response 100 of 203:

Aug 11 01:49 UTC 1999

   Richard, what crystal ball do you have, to make the pronouncement that
Grex wouldn't be attacked within the first three days of its life?  How
can you possibly say that?

   If you think we (the board) was caught up in a wave of paranoia and fear
then you are even more dense and unwilling read read others thoughts than
I had thought you were.

   Wow.


   Thanks Mary, you're right to focus on the real issue.  Get this out of
the way so actually useful things can be done.

response 102 of 203:

Aug 11 05:47 UTC 1999

We owe most of our "luck" to the wisdom of the founding fathers, the
professionalism of the judicial system, and the altruism of certain
members of society.  We can thank the fates that the timing of this has
also worked well for us, but I do think it's a fairly safe bet that the
law will not be upheld in january.  Accordingly, I don't see where it's
at all unreasonable for us not to spend much time "preparing" for the
law to be upheld, as even if it is upheld, it's pretty clear the way in
which it might be upheld is likely to be sufficently twisted that the
risk it might pose for grex can't be predicted in advance.

I also don't think it's unfair of us on grex to "inflate the law to the
most extreme position possible".  The law in question is not a finely
detailed surgical instrument designed to eradicate some particular
nuisance in society while causing as little collateral damange to
society as possible.  This law is a club -- it was clearly worded by the
first cousins of patent lawyers, which is to say, the words claim the
broadest possible limits on public expression, on jurisdiction, with
stiff penalities and few limits.  It gives law enforcement enormous
discretionary ability in terms of what they might choose to prosecute,
and how they might go about it.  It's quite clear grex was covered under
the law -- there is nothing in the law that would have offered grex any
real protection, should law enforcement choose to go after grex.  The
"extreme" position we took is considerably less extreme than a public
prosecutor could use in going after grex.  Given all this, I can't
imagine what preparation you think we could conceivably do here on grex,
that would even in the slighest ameliorate our possible risk under the
law.

response 104 of 203:

Aug 11 07:00 UTC 1999

the ACLU is *very* appealing.  Especially if you consider the spectre of 
our society without it...

response 106 of 203:

Aug 11 16:10 UTC 1999

With all due respect to the board of Arbornet, I'm not impressed by the
argument that says "If the board of Arbornet didn't do it, it must not
be necessary."  We do see a lot of things differently than they do.

Your argument is that "the risk isn't very high."  Possibly true, but
again, I would be cautious about predicting what consequences will
follow any event as nonsensical as the upholding of this law.  But even
if true, the important thing to note is that the risk isn't borne only
by the board and the corporation.  It is also borne by thousands of
individual users, some no longer even users of the system.  For
Arbornet's board to risk themselves and their corporation is perhaps
brave and noble.  To risk other people as well is not so brave or noble.

response 108 of 203:

Aug 11 22:50 UTC 1999

I think such a resolution would be pointless unless it specified what is
and is not "reasonable".  It's much better to work out a well-thought-
out, detailed plan and ask the board to implement it. It silly to give
the board vague directives that mean different things to every person
that voted for it.

response 110 of 203:

Aug 12 06:45 UTC 1999

The State of Michigan certainly has a much larger budget than grex.
Also, the state has different criteria for success.  They don't have to
show a "profit", and they don't even have to put anyone in jail for
something to count as a "success".  Even so, you may be right that the
state wouldn't be interseted in prosecuting grex if it knew what grex
was.  There is, however, another angle to figure, and that is the
"incompetence" angle.  Employees of the state are, like most other
people, merely human.  They can get confused, and make mistakes, like
anyone else.  Unlike many other organizations, there is relatively
little danger in making a mistake.  If you don't like your pizza, you
can order your next pizza from a different pizza company.  If you don't
like your tax bill, think the people at the motor vehicle department
were rude to you, or believe the post office daily hours are too
limited, tough luck.  Worse yet, there are certain parts of the gov't
that do positively reward individual zeal, and initiative, but not in
the way you might suppose.  I am speaking, of course, of politicians.

