RE: [at large-discuss] Identity WG and limiting posts.

["McMeikan, Andrew" <McMeikanA@logica.com>]

Comparison of viewpoints below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 9:31 AM
> To: eric@hi-tek.com
> Cc: NameCritic; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [at large-discuss] Identity WG and limiting posts.
> 
> 
> Eric, Chris and all stakeholders or other interested parties 
> and members,
> 
>   Actually I agree that my response should have been unnecessary.  I
> really can't say that it was unproductive or not.  I doubt 
> that you could
> in all "Truth" could either Eric.  But none the less your point is
> well taken by me.  I only hope that it is also well taken by Chris
> and Andrew as well.  But somehow and sadly, I doubt that as well..:(
> 
> eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> 
> > This is unnecessary and unproductive.
> > e
> >
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > Chris and all stakeholders or other interested parties 
> and members,
> > >
> > >   This statement shows me clearly that either you have a 
> reading impairment
> > > problem have just plain not been paying close enough 
> attention to what I
> > > have stated and repeated several times now on this 
> subject/issue. So I will
> > > state it very simply and clearly for you here again in 
> CAPS so you can
> > > easily read and comprehend it.
> > >
> > >   I BELIEVE THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO FAIRLY, ACCURATELY,
> > > COMPLETELY, AND LEGALLY DETERMINE ANY MEMBER OR
> > > POTENTIAL MEMBER OF THIS ORGANIZATION AND STILL
> > > PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS
> > > OF THEIR RESIDENT JURISDICTION AND PER EACH MEMBER
> > > OR POTENTIAL MEMBERS PRIVACY/SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.
>

Just to clarify where my difference of viewpoint is.

Putting all the obligation of identity checking on an organization will be
expensive, or if done cheaply will be ineffective.  Verifying every member
to the same extent regardless of their position means either the treasurer
has a working email/postal address or that Joe Bloggs once a year poster has
to disclose his financial interests, background, and criminal history.

All people may be equal but we do not have to have equal involvement.  Even
allowing for us being in different countries this should still hold true.

If my hypothetical Joe Bloggs (apologies to any real Joe Bloggs ;) is say an
undischarged bankrupt with a conviction for stealing as a servant, then let
him keep it private and his own business unless he wants to be treasurer (or
other such position).  If someone wants to be in an important position (i.e.
able to waste time/money of members) then the membership should IMO have
some positive reason to believe they are trustworthy.  To me that means open
disclosure, not just some privacy committee saying he passes some due
diligence test, but actually having to put up with a reduction of privacy so
that those involved can make their own judgements.

So it seems I have a different view to Jeff Williams, that does not mean
either of us has the perfect answer.  Certainly either way the details of
what should be disclosed to do what would have to be nutted out.

A background check on every member regardless of level of involvement?  I
might not be able to stop someone doing detailed checks on me, but I would
not like it just the same.  Unless someone really needs to trust me, why
should they want to know such details?


I hope I have not misunderstood and have made a valid comparison of views.

	cya,	Andrew...

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de