Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
The telling part of the GWU policy is: This provision explicitly prohibits any behavior that is intended to or has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment because of an individual's sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, pregnancy, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors protected by law. It shows that sexual harassment in the workplace is one of their big concerns. And rightly so. Awards have been as large as $30 Million. And it embarasses the institution, which creates all sorts of havoc by driving people and even financial donors away. The standard of proof in civil law is lower than that in criminal. And note that the material need only be harassing, offensive, or improper, rather than obscene. To convert this into a workplace sexual harassment issue only requires that an employee find the material on GW facilities and find it offensive. The U. would err on the side of caution given the potential danger. If the "Hot Babe" package was being distributed from their facilities, they'd pull the plug. In order to appear to be proactive regarding harassing, offensive, or improper material, they'd take action against the person involved. Thanks Bruce Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: And you have evidence that the inclusion of such an image in a bulk archive, which is present in a merely passive manner, runs afoul of this provision? It seems to me that a hostile workplace is not created by the presence of an archive or a single image in that archive. But if you have a legal opinion to offer on this question, I would be glad to hear it. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 21:42 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 8. Obscenity and Harassment: GW computing systems and services may not be used in an obscene, harassing or otherwise improper manner. GW computing systems and services shall not be used in a manner that discriminates against another individual on any basis protected by federal or local law. This provision explicitly prohibits any behavior that is intended to or has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment because of an individual's sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, pregnancy, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors protected by law. And you have evidence that the inclusion of such an image in a bulk archive, which is present in a merely passive manner, runs afoul of this provision? It seems to me that a hostile workplace is not created by the presence of an archive or a single image in that archive. But if you have a legal opinion to offer on this question, I would be glad to hear it. A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea... -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. It's springtime for Hitler, and Germany... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It shows that sexual harassment in the workplace is one of their big concerns. And rightly so. Awards have been as large as $30 Million. And it embarasses the institution, which creates all sorts of havoc by driving people and even financial donors away. Yes, but the question is what is the *environment*; it is not clear that idle bits on a disk change the *environment*. Good grief, this is one of the murkiest areas of American law, and you think that anyone should be convinced of your FUD this way? I'm hardly impressed. If you really believe this is a concern, or others do, you are welcome to get competent legal advice, though at this point I would be inclined to doubt any advice from a lawyer you selected. Still, your amateur's guess at what would or would not run afoul of this extremely complex area of law is no help whatsoever. The U. would err on the side of caution given the potential danger. This is hardly true; most American universities (lamentably not all) for example have decided that censoring students is not in their job description, and that university employees cannot claim a hostile working environment on the basis of what students have said or done. Likewise, if a given image, residing in the Debian archive, is nearly unknown to members of the university, and the only people who know about it have deliberately sought it out, then it is extremely unlikely that anyone would find it to be creating a hostile environment. It is analogous to a copy of Playboy hidden in a drawer somewhere, which is not actionable in the least. Oh, except that Playboy contains actual photographs, which hot-babe does not. And this isn't even Debian's concern; each mirror must decide its own policies, and we cannot hope to decide that Debian must conform to whatever self-censorship private entities choose to apply to themselves. Nor is *any* of this relevant to debian-devel. Please take it to an appropriate forum.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea... Keep in mind that Debian is not the U in question; Debian has no obligation to conform to some U's self-censorship policies.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Good grief, this is one of the murkiest areas of American law, and you think that anyone should be convinced of your FUD this way? Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want what's best for the project. Likewise, if a given image, residing in the Debian archive, is nearly unknown to members of the university, and the only people who know about it have deliberately sought it out, then it is extremely unlikely that anyone would find it to be creating a hostile environment. I can think of a number of ways for the program to come to someone's attention through operating a Debian system. At that point it need only be traced to its source. It is analogous to a copy of Playboy hidden in a drawer somewhere, which is not actionable in the least. In your workplace? Au contrare. Thanks Bruce smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want what's best for the project. Sure; you want what's best, and you seem to think that what's best right now is to make people really scared of an offensive non-pornographic package, by raising vague and unsubstantiated worries about legal liability. That's FUD. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. When invited to *reduce* uncertainty and doubt, by securing a genuine legal opinion, you said it was Not Your Job. And you wonder why I might think that you are deliberately trying to create uncertainty and doubt? Thomas
