as Zeran v. AOL,
Barret v. Clark, Lunney v. Prodigy, and so on.
--
Andrew.
Ned Ulbricht
>
> "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
> treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
> another information content provider." -- 47 USC 230(c)(1)
>
> "One of the specific purposes of this section is to overrule
> Stratton-Oakmont v. Prodigy and any other similar decisions ..."
> -- House conference committee report on the above section
Well, thanks. A little knowlege is a dangerous thing, as they say,
but that'll be a useful item to point out to Brad Spencer the next
time he makes one of his more outrageous claims. ;-)
But, I would feel a whole lot better if a number of reputable
attorneys were willing to assure the proposed moderators that that
statute clearly immunizes them from any liability for approving and
publishing (allegedly) defamatory or libelous posts.
Bill Cole
ne...@netscape.net (Ned Ulbricht) wrote:
There is no such thing as immunity from lawsuits.
That law probably (IANAL) makes them immune from judgements against them
in a lawsuit over their moderation work, but being in the right legally
doesn't prevent lawsuits or even make them all that perilous for
potential plaintiffs.
That said, I think there remains an important fact: a significant number
of the proposed moderators have intimate experience with spammers filing
SLAPP suits. I know that they are smart enough to understand that tere
is a risk no matter how much they are legally in the right and how to
mitigate the risk. I can't claim to know all of the proponents well or
even at all beyond Usenet, but the ones that I do have a greater
familiarity with I know to be level-headed adults with their eyes open
and the intelligence to assess and deal with their own risk.
Gary S. Callison
: That said, I think there remains an important fact: a significant number
: SLAPP suits. I know that they are smart enough to understand that tere
: is a risk no matter how much they are legally in the right and how to
: mitigate the risk. I can't claim to know all of the proponents well or
: even at all beyond Usenet, but the ones that I do have a greater
: familiarity with I know to be level-headed adults with their eyes open
: and the intelligence to assess and deal with their own risk.
The last time you and I spoke, we briefly considered going sightseeing at
Ralsky's, but determined that prime rib and Guinness were more important.
More level-headed words were never spoken. ;-)
Perhaps a further measure of security could be had in placing additional
language in the charter, specifically addressing that issue pre-emptively.
To wit: amend the following paragraph
In general, the moderators will not reject articles based on content,
but only on tone and language. However, some content may be deemed
unsuitable. Examples of content-related criteria for rejection may
include ad hominem attacks, repetitive expositions of largely
identical arguments, and non-informative expressions of opinion on the
viability of one or another list, method, provider, or listed entity.
The focus will be on information.
to include:
However, the moderation team is in no way responsible for verifying
the accuracy or completeness of any of this information. The approval
of any specific post shall not construe an endorsement of the opinions
therein, merely that the post meets the guidelines in this charter.
Therefore, readers should understand that no statements made in the
newsgroup posts are authoritative on any given issue, except when the
information therein can be independently verified elsewhere.
Feel free to shoot holes in this if you like.
--
Huey
Ned Ulbricht
> That said, I think there remains an important fact: a significant number
> of the proposed moderators have intimate experience with spammers filing
> SLAPP suits. I know that they are smart enough to understand that tere
> is a risk no matter how much they are legally in the right and how to
> mitigate the risk. I can't claim to know all of the proponents well or
> even at all beyond Usenet, but the ones that I do have a greater
> familiarity with I know to be level-headed adults with their eyes open
> and the intelligence to assess and deal with their own risk.
My original opposition to "moderators without litigation insurance"
wasn't meant to torpedo the group by imposing an unreasonable
financial burden.
So, let me modify that: I am opposed to any moderator who does not
have a risk management plan.
Computer and network security people should be familiar with the basic
mechanisms of risk management: avoidence, mitigation, transference and
acceptance.
If Huey tells me one more time, "I'll take my chances," then I'll
consider that a public statement that his lawyer is on retainer--and
that they've sat down together with Huey's finacial advisor. And that
they're all confident that they can handle a lawsuit through at least
the first appellate level without a need to rely on public charity
gathered like this:
<https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=jo...@vtgts.com&item_name=Unsolicited+Bulk+Email+D>
I feel confident that competent professionals like Huey's lawyer and
financial advisor would at least encourage him to explore the
possibility of a corporate form to mitigate risk.
I've heard one objection to my proposal that the group be moderated by
an ad hoc non-profit.
Larry M. Smith
> Bill Cole (bi...@scconsult.com) wrote:
> : That said, I think there remains an important fact: a significant number
> : of the proposed moderators have intimate experience with spammers filing
> : SLAPP suits. I know that they are smart enough to understand that tere
> : is a risk no matter how much they are legally in the right and how to
> : mitigate the risk. I can't claim to know all of the proponents well or
> : even at all beyond Usenet, but the ones that I do have a greater
> : familiarity with I know to be level-headed adults with their eyes open
> : and the intelligence to assess and deal with their own risk.
