HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:40:03 GMT

In article <9301221501.AA03924@pizzabox.demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>If low-cost providers take off in the US, it'll be because they were
>going to happen anyway.  I really don't think EFFs new focus (if it
>is new, and simply not that we just never noticed it before because
>it was played down in favour of all the good publicity lawsuit stuff)
>is going to make a bit of difference, except to the big phone and
>cable companies who stand to gain from changes in the regulations.

It's not new focus, Graham. EFF has always been working for improving
access, and this appears in our original mission statement.

EFF has not abandoned its old work, however. I still help individuals in
trouble and do case management for EFF, for example.


--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:22:36 GMT

In article <BETSYS.93Jan27173737@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:

>  I repeat the question: What *exactly* is your Open Systems initiative
>advocating? What constituent parts of the "gridlock" are you attacking
>and what is it that you want the government, precisely, to do? 

Phone companies are not allowed by PUCs to tariff ISDN affordably.

>  And no, I think *everything* the government does costs money.

How much money do you think it will cost for PUCs to allow phone companies
to tariff ISDN affordably?


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: cudep@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Ian Dickinson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,uk.net
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 11:40:59 -0000
Organization: Team Limpid's Meathead With Aptitude - Kunst und Wahnsinn
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: spatula.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <1993Jan22.112121.14606@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> ade@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Adrian Collins) writes:
>I reckon that most sysops'll just give up if faced with more hassle.

Isn't that exactly the sort of thing that FAST and others (indirectly) want?
The comments about allowing legitimate BBSs to keep a good reputation because
they are licensed is entirely irrelevant since many current BBSs are both
legitimate and have a good reputation.  But They don't reduce the market
and kick out the small guy by leaving it as it is.

Cheers,
-- 
\/ato - Ian Dickinson - NIC handle: ID17                   No-one is to molest
vato@csv.warwick.ac.uk  ...!mcsun!uknet!warwick!vato           the wombat when
/I=I/S=Dickinson/OU=CSV/O=Warwick/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/            anyone is
@c=GB@o=University of Warwick@ou=Computing Services@cn=Ian Dickinson  watching.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: irving@halcyon.com (Larry Gilbert)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing p
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:46:08 GMT

Matt.Midboe@f20.n373.z1.fidonet.org (Matt Midboe) writes:

>        Here you forgot to mention that you can use both channels and
>increase your throughput to 128,000 Kb/s and can use as many channels as
>you want to. 

Don't forget, this is your telephone company providing the service.  A
more truthful statement might be "You can use as many channels as you
can afford."

-- 
Larry Gilbert       |  Copyright 1993             | [:)] This article has
irving@halcyon.com  |  All rights reserved        |  /   been closed smileyed
Seattle, WA, USA    |  Reprinted with permission  |      for the humor-impaired
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:41:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.062501.22612@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>least as advanced technology (probably more because all the wasteful stuff
>to make other carriers compatible would have been unnecessary) from an
>unsplit AT&T. In other words, if the advanced techology paid for the
>duplication in the presence of breakup, in the absence of breakup it would
>have led to even lower rates. Q.E.D.

Not demonstratum -- it presumes that the drive to new customers has not
encouraged the competitors to develop technology which would not have been
on the agenda of the unified Ma Bell.   AT&T did not have the same incentives
to save money that competitors have -- it charged a reasonable margin over
its costs, and had little reason to lower those costs, since it would gain
little, and perhaps lose, by doing so.   It did work on much advanced
technology -- it was far from an evil monolith -- but the wrong incentives
were there.
>If you have to pay more for "competitive service" than for a regulated
>monopoly, then  by definition you've proven it's not competitive. In fact,

Not at all.  If you believe you are getting more service for your higher
dollar, then you have gained from the competition.   Clearly, if directed
by omniscience, a monopoly can operate more efficiently than competing
entities.  Omniscience is in short supply.   If AT&T did something we
didn't like, were were not able to say, "I'll take my business elsewhere"
and it showed up in their customer service and business development plans.
Our only power was through the utility regulators.

>You should read some texts on this subject if you think this. This isn't the
>place for a public utility theory course.

Nor is it the place for a statement that the public utility theory you
happen to support is fact.  Keep this sort of argument out of public debate,
please.
>
>Finally (and please don't take this personally), since you work for
>Clarinet, which is a commercial user of the net, I need to ask if you are
>special pleading on this issue. To forestall an equally fair question of me,

On phone company deregulation?  Hardly.   On worldnet regulation?  I don't
see how it makes a difference, other than my personal beliefs on which makes
a better net.  I forsee no problem with this company operating under either
structure, but I want the best structure for a growing, thriving network.

