|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
dang
|
|
response 85 of 624:
| 
Dec 28 03:11 UTC 1996 |
Nit: I don't believe there is a guest login for telnet. (At least, noone
ever told me about one, and when I treied to log in as guest, it prompted for
a password...)
Sorry, but people are yelling about it.
|
brighn
|
|
response 86 of 624:
|
Dec 28 04:53 UTC 1996 |
The whole defense of the Web Guest access is the existence of Telnet Guest
access. If there is no Telnet Guest access, then the REAL motion should be
to allow Guest access at all.
But I'm inclined to believe that Guest is just malfunctioning. I recall it
being there.
|
scg
|
|
response 87 of 624:
|
Dec 28 04:55 UTC 1996 |
re 84:
You're assuming that anybody who is going to find Grex interesting is
going to be looking for a computer conferencing system. In my case, it had
never occurred to me that computer conferencing might be something I was
interested in. I just kind of stumbled on it.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 88 of 624:
|
Dec 28 13:50 UTC 1996 |
brighn--while I don't know if there is a telnet login called 'guest', it is
certainly possible to telnet in without giving your name.
Personally, I find the idea of grex requiring verification
somnewhat...unpleasant. It strikes me as against what grex stands for.
As for a grex login being a member of the community even if they don't give
out any personal information, that's just not true. There are already many
users of grex who are not at all part of the grex community, who don't
contribute in any way, who are just here for free email. But, *this doesn't
mean they are a bad thing*. I know I wouldn't be here at all if I wasn't
first attracted to grex by the prospect of free mail. I know many grexers
who started as lurkers and became active members of the grex community. Just
because someone who uses grex doesn't tell you their name, or use the
conferences, or whatever, doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to use grex.
|
dang
|
|
response 89 of 624:
|
Dec 28 14:23 UTC 1996 |
Brighn: I haven't seen any arguments based on a guest login for telnet. All
of the arguments I've seen are based on the fact that there is no way to know
if the person who telnets in is who they say they are, and there is no way
to know what they do here, and whether or not they read any particular item
in any particular cf. So, they are anonymous. Completely. Through backtalk,
even if they don't have to make an account, we still know exactly what items
of what cf they read, the IP address of the machine they were on (even if they
were on a PPP connection) and the time and date of every connection, from the
httpd logs. So, in a sense, they are even less anonymous through "anonymous"
backtalk than they are through telnet. But, as Jan pointed out, that's
anonymity really has nothing to do with either side of the argument, and is
merely confusing the issue. (Case in point, you were confused. :)
I've decided to change my opinion the the extent that I no longer have an
opinion on this issue. I'd like to hear more arguments to both sides before
I decide.
|
brighn
|
|
response 90 of 624:
|
Dec 28 16:43 UTC 1996 |
Dang, Orinoco, Jan attempted to clarify the issue.
Since you two don't understand what's being talked about, maybe there should
be no member vote whatsoever until it's clear that the members know just
what's going on.
There are two types of logins thathave been called anonymous in this
discussion.
(1) Unverified logins.
(2) Guest logins.
(1) An unverified login is where a person is using a personal handle, but has
not had their personal information verified by Grex administration. The vast,
vast majority of handles are unverified. It would be utterly preposterous for
anyone to claim that backtalk (that is, Web users) should not be allowed to
use this option. Backtalk HAS been using this option since its inception. This
item is not about that.
(2) A guest login is where a person is using a handle such as "guest" (on most
systems). They have given *no* personal information. They cannot write to
items, they can only read, and when they log off, the system is reset so that
the next time they log on, everything is new again. Backtalk does NOT use
this system, while telnet and dialin access allegedly does.
The main popint of this amendment is, since telnet and dialin allows anonymous
(i.e. guest) logins, so should the Web. I disagree, I don't think grex should
even *have* an anonymous (i.e. guest) login.
Hmmm, I just reread those last two posts, and I guess you two *are* clear as
to what's being talked about, but I do think the issue is getting too muddied.
At any rate, it's an issue of respect, to me, not potential to do damage.
It's disrespectful, in my view, to read a conference without joining it,
and to read a BBS without joining it.
Anonymity is a ridiculous argument. Of *course* unverified users are anonymous
in the sense that we don't know, for sure, who they are in the real world.
