|
Grex > Coop12 > #49: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 76 of 332:
| 
Nov 1 06:04 UTC 2001 |
I use the term "our masters" because it best expresses my feelings for a
congress that passed CDA, and a VP that would unilaterally announce that
he expects the present emergency to last "indefinitely".
I don't believe Dan has been keeping up with recent events. The FBI
would most likely be using Carnivore to monitor e-mail going to/from
grex, not reading it by hand. I hope we never find out whether the FBI
is in fact doing so, but there is considerable public evidence
concerning the capabilities of Carnivore, and the FBI has made no secret
of its desire to be able to use it. In the weeks after the attack, the
FBI's legal authority and funding for Carnivore were both significantly
increased. I believe this much can be easily researched on the web
today.
These facts are less well-known: a well-known FBI informant was involved
with m-net *very* early on (1983). The secret service once investigated
grex after a death threat was sent to whitehouse.gov using grex as an
open mail relay. There is an arab-american web site with offices in
Canada and Ann Arbor that contained at least one "interesting" bin-Laden
related message that was certainly investigated by law enforcement in
the weeks after the 9/11 attacks. That web site was apparently about
the size of grex.
You can draw whatever conclusions you like about this; I'm not sure it
really matters. I actually do agree with Dan that it's unlikely the
gov't would deliberately choose to go after grex, at least today. From
a purely informational standpoint, there's much more value to watching
e-mail going to/from grex, than attempting to shut it down and hoping to
catch whatever email traffic there is elsewhere.
I do think there is some chance the gov't will *accidently* do something
that would make it impossible to continue to operate grex. Many people
here on grex think CDA had the potential to do just that. There are
certainly other things the gov't might do that have a similar potential.
To take what I hope is purely hypothetical: suppose the gov't imposed
some requirement that all e-mail users have a strongly verified known
identity (ie, legal name, verified from driver's license or a proposed
national ID card), before they were allowed to send e-mail? Before 9/11,
I think the chances of such a proposal passing would have been virtually
non-existant. Today, this would pit hotmail and privacy advocates
against law enforcement, the post office, and politicians. It's hard to
say which side would win, but if it did, it practically guarantees grex
could no longer accept foreign users. Very likely it means we'd either
have to shut down completely, or become a strictly local operation,
because I don't see any chance of our suddenly acquiring the
multi-million dollar funding required to set up a ftf presence for
verifying national IDs nation-wide. As I said before, I think this is
very unlikely today. But we need to keep an eye out for what is
happening in the world, because it's clear our
"whatever-you-want-to-call-em"s in DC are very much shooting in the
dark, and there's no telling just what's going to happen in the near
future.
|
jp2
|
|
response 77 of 332:
|
Nov 1 14:59 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 78 of 332:
|
Nov 1 15:35 UTC 2001 |
hmm...mdw mentioned his thoughts on all the candidates but one, jp2.
it must have been an oversight :)
|
cross
|
|
response 79 of 332:
|
Nov 1 20:44 UTC 2001 |
Regarding #76; I really have no desire to go into a long debate
about wether or not grex is being watched. If it is, it is almost
certainly within the context of a much broader ``fish net'' approach
to surveillance. Also, again, the FBI can only monitor a system with a
court order (which might be granted secretly, if it were deemed necessary
for the national security, etc, etc, etc). As for Carnivore; so what?
It's a packet sniffer. The FBI has been able to conduct wiretaps on
telephone communications for years, do you seriously believe that `they'
are listening to your phone calls? Come on, they have much bigger fish
to worry about frying. As for the secret service thing, well, if you
threatened Dubya from your house, a local ISP, or wherever, it's likely
you'd have a secret service agent knocking on your door looking for an
explanation, because that's what he's supposed to do. Or did you stop
following current events post Kennedy? Does that mean the government is
watching you, Marcus? No. It means the secret service is doing its job
in investigating threats made against the President of the United States.
As for your assertion that I haven't been up on current events. That's
another matter, and where the hell do you get off saying such things?
I live in New York City, I watched the twin towers burn and then collapse
from South of Canal St (look at a map and do the math), I saw Rudy walk
up to 75 Broadway from the emergency command center in the WTC, and I had
to show a driver's license to get into my apartment for almost a week.
My office was closed for as long since it was 6 blocks from ground zero,
and covered in three inches of dust after the buildings collapsed (as was
all of lower Manhattan). Now, I see armed national guardsmen when I get
off the train at Grand Central, and am living through the Anthrax attacks.
I'm up on current events because I live in the middle of them, and can't
get away from them, even if I wanted to.
