Mandatory Membership

[+The Jester]

In scanning this thread, I get the feeling that some people think the only way a cache goes missing is cache thieves. I've had a couple of well hidden caches that were found by non-cachers - without GPSr's or co-ords or any idea the sport exists. So when a cache goes missing - muggles? cache thief? How can you tell - is the thief going to log a 'steal'?

[+Wreck Diver]

We're talking the geo-grandma's and the like who are lucky to know how to surf the web, let alone wanting to get a new-fangled account. I don't care what they contribute to the e-community. They contribute to the world by being there. Doing their thing.

That explains all of the Travel Bug Graveyards...

[+Renegade Knight]

I have no problem turning away parasites who give nothing to the game in the form of logs or caches. There is no loss because you never know they were there to begin with. If it saves a few stolen caches it’s a small price to pay. As a cache owner I’m not in this game to be the regional ammo can supplier.

 

Granted there are those who only sign the cache log, but since those are stolen with the cache, if they are too persnickety to sign up and then go back to just signing the cache log, I'm not sure I'm missing much from them either.

 

As for kids, they have parents, as for the computer illiterate, they know someone who can help. If you are too paranoid for your own good just go with friends who aren’t. If you are legitimate you can sign up for a free account. If someone who never bothered to give back should give up the game because of their moral stand, who the hell really cares? It's like the points on who's line is it anyway. They just don't matter.

[+Renegade Knight]

In scanning this thread, I get the feeling that some people think the only way a cache goes missing is cache thieves. I've had a couple of well hidden caches that were found by non-cachers - without GPSr's or co-ords or any idea the sport exists. So when a cache goes missing - muggles? cache thief? How can you tell - is the thief going to log a 'steal'?

Accidental finds are another topic. There is no control, some people get introduced to the game that way. Some sign the log and so on.

 

We put in a stash note and try to hide it well and call it a day. This thread isn't about those people.

[+The Jester]

But how do you tell the difference? Missing cache is missing cache.

[+cachew nut]

New scenario, this is a stretch but I guess it's only a matter of time. Some non-registered person decides to tamper with a cache after he finds this website. Ordinarily the cache is well hidden where nobody would discover it by accident. The tampering causes another geocacher to be injured or killed.

 

The FBI investigates and asks Groundspeak to provide a list of users who have accessed the website. to help in the investigation. Groundspeak gives up the list but informs the FBI that it could also have been a non-member since the coordinates are available to anybody, there is no security.

 

Family members of the dead geocacher file a civil lawsuit after hearing the results of the investigation and despite the finest lawyers, the jury is sympathetic to the family once it is disclosed that there was a means to prevent this from happening, it was discussed in the forums so they were aware of it, but it happened anyway because of inaction.

 

The site ends up going away because the jury awards more money than the site takes in, and we all end up being losers.

[+bons]

New scenario:

 

Time travellers from the future come back in order to save us. They're looking for the geocache that time forgot in order to place the artifact of webolsniter. Unfortunately they only have public access through a library and cannot verify their e-mail address. As a result the world is taken over by alien evangelical politicians and the do not call list is revoked.

 

Also a stretch, but what the heck, we're allowed to make up stories. Soon we'll bring out the FUD guns. (Fear, uncertainty, doubt).

 

The thing I like about cachew nut's scenario is that it all hinges on the following line: "Some non-registered person decides to tamper with a cache after he finds this website." I love that line because it shows how clearly the proposed solution doesn't solve the problem.

 

The proposed "solution" doesn't stop anyone willing to create a throwaway account (even easier than a sockpuppet account). It doesn't do anything about those people who find a cache without the use of the website (is the "muggle" word in the filters yet?). And still it all hinges on the assumption that making people create an account would actually "prevent this from happening", despite the fact that it would obviously do no such thing.

 

So far, no one has even shown that members only caches are more secure than open caches. As far as I can tell they get up and walk away just like any other cache out there. And since MOCs have all the "protection" people here are asking for and more, I would think that it would be easy to prove what a difference that protection makes.

 

Edit: I love RK's use of the phrase: "If you are too paranoid for your own good". It fits in so well with this entire thread. Remember, there are people out there who will booby trap your cache and lawsuits will result unless you make them create an account. That'll give your cache all the protection it needs. After all, no one with an account does anything bad and no one ever finds caches except through the website.

Edited May 13, 2004 by bons

[janx]

Seems like we're going around in circles here.

