Policies on IRC Logs

Ator People

Ator People

TNPer
RE: this post of the IRC log between Blue Wolf and Hileville, and the broader topic of posting public and/or private IRC conversations

I think we ought to discuss whether there should be a policy on this so that the administration can all be on the same page.

Personally, I don't feel comfortable with allowing members to publicly post a conversation that was intended to be private. Up until now, my understanding is that the official policy has applied only to private messages [on this forum]. But I think the spirit of that policy warrants a discussion on whether that should be extended to any private conversation, for example, telegrams or private IRC.

I suppose it's similar to phone recording laws here in the US. Do we go with one-party notification or all-party notification?

I'd be willing to move this to moderator discussion if you guys think their input would be helpful as well.

EDIT:

Having caught up on some of the discussions, I think we should also decide what constitutes a private area: i.e., the private RA forum vs. an intelligence forum.
 
I have no problem coming up with a way to address it, but as was the case with personal messages, we have to recognize that the government is going to have reasons to post IRC chats, and very rarely will forum administration have a reason to in the context of the Terms of Service or Terms of Use policies.
The environment has changed; and while we're the official regional forums, we have no control or input on the IRC channels, and from what I've been able to tell, there have been changes on the topic at that end.
It does present issue for us when we're asked to remask an account or set up or make changes in mask permissions or subforum access. There have always been areas where not everyone can see the threads or their content. Some of the included groups can be larger than others, but when they're given a private area, it means just that. Thus, the private halls for the R.A. are in fact limited to the R.A. membership, regardless of masking. That is a private area. The Court, the Cabinet (as the Council of Five) and the Security Council also have private areas.....as does the NPA. So under the list of exceptions those areas are the likely ones where such posting will be possible under exceptions. And government being what it is, there will be time where IRC logs may need to be posted without the consent of all parties.
Some of this I suspect we can handle as forum administration. Some of this the owners of IRC channels are going to have to deal with, and the government is going to have to come up with a clearer policy that currently exists in the Legal Code. So those are the paramters we have to deal with. What the specifics should be,,,,ah, that is the rub.
 
Ator, this may be better if we moved this to the overall Forum Operations area as a thread (and of that isn't a normal forum, then to the public moderation area so others can join in the discussion.
 
Ator hasn't responded, so I'm moving this to the main Forum Operations area.

This thread is now for discussion specifically about a new Appendix to forum policies on posting of IRC logs. Proposals of text are welcome.
 
I had tried to legislate IRC in TNP for months and people opposed it. Now actually people may reconsider...
 
Yeah, appointing Ministers on #TNP has nothing to do with using your position to obtain private logs and posting them in a public forum. Anyone who thinks the two are connected are either trying to cause shit or an idiot.
 
I have no problem with IRC logs being posted on the forums but there need to be a good reason why. May it be for evidence or any good use. Or maybe we need to ask an official before posting them on the forums.
 
There was no good reason for this beyond "it was interesting". Even Eluvatar admitted I pose no security risk at this time and these logs were not released in the interest of Regional Security.
 
Blue Wolf II:
There was no good reason for this beyond "it was interesting". Even Eluvatar admitted I pose no security risk at this time and these logs were not released in the interest of Regional Security.
Click to expand...
That's simply not true. I have consistently been saying that I believe it was necessary for regional security that this information be released. And you do still have significant endorsements so you do yet present a practical risk.
 
The phrase you used was not "Regional Security" but rather "Public Interest". The two are not the same.

If you feel I am currently a threat, come out with a public statement like the one the Dog made right before I was elected delegate.
 
Blue Wolf, click on the "rules" link in the maskhead at the top and it will take you to a web page that contains all of the appendicies to forum policies that have been adopted; the one on personal messages in Appendix 3: Personal Messages
 
"Public Interest" is the term used by Flemingovia in his discussion of the matter, Blue Wolf. I did not introduce the word into the discussion.

And Regional Security matters are a subset of Public Interest.
 
Dog:
Blue Wolf, click on the "rules" link in the maskhead at the top and it will take you to a web page that contains all of the appendicies to forum policies that have been adopted; the one on personal messages in Appendix 3: Personal Messages
Click to expand...
Yes, the one that regards forum PMs, Dog, not IRC PMs.

