Item 342 by (kentn) Kent Nassen entered Wed, Mar 27, 2013 (17:16) as: Minutes from Grex BOD Meeting, February 23, 2013 Board Present: TS, Kent, Ryan Time: 2/23/2013 7pm Eastern We have a quorum. This was a teleconference meeting. -Minutes from Dec 2012 meeting were approved. -TS elected treasurer. -The board agreed to wait to elect the other officers until there are more board members present at the next meeting. -TS said the 501c3 status was ok -Kent said that the domains (grex.org, cyberspace.org) had been renewed -The Board reviewed the policy on user verification to see if a verified PayPal payment for membership was sufficent. -Discussed 2 member proposals (1- Make all validated users members, 2- Modify (eliminate) term limits for board members) -Discussion about board involvement -Discussion on cleaning up the cyberspace Gmail group -Discussion on gathering contact info for all current board members, to ensure better attendance at meetings. -Treasurer Report (TS): Federal tax documents are in progress, but not complete yet. TS is working on it. State forms are up to date and not due until October. -Kent suggested that we need to send a letter of acknowledgement to people who donate large items. Financial Report: Balances TCF bank $ 564.53 Paypal $ 1071.34 ----------------- Total $ 1635.87 -Staff Report: (Kent) -Grex is running pretty good - Been up 66 days -No security break-ins -Discussion about images on web pages (our FAQ says to link to images on another site) -Discussion about possibly relaxing Robocop limits if we get new hardware -Next meeting to be April 13th, 2013, 7pm Eastern. Adjourned 8:30p. Regrets after the meeting: Jonathan (internet outage) and Andy (illness). -Ryan 31 responses total. From (cross) Dan Cross #1 of 31 in item 342 at Fri, Mar 29, 2013 (14:52): Images on web pages? They've been allowed for years; whatever the FAQ says, they work just fine. From (kentn) Kent Nassen #2 of 31 in item 342 at Fri, Mar 29, 2013 (21:32): There are potential issues with that, including legal ones. The reason about wasting space is probably no longer an issue, though. From (cross) Dan Cross #3 of 31 in item 342 at Sat, Mar 30, 2013 (15:41): *shrug* If they were going to show up, I imagine they would have by now. From (mary) Mary Remmers #4 of 31 in item 342 at Sat, Mar 30, 2013 (17:24): And you're sure they haven't? Are you monitoring user files? From (cross) Dan Cross #5 of 31 in item 342 at Sun, Mar 31, 2013 (21:07): resp:4 No. But no one has complained about it, either...since like, 2007. From (mary) Mary Remmers #6 of 31 in item 342 at Mon, Apr 1, 2013 (11:01): I don't expect we'll have any complaints right up until the moment the authorities ask to speak to the person in charge. ;-) Maybe things have changed enough that this is a non-issue. In the past it was thought Grex was an easy place to be anonymous. Between our low profile, minimal threshold for identification, proxy servers and such, anyone could keep whatever files they wanted here without a lot of blow-back if discovered. Also, we have a policy of not monitoring the content of users' files. And to top it off, if we did have to answer to any law enforcement agency, we're on our own as we couldn't even afford the initial consultation with a good attorney. We have to deal with most other files, but photos? It was thought we didn't need that exposure, hence allowing links to digital images but those files couldn't live on Grex. Now, if the Board is okay with this change, I'm okay too. But the Board should know about it. From (cross) Dan Cross #7 of 31 in item 342 at Mon, Apr 1, 2013 (11:14): Beats me, man. This isn't a change. Well, it was six years ago, when it was introduced. So I'm not sure which non-problem we're trying to address here: the one that hasn't been an issue for six years, or the other one that hasn't been an issue for Grex's lifetime? From (jared) Jared Mauch #8 of 31 in item 342 at Wed, Jul 24, 2013 (17:23): There is protection for GREX under the DMCA for user generated and uploaded content. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/dmca-copyright-policies-staying-safe-har bors-while From (kentn) Kent Nassen #9 of 31 in item 342 at Wed, Jul 24, 2013 (21:51): I know I don't want to be part of any issue with the police, FBI, etc. over images. It's not that there is protection, per se, it's the amount of time and money it takes to convince a court it's okay (even if the EFF would ever jump in to defend us). From (cross) Dan Cross #10 of 31 in item 342 at Wed, Jul 24, 2013 (22:10): Sigh. This hasn't been an issue for years. Let me repeat, years. Images have worked on Grex since circa 2007 with not a peep out of, well, anyone. From (kentn) Kent Nassen #11 of 31 in item 342 at Wed, Jul 24, 2013 (22:45): Probably only because our user web pages are essentially a vast wasteland. From (cross) Dan Cross #12 of 31 in item 342 at Thu, Jul 25, 2013 (08:12): So ... what do people want to do? Go back to restricting images? That seems silly. From (kentn) Kent Nassen #13 of 31 in item 342 at Sun, Jul 28, 2013 (08:21): It seems to be a non-issue currently. It could become an issue later. As was said earlier, monitoring would be one thing to do, but nothing we want to do. More than likely, we'll hear about it from the authorities when they come to investigate a crime (and not necessarily a DMCA take down request, although that could occur, as well). A lot depends on the images that are posted and who (if anyone) notices. Assuming no one will notice or care is a risk for the corporation. From (cross) Dan Cross #14 of 31 in item 342 at Sun, Jul 28, 2013 (10:13): So I ask again, what do people want to do? It hasn't been an issue for *six years*. From (mary) Mary Remmers #15 of 31 in item 342 at Sun, Jul 28, 2013 (11:23): I'd