Furthermore, though, I've met quite a few grexers IRL: Jenna, RobH, Scott,
Popcorn, Blondval, Kami, ... Do I *know* any of them? Would I be surprised
if a poem, for example, that I had written showed up in a magazine with Kami's
name under it? Disappointed, sure. Aggravated, sure. I would probably call
Kami up and yell at her. But these things have happened, to other people in
the past. Plagiarism was not invented at the same timea s anonymous reads.
How much information do you have to know about a person before you know them
enough to trust them? What proportion of a community or a user pool do you
have to know before you can trust the entire user pool?
These are all subjective questions.
My answers are:
I know enough users of Grex well enough to trust the entire Grex user pool
with what I have posted (which is *not* everything about mee).
I know enough administratos of Grex well enough to trust them not to read my
mail, which I understand they could conceivably do, and so I have put more
sensitive things in my mail.
I know enough users of the Internet and the Web to know that I do *not* trust
the entire Web community with the same information that I trust Grexers with.
I don't think those are foolhardy answers. In the main, I would assume that
most people would answer the same way. How the answers would differ would be
on how much information to trust with which group.
Now then, I think the huge, collossal question at the root of this is:
Are guest login users part of the Grex user ppol, or are they merely users
of the Internet/Web user pool?
Mary's answer, and that of others, I would guess, would be that guest logins
are members of the Grex user pool. Rob and I, I would guess, would say they
aren't. Are people who look in a store window patrons of the store? No! Some
of them might, in fact, come into the store. If that weren't the case, stores
wouldn't put anything int heir windows. Window displays are to encourage
passersby to come into the store.
But they aren't patrons until they open the door and step in.
Now, if I owned a store, it would be absurd of me to check IDs and do
background felony checks on every customer who walked in. But it would be just
as absurd of me to put every single item I have for sale in my front window.
User verification is the equivalent of checking every single customer.
Guest login is the equivalent of putting every single thing in the window.
If I did either of these things, I would go out of business within months.
Trust me.
So, I reiterate. Give me the go-ahead, give me a pprogramming partner who can
put my text on the Web Page, and I'll write an advertisement including the
best of a wide variety of the conferences, if not all. Dropp this silly issue.
Or give me a good reason why my analogy doesn't work.
|
mta
|
|
response 91 of 624:
|
Dec 28 19:48 UTC 1996 |
As Mary so often reminds us, GREX is not and was never meant to be a private
club. GREX is an open access conferencing system. It always has been, it's
always been run that way. One of our missions is to provide as much service
to as many people with as few strings as is feasible.
I'm completely in favour of continuing to manage GREX that way. That includes
letting wanderers past have a look at GREX with no strings. If they want to
post, they have to get a login ID. But I can't see any harm in letting them
read the conferences.
The discussions here on GREX have *always* taken place in a public forum.
Always. If you think not, then I think perhaps you misunderstood what GREX
is. That's unfortunate. But it doesn't change the facts.
|
srw
|
|
response 92 of 624:
|
Dec 28 20:12 UTC 1996 |
There are a lot of things about the store analogy that don't work. We give
everything away here. We don't charge for items. It is not absurd for us to
put everything in the front window, since it is big enough.
The users who haven't created identities (accounts) are potential users. It
seems wrong to me to deny them access to the contents of Grex. If they like
what they see, they will tell us their (net) identities. If not, they will
not bother us again.
My understanding of the legalities:
When you post on Grex, you implicitly grant the right to share your post with
whoever wishes to read it. If what you wrote was original, then you retain
the copyright, but not the right to limit distribution. You can remove your
old postings to stop grex from distributing them, but obviously we wish you
would not choose to. Only the membership, or its designated board, has the
authority to determine or limit in what manner posts may be distributed.
|
brighn
|
|
response 93 of 624:
|
Dec 28 21:45 UTC 1996 |
Nobody is denying anybody the right to anything.
If anyone wants to read Grex, all they have to do is create an account.
Misti and Mary, if this weren't a *change* we wouldn't be discussing it.
This is clearly *not* the way Grex has always been. If this *were* the way
Grex had always been, then we wouldn't be *changing* anything.
See how this works?
