Policies on IRC Logs

Thanks for your thoughts Roman. By private conversations I was referring to a two person private message session on IRC, not the public #tnp. By public or semi-public I was referring to #tnp.

Question three is important I think, because how does the admin team determine if it is a piece of value? That's really not the job of an admin, I don't think; it's the job of the Court, the Delegate, the SC, the RA, etc.
 
Since Ator People never got around to a deinitive proposal to resolve this issue, I've put together the following as a draft.

As I see it there are three different "types" of IRC logs, the logs of generally open chats on a channel; the log of chats involving an invited group, and the log of a private chat (i.e., a PM chat on IRC). So our policy needs to address all three "types."

This is what I've come up with. If you want to suggest changes, please use a blue=insert, red=delete method of marking in your reply post so we can keep up with the suggestions.
Appendix 4: IRC logs

In order to respect the privacy of our members and the fact that Internet Relay Chat channels are outside the purview of the forum moderation team, the moderation team has agreed on the following guidelines:

You may not post logs of public (i.e., generally visible to all personas on a channel and not intended as a private group chat) IRC conversations from a channel except as permitted by that channel’s posted rules, in a public area of the forum.

You may not post logs of limited access (i.e., generally visible to invited personas on a channel and intended as a private group chat) IRC conversations from a channel except as permitted by agreement of the participants to that conversation, in a public area of the forum.

You may not post logs of private IRC conversations in a public area of the forum without the permission of all participants to that conversation.

Members of the government, Administrators, and Moderators may post IRC logs (without prior permission) in secure areas of the forum in order to perform the duties of their office, for matters of regional security, or for moderation evidence.

All posted IRC logs will be edited to remove IP numbers, e-mail addresses, or other real life personal identifying information as provided by existing forum terms of use and terms of service policies.

If a log is posted and the IRC channel owner(s) or operator(s), or a participant makes an objection to a forum moderator, the log will be removed from the post, unless it clearly falls within the exceptions listed. If you believe you are being harassed by the posting of a IRC log, please file a report about the post containing the log in question to a moderator and the issue will be dealt with. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Looking at it now, it seems pretty sensible. "Members of the government, Administrators, and Moderators may post IRC logs (without prior permission) in secure areas of the forum in order to perform the duties of their office, for matters of regional security, or for moderation evidence." is still pretty vague, though.
 
Especially considering the standing opinion that free speech can be squashed on IRC if an OP decides that they are offended by said free speech.

I hold that publication of IRC chat logs are meaningless because those chats can be forged and any laws as such regarding publication are meaningless because they cannot extend to non-forum locations on the internet.

Hence, it is all a farce.
 
Eluvatar:
Looking at it now, it seems pretty sensible. "Members of the government, Administrators, and Moderators may post IRC logs (without prior permission) in secure areas of the forum in order to perform the duties of their office, for matters of regional security, or for moderation evidence." is still pretty vague, though.
Click to expand...
Eluvatar, that is taken from the similar sentence currently used for the personal messages appendix (Appendix 3) to the Board rules, and I'm intending that deliberately.

Roman, from what I've seen, usually there's more than one person with copies of IRC logs, and if someone contends a forgery or out of context editing that can be raised and forum moderation can look into the question. And all logs would have to be edited to remove IP information, anyhow.
 
I'm curious if this policy should be expanded upon to include other chat options, such as MSN or email?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone use MSN logs here in years, and I've never seen anyone quote e-mails other than the web mail sent through the forums (and those would be no different than personal messages.)

I'm curious to know why the Root Admin is suddenly reversing their previous ruling, the one which spawned this very thread.
Click to expand...

