Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!atha!aunro!alberta!herald.usask.ca!lowey From: lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: Canceling someone else's article Message-ID: <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> Date: 29 May 91 22:24:06 GMT References: Organization: University of Saskatchewan Lines: 75 From article , by eifrig@cs.jhu.edu (Jack Eifrig): >>No, USENET is not a RIGHT. It is a PRIVILEGE that can be revoked for >>abuse, just like driving a car. > > These kind of statements really annoy me. What do you mean, "it's > a privilege"? Do you mean that only people of royal blood can drive cars > or post to Usenet or some such nonsense? While I'm sure that certain > elements of the government would like to think that they can revoke > people's driving licenses without due process, people get very unhappy > when it attempts such. So the problem here isn't what was done. The problem is what is considered "due process" in usenet. Use of the Usenet is definately a privilege. No one has the RIGHT to electronic mail, (even though some people I know may want Usenet to be classified as a basic human right #8-) If it is a fee based system, and you don't pay your fees, then you are kicked off the system. If you purposely violate the posted rules for proper behaviour on the system, then you are kicked off the system. This ain't no democracy. The equipment is owned and operated and paid for by the owners of the equipment. If someone is sending pyramid mail, or envolved in other activities which could result in MY machine being confiscated, then damn rights I'm going to turf the user. I run a Fidonet BBS (not a Usenet node). I have to be VERY careful about the traffic on the BBS. For example, no business messages otherwise the telephone company will consider me a "business" and charge higher rates. I also have to ensure that my board doesn't turn into a "Pirate" board. The government would be quite happy to confiscate my equipment if they thought that I was aiding a criminal in illegal activities, like violating copyright, etc. This can be as simple as two users sending mail explaining how to crack copyrighted programs, or advertising that they will give away copies of their copyrighted program to people who ask ... I handle it this way. First, there are NO anonymous postings. I verify everyone before they can post on the newsgroups or use email. That cuts down on a lot of the juvenile behaviour I see from free-for-all public access places. I also post clearly in my policies for the BBS that there is no such thing as private mail on the bbs. EVERY message can be viewed by the sysop. That is not to say that it WILL be viewed, but it gives me the right to examine mail to ensure that my BBS is not being used illegally and thus putting me and my equipment in legal danger. My users understand this, and I have had no problems. The bottom line is that to handle these situations, make sure everyone knows the rules in advance. Set a policy for your node. Make it a condition of service that before anyone gets an account, they MUST read the policy. Once that is done, then its a simple matter. If someone violates the policy, then they get disconnected. No appeals, no arguments. It's all in black and white. There is no RIGHT for ANYONE to do ANYTHING on my system. I own it, I make up the rules. I decide who can use it, I decide who can't. If my rules are too restrictive, then users can get access on another machine. So far this has worked fine. I am in no way a monopoly here. There's a lot of systems available for people to use. If my restrictions were too severe, then they have plenty other places to go. The point is that they haven't. They recognise that its my machine, and they agree that my rules are reasonable, so they keep coming back. If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of the owner of a computer to control how his computer is used. Its exactly the same as the bus driver who has the right to kick anyone off the bus if they are causing a problem. Claiming that the USERS have rights to get electronic mail, no matter how badly they act, is similar to saying that bus riders have the right to steal the bus, and use it to rob a bank. If someone is trying to use MY equipment in a way *I* consider is improper, then *I* have every right to kick those people off *MY* computer. - Kevin Lowey