response 94 of 203:

Aug 9 15:48 UTC 1999

If my motion passes, the BoD would be perfectly free to pass a resolution
outlining in detail what would happen under what circumstances, including
suspending public access for a given number of days.  The only thing
it could *not* do would be to suspend public access until new policies
are adopted.

response 96 of 203:

Aug 10 17:21 UTC 1999

Some responses after a week off line:

 - Dave doesn't seem to understand conditional probability.

   Everyone says "this law is extremely unlikely to be upheld".
   I agree.

   Dave says "if Grex were prosecuted under this law, it would be
   extremely likely to win."  I agree.

   However, the question at issue is "If the law were upheld, and Grex
   were then prosecuted under the law, would we be likely to win?"  I
   don't think that is a sure thing at all.  If the situation comes up
   at all, it means that a high court of the land has already thrown
   out all of our best arguments against the validity of the law.  What
   would we have left to defend ourselves with?  Only arguments saying
   that although the law is valid in general, it somehow shouldn't
   apply to us in particular.  Some of those arguments can be made, but
   I don't think there is anything sure about them.  They seem pretty
   flimsey to me.

   The problem here is that in planning for the event that this law is
   upheld, we are planning for an low probability universe.  Unlikely
   things happen in low probability universes (by definition).  It's
   hard to make sensible plans in advance for such cases.  A plan that
   says "we'll freeze in our tracks and assess the situtation" is
   really about the best that can be done.

 - Dave says there has been no publicity yet, so there won't be if
   the law is upheld.  I think Dave doesn't understand the news value
   of stories.  We have the following news stories:

   (1)  Michigan passes an Internet censorship law.  There have been
        five or six similar laws previous passed, all of which were
        thrown out by the courts.  This one will probably be thrown
        out too and will never effect anyone.  The ACLU's challenge is
        already started.

   (2)  The courts uphold a Michigan Internet censorship law, reversing
        the position take in five or six previous laws.  This new law
        effects every web site in every country in the world.  Many
        other states declare they are going to pass laws on the Michigan
        model.

   Do you see the difference between the stories?  The fact that the
   first one got a ho-hum reaction from the press doesn't mean that
   the second one would.

 - Richard, has usual, is listening with his fingers in his ears.  As
   I said previously, I didn't vote for this motion because I thought
   I needed protection.  I can resign in seconds.  I don't need a long
   suspension to mull over that one.  The reasons for the suspension
   are to have time to think over the impact on our users.

 - I consider Richard's claim that the "real reason" for the motion was
   for the board to protect our butts to be an insult.  I would like to
   see him back up this claim by demonstrating that the other reasons
   we have given are not valid.  If he cannot do that, an apology would
   be appropriate.

response 98 of 203:

Aug 10 23:25 UTC 1999

It's perfectly possible for the gov't to enforce something within the
first 3 days.  All it takes is one pissed-off government official.
What's more likely, though, is that the gov't won't actually swoop in in
the first 3 days, but will spend a a week or a month or whatever
collecting evidence first.  *Then*, they'll swoop in.  They'll likely
try to name incidents including the first 3 days if they can, because it
would help them to establish a "wilful pattern of abuse".

I also don't think it's unreasonable for the board to be concerned about
their collective ass.  A felony conviction however good the cause is
still rather like a bed of roses.  It may look pretty, but the thorns
still hurt just as much.

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.