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:08 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea... Keep in mind that Debian is not the U in question; Debian has no obligation to conform to some U's self-censorship policies. That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. Regarding war zones: There's nothing sacrosanct about a hotel with a bunch of journalists in it. Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor (Retired) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: When invited to *reduce* uncertainty and doubt, by securing a genuine legal opinion, you said it was Not Your Job. What I continue to object to is that there is a minority who believe that questionable content is desirable in the distribution, but they refuse to support themselves by doing the legal homework to support the content they desire. The entire project is burdened by it, and as one of the directors I am expected to clean up after them. Bruce smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:38:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host pornographic material. See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html Do we have evidence--actual evidence--that this provision applies to cartoons? Keep in mind that the images in question are *not* photographs. Neither are they pornography. This is a non-flamewar about a non-case about non-photographs of non-pornography. Mike PS: This was a non-mail.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Ron Johnson wrote: That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*. I have not so far seen what you are going to tell the mirror operators so that they know what packages to reject. Surely you can not believe that they are all responsible to dig this information up on their own. That would be very unsympathetic toward the role of people who do the project a lot of good. Thanks Bruce smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I continue to object to is that there is a minority who believe that questionable content is desirable in the distribution, but they refuse to support themselves by doing the legal homework to support the content they desire. The entire project is burdened by it, and as one of the directors I am expected to clean up after them. I don't think they said it was desirable. Indeed, the only person I have heard say it was is the ITP-filer, and only by implication. Maybe I missed one or two though. Still, you seem to be wanting to make up procedure on the fly. You don't get to do that. We do not have a requirement that the inclusion of questionable content requires an ITP-er to do some legal homework before they can package something. I would not package the item in question, because it is offensive to some people that I care about, and that's enough for me. But I do not seek to impose this judgment on other Debian developers, though if someone asked me about hot-babe, do you think I should package this, I would suggest they refrain from doing so. If you want a new procedure to be put into place, you are certainly within your rights to suggest one, but this is the wrong place to do it. We have debian-project set up for just this sort of thing. What matters to *me* is not hot-babe, and not even censorship, but your attempt to invent a new process out of whole cloth, impose it by fiat, and then cry foul that people aren't doing your will. We have a procedure. If you are not willing to follow that procedure, then step aside. If you are willing to abide by it, but wish to suggest changes, make your suggestions in the proper forum. But you do not get to invent a new procedure (such as the one quoted above) and then complain that people are not following the one you have invented. We have a procedure for adding packages to the archive, and it does not require getting legal advice about questionable content.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*. We do well to listen to what mirrors say, and what their concerns are. But we do not do well to guess at what they might say, on the basis of half-understood and unsupported claims about what their own internal policies are.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:33 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*. I have not so far seen what you are going to tell the mirror operators so that they know what packages to reject. Surely you can not believe that they are all responsible to dig this information up on their own. That would be very unsympathetic toward the role of people who do the project a lot of good. You are right. So, some manager would decree that Debian stop being mirrored. And, because other distros may also have the same package, they'd all be removed, as well. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. After listening to many White House, Pentagon CENTCOM briefings in both Gulf Wars, it is my firm belief that most senior correspondents either have serious agendas that don't get shaken by facts, or are dumb as dog feces. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have not so far seen what you are going to tell the mirror operators so that they know what packages to reject. Surely you can not believe that they are all responsible to dig this information up on their own. That would be very unsympathetic toward the role of people who do the project a lot of good. If you, or someone else, wishes to create a list of packages with questionable content, and then offer it to mirror operators, please go to it; you will get no objection from me. But it seems that now you're telling me that you know better than the mirror operators which packages will violate their internal policies. This seems unlikely. Yet, if you want to make a list, go to it.