|
Grex > Coop12 > #15: Grex's ID policy - email with account usgov |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 75 of 133:
| 
Apr 17 16:00 UTC 2001 |
I agree with #68 and the similar sentiments that others have
expressed. I also think that since usgov is perfectly capable
of joining this conference and posting responses directly,
it's an imposition on his part to continually expect Mark to
do this for him. If the guy wants to defend his position, he
can come here and talk to us.
|
remmers
|
|
response 76 of 133:
|
Apr 17 16:00 UTC 2001 |
(Meg's #74 slipped in.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 77 of 133:
|
Apr 17 16:01 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 78 of 133:
|
Apr 17 17:28 UTC 2001 |
I also don't like the way this "usgov" has been arguing the issue, but
primarily because it is beside the point. If a corporation wishes an
institutional membership, there are perfectly straightforward ways of
proceeding, and they don't involve hiding names, addresses, or EINs. But
it is also unnecessary to argue with the person about what are personal
IDs, which are not relevant to corporations, which exist as "corporate"
persons.
I suggest that what should be asked of corporations are their legal names,
addresses, phone numbers, and the same for at least the *resident agent*
of the corporation. The latter must be filed with the state in any case.
Grex also accepts as institutional members unincorporated clubs. In those
cases the requirement of positive ID for an individual representing the
club makes sense.
eeyore suggests in #74 asking "our other 2 or 3 corporate members if they
think that our policy is outdated". If there are really only 2 or 3, they
must be me, as I have created 4 institutional memberships on Grex, each
having paid annual dues. They are _Michigan Interlakes Grotto_ (now moved
elsewhere), _Michigan Karst Conservancy_ (now moving elsewhere), _ARROW
Amateur Radio Club_, and _Michigan Natural Areas Council_. These have been
used for hosting websites and board e-mail communications. None of these,
by the way, use the internet except for e-mail and a website, which do not
require membership. Their memberships have been a way for them to say
"thanks" for providing this service for them.
So, what do I think of the ID requirement? There wasn't any. The
corporations were not asked for ID and nor was I. It was done on a
personal basis as I was known to Grex. However if Grex wanted to establish
an ID requirement for corporations, I would suggest making the requirement
a written request from an officer of the corporation, identifying the
corporation with at least its resident agent by name, address, phone
number, and corporate EIN. If Grex is really paranoid, these could be
checked with the corporate division of the State.
|
robh
|
|
response 79 of 133:
|
Apr 17 17:37 UTC 2001 |
Re 77 - "Heathen" means much the same thing as pagan, so I would
object to that. But "heretic" is fine with me.
|
aruba
|
|
response 80 of 133:
|
Apr 17 17:39 UTC 2001 |
Rane: we have clarified the ID requirements for institutional memberships
since the time when those institutions became members. We require ID from
a contact person. I put you down as the contact person for mkc and mnac.
Those two and one other are our only 3 current institutional members.
|
aruba
|
|
response 81 of 133:
|
Apr 17 17:41 UTC 2001 |
I wasn't quoting from the first folio, but from another edition; methinks we
must both be right.
|
jp2
|
|
response 82 of 133:
|
Apr 17 17:53 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
robh
|
|
response 83 of 133:
|
Apr 17 18:22 UTC 2001 |
Re 82 - Doesn't much matter to me whether you care about what
I think - but you did ask, so I answered.
|
gull
|
|
response 84 of 133:
|
Apr 17 19:11 UTC 2001 |
So how *do* corporations provide proof of their identity? Apparently
there aren't many good ways of doing it, if some guy off the street can
claim to be "Microsoft Corporation" and get VeriSign certificates
issued.
|
gull
|
|
response 85 of 133:
|
Apr 17 19:13 UTC 2001 |
I also notice that usgov is using the term "make a copy of a driver's
license." I suspect that what's illegal is making a copy for
fraudulent purposes (as in a fake ID), not a garden variety photocopy,
and that he's pretending not to understand the difference. I'll
believe otherwise if someone can cite the relevent law.
|
usgov
|
|
response 86 of 133:
|
Apr 17 19:51 UTC 2001 |
On of you mentioned that you have not asked for a SS#; However you have asked
for a copy of a driver's license. In this state, such licenses may ve well
have SS #'s on them.
As pointed out by David Brodbeck, even VeriSign got taken. Even if you
receive a copy of a driver's license, you wouldn't know if it were genuine
or fake in any event.
