!mooncat Item 195. Grex Board of Director's Meeting: Sept 10, 2004 Anne Perry (mooncat) Sun, Sep 12, 2004 (23:06). 51 lines, 47 responses. Attending Board Members: Mary, Slynne, Mooncat, Gelinas, Aruba, and Bhoward Attending Non-Board Members: Steve, Remmers Meeting began as informational as initially quorum was not achieved 1. Informational meeting started at 7:30 2. Treasurer s Report- on hold 3. Staff Report- recently had too exciting of a time. One of the original disk drives from 97 died (hence Grex being unavailable). Boot disk was affected, root disk lost 25 sectors, kernel came up- as soon as it tried to do anything else it failed. Once staff was able to copy a boot disk they were able to recover everything we need to. Didn t lose any accounts. The delays in restoring Grex were caused by staff being blocked and having to wait for each other- problems at first creating a boot disk, then there was a delay in getting a replacement disk back to the Pumpkin. The password save system worked flawlessly, so even though there had not been a regular back-up done recently the password safeguard worked as it was supposed to so none of that information was lost. A follow-up issue is for Steve (he volunteered) to take a look at the tape drive. The last tape back-up is from 2003, at that time Kip ran into a problem (unsure if it is mechanical or procedural). Steve will be looking into this and create a back-up. Since the crash there has been a problem with Backtalk crashing when searching through conference hot lists Next Grex- currently running OpenBSD 3.5, needs to be upgraded to 3.6. Mail problem- need to get XIM up and running, to get Spam Assassin to work, and figure out what s going on with Backtalk and Fronttalk. Mentioned that staff needs to have a meeting ASAP. Discussion as to what people thought the minimum needed would be to make NextGrex available- discussed- Backtalk & Fronttalk, possibly using Old Grex for mail processing, Newuser (because of its connections to the password file). So Next Grex MUST have- Conferencing: command line & web, Mail (with spam filters to the extent we have now), login, party. (during this Aruba entered, next Bhoward was able to call in- experienced some technical difficulties.) 2. Treasurer s Report: In August $153 in, $375 out. No new members. September has been the last month in the red for the last couple of years, so hopefully things will turn around. So far in September we have taken in $150. Additisonally, Aruba moved, sent change of address to the state- they sent a letter back saying that he cannot sign the form either the chair or secretary has to- Slynne signed. Form will be sent back with $5 fee. - Entered Executive Session to discuss a legal matter. 4. Next Meeting: October 22nd, 7:00pm at the Remmers. 5. New Business: No 6. Adjourn: 9:00 pm 47 responses total. !aruba ---------- (195) #1 Mark A Conger (aruba) Mon, Sep 13, 2004 (08:56). 6 lines. Thanks for the minutes, Anne. The reason we needed to send a change of address to the state is that I am Grex's registered agent, and my house is the registered office. (Every corporation needs a registered agent and office in the state in which it's incorporated. The office can't be a PO Box.) So since I moved over the summer, we needed to change the registered office. !mooncat ---------- (195) #2 Anne Perry (mooncat) Mon, Sep 13, 2004 (10:05). 1 line. Right, I meant to explain that, I'm sorry. !aruba ---------- (195) #3 Mark A Conger (aruba) Mon, Sep 13, 2004 (12:28). 4 lines. The executive session the board went into was to discuss a subpoena we received from a law enforcement agency, relating to a particular user account. The board read over the subpoena carefully, and agreed to comply with it. We have now done so. !tod ---------- (195) #4 Tod Wilkinson (tod) Mon, Sep 13, 2004 (14:07). 1 line. So they are finally going to investigate the vandalism by Valerie, eh? !happyboy ---------- (195) #5 Reverend Salvador Dali Parton (happyboy) Mon, Sep 13, 2004 (14:08). 1 line. /cues "Outside the TRains Don't Run On Time" for janc !tod ---------- (195) #6 Tod Wilkinson (tod) Mon, Sep 13, 2004 (16:53). 1 line. /cues "Gone Fishin" by Taj Mahal !happyboy ---------- (195) #7 Reverend Salvador Dali Parton (happyboy) Mon, Sep 13, 2004 (21:16). 1 line. YES!!! !richard ---------- (195) #8 Richard J. Wallner (richard) Fri, Sep 17, 2004 (22:54). 