Re: Invisible users

["Brian" <ircd@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jukka Santala" <donwulff@xxxxxx>
To: <ircd-users@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Invisible users

> AND, in addition, you make sure that the user actually reads the MOTD by
> requiring them to acknowledge it manually (A modification to the
anti-spoof
> code should do) since many clients practically hide the MOTD. Even if they
> didn't such one-sided announcement wouldn't be likely to hold in many
> courts. Speaking of which, you should also ensure that none of the
potential
> other servers in your network are in jurisdication where such disclaimers
> don't hold or haven't been tested in court (So you won't be made a
> test-case). The same should ofcourse also hold for all parties you
eavesdrop
> on; given that domain-names don't always divulge real physical location,
the
> MOTD should also tell users to disconnect if the disclaimer isn't legally
> binding in their jurisdication. Ofcourse, due to the potential for paradox
> in that, you should also either K-line *@* or write a virus that forces
> people to disconnect upon reading that MOTD. (Where applicable by law,
> ofcourse)

I'm pretty sure this character was talking about a small server for testing,
not a 100k user network.  To be honest, I haven't even read all of the posts
because I have grown wary of the subject.

I don't think any of us really needs to get in to the ethics of secretly
logging.  It's obviously immoral to record anyone's words without their
consent.

Well, putting a disclaimer on the MOTD seems to work on DALnet.  Most
servers say "we have the right to deny.." right on them.  It'd be different
if it weren't a private network.  It doesn't matter if it is legal or not;
it's a private network and if you don't like it you are welcomed to sit on
the nearest short stick (or EFnet--haha).

If it's a private network and they list a disclaimer on the MOTD and the
user chooses to ignore it, then it is the user's problem (and I can't think
of any countries at the moment to which this is not true).  It's like
ignoring "POSTED" private property.  In a certain state you can not only
persecute them under the law you can shoot them as well--whether they read
the sign or not.  I'd rather just shoot them seeing that "ig'nant" people
need to be disposed of but I can't in my state.

As far as the servers being legal where they are, they can simply say "we
only allow blah blah blah users on this server, all others must vacate" and
leave it at that.  If some moron wants to play games with international law
they can have fun and lose their probably hardly-earned money.  I mean, all
you have to do to have a closed-circuit camera system is put up a sign that
says "you may be recorded" and that is that.  If some dolt doesn't bother to
read the sign and tries to set up a heist and then gets caught using that
camera system then they're SOL.

I, myself, ran a small network once.  I had a simple disclaimer.  It read
"This server is owned and maintained by whomever your God is.  Do not do
anything that may piss off your God or you may feel his wrath.  Your God
sees all, hears all, and knows all.  Your God's rules are subject to change
without notice.  Fear his wrath.  By remaining connected you agree to these
terms and conditions."  The excessive use of "wrath" was because it was
irc.wrath.net.

> Poor horse.

Yeah, they wouldn't even accept that mangled pile of bones and slush at the
dogfood factory.

>  -Donwulff

-Brian