Policy-Discussion

[Duane <duane AT cacert.org>]

Ian G wrote:

> Now, in order to fill the risks and liability hole caused by 
> uncertain age and jurisdiction ramifications, there are 
> these suggestions:
> 
> 1.  Have all Youth Assurers be authorised by a Guardian Assurer.
> 2.  Have all assurances by a Youth Assurer countersigned by 
> an (adult) Assurer.
> 3.  Leave the programme as is (but document it).
> 4.  Stop / cancel the Youth Assurance programme.
> 
> But there seems to be *no consensus* over these 4 possibilities.

In my opinion, I vote for the counter-signing proposal, for reasons
outlined by Sven, and to answer Philipp's email, I think any adult
should be able to counter-sign assurances as long as they know they are
shouldering some legal responsibility.

After all, as Sven pointed out the Assurance documents are written/used
in a legalistic manner, even only if they are used to determine
abuse/gross negligence.

Failing that, as you pointed out we are trying to prevent a theoretical
attack that we haven't seen yet, doesn't mean it won't, but there is a
lot of other potential subversive actions adults could cause that would
be more damaging that may go undetected for years.

Although even if we do allow 18 year olds to assign the full points etc,
it might still be questionable from a legal point of view until they're
21 or whatever, or if there is discrimination in a particular
jurisdiction people of a specific gender, race, creed or colour, it may
not be deemed legal either.

My point being the status quo would be ok as well since we're dealing
with a specific set of laws that may not work everywhere in any case.

-- 

Best regards,
 Duane

http://www.cacert.org - Free Security Certificates
http://www.nodedb.com - Think globally, network locally
http://www.sydneywireless.com - Telecommunications Freedom
http://e164.org - Because e164.arpa is a tax on VoIP

"In the long run the pessimist may be proved right,
    but the optimist has a better time on the trip."