4 lines. #3...aruba, for the sake of all the rumor mongers assuming things, what exactly was the action the board had to take in order to comply with the subpoena? I believe full disclosure will prevent people from assuming things ;. !spooked ---------- (195) #9 Michelangelo Giansiracusa (spooked) Sat, Sep 18, 2004 (23:15). 3 lines. It was nothing too exciting. And, when the court process is completed, I'm sure we can tell you the not so big story. !richard ---------- (195) #10 Richard J. Wallner (richard) Sun, Sep 19, 2004 (20:20). 9 lines. If it is not so big a story why the secretiveness? most companies disclose legal actions against it in their minutes or annual reports as a part of fiduciary responsibility. If Grex is going to have to spend funds, or otherwise expend resources, human or otherwise, defending itself in court, everything ought to be above board. Saying "we'll discuss it when the court process is completed" is the sort of thing shady ceo's say to avoid the company taking heat before it has to. Grex isn't big enough, important enough, or anything of the like, to justify such secrecy. Just say what it is. !spooked ---------- (195) #11 Michelangelo Giansiracusa (spooked) Sun, Sep 19, 2004 (21:05). 9 lines. Richard, I'm not going to offer any more information at this time. I will make this point, however, the court action is not against Grex or its principles. Stay relaxed 'cause we're not expending great amounts of money or people resources on this at all. It will all become clear when the court process is completed. We are only remaining quiet on the specifics of the case because we have been asked to do so by the authorities. Would you like us to pervert the course of justice to meet your needy curiousity this minute? Not likely, so quit it. !slynne ---------- (195) #12 S. Lynne Fremont (slynne) Sun, Sep 19, 2004 (21:38). 3 lines. Really Richard, we are not posting the specifics of the subpoena because we have been told not to. We will disclose any information we can at a later date. !richard ---------- (195) #13 Richard J. Wallner (richard) Sun, Sep 19, 2004 (22:19). 16 lines. #12...WHO told you not to discuss it? It has never been stated that the board has requested or retained any official legal advice. But anyway, just in general terms, is the reason somebody said not to discuss it openly because compliance with the subpoena by staff, would require staff to do something the membership already voted (maybe even more than once) to NOT do? Under what circumstances can staff unilaterally choose to undertake an action that directly countermands the stated wishes of the membership? And how ethical would it be for staff to comply in this fashion without requesting another member vote to authorize it? And if I'm way off base on what this is about, well this is what happens if you choose not to discuss things. It is better to be open about everything. I would suggest that whoever SUGGESTED that the board not talk about this subpoena was simply offering bad advice. !gelinas ---------- (195) #14 Joseph L Gelinas (gelinas) Sun, Sep 19, 2004 (22:33). 1 line. As usual, Richard, you are spouting shit. !richard ---------- (195) #15 Richard J. Wallner (richard) Sun, Sep 19, 2004 (23:10). 21 lines. As usual Gelinas, you can't respond to the substance of a post and instead resort to insults. I *said* that if I was off base, that is the result of the lack of information being given. Think about it? What would be the reason that the board gets a legal subpoena and they decide not to discuss it? Logically, you'd think the most likely explanation is that the action the board, or the staff at the board's request, would have to take to comply with this subpoena, MIGHT upset some people. "So lets keep it quiet until the deed is done, and then people can complain all they want because it won't matter" Grex is supposed to be a place where everything is run openly. I think if a law firm has requested copies of deleted items, or the undeletion of items, or has in any way, shape or form requested the altering, restoring or analysis of items posted on this board, then it is material to the people who posted in those items. And gelinas, don't tell me I'm spouting shit unless you are prepared to back it up, and you can't do that without talking about whats going on. So put up or shut up. !slynne ---------- (195) #16 S. Lynne Fremont (slynne) Sun, Sep 19, 2004 (23:18). 