Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
On Mon, 2016-08-08 at 19:56 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 03:45:12PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote:
> >
> > debian-private might make. You've proven that point today on
> > debian-private.
> Which is either a leak of information, an argument that such a
> message
> (if it exists) shouldn't have been on d-private in the first place or
> you providing disinformation to the public by implying there exists
> a message in a channel they can't access which doesn't exist in
> reality
> but nobody can repel as saying that such a message doesn't exist is
> leaking information by itself – all of which is in the end an
> argument
> for declassification of messages to remove the mystery surrounding
> it.
>
>
> Or as an "Explain like I'm Five" question: Why is the idea that
> a process could be proposed by listmasters for declassification which
> would be subject to review and with objection opportunity so
> frightening
> given that declassification happens every day by individuals –
> without
> review and without the possibility to object – via (accidental)
> leakage?
>
It might be that a hypothetical process would ensure that it did not
make public any message without approval of the author. I believe that
this would be fine. It might however be that the hypothetical process
would make public any message from any author who did not respond to an
invitation to object, posted perhaps in a filing cabinet in a locked
closet with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"; since
those authors did not object via GR, they would be assumed to be OK
with the process. This would be Wrong.
And it is "frightening" because it would be deliberate, and on the part
of the Project. For the Project to be morally/ethically lacking would
be far more disturbing than for an individual to be so.
To be clear - I do not believe that it would be acceptable for any message to be made public without explicit approval of the author. A mere lack of objection is not enough - however it does seem to me that this is a road that some are keen to travel down.
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips / nick.phillips@otago.ac.nz / 03 479 4195
# These statements are mine, not those of the University of Otago
Reply to: