Chat-room vs Newsgroups

[Judith]

There has been discussion elsewhere of the legal definition of a chat-room. I
have since looked it up - but have not succeeded in finding one.

The reason that I ask, is there a legal definition which differentiates between
a chat-room and usenet?

The online definition I found re chat-room says:
"A site on a computer network where online conversations are held in real time
by a number of users".
Which sounds very similar to the way that unmoderated usenet groups sometimes
work - effectively in real time.

This seems to me to be another term which may be used in legislation: for which
there is no formal legal definition. A bit like "the web".

[Martin Bonner]

On Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:07:19 PM UTC, Judith wrote:
> There has been discussion elsewhere of the legal
> definition of a chat-room.

For what purpose? "The legal definition of <term>" is a question
which often depends on the context you are using the term in. The
example I know of is "a public place". There are several
definitions depending on the exact context.

[Roland Perry]

In message <59vkd99p5j3ecptn3...@4ax.com>, at 15:07:19 on
Sat, 18 Jan 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>The reason that I ask, is there a legal definition which differentiates between
>a chat-room and usenet?

Probably not a legal one, if by that you mean defined on the face of an
Act of Parliament. But you've obviously see a lot of evidence produced
by pretty high-powered working groups within the Home Office which lead
to the conclusion that there has to be an "interactive" element.

There's nothing inherently "interactive" about Usenet, in the terms used
to discuss chatrooms.
--
Roland Perry

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:07:19 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>
>There has been discussion elsewhere of the legal definition of a chat-room. I
>have since looked it up - but have not succeeded in finding one.
>
>The reason that I ask, is there a legal definition which differentiates between
>a chat-room and usenet?
>

There would only be a legal definition of either if they were referred
to in a statute.

And even then, that definition would only apply for the purposes of
that statute.

>The online definition I found re chat-room says:
>"A site on a computer network where online conversations are held in real time
>by a number of users".
>Which sounds very similar to the way that unmoderated usenet groups sometimes
>work - effectively in real time.
>
>This seems to me to be another term which may be used in legislation: for which
>there is no formal legal definition. A bit like "the web".

No, a newsgroup is not "real time" in the same way as a chat-room.

With a chat-room, you will see all postings from everybody "in" that
room in real time - i.e. you will automatically see it as soon as it
is posted.

With newsgroups, you only see new postings when you choose to refresh
- and postings can take some time to propagate anyhow, since they may
be posted from servers remote from the one you are reading on.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
URA Redneck if you own more TV's than books.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Judith]

I would disagree: much of what happens in newsgroups is "interactive": two
people discussing a point and influencing each other (or at least trying to) -
it may not be as "real-time" as I guess a chat room probably is - but there are
very many interactive conversations on usenet between just two people (perhaps
with others listening in) which are certainly effectively real-time.

Do people post to usenet in order to influence the person they are discussing a
particular point with? I think the answer is yes.

You only need to look at uk.legal - there are often "conversations" between
just two people which have no legal content whatsoever - they are just an
interactive chat.

[Judith]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:32:42 +0000, Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

The question which was asked was if someone is barred from chat-rooms - are
they also barred from usenet. ie What is a chat-room - and how does it legally
differ from usenet? There is a similar query as to what is legally a web-page.
I guess the definition to be used would depend on the legal context in which it
was used if there was ever to be a court case.
I cannot see why someone who was banned from chat-rooms for a specific reason
should be banned from using usenet: although I can see a possible legal
argument as to how one differs from the other if any case went to court.

[Judith]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:48:42 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

<snip>

>With newsgroups, you only see new postings when you choose to refresh
>- and postings can take some time to propagate anyhow, since they may
>be posted from servers remote from the one you are reading on.

I have seen many "conversations" between just two people on a newsgroup which
happened in "real time" - particularly if they are on the same usenet
provider. In the past I certainly got involved in "real-time" discussions
without me taking any actions to refresh the group: it would depend on the
capability of your client. eg "Automatically check for new messages every 5
seconds"

The "local" newsgroups were full of such conversations at one time.

[Roland Perry]

In message <6qsmd95reqle1oksa...@4ax.com>, at 08:31:53 on
Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>There is a similar query as to what is legally a web-page.

The discussion here was about web *sites*.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <3ctmd919mre3og1qp...@4ax.com>, at 08:31:42 on
Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>Do people post to usenet in order to influence the person they are discussing a
>particular point with?

Is "influencing" one of the criteria which defines a chatroom? I think
not.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <8qtmd9tpch78p7a6m...@4ax.com>, at 08:32:41 on

Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>I have seen many "conversations" between just two people on a newsgroup which
>happened in "real time" - particularly if they are on the same usenet
>provider.

I've had real-time conversations with someone over Telex.

