HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnch@smaug.West.Sun.COM (John Chandler [Contractor])
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 4 Jan 1993 00:04:05 -0800
Organization: A Window to Throw it Out of
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo71

In article <30DEC199221400138@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell) writes:
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that political conservatives seem 
>more likely to take up new technology than liberals.  Liberals seem to be 
>neo-Luddites in this respect.  
>
>I didn't realize that for some time until I heard Rush Limbaugh point out 
>that only liberals still have rotary telephones.

I'd like to see his research on this.  I know no one who still has
one, and only one of my friends admits to believing Ronald Reagan is a
member of the animal kingdom.

> All I can say is I'm a 
>liberal and I mostly have rotary telephones in my house. (That's one of the 
>things Rush is good for, he makes liberals think about themselves 
>(ourselves)).

I doubt that either your tendencies in phone ownership nor your
beliefs about valid sample sizes generalize to liberals as a class.
Your perspective on Rush *may* be widely held among liberals, but he
make *me* think about how valuable it is to be able to select another
station.  (How long do you think he'd last on Sprockets?)
 
>So my point is that if a member were to rely heavily on 
>input that came through electronic means (meaning e.mail) that the more 
>conservative elements in society might have the upper hand.  No?

I strongly suggest that at the earliest opportunity, you email your
representatives this observation. :-)
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Purpose of a (beneficial) compression virus
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:37:42 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253


Giving some thought to the purpose for such a virus, I find myself with more
and more questions...

    1. If the only true action of the virus is to load itself into memory
       when called, why not place it into a clear plain-as-day CONFIG.SYS
       file as a device driver?

    2. What is different between a virus which takes up residence to
       compress executables on the fly and a device driver which
       compresses files as they are loaded for the first time?

Seems to me the underlying purpose of a virus is to infect systems; if
the user has to install the marker file then the virus can no longer
infect by its own and is no longer useful as a virus.  Why couldn't
the user install a device driver instead?

I would suggest that the best use for a beneficial virus would be on a
larger scale to replicate some code/action over a wide audience.

For example:
   - a virus could suggest repair (and possibly effect the actual
     repair) of an operating system or any other program.

   - update old programs with new versions.

   - take (nationwide! international!) surveys/polls.
     [SAY!  Is this an idea or what?  :-) ]

   - eradicate other (malicious) viruses.

   - eradicate pirated copies of software (its possible!)

Most of these options would include some form of approval of the host.
In the case of updates, for example, it could be a part of the purchase
agreement.  In the case of surveys/polls, it could be part of the code.

In fact, the update example I would suggest is close to how things are
done with Flash BIOSes in PCs - with the exeption that the user calls
the BBS or whatever and gets the new BIOS and downloads it.  Suppose the
user was registered with the manufacturer and when a new BIOS came out,
the manufacturer's BBS called his system, and downloaded the BIOS into
his system one night?  [HHMMMMM.... lots of ethical questions there...]

Lots of things to think about....


--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat        |  Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: rat@ruth.UUCP                 |  80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23        |  ... Files via Fidonet FREQ,
"...because appealing to the masses has |  anon uucp, first time login,
 never appealed to us."                 |  mail to fileserver@ruth.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:27:08 GMT

In article <BZS.93Jan7212452@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>Do you expect the phone company to be liable under similar
>circumstances? As I remember they make no guarantees for unlisted
>numbers nor accept any liability, they merely offer them as a service
>in the most superficial manner and under the stated conditions and
>should there be a problem generally limit their responsibility to
>giving you a new unlisted number.

This brings up a question of mine.

Suppose I choose to have an unlisted phone number.  The phone company (TPC)
charges me a monthly fee for this.  Now Caller-Id is available in this area,
and I call someone who has this, and they get my number, without my knowing
they could.

Does this violate the unlisted number 'contract', since TPC itself released
my number to a third party w/o my consent?  Or does 'unlisted' simply mean
'we won't print it in OUR phone book, or let OUR operators give it out, but
anyone else can'?


-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:28:26 GMT

>I don't care what you do on your home computer. The post I was
>responding to mentionned the virus executing on *other* systems and
>testing on these *other* systems for the presence of a marker file.

The virus searching you root directory for a marker file is wrong? How about
a game searching for a sound card? or any program searching for preferences
file?

If it changed something in it's search then that would be a reason to not
want it around. But, since when did the word search imply 'search and
destroy'?