 

I was under the impression, that this hobby got started with people putting caches out, and people consulting a list of coordinates, then hunting them down. They'd then sign the log, and maybe write in the coords for another cache in the log. All of this on paper. If the e-log is so bloody important, why aren't we all doing Virtual Caches with an automated-verifier code for the cache. By RK's logic, the cache has no value, it's the online presence that matters.

 

Therefore, if the cache has no value, what's the big deal?

 

It seems like there's a split on thinking here.

 

Some people want every user to login before they can see cache coordinates. The two basic screens (cache page and search) are pretty easy to secure that way. If there are any other spots coords appear, they may take more time to hunt down. If you want logging on who VIEWED a cache/search page, it's easy to code, but the logs could quickly get big, and would likely be useless.

 

If you allow a multi-state viewing flag to exist for each cache, it's easy to implement. Basically you're looking at "Premium","Members","Open" states for what level of access each cache gets. This too is easy to implement. The problem comes in on a search page. What do I show? Do I not show any caches above your current access level? Or do I simply hide their coordinates. By hiding caches that are not "open" for an unregistered user, he may think there aren't any caches in his area, and decide this hobby isn't worth it to him. Or the UI would need to show some clue that there are caches around, but he needs to login to see them.

 

As said before, the cache-wreckers will get an account and go back to business. Heck, the "Premium" caches would have the least likely problem, since few who would pay to wreck caches.

 

Currently, very few caches are Premium. This generally means that there is less foot traffic to the cache. Some people think its number of hits on their cache that matters. However, the more people you've got going to it, the more likely it will disappear.

 

If all the caches were premium, then newbies would'd see many caches, and like my original scenario, they'd get turned off.

 

Now let's clarify something. With a Premium account, if I set my cache to MOC (Members Only Cache), who sees it? Members, or Premium Members?

 

So Jeremy and company will do what's feasible, and effective. There may be better things for them to do.

 

Janx

[+bigredmed]

The issue of mandatory membership won't solve the cache theft problem. There are just too many accidental finds and creepy evil geocachers that think its cool to screw with other people's stuff.

 

The point of altering memberships should be the same as the point of the new HAM radio licenses. Instead of making people learn Morse code to start the hobby, they let people get fairly large privileges at the Tech license, but to get to global communications and other really cool stuff, you need to move up.

 

Here would be my suggestion:

 

1. Member: Free

 

Privileges: Access to forums is read only, access to cache list and travel bugs, no placement of caches.

 

2. General Membership: $30/year OR placement of caches equal to 5/5 in a given year. (must be fewer than 3 total caches (1 5/5 cache or 2 3/3 caches OK)

 

Privileges: Same as current

 

3. Advanced Cacher membership: $50/year

 

Privileges: Same as general with addition of placement of experimental caches and larger file upload space.

[+cachew nut]

Time travellers from the future come back in order to save us. They're looking for the geocache that time forgot in order to place the artifact of webolsniter. Unfortunately they only have public access through a library and cannot verify their e-mail address.

Because Groundspeak was smart enough to listen to its membership's request for some action, and the time traveller's email bounced. Everything is working as it is supposed to.

The proposed "solution" doesn't stop anyone willing to create a throwaway account (even easier than a sockpuppet account).

See above

It doesn't do anything about those people who find a cache without the use of the website (is the "muggle" word in the filters yet?).

Ordinarily the cache is well hidden where nobody would discover it by accident. You must not have taken the time to read this while you were busy making up spaceman stories. What's a webolsniter anyway?

So far, no one has even shown that members only caches are more secure than open caches. As far as I can tell they get up and walk away just like any other cache out there. And since MOCs have all the "protection" people here are asking for and more, I would think that it would be easy to prove what a difference that protection makes.

We weren't talking about MOCs, but since you brought it up, answer this:

 

Would Groundspeak be able to provide an investigator a list of members who had access to the coordinates if asked to do so?

 

This conversation did not take place between on Onstar subscriber and Groundspeak:

Q-Mr. Irish, why didn't you take the necessary steps to prevent this from happening? You were obviously aware of the situation.

A-Because there are some virtual geocachers out in Podunk who can't be bothered with indentifying themselves by registering an email address. I was banking on these virtual geocachers to bring this game to a higher level somehow, I haven't quite figured out the details yet, but in hindsight maybe this wasn't such a good idea. Sorry.