--
Roland Perry

[steve robinson]

But within usenet the debate is neither private or restricted its an
open forum even within moderated groups such as this one

--

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59vkd99p5j3ecptn3...@4ax.com...

>
>
> There has been discussion elsewhere of the legal definition of a
> chat-room. I
> have since looked it up - but have not succeeded in finding one.
>
> The reason that I ask, is there a legal definition which differentiates
> between
> a chat-room and usenet?
>
> The online definition I found re chat-room says:
> "A site on a computer network where online conversations are held in real
> time
> by a number of users".
> Which sounds very similar to the way that unmoderated usenet groups
> sometimes
> work - effectively in real time.

Newsgroups aren't a real time service.
They are effectively an asynchronous message board.

> This seems to me to be another term which may be used in legislation: for
> which
> there is no formal legal definition. A bit like "the web".
>

And like any other word without an explicit definition, a court would look
at what would be commonly understood by members of the public.

You could provide examples of how a chat room behaves - messages appearing
in real time, and I think most people would agree a newsgroup is different.

--
Alex

[Judith]

I'm awfully sorry for that glaring error on my behalf - silly old me.

[Judith]

I didn't say that it was one of the *definitive* criteria - I am unsure why you
jumped to that conclusion. However, influencing the opinions of others is
certainly one of the reasons that many people use chat-rooms and usenet.

I see that a Google search for <"chat-room" "influence"> provides 2,310,000
results - so perhaps there is a degree of influence in chat-rooms or
newsgroups - even if it is not a definitive requirement.

[Judith]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:03:43 +0000, "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>> You only need to look at uk.legal - there are often "conversations"
>> between just two people which have no legal content whatsoever - they
>> are just an interactive chat.
>
>But within usenet the debate is neither private or restricted its an
>open forum even within moderated groups such as this one

Just like a chat-room then
Chat rooms and usenet are open to all to see the discussions between two or
more people unless you take it to private or email

[Judith]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:16:45 +0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>You could provide examples of how a chat room behaves - messages appearing
>in real time, and I think most people would agree a newsgroup is different.

I agree they are definitely different. The point being made is that you can
certainly have an almost real time "chat" with someone via a newsgroup: and it
very often happens. (Unlike via Telex - where I understand it is possible but
I suspect very rarely happens)

Would you think if someone had been barred from chat-rooms, and then they
started an inappropriate conversation with a young person, the authorities
would say : "That's OK - it's not a chat-room. He/she is not barred from usenet
which is what is being used."

I would have thought it was the restriction on "chatting" with other people via
the internet which is prohibited: whether it is via something advertised as a
chat-room or not is not really relevant.

[Roland Perry]

In message <9oond95cp6aeso6td...@4ax.com>, at 15:07:01 on

Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>>Do people post to usenet in order to influence the person they are discussing a
>>>particular point with?
>>
>>Is "influencing" one of the criteria which defines a chatroom? I think
>>not.
>
>I didn't say that it was one of the *definitive* criteria

Goalposts shifted again I see.
--
Roland Perry

[steve robinson]

You cant take usenet private though and that is the difference

--

[steve robinson]

Quite possibly we do not know for sure, although there are similarities
they are not the same , have different audiences ad different sections
of society using them

I have never come accross a child using usenet although the behavour of
some posters within some forums often give rise to concerns

Yo couldnt say that for IRC, Facebook, myspace, classmates. and the
other social media sites







--

[Judith]

Yes - why did you do so.

You may point out where I claimed that "influencing" was a *definitive*
criteria if you wish.

And as I said, people certainly do use chatrooms and usenet in order to
influence others. Or do you not agree?

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:nqpnd9df8j4ph5lem...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:16:45 +0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <AlexNOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>You could provide examples of how a chat room behaves - messages appearing
>>in real time, and I think most people would agree a newsgroup is
>>different.
>
> I agree they are definitely different. The point being made is that you
> can
> certainly have an almost real time "chat" with someone via a newsgroup:
> and it
> very often happens. (Unlike via Telex - where I understand it is possible
> but
> I suspect very rarely happens)
>
> Would you think if someone had been barred from chat-rooms, and then they
> started an inappropriate conversation with a young person, the authorities
> would say : "That's OK - it's not a chat-room. He/she is not barred from
> usenet
> which is what is being used."

And what are the chances of finding young people on usenet as opposed to
chat rooms designed for teenagers.
Vanishingly small.

> I would have thought it was the restriction on "chatting" with other
> people via
> the internet which is prohibited: whether it is via something advertised
> as a
> chat-room or not is not really relevant.
>

Then it would be down to the court to impose a ban on chatting with other
people via the internet.
Unless they have done that, then what you would like them to have done isn't
all that relevent.

