Moderation

[Stephen Early]

On Wednesday, 7 Mar 2001, Nicholas Bohm wrote:

> Theodor.Schlickmann@cec.eu.int writes to me as follows:
> 
> I have tried to post a message in french to UKcrypto
> and received the following answer:
> 
> >Posting of your message entitled:
> >		 U.S. INTELLIGENCE GIVEN EU COMMISSION'S ENCRYPTION METHODS
> ?
> >
> >has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the
> >following reason for rejecting your request:
> >
> >    Sorry, UKcrypto is an English-language mailing list only.
> 
> 1  I thought this list was unmoderated

The list is indeed unmoderated, although postings to the list that
fail to meet certain technical criteria (for example the poster being
subscribed to the list) are automatically referred to me for
moderation. This mechanism has been very useful in preventing spam
from being forwarded to all 500 list subscribers. The poster is always
informed when a message is held for moderation.

> 2  I see no reason why occasional material in other languages should
> not be included, though a babelfish translation alongside would no
> doubt be helpful.

When messages are referred to me for moderation I apply the guidelines
set out in the list information page, which I reproduce below. These
guidelines have been in operation, as far as I know, since the list
was originally set up.

UKcrypto list information:

> The mailing list is unmoderated, but only subscribed members can
> post. The reply address is set to the list, in the interest of
> maintaining a freely flowing debate, so please be careful that you
> do not inadvertently post inappropriate responses.
> 
> Please try and restrict postings to UK Encryption law and try not to
> stray onto general cryptology topics. The following topics for
> instance are not appropriate:
> 
>  1. Can PGP be cracked 
>  2. What is the best PGP plugin for Eudora 
>  3. What is the best way to encrypt a disk under Windows NT 
> 
> The language of the list is English, though American and other
> variants of English are acceptable.

I see no reason why a message that is on-topic and presented in
English and another language (even if the translation to English is
automated and imperfect) should not be acceptable. I believe that
messages entirely in languages other than English will not be of use
to the majority of subscribers, and so should be discouraged.

Only those messages that fail automatic checks (the sender being
subscribed to the list, the message being under a particular size
limit, the number of recipients being below a particular threshold,
etc.) are referred to me for moderation. In these cases I accept or
reject the message based on how useful I believe it will be to the
list subscribers, according to the guidelines set out in the list
information page. Messages that pass the checks are immediately posted
to the list without my intervention.

In the case of messages that have already been posted to the list
(automatically or otherwise), I try to interfere as little as
possible. If a thread appears to be drifting a long way off topic I
may remind the major participants by private email of the list
guidelines. In extreme cases I may set a list subscriber's address to
"always moderate" in the mailing list software, however this is a last
resort and to date I have only done it once.

If you have any comments or criticisms about the way in which the
UKcrypto list is run, please take them up with me by email in the
first instance. If I fail to satisfy your concerns then please do post
them to the list; however I aim to keep the list clear of
administrative traffic and aligned with its primary purpose:

> The aim of the forum is to exchange information and co-ordinate
> actions in order to achieve a UK government policy which:
> 
>  1.  preserves existing freedoms within the UK in respect of the
>      design, development, provision and use of encryption products
>      and services
>  2.  is workable in practice given other constraints and factors
>      which are beyond the control or influence of the UK government 
>  3.  meets the common interests of people in the UK in combating
>      crime and terrorism whilst minimising intrusion into their lawful
>      activities and any unnecessary erosion of their privacy 
>  4.  is set out clearly, precisely and unambiguously to meet clearly
>      stated objectives which are demonstrably achievable in political,
>      legal and technical terms 
>  5.  consistent with the above, minimises any (domestic or export)
>      controls on encryption products and services, removing any existing
>      controls which are unachievable whilst clarifying the scope of
>      those that remain and the processes that will be used to
>      implement them 

Stephen Early