We need to rethink about security issue at OAC

[Ranjan Lekhy]

It is the second time when unknown person posted us an irrelevant message! It is a request to the web master to pay attention on this serious problem. Thanks!

[Keith Hart]

Ranjan,

It would be more helpful to report any instances of unwelcome messages to one or all of the team of administrators, whose names can be found under the About tab. It is impossible for us to be vigilant 24 hours a day. Moreover, we may be suspicious of some new members, but we do not suspend them unilaterally without evidence of misbehaviour. In this case, I have suspended the member who started posting spam as soon as she joined. Her messages have been deleted.

There is no position of Webmaster as such, just a team of volunteers who depend on all members to help them maintain a congenial environment here. This is a cooperative not a website run by a dictator. Any level of security depends on being open to some risk of abuse, especially a network calling itself the Open Anthropology Cooperative.

[Ranjan Lekhy]

Sir,

Thanks for immediate reply. I've already realized that OAC is our open university where we learn. And we each have responsibility to nurture this wonderful university. Deviant members must be eliminated from the membership. The Webmaster could add more security in the architecture of our university if it is possible. For instance, banks' web sites are designed in that manner where a hacker has less chance to enter. Since, it is not commercial, we cannot hire a professional web designer who has good knowledge in security matters but still we must try if any member has good knowledge in internet security. Thanks!

With Regards

[John McCreery]

"Deviant members must be eliminated" is a bit too strong, isn't it? I trust that your intention is different, but the rhetoric is identical with that of those who advocate genocides, eugenics, honor killings, that sort of thing. As Zygmunt Bauman observes, the desire to clean up society by eliminating those who don't fit is the emotional root of every totalitarianism. Whether rationalized in terms of party, nation or faith. It renders the muddle of democracy impossible. I, for one, would not want to go there.

[Ranjan Lekhy]

Oh! Sorry John! But I recall "the text in context!" I think you forgot to quote “from the memberships”. I cannot even think of genocide or any sort of violence! So sad! I am not telling about those who are speaking in against or for in the subject matters, but for those who violet the rules of OAC. A farmer eliminates the invading plants or weeds from his farm that does not mean he applies same rule in his society. By the way, how do you define these two terms: deviant and eliminate?

John McCreery said:

"Deviant members must be eliminated" is a bit too strong, isn't it? I trust that your intention is different, but the rhetoric is identical with that of those who advocate genocides, eugenics, honor killings, that sort of thing. As Zygmunt Bauman observes, the desire to clean up society by eliminating those who don't fit is the emotional root of every totalitarianism. Whether rationalized in terms of party, nation or faith. It renders the muddle of democracy impossible. I, for one, would not want to go there.

[John McCreery]

I am not at all in favor of endless forgiveness for rule-violators.Thus, I favor something along the lines of due process based on a three strikes and you're out rule. First offense gets a warning. Second offense gets a warning plus notice that a third offense will result in removal from the community. Third offense results in removal. No additional notice is required.

That said, "deviant" is too easily read "pervert" and "eliminate" too easily read as "kill" in my idiolect of English. The terms imply levels of prejudice and violence that don't seem warranted in this sort of community.


Ranjan Lekhy said:

Oh! Sorry John! But I recall "the text in context!" I think you forgot to quote “from the memberships”. I cannot even think of genocide or any sort of violence! So sad! I am not telling about those who are speaking in against or for in the subject matters, but for those who violet the rules of OAC. A farmer eliminates the invading plants or weeds from his farm that does not mean he applies same rule in his society. By the way, how do you define these two terms: deviant and eliminate?
John McCreery said:

"Deviant members must be eliminated" is a bit too strong, isn't it? I trust that your intention is different, but the rhetoric is identical with that of those who advocate genocides, eugenics, honor killings, that sort of thing. As Zygmunt Bauman observes, the desire to clean up society by eliminating those who don't fit is the emotional root of every totalitarianism. Whether rationalized in terms of party, nation or faith. It renders the muddle of democracy impossible. I, for one, would not want to go there.

[Ranjan Lekhy]

Great John, in my culture and in my understanding too, forgiveness is the great virtue. As you have said, we have also a long process to tag someone whether s/he is deviant or not. I am from traditional society. I have seen that not only three steps, but the subject is given chance to improve oneself many times.

Certainly, English is not my mother tongue, so obviously, you know better than me. In my dictionary, I am using 'Sahni Advanced Dictionary Eng-Eng-Hindi' where the meanings of eliminate are given: remove, take away, set aside, get rid of. And for deviant: differing from norm or from accepted moral or social substandards.

I was just supporting the rules which are given under ABOUT tab.

Amen

John McCreery said:

I am not at all in favor of endless forgiveness for rule-violators.Thus, I favor something along the lines of due process based on a three strikes and you're out rule. First offense gets a warning. Second offense gets a warning plus notice that a third offense will result in removal from the community. Third offense results in removal. No additional notice is required.

That said, "deviant" is too easily read "pervert" and "eliminate" too easily read as "kill" in my idiolect of English. The terms imply levels of prejudice and violence that don't seem warranted in this sort of community.


Ranjan Lekhy said:

Oh! Sorry John! But I recall "the text in context!" I think you forgot to quote “from the memberships”. I cannot even think of genocide or any sort of violence! So sad! I am not telling about those who are speaking in against or for in the subject matters, but for those who violet the rules of OAC. A farmer eliminates the invading plants or weeds from his farm that does not mean he applies same rule in his society. By the way, how do you define these two terms: deviant and eliminate?
John McCreery said:

"Deviant members must be eliminated" is a bit too strong, isn't it? I trust that your intention is different, but the rhetoric is identical with that of those who advocate genocides, eugenics, honor killings, that sort of thing. As Zygmunt Bauman observes, the desire to clean up society by eliminating those who don't fit is the emotional root of every totalitarianism. Whether rationalized in terms of party, nation or faith. It renders the muddle of democracy impossible. I, for one, would not want to go there.

