[Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Legal obligation to report Wikipedia

[Dan Rosenthal]

R+R is a legitimate air force interest. I emailed my Army JAG friend,  
I'm waiting on a response. However, from my own experiences in both  
Army and USAF computer facilities in Iraq and other middle east  
countries, we're all arguing about a complete non-issue. Here's the  
rub: The military, ALL branches of the military, regularly set up and  
authorize the use of computer labs and stations for off-duty  
browsing.  The navy has them installed on their ships. The Air Force  
sets them up at air bases, and the army comes in and mooches off of  
them until we get our own. These facilities are at the discretion of  
the installation commander and he can always take them back and shut  
them down. But in practice, that never happens. Did you know there is  
an MOS in the air force for internet help desk? That means there are  
people who's entire job in the airforce is getting sent to kuwait and  
answering phone calls from junior officers about why flash videos of a  
dog humping a cat are loading slowly.

This is all really much ado about nothing.

-Dan
On Jan 3, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Nathan wrote:

> "Commanders may authorize incidental use which:...serves a legitimate
> Air Force interest"
>
> Have to include the context.
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 5:21 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> On 1/3/08, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It seems that in all that the key statement is "COMMANDERS MAY  
>>> AUTHORIZE
>>> INCIDENTAL USE."  How can anyone say that he knows about an  
>>> offence if
>>> he is not on the same base, and knows nothing about the orders by  
>>> the
>>> commander of the putative offender's base?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Good point. Furthermore, is there a specific obligation to go out  
>> of ones way
>> to "fish" for compromising information on a wikipedia user, I.E.  
>> Isn't there
>> anything like our AGF in the best practises of the armed servises?
>>
>> Even if there were an affirmative obligation to pass on any  
>> information that
>> would lead to the apprehension of somebody misusing resources,  
>> wouldn't
>> such an affirmative obligation only apply to positive knowledge.  
>> That is, how
>> should anyone be affirmatively obliged to inform upon a *possible*  
>> infraction?
>>
>> If that were the case, wouldn't that mean that those folk should be  
>> running
>> around frenetically informing their higher-ups about every  
>> suscpicion they
>> might have about their brothers in arms... ?
>>
>> --
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l