Public IP Address Amendment [Passed to Regions]

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Franzl

[Marokai Backbeat]

I was actually planning on introducing this until Franzl talked me out of it, then he must have changed his mind and introduced it himself.

In any case, I support this measure. In internet terms, IPs are pretty close public information, almost the equivalent of what color clothes someone wears in person. We're not searching someone's computer or ransacking their home, so a search warrant is far too much just to acquire an IP address.

[Franzl]

I was actually planning on introducing this until Franzl talked me out of it, then he must have changed his mind and introduced it himself.

Yeah sorry...just wanted to get the ball rolling. I have come to the conclusion that this proposal is indeed for the best

[MasterJedi]

Even if this passes I'm not going to comply unless you get Dave to publically post that it's ok.

[Franzl]

Even if this passes I'm not going to comply unless you get Dave to publically post that it's ok.

You're not forced to do anything.

[Rowan]

Eh, I'm not so sure this is a good idea.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think Jedi misunderstood what this does.

[afleitch]

I think Jedi misunderstood what this does.

Well it does request that the mods agree to releasing I.P addresses. I.P addresses gathered from boards outside Atlasia on this forum should be excluded as that extends the jurisdiction of the game outside this board.

[Franzl]

As said, moderators aren't forced to release any information

This is primarily meant to allow evidence to be used in court if the Attorney General happens to find out about an IP match from a moderator.

[afleitch]

As said, moderators aren't forced to release any information

This is primarily meant to allow evidence to be used in court if the Attorney General happens to find out about an IP match from a moderator.

Then I oppose the bill.

As a mod, I only gather IP adresses when requested to in order to allow the Forum as a whole to keep track of concerns, sock accounts and trolls. I don't give two hoots about a 'prosecution' in a game.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Afleitch, this is the current system:

AG: "We are prosecuting ____ because we believe this poster might have a sock."

Court: "Well why do you think this? What is your evidence?"

AG: "Because we saw the IP addresses, they're clear as day!"

Court: "Well you can't introduce IPs as evidence without a warrant."

AG: "Then I request a search warrant for the IP address."

Court: "Probable cause?"

AG: "How could I possibly obtain probable cause without a flat-out admission of guilt! There's no way to get probable cause!"

Court: "Then you cannot post the IP address."

AG: "But we know they match!!"

Court: "Case dismissed."


In other words, the current system sucks.

[Franzl]

As said, moderators aren't forced to release any information

This is primarily meant to allow evidence to be used in court if the Attorney General happens to find out about an IP match from a moderator.

Then I oppose the bill.

As a mod, I only gather IP adresses when requested to in order to allow the Forum as a whole to keep track of concerns, sock accounts and trolls. I don't give two hoots about a 'prosecution' in a game.

For me the primary concern is keeping voter fraud from happening. Under the current system, as evidenced by recent rulings, such as Atlasia v. Sewer Socialist, it is impossible to prosecute people who have clearly broken the law simply because the Attorney General has no way of determining that a crime has been committed.

Nobody is asking that a moderator be forced to turn over IP addresses if he doesn't want to, but allowing people to be immune from prosecution simply because there was no reason to expect they had committed a crime seems counterproductive to me.

As always, we're talking about an internet forum, and I certainly wouldn't advocate this kind of thing in real life

[afleitch]

I understand that.

But it is a privilege for Mods to have access to IP's. They have nothing to do with a game we play; they are about keeping the Forum secure. Any issues about sock posters should be raised with the Mods and discussed and dealt with there. If we learn of any then we will tell you publically (if they are not banned already). That is all the evidence you need to play the game and have a 'prosecution.'

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I understand that.

But it is a privilege for Mods to have access to IP's. They have nothing to do with a game we play; they are about keeping the Forum secure. Any issues about sock posters should be raised with the Mods and discussed and dealt with there. If we learn of any then we will tell you publically (if they are not banned already). That is all the evidence you need to play the game and have a 'prosecution.'

And all this does, If I am correct, is make sure that once you due tell us publically that they can be used by the game as evidence. From my interpretation this has absolutely nothing to do with any part of that process you just mentioned, if I understand this bill correctly that is.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Us lowly posters just don't understand Afleitch's mod logic.

[afleitch]

I understand that.