Mark asked why "usgov" for what purpose. The purpose would be for any
employee who wanted to know about computers, shell accounts, etc. to get some
experience. Why did Mark choose "aruba." What difference does it make what
login name one uses. The name was available so we decided to take it. Period.
The law in Missouri is making a copy of a driver's license. That is illegal.
No, we don't pretend to "not udnerstand." The law is clear. Once again, how
could you even tell if a driver's license were fake or real as it sat on
Mark's hardrive and/or his file cabinet.
One of your corporation members admitted not having to provide any I.D.
because he was known.
The only reason we asked Mark to post our messages is that the script he
provided to us for posting simply didn't work. He was kind enough to send
a revised script so that we could post ourselves. Alas,those who work for
us are computer novices.
Once again, Grex is not in the verification business. It is not in the
business of protecting the net from any and all possible and conceivable abuse
by anyone. One could use the anology of using a steam roller to kill an aunt.
However, that is up to the Grex membership.
Mark has been, or is being provided with an address. He can either return our
check or cash it if we become full fledged members. As indicated, a contact
person is reasonable but nothing further from any individual when the
Corporation is the one that is the member, not the
individual.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 87 of 133:
|
Apr 17 20:12 UTC 2001 |
Where did we ask for the contact person's home address and phone
number? I don't think it can at all be considered an invasion of
privacy to ask for the corporate address and phone number of the
contact person for a corporate account.
Usgov- did you not see the part about how the rules/policies concerning
corporate accounts changed after those previous accounts were made? Is
it that unreasonable to request a phone number (work phone number at
that) of the contact person?
For people who wish to become members- we are, in a way, in the
verification business. Grex does have to protect itself, now doesn't
it?
|
remmers
|
|
response 88 of 133:
|
Apr 17 20:24 UTC 2001 |
(Re #86, I'm curious what kind of "script" was needed in order for
usgov to post. A lot of people post here who are computer novices
and never got anything special from the management to help them do
so.)
|
carson
|
|
response 89 of 133:
|
Apr 17 21:59 UTC 2001 |
View hidden response.
|
carson
|
|
response 90 of 133:
|
Apr 17 22:00 UTC 2001 |
(resp:89 is in response to resp:88. I expurgated it because it's not
terribly relevant to the item.)
|
mary
|
|
response 91 of 133:
|
Apr 17 22:18 UTC 2001 |
Too, discussion seems to be focusing on registered corporate
entities, but Grex also welcomes organizations which are
not formally structured and legally defined. I think we are
pretty open and welcoming here and our policy is a nice fit
for our abilities.
I have to think this is a huge miscommunication. usgov, if up
to no good, could have easily sent along some bogus ID when
first asked. He/she didn't. We are a weird group, with
priorities that might not make a whole lot of sense if you
hadn't been here to watch the system develop. usgov is way into
privacy, and most of us might even agree, in theory. But there
are practical concerns when you open your doors and unleash
people on the Internet. We are not rich enough to afford to
get into trouble so we must be cautious. Asking for ID, on
the honor system, isn't really that cautious, actually, and
certainly shouldn't be seen as offensive. Maybe, once
usgov gets a chance to know us better, he or she will agree.
Until then we should thank the organization for the donation
but tear it up or send it back.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 133:
|
Apr 17 23:00 UTC 2001 |
Mary, I mentioned "clubs" as members, in #78.
usgov says "Mark asked why "usgov" for what purpose. The purpose would be
for any employee who wanted to know about computers, shell accounts, etc.
to get some experience." For this purpose, membership is not required, at
least for e-mail, using a shell account for any (legal) purpose, setting
up a web site, and for conferencing. Membership is only required for
telnetting from Grex, and it is for that purpose alone that identification
is requested, so that misuse of telnet can be addressed. In fact, each
employee of PE&S is free to create his/her own account. It would be more
educational than a number of users using a single institutional account
(they could chat with each other - you pay employees to chat??) Membership
is *appreciated* for the support of Grex, whether or not a user uses
telnet.
