response 25 of 183:

Mar 22 16:22 UTC 1995

Selena:  now that quorums are gone, you don't have to vote anymore.  
Are there other reasons you don't want a voting membership?

response 27 of 183:

Mar 22 17:43 UTC 1995

        I think the idea was to have a way of non-verifying members, while
allowing them internet access. personally, I don't have such a problem-
MetroNet allows free telnet, FTP and other such resources. I donated just
to donate.

response 29 of 183:

Mar 24 00:00 UTC 1995

        No, Metronet doesn't care. I login as "public" password "library",
just like their instructional flyer that they gave to me siad to do.
Copies of this flier are available at Farmington Hills Public Library,
which runs Metronet. Or, mail gmf@metronet.lib.mi.us if you want to
talk to the co-ordinator.
        It's things like MetroNet and Nether.Net which make me wonder what
all the fuss is about.

response 31 of 183:

Mar 24 19:11 UTC 1995

        Hey! I use metronet, and sidhe's right! I never looked till
today, but item #4 on the menu system is ftp/gopher/telnet of your choice!
I tried it, and it is really "of your choice"! So, what's with that, then?

response 33 of 183:

Mar 25 08:12 UTC 1995

        Yeah, they must of added it recently, 'cause when i started using them,
that wasn't available.

response 35 of 183:

Mar 25 21:48 UTC 1995

        Indeed? Then the possibility of names getting into "bad" hands is
much higher than previously supposed..

response 37 of 183:

Mar 26 08:14 UTC 1995

If you were to disavow your voting rights, and such an action were
permitted by an organization, you wouldn't need to be included in its
roll of voters.  The purpose of the statutory requirement is to allow
interested parties to verify that an election was properly conducted
based upon an accurate roll of registered voters, and to allow for
challenges of questionable registrations.

response 39 of 183:

Mar 27 04:19 UTC 1995

I have no doubt that there are lots of places on the Net where people
can get unrestricted Interent access without verification.  I've seen
them.  But providing such a system is not openness.  It's
irresponsability.

response 41 of 183:

Mar 27 06:07 UTC 1995

Fortunately, our link is a choke on the un-restrained-ness that
could evolve ....

response 43 of 183:

Mar 27 08:35 UTC 1995

In item 26, Selena asked *why* verification was needed, and Aaron
claimed there was another such item, but didn't point to it.  I assume
he meant this item, and this response is for Selena.

The problem with trying to separate feasibility from need is that it
can't be done - one of the key factors in feasibility is indeed need.

Voting is a fairly straight-foward issue; the only thing we need do is
comply with whatever the state requires us to do.  The only thing that
bothers me there is that we seem to be unable to agree on just exactly
what that is (Rane, and Aaron have so far come up with different
"authoritative" answers as to what we have to keep, and who we'd have to
turn it over to.)

The "legal liability" aka "internet" issue breaks down into a series of
relationships between grex, users, members, outside systems, and outside
users.  In the pre-internet days, this was not so complicated; we could
assume a relatively limited population of users, who would be relatively
familiar with the norms of the system - ie, that they would recognize
the value of open access, and not attempt to hold the system responsible
for the actions of other users.  A second assumption/promise was that
staff would undertake the primary responsibility to make the best effort
possible to make the system as secure as possible, and would seek
technical/social problems to problems, instead of administrative or
legal restrictions, whenever possible.  These are both unusual solutions
in today's world, but not entirely without precedent.  Indeed, a
perfectly straight-forward example are the kiosks and telephone poles of
ann arbor - where, in practice, if not in law, virtually any individual
or group is free to post as many announcements as they care to, on
virtually any subject, with no editorial control or content restrictions
other than that of self-interest.  What's unusual about grex & m-net, is
that they have both managed to give access to a very complicated and
rich set of tools (Unix) to both naive, and sometimes malicious users,
with great success.  Most systems are too afraid of the risk *to the
system*, and the *time* to secure the system, to provide such an open
system.

Unfortunately, the internet has evolved a different set of norms.
Historically, access to the internet has been through the auspices of
large organizations, which have generally had the power to arbitrarily
deny access to the internet, to any user whom that organization feels is
not worthy of that privilege.  At the same time, most of these
organizations have found that they generally get the best value of the
internet, by opening up access as much as possible.  That actually
creates two distinct philosophies & sets of organizations on the
internet, a set that believes essentially in a police state style of
organization, and a set that believes in open access - "to any qualified
user".

There is one last fact to factor into this equation - the internet is
growing very rapidly, and that means there are 2 problems: (1) there are
a lot of people out there who are operating machines on the internet,
who do not understand how to set up secure machines.  (2) there is a
small but active underground population of users who want to seek out
these insecure machines and steal access, and/or perform various acts of
malicious sabotage.  Er, and also, (3) there is also a population of
relatively sex starved individuals, who for some reason are attracted to
the anonymity of cyberspace.  And, lastly, besides anti-puritans (such
as Jake Baker?), you also have the self-seeking puritans (Exon,
Gingrich?) who have taken note of the rapid growth of the internet, and
would seek to "solve" the problems of the internet in order to foster
their own selfish goals.

And so, there, in a nut-shell, you have the problem: how do you
interface the pre-internet no-verification policies of grex or m-net,
with the conflicting notions of open access & police state that you find
on the internet, in the context of the rapid growth, pirates,
anti-puritans, and puritans that exist in the world?

response 45 of 183:

Mar 28 05:19 UTC 1995

        But the information is still far from secure.
        Yes, you can telnet into metronat ANONYMOUSLY, and telnet anywhere else
from there.. try it, before you assume! That's how I get HERE, you nut!
I dial michnet detroit-node, and from there telnet to metronet, using 
their ANONYMOUS "public" account. from their I telnet here. I also use this
to telnet anywhere else I please. What's being asked, then, now that you
can't deny that there is a major provider out there that does anonymous
telnet access, is what is the reason that we can't do it here, if the
person isn't a voter??
        "I don't feel like having us allow that" is an answer, yes, but you
have to admit that it's REALLY weak. Yes, I consider it a lack of openness,
and just as it might be your opinion that it isn't, it's mine that it is.

response 47 of 183:

Mar 28 06:38 UTC 1995

Login: public
Password: library

What about the people that can't telnet?

response 49 of 183:

Mar 28 07:44 UTC 1995

Its been said before, but to keep it short: selena, grex currently reserves
outgoing telnet to verified members in order to manage the load on the
modem. Apparently, metronet does not have a problem with that yet.