Re: NATHAN and the FAQ Dilemna

[pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Paul Francis Gilbert)]

dalloff@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Dave Althoff) writes:

>No, I don't think there is any legal reason that Nathan cannot restrict
>access to his web pages for any reason he sees fit, and there isn't a
>thing any of us can do about it.  Would it be any different if his ISP
>decided to reject all data packets from particular domains because those
>domains had been the source of hack attempts?  Is this any different from
>"subscriber only" web pages, even those where no fees are charged?

See my previous post. But yes, I think you're right. I feel that Nathan
may be breaking the technicality of the law (I'm still not sure which
country he lives in, so don't know what local laws will apply), but the
case is so trivial, I doubt you could get any judge to actually allow it
to go to trial.

But then of course there's the moral issue: just because a law is so
trivial, does breaking is make it any the less worse for having been
broken? Turley, for example, is accused of having broken piracy laws.
Now, lets face it, piracy is broken all the time. I can honestly say
that of all the young children I know that play games, not one of them
has bought all the software they played. So, should they all be
prosecuted and sent to jail? Obviously not... there's just too many of
them. Even the big companies normally go after the big piraters [the
ones who sell pirate software]. It just isn't worth their time to try
to prosecute some kid who copied a game from their friend.

Do see how there's a parallel with what Nathan's done and what he claims
that Dr Tom has done? That, IMHO, makes him as bad as he claims Dr.Tom
to be. [And I must admit, Dr. Tom seems a hell of a lot more civilised
then Nathan, which automatically counts in his (Dr.Tom's) favor, IMHO).


>The only issue here with regard to the access to the FAQ is whether Nathan
>is conforming with the requirements of the c.s.a2 newsgroup charter.  And
>that is not a legal issue, merely one of Internet protocol.  Something
>tells me that the net.cops aren't going to break down the door, seizure
>warrant in hand, and demand that Nathan hand over the FAQ.  It just
>doesn't work that way.  Mr. Mates became FAQ keeper because he agreed to
>do it, and the rest of c.s.a2 allowed him to take over those duties
>because...well, he agreed to do it, and the community apparently trusted
>that he would make those documents available.

Agreed. The point to notice is that Nathan was given FAQ maintainership
by the c.s.a2 community. It is therefore not his God given right. So we
also have the right to take it away from him (what the community giveth,
the community can taketh away ;-) ). I think that that's the best 
solution... wait until someone has made a new FAQ, and replace Nathan
as the FAQ maintainer.


>As for the problem of the allegedly-restricted web site (I have no trouble
>viewing the FAQ site, so I have only other correspondents rantings to go
>by)...there exist newsgroups which have so many varied FAQ topics that no
>one person has all of the answers (so to speak), and the complete FAQ
>documents are seldom, if ever, posted to the group.  Instead, a FAQ index
>is published, and the index includes instructions for obtaining the FAQ
>answers...by visiting web pages, emailing robots, or emailing people. 

I don't have any problem accessing it either, not that I do often since 
there's nothing I really need from it at the current point in time. I'm
just angry that Nathan is banning whole domains, which contain other
users which might want to access the so-called FAQ, and which are now
unable to do so... because Nathan has blocked it. 

>Now, I hate to speak for Nathan...he is certainly capable of doing that
>himself, and I have never met him myself...but I imagine that someone not
>on Nathan's $#!+ list who happens to be on a blocked site and who happens
>to need a copy of the FAQ could probably send Nathan an e-mail asking for
>it (what a concept!).  Assuming Nathan to be a reasonable person
>(although, quite frankly, I don't know if that applies to anyone involved
>in this little dispute; that is another matter entirely), this
>hypothetical '][ser' would receive a copy of the appropriate FAQ, probably
>with the admonition that he isn't to give a copy to Turley. 

You think so? I also can't speak for Nathan, but I suspect that he might 
think that person X was in fact a 'cohort' of whoever is on the domain that
he blocked it against, and was wanting a copy of the FAQ to give to the
person. I suspect, therefore, that person X would have to appeal to the
newsgroup to get someone to download them a copy, which is a pain in the
neck, considering it's supposed to be a public document.

>So what is the problem?  So for a few users, obtaining the FAQ is a little
>more difficult...kind of like if was for me before my service added a Lynx
>browser...

>--Dave Althoff, ][.
>-- 
>    /-\        _       _           ***  Just a few more weeks!!!  ***
>   /XXX\      /X\     /X\_      _     /XX\_      _     _        _____  
>  /XXXXX\    /XXX\  _/XXXX\_   /X\   /XXXXX\    /X\   /X\      /XXXXX
>_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX
--
Paul Gilbert           | pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 4, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia	       | creatures from Alpha Centauri.