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:37:41 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws. Can you please provide some concrete evidence of this claim, or else stop making it? This one's from GWU: 8. Obscenity and Harassment: GW computing systems and services may not be used in an obscene, harassing or otherwise improper manner. GW computing systems and services shall not be used in a manner that discriminates against another individual on any basis protected by federal or local law. This provision explicitly prohibits any behavior that is intended to or has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment because of an individual's sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, pregnancy, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors protected by law. Seems like if the person being offended has the sole discretion about what is offensive, trhewn hell, we might as well hang up our keyboards and go home, cause anyone can be offended by anything. manoj -- The fact that 47 PEOPLE are yelling and sweat is cascading down my SPINAL COLUMN is fairly enjoyable!! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Seems like if the person being offended has the sole discretion about what is offensive, trhewn hell, we might as well hang up our keyboards and go home, cause anyone can be offended by anything. Don't worry, that's not how hostile environment harassment law works. IIRC, it's based on a reasonable person test, and is extremely complex.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:31 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:37:41 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: [snip] Seems like if the person being offended has the sole discretion about what is offensive, trhewn hell, we might as well hang up our keyboards and go home, cause anyone can be offended by anything. Hey, we agree on something Fear of being sued for harassment has made every organization (in- cluding Universities, hospitals, companies, non-profits, governments, etc) in the USA to spend lots of money on lawyers to devise rules and regulations, send managers to tolerance training sessions, make employees take sensitivity training classes, blah, blah, blah. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. Legality/morality of using open wireless points: If I leave my door unlocked are you going to come into my house in the middle of the night because you need to use the restroom? I pay a fixed rate for water. It's cold water so there is no electricity usage. No financial loss. I have 2.5 bathrooms, so no loss of usage on my end. Is this OK? Please, try this and we'll see if it's OK. http://www.warchalking.org/comments/2002/9/22/223831/236/135 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:44 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Seems like if the person being offended has the sole discretion about what is offensive, trhewn hell, we might as well hang up our keyboards and go home, cause anyone can be offended by anything. Don't worry, that's not how hostile environment harassment law works. IIRC, it's based on a reasonable person test, and is extremely complex. It all depends on your definition of reasonable. Besides, since law suits cost so must to defend and can be publicly embarassing (even if the defendant wins, since TV/newspapers tend only to tell you about the accusation, not the acquittal), just the fear of being sued has caused a lot of money to be spent on unproductive things. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. The main reason that M$ gets bashed is that they persist in writing bad code, on top of bad code As many have said, there is NO PERFECT OS. The better OS though, IMHO, is the one that will openly deal with issues, both major, and minor. Microsoft still needs a lot of work in this area. http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/202/comment/24104#MSG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:26:08 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: When invited to *reduce* uncertainty and doubt, by securing a genuine legal opinion, you said it was Not Your Job. What I continue to object to is that there is a minority who believe that questionable content is desirable in the distribution, but they refuse to support themselves by doing the legal homework to support the content they desire. The entire project is burdened by it, and as one of the directors I am expected to clean up after them. Seems more like there is a more of a minority of uber right wingers trying to batten down art that offends their sensibility. The actual project members seem to be more or less taking the sensible approach, in that this is a mountain being made out of a small molehill. And if you have done the legal homework to prove that the package is illegal, please do presernt it. In the meanwhile, I'll continue to trust my gut that it is innocent, until proven guilty. manoj -- The possession of a book becomes a substitute for reading it. Anthony Burgess Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:07:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It shows that sexual harassment in the workplace is one of their big concerns. And rightly so. Awards have been as large as $30 Million. And it embarasses the institution, which creates all sorts of havoc by driving people and even financial donors away. Yes, but the question is what is the *environment*; it is not clear that idle bits on a disk change the *environment*. Good grief, this is one of the murkiest areas of American law, and you think that anyone should be convinced of your FUD this way? I'm hardly impressed. If you really believe this is a concern, or others do, you are welcome to get competent legal advice, though at this point I would be inclined to doubt any advice from a lawyer you selected. Still, your amateur's guess at what would or would not run afoul of this extremely complex area of law is no help whatsoever. The U. would err on the side of caution given the potential danger. This is hardly true; most American universities (lamentably not all) for example have decided that censoring students is not in their job description, and that university employees cannot claim a hostile working environment on the basis of what students have said or done. Likewise, if a given image, residing in the Debian archive, is nearly unknown to members of the university, and the only people who know about it have deliberately sought it out, then it is extremely unlikely that anyone would find it to be creating a hostile environment. It is analogous to a copy of Playboy hidden in a drawer somewhere, which is not actionable in the least. Oh, except that Playboy contains actual photographs, which hot-babe does not. Hi all, from another mailing list, someone noted that playboy.com mirrors some FLOSS as they use it. They would have no problem hosting debian.playboy.com. And why not see if they could assist us in our quest to determine what legal issues are involved? If they have no stake in 'debian (now with porn)' (just joking!