<Blue_Wolf>: What forums did you send that PM to Elu by?
<Hileville>: It was on IRC. Nothing was posted on TSP's forums about it.
<Blue_Wolf>: You gave him that message via IRC?
<Blue_Wolf>: SO that thing he quoted was totally from IRC? Not via a PM?
<Hileville>: Yes.
<Blue_Wolf>: HEH.
<Blue_Wolf>: He's in violation of the admin policy.
<Blue_Wolf>: Only PMs from the forums can be made public in the manner he is citing
<Blue_Wolf>: Its not going to matter, of course. the Dog will come on and make some long winded post about how the moon is in the half full position and mars has just completed a full rotation and therefore fuck the rules.
<Hileville>: lol
<Blue_Wolf>: Still, maybe at least someone will see through the bullshit
<Hileville>: They are forum rules that Grosse can change at will. It isn't adopted into law.
<Blue_Wolf>: And that would be the bullshit
<Blue_Wolf>: He uses his position to influence political matters and then screams to high hell that no one can make laws regulating the Admins
<Hileville>: I agree.
<Blue_Wolf>: and that's why he's the Dog.
Click to expand...
 
Blue Wolf II:
Yes, the one that regards forum PMs, Dog, not IRC PMs.
Click to expand...
I believe Grosse was pointing you to these rules in a response to your question:

Blue Wolf II:
What about PM's on the forums between members?
Click to expand...

--------------

ADMIN NOTE: I think this threat is getting off topic. Whether Elu was right or wrong to post the log isn't the question I'm asking. I'm seeking to formulate a clear admin policy on all private conversations, IRC or forum PMs or other forms of communication. I'm asking for everyone's input on this; specifically these five issues:

1. Should we allow users to post private conversations without all the parties' consent?
2. Should we allow users to post public or semi-public (i.e., public #tnp) conversations without all the parties' consent?
3. If yes, should we restrict either of those postings to secured areas?
4. What constitutes a secure area?
5. Should the above policies apply to all forms of private conversations, including those known or hereafter devised, or should we restrict them to IRC, forum private messages, etc.?


The BW log posted is relevant background information for this discussion, but ultimately it goes beyond that one case. If we want to talk about the specifics of this particular case, then I suggest that move to another thread. But can we please stay on the topic of discussing possible forum policies?
 
There's one other aspect -- which is clear from the Appendix 3 text; whether those exceptions should be extended to IRC logs, or modified?
 
Blue Wolf II:
<Hileville>: They are forum rules that Grosse can change at will. It isn't adopted into law.
Click to expand...
No. It has long been the practice that forum rules are adopted by a consensus of the forum moderators, including those who are moderators by virtue of being govt officials.

Grosseschnauzer has not adopted, changed, or removed any rules unilaterally and I don't think he intends to.

His reinterpretation of the applicability of Appendix 3 does seem rather radical, but I don't think it will has been or will be implemented in practice.

If Grosseschnauzer were to start unilaterally changing forum rules, then I do think the region would be well advised to consider moving forums, or asking Hersfold to return. I don't expect that to happen, however.
 
If IRC is going to be the medium for directing forum activities for Admin and Global Mods even when they're not on IRC to see them, then we're going to need to set up something that more clearly applies to IRC logs being quoted on the forums or in PMs.
Period.
Elu and I have just spent a good bit of time to locate the three actually four threads involved that lead to the adoption of Appendix 3
They are:
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/631063/1/?x=25
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/630542/2/?x=25
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/630563/1/?x=25
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/630925/1/?x=25

We'lll have to move them so everyone who can see this thread can see them, but I'll get to that tomorrow. Finding them was hard enough.
 
There's also a difficulty in that one of them is a poll and I can't figure out how to disable voting in it. >_<
 
I've tried closing the thread; andI think if people can only view/see that thread in particular, then they might not get to play with the vote option.
 
Elu, since you kept some admin powers, you are able to do that.

As to the threads themselves, the only thing I can do when I get a chance is to set up a temporary folder sent to "red/view" for everyone and that should do it. But not tonight (my time, it's well past my bedtime.)
 
Grosseschnauzer:
If IRC is going to be the medium for directing forum activities for Admin and Global Mods even when they're not on IRC to see them, then we're going to need to set up something that more clearly applies to IRC logs being quoted on the forums or in PMs.
Period.
Elu and I have just spent a good bit of time to locate the three actually four threads involved that lead to the adoption of Appendix 3
They are:
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/631063/1/?x=25
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/630542/2/?x=25
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/630563/1/?x=25
http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/630925/1/?x=25

We'lll have to move them so everyone who can see this thread can see them, but I'll get to that tomorrow. Finding them was hard enough.
Click to expand...
These four threads are now located in a view/read only subarea of this forum area, so everyone can review them in developing a new appendix to cover IRC logs.
 
I think Grosse has changed things. Saying he has not changed rules, just "radically reinterpreted" them is sophistry.
 
Flem, have you even bothered to re-read the linked threads?

You will see that while the idea of including the IRC logs was discussed for quite a while, Hersfold decided in the end to only adopt a rule as to personal messages.

IRC logs were never included in the appendix as adopted by Hersfold; and I did not change anything. The handling of IRC logs continued to be an issue after the appendix was adopted, and I haven't changed anything from what was written. If your understanding was that the final version included IRC logs, where in those four threads is that shown to be the case?

