From: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 93 20:08:14 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Whose opinion? (was Re: anonymous mail)
Message-ID: <NcqN7B1w164w@ideath.goldenbear.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----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@goldenbear.com
Golden Bear Computer Consulting         +1 503 465 0325
Box 12005 Eugene OR 97440               BBS: +1 503 687 7764