--
Alex

[Roland Perry]

In message <9p6od9dj2j5q500pu...@4ax.com>, at 21:56:33 on

Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>Do people post to usenet in order to influence the person they are discussing a
>>>>>particular point with?
>>>>
>>>>Is "influencing" one of the criteria which defines a chatroom? I think
>>>>not.
>>>
>>>I didn't say that it was one of the *definitive* criteria
>

>Yes - why did you do so.

I was noting that you had introduced the term. But as you've withdrawn
the claim, we can move on.

>And as I said, people certainly do use chatrooms and usenet in order to
>influence others. Or do you not agree?

Why does "influencing" matter as a criterion?
--
Roland Perry

[Andy Walker]

On 19/01/14 17:13, steve robinson wrote:
> I have never come accross a child using usenet [...].

The group "alt.uk.a-levels" is now effectively defunct, but not many
years ago it was a decently-lively forum frequented primarily by 16-17yos
discussing applications to university and getting advice from teachers and
academics. Some of the science groups get posts from 13yos along the lines
of "My teacher says blah happens according to the theory of relativity, but
surely this can't be true because ...?".

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Judith]

I asked if people used usenet in order to influence people - and I would say
that they do.

You then assumed wrongly that I was claiming that "influencing" was one of the
criteria which defined chatrooms. Goodness knows why you thought that.

I have not stated that "influencing" is, was, or should be a criteria for
defining a chatroom: it was you who jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

[Judith]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 07:25:25 +0000, "Dr Zoidberg"

<AlexNOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:nqpnd9df8j4ph5lem...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:16:45 +0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
>> <AlexNOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>You could provide examples of how a chat room behaves - messages appearing
>>>in real time, and I think most people would agree a newsgroup is
>>>different.
>>
>> I agree they are definitely different. The point being made is that you
>> can
>> certainly have an almost real time "chat" with someone via a newsgroup:
>> and it
>> very often happens. (Unlike via Telex - where I understand it is possible
>> but
>> I suspect very rarely happens)
>>
>> Would you think if someone had been barred from chat-rooms, and then they
>> started an inappropriate conversation with a young person, the authorities
>> would say : "That's OK - it's not a chat-room. He/she is not barred from
>> usenet
>> which is what is being used."
>
>And what are the chances of finding young people on usenet as opposed to
>chat rooms designed for teenagers.
>Vanishingly small.

Any chance of answering rather than dodging the question?

>> I would have thought it was the restriction on "chatting" with other
>> people via
>> the internet which is prohibited: whether it is via something advertised
>> as a
>> chat-room or not is not really relevant.
>>
>Then it would be down to the court to impose a ban on chatting with other
>people via the internet.
>Unless they have done that, then what you would like them to have done isn't
>all that relevent.

As The Todal has pointed out the banning from "chat-rooms" may just be the way
that newspapers report things.

[Roland Perry]

In message <rbrqd9lfs3mk7soot...@4ax.com>, at 19:04:47 on
Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>I asked if people used usenet in order to influence people - and I
>would say that they do.

Why does that matter?
--
Roland Perry

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:04:47 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:20:38 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <9p6od9dj2j5q500pu...@4ax.com>, at 21:56:33 on
>>Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>Do people post to usenet in order to influence the person they are discussing a
>>>>>>>particular point with?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is "influencing" one of the criteria which defines a chatroom? I think
>>>>>>not.
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't say that it was one of the *definitive* criteria
>>>
>>>Yes - why did you do so.
>>
>>I was noting that you had introduced the term. But as you've withdrawn
>>the claim, we can move on.
>>
>>>And as I said, people certainly do use chatrooms and usenet in order to
>>>influence others. Or do you not agree?
>>
>>Why does "influencing" matter as a criterion?
>
>I asked if people used usenet in order to influence people - and I would say
>that they do.
>
>You then assumed wrongly that I was claiming that "influencing" was one of the
>criteria which defined chatrooms. Goodness knows why you thought that.
>

He thought that because you intended that to be thought.

There could be no other reason for introducing it in the way you did.

>I have not stated that "influencing" is, was, or should be a criteria for
>defining a chatroom: it was you who jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
>

I expect most people reading the post assumed that was what you were
implying, since there was no other obvious reason to bring it up.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Flirt: A woman who thinks it's every man for herself.

[Judith]

I believe that people who use chat -rooms often use them - just like usenet -
in order to influence the people they are discussing things with.
A conversation - effectively a one to one in usenet - may be no different at
all (perhaps a slight "real-time" difference) with the same conversation in a
chat-room.

Hence - the fact that the conversation is taking place in a chat-room rather
than on usenet may be totally immaterial; I am surprised you cannot see this.

