response 51 of 107:

May 2 16:09 UTC 1995

Ja, and I'd rather take the steps now, if any steps are needed,
rather than waiting until an emergency occurs.

response 53 of 107:

May 8 19:26 UTC 1995

        Not relevant? <Selena plots to buy out grex, hee-hee!>

response 55 of 107:

May 9 00:10 UTC 1995

Heh.

response 57 of 107:

May 11 01:58 UTC 1995

        Yeah! And, who sez I wouldn't use fake ID's, or get all my friends
who don't have my problem, to verify? <grin!>

response 59 of 107:

May 11 19:38 UTC 1995

Well, here I go again - <very gingerly> There are people who have
excellent reasons for not disclosing their true identity except in
very specific and controlled circumstantes.  And, the mere explanation
may lead to clues that could disclose that persons identity.  I have
dealt with some situations similar to this. For example, some people
might jeapordize personal safety or the safety of family if identified.

Would it be possible for a person who needs to remain anonymous
here, "register" (if that is the term) with someone they trust
that could be trusted by Grex?  The trustee could provide a means
to contact the true owner of an account if the account were
misused.  I also think that would be a reasonable mechanism
to satisfy an internet service provider or another system or a
court.  I will run the idea by Merit and get their opinion (informally)
but this might work.  HVCN may want to do the same thing. There will
be (I hope) some social service agencies connected to HVCN where
anonymity is extremely important - physicaly important.  The idea
would mean some extra work, but it might be very worthwhile.

response 61 of 107:

May 11 23:38 UTC 1995

We do not trust "any old person" as a verifier.  We (you - Grex) <adbarr
feels like a Grexer - hm) We could, however, define people who could
be trusted by us -- a respected Judge? A special community leader? ?
Someone must be available who would and could do this?  Perhaps the
person needing anonymity could suggest someone. There could be a way
that would preserve privacy, yet preserve accountability - there must
be a way.

As far as the "legal obligation" to provide membership lists, we 
should know that the law does protect anonymity in many cases. Trusts
are a prime example. Of course, we have to be willing to "trust" the 
judges who decide the issues, and the trustees who hold the trust.

I am not at all sure that the obligation to disclose membership
overrides the individual's need for personal privacy - in very
specific cases.  We need to do some work on this.  I really hate
to lose good people for a system because of a few baddies.  

Another thought - 1. Grex is an open system.  2. Some people will
abuse the system. 3. Others will not abuse the system, but could
use protection from those who do.  4. There are ways to limit
the impact of abuse - eg. mail filters etc. 5. Grex could make
known ways to prevent abuse - from the abused person's perspective,
and provide easy ways ("easy"?) to lessen the impact of abuse. This
is not a solution, it is a part of a possible policy . . .?

response 63 of 107:

May 12 07:16 UTC 1995

I'll mention again that one must distinguish membership and verification,
as there are (in the new internet policy) some services availble to
nonmembers that still require verification. Members *must* be identified
to the corporate body of Grex (a membership list of true names and addresses
must be kept, by law), but it is not necessary to disclose that membership
list to anyone, except under court order. We have not yet adopted the
verification policy, but it could conceivably not require that Grex
have a list of names and address, since it is a policy, not legal, matter.
However, I know that staff generally feels that the verified names and
addresses must be available for any eventuality of misuse that arises,
and indeed that list could be kept secret and not available even by
court order.

response 65 of 107:

May 13 22:36 UTC 1995

        Yes, it is. I am not some NetThug. But, the implications are
there.

response 67 of 107:

May 14 17:42 UTC 1995

Hmm...someone who could think *that* deviously must *be* a...uh oh!
And Rane's even infiltrated the board!

response 69 of 107:

May 14 21:20 UTC 1995

Is NetThug trademarked?

---

I do not beleive that anyone is implying that you are a netthug.  There
are valid reasons for denying people access to certain parts of the
Grex system based on whether they have been verified, or whether they
are members or even whether they are staff (And I am sure that not all
staff has root access either, that being left to the tech folks...).

The point that is being made is that grex implemented a policy of use
for the system, that, I believe, the members of the system agreed to.
That policy must be enforced, or the policy becomes void.  If there are
parts of the policy that seem to strict, by all means, lobby to have
them changed.  But a blanket sidestepping of the policy for one person
is something that cannot, and should not be done.

Of course, Grex is based on the people of the system, so maybe if you
were to ask for a special vote of the members in your case, you might
be able to get what you want.  All you have to do is convince 2 people
to agree to a statement like below at a board meeting...

   "Resolved, that person <state your name> should be given 
    full membership status without the usual verification of 
    person <state your name>'s identification."

Who knows, it might even pass....

response 71 of 107:

May 15 03:54 UTC 1995

what NetThug ever even +tried+ to pay for a 28.8 shared outbound link?

response 73 of 107:

May 15 10:14 UTC 1995

I agree with carson...  There is no stated or implied character
judgement in the Authorized User Policy.  It is mearly a list of
acceptable ways of acting while using the community service that is
offered.  

The best analogy that I can come up with is the public library.  (Based
on the machine that you are coming from, you should have some knowledge
of these!  <grin>)  Anyone can come into a public library and read any
book that is on the shelves there.  But for you to borrow a book from
the library, the libray must know who you are.  Of course, I am sure
that you would never return a book late to the library.  And you can
explain to your hearts content to the local librarian, but I am
almost positive that they would not issue you a card allowing you to
take home the book without first supplying some form of identification.

Whining about it is not going to get you anywhere.  If you want someone
to listen, then you should approach them (individually even,) and tell
them your problem, then ask them for help.  I am sure that it would not
be to hard to get the vote going, but I am also pretty sure that it
would fail.  If it fails, then you should take that as a sign of how
the community feels and stop complainging about it until such a time
as you can again do something constructive about it.

--

As far as the AUP thing, I can give you a little background on that.  

The AUP that Grex adopted is just a filtered down version of the one
that the Internet Providers have.  Grex gets its policy from ICNet.
ICnet gets its policy from CICnet.  CICnet is (was?) a goverment
subsidized project that was based on the big ten schools minus penn
state plus U of Illinois (Urbana/Champagne).  The goverment
organization that subsidized them was the NSF.  Being that they were a
government orgainization (same as a public library is a government
organization), they came up with rules about how things are to be done.

So the AUP is alot more then a personal insult against you.  It is
actually a government plot to take freedom away from every american.
The freedom to avoid resposibility! <grin>