--really), who would? =Kev And this isn't even Debian's concern; each mirror must decide its own policies, and we cannot hope to decide that Debian must conform to whatever self-censorship private entities choose to apply to themselves. Nor is *any* of this relevant to debian-devel. Please take it to an appropriate forum. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! (__) (oo) /--\/ / ||| * /\---/\ ~~ ~~ Have you mooed today?... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBtAJ8Rp+kG4Nu//URApvRAJ9Uk0Bt4rzwqlTn8WN4GdIoqbKMmACdFelG QAkdj7SginGGF4tI7ap2RgM= =+OFA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Sacred Cows [was: Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.]
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:17:29PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want what's best for the project. I love how Debian has no sacred cows. It's one of the reasons I stuck around. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and some people to be more equal than others. Everybody has their moments :-)
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't worry, that's not how hostile environment harassment law works. IIRC, it's based on a reasonable person test, and is extremely complex. It all depends on your definition of reasonable. No, that's not true. reasonable person (actually, they say reasonable man) is a quite well-defined concept in American law.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:24:19AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:08 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea... Keep in mind that Debian is not the U in question; Debian has no obligation to conform to some U's self-censorship policies. That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*. Hi all. if someone in $VERY_RESTRICTED_COUNTRY downloads it from $FREE_COUNTRY, is debian still liable? If this is the case, then any 'problem' packages can not be in anyway associated with debian. - -kev - -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! (__) (oo) /--\/ / ||| * /\---/\ ~~ ~~ Have you mooed today?... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBtASGRp+kG4Nu//URArrcAJ4wyPn6OkQ3g5s4ZFWFIxSDz5LKkwCdE7K1 b1FtwmcqAj9Zo20CBfPn21s= =p130 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 23:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't worry, that's not how hostile environment harassment law works. IIRC, it's based on a reasonable person test, and is extremely complex. It all depends on your definition of reasonable. No, that's not true. reasonable person (actually, they say reasonable man) is a quite well-defined concept in American law. Is reasonable man the same in San Francisco and Birmingham, AL? -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. What I got by going to Canada was a cold. Henry David Thoreau signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems more like there is a more of a minority of uber right wingers trying to batten down art that offends their sensibility. The actual project members seem to be more or less taking the sensible approach, in that this is a mountain being made out of a small molehill. And if you have done the legal homework to prove that the package is illegal, please do presernt it. In the meanwhile, I'll continue to trust my gut that it is innocent, until proven guilty. I'd go further and say that if we don't allow hot-babe in while it is *unproven* to be illegal, then we should remove all the patented stuff that are unproven to be enforced, and the stuff that is said patented with unproven patent claims. Now we're back to 42 packages and no kernel, i think we can release sarge in 2 hours. Mike
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 02:04 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:24:19AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:08 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea... Keep in mind that Debian is not the U in question; Debian has no obligation to conform to some U's self-censorship policies. That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*. Hi all. if someone in $VERY_RESTRICTED_COUNTRY downloads it from $FREE_COUNTRY, is debian still liable? Don't think so. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. In America, only the successful writer is important, in France all writers are important, in England no writer is important, and in Australia you have to explain what a writer is. Geoffrey Cottrell signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, that's not true. reasonable person (actually, they say reasonable man) is a quite well-defined concept in American law. Is reasonable man the same in San Francisco and Birmingham, AL? Um, workplace harrasment cases are not the same as obscenity cases. I think you are alluding to obscenity rules, which depend not on a reasonable man test, but on a community standards test. The definition of the reasonable man test is the same everywhere; it is implemented by juries, judges, and appeals courts.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: But it seems that now you're telling me that you know better than the mirror operators which packages will violate their internal policies. Certainly a good guess is better than nothing. Upon such a list it would be possible to err on the side of caution and allow them to decide what not to reject. Thanks Bruce smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 11:42:15PM -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: But it seems that now you're telling me that you know better than the mirror operators which packages will violate their internal policies. Certainly a good guess is better than nothing. Upon such a list it would be possible to err on the side of caution and allow them to decide what /not /to reject. What happens if they change their policy ? What if it gets even stricter ? Do we have to delete packages because they're acting crazy ? If a mirror hoster has stupid policies, why just don't change mirror hoster ? We can't be guarantor that every entity that mirrors debian (and there are a lot more than the official mirrors) are strictly following their local policies, especially dumb ones. Mike
