response 82 of 203:

Aug 5 23:53 UTC 1999

   No, Richard, it is not the same thing at all.

   But I have all but given up on the concept of your understand things.

response 84 of 203:

Aug 6 01:25 UTC 1999

Richard, I think you're being a bit paranoid.  From reading your responses,
one gets the idea that the board is some evil organization that might
decide, at any time, to stage a hostile takeover.

I don't think that's likely, to say the least.  And I suspect the bylaws
were written with the idea that the board will be reasonable in mind.

response 86 of 203:

Aug 6 03:15 UTC 1999

I feel inclined to point out that grex is *not* strictly a text-only 
system.  While bbs and party only allow for text depictions directly, 
a user can house files of any kind in his directories, and make them
publicly available, announcing their existence textually via bbs, 
party, and a web page.  And as was pointed out under janc's scenario,
more than text can be distributed by e-mail on grex.  All of this would 
be strictly the responsibility of the user, except for the fact that 
grex allows anonymous accounts.  So while it's true that grex is 
substantially a text-based system, and so most likely a lesser target 
of those that would wish to prosecute some system under this law, I 
think it is of little use to classify grex as a text-only system.

response 88 of 203:

Aug 6 07:12 UTC 1999

I don't think a "text-only" alteration is very likely, largely because I
didn't see much language in the law that would allow such a
construction.  I only picked it as an example because a lot of people
here seem to feel grex "ought" to qualify under such an exemption, not
because I thought any such exemption would actually be workable (bits is
bits.  Bits don't come in two flavours, X-rated and family values
compatible.)

I suspect any actual alteration in the law that the courts might pick is
likely to be much more arcane, and based on some very subtle logic
within the law.  Since the act in question is rather long and
complicated, there are a *lot* of possibilities there.  Figuring out
what any of those possibilities means for grex may even in itself be
non-obvious.  At this point, the courts haven't given any indication
that they are considering any such thing, so it seems kind of unlikely
that any of these possibilities might come to pass.

response 90 of 203:

Aug 6 16:32 UTC 1999

Is it clear now?

response 92 of 203:

Aug 6 19:09 UTC 1999

   Amen to that.  *all* are welcome.

response 94 of 203:

Aug 9 15:48 UTC 1999

If my motion passes, the BoD would be perfectly free to pass a resolution
outlining in detail what would happen under what circumstances, including
suspending public access for a given number of days.  The only thing
it could *not* do would be to suspend public access until new policies
are adopted.

response 96 of 203:

Aug 10 17:21 UTC 1999

Some responses after a week off line:

 - Dave doesn't seem to understand conditional probability.

   Everyone says "this law is extremely unlikely to be upheld".
   I agree.

   Dave says "if Grex were prosecuted under this law, it would be
   extremely likely to win."  I agree.

   However, the question at issue is "If the law were upheld, and Grex
   were then prosecuted under the law, would we be likely to win?"  I
   don't think that is a sure thing at all.  If the situation comes up
   at all, it means that a high court of the land has already thrown
   out all of our best arguments against the validity of the law.  What
   would we have left to defend ourselves with?  Only arguments saying
   that although the law is valid in general, it somehow shouldn't
   apply to us in particular.  Some of those arguments can be made, but
   I don't think there is anything sure about them.  They seem pretty
   flimsey to me.

   The problem here is that in planning for the event that this law is
   upheld, we are planning for an low probability universe.  Unlikely
   things happen in low probability universes (by definition).  It's
   hard to make sensible plans in advance for such cases.  A plan that
   says "we'll freeze in our tracks and assess the situtation" is
   really about the best that can be done.

 - Dave says there has been no publicity yet, so there won't be if
   the law is upheld.  I think Dave doesn't understand the news value
   of stories.  We have the following news stories:

   (1)  Michigan passes an Internet censorship law.  There have been
        five or six similar laws previous passed, all of which were
        thrown out by the courts.  This one will probably be thrown
        out too and will never effect anyone.  The ACLU's challenge is
        already started.

   (2)  The courts uphold a Michigan Internet censorship law, reversing
        the position take in five or six previous laws.  This new law
        effects every web site in every country in the world.  Many
        other states declare they are going to pass laws on the Michigan
        model.

