|
Grex > Coop11 > #114: Motion to Rescind Board Resolution on Suspending Grex Public Access | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 203 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 107 of 203:
|
Aug 11 21:48 UTC 1999 |
the state would only have a limited amount of resources to enforce
this law...therefore they would almost certainly only go after a
few high profile cases to make their point. It wouldnt be worth
their time or money to go after a little place like Grex. And even
considering the remote chance Grex would be prosecuted, there is ample
evidence Grex would have ample resources to represent it in a court fight
(the aclu, dpc .etc) Therefore Grex may have reason to dread being
prosecuted, but on reaon to fear it because it would win a court fight.
Therefore a temporary suspension serves no purpose.
I think there should be a member vote on a resolution that grex should
make no unreasonable attempt to comply with the requirements of this law
and should stay up and operating, and should fight the fight when/if that
day comes.
|
janc
|
|
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.
|
steve
|
|
response 109 of 203:
|
Aug 11 23:55 UTC 1999 |
Richard, your statement makes no sense. The State of Michigan has VAST
resources available to it, and you have *no* idea what they might think is
a viable, high profile juicy case to put before the awful "internet people"
to show that they mean business. *I* have no idea, either. To say that
Grex wouldn't be a target is sheer folly--we were, aafter all, the lead
plaintiff in the case to put a hold on this law.
As for your member vote, what consitiutes "reasonable"? Jan is right--
we need specific actions, not vague generalities.
|
mdw
|
|
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.
|
mary
|
|
response 111 of 203:
|
Aug 12 10:38 UTC 1999 |
The speeding tickets were in North Dakota. Otherwise, I agree. ;-)
|
dpc
|
|
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.
|
keesan
|
|
response 113 of 203:
|
Aug 12 18:46 UTC 1999 |
Re 110 (5), Kiwanis is no longer sending computers to the landfill, see agora
50. They are being melted down to make more computers, eventually. With some
input of nonrenewable energy.
I agree, it is safer to stay as far as possible from the court system, where
everyone but the lawyers is likely to lose.
|
pfv
|
|
response 114 of 203:
|
Aug 12 18:49 UTC 1999 |
"input of nonrenewable energy"?
Should I laugh or cry?
|
gull
|
|
response 115 of 203:
|
Aug 12 19:11 UTC 1999 |
Re #112: Scenarios like the one presented here can and do happen all the
time, in today's world of sensationalist politics.
|
dpc
|
|
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 117 of 203:
|
Aug 12 22:48 UTC 1999 |
I'll start the vote later this evening.
|
remmers
|
|
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.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 119 of 203:
|
Aug 13 03:38 UTC 1999 |
I have no problem with the decision the board made.
But I have just reached this conclusion: The argument that shutting
down was necessary to protect users that no longer exist on grex is
specious: If they are no longer on grex, they are no longer able to
control the content *THAT WAS POSTED PRIOR TO THIS LAW COMING INTO
EFFECT*. They would be protected under "no ex post facto" provisions.
So while it was a noble intent, I conclude it was incorrect reasoning.
|
steve
|
|
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.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 121 of 203:
|
Aug 13 04:26 UTC 1999 |
The crux of the matter is what would constitute an [unlawful] "act"
under the law. Was it simply the posting of material that is now
considered "harmful to children"? If so, that act would have been
carried out prior to the law taking effect, and thus couldn't be
prosecuted based on the tradition of "no ex post facto" laws, that is
laws can't be passed after the fact making the prior act prosecutable.
Is the act the contiunation of making available ("distributing") to
children the hardful material? If so, then current grex members might
be expected to remove postings made before the law passed. But
nonexistent members would have no capability of doing so, and thus the
"cleanup" would fall to grex. I find it hard to conceive of someone
being prosecuted for an act that was at the time it was made not
unlawful. Color me naive, perhaps...
|
mdw
|
|
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?
|
dpc
|
|
response 123 of 203:
|
Aug 13 14:52 UTC 1999 |
The above response is a clear example of the influence of those
dogs - Fear and Panic.
