|
Grex > Coop6 > #26: Policy for non-members to post to Usenet | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
dam
|
|
response 75 of 133:
| 
Nov 27 20:11 UTC 1994 |
I don't think the check needs to be written to cyberspace communications...
especially since writing a check to cyberspace is not a requirement for
posting to usenet.
won't a cancelled or voided check in any amount to any payee do just as well?
|
kentn
|
|
response 76 of 133:
|
Nov 27 21:15 UTC 1994 |
That would be worse than no ID. Get a copy of somebody else's
cancelled check and photocopy it, and you are now set up for mischief.
I'm assuming it is morally and physically easier to get cancelled
checks (e.g. from someone's mailbox), or to void a blank check (e.g.,
from mom or grandma's purse), or to void a check made out to yourself
from a friend (presumably for a small amount) than to forge a check,
and that the penalties for the last would be more than for the former
actions. Given the incidence of bad checks, cancelled accounts,
accounts in multiple variations of names, addresses, etc. it's
questionable if a check is good ID at all. Merchants will not
generally accept a check unless it is accompanied by one of the other
forms of ID mentioned. This is because collecting on a bad check is
difficult enough without better ID than bank account information. At
least if Cyberspace, Inc. gets to cash it, there is some hope that the
account is current and the owner identifiable.
|
davel
|
|
response 77 of 133:
|
Nov 27 21:49 UTC 1994 |
And it gives the person whose name appears on it a chance to deny ever having
written it, if we cash it. This is not the case for a cancelled or voided
check used simply for identification.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 78 of 133:
|
Nov 27 22:22 UTC 1994 |
I'm not sure that staff should be the arbiter of ID exceptions. Staff
is concerned with system operations, not policy development. On the
other hand, it doesn't seem to warrant board action. I would suggest
that the board authorize the appointed verifier to make this decision,
perhaps with the *advice* of staff and the board members (if they have
any opinions). Then, if the verifier thinks the case isn't clear, it
can be brought to the board.
|
srw
|
|
response 79 of 133:
|
Nov 28 04:17 UTC 1994 |
I prefer Mary's wording on the cancelled check question. That item is in
the list so that members can use their membership check as a form of ID.
I don't like staff being the arbiter though. I think I prefer Rane's
position on the exceptions.
Thanks a lot Mary. This is very close to the final form, now.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 80 of 133:
|
Nov 30 12:58 UTC 1994 |
I feel staff should be involved whenever someone attempts to
get Usenet posting access and yet cannot produce ID from the
above list. Staff is involved with security issues and I
see this as a pretty glaring security issue. Staff should
be consulted and have the final say.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 81 of 133:
|
Nov 30 14:31 UTC 1994 |
Staff has a lot of expertise with hardware, software, and system issues,
but lots of people/groups can have equal expertise on determining whether
a person is using a correct name/address. I support consulting involved
persons, because accepting other forms of ID establishes ad-hoc policy,
but I also like to delegate different authorities after general policy
is established. This is probably more a legal issue than a security
issue, so we better include our panel of attorneys, too...8*[.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 82 of 133:
|
Dec 1 15:51 UTC 1994 |
Minor quibble: "Secretary of State ID" is pretty much a Michigan-specific
or midwest-specific thing. Other states don't necessarily have a
Secretary of State's office. However, I'd guess they do all have some
kind of official non-driver's-license ID. We might want to go for some
more generic wording. Dunno exactly what.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 133:
|
Dec 1 17:31 UTC 1994 |
"The appointed verifier may accept other equivalent forms of ID,
with the advice of staff and the board."
|
scg
|
|
response 84 of 133:
|
Dec 1 22:50 UTC 1994 |
We could just say "government issued ID," thus covering IDs issued by the
governments of other states or countries, regardless of what they call
their issuing agency.
|
srw
|
|
response 85 of 133:
|
Dec 2 02:02 UTC 1994 |
That was what I would prefer.
|
tsty
|
|
response 86 of 133:
|
Dec 2 19:46 UTC 1994 |
....huh? .... scg, "gummint issued ID" propels certain unsavory
movements in the wrong direction, imo.
|
scg
|
|
response 87 of 133:
|
Dec 2 20:44 UTC 1994 |
Drivers license is Government issued ID. Passports are government issued
ID. State or National ID cards are government issued ID. Where's the
problem, TS?
|
tsty
|
|
response 88 of 133:
|
Dec 5 10:44 UTC 1994 |
Grex is not the government - that's where.
|
srw
|
|
response 89 of 133:
|
Dec 6 02:26 UTC 1994 |
Why shouldn't we accept government issued ID? I haven't heard a good reason.
|
scg
|
|
response 90 of 133:
|
Dec 6 03:54 UTC 1994 |
Ok. Grex is not the Government. Grex is Grex. Let's accept only Grex
issued ID. ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 91 of 133:
|
Dec 6 06:47 UTC 1994 |
"government" is just the infrastructure for operating a complex society.
