|
Grex > Coop7 > #26: User Verification -- Is It Feasible? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 147 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 100 of 147:
| 
May 1 20:08 UTC 1995 |
That's what I thought I said 8^?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 101 of 147:
|
May 1 23:14 UTC 1995 |
Perhaps the question might be whether the board of directors
of Grex acted prudently in their verification policy and
the policy implementation -- ie were they "negligent victims"?
On one hand you could require every user to appear in person
for a polygraph, submit fingerprints, undergo a background
check, and post a bond against misuse, or, the board could
require something less. How much less is the problem.
I really hate to see Grex and other systems have to deal with
this <exlpetive> but the jerks force the issue. The board
has to decide how much personal risk they are willing to
accept for free. If the users and members want a totally
open and non user-verified system, are they willing to pay
for insurance to protect the board. This assumes the
insurance on a totally open system could be bought, which
is not certain. You can help put the problem in perspective
by imagining youself being asked questions in court about
the reasonableness of the policy, by a nasty and crafty
lawyer out to stick it to the board -- hard.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 102 of 147:
|
May 2 05:04 UTC 1995 |
So what we have is that the board has a fiduciary responsigility (or something
like taht) to demand some form of verification, right?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 103 of 147:
|
May 2 06:02 UTC 1995 |
It has a fiduciary ("with trust") responsibility to manage the
organization prudently and legally. Incidentally, in Michigan, if you have
a Personal Liability Umbrella Policy (associated with homeowners or
renters insurance policy), you are covered by it for "any loss caused by
your act or omission as a member of a corporation's board of directors"
of a not-for-profit corporation that does not involve your business.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 104 of 147:
|
May 2 07:15 UTC 1995 |
Rane- spell it out for mr, man, I
ahem, oops.. I'm not coherent enough to make sense of that right now..
|
adbarr
|
|
response 105 of 147:
|
May 2 11:04 UTC 1995 |
re: 102 and 103 - Two things are at work - a. Board of Directors's
joint and individual responsibility to the Corporation (Grex) and
the members (which I think are equivalent), and b., the directors's
correction - directors' responsibility to themselves. Re: 104 -
If the directors are "negligent" in the operation of the corporation
and that negligence causes harm to someone, the corporation could
be sued - Grex could be ordered to pay money - and, the individual
directors could be sued with a similar result. Nonprofits
are not immune from suit. There are several provisions in the
Michigan Statutes (Rane - look at the HVCN Articles I gave you)
relating to director liabiltiy in nonprofit settings. The point
is to build the "shark cage" now, before you attract the
"bad guys" to the reef. Someshere there is a lawyer or
law student who would be only too happy to make a name by
climbing over the dead bodies of systems like Grex. They
could care less about how friendly you are as a system.
You can't live your life in total fear, but you should not
pretend that bad things do not exist. Grex (and other systems)
have already had direct expierience with misuse. If reasonable
(??) steps are not taken to control and limit misuse - would
you be surprised if the directors are held to be negligent
by some judge?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 106 of 147:
|
May 2 15:06 UTC 1995 |
Thanks Arnold. The Grex articles already invoke state law re
directors immunity from member suit for violation of fiduciary duty.
ever Grex does not have liability insurance, much less directors
insurance. The latter is what is covered by a homeowners Umbrella.
Sidhe - say again?
|
sidhe
|
|
response 107 of 147:
|
May 4 21:08 UTC 1995 |
rane- asking for restatement is not feasible- I don't recall _what_
I was trying to say.
Fine, but would this preclude a definite "safe" set of ground
rules fpr allowing anonymity on a "good grexxer" basis?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 108 of 147:
|
May 4 21:43 UTC 1995 |
Would not that be similar to not requiring a driver's license of
a "good driver"? A basic tenet of law is that it should apply equally
to all, without exception. If anyone is required to verify, all should
be required to verify. Would you propose to allow an exception for,
say, Grex board members, since of course they are "good grexers"?
|
steve
|
|
response 109 of 147:
|
May 5 02:04 UTC 1995 |
There isn't any way Grex can reasonably provide anonymous
net access. Period.
|
mdw
|
|
response 110 of 147:
|
May 7 07:02 UTC 1995 |
Grex can reasonably provide "unverified" access to grex. Since everyone
gets an account the same way, it's not likely anyone would be surprised
here -- and people who don't value this, or find it acceptable, are of
course free to leave.