But it is a privilege for Mods to have access to IP's. They have nothing to do with a game we play; they are about keeping the Forum secure. Any issues about sock posters should be raised with the Mods and discussed and dealt with there. If we learn of any then we will tell you publically (if they are not banned already). That is all the evidence you need to play the game and have a 'prosecution.'

And all this does, If I am correct, is make sure that once you due tell us publically that they can be used by the game as evidence. From my interpretation this has absolutely nothing to do with any part of that process you just mentioned, if I understand this bill correctly that is.

Well as I said the bill specifically says 'IP adresses' may be a used. Clearly they wont be as a mod is not going to say 'X's IP is 0.1234567' etc publically; they are simply going to say 'We did an IP check and X is a sock' That's what I'm getting at.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I understand that.

But it is a privilege for Mods to have access to IP's. They have nothing to do with a game we play; they are about keeping the Forum secure. Any issues about sock posters should be raised with the Mods and discussed and dealt with there. If we learn of any then we will tell you publically (if they are not banned already). That is all the evidence you need to play the game and have a 'prosecution.'

And all this does, If I am correct, is make sure that once you due tell us publically that they can be used by the game as evidence. From my interpretation this has absolutely nothing to do with any part of that process you just mentioned, if I understand this bill correctly that is.

Well as I said the bill specifically says 'IP adresses' may be a used. Clearly they wont be as a mod is not going to say 'X's IP is 0.1234567' etc publically; they are simply going to say 'We did an IP check and X is a sock' That's what I'm getting at.

ah mister Moderator, you're forgetting you are also senator and thus can do some "moding" of this here act.

[afleitch]

I understand that.

But it is a privilege for Mods to have access to IP's. They have nothing to do with a game we play; they are about keeping the Forum secure. Any issues about sock posters should be raised with the Mods and discussed and dealt with there. If we learn of any then we will tell you publically (if they are not banned already). That is all the evidence you need to play the game and have a 'prosecution.'

And all this does, If I am correct, is make sure that once you due tell us publically that they can be used by the game as evidence. From my interpretation this has absolutely nothing to do with any part of that process you just mentioned, if I understand this bill correctly that is.

Well as I said the bill specifically says 'IP adresses' may be a used. Clearly they wont be as a mod is not going to say 'X's IP is 0.1234567' etc publically; they are simply going to say 'We did an IP check and X is a sock' That's what I'm getting at.

ah mister Moderator, you're forgetting you are also senator and thus can do some "moding" of this here act.

I certainly don't mind doing that But there was no point in doing so until I had explained my objections/ No mod is going (I hope!) to give the court an IP address, so this bill would be useless. Confirmation that an account is a sock ect should suffice. How best to do that needs a little work given that proclamations that 'X is a sock' may take place outside the Fantasy board. The GM could be charged with repeating/confirmation that on here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I understand that.

But it is a privilege for Mods to have access to IP's. They have nothing to do with a game we play; they are about keeping the Forum secure. Any issues about sock posters should be raised with the Mods and discussed and dealt with there. If we learn of any then we will tell you publically (if they are not banned already). That is all the evidence you need to play the game and have a 'prosecution.'

And all this does, If I am correct, is make sure that once you due tell us publically that they can be used by the game as evidence. From my interpretation this has absolutely nothing to do with any part of that process you just mentioned, if I understand this bill correctly that is.

Well as I said the bill specifically says 'IP adresses' may be a used. Clearly they wont be as a mod is not going to say 'X's IP is 0.1234567' etc publically; they are simply going to say 'We did an IP check and X is a sock' That's what I'm getting at.

ah mister Moderator, you're forgetting you are also senator and thus can do some "moding" of this here act.

I certainly don't mind doing that But there was no point in doing so until I had explained my objections/ No mod is going (I hope!) to give the court an IP address, so this bill would be useless. Confirmation that an account is a sock ect should suffice. How best to do that needs a little work given that proclamations that 'X is a sock' may take place outside the Fantasy board. The GM could be charged with repeating/confirmation that on here.

Problem here is not content but about the contents admissibility. All we want to do here is to make sure it is admissable in court without a warrant.

[afleitch]

This is all I can think of;

Public IP Address Amendment:

Section 1.

a. Criminal charges brought under the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act may rely upon as evidence, the testimony from a Forum Moderator, or any testimony publically posted on 'The Atlas' board, that a poster may have committed a crime against Atlasia in accordance with Section 1 of the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act

b. This testimony shall be posted publically by the Game Moderator should it concern any citizen of Atlasia.

c. This testimony may be used in criminal trials as evidence without a search warrant.

