Criminal code amendment bill.
- Thread starter Abacathea
- Start date
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
uh.
It wasn't posted publicly I don't think.
It wasn't posted publicly I don't think.
- Discord
- COE#7110
Until now...irony.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
So does this bill mean that forum admins do not have to inform members that they may be proxying when they are trying to register for the RA/NPA? Or is this something completely different altogether?
Abacathea
TNPer
That would be something different as there was no stipulation preventing a member from being told in the previous version nor is there in this one. It just ensures that if under the criminal code it is detected that someone is proxying, that the relevant authorities are contacted still regarding this, but in private for the purposes of investigation.Lord Nwahs:
- Discord
- COE#7110
In particular, who/how many had access to the information that you think should not have? How would this bill change that?
Kiwi
TNPer
I like Lord Ravenclaw but I have to say I think that particular outburst was uncalled for and I also like you Aba but I don't think this warrants legislation.
The message in question was posted in a cabinet-only section of the forum. This is by no means a "public" area.
I think Eluvatar responded exactly as he should given the issue at hand.
The message in question was posted in a cabinet-only section of the forum. This is by no means a "public" area.
I think Eluvatar responded exactly as he should given the issue at hand.
Two issues:
1) Continued use of the term "Government" is un-ideal, as the Constibillocode is imprecise as to that word's meaning (executive branch? All three branches?). The implication since this is paired with the term "Court" is that this would refer to the Executive alone - since if it meant all three branches, the Court would already be included. This leads to the next problem:
2) This would interfere significantly with the RA application process, as it would prohibit the admin team from informing the Speaker's office that a particular applicant was using a proxy and therefore needed to be denied. Given that the question of proxying is in fact something impossible to keep confidential in that process - the other reasons for denying an applicant are fully verifiable by the public - this would potentially mean that the admin team would not be allowed to fail applicants, as any denial would risk publicly exposing their proxying.
I don't know anything about the situation which triggered this proposal, but for the moment, I don't support it.
1) Continued use of the term "Government" is un-ideal, as the Constibillocode is imprecise as to that word's meaning (executive branch? All three branches?). The implication since this is paired with the term "Court" is that this would refer to the Executive alone - since if it meant all three branches, the Court would already be included. This leads to the next problem:
2) This would interfere significantly with the RA application process, as it would prohibit the admin team from informing the Speaker's office that a particular applicant was using a proxy and therefore needed to be denied. Given that the question of proxying is in fact something impossible to keep confidential in that process - the other reasons for denying an applicant are fully verifiable by the public - this would potentially mean that the admin team would not be allowed to fail applicants, as any denial would risk publicly exposing their proxying.
I don't know anything about the situation which triggered this proposal, but for the moment, I don't support it.
More tinkering? Why is the first instinct in this region always to add more barnacles to the hull of the constitution?
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
It's called "Tradition!". You know that.flemingovia:
The term 'Proxy Server' is too broad of a definition.
The law should read: "Any deliberate attempt to render a forum user 'anonymous' with the intent to create multiple identities or otherwise deliberately deceive forum administration as to the true identity of said forum user, is hereby prohibited".
Of course, the unintended side-effect of the existing law(s) or this proposed legal modification is that it renders either the Forum Administration subservient to the Government or the Government subservient to the Forum Administration. Or both.
Oddly enough, or not, the problem here is that no one takes the time to examine the unforeseen consequences of laws, etc., which, ironically, is why we call them unforeseen consequences.*
*Yes, I am an uppity arse.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
As long as I've been involved with the moderation of these forums (that's about 8 years now), it has been the policy of forum administration here that the use of proxy servers *with certain specific exceptions* was not permitted. The first legislation in TNP on the subject date back to about 2005 or 2006, when the use of proxy anonymizers in NS first became noticed.
From a forum administration perspective, the government is free to allow or not allow their use for government purposes. From that same perspective, however, forum administration has taken the view that such use poses a security threat to the forum community, which is our responsibility, and we are permitted under the constitution to so act to keep the forums secure.
I would point out to Roman that as best as I can recall, he was the primary author of the original proxy server legislation. We had to originally enact it as two changes, one being a straight out prohibition, and the other in connection with applications to join the R.A. (and its predecessor body prior to the Constitutional Convention.)
The current system allows forum admin to address the issue for forum security purposes (to determine if there is a legitimate RL reason for such use) and to notify the Speaker where an issue is identified as to an applicant to the R.A.
I'm not sure any case was made for any legislative change by this proposal and I think any attempt to make such changes should be done in formal consultation with all forum admin who are the only ones who can identify such use.
From a forum administration perspective, the government is free to allow or not allow their use for government purposes. From that same perspective, however, forum administration has taken the view that such use poses a security threat to the forum community, which is our responsibility, and we are permitted under the constitution to so act to keep the forums secure.
I would point out to Roman that as best as I can recall, he was the primary author of the original proxy server legislation. We had to originally enact it as two changes, one being a straight out prohibition, and the other in connection with applications to join the R.A. (and its predecessor body prior to the Constitutional Convention.)
The current system allows forum admin to address the issue for forum security purposes (to determine if there is a legitimate RL reason for such use) and to notify the Speaker where an issue is identified as to an applicant to the R.A.
I'm not sure any case was made for any legislative change by this proposal and I think any attempt to make such changes should be done in formal consultation with all forum admin who are the only ones who can identify such use.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
OK, now I remember the original legislation. 
I agree that the input of the Forum Administration is a good request to make as this is largely a technical issue by nature.
IIRC, the original issue that brought this to the fore way back when, were accounts created via an anonymous proxy server with the intent to create multiple identities on the forum (which would, in turn, allow someone to vote multiple times).
The deception issue is the real question. If someone needed for one legitimate reason or another to sign onto the board via server that is essentially a proxy server there wouldn't be a deception involved. That said, anonymizing proxy servers are a "no-no" as per the rules for obvious reasons. If there is a legitimate reason to use a proxy server that provides anonymity (intentionally or otherwise) needs to be used, the user should inform forum administration for approval.
If a known user signs in via a proxy server, it can generally be assumed that the user is not doing anything untowardly because it can be generally assumed that only the real user of an account would have the password of that account. This, by the way, may also be considered as prima facia evidence in prohibiting proxy servers altogether because were I a hacker who somehow got a user password, I would use a proxy server to cover unlawful access to cover my tracks.
And this is why the original legislation absolutely prohibited proxy servers.
I agree that the input of the Forum Administration is a good request to make as this is largely a technical issue by nature.
IIRC, the original issue that brought this to the fore way back when, were accounts created via an anonymous proxy server with the intent to create multiple identities on the forum (which would, in turn, allow someone to vote multiple times).
The deception issue is the real question. If someone needed for one legitimate reason or another to sign onto the board via server that is essentially a proxy server there wouldn't be a deception involved. That said, anonymizing proxy servers are a "no-no" as per the rules for obvious reasons. If there is a legitimate reason to use a proxy server that provides anonymity (intentionally or otherwise) needs to be used, the user should inform forum administration for approval.
If a known user signs in via a proxy server, it can generally be assumed that the user is not doing anything untowardly because it can be generally assumed that only the real user of an account would have the password of that account. This, by the way, may also be considered as prima facia evidence in prohibiting proxy servers altogether because were I a hacker who somehow got a user password, I would use a proxy server to cover unlawful access to cover my tracks.
And this is why the original legislation absolutely prohibited proxy servers.