The sort of situation we could well be facing for grex is,

 (1) a mother reads over her son/daughter's head, and sees something on
        grex that she believes to be inappropriate.
 (2) she complains to her law enforcement and the local PTA.
        The police don't know too much about the internet, or the law for
        that matter, but they do know an indecent message when they see
        one.  They duly seize grex, throw everyone in jail, and ransack
        everyone's homes for more bad stuff, meanwhile,
 (3) the local county prosecutor gets interested in the case.
        Child pornographers! What could look better on the local TV news?
        Gosh, even the local PTA is already in on this one.
        Say, this isn't just anti-crime, it's pro-child, pro-education,
        and just plain all-american good old neighborhood vigilantism.
        (Truth don't matter here; all that matters is how this plays for
        the voters.)
 (4) The case eventually reaches court.  After hundreds of
        thousands of dollars, the grex board eventually manages to win
        most of the counts of the suit.  They are found guilty of
        operating improperly shielded equipment, and failing to file
        inventory reports with the local rat catcher's office, and barely
        manage to escape the fire marshal's ire by promising to find a
        new office space with two exit doors and installing proper
        electrical conduit with a master emergency off switch, before
        turning grex back on.  Oh yes, one of the board members ends up being
        forced to pay all his traffic fines he managed to incur during
        an unwise police chase across South Dakota in the mid 80's.
 (5) several board members declare personal bankruptcy, and move
        to alaska.  The remainder determine that it would be cheaper to
        give all the equipment to kiwanis to use as landfill, than to
        attempt to build a proper machine room, does so, and resolves
        *never* ever to get involved with *any* community project ever
        again.
 (6) All the national media coverage has long since disappeared.  The
        board members's houses no longer show up on national TV, and most
        people have forgotten the crude jokes about STeve's hair and Arlo
        the baby.  Only one lone reporter was left reporting the case by
        the time the final judgement and settlement are announced, and it
        is only by a tiny quirk of luck (one newspaper in the north east
        needed a quarter inch of filler in the classified section between
        the MMMF and the "free trip to heaven" ads) that there is any
        media coverage at all of the conclusion.  The lone reporter goes
        on to write a book, which never makes it to US newsstands ("too
        controversial.  no pictures."), but becomes a best seller in
        Finland, and the basis for a hit comedy TV series in Cuba.
 (7) the local county prosecutor successfully uses the publicity
        from the case as a springboard for his gubernatorial campaign,
        where he announces new initiatives aimed at cracking down on
        the child pornography rings rampant in this nation.

response 112 of 203:

Aug 12 18:29 UTC 1999

The scenarios recently posted are, indeed, a "separate reality" from
what I know as the overworked, limited-budget criminal justice 
non-system here in Michigan.  The fears outlined there are unreasonable,
in my opinion.
        The original wording of the motion in #0 is fine.  I assume
the vote will begin shortly.

response 114 of 203:

Aug 12 18:49 UTC 1999

        "input of nonrenewable energy"?

        Should I laugh or cry?

response 116 of 203:

Aug 12 19:33 UTC 1999

It appears that a lot of people in this item are being pursued
by the dogs who accompany the god of war:  Phobos and Deimos.

response 118 of 203:

Aug 13 02:18 UTC 1999

Okay, the vote program is activated. Type !vote to run it.

Votes on user proposals run for 10 days. The current vote will
end at midnight (EDT) on Sunday, August 22.

response 120 of 203:

Aug 13 03:50 UTC 1999

   Are you sure that the law wouldn't apply to offensive text made long
ago here?  How?  You might be right, but it certainly isn't clear to me.

response 122 of 203:

Aug 13 05:47 UTC 1999

The law as phrased doesn't cover "creation" or "posting" by the author,
it covers "distribution" by anybody involved in the process.  There is
material on grex today that was posted in the past that has various
degrees of sexual explicitness, including (I believe) the description of
acts that are illegal under Michigan law.  Even though that material was
posted in the past, and the poster of that material may have long since
vanished or become a traffic statistic, that material is still here; and
if it were downloaded after the law becomes effective by a minor,
according to the wording of the law, this becomes a crime, and grex
becomes liable.  Since crimes can only be commited by persons, and not
corporations, that means the board and staff become individually liable.
The users who could be harmed by this act include not just the original
poster, and the grex board and staff, but all the *other* users of grex,
whose e-mail and private files now become subject to government
inspection.