It is not a reversal, it is following through on what I felt when this issue came up, which was we really did not have a policy on the posting on IRC logs, and that we needed one.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
It is not a reversal
Click to expand...
new policy:
You may not post logs of private IRC conversations in a public area of the forum without the permission of all participants to that conversation.
Click to expand...
Grosseschnauzer:
We've never had an official forum policy specifically as to IRC logs, just personal messages. There used to be such a limitation posted at the IRC channel #tnp, and that was enforced on the official TNP forums, but i do not see any evidence that such a limitation is current policy there.
As I recall, there was such a rule applied under a former Constitution, that was stated as the policy of Cabinet meetings held on offshoots of #tnp, and that since the chats were considered private unless excepted by a Cabinet vote, they could not be made public. Edited transcripts of those logs removing portions conducted in private by a vote of the Cabinet members present were then posted.
Since that era, there has been a major legal change, the freedom of information/public records provision, which makes anything confidential having to do with the government releasable. The current Delegate appears to have the legal power to declassify and publish previously confidential information.
That is what appears to have happened here. Among other things, I do not know on what IRC channel these logs were created, and if they were not #tnp, then unless the channel involved had a specific nonreproduction policy posted, then it would be unlikely that they are prohibited from being posted here. Second, there is a bias now in favor of using IRC for government business, and Blue Wolf, as Delegate, routinely use IRC to take actions that were not documented anywhere else. This practice has apparently continued under the current Delegate. As a result, there is now a presumption that IRC logs are no longer "private" and therefore Appendix 3 does not implicitly apply to them. In addition, the current rules of evidence of the court assumes that IRC can be used to record witness testimony before trial that then can be edited by a justice for testimony found to not be admissible with the balance posted at trial.
If there is a desire to adopt a formal forum policy on the matter, then that can certainly be done, but given the shift in practices as to the use of IRC for regional governmental business by both Blue Wolf and Eluvatar, and the court rules on the use of IRC logs, I cannot say that logs can any longer be treated as "personal messages" and thus, private communications, unless there is clear evidence in the original logs to the contrary, whether the log originated on #tnp or elsewhere
Click to expand...

You seem to be at odd with your former self.
 
Blue Wolf, I also said that we needed a specific policy on IRC logs and that the PM policy as adopted some years ago did not cover IRC logs.

You're forgetting the purpose of raising the issue was to get clarity on a policy; never said it would or wouldn't end up being any particular policy.
 
So basically having a policy didn't fit your needs at the time, so you allowed the ugly business that stated this very thread to continue unabated until such time you felt the matter had blown over? Oh good, glad we clarified that. Can we expect more Admin decisions to be based on personal favoritism in the future?
 
No. Ator had picked up the ball, and I was letting him deal with it.

He never got around to drafting anything, and I haven't had time to go back to it until now. If you rather not have mod privileges as a holder of an office, you don't have to keep it.
 
If you rather not have mod privileges as a holder of an office, you don't have to keep it.
Click to expand...

So that last line has nothing to do with anything.

No. Ator had picked up the ball, and I was letting him deal with it.
Click to expand...

So you're actually going to listen to the other Admins this time. eh? That's funny, because last time Flem basically objected to your ruling in the strongest possible terms and you shot him down without any consideration.
 
Blue Wolf, you're verging on spamming at this point, as it really isn't relevant.

Any other actual contributions or suggestions from others?

If there aren't soon, then I will open a vote of the forum moderation team to finalize this policy in the Mod HQ area.
 
It must be nice to be Root Admin and have the "privilege" of labeling any opinion you don't want hear as Spam.

No, I have nothing further to add, any further discussion with you on this topic would obviously be pointless.
 
Blue Wolf, the whole thing from you has been irrelevant. Had nothing to do with the draft that's posted, and therefore, quite logically, is not advancing a settlement on the issue of IRC logs.
 
I am pointing out your hypocritical and contradictory ruling from a few months ago that stands in direct conflict with the Draft you have presented. This seems rather on topic. Beyond that note, does this mean that the log Elu posted without permission is now in violation of this Draft? From what I read, that seems to be the case.

If it isn't the case I'd like to know, in painful detail, why not.
 
There was no actual policy on IRC logs. Elu and I have both gone through the threads from the time Appendix 3 was adopted and verified that Hersfold adopted a final Appendix 3 that excluded any mention of IRC logs. So, this is a new policy that, by its nature is not retroactive. The fact that some people assumed IRC logs were covered because of drafts that weren't actually adopted as forum policy doesn't make IRC logs included. Which is what I said at the time.

And I'm not going to repeat myself further. At this point, you are spamming this thread. Consider this a caution for moderation purposes.
 
Well I guess I can offer a little input.

Grosseschnauzer:
As I see it there are three different "types" of IRC logs, the logs of generally open chats on a channel; the log of chats involving an invited group, and the log of a private chat (i.e., a PM chat on IRC). So our policy needs to address all three "types."
Click to expand...
Yeah I can agree with that. This doesn't say anything about MSN or other IM services, and it really doesn't need to, I guess.