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: But it seems that now you're telling me that you know better than the mirror operators which packages will violate their internal policies. Certainly a good guess is better than nothing. Upon such a list it would be possible to err on the side of caution and allow them to decide what /not /to reject. I hereby declare that there may be some jurisdictions which prohibit files that contain the string perens.com anywhere in them. If that declaration is enough to make people start erring on the side of caution then we are in trouble. However, as I said, I have no objection to you writing a list of packages for whatever purpose you choose. Please do so, and stop trying to tell Debian what we should or shouldn't distribute. Thomas
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 23:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, that's not true. reasonable person (actually, they say reasonable man) is a quite well-defined concept in American law. Is reasonable man the same in San Francisco and Birmingham, AL? Um, workplace harrasment cases are not the same as obscenity cases. I think you are alluding to obscenity rules, which depend not on a reasonable man test, but on a community standards test. The definition of the reasonable man test is the same everywhere; it is implemented by juries, judges, and appeals courts. Yes, you're right. My bad. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding. Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Sacred Cows [was: Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.]
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:16:58AM -0500, William Ballard wrote: On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:17:29PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want what's best for the project. I love how Debian has no sacred cows. It's one of the reasons I stuck around. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and some people to be more equal than others. Everybody has their moments :-) You have to read the above in the context that Bruce's history is comprised of the immortal words Fuck you all and the deletion of our mailing list archives. Then it makes more sense. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:38:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*. We do well to listen to what mirrors say, and what their concerns are. But we do not do well to guess at what they might say, on the basis of half-understood and unsupported claims about what their own internal policies are. And throw this data point in: this university has apparently been distributing purity for a very long time. As usual, this policy is not seriously applied. It's there to cover the University in the case of a lawsuit, and to allow them to selectively apply it to people they want to get rid of (just about anybody can be effectively accused of violating the policy; it's almost impossible to go through the day without doing so). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Go away and don't come back until you have read the mailing list code of conduct. I do not need a second copy of this entire sodding thread. On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:01:48PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: Is Debian a legal entity? The answer is unquestionably yes. Where do you get these ideas? Debian is unquestionably not a legal entity. An unincorporated association is what your organization is until you go through a legal process to change it into something else. It is a legal entity. It can sue and be sued, and its members can be criminally prosecuted in connection with it. It passes most of its liability on to the people associated with it. We don't have any hope of proving that Debian is not an organization. Guilt by association went out with the middle ages, along with witch hunts. These days you cannot be held responsible for events beyond your control. And Debian was carefully built in a manner that prevents any question of one developer controlling another. This is precisely what we want and it's also precisely what we have. Debian is a loose aggregation of individuals who are individually responsible for their own actions. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:01:15PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: The U. would err on the side of caution given the potential danger. If the Hot Babe package was being distributed from their facilities, they'd pull the plug. In order to appear to be proactive regarding harassing, offensive, or improper material, they'd take action against the person involved. Would they, then, complain to the person involved within the Debian organisation, or would they rather act against their own people who installed this questionable (haha) package? -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:34:54PM +1100, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote: On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws. Can you please provide some concrete evidence of this claim, or else stop making it? For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host pornographic material. Have you taken a look at the material in question before this post? -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Seems more like there is a more of a minority of uber right wingers trying to batten down art that offends their sensibility. The actual project members seem to be more or less taking the sensible approach, in that this is a mountain being made out of a small molehill. Well, I've changed my mind actually. An optional package called 'hot-babe' is pretty harmless. The images are hardly pornography, though I certainly couldn't run it on my office PC (unless I was trying to get fired). I'd say the whole package is pretty childish still. Having said that, this package doesn't really advance Debian in any way. It won't gain us any users and it might lose us some. I'd say that ultimately it adds to our irrelevance. We provide a nice base for commercial efforts like Ubuntu but in the future, what else? Though you talk about 'uber right wingers' in your post, I would say that 'uber left wingers' are dominating the project these days. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:24:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:34:54PM +1100, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote: On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws. Can you please provide some concrete evidence of this claim, or else stop making it? For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host pornographic material. Have you taken a look at the material in question before this post? The answer is obviously no. And if you asked the same question to all the contributors of this thread, i'm pretty sure you'd end up with a 80% no. Mike
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Andrew Suffield wrote: Is Debian a legal entity? The answer is unquestionably yes. Where do you get these ideas? Debian is unquestionably not a legal entity. There is simply no way to avoid being one. An unincorporated association is what your organization is until you go through a legal process to change it into something else. It is a legal entity. It can sue and be sued, and its members can be criminally prosecuted in connection with it. It passes most of its liability on to the people associated with it. We don't have any hope of proving that Debian is not an organization. Guilt by association went out with the middle ages, along with witch hunts. These days you cannot be held responsible for events beyond your control. And Debian was carefully built in a manner that prevents any question of one developer controlling another. This is precisely what we want and it's also precisely what we have. Debian is a loose aggregation of individuals who are individually responsible for their own actions. It is one thing to profess how you want the organization to be and another to actually convince a court to treat you that way. The reality is that we are many people working in concert to create and distribute many pieces of of software that fit together into a coherent system. The intent of the organization is to create the system rather than the individual pieces. This makes each of us vulnerable to some extent. Thanks Bruce smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041206 13:45]: Having said that, this package doesn't really advance Debian in any way. It won't gain us any users [...]. And that's the reason why I think it should not be included. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The images are hardly pornography, though I certainly couldn't run it on my office PC (unless I was trying to get fired). Heh, but frozen-bubble might be even better at that.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 23:40 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [snip] Well, I've changed my mind actually. An optional package called 'hot-babe' is pretty harmless. The images are hardly pornography, though I certainly couldn't run it on my office PC (unless I was trying to get fired). Why would you get fired for displaying hardly pornographic images on your PC? Oh, yeah, that's right: sexual harassment, uncomfortable workplace, fear of lawsuits, blah, blah. Thanks, Hamish, for helping to make our point. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. The man who has gotten everything he wants is all in favor of peace and order. Jawaharlal Nehru signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Ron Johnson writes: On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 23:40 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [snip] Well, I've changed my mind actually. An optional package called 'hot-babe' is pretty harmless. The images are hardly pornography, though I certainly couldn't run it on my office PC (unless I was trying to get fired). Why would you get fired for displaying hardly pornographic images on your PC? Oh, yeah, that's right: sexual harassment, uncomfortable workplace, fear of lawsuits, blah, blah. Thanks, Hamish, for helping to make our point. There are lots of things in Debian that would violate workplace rules at some workplace (or at many): offensive fortunes, games, software that the IT department has not approved or does not track, and so forth. None of that is relevant to whether someone is exposed to criminal liability or liable for actual damages for distributing a package like hot-babe. Michael Poole
Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Andrew Suffield wrote: The project does not exist as a legal entity. It's more complicated than you think. Is Debian a legal entity? The answer is unquestionably yes. The only question is what kind of legal entity it is. The most likely two are: 1. An unincorporated association that has a contractual relationship with a public-benefit corporation. 