|
Grex > Coop6 > #26: Policy for non-members to post to Usenet | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
carl
|
|
response 50 of 133:
| 
Nov 7 11:06 UTC 1994 |
Carson, I had volunteered way back (two or three months ago) to
take care of verifications if it turned out to be necessary. That
discussion didn't end with a clear statement that Grex wanted a
verifier or me to be that verifier. Since then I've gotten busy in
other projects. For the record, I'll withdraw my offer. BTW, you
have a good memory!
|
carson
|
|
response 51 of 133:
|
Nov 7 11:35 UTC 1994 |
(I'm trying to match pegasus. ;>)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 52 of 133:
|
Nov 7 13:56 UTC 1994 |
Pegasus also volunteered to be the verifier.
|
pegasus
|
|
response 53 of 133:
|
Nov 7 18:43 UTC 1994 |
I never did! Where did you guys pick up that idea? All I did was try to
come up with a rule that we could all live with, and didn't get very
far at the time. My thoughts all along have been that the treasurer is
the person who should do the verifying.
Pattie
PS, I don't understand the statment about trying to match me? I must have
missed the joke??
|
carson
|
|
response 54 of 133:
|
Nov 7 18:55 UTC 1994 |
re #53: I was alluding to the work in Grex's new home.
|
tsty
|
|
response 55 of 133:
|
Nov 7 18:59 UTC 1994 |
Hmm, I was referring to #43's "Yes, I'm a verifier," from chip,
the "bureaucrat humbly at your service" pern.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 56 of 133:
|
Nov 8 05:01 UTC 1994 |
Re 53: Ooops! Sorry! Didn't mean to incorrectly implicate you!
I'll see if I can find the response I was remembering....
|
tsty
|
|
response 57 of 133:
|
Nov 9 20:41 UTC 1994 |
<<Implications 'R Me, just ask ITD .....>>
<g!>
|
tsty
|
|
response 58 of 133:
|
Nov 12 05:25 UTC 1994 |
EArth to chip, come in please?
|
chip
|
|
response 59 of 133:
|
Nov 15 02:14 UTC 1994 |
This is Chip, over. On second thought, I withdraw my name from the
list of volunteers. I have a Detroit mail address andit may be
changing soon.
|
tsty
|
|
response 60 of 133:
|
Nov 15 08:16 UTC 1994 |
Hmmm, darn. WElll, thanks for the thought anyway.
|
selena
|
|
response 61 of 133:
|
Nov 18 20:14 UTC 1994 |
Pardon me if I missed this, but does the ID have to be photo ID?
This may seem a strange question, but it is very important that I know,
as I am not a student, and i'm not sending a copy of my driver's license
ANYWHERE. I hope that there is something acceptable to both of us, that
we can find...
|
pegasus
|
|
response 62 of 133:
|
Nov 19 01:26 UTC 1994 |
Selena,
Is there a particular reason you don't want to send a xerox of your
driver's license?
Pattie
|
davel
|
|
response 63 of 133:
|
Nov 19 02:36 UTC 1994 |
Well, one reason she *might* is a concern that this might make it easier for
some unscrupulous person to forge a duplicate and (say) use it to cash
forged checks in her name.
(Selena, I'm not trying to preempt you or anything. I just find that
scene all too easy to imagine once it occurs to me.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 133:
|
Nov 19 03:38 UTC 1994 |
I think the answer to the *question* is no, it does not have to be
a photo ID. For members, their cashable check with their name imprinted
is considered acceptable. Somewhere around here is a long list of
acceptable IDs - probably earlier in this item. It isn't official yet,
but should be considered by the board in December. Currently, its
all moot, because we can't post to usenet! Have patience.
|
tsty
|
|
response 65 of 133:
|
Nov 19 10:03 UTC 1994 |
pegasus, I take particular offense to your question, whether
selena does or not. I do not take offense to your asking it, but
live with the answer; "it's none of your business."