>
These are in fact some very good points that Bill and Ned have brought up.
And I don't know, at this point, what would be the best course of action
to protect any of the moderators or the moderators as a whole from
frivolous litigation.
However, I would also like to add the following;
1.) MAPS was attempting, IIRC, to get forth a legal precedence for
DNSBLs. This appears to be the only reason for their "How to sue MAPS"
web page.
2.) As per the charter, this new group would be for the discussion of
blocklisting as a technology. Specific blocklists are expected to only
a sub section of the traffic expected in the new group.
3.) I have thought a little bit in the past (perhaps even more is
needed) about the possibility of litigation being brought directly
against me... Not as a moderator of the proposed NANA.blocklisting, but
as a participant in NANAE. As on rare occasion some of my posts (or
even simply the google links to my articles) have found their way into
blocklist records. Despite that this was not the intent of the post,
some interesting legal questions could be derived from this.
4.) Lastly... What would be the end result of any lawsuit against any
one moderator or the moderator group as a whole.
a) If the object is to disrupt a specific DNSBL; I do not see how a
mis-aimed lawsuit would effect the DNSBL. As a result, why file? None
of the moderators operate a public DNSBL or maintain any DNSBL data.
b) If the object is to obtain damages; I would believe that yes, the
moderators are an easier target than an anonymous or semi anonymous poster.
And, if I understand the argument, it would be this last one that would
need to be guarded against.
>
> Perhaps a further measure of security could be had in placing additional
> language in the charter, specifically addressing that issue pre-emptively.
>
> To wit: amend the following paragraph
> In general, the moderators will not reject articles based on content,
> but only on tone and language. However, some content may be deemed
> unsuitable. Examples of content-related criteria for rejection may
> include ad hominem attacks, repetitive expositions of largely
> identical arguments, and non-informative expressions of opinion on the
> viability of one or another list, method, provider, or listed entity.
> The focus will be on information.
>
> to include:
> However, the moderation team is in no way responsible for verifying
> the accuracy or completeness of any of this information. The approval
> of any specific post shall not construe an endorsement of the opinions
> therein, merely that the post meets the guidelines in this charter.
> Therefore, readers should understand that no statements made in the
> newsgroup posts are authoritative on any given issue, except when the
> information therein can be independently verified elsewhere.
>
> Feel free to shoot holes in this if you like.
>
At first glance, this does sound like fairly good start.
SgtChains
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> My original opposition to "moderators without litigation insurance"
> wasn't meant to torpedo the group by imposing an unreasonable
> financial burden.
It sure sounds like it. That you will vote No against any moderated
group that that does no have insurance (an unreasonable financial
burden).
>
> So, let me modify that: I am opposed to any moderator who does not
> have a risk management plan.
It is Usenet, Yes there are risks however getting insurance for it will
be hard. As for risk management there are better ways should it arise
as a real danger.
Oh and this will not compromise moderator actions?
>
> I feel confident that competent professionals like Huey's lawyer and
> financial advisor would at least encourage him to explore the
> possibility of a corporate form to mitigate risk.
And forming any corp can increase the number of No votes, many regs of
this group do not loke the idea of a corp controling namespace.
>
> I've heard one objection to my proposal that the group be moderated by
> an ad hoc non-profit.
>
You hear another.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>I've heard one objection to my proposal that the group be moderated by
>an ad hoc non-profit.
I don't like the idea either. It's yet another layer of infrastructure
to add to the creation of the group (read: failure point) and to the
running of the moderation. If this was an already established
non-profit organization/institution/service, then the objection
wouldn't be so strong. It's hard enough getting the moderation
going, but to coordinate that with whatever infrastructure (server?
contracts?) could end up just halting the process despite a very
successful vote. Furthermore, there is less confidence that the
new organization will be stable enough. If it falls apart due to
some "business" snafu and the moderators lose access to the
moderation server/submission address, you've got a dead group
overnight. I think legal action is quite a bit less likely than
an organizational snafu. I'd think that would happen more easily
with a new organization set up just for this proposal than with an
established organization or moreso than an independent mode of
operation. At least with independents, passing the keys to someone
else doesn't include finding new business/legal management and
whatever other paperwork would go along with a change of hands.
As it is, moderation is not something to take upon lightly.
Institutionalizing the moderation would be like amplifying the
pitfalls of moderation.
Ned Ulbricht
> 4.) Lastly... What would be the end result of any lawsuit against any
> one moderator or the moderator group as a whole.
