but the man of the house is out on "vacation" again.
read somewhere that the security detail at his other house is making a lot of grief for his neighbor who is remodeling.
our tax dollars goto work to keep a leaf sweeper employed out there.
can have the pres stepping on a wet leaf now.

back in the area where they have a house painted white...

There used to be a very high ranking guy in the Government who needed security at his home, the Secret Service did the installation and then put a van in the driveway for 3 weeks! The neighbors were NOT happy campers when they found out and then were even LESS happy when they found out that ALL of them had had background checks run on them!! The high ranking guy had lived in the house for years but had only recently had an 'issue' that required the extra security. Today the van is gone but the security remains, although since he is now out of Government the security is much less. It is what he knows now that is of concern, not what he does any more! In a few more years that should be outdated enough to downgrade his security again, although if he keeps testifying to Congress it might not!!

mod just took down my post about the address of the 'man'.
but you can find what i was looking at by just searching for barrack obama's house and then using google maps to look around. goto street level to see all the concrete and barricades.

There is all kinds of public info. that I wish I could access readily on the internet... but not on the R@h message boards. Will we quote people that have used swear words in public next? And accuse the moderator of favoritism or censorship?

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Never said it was easy to be a Mod, and I'm certain you mean to do what you believe to be "right".

However, I personally believe you have stepped over the line.

Question: Is Baker Labs a private, non-government entity? Or is it a part of the state of Washington, via the University of Washington?

As you know, private entities can not legally be guilty of censorship, while governmental institutions can be.

And under the legal doctrine of "Respondeat superior", an employer (the state of Washington) can be liable for the actions of its (volunteer) "employees" (moderators), when they are acting within their scope.

(and they said my law school education wouldn't be helpful in the cyber world, lol !)

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

what was wrong with my post mod?
the address is public knowledge
there was no mal intent in that message.
there is no privileged information in that message.
the neighbors right to privacy went out the door when the article about his renovation was published by CNN.

as for the presidents house, well that is public knowledge as well.
it is not like I was posting a link or saying there is video that invades his privacy. there are street views of the house as well. so all that is of the public record.

if you let the white house be public then you should let my post be made public.
that is only fair. otherwise I see you as using a double standard to moderate the posts and that is discrimination not moderation.

i have sent a question to the UW Information Technology Service Center to ask what rules were violated and who's rules apply to this forum, being that the copyright for this forum belongs to the University and is hosted on the University's computer system. this is also shown here: http://whois.domaintools.com/140.142.20.249

The address of anyone, even yourself, will be hidden if I see it. There is no reason to be posting private (or public) addresses on the boards. The people that live at or near any given address have the right not to have it posted all over the internet. I do the same with EMail addresses and phone numbers... as the Penguin is already well aware as I recall. I had no concern over intent... with Greg's original (deleted) post.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

The address of anyone, even yourself, will be hidden if I see it. There is no reason to be posting private (or public) addresses on the boards. The people that live at or near any given address have the right not to have it posted all over the internet. I do the same with EMail addresses and phone numbers... as the Penguin is already well aware as I recall. I had no concern over intent... with Greg's original (deleted) post.

The neighbors at Obama's house lost their right to privacy when the story was published. And they even granted an external party to be part of the interview in the NY Times article. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/us/politics/02renovation.html?pagewanted=all

"The Moyn*****, who were identified in real estate records but declined to be interviewed, -->gave approval to the builder and workers to talk to a reporter about the unusual circumstances of doing a home renovation next door to the home of the leader of the free world."

The article also says that "Concerns of the White House team are taken very, very seriously (Secret Service agents even demanded that no new photos be taken of the much-photographed Obama home). "

Notice the word NEW. Existing photos are fair game. Even the Whitehouse and Secret Service are allowing that. The link was to an existing aerial photograph.

The President is a public figure and viewing his house via a website does not violate his personal privacy. I believe the term is expectation of reasonable privacy? So your saying that I could post something about his house if no address or direct link to the address was posted? I could post his street name, but not his house number. So I could say look at the house on the corner of x street and y street and see the security level there. That is not a specific address. It is a block location. Now we are splitting hairs like a lawyer.

The White House in Washington DC ?!

The address of U Washington ?!

The address of anyone, even yourself, will be hidden if I see it...

You, of course, do realize, that legally speaking, courts have consistently ruled that public figures have a different "right to privacy" than non-public figures?

Is it being suggested that the President of the United States is not a public figure?

The people that live at or near any given address have the right not to have it posted all over the internet.

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

Let's see if anyone wants to play the slippery-slope game...

Hyperlinks instead of the actual content itself?

