From greg at ideath.goldenbear.com Tue Jul 13 20:08:14 1993 From: greg at ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 93 20:08:14 PDT Subject: Whose opinion? (was Re: anonymous mail) Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Matthew B Landry writes: > On the subject of whether personal postings should be considered > as representing the company, I should point out that: > > 1: NSF and several regional nets have acceptable use policies which > do not permit commercial use. > 2: Messages posted by the company (or by someone who is assumed to > represent the company) would be in violation of these policies if the > messages crossed the applicable networks. I don't think a description of a policy is at all clearly "commercial use". Advertising, and use of net resources in the course of doing business seem to be commercial use - but a discussion with outside folks about policies or conditions doesn't seem to be commercial use. To suggest that net traffic originating at a site with a .com domain name is commercial seems to over-reach. > 3: There is no way to prevent a specific message over usenet from crossing > a specific network. > 4: The owner of a network site (the company) is assumed to be responsible > for any "unacceptable use" traffic that comes from the site. I don't think I buy this one, either. If I can't control traffic (see #3) how is it reasonable to say that I am responsible for it (#4)? > 5: This liability would leave the company open to having its net feed > cut off for such unacceptable use. This assumes that the net feed comes from a provider which restricts commercial use. Some providers (like Alternet) welcome commercial use. > It is therefore in the best interests of any corporation with > Internet/Usenet access to _assume_ that messages posted by its employees > are not company business. It is probably convenient for policymakers to make this assumption. It is, however, perhaps naiive. If I see a posting from Jim Bizdos, I *do* assume that he is speaking for RSADSI/PKP, unless he makes efforts to disclaim such attribution. Ditto for other folks who I know or suspect hold positions of power or influence with other institutions. I suspect other folks on the net react similarly to posts (apparently) coming from people who may have some impact on corporate/institutional policy/behavior. I think it's probably best to assume that people *will* associate what people post from a site's name with that site, especially absent disclaimers to the contrary. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLEN3H33YhjZY3fMNAQHMAQP/VJX86pXxyZqXaEHsWIeH1cLnjsPW/9cR gfNdp/3KRwZBwLAR/BbqPlfZUnY6VHJKtbJUHVDSMAOcgRZ9E9+3L6ghBFX3J4lO aKS9SnAsEDOSY5PMqAF7z9YShP1FqVuRRq7XKMF6KjIfH/+rIsjj5AR0kSa5BB6p kbBW/jis1U0= =iuOy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles greg at goldenbear.com Golden Bear Computer Consulting +1 503 465 0325 Box 12005 Eugene OR 97440 BBS: +1 503 687 7764