On 10 September 2011 01:15, Phil Nash <phn...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> But changing, and toughening up the TOS is sending the right message to the > wrong people. Any technically savvy journalist is going to realise the > weakness in doing that, and any committed troll/vandal/disrupter is going to > be able to subvert any technical measures, if only by moving his/her laptop > into a new WiFi Area and crating a new account. In a possibly-surprising result, really egregious stalkers don't conceal themselves; they tend to act unconcealed (down to address and phone number), in an attempt to say that you can't do anything about them. And this is largely true - it's surprisingly difficult to do anything about mere intimidation *before* it gets physical. Adding a term to the TOS may seem a decoration liable to abuse, but the purpose is to give something phrased to actually be legally useful. Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to second-guess the phrasing Geoff' used here. tl;dr this is actually thought out and for a reason, though great caution about it is understandable. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
