Re: Ftoomsh MUD?

Matthew Gream (mgream@nospam.acacia.itd.uts.edu.au)
Fri, 15 Apr 94 17:15:13 EST

Earlier, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

> The more control progsoc attempts to take, the more responsible it
> is for things that happen on and with the machine.

It's not a matter of taking control, but ensuring:

a) You delineate the bounds of acceptable use of the machine.
b) The users are aware of (a) and there is reasonable means
to ensure they can't deny the fact later.

The idea is to ensure that in the case of a user being caught doing
something, he/she can't assert that "I didn't know that wasn't
acceptable behaviour, I thought when they said we could use the machine
for anything ...".

This "signing" procedure is a practice carried out by CSE here at UTS
and, at least from observation, present at other academic institutions.
As an aside, the fact regarding having clearly read and understood
"rules of use" was a point of focus, inter alia, during my disciplinary
hearing. So even if doesn't have any legal basis, it is obviously
useful in local consideration of an event.

I'm no legal expert and, as you clearly suggest, this is a point that
needs to be clarified, but I suspect the problem is in defining (a) and
its bounds (not whether it is needed or not), which you correctly
note.

> There seems to be a lot of people who know the folk-law without
> any real basis in fact. The last thing Progsoc should be doing is
> getting itself or its members tied up in unnecessary legal bindings.
> Don't assume, find out for sure.

Someone needs to draft questions and submit them to the Union Solicitor.

Matthew.

-- 
Matthew Gream
Consent Technologies
M.Gream@nospam.uts.edu.au
(02) 821 2043
zpx::/3719/59/46af009c886ead781fad0