[John McCreery]

Amen, indeed.



Ranjan Lekhy said:

Great John, in my culture and in my understanding too, forgiveness is the great virtue. As you have said, we have also a long process to tag someone whether s/he is deviant or not. I am from traditional society. I have seen that not only three steps, but the subject is given chance to improve oneself many times.

Certainly, English is not my mother tongue, so obviously, you know better than me. In my dictionary, I am using 'Sahni Advanced Dictionary Eng-Eng-Hindi' where the meanings of eliminate are given: remove, take away, set aside, get rid of. And for deviant: differing from norm or from accepted moral or social substandards.

I was just supporting the rules which are given under ABOUT tab.

Amen

John McCreery said:

I am not at all in favor of endless forgiveness for rule-violators.Thus, I favor something along the lines of due process based on a three strikes and you're out rule. First offense gets a warning. Second offense gets a warning plus notice that a third offense will result in removal from the community. Third offense results in removal. No additional notice is required.

That said, "deviant" is too easily read "pervert" and "eliminate" too easily read as "kill" in my idiolect of English. The terms imply levels of prejudice and violence that don't seem warranted in this sort of community.


Ranjan Lekhy said:

Oh! Sorry John! But I recall "the text in context!" I think you forgot to quote “from the memberships”. I cannot even think of genocide or any sort of violence! So sad! I am not telling about those who are speaking in against or for in the subject matters, but for those who violet the rules of OAC. A farmer eliminates the invading plants or weeds from his farm that does not mean he applies same rule in his society. By the way, how do you define these two terms: deviant and eliminate?
John McCreery said:

"Deviant members must be eliminated" is a bit too strong, isn't it? I trust that your intention is different, but the rhetoric is identical with that of those who advocate genocides, eugenics, honor killings, that sort of thing. As Zygmunt Bauman observes, the desire to clean up society by eliminating those who don't fit is the emotional root of every totalitarianism. Whether rationalized in terms of party, nation or faith. It renders the muddle of democracy impossible. I, for one, would not want to go there.

[Bob Fritz]

I'm a new member of the OAC and I agree some IT security is probably warranted. Today along with legitimated correspondence from the group, I along with others received an e-mail from [e-mail]. Maybe she is legit maybe not, but the fact of the matter she commented on every Tom ,Dick and Harry as well as at least one Bob in the group, so something smells like Phishing? I didn't respond to her e-mail and would advise others to do likewise.

[Paul Wren]

When you build a place with "Open" in its name, it it important to make it easy for anyone with good intent to gain access.

If we were to implement security measures found on other websites (such as banks), then we would need to have potential members apply for membership, provide proof they are who they say they are (credit cards are the usual means), and after a human administrator reviews their application, only then grant them access to the site.

While this would pretty much reduce the number of undesirables on the site to zero, it would also act as a huge deterrent to those who might wish to join and contribute in good faith. We have almost 2500 members, and I would wager that many of them would have balked at such procedures for joining. Such procedures for screening potential members would also require a significant effort from the admin team, which would certainly act as a deterrent for anyone considering being an admin.

I really believe that our current system will continue to work, as long as we all contribute a little. The admins cannot monitor every post or message, but can and will respond quickly when we are alerted to inappropriate behavior. As Keith said near the beginning of this discussion, please alert the admins directly when you think someone is violating our rules, and we'll get right on it.

Thanks to everyone for caring enough to engage in this discussion!

Paul

[Steven R. Vasquez]

I do not believe that there is anything that can be done to prevent spammers, phishers and whatever other cyber offenders (I may have just coined a new word) that may be out there 100% of the time. Whatever measures OAC admin may implement, paid or non-paid, we will still have some problems. Banks and government agencies have to employ the most up to date technology including encrypted and 24 hr human monitoring just to prevent the simplest spammers from getting in. Having worked for two different levels of government, I have seen it is very common to get phished, spammed or even receive a computer virus such as a Trojan.

The truth is, as Paul has said, we all need to do our part to contribute. That can include making sure the computers we use are not infected, to ensuring the quality of the e-mail provider we use is not easily subjected to malicious computer programs such as spam and phishing. Cyber cafes can be notorious for this. For all we know this jeniferbaby4life could have once been an actual e-mail that got jacked.

When we go online, we take a risk. Just as driving a car or walking to a park. Every society has its delinquents. The best we can do for ourselves is to become informed and pass this knowledge to those we communicate with.

I have learned so much just from reading the other posts on OAC and I would hate to see anything that would jeopardize the diversity of human culture present here. Perhaps a cyber neighborhood watch can be implemented. No, I don’t see that taken seriously.

To the admin of OAC, thanks for the network you provide and the manner you have provided it in. It has contributed to my development as an independent anthropologist.

[Digare Ahmed H.]

Hello,
I do have the same problem I don't really who that jenifer was I have been seeing some of her email to me but when or whenever I give it a click it doesn't work at all.

Thanks

Ahmed

[Paul Wren]

Ahmed,

the account "jenifer" was suspended, removing all of the content she had added to the site. Unfortunately, Ning does NOT delete the little notices that she posted material, so when you click on them, they no longer work.

Paul
admin team member

Ahmed Hasan said:

Hello,
I do have the same problem I don't really who that jenifer was I have been seeing some of her email to me but when or whenever I give it a click it doesn't work at all.

Thanks

Ahmed