|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
"IP Tracking" is ENABLED at www.ucimc.org |
Current rating: 0 |
by Paul Kotheimer
Email: herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified!)
Phone: 217-384-0299 |
24 Jul 2002
Modified: 28 Jul 2002 |
|
A WORKING DRAFT for an interview between IMC reporter(s) and IMC-Tech volunteer(s) about the decision to turn "IP Tracking" on at www.ucimc.org |
Earlier this week, IMC-Tech volunteer and groogroo.com webspace provider Zach Miller alerted users of this website that "IP Tracking" would be turned on as part of a security and fact-finding investigation. Concerns were raised from at least one other IMC-Tech volunteer in response to this announcement.
In response to the concerns, Zach asked that discussion about the issue take place "off list." In respect to his wish of keeping it "off list," I have brought it to the newswire.
Here are the questions which I, as an IMC reporter, envision my community might want to know about what's going on with our website. I have e-mailed these questions to Zach, and I'm hoping that all of the Urbana-Champaign IMC's members and participants will be interested in the answers.
***************************************
What is IP Tracking?
Why would any indymedia site worldwide ever use it? Under what conditions is it turned on at www.ucimc.org?
Why exactly was "IP Tracking" turned on at www.ucimc.org this week?
What implications does "IP Tracking" have for me if I want to submit an anonymous report, for example, about a street protest or about being arrested?
What is the current decision-making structure for turning IP Tracking on at www.ucimc.org?
Why, in your opinion, does the UC-IMC need such a small group making decisions which affect every user of www.ucimc.org?
If U-C IMC members expressed concerns that decisions at the U-C IMC are being made by a smaller and smaller group of "usual suspects," and that this habit erodes the identity of the U-C IMC as a "consensus decision-making" organization, how would you respond?
*****************************************
Please feel free to add questions or comments about the situation using the "COMMENTS" button below. |
Comments
|
Discussion of The Issues |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Jul 2002
|
Actually, a much better course of action is to examine the UCIMC Website Abuse Abatement Policy, available at:
http://www.ucimc.org/abuse_policy.php3
then come to one of the two meetings in the next few days that will followup on why the policy was invoked. Those meetings are the Tech group meeting tonight (Wed.) at 6pm and the Steering group meeting Sunday at noon, both at the IMC.
The reasons that the policy was invoked are complex, but significant to the ability of the UCIMC to provide the uniterrupted service that regular users expect. This will be fully explained at these meetings, with opportunities for input about any concerns about this policy. The actions taken so far are in accord with the policy. |
|
easy answers, and I don't even hang |
by cmb
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Jul 2002
|
"Why, in your opinion, does the UC-IMC need such a small group making decisions which
affect every user of www.ucimc.org?"
Because people don't show up to the open meetings? From what I'm told, the IMC uses a consensus method which allows dissenters the chance to block inappropriate actions and, apparently, force further study.
If U-C IMC members expressed concerns that decisions at the U-C IMC are being made by
a smaller and smaller group of "usual suspects," and that this habit erodes the identity of the
U-C IMC as a "consensus decision-making" organization, how would you respond?
Tell them to show up at the open meetings? |
|
appropriate? |
by jw
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Jul 2002
|
All decisions made so far on this issue seem in accord with publically set IMC policy, from what I can find. The only thing that seems inappropriate so far is the choice to 'question' the issue in a public forum when asked not to (I am assuming the author of this article is intelligent enough to read intent rather than just explicit details from Zack's letter.) It seems particularly innappropriate because this action on the author's part clearly implies a distrust of the individuals that the IMC membership has concensed to trust with the decision to enable the IP tracking function. If the individual the IMC has placed this trust in found it necessary and took action along guidelines set by IMC policy and then requested that it not be discussed in a public forum until the open-to-all IMC steering meeting this weekend (although all were invited to e-mail Zach privately to discuss their concerns and have questions answered) it would seem only logical to believe the person empowered by the IMC to take this action should have their wishes respected, at least until better understood, in case this individual was correct that it could have negative reprocussions to make the debate public on the internet at this time. This article is nothing less than disrespectful of the IMC membership and process.