2. A division of a public-benefit corporation. Which kind of entity we are may be an important part of any future legal defense, and may well be decided by the court. An unincorporated association is what your organization is until you go through a legal process to change it into something else. It is a legal entity. It can sue and be sued, and its members can be criminally prosecuted in connection with it. It passes most of its liability on to the people associated with it. We don't have any hope of proving that Debian is not an organization. We would probably want to appear as a division of a corporation. The corporation is an artificial person under the law, and the corporation can sometimes take the fall when otherwise you would be the one prosecuted. It's not total protection, however. The corporate officers are probably the ones with the worst liability. In the case that we are an unincorporated association, the officers and the people doing various kinds of work are the most obvious fall guys, but not the only ones. Members of the organization would probably be considered to be accomplices. After all, they are contributors to the aggregate product of which the objectionable material is a part. Governments often want to send a message to organizations that they can't fully reach concerning questionable material, and they may well choose to send that message through you. Who would be in that position? The local mirror operators are in a pretty bad position, because they do distribution within their national boundaries. It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws. Historically, when an institution is faced with this sort of violation, they do not take the hit themselves but place the blame on the person who actually made the decision to host the mirror. They generally assert that the hosting of the content was unauthorized. Then, they cooperate in the prosecution. So, operating a Debian mirror can be hazardous. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. An unincorporated association that has a contractual relationship with a public-benefit corporation. 2. A division of a public-benefit corporation. Either way, if you wish to claim there is a legal problem with a given package, it is your responsibility to substantiate your claim beyond raising FUD. If you cannot or will not substantiate the claim, then nobody has any reason to take your concerns seriously. Thomas
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws. Can you please provide some concrete evidence of this claim, or else stop making it?
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Either way, if you wish to claim there is a legal problem with a given package, it is your responsibility to substantiate your claim beyond raising FUD. I doubt it will be the last questionable package that is submitted, and would like to handle the issue before the next one comes in. Thanks Bruce smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Either way, if you wish to claim there is a legal problem with a given package, it is your responsibility to substantiate your claim beyond raising FUD. I doubt it will be the last questionable package that is submitted, and would like to handle the issue before the next one comes in. If you wish to create a process, then work with other like-minded people, or use an appropriate mailing list--perhaps debian-project. If you wish to object to a specific package, take it to the maintainer, not debian-devel, or else propose a GR to have the package prohibited from Debian. Your FUD is appropriate in neither case.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws. Can you please provide some concrete evidence of this claim, or else stop making it? For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host pornographic material. See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux | : :' : Free Operating System | http://www.debiancolombia.org/ `. `' http://debian.org/| http://www-personal.monash.edu/~anibal `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws. Can you please provide some concrete evidence of this claim, or else stop making it? This one's from GWU: 8. Obscenity and Harassment: GW computing systems and services may not be used in an obscene, harassing or otherwise improper manner. GW computing systems and services shall not be used in a manner that discriminates against another individual on any basis protected by federal or local law. This provision explicitly prohibits any behavior that is intended to or has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment because of an individual's sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, pregnancy, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors protected by law. Thanks Bruce smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host pornographic material. See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html Do we have evidence--actual evidence--that this provision applies to cartoons? Keep in mind that the images in question are *not* photographs. Bruce's claim is that it would be in violation of the applicable national laws. We do not know how the Australian censorship regime applies to material like this, and if we do not know, we cannot assume that it must cover it. So I await actual reasoned legal opinions, from people with actual legal expertise in the country or countries concerned. Thomas
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host pornographic material. See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html Upon reading this carefully, it says that the Australian Government may order the suppression of Australian-hosted websites. Penalties only apply *after* such an order has been received, if the material is not removed. So there is no actual legal exposure here in the absence of an actual order.
Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 8. Obscenity and Harassment: GW computing systems and services may not be used in an obscene, harassing or otherwise improper manner. GW computing systems and services shall not be used in a manner that discriminates against another individual on any basis protected by federal or local law. This provision explicitly prohibits any behavior that is intended to or has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment because of an individual's sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, pregnancy, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors protected by law. And you have evidence that the inclusion of such an image in a bulk archive, which is present in a merely passive manner, runs afoul of this provision? It seems to me that a hostile workplace is not created by the presence of an archive or a single image in that archive. But if you have a legal opinion to offer on this question, I would be glad to hear it. Thomas
