|
Grex > Coop6 > #26: Policy for non-members to post to Usenet | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
kentn
|
|
response 100 of 133:
| 
Dec 7 17:17 UTC 1994 |
Re: 96, should we add the word "photo" to your suggestion? You seem
to rule out non-photo IDs in the rest of your response.
|
mdw
|
|
response 101 of 133:
|
Dec 7 18:56 UTC 1994 |
I think it depends on if this is to be presented in person or what. If
it's through the mail, there's very little point in photo ID. Actually,
so far as that goes, birth certificates rarely include photographs...
(It took me several years after I came to Michigan before I realized
what the Michigan Secretary of State did. All I could think of was
Kissinger, but that didn't seem to make sense.)
|
scg
|
|
response 102 of 133:
|
Dec 8 05:54 UTC 1994 |
Drivers license or equivilant ID could get rather confusing to people who
come from places where a drivers license is just that -- a license to
drive, not an ID card. I still think government issued ID is clearer, and
I fail to see the problem with the word government.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 103 of 133:
|
Dec 8 07:48 UTC 1994 |
How about, a "community agency issued ID document"?
|
tsty
|
|
response 104 of 133:
|
Dec 8 09:51 UTC 1994 |
Hmmm, a connection to a community, even a strained one, does
involve a higher degree of integration than some gummint flashcard.
|
mdw
|
|
response 105 of 133:
|
Dec 8 10:57 UTC 1994 |
"community agency issued ID document" precisely describes a library card
issued by a defunct small town library in California. Anyone in the
states will almost certainly know a DL; banks are too fond of DL's as
ID, as are hotels. People anywhere else in the world will certainly
know passports & birth certificates, if they aren't already familiar
with that quaint american custom of regarding DL's as ID from american
movies. I see no reason to come up with definitive non-specific wording
that will inevitably be prone to misinterpretation, arguments, and bad
feelings, when several concrete examples will do the job better and with
fewer words.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 106 of 133:
|
Dec 8 17:15 UTC 1994 |
I was just taking a fling at concocting a PC euphamism.
|
cicero
|
|
response 107 of 133:
|
Dec 8 17:32 UTC 1994 |
I agree with Marcus. I think our best bet here is something like "a driver's
license, birth certificate, passport, or similar identification document"
|
ajax
|
|
response 108 of 133:
|
Feb 18 17:37 UTC 1995 |
The recent board minutes said acceptable id was still up in the air.
It looks mostly resolved in this item...are there more open issues, or is
it just a matter of compiling the ideas here into another unified proposal
like in #74?
Also, I was wondering, should Grex keep a copy of the ids sent in a file
somewhere, in case there is a legal problem with someone we verified? Or
is it enough to say that in the past, someone must have seen a valid id?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 109 of 133:
|
Feb 18 22:19 UTC 1995 |
Board member remmers volunteered (?) to review the ID items, and bring
a recommendation to the board. Grex would have to keep a copy, as it
is necessary to be able to reach the user if any problems arise (for example,
if the FBI comes looking for them 8-/.)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 110 of 133:
|
Feb 19 12:58 UTC 1995 |
Re 108: I haven't gone back and re-read this item, so I may be spouting
off something that's totally wrong, but if I remember right, there were
two schools of thought about ID. One group said that Grex should have
an explicit list of acceptable IDs so that the person who validates people
wouldn't have to make judgement calls. The other group said that Grex
should pick a trustworthy verifier and let that person decide whether
or not each particular piece of ID is acceptable. Both groups felt that
their system was the most fair to the people being verified. I don't
think this question was resolved.
|
ajax
|
|
response 111 of 133:
|
Feb 19 22:31 UTC 1995 |
Oh yeah, there was that issue. It seems like most people favor some
discretion for the verifier, within limits. Is John's synthesis
of ideas supposed to use one approach or the other? Or will it be
a surprise? :)
|
srw
|
|
response 112 of 133:
|
Feb 20 06:22 UTC 1995 |
There was another issue about ID that was never resolved, too.