[+CrimsonWrath]

Tangent:

 

At them moment I can think of 4 caches I've seen with combination locks on them. On all 4 caches, the combination is/was on the site. Of these four, two have gone missing. Of the two, neither one had the lock opened via the combination. That leads me to think that of the two caches deliberately stolen, neither was taken by people who found the co-ordinates via the website (otherwise they would have copied the combination along with the co-ordinates).

 

So, what is everyone else's experience with combination locks with the combination posted on the site? When a cache with a combination lock goes missing or has the contents taken does it appear that the combination was used or that the lock was bypassed/broken.

My combination was posted at the first waypoint of a multi. Cache was stolen when the securing cable/lock was cut, not the combination lock. The cache was a bit exposed in a remote area so there was a possibility in my case that the cache was stolen by someone wandering by... in the middle of a huge field... with bolt cutters.

 

Schold Farm - Wrath!

[janx]

CW, I think you're argument is based on the premise that the list of people who have access to a cache is a small one. From that small list, an investigator would have a clue of who might be a suspect.

 

The fact is ANYONE who browses to that cache page would be logged. The list could easily be thousands of members long. And knowing who "looked" at the cache page does not lead you reliably to a list of suspects. Furthermore, any search queries/reports etc. that supply lists of coords (pocketqueries, etc) would be unlikely to be logged as a visit. Thus, I'd run a search, get a ton of coords, not get logged as having viewed a given cache, and then go on my merry cache-wrecking way.

 

It would be inaccurate and unfeasible to log each cache returned in a search as "viewed" because anyone who searched for caches within 100 miles would register as having "viewed" a cache that they really didn't effectively view. You'd get so many false positives that it would make it useless as an investigative report.

 

GC.com is better off hiring a lawyer to write a disclaimer on the posting of caches.

 

Look, it sucks that somebody wrecked your cache(s). But technology doesn't solve every problem. And given how many caches are put out there without the placer having express, direct permission of the land-owner, you can't guarrantee me that EVERY cache that was wrecked, was absolutely legal in the first place.

 

I've seen plenty of people say, "since there was already a cache there, I put one there. They've got permission after all." This is such legal baloney, I'm surprised people don't see it. As a land owner, I might let my friend Joe, who I know and trust to put a cache on my land. That does not mean I want caches everywhere on my land.

 

So, can you prove the cache was legal and permitted by the absolute controller of the land?

Are there possibilities that the land owner found it and removed it?

Are there possibilities that you ticked off someone in a GC.com forum or cache log comment (yet another reason for not registering)?

Are there possibilities that non-geocachers found it, and took it (if I found a box with a lock in the middle of the woods, I'd be inclined to get a hacksaw and open it too).

What would a list of everyone who potentially saw the coordinates to my cache get me (if my coords came on your screen in anyway, you're on the list)?

 

It's not that logging and require users to login to see caches is a bad idea. Its just that it doesn't really solve the problem, so why spend resources on it.

 

Janx

[+cachew nut]

GC.com is better off hiring a lawyer to write a disclaimer on the posting of caches.

How are you going to verify that a virtual geocacher read a disclaimer, when you don't know who the person is until they file a lawsuit. The jury might cut you some slack for having a disclaimer.

[+CrimsonWrath]

CW, I think you're argument is based on the premise that the list of people who have access to a cache is a small one.  From that small list, an investigator would have a clue of who might be a suspect.

 

The fact is ANYONE who browses to that cache page would be logged.  The list could easily be thousands of members long.  And knowing who "looked" at the cache page does not lead you reliably to a list of suspects.  Furthermore, any search queries/reports etc. that supply lists of coords (pocketqueries, etc) would be unlikely to be logged as a visit.  Thus, I'd run a search, get a ton of coords, not get logged as having viewed a given cache, and then go on my merry cache-wrecking way. 

 

It would be inaccurate and unfeasible to log each cache returned in a search as "viewed" because anyone who searched for caches within 100 miles would register as having "viewed" a cache that they really didn't effectively view.  You'd get so many false positives that it would make it useless as an investigative report.

 

GC.com is better off hiring a lawyer to write a disclaimer on the posting of caches.

 

Look, it sucks that somebody wrecked your cache(s).  But technology doesn't solve every problem.  And given how many caches are put out there without the placer having express, direct permission of the land-owner, you can't guarrantee me that EVERY cache that was wrecked, was absolutely legal in the first place.

 

I've seen plenty of people say, "since there was already a cache there, I put one there.  They've got permission after all."    This is such legal baloney, I'm surprised people don't see it.  As a land owner, I might let my friend Joe, who I know and trust to put a cache on my land.  That does not mean I want caches everywhere on my land.