Sure, accept "government" issued ID. (Those who sneer at "government"
wouldn't want to live in a society without one.)
|
wh
|
|
response 92 of 133:
|
Dec 6 08:28 UTC 1994 |
Re #82. "Secretary of State ID or the equivalent." The verifier
would decide if it were obvious that the ID was issued by a
state office. If it were not obvious, it would be referred to
staff.
There would be three types of response from staff. Acceptance
with a policy statement classifying this as an additional
accepted category, acceptance as a case-by-case approval with
no general implications for other applications, or rejection.
I agree with the above statement that the only checks accepted
as ID would be those written to Cyberspace.
Staff should be the group consulted with questions for one year.
Then, it could be re-evaluated as to whether staff needed to be
the group consulted. If no security issues were involved during
the first year, we could consider a small working committee to
approve exceptions. By that time, staff would have given good
direction to the verifier as to what general guidance they
would like for verification.
|
tsty
|
|
response 93 of 133:
|
Dec 6 10:06 UTC 1994 |
Those who sneer at gummint are much more in favor of devel-
oping a better one - that's what propelled all sorts of
societial changes throughout history ... especially ours.
However, I digress.
Nothing is inherently, or philosphically, abhorrent with an
individual who, voluntarily, offers a gummint ID from wherever.
The key word above is "voluntarily." Agitating, or the appearance
of agitating, for "better ID" is the delicate balance in this
authentication drive. Even the almighty UM has been driven
away from it's quasi-fraud of "not" using an SS# for a student-id.
<they added a digit - oh, .... wow>
In the fairly wide effort to retain what remains of individual
liberties, not having to "prove" to every organization that
some government has "permitted" you to continue to exist, Grex,
among scads of other, could assist.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 94 of 133:
|
Dec 6 15:48 UTC 1994 |
Re 92: I'd still quibble with the wording "Secretary of State" in
the description. New Yorkers, for example, would think of Warren
Christopher (the US Secretary of State) and stare at you in blank
puzzlement.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 95 of 133:
|
Dec 6 18:01 UTC 1994 |
Re #92: this is going to be a board (or membership) adopted policy,
so either the verifier is given some latitude, or the board, not
staff, would have to amend the policy to include new categories,
unless the policy delegates this to staff. I have opined before,
however, that this is as much a policy issue as a technical/security
issue, and therefore I think the role of staff is to advise the board.
|
mdw
|
|
response 96 of 133:
|
Dec 7 06:47 UTC 1994 |
I would suggest: driver's license, birth certificate, passport, or
equivalent form of identification. This gives several examples of forms
we should accept, leaves out that icky word 'government', and is
conveniently vague about what 'equivalent' would mean. If the ID is to
be presented in person, it could instead say "...form of photo id". I
don't think we'd want to accept SSN cards (which have no photo and
explictly state they are not to be used for ID purposes), or library
cards from California (even figuring out if the library *exists* is
likely to be time consuming), but we ought to be able to accept a^2
library cards or other forms of ID as supplied by the local schools.
|
wh
|
|
response 97 of 133:
|
Dec 7 08:28 UTC 1994 |
Re #94. Quibble accepted. What wording would people in most states
understand to mean non-driver license ID? I was trying to include
the ID people use in Michigan when they don't have a driver's license
but want some form of official ID that most businesses would accept.
I agree with Marcus that out of state library cards may be hard to
verify. Non-driver ID may be easier to use.
|
srw
|
|
response 98 of 133:
|
Dec 7 08:43 UTC 1994 |
In NY they call it the DMV. I think this term is used in many other states,
but each state is certainly allowed to have its own name for it.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 99 of 133:
|
Dec 7 14:07 UTC 1994 |
(DMV is the Department of Motor Vehicles)
|