response 58 of 90:

Feb 15 15:02 UTC 2001

Well, from what I could decifer, because it rambled so, was he's against the
notion of it being a right, against bein annonymous, against being held
accountable for what you say, and against gov involvement.  So I couldn't
really tell what he was for...

response 60 of 90:

Feb 15 16:43 UTC 2001

I kind of thought it was a well presented argument, one I disagree
with, but not disjointed if you follow his thread related to 
responsible behavior.

I'd consider it carefully when crafting a response to this proposed
action.  I suspect many would be in full agreement with his comments.  So
saying it's rambling garbage and ignore it is probably not going to
help us debate this issue.

response 62 of 90:

Feb 15 18:59 UTC 2001

I do suspect that a response like Pete's highlights a problem of "open
correspondence" with the legislator's office.  Jan's letter appeared to me
to be very well written, although I think I agree with him far more in
principle than on any basis I can justify from a technical standpoint.  Pete's
letter may have had some substantive content in it somewhere, and to the
extent I could figure out what that content was it wasn't something I agreed
with, but really it seemed like the incoherrent ramblings of somebody who's
not quite all there.  On Grex, we're used to these discussions with lots of
different reasoned and unreasoned points of view being presented.  To a
legislator used to not quite so public correspondence, having Pete's message
arrive as a response to Jan's message would probably cause them to be seen
as from more or less the same source, and very much change how Jan's message
is perceived.

response 64 of 90:

Feb 16 04:26 UTC 2001

If I diagramed pfc's response it would start with:


                   Internet
                    |     |
           As a Utility   As a Resource
                            |
                            Libraries
                             |
                             Rights of Library Use

He goes into some detail comparing how the Internet is not abiding by the
same rules as libraries but then admits that this example is not a perfect
match (good for him).  He spends the rest of his post addressing points
others have made re: overseas use, protection from harassment from
employers and government agencies, comparison to U.S. mail, etc.

I'd disagree with him right up front and state that the Internet is most
certainly a utility.  Part of its functionality is providing access to a
world of resource applications but there is so much more. 

But the reason I'd suggest we shift emphasis from hardships Grex would
face and instead address pfc's concerns about an ISP's shared
responsibility when it facilitates illegal behavior is because most people
out there see his point as worthwhile.  To go on about the extra work such
a law would inflict on our staff, and how it will cost us money to upgrade
our phone service for caller ID, and how our open policy is more important
than inhibiting the range of pedophiles...  Well, you are way out of touch
if you don't think most voting parents and grandparents would think of our
comments as arrogant and self-serving.  They'd see us as part of the
problem.

The dark side of open access is troubling to discuss because it almost
certainly will require we make some changes.  But we can either sit back
and watch it happen or try to understand all sides of the issue, be a part
of the discussion, and help shape the laws.  I'd start by not comparing
the Internet to anything else, because it isn't. 

response 66 of 90:

Feb 16 14:52 UTC 2001

In speaking with pete directly in party, he mentioned that while he does not
believe in the annoynimity of people on the internet (it's early, don't mind
the spelling), but also feels that they should be registered, he brought up
that he likes the idea of haveing to lisence every machine and/or modem. 
Saying that accountability and trackability are two different things.  

*I* don't agree with that at all.  If you aren't going to hold people
accountable for what they say online, then you have no reason to track their
ever movement.  It also raises SERIOUS questions of misuse and the inevitible
hacker questions.

response 68 of 90:

Feb 19 05:06 UTC 2001

How is anonymous use of the internet (via grex) different from anonymous use
of a pay telephone?  Are they going to require that all pay phone calls also
be made by credit card?

response 70 of 90:

Feb 20 00:22 UTC 2001

Actually I read on Slashdot that they are phasing out of the use of payphones.

This ofcourse assumes everyone has enough money for cellphone service which
I think is a faulty assumption to make.  Ofcourse we live in a post democratic
society in the U.S. so what else is new?

response 74 of 90:

Feb 20 12:26 UTC 2001

Pay phones are vanishing because the gummint conspiracy wants to prevent
superheroes from being able to protect people from the military coup.  That's
why the "full booth" design was phased out, but apparently they're not taking
any chances and so are even removing the "urinal stall" designed phones.

response 76 of 90:

Feb 20 17:40 UTC 2001

I just carry a $10 line-connect phone with me.  I put alligator clips on the
the end of the wire and all I have to do is find a live telco wire and I'm
all set.  (Little boxes along the road in the county that are never locked.)
I've had it trying to find a payphone when I need one!

response 78 of 90:

Feb 20 23:30 UTC 2001

Pandering child pornography is against the law.  Think a little
wider than physical contact.

If we knew that someone here, on Grex, was using his/her
anonymous access to facilitate illegal activity would we
then feel differently about promoting unverified access?