>
> a) If the object is to disrupt a specific DNSBL; I do not see how a
> mis-aimed lawsuit would effect the DNSBL. As a result, why file? None
> of the moderators operate a public DNSBL or maintain any DNSBL data.
Well, so much for the theory that anyone, really, truly believes that
calmly and rationally explaining to customers of blacklisted networks
just exactly why they should take their business elsewhere will ever
really put enough of an economic dent in bottomlines to force
certain $LARGE_ISPs to care.
> b) If the object is to obtain damages; I would believe that yes, the
> moderators are an easier target than an anonymous or semi anonymous poster.
>
> And, if I understand the argument, it would be this last one that would
> need to be guarded against.
It's this last one that'll cause me to vote "no", as a matter of
conscience, unless I'm assured that the moderators have planned for
the risk.
adam brower
>
[snip]
>
> I've heard one objection to my proposal that the group be moderated by
> an ad hoc non-profit.
>
here's another. rather than venture into the territory
of ephemeral or speculative judgments as to the likelihood
of legal action against any moderator, or the success of
such an action, i base mine on the rejection of the
assumption that the subject matter is so special as
to warrant such actions, when hundreds of other moderated
groups, whose subject matter i imagine is more controversial
that blocklisting, have given rise to none.
also, istm there is a danger here of giving too much credence
to the frothings of the usual suspects. i even have
my doubts about the reasonable disclaimer suggested
earlier by huey, since it "recognizes" the issue.
in my p.i. work for various defense attorneys,
the advice i heard most often was: "say nothing, do
nothing, confirm nothing, deny nothing."
adam
--
Ned Ulbricht
> also, istm there is a danger here of giving too much credence
When the GAO evaluates a Federal agency's computer security risk
management plan, they award a lot of failing grades.
This is because many of those agencies don't have a process to
generate a plan.
When it comes to estimating "probability x impact", there is going be
no way for me to scientifically dispute your calculations, as long as
you use any method more advanced than pulling numbers from a hat.
As much as anything else, I'm basing my threat model on the number of
posts I'm seeing from people who believe that blacklists are unfairly
blocking their so-called legitmate mail.
(Use a method similar to estimating spam from nanas: Each post
represents one or more people who believe they've been "damaged".
Then, out of the "damaged" population, some fraction will file suit.)
These are not the old "usual suspects".
And seeing DoubleClick in nanae briefly shocked me. Some of the
outfits that are getting offended have substantially more resources
than typical spamked spammers.
Ned Ulbricht
> Ned Ulbricht wrote:
> > So, let me modify that: I am opposed to any moderator who does not
> > have a risk management plan.
>
> It is Usenet, Yes there are risks however getting insurance for it will
> be hard. As for risk management there are better ways should it arise
> as a real danger.
>
> <https://www.paypal.com/
Some people ran around frantically this past SuperBowl weekend
activating their Incident Response Plans. In honor of that, do you
mind terribly if I dub your "better way" for risk management as the
"1834" approach?
> Oh and this will not compromise moderator actions?
If the moderators are ill-prepared to withstand a lawsuit, I think
it'll compromise their actions even more.
> And forming any corp can increase the number of No votes, many regs of
> this group do not loke the idea of a corp controling namespace.
Well, I can now see that that particualar mitigation strategy does
look like a political non-starter.
adam brower
spamked? daddy like...but better with the accent,
thus: spamkéd.
Ned, without attempting in any way to invalidate your
concerns, i think this is a tempest in a teapot.
oh dear... i sound as if i *am* invalidating your
concerns, don't i? i meant to say your personal
concerns; i can't agree that there is any likelihood
of action against a moderator. there are hundreds of
moderated groups which cover controversial subjects,
and in which tempers flare and hurts are perceived.
can you cite even a single instance of an action
citing a moderator as "publisher?" (leaving aside
considerable case law which seems to indicate
the courts' unwillingness to join "repeaters" of
information with the original publishers.)
i don't understand, though, how principle could
cause you to vote no. one has to assume that
anyone with sufficient acuity to moderate a
newsgroup (or the proposed froup, at any rate)
is sharp enough to have assessed the risks
and, if any are found, to have planned for them.
adam
--
Arthur L. Rubin
> can you cite even a single instance of an action
> citing a moderator as "publisher?" (leaving aside
> considerable case law which seems to indicate
> the courts' unwillingness to join "repeaters" of
> information with the original publishers.)
I haven't been tracking this in the past six months,
but, over on misc.legal, there was a report from a
Federal Court in California that some recent act
(DMCA?) made reposting internet articles NOT
subject to libel suits -- in fact, the Court
awarded SLAPP sanctions. (If I recall the
details, even the Court found the material
libelous if not exempted, and suggested that
the plaintiff go after the original anonymous
poster or his ISP.)
