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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Andrew and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

McMeikan, Andrew wrote:

> Comparison of viewpoints below.

  Same provided below and interspersed with Andrews 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.

  Not necessarily overly expensive.  One would need to provide or
define what "Expensive" means and in comparison to what in what context.

>  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.

  Utterly ridiculous and unnecessary as Eric also made quite clear as well.
How on earth if anyone discloses background, which I for instance have
done in a number of posts to this list, could such a disclosure be independently
verified upon contestment without a in depth independent investigation?
I say it cannot be done without such an in depth independent investigation..

>
>
> 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.

  Of course, as stated, this holds true.  However it has nothing what so
ever to do with the subject line of this thread.

>
>
> 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).

  He himself would likely wish to keep this private regardless of his condition
of servitude or history.  As our US constitution protects such occurrences
or histories from impeding any individual, such as some precepts of the
14th amendment, than I Cannot necessarily see any intrinsic benefit or
detriment from such a person (Joe Bloggs in this example case), from
serving in any capacity unless or until such a background can be proven
beyond a shadow of a doubt, and such a background presently impacts
directly this persons present disposition, as the law in the US also
requires unless you are running for president of the Untied States,
which is a far cry from Treasurer of this organization.

>  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.

  Agreed they should.  And it is incumbent on the members themselves
or collectively to determine this for a fact, not based on innuendo, false
claims that do not have any legal basis in fact, or disgruntlement by
some small set of hecklers of various sorts.

>  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.

  This would be in abeyance with the Law of the land in the US.  Hence
I could not legally adhere or agree to any such nonsensical impediment
upon any member, regardless of their home of origin, previous condition
of servitude, or present disposition.  To do so would be violating the
law and the sprit of those same privacy laws, which are or would be
should your position be seriously considered, a felony.

>
>
> 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.

  Indeed such would need to be nutted out in such a way so as not to
impede federal legal mandate in order to find some unknown quality
of status of any individual, either in the US or especially outside of the
US.  Again China comes to mind here in particular...

>
>
> 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.

  Well you can stop it if you know about it or even suspect it.  In addition
you can prosecute.  I know, I have done it more than once.

>  Unless someone really needs to trust me, why
> should they want to know such details?

Regardless of the need, trust is either given and accepted, or it is not,
and the details may or may not, and in my view should not be a
determining factor of themselves in such trust.  For instance, my companies
mail room administrator had a criminal record of some note.  Before
he was hired, which I insisted upon, the personnel director wanted to
pass on this fellow.  I ask her why.  She just answered as to his
past criminal record.  I felt, and have sense been proven correct,
that her answer was not adequate for such a decision, and promptly
after hiring this fellow, sent her back to Leadership training, and
management classes couples with some ethical classes to improve
and broaden her view sufficiently.  Sense hiring this fellow, he
has proven out to be the best mail room administrator our
company has ever had... Also the most honest one as well.

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

  You are not misunderstood by me, Andrew, but you still miss the
central point.  That's fine, perhaps you need some additional education
and training....  >;)

>
>
>         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.
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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