[Air-L] (advice sought) Public safety and configuration of list

[Michael Allan]

Yosem,

May I briefly speak in reply?  I will not be joining the admin list,
as it's only by accident that I became involved in this.  Anyway, I'm
sorry to have given you the wrong impression, but you make some errors
in describing my actions and motivations, and I wish to correct them.

> Michael asked that the Program on Liberation Technology at Stanford
> University overrule the list vote over safety issues because he said
> the position created a potential legal liability for the university.

I did not ask the university to overrule the vote, but only to act in
the interests of public safety.  If public safety is best served by
upholding the vote, then that is O.K. by me.  Nor was I concerned with
the university's legal position.  It was the university's own staff
who invited me to off-list discussions, and the university's own staff
who expressed a concern about legal implications, and then referred
the matter to counsel.

The only issue I consider worth discussing in this connection is the
issue of public safety, especially the safety of innocent people who
are not party to these discussions, not connected with the university,
and not connected with the mailing list.  The argument (which I
seconded, but did not originate) is that the configuration of the list
places these people in some danger.  I felt that *their* concerns
ought to have a voice before a decision was made.  So this is what I
attempted to do; though maybe I didn't do a good job of it.

> Michael, however, insists that there are safety issues.  ...

Well, I have never *insisted* on that.  My crime was to ask whether or
not the safety concerns that were raised are valid, and I directed
this question to experts in particular.  But apparently the university
has already made a decision on the matter, so there's nothing further
anyone can contribute.  We can only hope that it's the right decision,
and that we acted rightly in it ourselves.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Yosem Companys said:
> Dear All,
> 
> Michael asked that the Program on Liberation Technology at Stanford
> University overrule the list vote over safety issues because he said the
> position created a potential legal liability for the university.
> 
> We informed Michael that we saw none and that the list subscribers had
> taken the perceived safety issue into consideration when voting; in fact,
> we included the links to the pros and cons that addressed the perceived
> safety concerns.
> 
> Michael, however, insists that there are safety issues.  We remained
> unconvinced.  He asked that we discuss the issue internally at Stanford
> University.
> 
> Our final decision is consistent with the view that Jeremy outlined below,
> which is common practice for mailing lists:  Email users are responsible
> for their use of email, on a list or off, so they are responsible for
> knowing the settings and adapting their behaviors to them.  The locus of
> action of the list is the user, the administrator just sets the terms.
> 
> Moreover, we inform users of the risks associated with subscribing to
> public lists both when they sign up and in our list guidelines.  We also
> clearly state that the list is configured to reply to all.
> 
> As a result, the current option will remain as currently configured and
> voted upon by list subscribers -- that is, reply to all.
> 
> As we have received numerous complaints over having administrative issues
> crowd out substantive discussion on the list, we are creating a separate
> "liberationtech-admin" list.  As soon as that list is operational, we will
> let you know.  In the meantime, out of respect to your fellow subscribers,
> we ask that you please refrain from further discussion about the issue here
> but encourage you to continue the discussion there, if interested.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Yosem
> One of your list moderators