Thanks for starting the vote, remmers!
|
gull
|
|
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.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 125 of 203:
|
Aug 13 22:29 UTC 1999 |
Re: paragraph 1 of #122: I agree that grex baff could be held "liable"
if they didn't take steps to remove items posted by persons no longer
account holders on grex. But those folks themselves would not be
liable, so any notion of grex baff protecting those folks (by
temporarily "shutting down" grex) is specious, I maintain.
|
wh
|
|
response 126 of 203:
|
Aug 14 20:44 UTC 1999 |
Having just read through this entire item, I would say that the board
acted in a reasonable manner to be ready in case a low probability
disaster occurs. Low probability is not the same as won't happen/
can't happen. My thanks to the board for their usual foresight,
their hard work year-round, and their patient answers in this item
to the same questions flung at them over and over again. I vote no.
|
saw
|
|
response 127 of 203:
|
Aug 14 21:53 UTC 1999 |
Ok, after reading this item I'm going to put in my $0.02 here.
The law that the government is trying to pass is lame. If they
pass it, they might as well pass similar laws about TV, newspapers,
magazines, billboards, signs, even speech. Might as well. Makes just
about enough sense in my opinion.
Second, if I remember right, the Internet is owned by the people
who provide the backbone networks--not the government. Plus, the Internet
extends to many countries. Therefore, no government has the right to try
to "regulate" the Internet, unless all countries agree with the
regulation. (If I lived in Germany, I wouldn't want the U.S. to regulate
what my users could do.)
Third, just because the government may do something lame (i.e.
passing the stupid law) doesn't mean we need to close Grex. If a law is
unreasonable (i.e. this one or no walking outside after 6PM, or whatever
they come up with) then protest it. Break it. If they passed a law here
in Tennessee forbidding you to walk on public sidewalks after 6PM, I'd
wait until 7PM to walk up the street and visit my friend. There are more
people in the country than there are government, so the people are the
final say in things.
A lot of this I say because I am a Grex user and I think Grex is
one of the greatest things on the Internet, and I don't want to see it go
because of some government official's stupid decision. I use Grex just
about every day, I have made friends here. Sure, you can't telnet or FTP,
but so what? There are plenty of things you CAN do here, pine, bbs, talk,
write, tel, etc. I would hate to see Grex go away. It's special in its
own way.
|
scg
|
|
response 128 of 203:
|
Aug 15 00:51 UTC 1999 |
Just because the government doesn't own something doesn't mean they can't
regulate it. That's largely what governments do. There are plenty of
reasons why this law was bad an unconstitutional, but that isn't one of them.
There's somewhat of a credibility issue involved when you go through legal
channels to try to change something, and at the same turn around and ignore
the law you're trying to change. Whether that helps or hurts your credibility
seems to be being debated here, but it's not something to ignore.
|
mdw
|
|
response 129 of 203:
|
Aug 15 02:09 UTC 1999 |
The government doesn't own my car or my house, but it doesn't stop them
from passing all sort of laws that regulate how I can use both.
|
keesan
|
|
response 130 of 203:
|
Aug 16 15:13 UTC 1999 |
re 127. As a paying member ($6/month or $60/year) I _can_ FTP and telnet.
If you want to make sure grex does not go away, become a member.
(This also lets you help elect the board, or even run for it).
|
aruba
|
|
response 131 of 203:
|
Aug 16 17:54 UTC 1999 |
I wrote to Mike Steinberg and asked him whether the ACLU would represent us
if we were prosecuted under the law. He wrote back, but asked me not to post
his response because of our attorney-client privilege. (The reason is that
he doesn't feel comfortable talking publicly about the ACLU's strategy in the
case until it's over, because the lawyers on the other side and the judge
might read it.) I'll try to get a statement from him that's OK to post, but
it may take a little while.
|