Source: Page 128 of White Noise Keywords: "ever," "people's," "asylum"

From: woodcock@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Sterling Woodcock) Subject: Asylum's Disclaimer (was Re: Unwelcome to DragonMUD) Date: 30 Jul 1991 Newsgroups: rec.games.mud

Okay, let me first state that auzzie doesn't represent my opinions, so while you're all off flaming her for conspiracy propaganda there are some postings which, I think, have missed my original points. Rhodesia claimed the was a good measure of privacy on Asylum, and I responded by saying it runs counter to Asylum's disclaimer, which specifically says there *isn't* a guarantee of privacy "under ANY conditions" on Asylum. I suppose I quibble with the word 'ANY' which I think changes the degree of the disclaimer significantly. Now then: In article <1991Jul28.214335.17...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dcw11...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Blackmore) writes: >The disclaimer was put in during the time of Brigadoon's last days, when someone >threatened to sue for invasion of privacy, or something like that. Of course >Random *could* log everything - anyone could log everything. The disclaimer >really doesn't give Random authority to do something anyone else couldn't...it >just keeps people from threatening to sue. Anyone can log everything if they >want, and no disclaimers need be printed. To avoid Asylum because of the >disclaimer is silly, and disgracing two of the most respected wizards. Russ stated as much as well; it was a CYA measure against legalities. But the reason it was put up is not what I'm concerned with; it's the wording. Yes Random *could* log everything... the point is, there are muds which will expressly tell you they *won't* and *aren't* and if they do, regardless of the legal issue, they have broken an ethical promise. With Asylum's current disclaimer, Random *could* log everything and *not* break any sort of ethical promise. You *cannot* logically state a mud is generally safe for privacy when the wizards there reserve a justification to log anything they want and invade your privacy at whim. The last sentence is an argument from authority, a common logical fallacy which I won't get into here. You go on to say: >That's what the disclaimer means - you can't claim privacy on ANY mud, whether >you get it or not. You get privacy on Asylum, but that doesn't mean it's a >given right. But you *can* claim that the wizards on the mud will not log or intentionally invade your privacy through wizard actions, and there are mud admins who will *gladly* claim such a thing, and Asylum is *not* one of these given the way the disclaimer is currently written. There may be no guarantee you'll get it, but I'd much rather go to someplace that will attempt to secure that amount of privacy than one that won't. Which product would you rather buy, then one that says "100% Pure Florida Orange Juice" or the one that says "READ THIS: We'll never really be 100% pure, so we won't even say we're close, and you have no guarantee that this isn't 0% Orange Juice but rather 100% male urine sample. So don't even think we try to give you real orange juice (but we're a well-respected company, so trust us)" on the label? To continue: In article <EXILE.91Jul28230...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu> e...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Heresiarch) writes: >random was also running a devious counter-espionage ring. by posting >sinister 'disclaimers' on his login message, random attempted to scare >bruce and certain 'people bruce knows' into thinking that something >that they typed might be logged (as if random cared), so that they >would be too terrified to log into asylum. unfortunately for random, >this clever device didn't always work. Actually, it *never* worked on me, because I don't feel fear. Really. Nothing scares me since I saw ashne's face at Balticon for the first time. As far as 'people bruce knows' I get the impression that ashne is trying to cloud the issue by questioning the validity that such people exist; rest assured, dear, that many of these people are friends of yours, or at least were until they got tired of your boring attempts at humor in USENET articles. And still wonder today if you'll ever figure out where the shift key is. >furthermore, random has attempted to throw suspicion off himself by >not providing the infamous 'huh' logs which logged anything anyone did >on the mud which generated an error message, just like james aspness [sic] >did on the original tinymud, even though for some reason no one cared >about it back then. Perhaps it's because people have since wised up to the potential abuses of such logs? In most muds it's possible to log what happens in areas you own anyway, and that really has nothing to do with privacy in your *own* areas. So, what's your point? And finally: In article <1991Jul29.181617.7...@eng.umd.edu> buzz...@eng.umd.edu (Sean Barrett) writes: >Oh, let us look at the disclaimer again... >>READ THIS: You are NOT guaranteed privacy under ANY conditions while logged >>into Asylum. The administration takes NO responsibility for any errors in >>judgement that result in you feeling your 'privacy' has been invaded. >The above disclaimer not only covers nasty wizzes doing evil things to >you, but it (attempts to) protects Random & Moira in case some idiot >does log people's private conversations and post them. Have to ask >them if you want to know for which reason they chose to put it up. But, can't it accomplish the latter without allowing the former? Or do you want nasty wizards to have a justification for doing evil things to you? After all, they *told* you ahead of time... And before everyone starts yelling again, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LEGALITIES of the situation. It has to do what's proper, ethical, and sensible. Bruce -- | woodc...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu | woodc...@feserve.cc.purdue.edu | | sirbr...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | sterl...@maria.wustl.edu | | sterl...@shadowfax.knox.tn.us | "Half the lies they tell me aren't | | sterl...@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu | true." -- Yogi Berra |

Back to "The Usenet Project" Main Page - Back to Starve.Org Main Page - Contact - Starve Archive