[Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Legal obligation to report Wikipedia editor under UCMJ (Mike G weigh in?)

[Ray Saintonge]

Nathan wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, the initial warning was sent to via e-mail - not
> on-wiki. Also for clarificiation, only OrangeMarlin is claiming to be
> a member of the US military (inactive reserve). Jim is apparently in
> the treasury department, which in my mind indicates a separate type of
> obligation. I'm also not sure that the point that both editors are
> admins is true or relevant.
>
> The issues are:
>
> 1) Are we under an obligation to prevent obvious violations of the law
> when we are aware of them, as in the case of all military IP edits
> being illegal (or some similar situation in another part of the
> world).
>   
Usually no.  Here we are talking about the unauthorized use of 
computers.  There is no suggestion that the manner of their usage was 
any different from the way a generally well-behaved user would have done 
so from a home computer.  It could be just as "illegal" for an employee 
in the private sector to use his employer's computers, or for a student 
using a school's computers.
> 2) Can editors with an affirmative legal obligation warn other editors
> of this obligation and their exposure to it off-wiki? Is there a
> difference between warning them on or off Wikipedia?
>   
How would affirmative obligations square with the "Don't ask, don't 
tell" policy about gays in the military when you find out that two other 
guys are getting it on.  I guess there's always that proud military 
tradition of "Catch 22".  Warning on-wiki is clearly the worse because 
of the immediate drama that such a warning causes.  Off-wiki isn't much 
better if the accused sees it as an officious threat made without 
basis.  What is he to do then?  Apart from bringing the matter online 
himself, can he ignore the threat?  Can he privately tell the accuser to 
put his threat where the sun don't shine?
> 3) Are the legal claims being made by OM, Jim62sch and others valid
> (with respect to their obligation, and the legality of editing by
> military IPs)?
That's completely beyond us.  Our area of competence can only begin from 
the point in time when someone is on line; if they managed to get 
connected we can only assume that it was done legally, and that any 
illegal connection would have been thwarted by the employer's own 
systems and safeguards.  How can the accuser possibly know if offender's 
base commander has enacted an exception to the rules.  Is he about to 
take on the base commander on the basis that he was not authorized to 
grant such an exception?