Anyone else remember this?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 10:27 PM, adam brower <ad...@hermes-grp.com> said:
> Reduction of "false positives"
This should include the definition of "false positive", the issue of
whack-a-mole and the pros and cons of deliberate collateral damage.
"Innocent" versus "giving money to"
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
adam brower
>
> In <10433608...@isc.org>, on 01/23/2003
> at 10:27 PM, adam brower <ad...@hermes-grp.com> said:
>
> > Reduction of "false positives"
>
> This should include the definition of "false positive", the issue of
> whack-a-mole and the pros and cons of deliberate collateral damage.
>
> "Innocent" versus "giving money to"
>
agreed; but i didn't want to add a googol of
sample topics. i hope the discussion in
the froup will cover all shades of these
topics and many more besides.
adam
--
Ned Ulbricht
> i don't understand, though, how principle could
> cause you to vote no. one has to assume that
> anyone with sufficient acuity to moderate a
> newsgroup (or the proposed froup, at any rate)
> is sharp enough to have assessed the risks
> and, if any are found, to have planned for them.
The spam war is just a series of skirmishes in a larger campaign: The
long-running battle to make the 'net a civilized place for people to
communicate freely with other people.
Bad cases make law.
If it comes to a fight, this will be a horrid place to defend.
An assault on the moderators will be an assault on one of the
mainstays of free and civil speech here on Usenet.
Yet little help from old, traditional allies: People who uphold
unpopular speech and writings will split--have split--on the issue of
blacklists. The crowds who formed to chant "Free Dmitry" will not be
mobilized by opinion-makers who already condemn the blocking.
In a sense, you have answered your own question: People who ignore the
risks will make bad moderators. Bad for Usenet as a whole. Bad for
the 'net as a whole.
My sense whispers that moderatering this group will be about as safe
as moderating a jug of nitroglycerin.
The consensus may truly be that the jug sits on a table with concrete
foundation pillars. That my fears are foolish. My foreboding
misplaced.
Still my conscience bids me to register my dissent.
Paul Vixie intended MAPS to set precedent. He failed.
Bill Cole reminds us that among the moderators are veterans of that
ill-starred venture. He assures us that they are adults made wiser by
their experience--not foolish children with a propensity for
misadventure.
I am prepared to accept assurances of their good judgement on faith.
But I am very sorry. I must yet reserve my decision for a little
while longer. It is still hangs on whether I believe they are armed
and shielded to win a fight they must not lose.
Gary S. Callison
messages back all at once.
> So, let me modify that: I am opposed to any moderator who does not
> have a risk management plan.
I see your point, but I don't see the validity of thinking that this
concern necessitates a no vote for the group if it is not met to your
satisfaction.
> If Huey tells me one more time, "I'll take my chances," then I'll
> consider that a public statement that his lawyer is on retainer--and
> that they've sat down together with Huey's finacial advisor. And that
> they're all confident that they can handle a lawsuit through at least
> the first appellate level without a need to rely on public charity
> gathered like this:
<https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=jo...@vtgts.com&item_name=Unsolicited+$
Interesting that you would bring up Joey. He wasn't the moderator of
anything, merely a usenet poster with opinions That Which Pty LTD
evidently felt strongly enough about to pursue legal action. So, while it
supports your point that anybody can get sued for any reason, I'm not
certain there's a straight line between posting on a contraversial topic
and moderating a discussion of the same. Still, I'm forced to concede the
point that, why sure, Microsoft could just up and decide "Why, let's send
out some landsharks and crush that little prick Huey Callison like a bug"
- and should that happen, I'm basically fucked, regardless of the backing
of my nonprofit or the competence of my lawyer on retainer or my financial
advisor.
> I feel confident that competent professionals like Huey's lawyer and
> financial advisor would at least encourage him to explore the
> possibility of a corporate form to mitigate risk.
I don't have a lawyer on retainer, although I do have one in the family,
and I'm my own financial advisor. (With the exception of the ill-advised
35% in company stock from my WorldCom 401K, I'm beating the market.)
I also build my own computers, do my own taxes, diagnose bizzare wiring
faults in japanese cars, and split my own firewood. I'm under no
impression that I'm a rocket surgeon, but I am walking in to this with my
eyes open, and I can have a lawyer tomorrow if that should be necessary.
> I've heard one objection to my proposal that the group be moderated by
> an ad hoc non-profit.
An ad-hoc non-profit is every bit as much an unreasonable burden as
litigation insurance.