not allow 'em. Our (few) volunteer board members don't deserve any additional risk. From (dtk) DTK #16 of 31 in item 342 at Sun, Jul 28, 2013 (11:47): Resp:14 If they've not caused a problem for over half a decade, why make a change that will break some users' functionality, which has at best marginal benefits, to solve a very low-likelihood risk? Let images remain, and commit to complying with all lawful takedown orders. From (cross) Dan Cross #17 of 31 in item 342 at Sun, Jul 28, 2013 (22:36): resp:15 You mean like the risk that hasn't been an issue for the last six years? From (cross) Dan Cross #18 of 31 in item 342 at Sun, Jul 28, 2013 (23:03): resp:16 That too. I personally think it is more important that users have something they are actually interested in using than that we may, again *may*, eventually get a take-down notice for an image file. Turning off a working service because of a microscopic risk seems misguided to me. I don't really understand all the excitement about images; Grex never prohibited other types of media files (PDF, newer image and video formats), or archive files (zip, tarballs, etc), or even executable files (Windows .exe files and so on). Any of them could be used to hold content that might be "an issue"; probably more so than images. Should we prohibit users from hosting those, as well? What happnens when people start hosting images wrapped in text encodings? Should we ban text files? How about an HTML file with embedded javascript that translates inline text-encoded data to an image on the fly? Should we ban Javascript? How? What about use of the HTML5 canvas widget? Should we ban HTML5? How about banning HTML in general? If we're so worried about user content, why are we allowing users to post content at all? Why not just turn off user web sites? I'm serious: if we want to ban image files, what's the point of letting users use the web server? In 1993, that might have made sense: images were big and expensive in terms of bandwidth, which was something Grex didn't have a lot of. In 2013, providing a "web server" that doesn't let users host image files is just weird. How do we know that users won't move content between Grex and other sites using FTP, or some file transfer thing running over SSH? Maybe we just shouldn't let users log in to Grex at all. From (dtk) DTK #19 of 31 in item 342 at Sun, Jul 28, 2013 (23:27): Resp:18 but haven't you noticed? The only functionality that counts is the Agora forum; anything else is only if it doesn't bother the half-dozen originals. When the Agora dies, they will take the server offline. Or the half-dozen originals will croak it, and their heirs will have no idea what Grex is, that it existed, or that they need to pay the power and DSL for it, and it will be unceremoniously cut off. From (kentn) Kent Nassen #20 of 31 in item 342 at Mon, Jul 29, 2013 (09:11): There is always the risk that people read this and decided to see how far they can push the situation. "Watch me do this! Are you going to do anything about?" From (mary) Mary Remmers #21 of 31 in item 342 at Mon, Jul 29, 2013 (09:58): I suspect the chance of anyone posting illegal photos or video here is small. Can the board be comfortable with a small risk? I'd be happy to let them decide. There may already be illegal material present here. I suspect there aren't a lot of off-the-map sites where it's possible to anonymously store and share images. And, really, if we allow such image content the most we can say is we haven't become aware they are here, not that they aren't here. And yes, common carrier laws give us some protection, and our attorney will help us sort it all out. You know, the attorney we have on retainer. If we are vigilant, looking at files to check all is well, then we have an obligation to continuously monitor such activity. Good luck with that. If we aren't checking then we are crossing fingers all is well. Good luck with that too. But we've had this discussion before. I'm good with whatever the board decides but they really should come to a decision. From (cross) Dan Cross #22 of 31 in item 342 at Mon, Jul 29, 2013 (10:20): resp:20 Indeed. So what's your solution, given that they can push the limits with *any* postable content? From (cross) Dan Cross #23 of 31 in item 342 at Mon, Jul 29, 2013 (11:22): resp:21 Umm, didn't you post classified information a few agora's back just to prove a point? From (mary) Mary Remmers #24 of 31 in item 342 at Mon, Jul 29, 2013 (18:16): Yep, that same point was made by the NYT's and scads of other sites around the world. Good point, too. From (nharmon) Nathan Harmon #25 of 31 in item 342 at Mon, Jul 29, 2013 (20:18): resp:21 Mary doesn't think the VOLUNTEER BOARD MEMBERS deserve any additional risk. But volunteer system administrators deserve as much risk as is necessary for her to prove her "good point". I don't know why Mary's opinion on anything involving Grex's governance should even be considered. From (cross) Dan Cross #26 of 31 in item 342 at Mon, Jul 29, 2013 (22:03): resp:24 So it's okay when you do it, but we should ban images, and only images, because at some point some one may post something that ... what again? From (mary) Mary Remmers #27 of 31 in item 342 at Mon, Jul 29, 2013 (22:50): Resp:#25 That's the way it works. If you think my opinion is whacked you say so and/or feel free to disregard my comments. I expect nothing else. Resp:#26 There is a reason an all-text Playboy magazine has never caught on. We disagree, Dan. That's okay. As I've said multiple times now - the board should decide this one. From (cross) Dan Cross #28 of 31 in item 342 at Mon, Jul 29, 2013 (23:21): resp:27 It's called the Penthouse Forum. By all means keep posting. You are the existence proof for how silly this whole issue is.