11 lines. Richard, if you would like to donate money specifically earmarked for us to get legal advice about this subpoena so that we can determine if we should or should not comply with the request not to discuss the specifics about it, I will make a motion that we accept the donation and I will personally take this issue to the attorney of your choosing. However, Grex does not have a lot of extra money kicking around right now for legal fees and in the absence of any kind of legal advice, it is best for us not to disclose the particulars of the subpoena we received. I am sorry that bothers you. I can even understand why it would bother you. We will let you know everything at a later date. !naftee ---------- (195) #17 Jim Daloonik (naftee) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (00:44). 1 line. !naftee ---------- (195) #18 Jim Daloonik (naftee) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (00:48). 1 line. richard should sue GreX for witholding information from its members. !other ---------- (195) #19 Eric R Bassey (other) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (02:14). 21 lines. Just to clarify, for those too dense to get it, the subpoena was from a law enforcement agency presumably investigating criminal activity, and the law enforcement agency requested that the material contents of the subpeona not be discussed in order to avoid hindering the investigation. When the investigation is concluded and a case is brought, then discussion will not be able to affect the process. The board has made the choice to comply with the gag request, presumably because of the threat of charges of interference with a criminal investigation if they do not. I believe this is a despicable act of government extortion and bullying, but the individual members of the board have to make this choice for themselves. If it were me, I would want to know the nature of the investigation and what was at stake before deciding whether or not to honor the gag request, and purely on principle might not honor it as an act of civil protest against inappropriate governmental secrecy. Keep in mind I say this knowing nothing of the actual content of the subpoena. !other ---------- (195) #20 Eric R Bassey (other) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (02:16). 3 lines. Of course, if they were investigating polytarp for cyberterrorism, I'd do everything I could to implicate him and assure his prosecution and incarceration, but that's just because I love him. !mary ---------- (195) #21 Mary Remmers (mary) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (07:41). 1 line. Way too much drama here. Way too much. ;-) !scott ---------- (195) #22 Scott Helmke (scott) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (08:24). 2 lines. Richard, please let it for the moment. I'm sure the board doesn't like the gag order any more than you do. !mooncat ---------- (195) #23 Anne Perry (mooncat) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (09:32). 3 lines. Richard seems to be assuming that the Board had decided not to say anythig because of an attorney's advice, or because we don't want to, rather than as an act of compliance to an official request. !mfp ---------- (195) #24 More Femme Please (mfp) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (12:04). 1 line. I hope I'm not more involved with this than anyone else! !naftee ---------- (195) #25 Jim Daloonik (naftee) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (13:23). 1 line. other is pretty funny. !tod ---------- (195) #26 Tod Wilkinson (tod) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (13:39). 2 lines. Obviously, some cops want a copy of someone's mailbox and last logs because they were phishing. There couldn't be anything else useful in prosecution. !aruba ---------- (195) #27 Mark A Conger (aruba) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (14:10). 21 lines. Thanks, richard, for restoring my faith in Grexers - I was surprised no one asked about this earlier. As several people stated - the subpoena came from a law enforcement agency, and the subpoena itself requested that we not discuss its specifics, in order not to hinder an ongoing investigation. This was a request, not a patriot act gag order. The subpoena related to one specific user of Grex. Although we don't know exactly what the case is about, the board and staff have reason to think that it is not a matter of national security, but a more mundane form of criminal activity. The board read the subpoena carefully and weighed its desire to aid the investigation (both because we're responsible citizens, and have always stated that Grex is not to be used for illegal purposes, and because we have no desire to piss off law enforcement) against its desire to do all business as openly as possible. I asked the law enforcement official I spoke with about what we could say publicly, and we agreed that it was OK to say that we responed to a subpoena. (Basically what I said in #2.) As far as I know, the board didn't authorize anything that was in conflict with any member votes or past policy. !tod ---------- (195) #28 Tod Wilkinson (tod) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (14:34). 