I gather from reading the Missouri State website that the only legal and
public contact a corporation must have is a resident agent, for whom an
identity, address and phone are available (and the resident agent should
be expected to respond to communications). I would therefore think that if
PE&S wants an institutional membership, and Grex wants identification,
that the information about the resident agent, and the corporate EIN, must
suffice.
|
jep
|
|
response 93 of 133:
|
Apr 17 23:20 UTC 2001 |
I think someone might explain to usgov that Grex is a very small
organization, run by volunteers, with a budget of a few thousand dollars
per year sent as voluntary contributions by those who think Grex is
worthwhile. Grex doesn't have any lawyers, except those who log in and
offer free advice from time to time. The entire budget goes into
maintaining a 10 year old computer system, several phone lines, and an
Internet connection, along with a few necessary accessory expenses such
as insurance. There are no paid staff, no corporate office, and there's
no paid advertising done to promote the system. Everyone running Grex
is doing the best they can to stretch *very* limited resources to cover
a pretty nice and interesting service.
Also, I don't know what usgov needs from Grex, but I don't think a
corporate membership donation is going to get any tangible benefits.
The only two benefits I know of for any members are a vote and outbound
Internet service (through an ISDN line shared with 60 or 70 other
people). Do corporate members get even these things? Usgov can support
Grex by just making a donation. It's employees are all welcome to
create their own accounts and use them to their hearts content. I've
been a user here since the first day Grex opened to the public. I've
been a member at times, but am not currently a member; it hasn't
affected the usability of Grex for me in the slightest.
|
russ
|
|
response 94 of 133:
|
Apr 17 23:58 UTC 2001 |
I read "usgov"'s response, and my BS detector went off the scale.
Grex is available for EVERYONE to learn shell scripting and other
Unix practices, for free. It's one of the services Grex provides.
If PE&S wants to assist Grex to stay open and provide this benefit
to the world in general (including PE&S), PE&S can convert the check
to an unrestricted donation; they do not need a membership.
Grex's connection to the world is rather slow, and PE&S would probably
be better served by taking an old PC and loading a copy of Red Hat
on it. If they ordered Red Hat from cheapbytes.com their total cash
expense would probably be under $60, perhaps under $20.
The only possible benefit that PE&S could obtain by having a membership
in Grex is the ability to hide behind our internet access. Why go to so
much trouble to hide if you're doing nothing that would attract negative
attention? I don't think that this is a good thing to train people to
do, and I don't think that we should support anyone in the attempt.
In closing, usgov has failed to respond to the legitimate concerns of
the Grex board and membership as expressed here. The user behind the
account has chosen to hurl accusations instead. I am now in favor of
rejecting the membership application and destroying the check.
|
aruba
|
|
response 95 of 133:
|
Apr 18 00:24 UTC 2001 |
usgov sent me an address which I can send the check back to, if that's what
we decide to do. (We seem to have almost reached a consensus on this
point.)
Rane: you keep saying that we ought to accept a resident agent's address as
ID. That is contrary to our current policy, which was voted and approved by
the board. If you think we should change the policy, you should say so in
item 255 and/or make a motion in a new item.
As for Hamlet, I was quoting from the Pelican Books edition. If it's good
enough for them, it's good enough for me.
|
other
|
|
response 96 of 133:
|
Apr 18 03:20 UTC 2001 |
Once again, I would like to reiterate that the ONLY relevant issue here
is outgoing telnet access to the internet provided to INDIVIDUALS.
We do not provide this to Corporate entities, because Corporate entities
cannot be responsible for misuse of the access.
User usgov argues like a desperate man, with only the thinnest veneer of
credibility to *some* of his arguments, and thinly veiled threats for the
rest.
In the interests of Grex, I as a member of Cyberspace Communications
Incorporated do hereby move that the application for institutional
membership by user usgov be rejected immediately, and that the check
provided to secure that membership be either returned or destroyed within
one week after passage of this motion.
|
other
|
|
response 97 of 133:
|
Apr 18 03:27 UTC 2001 |
I'm going to relocate the above motion to an item specifically for it.
|
aruba
|
|
response 98 of 133:
|
Apr 18 03:28 UTC 2001 |
We do allow institutional members access to all internet protocols, Eric.
|
other
|
|
response 99 of 133:
|
Apr 18 03:44 UTC 2001 |
As I've stated before, that access is IN PRACTICE, if not in theory,
predicated on the responsibility of an individual person.
We grant institutional memberships to individual persons on behalf of
organizations, based on the willingness of those individual persons to
take responsibility for the use to which the access is put, as evidenced
by their meeting of the validation requirements.
|