> As much as anything else, I'm basing my threat model on the number of
> posts I'm seeing from people who believe that blacklists are unfairly
> blocking their so-called legitmate mail.
I don't see the cartooney threats in n.a.n-a.e as anything more than
Jerry-Springer-grade entertainment. People who intend to sue don't
threaten to call a lawyer, they call a lawyer. Scanned C&D letters from
law firms? Those are worth more attention than the small chuckle and the
'next' key that the n.a.n.a-e noise gets. How many has Joe Jared posted?
One or two? How many have actually sued Joe? How many have sued _anybody_?
A handful in the history of the internet. The precedent of "we reserve the
right to refuse service to anyone" seems to be fairly well-settled. Suing
someone for posting an opinion that "you should refuse traffic from these
IP addresses" is shaky legal ground, and suing the group moderator who
approved such a post as being on-charter even less so.
> (Use a method similar to estimating spam from nanas: Each post
> represents one or more people who believe they've been "damaged".
> Then, out of the "damaged" population, some fraction will file suit.)
some very small fraction.
> And seeing DoubleClick in nanae briefly shocked me. Some of the
> outfits that are getting offended have substantially more resources
> than typical spamked spammers.
some very small fraction of the above very small fraction.
> The spam war is just a series of skirmishes in a larger campaign: The
> long-running battle to make the 'net a civilized place for people to
> communicate freely with other people.
> Bad cases make law.
> If it comes to a fight, this will be a horrid place to defend.
You had me up until the last sentence. I asked for (and received!) any
precedent for this occurring in the past, and although I could get no
further details beyond what is publicly archived, I am now aware of one
newsgroup that folded under the threat of litigation.
So, again, your point is well-taken. The possibility that the proposed
newsgroup could fail under the threat of expensive litigation does exist,
and has happened before.
Even given that: what reason is this to vote no? The status quo is that
n.a.n-a.e is unreadable and unusable for what it was originally chartered
for, because there is nowhere else for blocklisting issues to be
discussed. Should this group pass, hopefully that would change, and both
groups would be the better for it. Time passes. Eventually, Microsoft or
Experian or DoubleClick or the Federal Republic of Nigeria decides that
Huey Callison is a piece of shit and needs to get the backyard hot tub
sued out of him, and under the threat of this, the group dies.
The net result of the yes vote is _still_ an overall improvement in the
state of usenet for whatever period of time the group is alive.
> An assault on the moderators will be an assault on one of the
> mainstays of free and civil speech here on Usenet.
The creation of this group is not about saving usenet, it's about saving
email. The overgeneralizing scare tactics you are attempting to inject
into this discussion could as easily apply to any other moderated
newsgroup or public web board that deals with controversial topics. Is
Slashdot fighting for freedom of speech on the internet? How often have
they been sued, and what were the precedents set in those cases?
The existance of one more newsgroup that's a magnet for angry cartooneys
will not make or break anyone's First Amendment rights, regardless of the
size, cost, material facts, or legal findings of any civil suits filed
peripheral (orthagonal?) to it.
> Yet little help from old, traditional allies: People who uphold
> unpopular speech and writings will split--have split--on the issue of
> blacklists. The crowds who formed to chant "Free Dmitry" will not be
> mobilized by opinion-makers who already condemn the blocking.
Sure. The EFF may or may not help me. You seem unwilling to donate to my
legal defense fund. But you're forgetting that I haven't actually been
sued yet, and may never be. And in the exceedingly rare case should that
happen, I have several options, the two obvious of which are: 1) I can
throw my hands in the air and say "fuck this", or 2) if I should decide
that it's necessary, I can exhaust my savings, take out loans against my
house and my retirement plan, ask my friends for help if I need it, and
fight hammer and tongs for what I think is worth fighting for. I will
have no idea which of those two options makes the most sense, or if there
are more options than that, until I'm made aware of the specifics of the
lawsuit when it happens. ...IF it happens. I accept this as a possibility,
I put the risk at roughly the same chance as winning the Lotto (Wouldn't
THAT be handy - then I could use my Lotto winnings to defend myself in
the lawsuit, yah hey...) and I'm prepared to face that risk.
> In a sense, you have answered your own question: People who ignore the
> risks will make bad moderators. Bad for Usenet as a whole. Bad for
> the 'net as a whole.
This is assuming that the moderators are not aware of the risks AND the
worst possible case should happen to come to pass. If that's the best you
can come up with for voting no, I feel that I should also point out the
possibility that the entire moderation team may one day be at Annie's
having a decent steak and hoisting a few when a giant asteroid slams into
Washington DC and vaporizes everything in the Fruit Loop, killing us all
instantly.