Way things have always been... --> No discussion of changing
Way things haven't always been... --> Discussion of change
eople who want Grex to change to suit them > Mary, Misti, Popcorn
People who like Grex the way it is > Rob, Selena, Brighn, Jenna
I wish the people who want to CHANGE grex would stop acting like they're in
the right and the conservatives are in the wrong.
I am beginning to realize something. I was wrong to trust anyone on Grex in
the first pplace. This is a clique run by a bunch of yahoos who distort
reality until ttey get their way. Hey, what do you know, Kerouac was right
about something.
As for the legal distribution thing:
(1) I personally have dropped that, although I know others haven't.
(2) Anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything. There's no reason to tempt
fate.
It takes five minutes to create an account.
Let's see how long it take me to delete mine.
|
brighn
|
|
response 94 of 624:
|
Dec 28 22:06 UTC 1996 |
I also grow weary of people making threats and not following them up.
I do it a lot myself.
So I'll make good on my threat.
I'm sure this will please a lot of you.
I've set my mail to forward to my student account.
I won't be logging on anymore.
|
general
|
|
response 95 of 624:
|
Dec 28 22:18 UTC 1996 |
I don't know what to say about this. This is going a little far.
|
srw
|
|
response 96 of 624:
|
Dec 28 22:41 UTC 1996 |
Well, no one was asking Brighn to follow up on his threats. I suspect that
most will not consider Grex to be better off if he doesn't log in.
I don't know what you can do when people feel that way.
I'm disappointed.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 97 of 624:
|
Dec 28 23:52 UTC 1996 |
Re 90: Brighn, you misunderstand about the anonymous login question.
Grex does *not* have a "guest" login that anybody can use. There is an ID
called "guest" right now, but it is somebody's personal account.
The idea of allowing anonymous reading of items via backtalk is not based on
the idea that there is a "guest" account. Rather, it's based on the fact that
anybody can run newuser, create an account, and read items in the conferences.
Anonymous reading in backtalk makes this same process easier.
Also, I think you're taking a one-sided approach to choosing which way is more
in keeping with the way Grex has always done things. You say that it's more
consistent to not add new features. But you can also say it's more consistent
with Grex's past to add new features and new ways to make the system more
accessible to everyone. I don't think either side has a monopoly on what is
more consistent or conservative. I'm also not entirely sure that "more
conservative" is a really strong reason for choosing any particular course
of action.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 98 of 624:
|
Dec 29 03:10 UTC 1996 |
Quite frankly, the idea that you can trust a 'grexer', and that you can't
trust a 'websurfer' or a 'guest', when the only difference between a grexer
and a guest is that one has run the newuser program and one hasn't, is absurd.
How does just running the newuser program make someone more trustworthy in
any way?
I'm certainly sorry if I am misunderstanding something, but all I have seen
so far in the way of explanation is reiteration of the same few points that
I evidently am not understanding. Could someone please tell me exactly what
point it is that I'm missing, rather than just telling me I don't understand.
In any case, it doesn't really matter since I'm not a member and can't vote,
but it would be nice to know if I'm misunderstanding something.
I understand the 'difference' between unverified users and anonymous backtalk
users. I just think it is a trivial difference and it doesn't make sense to
discriminate based on it.
Brighn--if you see this, which I doubt you will, I'm sorry if trying to
support my opinion has offended you. If I am 'distorting reality', I am not
aware of it, but I wish you would try to set me right instead of insulting
me.
|
tsty
|
|
response 99 of 624:
|
Dec 29 07:46 UTC 1996 |
if the difference is 'so trivial,' then let the triviality prevail and
the readers can login here *first*. after all, it is so trivial.
btw, both the reality and the sarcasm apply above.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 100 of 624:
|
Dec 29 09:12 UTC 1996 |
Hm. I'm not sure that's a valid argument either. People of either opinion
can say "if the difference is so trivial, then let's do it my way".
|
remmers
|
|
response 101 of 624:
|
Dec 29 12:23 UTC 1996 |
Considering that the whole purpose of this item is to put this
issue up for a member vote and *not* have it decided
unilaterally by board and/or staff, I don't see how brighn's
"this is a clique run by a bunch of yahoos" accusation makes a
lot of sense. In any case, I hope he reconsiders his decision
about leaving Grex.
I have three questions at this point:
(1) What's the current wording of the proposal?
(2) What is the effect if the proposal passes?
(3) What is the effect if the proposal fails?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 102 of 624:
|
Dec 29 16:12 UTC 1996 |
Popcorn--true. But, there are other arguments in favor of allowing anonymous
reading, such as the argument that grex's purpose is to allow the free
exchange of information. Are there arguments against allowing anonymous
reading that are not based on the 'trivial difference' between anonymous and
unverified users?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 103 of 624:
|
Dec 29 16:57 UTC 1996 |
Re 101: The current wording is in response #5. It says: "Anonymous reading
of all public conferences on Grex via the World Wide Web is permitted."
If it passes, then it's okay for Jan and Steve to turn on anonymous reading
in Backtalk and for you to use your script that puts makes conferences into
web pages. And for anybody else to put Grex conferences on the web.
If it fails, it's sort of unspecified what happens with anonymous web reading
of conferences, but presumably it's not allowed.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 104 of 624:
|
Dec 29 17:07 UTC 1996 |
John -- I think the discussion of this issue is still too active to put it
to a vote yet. I'd like to extend the discussion period for a few more days.
In which case I'd like to extend the discussion period for item 26, too, so
the two votes run for the same 10 days, rather than asking people to vote
twice in quick succession. Is that okay? Also, is there anything I should
do, as a staffer, to get the vote program ready to use? Or is that something
you've got all set up and ready to go? Thanks....
|
remmers
|
|
response 105 of 624:
|
Dec 29 19:43 UTC 1996 |
There's nothing in the bylaws that says you can't have votes on
two proposals running simultaneously. I'd interpret the bylaws
as allowing the proposer some discretion in just when to make
the proposal formal and start the vote -- the discussion period
can't be shorter than two weeks, but could be longer.
If the two votes run simultaneously, I'll have to set up two
differently-configured versions of the vote program. No big
deal; easy enough to do.
On reflection, I guess I do have some concerns about the
current wording, especially given the fact, that's been pointed
out several times, that the word "anonymous" is ambiguous
and subject to varying interpretations. If the intent is that
people without login id's on Grex be permitted read-only access
to all conferences, then the proposal should say so clearly
and unambiguously.
Your mention of the program I wrote, pre-Backtalk, to convert
conferences to html and make them available for web viewing
reminds me that this proposal doesn't address one of the issues
that was of concern to people in the earlier discussion about
that program. My program, as written, would allow conference
items to be discovered by web spiders and indexed by search
engines such as Altavista. There was considerable sentiment
expressed that accountless web reading of conferences would
be okay as long as items didn't get indexed by search engines,
but would be objectionable if it did. The proposal as currently
worded permits both, so people who are in favor of accountless
reading through Backtalk (which probably won't get indexed)
might still want to vote against the proposal because it would
allow a less restrictive form of web access to conferences to
which they object.
Then there's the question of what it means if the proposal is
defeated. Kind of leaves things in limbo, which is why I raised
the question of what defeat would mean. Doesn't say you can
have accountless reading, but doesn't say you can't either.
I have a feeling that people would like the issue definitely
settled one way or the other. Maybe that could be addressed by
reversing the sense of the proposal.
|
davel
|
|
response 106 of 624:
|
Dec 29 20:20 UTC 1996 |
All good points, John. (Though perhaps Valerie would be uncomfortable being
the official proposer of a proposal to limit web access to Grex ...)
|
robh
|
|
response 107 of 624:
|
Dec 29 21:14 UTC 1996 |
I wouldn't! Lemme at it! >8)
One possible compromise - when I was looking at the River's web pages,
I saw that a few of their conferences had been designated as open
access, i.e. Web users could access those conferences to get some
idea what the place was like. Would that be acceptable here? Intro
and Agora would be the obvious choices, of course. And then confs
like Sexuality and Recovery could still maintain as much control
over the distribution of their content as they currently do.
|
bruin
|
|
response 108 of 624:
|
Dec 29 23:04 UTC 1996 |
IMHO, brighn will be back sooner than we think.
|
robh
|
|
response 109 of 624:
|
Dec 30 01:16 UTC 1996 |
I dunno about that. And I don't think he'll be the only one
to leave, if this passes.
|