 

So, can you prove the cache was legal and permitted by the absolute controller of the land?

Are there possibilities that the land owner found it and removed it?

Are there possibilities that you ticked off someone in a GC.com forum or cache log comment (yet another reason for not registering)?

Are there possibilities that non-geocachers found it, and took it (if I found a box with a lock in the middle of the woods, I'd be inclined to get a hacksaw and open it too).

What would a list of everyone who potentially saw the coordinates to my cache get me (if my coords came on your screen in anyway, you're on the list)?

 

It's not that logging and require users to login to see caches is a bad idea.  Its just that it doesn't really solve the problem, so why spend resources on it.

 

Janx

This appears directed to me, so let me see if I can answer your questions.

 

But first, I do not think that logging viewers of a cache page will help secure a cache nor will it deter theives. Perhaps I've been unclear, but it sounds like we both are agreeing on this point.

 

My "premise" of a list of viewers being small helps to illustrate my point. Even if the list is small, you have no clue if one of those viewers stole the cache or someone else entirely. The same is true if you had one or zero viewers.

 

I'm not upset at all about my lost cache. It was exposed and I was in the process of replacing it anyway. I was just running the tangent that was laid out. It helped illustrate that a cache with a lock on it can be compromised as can any amount of security that is coded into the website -- someone will find a way to get around it. (at least I think that was the point of the tangent!)

 

I cannot prove that the placement was approved by the controller of the land. The cache that I placed, was done so with a group of other cachers. I am under the impression (since what I was told was from another cacher that had gained approval) that permission was approved for the entire area and I was invited by a local cacher to join and place a whole group of caches in the area. There were no caches in the area until we all placed ours within a week or so of each other. On another note, for the few caches that I've placed, I stand by each of them gaining the proper authority necessary (in a few cases, citing Criminal's "frisbee" law).

 

It is possible that the land owner found it and removed it. I don't know.

 

I don't think I've ticked off anyone (except for locals trying to find my A-Maze-ing cache -- ooo, that's a tough one) local or in the forums. While my username may indicate otherwise, I'm generally mild mannered. You aren't mad at me, are you?

 

It is very, very likely that someone happened upon it and decided to get the cache with bolt cutters (not a hacksaw since the cut on the keyed lock that was securing it is quite clean). No problem. I hope they enjoy their rusty ammo can with toys inside!

 

Your last question is exactly the point.

What would a list of everyone who potentially saw the coordinates to my cache get me (if my coords came on your screen in anyway, you're on the list)?

Answer: Nothing.

[+Starglider]

Privileges:  Same as general with addition of placement of experimental caches and larger file upload space.

Charging users for providing content is not the best idea if you want to keep a web service alive

[+kone]

People are repeating the same things over and over in this thread... so I guess I will also.

 

Why not just please everybody and say that the site needs a new flag when adding a new cache. The new flag is "Visible to non-registered visitors" and is defaulted to "Yes". Not a lot of extra coding work, should be fairly simple for Jeremy to add this in.

 

Problem solved, no? People that want to add the extra protection (real or percieved) can do so if they desire.

Edited May 13, 2004 by kone

[+bigredmed]

Privileges:  Same as general with addition of placement of experimental caches and larger file upload space.

Charging users for providing content is not the best idea if you want to keep a web service alive

No but it is the best way to assure that the people who are trying experimental caches are actually serious about it. If you are serious in your interest to try to develop new variations on geocaching, or cache types, you will pony up the extra money. This will result in a FEW people who try new things using a small server space to share their experiments.

 

My suggestion would require membership. You couldn't access the site fully without it. There are ways to make this low level membership free (preferably also limited to one person, so as to reduce the sock puppets.)

 

The general membership should cost something. Either cash or cache, no one joins for free.

 

The experimental category should cost more as there will be added needs to support communication regarding cache types and such and this isn't free.

[+Starglider]

Why not just please everybody and say that the site needs a new flag when adding a new cache.  The new flag is "Visible to non-registered visitors" and is defaulted to "Yes".  Not a lot of extra coding work, should be fairly simple for Jeremy to add this in.

Excellent idea!

[janx]

nah, I'm not mad at you CW. My first statement was talking to a point you made in a prior post.

 

The rest just breaks down the technical ramifications. Probably should have worded it differently, to be clear.

 

My whole point is, there's not a lot of benefit from tightening up security.

 

Janx