> My sense whispers that moderatering this group will be about as safe
> as moderating a jug of nitroglycerin.
In a controlled laboratory environment, Nitroglycerin may actually be safer.
> The consensus may truly be that the jug sits on a table with concrete
> foundation pillars. That my fears are foolish. My foreboding
> misplaced.
> Still my conscience bids me to register my dissent.
> Paul Vixie intended MAPS to set precedent. He failed.
I'm not interested in setting precedent. While I could probably pay cash
for a nice car, I'm not interested in doing so- it wouldn't make a lot
of sense financially for me, even less so if the car winds up being for
my lawyer.
> Bill Cole reminds us that among the moderators are veterans of that
> ill-starred venture. He assures us that they are adults made wiser by
> their experience--not foolish children with a propensity for
> misadventure.
> I am prepared to accept assurances of their good judgement on faith.
I don't know everyone on the moderation team personally, but the few that
I do have all shown the ability and willingness to do the right thing even
to their own detriment. Like a friend of mine once said, "I would trust
them with my kids". But, this being usenet, I'm not certain what my
opinion is worth to you on this.
> But I am very sorry. I must yet reserve my decision for a little
> while longer. It is still hangs on whether I believe they are armed
> and shielded to win a fight they must not lose.
Please elaborate on how a failure to do so here is any more relevant to
the overall state of free speech on the internet than in any other
moderated group or public web forum. Say,
<http://slashdot.org/features/00/05/11/0153247.shtml> frinstance.
--
Huey
Andrew Gierth
> adam brower wrote:
>> can you cite even a single instance of an action citing a
>> moderator as "publisher?" (leaving aside considerable case law
>> which seems to indicate the courts' unwillingness to join
>> "repeaters" of information with the original publishers.)
Arthur> I haven't been tracking this in the past six months, but,
Arthur> over on misc.legal, there was a report from a Federal Court
Arthur> in California that some recent act (DMCA?)
For values of "recent" which go back to 1996; the act was the CDA, the
immunity parts of which (including 47 USC 230(c)(1), which I quoted
previously) were not affected when the rest was struck down.
Arthur> made reposting internet articles NOT subject to libel suits
Arthur> -- in fact, the Court awarded SLAPP sanctions. (If I recall
Arthur> the details, even the Court found the material libelous if
Arthur> not exempted, and suggested that the plaintiff go after the
Arthur> original anonymous poster or his ISP.)
That sounds like Barrett v. Clark which I mentioned in a previous post
- the case was against several defendents, and one of the defendents
(Rosenthal) successfully invoked the California anti-SLAPP law, thus
striking the case as it applied to them (I believe the case against
the other defendents was unaffected). 47 USC 230(c)(1) came into play
as part of showing that the plaintiff could not demonstrate a reasonable
chance of success as required by the anti-SLAPP law for the case to
proceed.
you can find a copy of the ruling here:
http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/barrettruling.pdf
A number of other online defamation cases are also referenced on the AOL
site:
http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/index.html
--
Andrew.
Ned Ulbricht
> I've been sitting on this for a while, so you get all three of your
> messages back all at once.
Thanks for taking the time to think this through carefully.
I'm going to snip most of your long response and, as I've been doing,
just address a few points.
> > So, let me modify that: I am opposed to any moderator who does not
> > have a risk management plan.
>
> I see your point, but I don't see the validity of thinking that this
> concern necessitates a no vote for the group if it is not met to your
> satisfaction.
NIST guidelines recommend a security risk assessment before hooking
_anything_ up to the network.
The slate of moderators are candidates for responsible public
positions: humanware plugged into the net's infrastructure.
So what's so unreasonable about following best practices here? ;-)
Using that phrase I was trying to compress a complex set of concepts
in a manner I thought should be familiar to a security-conscious
audience. But, it pro'lly didn't resonate... *sigh*
I'm really not asking for anything more than that the moderators use a
rational means to figure out how to handle the risks.
> some very small fraction.
> some very small fraction of the above very small fraction.
I've snipped your assessment of a potential high impact. But you
calculate a miniscule probability. I'm not sure, but you seem to
being saying that this falls within the range of ordinarily acceptable
risk.
Bing! You've almost certainly just done better than something like 5
out of 16 Federal agencies noted in a recent GAO report.
If your plan is complete then (iirc) you just beat 11 out of the 16.
I tried to indicate that I've got no other scientific way to grade
your plan than the GAO method: Risk management process (y/n) _y_.
Risk management plan (y/n) _y?_.
See how easy that was? (Look at the NIST guidelines if you want a more
formal process.)
> You seem unwilling to donate to my
> legal defense fund.
You misunderstood me.
If I vote yes, I'd feel obligated to donate to your defense fund.