However, since your last two comments were "go to school" and "what are your
motives?" I think I'll terminate this debate.

-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From: honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 23 Jan 1993 02:46:05 GMT
Organization: Center for Information Technology Integration, Univ of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: honey@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: hone.citi.umich.edu

david sternlight argues that competition in the long-distance market
leads to terrible inefficiencies and duplication, with the consumer
paying higher bills.  this doesn't explain the fact that long-distance
charges plummeted once the at&t long-distance monopoly was busted up.

but the hell with facts, eh, david?

he goes on to claim that "competition only works when a particular set
of circumstances is present" and appeals to the authority of "introductory 
economics textbooks."

david, you've intimated that you're pretty old, but you can't predate adam 
smith!  where are you getting these cockeyed economic theories?!?

	peter
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: John Perry Barlow <barlow@eff.org>
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Reply-To: John Perry Barlow <barlow@icecube.pinedale.wy.us>
Organization: Annuit Coeptis
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 14:14:54 GMT

In article <C174oL.9DI@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)  
writes:

> Is getting a significant percentage of the US poplation net connected
> one of your priorites?  If so, what percentage?  In how many years?
> If so, how do your current initiatives (like pushing high-bandwidth
> access, and presumably high-cost computers to make good use of it)
> fit into that picture?
> 
>

Yes. And we are strong believers in the ability of a robust market to drive the  
creation of better and more accessible tools. 

Right now, most of the few people who have some kind of digital connection are  
jacking in at 2400 baud. This isn't fast enough to carry the rich media and  
easy interfaces which will be required to get Joe Sixpack and my mother online.   

The model we look to is Vail's notion of universal telephone service. At the  
time he proposed it, the home phone was considered a frivolity of the  
ultra-rich. There were many of the same cultural resistance points to the use  
of telephones that computers elicit today. 

But the bottom line remains civil liberties. When everyone can be a publisher,  
freedom of the press will not just be a legal guarantee. It will be a   
practical one as well.  
-- 

*********************************************************
John Perry Barlow		barlow@eff.org
253 West 73rd, #17H		NeXTmail to:
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jmcarli@srv.PacBell.COM (Jerry M. Carlin)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:09:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.202207.5480@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1jmt98INN3h9@NYAYA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU> reinitz-john@cs.yale.edu (John Reinitz) writes:
>>Be careful, Mike!!! The dinosaurs were around for a good 40 million...
>
>I have the utmost respect for their long survival. But they still stand 
>as evidence that the forces of evolution were not their friends.

Considering what we're doing to the earth and ourselves, I'm not sure
the forces of evolution are our friends either :-) 

But, neatly sequeing back to the topic at hand, ie the evolution or lack
thereof of EFF, I find the continuing comments of people like Mike to
be existance proofs that the worst fears about EFF were mistaken. 

If Mike et al were seriously disturbed about what had gone on, I would
expect either silence or ranting.  Given the volume and tone of their
postings, I've relaxed quite a bit since the first few minutes of panic
after reading the original announcements.

Your mileage may vary.

-- 
Jerry M. Carlin	(510) 823-2441 jmcarli@srv.pacbell.com
Alchemical Engineer and Virtual Realist
From: ssteele@eff.org (Shari Steele)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: More Info To Come on EFF Shortly
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:19:23 GMT
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: ssteele@eff.org

Hi everyone.
As many of you already know, on the evening of November 6, 1992,
approximately 30 computer enthusiasts :), who had gathered for a meeting
of 2600 magazine readers at the food court at Pentagon City Mall in
Arlington, VA, were detained and searched and had some of their
possessions seized by about half a dozen mall security guards acting under
the directions of the Secret Service.  Somewhere between two and five
officers from the Arlington County Police were there, as well, having
responded to a call about fraud.

Several of the attendees are interested in suing the mall, police and
Secret Service, and EFF and CPSR have done some preliminary research into
the case to determine what, if any civil liberties violations were
involved.  After interviewing about a dozen people who were there, we have
determined that the Secret Service does seem to have been involved (a
county police officer on the scene confirmed that), and we are ready to
proceed with the case.

We contacted the Virginia ACLU, which has found a litigator in Northern
Virginia who wants to litigate the case.  EFF, the ACLU and CPSR are
currently doing research on the legal theories we will need to pursue. 
EFF is very committed to standing up for the civil liberties of those who
attended this open, publicized and nondisruptive meeting.

