From: hallam@w3.org
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 21:45:56 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Java & Netscape security [NOISE]
In-Reply-To: <yo9XeD2w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <9511220545.AA01344@zorch.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I'm not sure where the policy of whether posts from foo.com should be
considered policy of foo.com but they certainly are considered in that
manner.

Rather than have this discussion here how about people read up the threat in
Hal Abelson's course on Ethics of the Electronic frontier?

http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/6095/on-line-discussion/topic-1/

One point to be made is that at Universities we all have university accounts 
because people realise that there is no connection between our views and 
institute policy. The freedom to hold unpopular views being part of what 
universities are all about. On the other hand there is no such assuption 
concerning posts from foo.com.

I suspect that even in the UK one could sack an employee for making stupid 
statements from an Internet account. Particularly if they might lead a person to 
doubt the sanity of the person concerned.

On Phil Stromer, I don't think the Internet posts were the only point at issue. 
He was very offensive however, it was not merely the views he posted but the 
manner in which he made them that caused offense. He also made a lot of 
assertions concerning other posters which might have led to legal action 
against Sun.

	Phill