You may not post logs of public (i.e., generally visible to all personas on a channel and not intended as a private group chat) IRC conversations from a channel except as permitted by that channel’s posted rules, in a public area of the forum.
Click to expand...
No. If the location of the chat is in a public location where any passer-by can come in and listen / post (which TNP IRC is... heck, it's located atop the WFE and a link is here in the forums), it can and should most definitely be posted. Most regions agree with this, public logs don't suddenly become private on public forums, that's ridiculous. Keep what's public, public and what's private, private.

You may not post logs of limited access (i.e., generally visible to invited personas on a channel and intended as a private group chat) IRC conversations from a channel except as permitted by agreement of the participants to that conversation, in a public area of the forum.

You may not post logs of private IRC conversations in a public area of the forum without the permission of all participants to that conversation.
Click to expand...
Why is 'all' omitted from the first clause in the above? As far as I'm concerned, if it's a private group, they can set their own permissions. Like, if a political party wanted to include in their statement that meeting notes will be published publicly or something like that. Other than that, okay.

Members of the government, Administrators, and Moderators may post IRC logs (without prior permission) in secure areas of the forum in order to perform the duties of their office, for matters of regional security, or for moderation evidence.
Click to expand...
What is designated as a "secure area"?

If a log is posted and the IRC channel owner(s) or operator(s), or a participant makes an objection to a forum moderator, the log will be removed from the post, unless it clearly falls within the exceptions listed. If you believe you are being harassed by the posting of a IRC log, please file a report about the post containing the log in question to a moderator and the issue will be dealt with.
Click to expand...
...meanwhile the damage has already been done to said participant(s) who didn't want the private logs to be published publicly. It could take a while for action to be done on this, too, negating any type of quick fix here. What sort of punishment is in order for violators of those who post private logs publically?
 
No. If the location of the chat is in a public location where any passer-by can come in and listen / post (which TNP IRC is... heck, it's located atop the WFE and a link is here in the forums), it can and should most definitely be posted. Most regions agree with this, public logs don't suddenly become private on public forums, that's ridiculous. Keep what's public, public and what's private, private.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, unless the chatroom actually disallows posting of logs (like TNP did until this week).
 
No. If the location of the chat is in a public location where any passer-by can come in and listen / post (which TNP IRC is... heck, it's located atop the WFE and a link is here in the forums), it can and should most definitely be posted. Most regions agree with this, public logs don't suddenly become private on public forums, that's ridiculous. Keep what's public, public and what's private, private.
Click to expand...

Actually not. Before i post on IRC I can look at the channel list and see who is listening to what I say. Several times that has affected what I have posted. There was, of course, always the risk that someone else would be told about what was said, but that often did not happen.

Now, of course, I must assume that any post of mine may be quoted out of context and without check here on this forum. We have already seen this happen. The poster misunderstood the point of one of my posts and quoted it here on the forum rather than checking it out with me.

already this is seriously affecting how I post on IRC. I now assume that anything i say will be taken down and may be used in evidence.
 
Todd McCloud:
Well I guess I can offer a little input.

Grosseschnauzer:
As I see it there are three different "types" of IRC logs, the logs of generally open chats on a channel; the log of chats involving an invited group, and the log of a private chat (i.e., a PM chat on IRC). So our policy needs to address all three "types."
Click to expand...
Yeah I can agree with that. This doesn't say anything about MSN or other IM services, and it really doesn't need to, I guess.

You may not post logs of public (i.e., generally visible to all personas on a channel and not intended as a private group chat) IRC conversations from a channel except as permitted by that channel’s posted rules, in a public area of the forum.
Click to expand...
No. If the location of the chat is in a public location where any passer-by can come in and listen / post (which TNP IRC is... heck, it's located atop the WFE and a link is here in the forums), it can and should most definitely be posted. Most regions agree with this, public logs don't suddenly become private on public forums, that's ridiculous. Keep what's public, public and what's private, private.
Click to expand...
Please re-read the draft sentence. The posting rules will be determined by that channel's policy. If the channel restricts re-posting that applies. If the channel permits posting, then it may be posted in a public area of the forum. Don't assume that #tnp is the only channel that is being covered by this statement; we're not going to assume that all channels are public and can be freely posted. It's much easier to check what a specific channel's posted policy is and follow that before you post it on these forums in a public area. If you want to require #tnp or any other channel to be public, then take that to the channel involved or to the government, It is not this forum's role to make that determination. Instead, this will follow an approach that will take how an IRC channel classifies itself as the factor to determine how the forums will treat posting of their logs.

