response 75 of 147:

Apr 23 06:06 UTC 1995

OK, two complaints.
TS, I think you are referring to dissimilar things. The "trouble"
that verification is meant to reduce is improper use of usenet and
e-mail and pass-through telnet, not vandals on Grex. The reason
there has been no trouble *of that type* from logins that want
anonymous memberships, is that such can't use the service. The
trouble that has occurred has been from vandals telnetting in, which
the verification procedure is not meant to address. 

response 77 of 147:

Apr 24 16:12 UTC 1995

Are you thinking that we should apply "correction" by also requiring
verification of everyone loggin *in*? Well, that's the devil we know.
The other is the devil we know not.

response 79 of 147:

Apr 25 02:01 UTC 1995

   How many?  None, because we haven't ever had that policy.

   If we adopt the the policy of allowing anyone access if they
merely stick around, how do we determine how long is long enough?
Do they have to participate in the conferences?  Party?  Both?
How do we set the point where they are accepted?  Boy, if we want
to make a policy where inconsistency is not only possible, but
probable, this would be it.

   Since verification sucks in the first place, we need to make it
consistent and understandable.  Anything else leads to people 
feeling that they've been singled out for unfair treatment.

   If Grex is going to let people out onto the net, we need to know
who they are.  Out current policy of asking for some ID has been
a good deterant to those who would rather not leave any traces as
they slither about the net.  The number of people who take joy in
fucking up systems amazes me, and makes me more than a little sad.
Back when we were about to open up Grex's net abilities, I had no
idea that this was the case.  My feelings on this have really changed
in the last year, since we've been beaten upon by the various
cyberslime who've visited us in this last year.

   There are organizations like CERT who have raised their eyebrows
when finding out that we already allow email access on the net
without any form of authentication at all.  Grex is one of the more
open, stable systems out on the net today.  I don't think what we're
talking about is unreasonable.

response 81 of 147:

Apr 26 15:31 UTC 1995

   The "harm" is that there would be lots of people who'd try and
sneak by, do something "bad", and then disappear into the night.
There is an element looking for conveinent places to telnet from
so as to cover their tracks.  As more and more sites get away from
allowing unauthenticated access to the net, the remaining sites
will be more and more abused.

   Please understand that I really dislike what I'm saying here.
I'm been hit on the side of the head over this; a year ago I
didn't believe that things were like this.  Unforunately, I was
dead wrong.  And thats sad.

response 83 of 147:

Apr 27 07:24 UTC 1995

sidhe's #78 is an excellant translation, thankxx.
  
STeve's #81 missed the critical point --$$$$$$$$$-- membership.
  
Since there has been *NO* adverse reaction from anyone who has PAID
for membership, and most who are simply guests, there isn't the
slightest connection between the mightily feared cyberslime and
members. If staff is concealing Internet damage caused by PAID
members, which I doubt, then there is a several-year history of
stability and all that good stuff ..... from 100% of PAID MEMBERS
and 99.8% of guests <maybe only 99.1%>. 
  
Is the "good citizen" based on verification? I say "no." I say
it is based on the individual. Is cyberslime based on verification?
I say "no" it is based on the individual.
  
If the cyberslime is, as STeve described, "hit and run," then
the cyberslime will not ... ney, CANnot ... hang around for
the interminable delay for membership, even if danr turns it
around in 12 minutes.
  
There is an immense logical discontinuity between the fears and
actualizations of cyberslime and the activity of PAID membership.
The policy of no anonymous memberships is bankrupted by direct
evidence on Grex.

response 85 of 147:

Apr 27 11:17 UTC 1995

<sigh>

response 87 of 147:

Apr 28 00:08 UTC 1995

   Oh Yes Rane, so flattered that I'm flattened. ;-)  But in the case
of that type of crap, we try to help them out a little.  Usually
we can't help much.  In this last case the person who got burned
had an address from Fed Ex where the money went to, which is just
oodles better than anything we could give them.

   TS, it's just as Marcus says.  WIth only 100 members it would
be surprising if we had any slime come in.

   ...And thats the whole point of verification: it repels the
folks we don't want on here.  They'd rather not leave a trail
for someone to follow.  As I have said before, its not so much
that the verification "works" in verifing the identity of people
but that it repels those who'd rather not leave any trace of
anything behind.

response 89 of 147:

Apr 29 01:58 UTC 1995

  I think the party prog provides specific arguments for verification. Just
this week there was a sexually explicit conversation going on in a 
channel where people had changed their names.  This was a substantive
conversation, but it turned out one of the people on there was a newbie
who was 11 years old.  If that kids parents found out what he was
reading and thought enough of the possibility that it might have disturbed
him, they could raise holy hell.  If the current exon legislation goes
through, or if similar legislation is enacted, grex could conceivably be
sued for allowing a young child access to uncensored explicit conversations.

I really would hate to see grex's open access changed but there are 
drawbacks and this is one of them.  Maybe if !who could be modified to
show a person's age next to where he's logging in from this could be
avoided?  The fact is that there are a number of kids ages 10-13 who
use party, and  who knows how anyone that young and impressionable is ging to 
react to what they read.                        RICHARD W. (KEROUAC)

response 91 of 147:

Apr 29 03:11 UTC 1995

   Modifying who isn't the problem.

   It's modifying the people who use Grex to give that information
that would be the problem. ;-) (sort of).

   If Grex is to stay an open system, we're going to have to
provide a system that some people might use at the displeacure
of others.

   I for one am not interested in trying to "hide" things on Grex
from people of a certain age.  If the parents can't control the
kid, we sure can't.  I have no idea how far to the right this
country is going to go, but I think it is important to keep ourselves
open.  Failure to do that will start the downward spiral of the
death of Grex.

response 93 of 147:

Apr 29 17:23 UTC 1995

   This policy does however have a downside.  It means that at some
time, we're likely to have to fight for it.

response 95 of 147:

Apr 30 01:39 UTC 1995

r
   No, it is not.  All anyone has to do is falseify the age given,
and there is no way to verify that.
   With ID, at least someone has to go out and get fake ID.

   But, if people think we run too much risk asking for ID, we
can go with things that are harder to fake, such as checks for
$0.00
   I need to get the verification item I've written up here an
d in coop.  I'll shoot for tomorrow morning.

response 97 of 147:

Apr 30 05:14 UTC 1995

Submitting a fake ID will certainly gain access, but then if that person
does something naughty on usenet or telnet, and we have to follow up,
we are somewhat protected still, by ourselves being a victim.

response 99 of 147:

May 1 15:51 UTC 1995

   Huh?  No--what Rane is saying, if I get it right is that if we
get burned by someone knowningly giving us bogus ID and then does
something bad, then we're an injured party too.