response 26 of 106:

Jun 11 01:57 UTC 1996

I tried it and "members" alone works just as well.  

response 28 of 106:

Jun 11 05:40 UTC 1996

i have an idea about thtis thing/problem .. but lemme shine it up a bit 1st.

response 30 of 106:

Jun 11 19:22 UTC 1996

(a) driver's licenses, at least in Michigan, do not show a social security
number, and (b) it bears repeating, a photocopy of photo identification is
*not* required...if you send a check, that is sufficient identification.

response 32 of 106:

Jun 11 20:20 UTC 1996

i guess the general idea is taht anonymity plus outside access creates
teh opportunity for abuse. it also creates the opportunity for NON-abuse
while providing personal privacy. i hold that the second is more
important than the first.
  
given an intent to abuse, the abuser will seek the fastest, cheapest
easiest method to achieve abusive ends. a single $6 for 30 days is
a pretty darn tiny threshold to cross and gives tons of time to wreak havoc.
  
given an intent NOT to abuse, and simultaneously protect what semblence
of privacy still exists in tatters here and there, a single $6 for 30 days
doesn't provide very much time to learn things or go places and the
donation requested is small, particularily for the burden that anonymity
places on the system itself.
  
given an intent to abuse, the abuser has to hvae already acquired 
some considerable skills that would aid in the intent.
  
given an intent NOT to abuse, the skill level might be considerable
but that's really doubtful, imo. creating the opportunity to raise
the skill level is much more probable, imo.
  
the abuser will see the minimalist $6 as the key (cause 30 minutes
is more  than enough time to get stuff messed up, who needs 30 *days*).
  
the anonymous user will see the 30 days as the key, andthat's not
a whole helluva lotof time to get good - and inherently insufficient
for the purposes. The $6 is not the overriding concern, nor is it much
of a barrier given that the anonymous ppl would be requesting something
somewhat 'extra' for the circumstance.
  
365 days is a better time frame for the non-abuser to cruise arond, get
good, stay private, learn, participate and protect self at the same time.
  
365 days wouldn't affect the abuser one whit. who needs that much time
to wreak havoc when 1/10 of that amount of time ismore than enough.
  
$60 is  a bit more of a hurdle for the abuser. now it;'s getting expensive,
in comparison, to gain the anonymous access whenmany multiples of
teh speed can be bought for 1/3 thje cost.
  
$60 is a sufficient hurdle, adn an appropriate contribution, to assist
the maintenance of privacy and allow a gradual entry into this cyber-thing,
web-whatever, beginners protected, exploration.
  
if some critical level of abuse is perpetrated or exceeded, neither $6/$60
or 30/365 means a damn thing anyway, they're gone - poof.
  
grex already has a history of dealing with net-dweebs anyway, and it
takes a fairly highlevel of perpetration  or an exceedingly pointed
attack, before grex reaps an account for cause. this is a good standard.
  
i propose this compromise: if a login wants outbound anonymity that login
can remain anonymous in good conscience by making a year's contribution
to the system that will support such independence. $60/365 days, single
payment (or sequential payments but no access granted until $60, in
total, is received).
  
no verification asked for, or verificatin optional, whichever.
  
lesser contributors can be asked for some sort of verification.

response 34 of 106:

Jun 11 21:03 UTC 1996

<robh will keep that in mind if he's ever in kerouac's area>

response 36 of 106:

Jun 12 06:12 UTC 1996

Every user has "outbound anonymity" - regardless of membership for many
uses, but even members have outbound anonymity. It is only *internal*
identification that is required. I fully support that, for the reasons
that STeve has eloquently (and frequently) explained. There is absolutely
no reason why an honorable person should want to remain anonymous within
the tightly controlled ID system of Grex. Dishonorable people will shun it
like the plague, as they can be reported to authorities if they conduct
unlawful actions. This seems to me how all of society's security systems
are organized, and there is little question we need them.

response 38 of 106:

Jun 12 13:29 UTC 1996

I have to agree with meg.  Though I personally can't think of
any reasons, that doesn't mean others cannot have them.

response 40 of 106:

Jun 12 14:50 UTC 1996

   Rane, there *are* some good reasons to want anonymity.  The "bad"
people like it too, but that doesn't mean, I think, that we should
get rid of that.

   In fact, we can't, without changing the whole flavor of Grex.
So this means that we've allowed the "bad" people to send email
that they shouldn't--and every once in a while we do have to deal
with that.  But considering the amount of mail we pass every day,
it isn't very much.

response 42 of 106:

Jun 12 17:30 UTC 1996

Grex already provides a very anonymous environment.  Rape crisis callers
can use all of Grex's service except outbound telnet without giving their
name.  Identifying outbound telnet users is not about protecting Grex
from hackers, it's about protecting other systems that people hop to
*from* Grex.
 
The idea of anonymous memberships for a year's payment fails to address
the legal requirement for the corporation to maintain a list of members.

response 44 of 106:

Jun 13 02:29 UTC 1996

why does grex even wanto maintain an anonymus atmosphere --
or that anonymous anyway? Most people are telneting in from
systems that don;t allow random unpaying people to access them anyway.
We're all a little paranoid if someone seeing our host site
drives us nutty. Grex is plenty anonymous as it is...
you really know nothing about nobody & don;t know if it's true
anyway... I don;t see how your suggestions are useful
Kerouac. I dn;'t hear to many people complaining about
the lack of anonyminity.

response 48 of 106:

Jun 14 07:06 UTC 1996

Like Jenna, I don't see where Kerouac's suggestions are helpful.
I agree with ajax that tsty's proposal doesn't address an important
consideration.

While I agree that some people who are not malevolent might have valid reasons
for anonymity, I would point out that they only have to give it up to get a
very limited set of functionality here, and then they only give it up to the
Grex staff. We can't afford to violate that trust.

I am completely baffled by #45 by Mary Remmers. What is your point?
Please spell it out.