Here is the "Contacts" page at the White House website, which specifically includes its physical address:

White House contact page

Thanx Mod.Sense ! I haven't had this much legal intellectual fun in awhile...

The address of anyone, even yourself, will be hidden if I see it.

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

"near" ?! Really ?

I used to live "near" the house where Ron DeFeo murdered his family. Factual information.

So, since I lived "near" there, I have the "right" to prevent the address at which the murders occurred from being posted all over the internet?

Really?

Which Court can I go to, so as to have my other family members enforce this "right" ?

The people that live at or near any given address have the right not to have it posted all over the internet.

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

Mod dude, no problem with you; just think you don't fully appreciate the legal distinction between a non-public figure's right to privacy (people like you and me, well at least me), and the greatly diminished right to privacy of public figures .

I do the same with EMail addresses and phone numbers... as the Penguin is already well aware as I recall. I had no concern over intent... with Greg's original (deleted) post.

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

Greg on 22 oct you said:
"Message 68168 - Posted 22 Oct 2010 11:01:48 UTC

well with all the participants gone or on the road, I guess this thread has come to an end"

I think that was a bit premature given the latest turn of events!

Hey mod dude, if anyone wants to know where just about anyone lives ALL property tax stuff is public record, so if you know where I live you can look me up and see just how much I paid for my house, the current assessed value, etc, etc. I look up my neighbors all the time, just so we can see how our homes compare, we all have different models and different amenities but they are similar and public info. Kind of like when I used to work for the local government, the base pay was published in the paper every year for anyone making over 10K. Tax dollars pay the salaries so it is public info. Just like the military, our tax dollars pay their salaries so we can tell how much their base pay is, now their deductions, ot, etc is NOT public info so it is not disclosed. I even looked up Dr. David Anderson at Berkeley one time, he is after all paid by the University which gets State funds and therefore a public employee! The internet is a wonderful thing and to try and stop the info can be a very slippery slope. Now I have no problem with you removing email addresses from the postings, bots can scour the groups and spam will be on its way. But to remove the street address of a public figure that anyone can easily find thru an internet search seems silly. In fact I just did a Yahoo search and came up with a dozen websites all listing it, wiki.answers.com even gave who the answer was from "from - abraham lincoln school 14 - elizabeth , new jersey". So if the kids can easily find it, who are you protecting with your moderation?

greg_be wasn't the only one with deleted posts. some of mine were also "moderated" into that great black hole in cyberspace...

i wonder what would happen if i wanted to change my user id to a four digit street number, i mean number (underscore) a bunch of random letters which quite coincidently form a word (underscore) a five digit zip code, i mean number...

what is the max length for a user name anyways ?

even if max length makes this impossible, the point remains the same, are user names that aren't inflamatory in-and-of-themselves (i.e., like vanity license plates; or for the more legally minded, do not consist of "fighting words"), subject to being censored ?

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

I found a summary of the laws pertaining to privacy here

Item 3 of the section about modern day privacy laws:
publication of private facts, for example, income tax data, sexual relations, personal letters, family quarrels, medical treatment, photographs of person in his/her home.

This did not happen in my post or in Penguins post.
You did have the right to edit his post (i have seen a copy of it directly from him), but not to purge the address. You did not have the right under the this summary to remove my post about his non White House living location.
Being that is an aerial view and a street view and being he is a public figure, he can not expect fully privacy except inside his house. Anything from the outside is fair game as that is public life.

This is backed up by a statement from the website Law Database:
With respect to certain privacy rights, public figures – such as the President of the United States or Tom Cruise – have virtually no legal right to privacy. What the media may know about a celebrity or politician is fair game for publication, no matter how dastardly the information may be. This is so because where public figures are involved, the newsworthiness of the information will outweigh the right to privacy of the public figure – so long as the information is actually true and was not printed or aired with “actual malice.” When celebrities and politicians sue the media, the legal question generally boils down to two questions: Was the information true, and was it printed without actual malice – or intent to harm the public figure. If the answer is no, the media will succeed on the legal claim nearly every time.

However, if you are an average person with no public figure status, the media doesn’t have a legal right to go printing and airing your dirty laundry. Why? Because it is not particularly newsworthy, and thus, your right to privacy outweighs the newsworthiness of the information.

So based on these two pages, what we posted in terms of address is fair game.

When you post a link to where content exists, who is liable for the content? If I tell you to go to your public library, pull a given book and it is on page 42, it is still the book that published the details, are you going to sue the library now? And what if the library chooses not to stock that book anymore because of page 42, is that censorship? What if a patron of the library tears out page 42, and the library leaves the book on the shelf? Who has censored the information? Is the library required to provide a copy of page 42 if I demand one?

