Hi,
> I'll quote an extract of a report written by Geoffrey Robertson QC:
>
> "... the basic rule is that on the one hand the law should not
> permit the
> suppression of information of genuine public interest and on the
> other
> it should not allow improper intrusion into the intimacies of private
> life for no purpose other than sniggering sensationalism."
>
> Do we encourage or enable improper intrusion in the private life of
> another person? Based on my reading of the messages sent to the
> mailing list I would say that we do not encourage or enable that.
I agree. But the spectrum isn't black and white, there are plenty of
greys in between. I think we all agree that well written emails
bringing up relevant topics can and should be sent to the relevant
officials. We probably also agree that "intrusive" emails should not.
Where I think we're not seeing eye-to-eye is on the cases that are less
clear. I'm talking about:
- Emails which are sent to officials by mistake
<
http://lists.elandnews.com/archive/mauritius/internet-users/2015/05/1894.html>
(Reply-all)
- Emails which are sent to 28 recipients
<
http://lists.elandnews.com/archive/mauritius/internet-users/2015/05/1449.html>
(Spam-like)
- Emails which do not represent the views of the MIU, but are part of a
MIU thread, and sent to an official
To be very clear, I do NOT wish to:
- Stop any form of conversation within the MIU list
- Stop any member from contacting any official by email
I DO wish to:
1. Find a process or technical mechanism to stop MIU members from being
able to click [Reply All], and sending emails to non MIU members
2. Discourage members from sending emails to officials which can be
confused as being MIU opinions
I don't think the first point is controversial at all (but it may
technically difficult). It is not limiting anybody's behaviour.
The 2nd point I'd implement just by calling people out on inappropriate
behaviour. (When somebody has 28 recipients on a MIU email, then the
MIU should probably point out to them that this is not appropriate.)
The aims of both of these points are to make external MIU communications
more professional, not to limit any freedoms.
> Do we encourage people to send messages for no other purpose other
> than sniggering sensationalism? In my opinion the answer is no.
Agree.
> Is this mailing list a fair representation of the Mauritius public?
> No. It is the closest match for a group with people in Mauritius from
> various backgrounds interested in the internet in Mauritius. I do not
> say that the group comprises many persons as that does not reflect the
> truth.
Agree.
> The actual issue (unrelated to what Dan wrote) is that a few persons
> are exchanging information about the internet problems affecting
> them. It is against the tradition in Mauritius to do that.
If that's the actual "problem", then it's definitely not the problem I'm
trying to solve. I fully support all discussions of this nature.
> The organisations which are supposed to solve the problems will deny
> that the problems exist or they may threaten to take legal action
> against the person who talks about the problems instead of trying to
> solve the problems. The latter is known as the "chilling effect".
And isn't that a nice way to deal with criticism...
Dan.
--
Daniel Laeng
Software Developer
+230 5775 1037
Received on Tue Jun 16 2015 - 06:37:34 PST