If I had voted yes without raising my concerns, I might feel guilty
enough to try to scape up more than I can really afford.
Even without any sense of obligation, I might very well find it in my
personal best interests to donate
> > But I am very sorry. I must yet reserve my decision for a little
> > while longer. It is still hangs on whether I believe they are armed
> > and shielded to win a fight they must not lose.
>
> Please elaborate on how a failure to do so here is any more relevant to
> the overall state of free speech on the internet than in any other
> moderated group or public web forum. Say,
> <http://slashdot.org/features/00/05/11/0153247.shtml> frinstance.
I apologize for that last piece of rhetorical excess.
Adam asked me to state the principles which would impell me to vote
no. I struggled for an hour or more, trying to type up a concise and
cogent answer to a question that damn near needs a book-length
treatment. Finally, I just said "Fuck it," hacked on some kind of
ending and posted it.
So, now I'll try to answer it another way. And probably come up with
something just as disjointed.
Over a century and a half ago, de Tocqueville observed that Americans
tend to frame many of our social and political questions as legal
issues--resolving them through the courts. I'll note the complement:
that in our modern times, judges settle many legal issues on social,
political and economic grounds.
The risk that I've been addressing all along is a political
risk--framed as a legal one.
Again, to just cut an usatisfactory answer off short: I don't like
putting people into the legal meatgrinder in unwinnable political
causes.
Is that answer any better? At least it states something that more
closely resembles a principle.
Gary S. Callison
: The risk that I've been addressing all along is a political
: risk--framed as a legal one.
: Again, to just cut an usatisfactory answer off short: I don't like
: putting people into the legal meatgrinder in unwinnable political
: causes.
A 'yes' vote for this group isn't doing that. The moderation team has
(presumably...) attached themselves to this proposed new group aware of
the almost certain headaches and potential other liabilities it will
entail. Also, 'unwinnable' is by no means certain, not only in terms
of the potential legal problems ancilliary to the group's moderation, but
in the broader purpose of the group itself.
If I didn't think email could be saved, I'd give up on public networks
and focus on building an engine computer for my friend's kid's
fuel-injected junior dragster. Until that day comes, I'll continue to do
what I think I need to do, and spend my free time thinking about an
802.11b internet-connected engine computer. The eight-year-old can't
remember to hit the lean-out button? That's okay, we'll get it from here.
;-)
--
Huey
Ned Ulbricht
> A 'yes' vote for this group isn't doing that. The moderation team has
> (presumably...) attached themselves to this proposed new group aware of
> the almost certain headaches and potential other liabilities it will
> entail.
Nevertheless, istm that I've reached as much of my goal as I'm likely to
get.
So, at this point, I'll publicly drop my opposition to the proposed
group: I will _not_ vote "no" based on the issue I've raised. At
worst, I'll abstain.
(What I haven't gotten is an assurance that any of the moderators
besides Huey have determined that the risk is manageable, using
something that resembles a rational process to counteract the human
psychological tendency to mis-guess cumulative risk associated with a
series of low-probability / high impact threat-vulnerability pairs.)
(IOW, some people who deploy MS SQL server in mission-critical
evironments think of themselves as responsibly "aware".)
> Also, 'unwinnable' is by no means certain, not only in terms
> of the potential legal problems ancilliary to the group's moderation, but
> in the broader purpose of the group itself.
In legal terms, I've satisfied myself that the moderators are in an
even better position (at least in the U.S.) than when I stated my
original belief that they would ultimately prevail in court.
But I wrote "unwinnable" in a political sense. And with a sharp
focus.
You are not going to be able to convince some people that they
shouldn't be mad as hell that their mail is bouncing.
To the extent that this new group looks like a mickey-mouse "court"
for the blocklists--and filtering out the flames may make that
worse--my perception is that it's going to get politically slammed.
"Mad as hell" and "not going to take it" sell eyeballs to advertisers
in the mainstream media.
To counter that, there's a slogan that sums up a brutal
inside-the-beltway truth: "If you're explaining, you're losing."
And in an exchange of slogans, there's one shout that's as old as--and
as American as--baseball: "Kill the Ump!"
Yet, as I said above, I will not now vote "no" based on a concern that
the moderators have failed to adequately consider that this political
risk may lead them into the courts.
--
Med Ulbricht
mailto:ne...@netscape.net
Gary S. Callison
: hu...@interaccess.com (Gary S. Callison) wrote:
: > Also, 'unwinnable' is by no means certain, not only in terms
: > in the broader purpose of the group itself.
: even better position (at least in the U.S.) than when I stated my
: original belief that they would ultimately prevail in court.
: But I wrote "unwinnable" in a political sense. And with a sharp
: focus.
