Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umd5.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!zben From: zben@umd5.UUCP Newsgroups: net.news,net.followup Subject: Re: Posting Correspondence Message-ID: <352@umd5.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Mar-85 00:01:58 EST Article-I.D.: umd5.352 Posted: Sat Mar 2 00:01:58 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 07:28:16 EST References: <257@unm-la.UUCP> <286@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <422@hercules.UUCP> Reply-To: zben@umd5.UUCP (Ben Cranston) Organization: U of Md, CSC, College Park, Md Lines: 60 Xref: watmath net.news:3215 net.followup:4582 Summary: Postmaster ethics Sometimes I wonder whether it is worth it... In article <422@hercules.UUCP> franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) writes: >In article <286@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >>Ordinarily, posting private correspondence is strictly verboten, unless the >>person who sent the message consents. There are exceptions to any taboo, >>though. If someone has been using the privacy of the correspondence as a >>tool to harass or conspire against another person, then the target of >>conspiracy or harassment is justified in revealing this by whatever means he >>or she deems appropriate, including publically revealing the evidence. If a >>person admits some illegal intent in a private message, the receiver (or >>anyone else who comes across it) is justified in revealing this as well. > Note two cases here, the RECIPIENT makes the message public, and the "anyone else who comes across it" makes it public. I think the respondent in high-flame mode, forgot the differance. I think the RECIPIENT has the moral right (subject to his respect for SENDER) to make the information public. If he respects SENDER, he will keep it private. If SENDER is using it against RECIPIENT then RECIPIENT has right of self defense. "Anyone else who comes across it" has moral responsability to keep it private. But, if there is ILLEGAL INTENT (see above, criminal intent) then "anyone" is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to report it to authorities. Don't get into the moral <-> legal conflict here, thats the whole story behind the sanctuary movement. Sometimes ya gotta choose. And live by the choice. > >Thank you, Big Brother. By the way, are you the system manager (or do you >have root privileges) for your machine? I want to make sure that I NEVER >send anything through your site. Private mail should be PRIVATE. By the >way, I am very happy that you have the "moral superiority" to make hard >choices about what messages to reveal. If a teacher at a high-school >somewhere makes a statement over the net that he is gay are you going to >write a letter to that state's Department of Education if it is illegal >for a gay to teach in that state? How do YOU make the decision as to what >is dangerous enough to report? WHO are YOU to make such a decision? > As I state above, its a legal requirement to report known crimes - otherwise you have committed THE CRIME (can be charged as an "accessory after the fact"). I feel that a legal requirement to do something can raise a self-defense release from a matter of "courtesy" like mail privacy... > >I used to think that most people were fair minded and (for the most part) >minded their own business. When people start advocating opening another >person's mail I'm not so sure. I hope Mr. Maroney rethinks his Gestapo/ >Stalinist tactics, before he happens upon a root password for his system. > (This sort of ad-homenium stuff belongs in net.flame where we can ignore it.) The keys are the distiction between "recipient" and "anybody", and the three different levels by which we coerce human behaviour: CUSTOMS, MORALS, and LAWS. -- Ben Cranston ...seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!zben zben@umd2.ARPA