My only point of agreement with the author is that it was possibly appropriate to warn users of the site that the IP fuction was activated so they could make an informed choice about how they wished to use the site, but I would have pursued this concern privately until the steering meeting, as had been requested by trusted and empowered members of the UC-IMC. |
|
Inappropriate? |
by The Author
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 Jul 2002
|
When is it inappropriate to ask questions?
I assert that it IS appropriate for me to use resources to my desired ends, on behalf of my community, so far as I can imagine doing so and succeed in executing what I imagine.
I am an IMC participant and designer. I use language. I ask questions.
You, jw,--along with other commentors to my article--have made a number of assumptions based on the text of the questions I propose to pose. I urge you to question those assumptions.
I still hold that IMC participants need the information which would be contained in answers to the questions I proposed.
If you read my original article again, you'll note that I still don't even know what "IP Tracking" IS, (fer cryin' out loud...) I just want INFORMATION, both for myself personally and for the users of this site. |
|
no one said not to ask questions ... |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 Jul 2002
|
... however, it seems that there were concerns about asking them on the newswire. Why not just email Zach directly?
In matters of network security, it is generally not a good idea to publicize the security measures you're taking. This kind of information allows abusers and hackers to rapidly identify countermeasures and avenues of attack.
It's inappropriate to ask questions like "what's your password" when there are people I don't want to know my password present. Rather, you can ask the question in that context, but it's inappropriate to expect an answer other than "can we talk about this privately?" or "that's none of your business".
The question "what is IP tracking" is analogous. If I want to use it to prevent people from abusing my website, it would be a lot better for me if they didn't know what it was, and how it works. |
|
Technology, Security, and Power |
by Paul Kotheimer, again
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 Jul 2002
|
Being told what constitutes a "better course of action" (ML), I respond that each participant in the IMC is a maker of the IMC's best course of action, and when you tell me, as if it's a matter of fact, what a "much better course of action" IS, you create a hierarchy which discounts and dismisses what is creative, effective, and useful about MY course of action.
I want OUT of such hierarchies, which is why I am helping create an IMC.
Being told that my submission is "nothing less than disrespectful of the IMC membership and process," (jw) I argue that independent persons have a fundemental motivation to amplify information in any context where it might become useful or desired. This is, in part, the mission of independent media.
I argue further--just as an aside--that "member" has yet to be defined at the UC IMC. If you can show me where it's distinguished what "members" of this IMC are, then maybe we can brainstorm how to "respect" them, singly or in groups. And further still, I argue that the newswire is part of the IMC process, and that it SHOULD be used to ask questions of its own volunteers.
To the "easy answers" submitted by cmb, I reply that (though it may not be as easy) it's worth considering WHY "people don't show up to the open meetings," and what can be done to bring ALL participants' conflicts, concerns, desires, and designs INTO the consensus process of the meeting place, even when those participants can't be there in person. It seems to me, furthermore, that cmb's "easy answers" involve simply telling people what to do. I don't want an organization in which I am told what to do, or in which I am expected to tell others what to do. That's--once again--why I helped start an IMC, and why I am helping it sustain itself, as I say in my original posting, by using language.
To Joe's analogy between my asking "What is IP tracking?" and asking "what's your password?" I respond that the analogy doesn't hold, since one can answer the question without giving away the "key"--i.e., the power to misuse it or circumvent its use.
Also, I want to point out that I'm not a computer company employee in this case. I'm an IMC list-reader and site-user. I don't and can't know whether it's inappropriate to ask what "IP Tracking" is in any given context, because I really DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. So, to point back to Joe's analogy, I argue that my asking "What's IP Tracking" is less like asking "what's your password?" and more like asking "what's a PASSWORD?"
Questions like these ARE appropriate in this venue and now.