Shari Steele, Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WIRED - new magazine dealing with technology and where it's going
Date: 19 Jan 1993 16:57:56 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com

In article <1993Jan18.232608.9451@src4src.linet.org>, scottw@src4src.linet.org (Scott Weintraub) writes:
|> I saw a little short on CNN FutureWatch about a magazine that should
|> hit the streets on January 26.  It's called WIRED and looks like it's
|> going to report about and discuss many of the same issues the EFF has
|> encountered. 

Billboards advertising this magazine have been showing up in stations
of the MBTA Red Line (a subway serving Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville).

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:9172 alt.conspiracy:14563
From: S.A.McIntyre@durham.ac.uk (Scott A. McIntyre)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,uk.net,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes? - Must be stopped!
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:53:06 GMT
Reply-To: S.A.McIntyre@durham.ac.uk
Organization: University of Durham


This really needs to be stopped before it gets any further.  The limits on intellectual
and personal freedom in this country are already so constraining that I feel like I should
be referred to as Comrade or Citizen.  If FAST or ELSPA have their way it will set a very
dangerous precedent for the government.

Why are so many so willing to be censored by the so righteous?

The goal of FAST and ELSPA (prevention of widespread software piracy) is an admirable one
(from the point of view of the software manufacturer, of course) but controlling and
licensing BBS's is a horrid idea.

Shudder,
Scott

-- 
EMAIL: S.A.McIntyre@durham.ac.uk   OR   scott@shrug.dur.ac.uk (NeXTmail)
SNAIL: Pyschment of Departology, University of Durham, Durham, DH1 3LE
SUN Computers:  "Nice chips, shame about her OS"
"If a virtual tree falls in a virtual forest, does it make a virtual sound?"
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:41:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.203330.12188@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
:>Well, at last, something that's visibly worthwhile.  Could you tell us
:>what 'ways that encourage ...' means in real life?
:
:Like allowing the money to go straight to the universities and other
:institutions it's supposed to serve, so they can pick and choose among
:access providers. This is far more likely to encourage the growth of
:providers than simply dumping the money on a government-approved backbone
:provider.

Have you done any studies to show that this would be the case?  It isn't
intuitively obvious to me yet.  It may well make cheaper the mega expensive
links that big players like universities need, but how does it help drop
the price for joe public and his dial in to something that he couldn't
reasonably deny himself.  (I keep mentioning demon and their $US15/month
feed not as a bit of a free plug :-) - but because it's the sort of
access your whole platform seems to be leading towards *in spirit* but
I don't see you doing anything to make it happen in practise)

G
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bula@fraser.sfu.ca (Frances Anne-Marie Bula)
Subject: University policies on usenet
Summary: Looking for information on university policies re access to newsgroups 
Keywords: pornography; internet; universities
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:40:39 GMT

I'm a newspaper reporter in Vancouver, B.C., writing a story about the
University of B.C.'s recent recommendations on how to handle computer
networks and newsgroup access as a result of complaints about pornography
coming in on them. I'd like information on policies at other universities
and people's comments on the recommendations UBC made (reasonable/unreasonable/
impossible to enforce/whatever you think). 
  To summarize the recommendations, they say that the university should provide
access to all newsgroups since it shouldn't ban electronic communication betweenwilling participants "of messages and images which others might find offensive,
since no such ban applies to other forms of communication." But they do say
people who get accounts should have it made clear to them how the internet
operates and what the penalities are for offensive uses, as well as the
possibilities of criminal charges under Canadian law. They also say admins
of computing units should establish procedures to deal with abuses, and that
someone on campus be appointed to handle complaints about abuse.
  As well, I'm interested in any attempts at legislation made anywhere to
restrict network use to any group because of concerns about pornography.
Thanks
Frances Bula (bula@sfu.ca)
ZZZZ
ZZZZ

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Mitchell Kapor <mkapor@eff.org>
Subject: EFF,  ACLU, CPSR take on 2600 Mall Case
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A78588CA990190C9@mkatra.eff.org>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:19:38 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:19:35 GMT

On the evening of November 6, 1992, approximately 30 computer enthusiasts,
who had gathered for a meeting of 2600 magazine readers at the food court
at Pentagon City Mall in Arlington, VA, were detained and searched and had
some of their possessions seized by about half a dozen mall security
guards
acting under the direction of the Secret Service.  Somewhere between two
and five officers from the Arlington County Police were there, as well,
having
responded to a call about fraud.

