[anti-abuse-wg] [ncc-services-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)

Hi Sander,

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:23:38PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
>Fair point. But would you really give any value to an anonymous report
>that is marked as closed,no-violation?

I might not, others might - or draw inferences from the fact that there
are complaints and the number thereof. Even if they are marked as
closed/no violation.

>Publishing nothing at all would not be acceptable to me. Letting the
>RIPE NCC do some 'spam filtering' before publishing anything would not
>be a problem, but waiting until the complaint is completely resolved
>would not make the process more visible. A big problem I have with
>reporting something to the police is that you never see if action has
>been taken, and that gives the feeling that reporting is useless, even
>when it is not. I want to change that.

It is like that for a reason - which is "in dubio pro reo" or "innocent
until proven guilty" 
The police will (in most places) only publish anything if they arrest or
charge anyone, and *never* the identity "a male, aged 34 was arrested".

Everything else would be considered libel/slander here and media have
been sued, and been sentenced to pay large sums of money, for disclosing
stuff ike that.

How would you feel if the cops published lists like:

-Sander Stefann
-complaint for kiddiepr0n
-anonymous submitter
-being investigated ?

That sort of stuff sticks and never goes away even if it is subsequently
found to be bullshit.

>How about initially only publishing: - Date submitted; - The resources
>the report is about; - The identity of the submitter, if the submitter
>indicated that it can be made public; - The current state.

Nope, no way, not unless a violation is determined - akin to being found
guilty in a court of law.

Also, the identity of the submitter MUST be published even in this case.
No anonymity for snitches, the Stasi wasn't *that* long ago

>Not that exciting...

It'll be exciting when the membership fees go up to pay for the libel
convictions the NCC will have to pay for...

cheers,
Sascha