As a fairly recent subscriber to this list, we've sat quietly on the
sidelines during the recent discussions about forged mail, private
posts appearing in public forums, etc.  Given the size of this group,
we expected someone more "tenured" to step forward and speak to the
ethical side of the issue.  Since--after seven days--that hasn't
happened, we feel compelled to "unlurk" and drop our .02 cents' worth on
the table.
 
We're bothered by the willingness of this list to allow the discussion
to focus on technical rather than ethical issues.  Note that, at the
beginning, Natalie was chastised (evidently off the list as well as on
it) for publicly "flaming" a list member, and it was only after she
defended herself and pointed out that the mail in question was not
routed to a public forum (but was in fact a private mail) that even
the most technologically competent among us realized that the mail in
question was not "normal."  Once she pointed this out, those who would
speak for Melvin noted the "obvious" traces and basically
excused him from any ill-willed intent based upon the ineptitude of
the forgery, saying that he was capable of doing better.  Why is it
that we would be willing to publicly chastise someone for (rather
mild) flaming, but not be willing to chastise or censure someone who
commits an act of fraud?  Everyone seems quite willing to dismiss the
fraudulent posting, yet Eric Thomas didn't hesitate to say that he would
"have  no   gratuitous/unfounded  UK-tabloids-like mudslinging on this
list."
 
Rather than focusing the discussion on the egregious act of forgery,
the issue got (quite paternally) turned back on Natalie, when Eric
said,
 
>When you insult someone in private, it is a good idea to weigh the use
>your private communication may be put to by your antagonist vs the bad
>impression they would be making if they forwarded your message to a
>mailing list.
 
This calls Natalie's judgement into question, rather than pursuing the
ethical problem of forgery. we would imagine that even when Eric posted
the email death threat to a public list that it was accompanied by
some sort of introduction or contextualization.  In other words,
everyone would have recognized that the post was being distributed by
the recipient.
 
And this is the real question: why was the message sent with forged
headers, making it appear that Natalie had flamed someone in a public
forum (i.e., committed an ethical breach)?  If the intent were to
point out that she was being a "bad girl," why go to the trouble?
 
In effect, it appears to us that the victim in this situation is being
made out to be the guilty party, something that happens all too often.
 
 
        ***                                               ***
           Robert D. Child, Instructional Labs Coordinator
           Purdue Univ. Computing Cntr. & Dept. of English
           [log in to unmask]  /or/  vsf@purccvm
 
 
 
 
--Gary Beason
---Purue University
[log in to unmask]