Several of the attendees are interested in suing the mall, police and
Secret Service, and EFF and CPSR have done some preliminary research into
the case to determine what, if any, civil liberties violations were
involved.  After interviewing about a dozen people who were there, we have
determined that the Secret Service does seem to have been involved (a
county police officer on the scene confirmed that), and we are ready to
proceed with the case.

We contacted the Virginia ACLU, which has found a litigator in Northern
Virginia who wants to litigate the case.  EFF, the ACLU and CPSR are
currently doing research on the legal theories we will need to pursue. 
EFF
is very committed to standing up for the civil liberties of those who
attended this open, publicized and nondisruptive meeting.

Shari Steele, Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
ssteele@eff.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
From: woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Subject: Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 17:13:52 GMT

[Distribution was "inet"?!?!?  I don't think so!]

In article <1jftlvINNq62@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
> Yes, it is.  Ritchie placed it there, after the patent was
> granted.  Or so goes the version of the story I've seen:
> somewhere there's a copy of the patent documents with his
> signature and the handwritten statement "placed in the
> public domain, <date>".
> 
> ...I just checked Bach, Leffler, and the Jargon file;
> Thompson&Pike of course has the footnote, but it doesn't
> mention the PD-ness; I must've seen it in a Usenet posting;
> that's sort of like hearsay evidence from Richard Nixon...

The complete patent (``Protection of Data File Contents''; US Patent
4,135,240; Jan. 16, 1979; Assigned to Bell Telephone Laboratories,
Inc.; invented by Dennis M Ritchie) is printed in appendix L of ``UNIX
System Security'', Wood & Kochan, 1985 [Hayden].  On the last page of
the reprinted patent is a hand-written statement that says:

	Dedicated to the public
	11/28/79
	991 OG 11

Oddly enough, Kernighan and Pike place a footnote in ``The UNIX
Programming Environment'' [1984] that says "The set-uid bit is
patented by Dennis Ritchie."
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@robohack.UUCP, woods@Elegant.COM  VE3TCP	UniForum Canada & ECI
+1 416 443-1734 [home] +1 416 362-XRSA [work]	Toronto, Ontario; CANADA
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: More Info To Come on
From: bill.slattery@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Bill Slattery) 
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:26:00 GMT
Reply-To: bill.slattery@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Bill Slattery) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121


PN>You understand, of course, that this is enirely too sensible.  You seem
  >stuck on the notion that we want an actual solution; nothing could be
  >further from the truth.  What we really want, of course, is a cadre of
  >white-hatted Good Guys for whom we can cheer as they do battle against the
  >evil Suits.  Actually solving the problem without punishing any bad guys is
  >far less appealing.

Neither one of you guys seems to understand that freedom is scary as
hell and nobody wants it.  Every Fourth of July some nut case shows up
in a mall with a copy of the Bill of Rights as asks people to endorse
it.  Every year most people recoil from it as from a dangerous snake.
You want people to say what they think?  You think it's okay to meet
with your friends?  You think I don't have to be a Methodist?  What are
you, some kind of commie?
---
 * SYL.LA.BLES - New.port, RI  (401) 848-9925
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  SYLLABLES (#1834) : RelayNet(tm)
                                                                   
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: More Info To Come on EFF Shortly
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:32:49 GMT

In article <CKD.93Jan20191149@loiosh.eff.org> mkapor@eff.org writes:
:
:So how come you can get unlimited Internet email and FTP using Worldlink
:software from Intercon with a net connection to PSI for a flat rate of $29
:per month?  That's better than Prodigy, Compuserve, or any other commercial
:service.  The highly distributed nature of TCP/IP makes it fundamentally
:cheaper than mainframe-based systems.

Getting slightly sidetracked here, but I wanted to follow up on an earlier
point.  I mentioned that demon.co.uk offered tcp/ip access and your own
internet site for US$15/month.  Lots of people mailed me to say that several
XYZ companies also offered unmetered internet for similar rates.  I
think most of the people who mailed me missed a point: I wasn't talking
about a login shell on some net connected machine, I was talking about
raw tcp/ip access to the Big Wire itself. There's an order of magnitude
difference in that kind of tcp/ip (slip or ppp) access to just having
a unix shell somewhere.

I'd still like to know who in the states, if any, does unmetered tcp/ip
access cheaply (without forcing you to use an expensive special phone
service to access it and hide the connection charges.)

From Mitch's wording above, it looks like Worldlink may be the sort of
service I'm looking for - except he says 'email and ftp' instead of the
magic words 'slip and ppp' which makes me less sure...

G
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix