|
Grex > Coop11 > #254: Grex's ID policy - email with account usgov |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 100 of 133:
|
Apr 18 06:42 UTC 2001 |
Re #95: I have suggested that a corporations resident agents name,
address, phone number, and the corporations EIN, should be sufficient ID,
as this is all vouchafed by the State. This is even more secure than the
personal ID of an individual claiming to represent the corporation.
On the other hand, it is more complicated than this, as Grex does accept
personal ID from a person claiming to represent a club or even a
non-profit corporation, on a very informal basis. Well, Grex is an
informal organization, and all it wants to be pretty sure that there is a
low probability of a member causing mischief, and to have some recourse
for correction if such occurs. I can understand a reluctance to not
generate separate rules for individuals, unincorporated clubs,
incorporated non-profits, for-profit corporations, and ????. And I'm
reluctant to take a stab at it.... 8^}
|
albaugh
|
|
response 101 of 133:
|
Apr 18 06:45 UTC 2001 |
According to #96, corporate members do not get outbound telnet (ftp etc.)
access. And since they don't get voting privileges either, the only reason
left to have a corporate membership is to avoid account reaping due to
inactivity. That's the only thing they get for their money. Does usgov
understand that?
Without outbound telnet, I'm not as concerned about verification of account
"ownership". But quite frankly, it's my belief that choice of usgov as
account ID was no accident - experienced users know that there are thousands
of inexperienced users out there that are quite willing to believe that
something from ID usgov - even if from usgov@cyberspace.org - must really
be from the US government. Who knows what fraudulent spamming schemes could
be used, e.g. "This is the US government, you must send us your SSN for
verification." How many seniors, new to the internet, might actually fall
for that? Of course, that doesn't require outbound telnet access to
perpetrate, e-mail would suffice. But usgov's argument would be 10 times
stronger if it had chosen an ID such as pes or peands.
I still say that there is a dead fish smell in the air about this whole thing.
|
aruba
|
|
response 102 of 133:
|
Apr 18 13:05 UTC 2001 |
#96 is misleading. Institutional members' login ids are indeed added to the
internet group, so someone using that account can use telnet, ftp, etc.
|
gull
|
|
response 103 of 133:
|
Apr 18 15:00 UTC 2001 |
I have to say I'm disappointed with the way this is being handled.
I think the best course of action would have been to tell them, "we're
sorry, but this is our current policy. If you don't want to follow it,
we can't make you a member." I think usgov's arguments about why the
policy is incorrect are interesting, but they don't require us to do
anything. We aren't obligated to take anyone as a member.
I kind of cringe at the combative tone people are taking in this item.
If I had been treated this way when I came to Grex, I wouldn't have
stayed. We're acting in a really unfriendly manner, over what's
basically a difference of opinion.
I am *appalled* that we now have a motion singling out a specific
user. I don't think that's a polite or businesslike way to do things,
and I think it smacks of viciousness -- someone doesn't like usgov's
attitude, so they're going to "punish" them with a public motion
suggesting we do what we should have done through simple procedure. I
don't think this is a can of worms we want to open. What's next?
Motions to remove certain users because we don't like their political
attitudes?
|
jp2
|
|
response 104 of 133:
|
Apr 18 15:05 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 105 of 133:
|
Apr 18 15:41 UTC 2001 |
albaugh is incorrect in #101 when he says "And since they don't get voting
privileges either, the only reason left to have a corporate (sic)
membership is to avoid account reaping due to inactivity. That's the only
thing they get for their money." This is only the selfish perspective.
I obtained four institutional memberships for non-profit organizations
(one was not incorporated at the time) for whom I used Grex accounts for
hosting web sites and for e-mail addresses for them. Since these did not
involve telnet access from Grex, it was not required to even have
memberships for them. So why was it done? To support Grex.
It would help Grex if more users took this charitable perspective.
I agree with albaugh that the choice of the ID "usgov" does sound like the
several junk mail advertisers that use language or address formats to make
their junk sound like government mailings: anything to get the recipients
to at least open, and maybe even be intimidated into sending money (if
they are stupid enough). Even if this is not usgov's intention, he puts
himself into the position of being viewed that way by almost anyone with
even a minimum of experience with internet use. I do not think, however,
it can be considered a disqualification until something illegal is done.
The company he claims to represent (this is not yet confirmed), however,
might take a dim view of the implications of the choice of such an ID.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 106 of 133:
|
Apr 18 16:19 UTC 2001 |
I have a motion on the floor already: that we reaffirm our current policy.
|
aruba
|
|
response 107 of 133:
|
Apr 18 16:34 UTC 2001 |
(You should enter that in a separate item, Colleen, if you'd like the
membership to vote on it.)
Sigh. albaugh's #105 was based on a misunderstanding of other's response.
So was incorrect in saying that institutional members receive no benefits
for membership other than protection from reaping. They also receive full
internet access.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 108 of 133:
|
Apr 18 17:42 UTC 2001 |
...and the good feeling of supporting a worthwhile charitable organization...
|
albaugh
|
|
response 109 of 133:
|
Apr 18 19:11 UTC 2001 |
I don't know how many altruistic "good feelers" there are out there... ;-)
|
flem
|
|
response 110 of 133:
|
Apr 18 19:47 UTC 2001 |
Rane mentioned earlier that we should accept the resident agent of a
corporation's name, address, etc. as contact information for a institutional
membership. This is certainly not unreasonable. What we also need, however,
is confirmation *from that person* that he or she authorizes the account.
To do so, we need some kind of confirmation that the person we're talking to
in order to get this confirmation is in fact the person we think it is.
Hence, we get right back to our current ID policy: requiring personal ID for
the contact person.
What usgov is asking us to do is to take his word for it that he's the
resident agent for PE&S, without providing any identification to prove this
claim. It would clearly be irresponsible for us to do so.
Usgov, you're right that Grex is not in the verification business, and we
probably wouldn't know if someone provided us fake id. We do, however, have
to make a good faith attempt to verify the identity of our members. A good
faith attempt does not require us to go to extraordinary lengths to verify
that the user is not trying to commit fraud or impersonate someone else, but
we do have to get some identification. We're sorry, but in this day and age,
taking your word for it that you represent PE&S would be negligent of us.
|
pfv
|
|
response 111 of 133:
|
Apr 18 19:55 UTC 2001 |
If the banks expect an ID AND signature , for those capable of
signing a check, I see no reason to expect less from grex and
their "business accounts". Anything less is folly.
Nastiness has nothing to do with a twits attempt to subvert or
change a process.
|
swa
|
|
response 112 of 133:
|
Apr 19 03:56 UTC 2001 |
Usgov -- do you understand the difference between being a user and being a
member? A lot of organizations use the term "member" to mean "anyone who
participates" - on Grex a member is someone who agrees to contribute money
in exchange for certain extra privileges. Contributing money is
because they want to support Grex, and who receive certain (not huge)
extra privileges in return. Contributing money is absolutely *not*
required in order to use Grex. Some of your comments lead me to think
maybe that distinction hadn't been made clear to you.
I'd also suggest you read our bylaws
(http://www.cyberspace.org/local/grex/bylaws.html) to familiarize yourself
with how Grex works and get an understanding of why we've reacted so
harshly to some of your suggestions, like that only corporate members
should vote on the membership -- read the bylaws and you'll understand
that members don't vote on new memberships at all, corporate members don't
vote, and no individual member can be excluded from voting on anything.
I agree with those who've said your choice of login is dubious at best.
But I also agree with Mary that there seems to be at least as much
miscommunication her as anything else. Read up on how Grex works and
maybe you'll understand why we've responded as we have.
|
swa
|
|
response 113 of 133:
|
Apr 19 03:57 UTC 2001 |
And I'd always taken "heathen" to mean something more akin to "heretic"
than to "pagan." For what that's worth.
|
robh
|
|
response 114 of 133:
|
Apr 19 04:46 UTC 2001 |
Re 113 - "Heathen" means "someone who lives in the heath",
aka a rural dweller, and originally had the same implications
of low intelligence and culture that we moderns associate
with the words "hick" or "redneck". "Pagan" comes from the
Latin "paganus" meaning "man with a beard", and in the days
when the clean-shaven look was popular in the city, had the
same connotations as "heathen".
"Heretic" originally referred to someone whose interpretation
of Catholic doctrine was different from the "official" interpretation
of the Pope.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 115 of 133:
|
Apr 19 07:05 UTC 2001 |
Re #110: did msgov imply somewhere that he is the resident agent for PE&S?
We know who the resident agent is. If we were playing 20 questions, I
would guess that usgov is the son of the resident agent... 8^}
cmcgee moved to "reaffirm our current policy". That of course is not in
order, since current policy IS current policy, and so the motion is
redudant. Acting on such a motion would, in fact, set a precedent for NOT
considering other current policies as current enough.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 116 of 133:
|
Apr 19 17:09 UTC 2001 |
s/redundant/redudant
|
flem
|
|
response 117 of 133:
|
Apr 19 17:26 UTC 2001 |
Hmm. I'd assumed he claimed to be the RA because 1) he seems to be claiming
to speak for the company, and 2) the name given is "Rick", which ISTR matches
the first name of the RA. But I've not investigated either of those vague
memories. :)
|
aruba
|
|
response 118 of 133:
|
Apr 19 17:38 UTC 2001 |
No, I don't believe anyone has claimed to be the registered agent for
Property Exchange & Sales, Inc.
|