12 lines. If you need any assistance on the details for handling data acquisition(i.e. integrity, discovery, and disclosure of electronic evidence) then feel free to contact me at todd@plesco.us If you want to be "responsible" citizens and not piss off law enforcement, you should definately strive to consider the tactical and technical ramifications in the digital evidence handling which not only cover chain of custody but might include expert testimony and anything involving admissibility which the prosecutor may need to address. Provide both hard(printed with full header) and soft(disk) copies, etc. Also, if anyone involved in knowledge of this subpoena also has a possibility for being unduly prejudicial or confused on issues then the judge could toss the whole thing out. Careful carefull my lil Colombo crime fighting friends. !naftee ---------- (195) #29 Jim Daloonik (naftee) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (16:58). 1 line. Definitely. !tod ---------- (195) #30 Tod Wilkinson (tod) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (17:21). 1 line. Definaftlee. !ryan ---------- (195) #31 Ryan Antkowiak (ryan) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (20:08). 4 lines. much ado about nothing. i'd be willing to bet this is just some random luser with a fake ebay or paypal webpage that had it email phished account info here. nothing to see here, move along people. !mfp ---------- (195) #32 More Femme Please (mfp) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (21:09). 1 line. I JUST HOPE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME> !mfp ---------- (195) #33 More Femme Please (mfp) Mon, Sep 20, 2004 (21:10). 1 line. LIKE< I HOPE I"LL NEVER HEAR ABOUT IT IF I STOP READING THIS ITEM. !albaugh ---------- (195) #34 Kevin Albaugh (albaugh) Tue, Sep 21, 2004 (00:19). 1 line. These aren't the droids you're looking for... !twenex ---------- (195) #35 Jeff Rollin (twenex) Wed, Sep 22, 2004 (14:13). 3 lines. BAD BAD BAD The beginning of the end......? !mfp ---------- (195) #36 More Femme Please (mfp) Wed, Sep 22, 2004 (16:38). 1 line. Point. !polygon ---------- (195) #37 Lawrence Kestenbaum (polygon) Thu, Sep 23, 2004 (10:12). 3 lines. I was not able to attend that board meeting, but I was kept informed of the issues. Moreover, I'm an attorney and an ACLU member. I advised my fellow board members to comply with the subpoena. !naftee ---------- (195) #38 Jim Daloonik (naftee) Fri, Sep 24, 2004 (02:12). 1 line. Will you support GreX in a court of law. !polygon ---------- (195) #39 Lawrence Kestenbaum (polygon) Fri, Sep 24, 2004 (12:55). 1 line. That depends on what you mean by "support". !naftee ---------- (195) #40 Jim Daloonik (naftee) Sat, Sep 25, 2004 (01:18). 1 line. Offer free legal counel? !naftee ---------- (195) #41 Jim Daloonik (naftee) Sat, Sep 25, 2004 (01:19). 1 line. Counsel, I mean. !polygon ---------- (195) #42 Lawrence Kestenbaum (polygon) Sun, Sep 26, 2004 (22:45). 2 lines. I don't think it would be a good idea for me, or for any board member, to represent Grex as an attorney in court. !naftee ---------- (195) #43 Jim Daloonik (naftee) Mon, Sep 27, 2004 (02:14). 1 line. Why not? I'ts been done on m-net before; I think. !i ---------- (195) #44 Walter Cramer (i) Mon, Sep 27, 2004 (06:32). 3 lines. Remember the old saying: "a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client". It's also possible that polygon's area(s) of expertise don't conveniently happen to be a great match for this legal situation. !twenex ---------- (195) #45 Jeff Rollin (twenex) Mon, Sep 27, 2004 (08:25). 1 line. Re: #43. I think you just answered your own question... !mfp ---------- (195) #46 More Femme Please (mfp) Mon, Sep 27, 2004 (12:30). 1 line. Point. !naftee ---------- (195) #47 Jim Daloonik (naftee) Tue, Sep 28, 2004 (08:31). 1 line. I always forget old sayings :(