I'm trying to be quiet, but on one point ...
On Mar 20, 2015 8:13 PM, "Dan Harkins" <dharkins(_at_)lounge(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Fri, March 20, 2015 12:57 pm, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message
<edb9ff669accb4467bc45d020368a190(_dot_)squirrel(_at_)www(_dot_)trepanning(_dot_)net
,
"Dan Harkins" writes:
On Thu, March 19, 2015 3:15 pm, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I read "local law" as meaning the law where the interaction is taking
place. While that can get very complicated for electronic
interaction,
for the example you chose to cite it is very clear. If Charlie
Hebdo's
cover violates local law where you are reading it, you have chosen to
ask for more trouble than just a discussion with the IETF harrasment
ombudsman.
Well yes, but doesn't that beg the question?
If I have done something that asks for more trouble than a mere
talking to by the IETF harassment ombudsman then why have the
IETF harassment ombudsman get involved in the first place? If the
authorities behind "local law" are going to be handling it then let
that legal process work itself out. No need to get the IETF involved
in meting out punishment that may ultimately expose it to potential
abuses of someone's due process and 14th amendment rights.
regards,
Dan.
In many places certain types of harrasment is against the law but
that doesn't preclude mediation, etc. being applied before people
are charged etc. Harrasment covers a whole spectrum of actions.
Some minor. Some major. The perceived severity can vary according
to the history of the people involved. The whole issue is all
shades of grey.
All the more reason to keep the IETF out of it. If there's going to
be mediation in a criminal matter it should be handled by qualified
and trained specialists appointed by the courts, not a bunch of tech
geeks.
I may agree with this sentiment, but I'm not sure how this works. In my
limited experience, investigators may be loath to say, "yeah, we're
investigating Spencer on a criminal matter" ...
So I wouldn't be surprised if the Ombudsteam spends time on some percentage
of more serious incidents, and then discovers that, for whatever reason,
the Respondent is also the Defendant.
I don't think this matters, in practice. We probably shouldn't be surprised
the first time it happens.
But (and I'm not kidding), my experience at the IETF since 1996 has been
that at least one active participant has experience with almost every
situation I've seen discussed, no matter how bizarre, so if there are
people reading this thread with direct experience on criminal
investigations, they can share with us, as they find appropriate.
Spencer
Having proceedures in place and a willingness to follow them can
prevent people being charged in the first place. There is often a
lot of disgression about the paths to take. Being charges creates
a blight of a record even if you are cleared.
So you're saying the local District Attorney (or the functional
equivalent for the jurisdiction that administers the "local law")
is going to say, "oh well the IETF is mediating so we will just drop
the charges"? That sounds extremely naive.
Dan.