I should point out that I intended to use the word "private" in the common decency sense of the word, not specifically a legal sense. I would do the same if you posted Mel Gibson's address, or that of any given random person. Before you bother to start quoting law, you need to quote something that says a given law applies to this message board.

Many of the posts I've deleted here now fall under the catagory of "...intended to annoy"... specifically the moderator :) And publishing someone's address, even that of a public figure, is easily seen as a post that "antagonizes other people"... even if they are not immediately aware of it, and even if they are public figures.

RE:

You did have the right to edit his post (i have seen a copy of it directly from him), but not to purge the address. You did not have the right under the this summary to remove my post

...and when one has no "edit" capability, only "hide" then what? (and that is the case with BOINC moderation, I can edit my own posts, but not anyone else's)

...as to my rights/duties/obligations/customs/or precedents, you can always use the publicly available information to contact the Project Team and raise any concerns. Let's not be republishing that public information here, we've played that game before as well.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

disclaimer: not intended to annoy or harass; merely stating a fact.

Rosie moderators (plural, all encompassing, no one singled out) as agents of the state of Washington can subject the University of Washington to the liability of the Australian government if any of 1,370 of "banned" websites appear on bakerlab.org, and are viewed by anyone in Australia.

I hope that Rosie, and ALL of her moderators, keeps up-to-date on this list, lest bakerlab.org itself winds up being banned in Australia.

how ironic would that be ?!


$11,000-a-day fine over a link published in its forum to another page blacklisted

"As time goes on, pressure will only mount on the Government to expand the list.."

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

disclaimer: not intended to annoy or harass; merely stating a fact.


I "might" be traveling to Los Angeles, and I found this webpage from travelersdigest to be a useful aid in planning a daily agenda.

Perhaps others in Cafe Rosetta / General Chat Here, who may be traveling to Los Angeles would also find it to be of value as a travel aid:

Note that many of the people listed are DECEASED, and their FORMER addresses are provided.

Link to Homes of The Stars

And publishing someone's address, even that of a public figure, is easily seen as a post that "antagonizes other people"... even if they are not immediately aware of it, and even if they are public figures.

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

duplicate post

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

disclaimer: not intended to annoy or harass; merely stating a fact.


Hey, look, a penguin gets banned !

ALA Top ten most frequently challenged books of 2009

Out of 460 challenges as reported to the Office for Intellectual Freedom

1. ttyl; ttfn; l8r, g8r (series), by Lauren Myracle
Reasons: drugs, nudity, offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

2. And Tango Makes Three, by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson
Reasons: homosexuality

3. The Perks of Being A Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky
Reasons: anti-family, drugs, homosexuality, offensive language, religious viewpoint, sexually explicit, suicide, unsuited to age group

4. To Kill A Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
Reasons: offensive language, racism, unsuited to age group

5. Twilight (series) by Stephenie Meyer
Reasons: religious viewpoint, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

6. Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger
Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

7. My Sister’s Keeper, by Jodi Picoult
Reasons: homosexuality, offensive language, religious viewpoint, sexism, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group, violence

8. The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big, Round Things, by Carolyn Mackler
Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

9. The Color Purple, by Alice Walker
Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

10. The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier
Reasons: nudity, offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group



According to the government of Australia, YOU, (the entity hosting the hyperlink) are...

When you post a link to where content exists, who is liable for the content?

Don't understand the point you're attempting to make...

If I tell you to go to your public library, pull a given book and it is on page 42, it is still the book that published the details, are you going to sue the library now?

YES !!!

And what if the library chooses not to stock that book anymore because of page 42, is that censorship?

Arguably, the library, for not replacing a damaged book in its collection, pursuant to its current policies on replacing damaged books...

What if a patron of the library tears out page 42, and the library leaves the book on the shelf? Who has censored the information?

I would argue, "yes!"

Is the library required to provide a copy of page 42 if I demand one?

---

Defeat Censorship! Wikileaks needs OUR help! Learn how you can help (d/l 'insurance' file), by clicking here. "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech" B. Franklin

well we all know the Penguin likes to be "bad" as is his name.

as to your inability to edit in the line of your duties, then we should bring that up to your groups web department. I would think there is something they can do.

as to quoting law, what law says I can not post a persons address here?
so far all I see is you claiming privilege as moderator to edit/hide any post that contains an address.

what law/rule from the university prohibits me from posting an address?
what state law/rule or federal law/rule applies?
what rule from the project applies?

if none of the above, then I have the right/privilege to post and address.