It was never specified exactly under what conditions the ID would become
available, and to whom. The current thinking is that the verifier would
keep the ID on his/her own system, and reveal it only under a court order.
This question also applies to membership ID, where the verifier is the
Treasurer.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 113 of 133:
|
Feb 23 07:16 UTC 1995 |
I don't know about a "court order"! ID would have to be used if it
became necessary: certainly, in the event of any legal inquiry from
civil (or criminal) authority).
|
remmers
|
|
response 114 of 133:
|
Feb 23 12:58 UTC 1995 |
I volunteered to go through the online discussions about verification
to see if I could distill some sort of essence. Regardless of whom
the result surprises, it will probably surprise me.
|
tsty
|
|
response 115 of 133:
|
Feb 28 22:49 UTC 1995 |
As most of you probably already know, but it's been a while, I am
philosophically opposed to "id" in general (or coop for that matter<g>).
As a matter of "practicality," Grex could issue its own plastic-
encased, photographic id card, complete with login id as a qualification
for membership.
We'd get a lot of those out-of-towners to make the trip to A2 so
we could look em over and figger out if they are worthy enough
|
carson
|
|
response 116 of 133:
|
Feb 28 23:05 UTC 1995 |
most glaring priblem wid abuv: money to issue card
of course, if it's just a complimentary trading card...
|
scg
|
|
response 117 of 133:
|
Mar 1 00:10 UTC 1995 |
Another question that's been bugging me about this lately is whether there
should be any circumstances under which somebody would give us acceptable
ID, but we still wouldn't give them Net access? If somebody's been being
destructive on Grex, do we still trust them with Usenet?
|
tsty
|
|
response 118 of 133:
|
Mar 1 12:48 UTC 1995 |
Somehow those two circumstances are not related ... id or not,
if someone is destructive, they go, imo. And I thnk that's
how Grex has been operating since ground zero.
|
ajax
|
|
response 119 of 133:
|
Mar 1 16:53 UTC 1995 |
Sounds right to me...if they've merely been extremely annoying, giving
them net access might actually distract them from being annoying on Grex :).
|
carson
|
|
response 120 of 133:
|
Mar 1 17:49 UTC 1995 |
yeah! like ziggy!
(oops... didn't mean that the way it came out...)
|
carl
|
|
response 121 of 133:
|
Mar 1 22:38 UTC 1995 |
Would we want someone spamming newsgroups from Grex? It seems to
me that it would depend upon what kind of annoyance a person was.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 122 of 133:
|
Mar 2 18:08 UTC 1995 |
Gads... that would be a hard decision to make. "I'm sorry <username>, but
you're such a bozo in Grex's conferences that I've decided not to let
you post to Usenet, even though you sent in ID and did whatever else Grex
requires in order to get access." -- who wants to have to say that!
On the other hand, we could go by a policy of letting even the bozos get
access, at least until they do something terribly antisocial on the net.
I've seen some people behave badly on one conferencing system and then do
perfectly OK on another one. There's always hope....
|
lilmo
|
|
response 123 of 133:
|
Mar 3 02:14 UTC 1995 |
Well.... yeah, I guess I've seen somehting like that a VERY few times, but
the more common pattern is that jerks on one system are problems on the next.
*shrug*
|
steve
|
|
response 124 of 133:
|
Mar 3 02:58 UTC 1995 |
There are two things people could do on the net which are "bad" that
we'd have to deal with differently.
- The person who posts articles that *really* offend people in a
certain newgroup, but who posts correctly, and while being a royal pain in
the ass to others, is doing so by content, not process.
- The person who is just the opposite: spams 1376 newsgroups with
the same article, or one newsgroup with 989 useless entries.
It is my feeling that we have to respect the ability of the person
who follows correct process, but whose content is objectionable. A
free society needs to be able to support such people, however objectionable
they are. That is what free speech is about.
The person who fails to follow correct form is a completely different
case, and I think their asses should be booted from the system. Unforunately,
we can't do that. But we can disable their posting access.
|