   Do you see the difference between the stories?  The fact that the
   first one got a ho-hum reaction from the press doesn't mean that
   the second one would.

 - Richard, has usual, is listening with his fingers in his ears.  As
   I said previously, I didn't vote for this motion because I thought
   I needed protection.  I can resign in seconds.  I don't need a long
   suspension to mull over that one.  The reasons for the suspension
   are to have time to think over the impact on our users.

 - I consider Richard's claim that the "real reason" for the motion was
   for the board to protect our butts to be an insult.  I would like to
   see him back up this claim by demonstrating that the other reasons
   we have given are not valid.  If he cannot do that, an apology would
   be appropriate.

response 98 of 203:

Aug 10 23:25 UTC 1999

It's perfectly possible for the gov't to enforce something within the
first 3 days.  All it takes is one pissed-off government official.
What's more likely, though, is that the gov't won't actually swoop in in
the first 3 days, but will spend a a week or a month or whatever
collecting evidence first.  *Then*, they'll swoop in.  They'll likely
try to name incidents including the first 3 days if they can, because it
would help them to establish a "wilful pattern of abuse".

I also don't think it's unreasonable for the board to be concerned about
their collective ass.  A felony conviction however good the cause is
still rather like a bed of roses.  It may look pretty, but the thorns
still hurt just as much.

response 100 of 203:

Aug 11 01:49 UTC 1999

   Richard, what crystal ball do you have, to make the pronouncement that
Grex wouldn't be attacked within the first three days of its life?  How
can you possibly say that?

   If you think we (the board) was caught up in a wave of paranoia and fear
then you are even more dense and unwilling read read others thoughts than
I had thought you were.

   Wow.


   Thanks Mary, you're right to focus on the real issue.  Get this out of
the way so actually useful things can be done.

response 102 of 203:

Aug 11 05:47 UTC 1999

We owe most of our "luck" to the wisdom of the founding fathers, the
professionalism of the judicial system, and the altruism of certain
members of society.  We can thank the fates that the timing of this has
also worked well for us, but I do think it's a fairly safe bet that the
law will not be upheld in january.  Accordingly, I don't see where it's
at all unreasonable for us not to spend much time "preparing" for the
law to be upheld, as even if it is upheld, it's pretty clear the way in
which it might be upheld is likely to be sufficently twisted that the
risk it might pose for grex can't be predicted in advance.

I also don't think it's unfair of us on grex to "inflate the law to the
most extreme position possible".  The law in question is not a finely
detailed surgical instrument designed to eradicate some particular
nuisance in society while causing as little collateral damange to
society as possible.  This law is a club -- it was clearly worded by the
first cousins of patent lawyers, which is to say, the words claim the
broadest possible limits on public expression, on jurisdiction, with
stiff penalities and few limits.  It gives law enforcement enormous
discretionary ability in terms of what they might choose to prosecute,
and how they might go about it.  It's quite clear grex was covered under
the law -- there is nothing in the law that would have offered grex any
real protection, should law enforcement choose to go after grex.  The
"extreme" position we took is considerably less extreme than a public
prosecutor could use in going after grex.  Given all this, I can't
imagine what preparation you think we could conceivably do here on grex,
that would even in the slighest ameliorate our possible risk under the
law.

response 104 of 203:

Aug 11 07:00 UTC 1999

the ACLU is *very* appealing.  Especially if you consider the spectre of 
our society without it...

response 106 of 203:

Aug 11 16:10 UTC 1999

With all due respect to the board of Arbornet, I'm not impressed by the
argument that says "If the board of Arbornet didn't do it, it must not
be necessary."  We do see a lot of things differently than they do.

Your argument is that "the risk isn't very high."  Possibly true, but
again, I would be cautious about predicting what consequences will
follow any event as nonsensical as the upholding of this law.  But even
if true, the important thing to note is that the risk isn't borne only
by the board and the corporation.  It is also borne by thousands of
individual users, some no longer even users of the system.  For
Arbornet's board to risk themselves and their corporation is perhaps
brave and noble.  To risk other people as well is not so brave or noble.