Legally how can "depositors only" site access be restricted?
The original concept behind a new depositors only site was to limit access to verified depositors only so that DAG-private matters could be announced and discussed without having to worry about the fly-on-the-wall effect. But subsequently I've realised that concept is over simplistic, as I've said before not all depositors are necessarily friends, and not all friends are necessarily depositors. Would it be legally feasible to limit dissemination of information from a web-site based on some kind of non-disclosure agreement that members have to agree to when signing up? Whether it's practical is another matter.
(6 votes)
How can "depositors only" site access be restricted?
To try to summarise and restate the needs:
elgee points out that site Ts and Cs would not be sufficient. How about a per-document based agreement? I mean, if a confidential document needed to be posted for DAG members to read, they would have to agree to Ts and Cs on a per case basis before that information would be displayed?
How can "depositors only" site access be restricted?
A licensing model would work here. Think Microsoft office. You can use the software for the purpose of the agreement, you cant copy it, and cant reproduce it. You don't own it.
A license can restrict the things you can use it for (eg educational only).
Key here is that (i) the user accept the terms of the license prior to seeing/using the IP (i.e. click wrapper) and (ii) that you can identify the person responsible for the breach.
Legally how can "depositors only" site access be restricted?
Andy: No, it would neither be practicable nor realistically enforceable
Elgee, thanks for the input.
Elgee, thanks for the input. I wanted to focus on the question of whether it would be legal rather than practical/enforceable for the following reason:
The unfriendly parties that we are primarily concerned about are people such as IoMG representatives and legal advisers etc. Such people are (we assume!) unlikely to break the law for reasons of professional reputation etc. Clearly NDA style contracts are widely used to control dissemination and application of "private" information - can't we do the same?
Elgee, thanks for the input.
I am not sure that an NDA incorporated into the site T&Cs would be binding, since it could easily be argued that the information was not communicated in circumstances of genuine confidentiality. English confidence law is still in the proces sof development, so I could not answer this with any certainty.
In any event, breach of a contract is not "breaking the law" but simply that, breach of contract. The breach itself is unlawful only in the sense that it is actionable and a remedy is available to a party who suffered damages as a result of the breach so as to put them in the position they would have been had the agreement been performed, or if no damages were suffered, a claim for nominal damages (one penny or perhaps one pound).
NDA/confidentiality
If there was say a 'new' website which required as part of the subscription process (rather like the dcs) certain contractual documents to be printed and signed, then such a contract could be enforceable by one party against the other.
There could be thought given to a fee in the event of inappropriate disclosure (i.e. breach of a license to use the material for a purpose) but it would have to be worded carefully to avoid being an unenforceable 'penalty.'
I think a license to use the information for a particular purpose may be easier to enforce than a NDA type arrangement.
Of course there would need to be an agreement that the contributors of information agreed to the IP attached with the comments belong to the site, so that "the site" could effectively claim for breach of its intellectural property?
The claim would be a contractual one.
What do you think elgee?
Probably not unless you've got the funds to go to law
You need access to KS&F(IoM)'s records to check everyone who claims to be a depositor is genuine.
As you say 'not all depositors are friends', so even if you could get to check everyone is kosher, they still might stab you.
The best you can do is to make it difficult for undesirables to join and chuck them out when you find they have.
Controlling dissemination of DAG-private information
Even if we had a list of all depositors it would be no solution, since we cannot verify people's identity. We've been round this loop many times, and I remain convinced that the best defence we have is to insist that members make a legally binding statement in order to be allowed access, whether that be here or a new depositors only site. A suitable NDA would go a big step beyond a simple "I am a depositor" declaration. Even if we could never fund legal action, surely professional people would think twice before knowingly infringing the terms of such a contract. This is my lateral thinking based approach - I'm not suggesting it would be anywhere near watertight, just better than the alternatives.
Knowing that unfriendly parties are or may be watching is a problem because it effectively restricts the information that can be given out by DST etc. The groups facility is a partial solution, as membership of groups (and access to information posted therein) can be limited to known individuals. So, groups work fine for small teams, but not for all members.
Dissemination of information
presumably those you gave proxies to DAG for CC and/or SOA could receive information via email?
Proxies Only Club
Everyone who has given a proxy would be members. Others who wanted to join would have to get several existing members to sponsor their application. I say this in spite of a lifelong disinclination to belong to clubs along with Graucho Marks.
Proxies Only Club
I recall that Groucho was unwilling to join only those clubs that would have him as a member. Much like the Spanish barber in the lay version of Russell's paradox, he was presumably quite willing to join any of the clubs that would not allow him to do so.
Would you allow me to join? What if I promised never to mention Russell's paradox again? I gave my proxy vote to Robert of DST and I have a t-shirt to prove it
Proxies Only club
without being sarky, a 'web of trust' idea isn't such a bad one is it?