And yes, I'm following what's going on in Washington, which is why
I know it's a *long* *Long* *LONG* stretch to say that because the
FBI (and Ashcroft) want expanded wiretapping priviledges that G-men
(or their electronic surrogates) are watching grex Right Now. I mean,
come on, give me a break; a kid in Brooklyn walked to a window in Utica
High School a few days before the attack, pointed at the towers, and
said, ``you see those buildings? They won't be there in a few days!''
His Dad split for Pakistan a few days later and hasn't been seen since.
If a kid can do that in downtown Brooklyn without hordes of FBI agents
immediately swooping down on him (they did so later, after the attack),
I think it's pretty stupid to assume that they're monitoring a dinky
Sun machine in the middle of Michigan that has a user population the
size of a sleepy middle American town.
And I'll tell you another thing; if you really want to lecture someone on
``current events,'' then I suggest you get your ass on the next airplane
here, get off at JFK, walk to the Taxi Stand, get in a cab, take the Grand
Central/Van Wyck to the LIE to the Midtown Tunnel, go down 3rd Ave, hang
a right onto Canal, go to Broadway, get out, pay the man for the fare plus
$4 for the tunnel, go West to Broadway walk down Broadway to the Battery.
Make sure you look over your shoulder to the right; once you hit Maiden
Lane, you should experience something I can guarantee you've never seen,
smelt, or heard before in your life, but that I live with every day.
After you've done that, speak about politics and ``current events'' all
you want. But, unless you've been here since 9/11, you have no context
for understanding such things, and your viewpoint is one borne out of
ignorance and yes, lack of understanding of current issues.
Maybe the added perspective will help you understand *why* the FBI
probably doesn't care one whit about grex.
Sorry for the vitrolism, but if you're going to call me ignorant about
something that I'm intimately familiar with, while you sit and dream
up paranoid conspiracy theories from the comparative safety of middle
America, well, get used to it.
Just don't forget the fact that the ``masters'' willingness to do
something ``indefinately'' is what protects your right to live that
comfortably sheltered lifestyle. And now, you can please get off
your high horse from which you dare to lecture me about my lack of
understanding [sic] of ``current events.'' Jesus that's nerge.
Hey Marcus, just be glad that you haven't had to watch thousands of
people die; I did.
|
jp2
|
|
response 80 of 332:
|
Nov 1 21:22 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 81 of 332:
|
Nov 2 01:20 UTC 2001 |
So tell me what *you* think the patriot bill means, and why you think
this doesn't affect grex?
|
mdw
|
|
response 82 of 332:
|
Nov 2 01:54 UTC 2001 |
I wasn't sure where you were coming from before. I think, now, that the
problem is you're too close to what happened. The terrorists are trying
to make our nation look more like theirs. They live in a world filled
with despots, restricted liberties, and horrid mass crimes. They've
succeeded in bringing the 3rd here, as you've graphically described. If
we don't want them to succeed in the 1st two, then we cannot afford to
let our fear rule us. I cannot say that the "Patriot Bill" is very
promising in this respect.
|
gull
|
|
response 83 of 332:
|
Nov 2 18:07 UTC 2001 |
I think the expanded CIA privilages in the Patroit Bill will last until
we have another Nixon-esque President who uses the CIA to harass
political foes. Then the resulting outcry will probably cause the CIA
to be put on a leash again.
|
cross
|
|
response 84 of 332:
|
Nov 2 19:28 UTC 2001 |
Regarding #'s 81 and 82: My reading of the bill (and I'm by no means a
lawyer) indicates that what is sought are expanded privileges that come
only with a court order, and that are already in line with what is
granted in other matters (eg, drug trafficking, etc). Maybe I'm mis-
reading the bill, but the biggest potential problem I would see for grex
is that you would have to cooperate with authorities if asked. However,
if someone was using grex to plot terrorist attacks, I hope and expect
that you would already do that, so I don't see much of an issue. Perhaps
you're concerned about the definition of `terrorism' that the bill sets
forward?
As for being too close to the situation.... Well, the buildings almost
nearly fell on me (I was only a few blocks away) so yeah, you're probably
right. However, I still think that perhaps you're too far removed from
it. If you visited New York City, you might walk away with a very
different view of what's going on and the way the government is responding
to it.
As for what the terrorists want.... Well, I think it's nothing short of
our destruction. It really *is* a war, wether we like it or not, and
the funny thing is that it was declared on us long before 9/11.