You may not post logs of limited access (i.e., generally visible to invited personas on a channel and intended as a private group chat) IRC conversations from a channel except as permitted by agreement of the participants to that conversation, in a public area of the forum.

You may not post logs of private IRC conversations in a public area of the forum without the permission of all participants to that conversation.
Click to expand...
Why is 'all' omitted from the first clause in the above? As far as I'm concerned, if it's a private group, they can set their own permissions. Like, if a political party wanted to include in their statement that meeting notes will be published publicly or something like that. Other than that, okay.

Members of the government, Administrators, and Moderators may post IRC logs (without prior permission) in secure areas of the forum in order to perform the duties of their office, for matters of regional security, or for moderation evidence.
Click to expand...
What is designated as a "secure area"?
Click to expand...
The exact same way we use it in Appendix 3 on personal messages. Generally those are areas of the forums which are visible to specific user groups as private discussion areas, and not most or all user groups at these forums. The forum moderation team, the R.A., the S.C., the Court, the Co5, the NPA, and the Diplomatic Corps all have their own private areas.

If a log is posted and the IRC channel owner(s) or operator(s), or a participant makes an objection to a forum moderator, the log will be removed from the post, unless it clearly falls within the exceptions listed. If you believe you are being harassed by the posting of a IRC log, please file a report about the post containing the log in question to a moderator and the issue will be dealt with.
Click to expand...
...meanwhile the damage has already been done to said participant(s) who didn't want the private logs to be published publicly. It could take a while for action to be done on this, too, negating any type of quick fix here. What sort of punishment is in order for violators of those who post private logs publically?
Click to expand...
First, the posting of a log in a private area is not prevented and second, if the posting is covered by one of the stated exceptions ("Members of the government, Administrators, and Moderators may post IRC logs (without prior permission) in secure areas of the forum in order to perform the duties of their office, for matters of regional security, or for moderation evidence."), then those are not violations of this policy.
We do not have, and have not had a standard penalty. That will depend on the specifics of the situation. For example, if a defendant in a court case objects to a IRC log being used to prove that they have violated TNP law; their objection will not take the posted log out of the exception for members of the government. In the recent matter involving the permanent ban of Dromund Kaas, we were provided quotes by the source as to certain statements they made that we do not know the origin of; which is why that material was not directly quoted. That is moderation evidence, though, and would likewise be permitted posting in a secure area. We've has only a handful of issues in the past five or so years over the P.M. policy and there's no evidence that this will be an actual issue any more frequently. We have always taken these questions on a case by case basis, and we really don't have enough information to generate a one-size-fits-all penalty. It makes better sense to address any penalties when we get an actual violation so we can place the question in a real context.
 
I've added a sentence to make clear than IP numbers, email addresses and other real life personal identifying information are to be edited out of posted IRC chats. This added sentence is meant to assure that the standing practice of removing such information from IRC logs remains unchanged.

I've posted a copy of this to the private area of the forum moderation team so it can get one last chance for any last minute changes and go to a formal vote of that group.
 
What about editing the wording to make it friendlier to zetaboards?

EDIT: I'm not actually going to post logs, just asking hypothetically about the policy.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I've added a sentence to make clear than IP numbers, email addresses and other real life personal identifying information are to be edited out of posted IRC chats. This added sentence is meant to assure that the standing practice of removing such information from IRC logs remains unchanged.

I've posted a copy of this to the private area of the forum moderation team so it can get one last chance for any last minute changes and go to a formal vote of that group.
Click to expand...
Is there going to be a published policy or law about this?
 
There will be a new appendix added to the forum rules. That will be the published policy.

Elu has asked for one additional change, and I'm waiting to see what he wants that change to read related to posting of IRC logs.

I will be keeping on top of this and as soon as the draft has been accepted a final published version will be posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top