Others may or may not agree, within their own parameters.
|
srw
|
|
response 66 of 133:
|
Nov 19 16:01 UTC 1994 |
I have heard of people who find it threatening to be asked to send a copy
of their driver's license. I don't find Pegasus's question threatening
or inappropriate, though. I'd be curious to know why Selena feels
that way, if she chooses to tell us. We don't want to be perceived as
threatening in our request for ID, so we should accept things that
people are willing to send. We need a manual process, though, to enable
usenet, or else we have no control over its abuse.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 67 of 133:
|
Nov 21 07:34 UTC 1994 |
If my real name is Jane Smith but I use the name Valerie Mates on Grex,
can I send in a copy of ID that says Jane Smith and be validated?
That is, do we care if people post Usenet postings under an assumed
name, so long as they send in an ID with their real name on it?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 68 of 133:
|
Nov 21 08:10 UTC 1994 |
I don't, so long as we know Valerie Mates is a pseudonum for Jane Smith.
But, would that violate any usenet dictum? That's the only issue, in
my mind.
|
robh
|
|
response 69 of 133:
|
Nov 21 11:49 UTC 1994 |
I've seen dozens of people use pseudonyms on Usenet on a regular
basis, and not get in trouble for it. I expect it's fine, as
long as someone in authority knows your real name.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 70 of 133:
|
Nov 21 13:36 UTC 1994 |
(What is the point of all this? As the login header says:"News is still
down. It will not work." It hasn't really worked since the new HD was
installed.)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 71 of 133:
|
Nov 21 14:03 UTC 1994 |
The idea is to have our heads together on the verification question
so that when news *is* turned on again we will know how we want to
handle it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 72 of 133:
|
Nov 21 14:48 UTC 1994 |
And, discussing News is our substitute for News.
|
robh
|
|
response 73 of 133:
|
Nov 21 23:55 UTC 1994 |
Or in my case, discussing news in one process while reading news in
another process is my subtitute for news. >8)
|
chelsea
|
|
response 74 of 133:
|
Nov 27 19:29 UTC 1994 |
At the November Board meeting a discussion of Usenet verification closed
with the request that a proposed policy be written and presented for
discussion here, with the hope that final wording on a proposed policy
would be ready for a vote at the December meeting.
I have put together this proposed policy for the users to consider.
********************************************
Usenet News Verification
Anyone posting to Usenet through Grex will be required to present proof of
his or her identity. Someone simply wishing to read Usenet news will not
be required to furnish any information. Members and non-members will be
held to the same verification criteria. In order for someone to be
considered verified, he or she shall present a photocopy of one of the
following pieces of ID and a signed letter requesting full Usenet access:
* Driver's license
* Secretary of State issued picture ID
* A personal check (for any amount) that is written to and cashed by
Cyberspace Comm.
* Social Security card
* Library card
* School ID
* Passport
* Medicare card
* Medicaid card
If the ID does not show a current address then this information will be
included in the letter requesting access.
If the ID includes an expiration date then the ID is considered valid only
if not expired.
In the case of someone under the age of 16 who might not have any of the
listed forms of ID then a parent or legal guardian may write a letter
asking for the child to be extended full Usenet privileges. In this event
the parent would need to furnish a copy of his or her ID from the above
list.
The account name may be a pseudonym. This is not an issue. But for the
purposes of Usenet verification accurate identification information must
be furnished to the verifier with the understanding this information will
be shared as needed in the event of a security breach or in the
investigation of any illegal activity involving the account.
In the event the verifier has concerns about the validity of any of the ID
submitted he or she will first make an attempt to find a way, within the
above mentioned criteria, that the person could be verified. Finding
none, the staff would be called in on consultation, eventually deciding
how an exception could or should be handled.
If experience shows there are frequent problems with the list not
including enough options then the staff could expand the list to include
additional forms of ID.
**********************************
Comments?
|