Grex can't reasonably provide "unverified" access to the network. With
few exceptions, internet access is almost always provided on a
non-anonymous basis. In most of these places, violating the rules
results in the revocation of network access, often with little or no due
process. There are plenty of people who would like to do the things
that would result in the revocation of network access elsewhere. Most
of those people don't hang around here on grex too much, because they
can't do those things here.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 111 of 147:
|
May 7 23:35 UTC 1995 |
Yes, but wouldn't a reasonable amount of
observation period/waiting period also serve the same function? These
slimes want to have access NOW, so, in denyng them this, wouldn't
it be an effective filter?
|
davel
|
|
response 112 of 147:
|
May 8 00:42 UTC 1995 |
"Hey, I found this really neat place - all you have to do is sit tight for
3 weeks, and then you can get out on the net anonymously!" Like that?
|
ajax
|
|
response 113 of 147:
|
May 8 01:04 UTC 1995 |
Yeah...aside from the fact that waiting periods are a major downer
for a system, someone who planned to be a nuisance could just create
a dozen accounts, wait for them to be activated, then switch from one
to the next as each is "disciplined." Waiting alone adds no security.
|
selena
|
|
response 114 of 147:
|
May 8 19:17 UTC 1995 |
Three weeks is too short.
WAy too short.
How about thrre months.. or six? That sounds better. Combine that with the
fact that the sillies still have to pay $6/month, and I think you'll
see them go elsewhere for FREE access..
My $.02
|
steve
|
|
response 115 of 147:
|
May 9 00:36 UTC 1995 |
But how does one go about being "known" to the whoevers on Grex
to make the grade and get net access?
One of the problems with this is that its rife with potential
problems. How would we make the determiniation as to when and how
to accept someone? If something like this were to be an active
participant in the conferences, I think they could make the case
that they would become "known" after some period of time. Probably
the same for a person who was mostly a party person too. But what
about someone who uses Grex for mail, and maybe a little self-education
on UNIX? How would we determine when they were "safe"?
How would we not turn Grex into a system that granted official
"access favors" to a certain subset of people and deny others.
|
tsty
|
|
response 116 of 147:
|
May 9 05:55 UTC 1995 |
Hey - adbarr, #101, "but the jerks force the issue," guess I should
remember you for Christmas, huh?
|
srw
|
|
response 117 of 147:
|
May 9 07:48 UTC 1995 |
Does 101 say you are a jerk, ts? Not to me. 101 refers to the jerks
(hackers) whose presence forces the need for such a policy.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 118 of 147:
|
May 9 12:14 UTC 1995 |
Hey - ts - slow down - Steve (#117) has the correct
interpretation - not referring to you at all. Much sorry
if I gave the wrong impression! However, the thought
of your remembering me at Christmas is sweet. Please do.
I think I was trying to say that if people would not
abuse *privileges* there would be no reason to "license"
or "verify" users of the privilege. Experience
says that, however much we would hope and pray for this
ideal, it is not going to work out that way. People
(some people) will abuse privileges no matter what
the cost for the rest of the society. What are the
alternatives then? Do away with the privilege so
no one can abuse it? This works - but is pretty
expensive for the society. What else? Perhaps
setting some basic rules of access to the privilege?
Perhaps setting some basic rules for use of the
privilege? Or, we could just let people abuse
the privilege and pay the price for their "freedom".
Oh, and be sure to circle December 25 on your
calendar.
|
selena
|
|
response 119 of 147:
|
May 9 12:39 UTC 1995 |
Right- so we only have to come up with a set system of guidelines.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 120 of 147:
|
May 9 16:18 UTC 1995 |
Selena, I'm not getting that (#119) can you help me with some
elaboration of what would work for you? Thanks. You should
circle Dec. 25 also, and collaborate with ts on my Christmas
present, BTW.
|
selena
|
|
response 121 of 147:
|
May 11 01:54 UTC 1995 |
I'm not christian, adbarr, sorry.. How about a Solstace gift?
<Selena's feeling too huggy to get into the details>
<Selena hugs adbarr>
|
adbarr
|
|
response 122 of 147:
|
May 11 19:11 UTC 1995 |
Thanks for the hug, Selena! Always feels nice. Solstace will do
just fine - and cash is always appreciated! :) Here is a "Hug"
back! Oh, and the rest of you stay out of this, thank you very
much.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 123 of 147:
|
May 11 21:29 UTC 1995 |
<sidhe watches the tension whirl around like a released balloon,
and whisk out the door>
|
tsty
|
|
response 124 of 147:
|
May 12 20:18 UTC 1995 |
*I* am forcing the issue. I *am* forcing the issue. I am *forcing*
the issue. I am forcing the *issue*. Got it? The issue is
malformed; right destinationin mind, wrong direction used.
|