Finally, at the heart of this discussion (as I see it) is a fundamental problem: Certain people are trained in the administration of internet technology, and the rest of us aren't. I want an IMC which doesn't perpetuate the power imbalance inherent in this information imbalance. I argue that this desire (along with the above submission motivated, in part, by it) shows, on the contrary, a profound respect for what jw calls "the IMC membership and process." |
|
see the abuse abatement policy. |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Jul 2002
|
Paul, the abuse abatement policy explains everything. It also addresses all of your concerns about IP tracking.
http://www.ucimc.org/abuse_policy.php3
It answers your question about why an indymedia site would use IP tracking: "... specific types of abuse of the IMC website may require temporary logging of IP address information in order to identify abusers and take steps to end the abuse."
That also answers why it was turned on this week: either in response to a "direct threat" or an "attack on the IMC server(s)".
It also answers your question about submitting an anonymous report. "Only threatening posters specifically identified by the Steering Group may have information gathered about them." So your anonymous report would remain anonymous, unless it was a "direct threat".
It also answers your question about the decision-making structure for IP tracking. For threats: "Perceived instances of direct threats are to be brought to the Steering Group, which will decide during a regular meeting if they warrant a response under this policy." For website attacks: "... the administrator(s) or IMC Tech Group may make an emergency determination to identify the source of the attack .... The Steering Group will review this action at its next scheduled meeting."
It doesn't answer your next question, but that question isn't a fair one, unless someone has decided that the Steering Group has to be a "small" group. Those meetings are open to all. So it's only as "small" or "large" as the people who show up.
The next question is predicated on the previous one, so again I don't think it's fair. I don't care how many people were involved in a decision about IP tracking as long as it's consistent with the abuse abatement policy and I agree with the abuse abatement policy, and if I can go to a meeting to find out whether the decision was consistent with the policy and the policy is open for discussion in the event that I don't agree with it, then I don't see where the lack of consent is.
And if I want to be consulted before an IP tracking decision is made, there are two implications under the current policy. For direct threats, I need to come to the Steering Group meetings. For website attacks, I need to be a site administrator. If I don't agree with that policy, then I need to come to a Steering Group meeting and propose that the policy be changed. And if I don't want to have to come to Steering Group meetings, I need to go to a Steering Group meeting and propose that there be some other mechanism for me to be involved in decision-making.
So I don't think there's any other way here, Paul -- better pencil that Steering Group meeting into your calendar. |
|
The Scenario I Saw |
by Paul Kotheimer, once again
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Jul 2002
|
Joe,
"Read the policy. Show up at the meeting."
This was the advice I was given BEFORE I posted my proposed questions. I considered this course of action inadequate.
Why? Firstly, neither Zach's e-mail nor the policy statement make it clear enough that what Zach called "IP Tracking" in his e-mail was synonymous with what the policy statement defines as the "temporary logging of IP address information."--whatever THAT means.
Furthermore, I read Zach's e-mail to imply 1.) that maybe "IP Tracking" was something new and different from what's covered in the policy; 2.) that whether the policy statement covered the use of this new-and-different thing was subject to interperetation; 3.) that a small group of people made a snap decision about the interperetation of policy 4.) that they made that decision OUTSIDE the IMC's meeting structure (i.e., not in TECH, not in Steering, but in a private phonecall or meeting at someone's house); 5.) that IMC participants were specifically DISCOURAGED from discussing this new-and-different thing, or the decision that was made about it, on the only available plenary forum, the imc listserv; 6.) that the reasons for and the effects of the new-and-different thing would be kept secret for at least a couple of days; and 7.) that the insistence on NOT addressing my questions any other way besides saying, "Read the policy and show up at the meeting" made the whole thing even MORE frustrating and suspicious.
Does this scenario give you a better picture of why I thought 1.) that a Q & A session was in order, PUBLICLY and IMMEDIATELY; 2.) that it couldn't and shouldn't wait until a Wednesday TECH meeting; and 3.) that it was of higher importance to the IMC as an organization than website spam prevention was?
I hope so. And I also hope that you see that a quick little press conference online on Tuesday might have cleared up the misunderstanding WITHOUT compromising website security.
That's what I wanted. |
|
Details posted. |
by Zach
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Jul 2002
|
I have posted a long explanation of what has been happening with this to the newswire.
http://www.ucimc.org/front.php3?article_id=6810&group=webcast
I will be attending the Steering meeting on Sunday as well to answer questions in person. |
|