If you talk to some of the minors here on grex, you will find that (a)
some of them are, if not sexually active, sexually curious, and (b) some
of those people have some awfully scary parents--parents who appear to
have sprung whole-cloth out of 1700's mass. bay colony, or 1500's
spain/france.  Which part of (1) do you think could not happen?

There have been a number of relatively well known cases involving
computers and vandals, in which the authorities have swooped down and
seized everything in sight.  A lot of law enforcement officials,
including some recently publically quoted in Michigan in connection with
this law, have indicated an interest in cracking down on "child
pornography via the internet".  Which part of (2) do you think could not
happen?

In michigan at least, the job of being county prosecutor appears to be a
relatively high profile job that is a useful stepping stone to further
political office.  I found it fascinating to listen to the various
county prosecutors as they talked about the various Kevorkian cases.
Which part of (3) do you think could not happen?

I bet traffic fines in the Dakota's get larger with time, if not paid.
Lawyers, other legal expenses, and the time consumed therein are also
not cheap.  Which part of (4) do you not think could happen?

Regarding (5), ok, I stand corrected on the landfill item.  Alaska once
had a negative income tax.  None of the grex board are rich and could
afford the expenses of (4).  Excepting the details of Kiwanis's current
electronics recycling policy, what other part of (5) do you think could
not happen?

Regarding (6) and (7), ok, I plead guilty to wide-eyed optimism.  I
admit, the TV series would probably flop (or be jammed by the voice of
america), and fins may be too busy writing "Finux" and experimenting
with laptops equipped with CCD video pickups to care about the antics of
obscure north american politicians.  And the journalist may just publish
a book of "STeve" jokes.

The problem with all of this is that we aren't concerned with the mean
of the bell curve, but the extremes.  It probably *is* true that most
law enforcement officials are very nice accepting people who just want
everyone to get together.  It very likely *is* true that most county
prosecutors are very hard working people, interested in making the world
a better place to be in, and great believers in the constitutional
liberties that were hard won in the revolutionary war, and special fans
of the bill of rights.  And there are no doubt a great many parents who
really do believe that the government should spend less time worrying
about how they raise their children, and more time putting more books
into public libraries, and hiring teachers who are positive role models
for alternative lifestyles into public schools.  Grex is big enough now
though that even the extremes of the bell curves are starting to show up
with more regularity.  Ie, we now talking about the probability of a
wannabe puritan parent, a law enforcement official straight out of nazi
germany, and a county prosecutor who dreams of recreating the star
chamber on a pleasant penninsula.  Most of the time in michigan, summer
or winter, you can go stand outside for 5 minutes, and not get wet.
Even if it's raining slightly, or there's snow on the ground, it
probably won't soak in or melt through in 5 minutes.  Even if you went
out there buck naked, it's still a pretty good bet, excepting a slight
risk of frostbite on the toes in winter.  On the other hand, if you were
to do this for 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year, it's almost a sure bet
that sooner or later, some thunderstorm is going to come dump 3" of rain
on you in 2 hours.  Even if you wore a 100% rubberized guaranteed
"waterproof down to 100' deep" garment, chances are you'd still end up
soaking wet, once the first 90 F/80% humidity "cut the air with a knive"
day arrives.  Fortunately, being wet behind the ears is not considered a
crime in Michigan, yet.  Anyone care to take bets on puritan parents?

response 124 of 203:

Aug 13 17:36 UTC 1999

I think it's just an example of caution, and a healthy understanding of what
government and politics are like today.  If you'd rather stick your head in
the sand, that's your perogative, of course.