(Perhaps read the conversation I had with you earlier - when I asked you to
meet me under the clock at a railway station. Is there a difference between
that sort of request - just because it was made in a newsgroup rather than in a
chat-room?)

As the Todal has said, it would be most interesting to see what the "banning
order"s actually say - and whether individuals are actually barred from
chat-rooms (as the papers suggest) - or is there a wide prohibition?

If it is the use of "chat-rooms" which is prohibited - then I fear that that is
much too a narrow description for any legal definition or order.

[Judith]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:31:56 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:04:47 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:20:38 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <9p6od9dj2j5q500pu...@4ax.com>, at 21:56:33 on
>>>Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>Do people post to usenet in order to influence the person they are discussing a
>>>>>>>>particular point with?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is "influencing" one of the criteria which defines a chatroom? I think
>>>>>>>not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't say that it was one of the *definitive* criteria
>>>>
>>>>Yes - why did you do so.
>>>
>>>I was noting that you had introduced the term. But as you've withdrawn
>>>the claim, we can move on.
>>>
>>>>And as I said, people certainly do use chatrooms and usenet in order to
>>>>influence others. Or do you not agree?
>>>
>>>Why does "influencing" matter as a criterion?
>>
>>I asked if people used usenet in order to influence people - and I would say
>>that they do.
>>
>>You then assumed wrongly that I was claiming that "influencing" was one of the
>>criteria which defined chatrooms. Goodness knows why you thought that.
>>
>
>He thought that because you intended that to be thought.

I am truly amazed at your ability to think you know what I intended to be
thought: and also on your need to comment on it.

You may need to hone your skills in that area - as I can assure you that I did
*not* intend that "influencing" was one of the criteria which *defined*
chatrooms. Of course it happens - however that does not *define* a criterion
for a chatroom whilst it may be a feature of just some posts in a chatroom and
also a usenet post,

If someone does *not* use a chat-room to influence others - does the chat-room
suddenly cease to be one? "Influence" is not a defining criterion for a
chatroom - and I did not claim it was.

There is a danger that if you think you *know* what another poster intends to
be thought - when the poster has not clearly stated what they want you to
think, you will jump to an incorrect conclusion.

You did.

You seem to think that this is a really, really important point as to what you
believe I think *defines* a chatroom.

I don't.

People write letters to newspapers in order to influence other readers. That
does not mean I think that a newspaper is a chatroom.

[Roland Perry]

In message <tb5rd9pfsviu6bbit...@4ax.com>, at 22:34:06 on

Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>I believe that people who use chat -rooms often use them - just like usenet -
>in order to influence the people they are discussing things with.
>A conversation - effectively a one to one in usenet - may be no different at
>all (perhaps a slight "real-time" difference) with the same conversation in a
>chat-room.
>
>Hence - the fact that the conversation is taking place in a chat-room rather
>than on usenet may be totally immaterial; I am surprised you cannot see this.

The biggest difference is that the children congregate in specific
places (examples of which have been listed in the reports I indicated),
which are known generically as "chatrooms" (and more recently "social
media"). They aren't on usenet.

Court orders are likely to be wider drafted than simply using the word
"chatroom", which as you suggest is probably a simplification by the
press.
--
Roland Perry

[Alex Heney]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:15:20 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

So why *did* you bring it up, since what we were discussing *was* the
definition of a chat-room, and what makes it different from usenet in
law (if anything).

>
>There is a danger that if you think you *know* what another poster intends to
>be thought - when the poster has not clearly stated what they want you to
>think, you will jump to an incorrect conclusion.
>
>You did.
>
>You seem to think that this is a really, really important point as to what you
>believe I think *defines* a chatroom.
>

I have no idea why you believe I might think that.

I know it has no relevance at all to the definition of a chat-room.

You *appeared* to be suggesting it did.

I (and it seems others) merely wondered why you thought it relevant -
without inferring anything about how important you felt it might be.

You may not have *intended* suggesting that, but it was certainly the
appearance given by your post.

>I don't.
>
>People write letters to newspapers in order to influence other readers. That
>does not mean I think that a newspaper is a chatroom.

And nobody has suggested otherwise.

But then until now, you hadn't mentioned the fact that newspapers
influence people in a discussion about the definition of a chat-room.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Meets quality standards: compiles without errors.

[Judith]

Yes Alex

[news]

On 18/01/2014 15:07, Judith wrote:

> There has been discussion elsewhere of the legal definition of a chat-room. I
> have since looked it up - but have not succeeded in finding one.

> The reason that I ask, is there a legal definition which differentiates between
> a chat-room and usenet?

> The online definition I found re chat-room says:
> "A site on a computer network where online conversations are held in real time
> by a number of users".

There you have it; Usenet is not real-time. It is propagated between
servers but can have substantial delays. IRC, on the other hand, is
designed to be real-time.