One thing I do not have access to is PMs from that period, especially Hersfold's, since he deleted his messages when he retired. You keep insisting I've changed something when I haven't, but I will not be held to an assumption that others erroneously made. That is why Elu and I spent time the other night (both of us) to find all of the relevant threads from that period. The one thing I can't fill in the blanks on is what prompted the change in the two month wait (because of elections at the time) before the final version was posted publicly.

What we need is a draft to work on; it'll be about 10 days before I will have any time to do it. Unless one of you want to write an essay on the constitutional rights of corporations and business entities in the aftermath of Citizens United and another case decided a week ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. And then a second short discussion on the Affordable Care Act's implementation in Georgia and how it affects businesses that have their own medical plan for employees.

Sound like a fair trade?
 
I think we still seem to be missing the fact that an IRC chat can be a "private message" (much like MSN, AIM, etc, etc) not just chatting in a public channel. Those are clearly different things.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Flem, have you even bothered to re-read the linked threads?

You will see that while the idea of including the IRC logs was discussed for quite a while, Hersfold decided in the end to only adopt a rule as to personal messages.
Click to expand...
I think the difference between us is that you and Eluvatar seem to think that anything can be justified if you can scurry around and find precedent or ruling that does not prohibit it.

for myself (and I think GBM if I understand her posts correctly) the public posting of private conversations is simply appalling bad manners, and discussions from several years ago does not make it any less so. It diminishes us as a region, and diminishes our reputation among other regions.

IF it is allowable, it should only be in the most dire situations of regional danger. I do not think anyone would say we are in that at the moment. Beyond that it is just rude, rude, rude to post up private conversations without consent.

My disappointment is that I thought better of Eluvatar, and I thought better of TNP, and I thought better of the administration policy on this forum*.


*and before anyone points out the obvious, just becuase I am an administrator it does not mean that I set administration policy.
 
I always found it a bit odd that although we have a team of Admins, only one of them decides the policy for the forums and that one person isn't even the original founder of the boards themselves.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I always found it a bit odd that although we have a team of Admins, only one of them decides the policy for the forums and that one person isn't even the original founder of the boards themselves.
Click to expand...
Oh, Grosseschnauzer sometimes asks our opinions. It is Flemingovianism in action.
 
I think that Grosseschnauzer is, perhaps accidentally, misrepresenting the situation with IRC logs.

If one reads the conversations, there was an accepted view among most that posting private IRC logs was already (largely) prohibited.

It is my belief that this particular log definitely fell in a category of things the public needs to know, however.
 
Eluvatar:
I think that Grosseschnauzer is, perhaps accidentally, misrepresenting the situation with IRC logs.
Click to expand...
Very diplomatically put. well done. The phrase we prefer to use in the UK is "He has been economical with the verite."
 
1. Should we allow users to post private conversations without all the parties' consent?

No, unless that conversation occurred in a public forum such as #TNP or other regional chat, in which case it would be a public conversation conducted where no reasonable expectation of privacy (like on #TNP).

2. Should we allow users to post public or semi-public (i.e., public #tnp) conversations without all the parties' consent?

There would have to be a definition of 'semi-public' and 'public'. Again, a question of 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. A private chat between two people on IRC, not meant or intended to be viewed by others should be sacrosanct or inadmissible as 'evidence' unless all parties are in agreement.

3. If yes, should we restrict either of those postings to secured areas?

That would depend upon how the information was gathered and if it was of legitimate intelligence value or a matter for private deliberation in terms of intelligence or military action. IOW, the legitimacy or ethical nature of how that information was obtained.

4. What constitutes a secure area?

Secure area: Closed/Private sections of the forum or elsewhere not accessible to anyone not permitted to see those sections of a given forum.

5. Should the above policies apply to all forms of private conversations, including those known or hereafter devised, or should we restrict them to IRC, forum private messages, etc.?

Forum PM's are a sticky issue because they can be forwarded to others, hence, there is an inherent lack of reasonable expectation of privacy. However - if one party states in a PM that the exchange is to be absolutely confidential, then forwarding of the PM exchange would violate an agreed upon reasonable expectation of privacy.

We could apply this to IRC, also. Open IRC channels (like #tnp for example) are public forums and therefore have no real or implied reasonable expectation of privacy.

Private channels (those conversations that are between two individuals not on a public IRC channel or on invite only channels) do imply a reasonable expectation of privacy and that unless all involved give permission, the privacy of those conversations should remain private.


It's actually a simple test to determine a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' as a matter of principle. Enshrining it in the legal code or Constitution isn't that difficult.

That said, could the TNP Court, under certain circumstances not yet established by legal code, per se, order certain IRC logs 'siezed' as evidence for legal proceedings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top