And oh yeah, whoever wrote about what they call Spanish Harlem, most
people call it `El Barrio.' It's a neat place, just don't piss anyone
off. :-)
|
mdw
|
|
response 85 of 332:
|
Nov 2 21:11 UTC 2001 |
There's actually at least 3 things flying around: the various proposed
bills, the bills that were actually passed, and how they're actually
*using* the stuff they have. There is actually a 4th category: what we
*think* they're doing. It's almost certainly the case that these are
all different. Ie, they asked for more than they got, illegally gotten
information can have value too, & it's kinda hard for us to know exactly
what they can do anyways. At least some of the proposals greatly
relaxed the standards the gov't had to follow in order to obtain legal
wiretaps, to the point where it was essentially meaningless. I have no
idea what was finally actually passed into law, or how it all fits
together.
|
aruba
|
|
response 86 of 332:
|
Nov 2 21:38 UTC 2001 |
Could you guys please take this to another item? THis is the board
nominations item.
remmers, could you give us an update on who's been nominated, who's
accepted, and who's declined?
|
scg
|
|
response 87 of 332:
|
Nov 3 21:33 UTC 2001 |
The Patriot Bill, if I remember correctly, included some warrantless wiretap
stuff, at least to the point where once there was a court order for a person,
there didn't need to be orders for the individual taps.
"Carnivore" was a pretty minimal packet sniffer. For targeting one person,
coming in through one modem pool, it probably worked well. It didn't (or
doesn't; I'm not sure what its current status) scale well to any sort of
widespread use.
That's not to say there isn't something else that does. I have heard stories,
short on specifics, of taps in a few places. I assume they're pretty close
to the network edges, and not picking up more than a small fraction of
Internet traffic. Whether Grex, or something else at the ISP Grex uses, is
considered interesting enough to be paid attention to, you'll all have to
guess for yourselves.
|
remmers
|
|
response 88 of 332:
|
Nov 4 17:21 UTC 2001 |
Re #86: Thanks, Mark. I was off Grex for a couple of days, or
I would have tried to rein in the drift sooner.
Yes, folks -- please remember that this is the BOARD NOMINATION
ITEM, it's an in important item in Grex governance, and off-topic
discussions, interesting though they may be, really belong
elsewhere.
I'll post a summary of the nominations thus far in a few minutes.
|
remmers
|
|
response 89 of 332:
|
Nov 4 17:36 UTC 2001 |
Okay, this seems to be the current status of nominations:
Nominated and accepted:
mary
jp2
bhelliom
mdw
orinoco
Nominated but declined:
eeyore
janc
davel
scott
arabella
Nominated, but have neither accepted nor declined:
other
cmcgee
krj
Let me know if I missed anything.
Remember that nominations close on November 15. To appear on
the ballot, a nominee must affirmatively accept in this item
and meet eligibility requirements before the start of voting
on December 1.
|
aruba
|
|
response 90 of 332:
|
Nov 4 17:39 UTC 2001 |
I'd like to nominate Jeff Kaplan and Dan Romanchik.
|
remmers
|
|
response 91 of 332:
|
Nov 4 17:45 UTC 2001 |
Speaking personally, I'll add that I've attended many Board meetings,
both as a Board member and "member of the public", and my overall
impression has been that as deliberative bodies go, The Grex Board
is fairly laid-back and uncontentious, and on most issues doesn't
have a lot of trouble reaching concensus. There are disagreements
from time to time, but I don't remember any shouting matches.
If you want "contentious", you should serve on some of the bodies
I've encountered through work at my university. :)
So I'd like to encourage more folks to accept, and to consider
making more nominations.
|
remmers
|
|
response 92 of 332:
|
Nov 4 17:45 UTC 2001 |
(aruba's #90 slipped in)
|
mdw
|
|
response 93 of 332:
|
Nov 5 03:32 UTC 2001 |
Jeff & Dan are both laid-back folks; I'm sure they'd do a fine job and
either or both would be welcome additions. Jeff deserves credit for
easing a lot of our recent disk space crunch; Dan was once the grex
treasure-lord & did a really bang-up fine job.
|
dpc
|
|
response 94 of 332:
|
Nov 7 15:38 UTC 2001 |
I want to emphasize the *lack* of problems M-Net has had with
non-local members. The Board meets at my house, and we make
two calls and put them on speakerphone. We have never been
unable to reach our non-local members, and they participate
just like local members.
|
aruba
|
|
response 95 of 332:
|
Nov 7 16:22 UTC 2001 |
Jamie is now a member of Grex, so you may consider his candidacy official.
|
keesan
|
|
response 96 of 332:
|
Nov 7 16:24 UTC 2001 |
Does anyone want to nominate jep, who has board experience at m-net?
|
kaplan
|
|
response 97 of 332:
|
Nov 7 16:29 UTC 2001 |
I accept my nomination.
|
jp2
|
|
response 98 of 332:
|
Nov 7 16:32 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 99 of 332:
|
Nov 7 17:04 UTC 2001 |
Re #97: Yay!
|
dpc
|
|
response 100 of 332:
|
Nov 7 21:16 UTC 2001 |
What jp2 said is true, but my statement that we never been unable
to reach our non-local members is also true. People sometimes
miss meetings, but non-locals have as good a track record as
locals.
|