From: ykcheu@eos.ncsu.edu (YIHNSIANG KASAMA CHEU)
Subject: UPDATE-vote for buyers beware list
Originator: ykcheu@c00414-313mn.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: ykcheu@eos.ncsu.edu (YIHNSIANG KASAMA CHEU)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:54:30 GMT


Voting should end somewhere at the end of this month (around the 25th),
although voting has slowed down to a trickle (about one vote every 2 days).
NOTE:  For those of you who have voted, I will be posting your e-mail
addresses when the voting has finished unless you request that it not be
posted (I already have one NO voter that refuses his e-mail or id to be
posted).  For those of you who still do not know what is going on, this is
a vote to see whether of not a buyers beware list should be created (actually
it should be called buyers complaint list, since it is a list of complaints
against sellers and buyers, etc).


Here are the main proposals so far listed for the group:

Should a ~.d group or ~.complaint should be created to resolve flame wars,
etc.  (So far, by judging what people have sent me over the mail, the vote
seems to be even on both sides, people saying no say that this would be
inconvenient.  While people saying yes, usually, say that it is appropriate).

People should have a way to get off the list.  ( I support this position,
but under what circumstances this would I occur, I can't say since many
people haven't given any suggestions on how to do this).

The ID of the complainer and complainee should be posted together.  (I've
received no objections to this and 2 people support this so far.  There are
some people that beleive that and ID should not be printed without his/her
consent though).

A list should be created for people who are considered reliable buyers.
(The only suggestion on how to determine who is a reliable buyer is a
proposal where at least 3 people give recommendations to this buyer (not
including the buyer himself/herself)).

It is illegal or defamatory to post someone's ID without his/her permission.
(So far the issue is unresolved:  the NO voters say that it might be
defamatory, even though it is hard to tell under what circumstances they
found that information;  there is no-one else that has verified whether or not
it is illegal to post an ID without his/her permission.  If an ID can't be
posted without the owner's permission, then this list would be useless since
people accused would not want their names posted.  I seriously doubt that
posting an ID without his/her permission would be illegal, since private
companies always sell our addresses without our permission (as well as the
government).  Although the government has been known to do illegal things.)




Here are some new proposals:

A 3 month penalty should be imposed upon first-time offenders who appear on
the list.  A 6 month maximum penalty should be imposed upon second-time
offenders.  And a life-time penalty should be imposed upon habitual offenders.


(At first, I thought that this was a good idea.  But after thinking about it,
I think that it has several problems with it.  First of all, this proposal
makes the complainee's look like they are guilty of a crime (which they are
not, according to the way the list would be formatted).  Second, most abusers
are one-time or two-time abusers anyway.  People that abuse the net more that
a few time are either caught or are very good, making the list virtually 
useless.  Third, this provision says that habitual offenders should be put
on the list indefinately.  While in practice this might come true out of
coencidence, I think that there should be way for a person to get off the list.
(Just incase he has some proof (how this could be managed over usenet is hard
to imagine) that he is not guilty, or the complainer decides to take his/her
name off the list.)


Here is a note (paraphrased, by his/her permission) from someone who wishes 
to remain anonymous and voted NO:

It is illegal to post names on this list, according to the DA.  The DA said
that a person posting a complainee's name on the list would have no "written"
proof of whether or not a person commited a crime.  The person, in essense,
is guilty until proven innocent, which in the US, is not the way of our law.
As for slander and defamation charges, it would be easy to prove in court,
there are 100,000+ witnesses.
I do not give permission to post my name, I have legal grounds to sue if it
does appear on the net.

(This is a very important issue, since it determines whether or not a buyers
beware list can ever be posted.  As to the first complaint that the user
sent to me, I can't really verify whether or not this is true.  It all depends
on how he/she worded the nature of the list and what he/she exactly said to
the DA.  If, for example, he/she said that this is a list to put people who
stole from other people on the net, then I would expect that the DA would say
something similar to what he/she said.  Although if he/she said to the DA that
this was a list of complainers vs complainee's and in no way is list of
theives and people who have stolen from this list, then this could be a serious
issue.  If you talk to a legal expert, and are not one yourself, then if
you e-mail me next time, please tell me what you EXACTLY said to that legal
expert and what he/she EXACTLY said in response.  Even one word, left out, of
what you said to the legal expert and what the legal expert says in response
can mean a lot of difference in meaning, especially in court where exact words
are very important.  As to the slander and defamation issue, putting a name
on a list is not defamation as long as you make it clear that this is a list
that is not a listing of theives and robbers, but a list of complainers and
complainees.  The moderator would say that the people who appear on this list
as complainees are in no way guilty of any crime, and the complainers may or
may not have merit in their accusations.  As for the 100,000+ witnesses, it
would be very hard to get them involved (at most one or two), since:
1:  It would be inconvenient for them to have to drive or fly to court just
to defend your case.
2:  E-mail verication to defend your position in court is almost impossible to
do, since e-mail is too easy to alter.
Even if they decided to sign a written or typed letter, it would be hard for
the judge to decide if such documents were forged or not, unless a legal
agency were to sign to verify the claims of the document.)

If the votes stay where they are (which looks like it is happening, since
so few people are voting), then the YES votes will have it by the same 2 to 1
margin as before from my last UPDATE.

Please e-mail me with any comments, suggestion, or votes to:

	ykcheu@eos.ncsu.edu

Your comments are welcome and appreciated.