Subj : Re: SSH on BBSes To : echicken From : boraxman Date : Tue Apr 05 2022 22:48:53 -=> echicken wrote to boraxman <=- ec> Re: Re: SSH on BBSes ec> By: boraxman to echicken on Mon Apr 04 2022 22:32:20 bo> Perhaps I am biased because I have young children, and I'm worried about bo> them inadvertently broadcasting information about themselves. They need to ec> I have a two year old kid, and when the time comes he'll be well ec> informed and frequently reminded about these matters. Particularly when ec> it comes to the long memory of the internet and his own responsibility ec> for his actions. Indeed. I think for our children, they will have a much, much harder time keeping the level of privacy they need. So many seem to think being 'public' is normal, and opting out is less and less of a problem as the act of posting everything becomes more and more ubiquitous. bo> That is not to say a sysop cannot choose to enable web access, thereby bo> making the discussion world visible, but they have an obligation to users bo> to make it clear to users from the start, that this is what they are bo> doing. ec> They have no such obligation. That's in your head. It's a *good* idea ec> and it would be *very nice* if they informed their users, but as far as ec> I know they are not required to do so. ec> I'm happy to be proven wrong if there are laws on the books about this. ec> Otherwise, if you hold people to unwritten rules you're setting ec> yourself up for disappointment. You are 100% correct. They have no requirement to do so. But considering how things are developing, we would need to know this to tread the new world. Morals change though, and changing cirumstances, new technologies require new paradigms. My childrens school now asks parents about posting on Social Media. New technology means new considerations, new limits, new regulations. I think in the future, these kind of 'guarantee's will be more and more sought after. bo> Simply accessing the BBS by TCP/IP can NOT be taken as an understanding bo> the discussion is totally public. ec> As much as the sysop *should* express this to the user, it is also the ec> user's responsibility to do their own research. The fact that they're ec> using an internet service that they're obviously not very familiar with ec> should be a huge red flag to them, if they care. ec> Most people *don't* care. Truly. The social media landscape would be ec> very different today if anybody actually gave a shit. Agree, caveat emptor, but it can be hard to do research, or it could lead you astray. Especially when a technology changes forms. The fact most people don't care should be a cause for concern, not an argument that things as they are now are OK. bo> That is fine, but one should not have to "assume". They should now so they bo> can make an informed choice, and post with knowledge. ec> Exactly. In the absence of that information being pushed at them, they ec> should seek it out. It's pretty easy to do a web search and determine ec> that posts to fsxnet are very visible. ec> Trusting that people share your ideals and idealism is a recipe for ec> heartbreak. People who are concerned should take a cautious and ec> realistic approach. ec> I'm not saying you're wrong to want this, but if you expect it ... ec> well. I don't expect it, but I think we should increase peoples expectations so that it does become more and more expected. A lot of the niceties we take for granted today, was once considered 'idealism'. One should look at the EU, and how they are putting in stricter regulation. I think a lot of this attitude against this "idealism" is US/Northern European centric, where the culture is very laissez faire. Europeans are ahead of the curve here I think and understand the need for greater controls and responsibilities. ___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52 --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64) * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101) .