: You are not going to be able to convince some people that they
: shouldn't be mad as hell that their mail is bouncing.
I wouldn't dream of it. They SHOULD be mad as hell; their mail is
bouncing. When my mail bounces due to seemingly arbitrary or capricious
blocks, I get mad as hell too. The console monitor at the last gig was
rigned with post-it notes that said "Do NOT, under any circumstances,
block {domain}" and the local blocklist-updating scripts had multiple
failsafes to prevent operator foot-shooting. It's even more crucial when
it's not just your mail that's bouncing, but potentially the mail of
thousands or millions of users. ...but this whole line of discussion
rapidly descends into something that would be on-topic for the proposed
group, rather than in the discussion of the proposed group.
: To the extent that this new group looks like a mickey-mouse "court"
: for the blocklists--and filtering out the flames may make that
: worse--my perception is that it's going to get politically slammed.
I would hope that filtering out the flames would make it seem _less_
mickey-mouse. I don't think the "rot in SPEWS" answers in the status quo
are helping anyone, where a well-reasoned and invective-free discussion of
the apparent reasons for a block might. If someone chooses to respond to
that discussion with a lawsuit, so be it, but I'll bet that a response by
cooler heads will garner fewer "my attorney will be in touch" posts than
the "up yours, spammer" responses tend to.
: "Mad as hell" and "not going to take it" sell eyeballs to advertisers
: in the mainstream media.
: To counter that, there's a slogan that sums up a brutal
: inside-the-beltway truth: "If you're explaining, you're losing."
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the war on spam will be won
ultimately from two angles: first, education and advocacy directed at the
public, and then strong legislative remedies demanded of elected
representatives by that public. Right now, the public knows spam is bad,
but wonders "Can't you just make it go away?" Well, mostly we can, but
it's not that simple, and you will lose the occasional baby with the
bathwater. The technological issues are complex, the root social cause
remains uncured regardless of the progress on the IT problems, and the law
and business trails all of this by a wide margin.
Now, not everybody agrees. It's easier to block someone than it is to
teach them. Some people need to be blocked just to get their attention, to
provide an awareness of the scope of the problem. And some will
pathologically avoid blocks or abuse proxies, relays, or formmails in
flagrant disregard for the problems they know they're causing. So,
sometimes explaining _is_ a bust. But ultimately, reason will win, and
where it doesn't, legislatively enforced reason will win.
: Yet, as I said above, I will not now vote "no" based on a concern that
: the moderators have failed to adequately consider that this political
: risk may lead them into the courts.
Thanks. This may have been the first discussion of some of these issues
I've had in six months that's actually made me think.
--
Huey
Gary S. Callison
: Ned Ulbricht wrote
: > Bad cases make law.
: > If it comes to a fight, this will be a horrid place to defend.
: You had me up until the last sentence. I asked for (and received!) any
: precedent for this occurring in the past, and although I could get no
: further details beyond what is publicly archived, I am now aware of one
: newsgroup that folded under the threat of litigation.
An update on this: I have contacted one of the moderators of the folded
group. The lawsuit was a nuisance suit: thrown out of court, refiled,
thrown out of court AGAIN, and the plaintiff was forced to pay the
defense's fees. But this was enough to convince the people behind the
group to pack it in.
I'm not certain I'd react the same way in that circumstance. Like Emo
Phillips says, "You have to get up pretty early in the morning to catch me
peeping in your bedroom window."
--
Huey
adam brower
while i was moving my late Mother into a new
house in downer's grove, emo walked by. i asked
him:
"hey, emo, how about helping us with this dresser."
"no," he said, "but can i come back rifle through
the underwear drawer when you're all moved in?"
adam
--
Ned Ulbricht
> An update on this: I have contacted one of the moderators of the folded
> group. The lawsuit was a nuisance suit: thrown out of court, refiled,
> thrown out of court AGAIN, and the plaintiff was forced to pay the
> defense's fees. But this was enough to convince the people behind the
> group to pack it in.
Thanks.
Meanwhile, I hope you've noticed over in nanae:
"Re: [media] FTC to hold spam workshop"
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cf86d386.0302040642.6acf212d%40posting.google.com>
which contains links to:
<http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/02/spamforum.htm>
<http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/02/pubforum_spamemail.htm>
and especially:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E4006E6.7BD3FE5A%40mail.tds.net>
It looks like someone over at the FTC is taking the "restraint of
trade" theory seriously enough to entertain it as a topic for panel
discussion.
This doesn't really have too much effect on my analysis of the total
risk because I've assumed all along that if you give a lawyer
enough money and put it in attack mode they'll come up with some
plausible legal basis for a suit.