|
Grex > Coop6 > #26: Policy for non-members to post to Usenet | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
chelsea
|
|
response 25 of 133:
| 
Nov 2 01:47 UTC 1994 |
Re: 21 Let me just see if I've got this straight. The scenerio is someone
approaches Grex requesting Internet access and says he doesn't have a
driver's license, a library card, a school ID, a passport, a medicare or
medicaid card, or a social security card but then says, "But how about
this FBI ID"?
I don't think so. ;-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 133:
|
Nov 2 06:32 UTC 1994 |
She's in the Witness Protection Program. 8=O.
|
carson
|
|
response 27 of 133:
|
Nov 2 07:47 UTC 1994 |
I think the compromise is fairly obvious.
|
scg
|
|
response 28 of 133:
|
Nov 2 22:46 UTC 1994 |
The issue is not FBI ID cards; it is whether we want to accomodate
people even if they don't fit a preset list that we think up. It may well
be that we can think of everything anybody is really likely to, but no
matter how big our list is, there will always besomebody who doesn't fit
it, somewhere, sometime. When we do encounter such a person, do we want
to be able to accomodate them or not?
This is actually a very important question. A lot of
organizations would say no, prefeerring a mroe rigid lit, but that may not
be right for Grex, a system that has generally prided itself on its
openness. There may be a situation where somebody shows up having only
IDs that aren't on our list, and we may want to be able to accomodate them.
I also don't understand this fear that seems to have developed
over trusting the person doing the verification to use their own
judgement. The Board should certainly establish some list of acceptable
pieces of ID, but as long as we get a verifier who can be trusted, others
that they think they know how to verify shouldn't be a probelm.
Then again, we could end up with a verifier who was out to get
certain people, and made them jusmp throughhoops to fit the requirement.
That is one of the strongest arguments for strict guidlines, but if we
have than kind of problems with a person, it's probably time for a new
verifier.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 29 of 133:
|
Nov 2 23:34 UTC 1994 |
It isn't about trust, it's about being fair so that kids are
treated the same as adults and those who are known to the system
are held to the same accountablility as those who live states
away and never make a walk. It's a way of assuring Grex is
consistent in following verification guidelines so that when or
if someone sends dangerous mail to Washinton we can show how we
followed a well-considered path and the verifier isn't left
standing alone trying to explain what happened.
Of course there should be a mechanism for folks who don't have
any of the listed ID to still be able to get aboard but these
cases will be very few indeed if the criteria is set up correctly,
and those few exceptions could be dealt with, by the staff, as
they occur. If there is flexibility it should be in ammending
the list of valid proof not in asking the verifier to make it
up as he or she goes along. Trust me on this one, the verifier
will be very happy to have such criteria if the Secret Service
decides someone has been misbehaving.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 30 of 133:
|
Nov 3 01:48 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 133:
|
Nov 3 07:19 UTC 1994 |
Everything on this system is done by volunteers, and they all to some
extent exercise their own judgement. In fact, the right to do that
is one of the very few rewards of being a volunteer. I would volunteer
to be the verifier if I were given at least the leeway to accept forms
of identification in addition to though equivalent to the "official
list", but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a volunteer with no
brains allowed.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 32 of 133:
|
Nov 3 12:45 UTC 1994 |
I'd volunteer to help out even with strict criteria and
no brains allowed. ;-) As would others, I'm sure.
|
remmers
|
|
response 33 of 133:
|
Nov 3 15:06 UTC 1994 |
Methinks we have a volunteer...
|
tsty
|
|
response 34 of 133:
|
Nov 3 17:09 UTC 1994 |
I think Grex is walking itself into a dangerous corner by aiding
the "documentation and traceability" of its users but the vote
was taken and the degree of identifiability is now up to us.
I would suggest NOT collecting SS numbers though.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 133:
|
Nov 3 17:32 UTC 1994 |
Re #33: we have a couple of volunteers. Now, we have to decide between
brains and no brains ;->. And the list, too. We could have a vote,
or let the board decide on the 16th between the liberal or conservative
agenda (we'll get practice for that on the 8th).
|
chelsea
|
|
response 36 of 133:
|
Nov 4 00:28 UTC 1994 |
Is anyone else interested in volunteering for this task? Don't be
shy now.
|
chip
|
|
response 37 of 133:
|
Nov 4 01:32 UTC 1994 |
Hmm. I deal with verification every day through my work. 'Spose
it wouldn't hurt to volunteer for a little off duty stuff as well.
BTW, the State itself allows a few cells to be used by the verifier.
|
omni
|
|
response 38 of 133:
|
Nov 4 04:58 UTC 1994 |
Even though I am not a member, I would like to volunteer for this duty.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 39 of 133:
|
Nov 4 07:02 UTC 1994 |
Cells?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 40 of 133:
|
Nov 4 13:10 UTC 1994 |
Brain ones?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 41 of 133:
|
Nov 4 13:11 UTC 1994 |
Hey chip? What *do* you do?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 42 of 133:
|
Nov 4 16:05 UTC 1994 |
He verifies. He said so himself.
|
chip
|
|
response 43 of 133:
|
Nov 5 00:37 UTC 1994 |
Whoops. Sorry about the poorly worded response. I didn't mean to be
quite so obscure. Yes, brain ones. Yes, I'm a verifier. Although
I don't think that's my official civil service classification. Just
another bureaucrat humbly at your service, Ma'am.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 44 of 133:
|
Nov 5 00:56 UTC 1994 |
I will yield to Chip, conditional on a) his not yielding, and b) the
verifier being permitted to exercise some intelligence in accepting
verification identification beyond the official list.
|
carson
|
|
response 45 of 133:
|
Nov 5 01:40 UTC 1994 |
wasn't carl originally nominated for this?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 133:
|
Nov 5 07:05 UTC 1994 |
No one has been "nominated" in this Item, but brenda, rcurl, chelsea, chip
and omni volunteered here (and I stepped aside). I'd like to suggest that
this task be given to someone that is reasonable and reliable, but that
also does not have a current significant volunteer position on Grex, as a
way to involve more volunteers.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 47 of 133:
|
Nov 5 14:10 UTC 1994 |
I agree.
|
tsty
|
|
response 48 of 133:
|
Nov 6 07:52 UTC 1994 |
what does a verifier "do?"
|
rcurl
|
|
response 49 of 133:
|
Nov 7 06:19 UTC 1994 |
Ensures that the verified have valid personal ID, so they can be
identified in case of a problem involving their use of usenet (or
anything else for which verification is required).
|