---------

The GM gets involved to make what happens outside of the Fantasy forum is made public inside so that our fantasy laws can apply

[afleitch]

Actually on closer inspection the Act already covers this

Section 6: Admissibility of Evidence

The presiding Justice may admit the following as evidence of the crime at his own discretion:

    * 1. The actual statements made on the Atlas Forum itself
    * 2. Screenshots of the statements made.
    * 3. A quotation of the statement in a post by another Atlas Forum user.
    * 4. The testimony of forum users who viewed the statement itself.
    * 5. An admission by the accused in a thread on the Atlas Forum, or in a place viewed or heard by multiple persons, with recordings or testimony attributing to the same.
    * 6. Evidence obtained through investigation of the IP address from which the offence was perpetrated.
    * 7. Evidence given to the Court by the Forum Moderators or the Forum Owner, Dave Leip obtained in their capacity in that position.

The amendment may therefore be surplus to requirement.

[Purple State]

This is all I can think of;

Public IP Address Amendment:

Section 1.

a. Criminal charges brought under the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act may rely upon as evidence, the testimony from a Forum Moderator, or any testimony publically posted on 'The Atlas' board, that a poster may have committed a crime against Atlasia in accordance with Section 1 of the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act

b. This testimony shall be posted publically by the Game Moderator should it concern any citizen of Atlasia.

c. This testimony may be used in criminal trials as evidence without a search warrant.

---------

The GM gets involved to make what happens outside of the Fantasy forum is made public inside so that our fantasy laws can apply

I will need a clearer explanation of what new role I am being given, assuming this moves forward.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Afleitch, this is the current system:

AG: "We are prosecuting ____ because we believe this poster might have a sock."

Court: "Well why do you think this? What is your evidence?"

AG: "Because we saw the IP addresses, they're clear as day!"

Court: "Well you can't introduce IPs as evidence without a warrant."

AG: "Then I request a search warrant for the IP address."

Court: "Probable cause?"

AG: "How could I possibly obtain probable cause without a flat-out admission of guilt! There's no way to get probable cause!"

Court: "Then you cannot post the IP address."

AG: "But we know they match!!"

Court: "Case dismissed."


In other words, the current system sucks.

Presecution is just powerless in front of trolling and sockpuppeting

[MaxQue]

Actually on closer inspection the Act already covers this

Section 6: Admissibility of Evidence

The presiding Justice may admit the following as evidence of the crime at his own discretion:

    * 1. The actual statements made on the Atlas Forum itself
    * 2. Screenshots of the statements made.
    * 3. A quotation of the statement in a post by another Atlas Forum user.
    * 4. The testimony of forum users who viewed the statement itself.
    * 5. An admission by the accused in a thread on the Atlas Forum, or in a place viewed or heard by multiple persons, with recordings or testimony attributing to the same.
    * 6. Evidence obtained through investigation of the IP address from which the offence was perpetrated.
    * 7. Evidence given to the Court by the Forum Moderators or the Forum Owner, Dave Leip obtained in their capacity in that position.

The amendment may therefore be surplus to requirement.

No, since Court is refusing IP check evidence who was not autorized before the IP check by the Court.

[Franzl]

Actually on closer inspection the Act already covers this

Section 6: Admissibility of Evidence

The presiding Justice may admit the following as evidence of the crime at his own discretion:

    * 1. The actual statements made on the Atlas Forum itself
    * 2. Screenshots of the statements made.
    * 3. A quotation of the statement in a post by another Atlas Forum user.
    * 4. The testimony of forum users who viewed the statement itself.
    * 5. An admission by the accused in a thread on the Atlas Forum, or in a place viewed or heard by multiple persons, with recordings or testimony attributing to the same.
    * 6. Evidence obtained through investigation of the IP address from which the offence was perpetrated.
    * 7. Evidence given to the Court by the Forum Moderators or the Forum Owner, Dave Leip obtained in their capacity in that position.

The amendment may therefore be surplus to requirement.

The problem is that the Attorney General has no way of discovering that a crime has been committed in most cases.

It's almost impossible on the Internet to have probable cause, and therefore, I think it should only be fair for an IP match (sure, it doesn't have to be the actual address that is released ) to be valid evidence, even if the Attorney General is alerted to the fact without "probable cause".