--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8281 alt.amateur-comp:461 soc.culture.usa:9438 alt.activism:20012
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 4 Jan 93 14:07:50 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell) writes:
> tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes...
> > 
> >2. re: conservative viewpoint would dominate
> >   My experience says no.  Well, sort of no.  Well, it's like 
> >   this... I received gobs of email during my campaign.  Of 
> >   course, some of it was quite thoughtful, and some was flaming 
> >   (from rare to well done). A vast amount of the flames were from 
> >   people who fell into the rough camp of:  All taxes are theft; 
> >   almost all government is wrong; etc. I don't think I would 
> >   classify those as 'conservative', but perhaps the conservatives 
> >   I've met just hadn't flamed that way in person.
> 
> Those kinds of flames are almost identical to the kinds that I see 
> on a regular basis, from people who describe themselves as 
> 'conservative,' although I tend to agree with your analysis.  
> Perhaps they are more libertarian than conservative.

i wouldn't be surprised. in the internet presidential poll the Libertarian
candidate, Andre Marrou came in second, with half as many votes as
Clinton, and quite a few more than Perot or Bush. for some reason or
other (& i have a paper on this somewhere...) people who use computers
have a much greater tendancy toward libertarianism than most.

jason

--
 "Why was I cursed with a woman like you? You're my misery! A knife in my 
  heart! Come on, we can discuss this later. Let's just get married."
	                   - Adam, from the best episode of Northern Exposure
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Boycotting CERT because of the keystroke monitoring advisory?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:56:08 GMT

In article <1ib0grINNhq3@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:

>We passed the CERT advisory on to our company lawyer.  His opinion is that
>the warning notice is unnecessary.  The warning is based on wiretapping
>statutes, which do not require a warning if the recording is being
>performed by one of the parties to the conversation.  He believes that when
>someone connects to one of our computers, our company is one of the
>parties, and therefore the company may record the conversation.

Barry, I think your company lawyer has made a mistake. Assuming that you're
talking about tapping a phone conversation in Massachusetts, the law of the
commonwealth bars this kind of conduct, even though federal law does not.
The only way around this is if there is some reason to believe that a
computer-based conversation would be treated differently from a more
traditional phone tap, and I'm unaware of such a distinction.

Note: whenever one is determining the legality of a wiretap (or
equivalent), one must consult both federal and state law. State law is
often more restrictive.


--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: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:48:28 GMT

In article <m503wB4w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:
>I thought I would give some thought about how a beneficial virus would
>be implemented, so that we're all arguing about the same points.
>
>One assumption I will be making is that the system(s) are single-user
>MSDOS sites - multiuser viruses present a whole new can of worms.

Not the best of assumptions about the state of the future, but an acceptable
basis for discussion.

>First, the user installs the software on their system (System A).  They
>run a program called INSTALL.EXE on the provided distribution diskette.
>With appropriate warnings and notifications, the install program places
>the marker on the system.  It is possible that it would (with notice)
>load the compression virus into memory at that time, so that it would
>start to spread - or a choice could be given to place the virus on
>a file or files, to be activated later (during decompression).

Why should a virus require installation?  If it requires me to run an
install program, why not make it a time-run batch job that will compress
the files daily?

>If the virus was contained in the MARKER, then when a compressed file
>leaves the system (such as taking a compressed executable from System A
>to System B) there is no virus at ALL present in the file, and the virus
>does not spread.

This begins to invalidate the name 'virus' - the program then becomes a
compression TSR, producing self-extracting executables

>One possible problem would be a malicious virus masquerading as a
>valid marker file.  Then any file compressed with the beneficial
>virus would activate the malicious virus - some sort of check would
>have to be made that the virus was the *RIGHT* virus.

With all the attendant troubles of verification and the slowdown it will
present.

>Having considered the infected file, let's consider the virus in operation.
>It is assumed that the virus has only been placed in memory after it has
>been verified that the marker was present, and it is okay for it to run.

Does the virus get removed from memory after the executable stops?  If not,
then what happens when another executable is run?

>   3. If the file is not compressed, it would write out to the file on
>      disk, in order:
>         - the marker check routine
>         - the decompression routine
>         - the compressed executable
>
>   4. It would then delete the original and rename the temporary file to
>      be the original.

Note that this would change the creation date of every executable every time
the program was run.  Even on a single-user MS-DOS system, this can have
some undesirable results.


-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Compression Virus?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:39:19 GMT

In <19232@mindlink.bc.ca> Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher) writes:

>A compression virus would be an interesting project.

Thank you.  Its good to finally hear some positive feedback.

>It would be smaller to
>patch the OS somehow to call a decompression routine whenever it loads a file
>because you wouldn't have to have the decompresser (and compressor and
>replication system if it was a true virus) in every file.

Personally, I think a BCV (Beneficial Compression Virus :-)) _would_
have a few advantages to an OS patch.  For one thing, it could be
accomplished by someone who doesn't feel expert enough to be fooling
around with the OS.  Patching the OS could also potentially lead to a
lot of compatability problems.

Concerning size: an option to be considered is to have the marker file
(VIRUSOK!.MRK in your example) actually contain some of the code the
virus executes in order to eliminate some redundancy.  

>Safety wouldn't be much of a concern if you had it looking for a certain file
>(VIRUSOK!.MRK or some such incredibly rare name) but the project has no
>practical use aside from an experiment.

I wouldn't say that the project has _no_ practical use.  When the idea 
originally came to me it was because I use PowerPacker on my Amiga.
PowerPacker can be used to compress an executable, with the
decompression code prepended.  There are a few nuisances associated
with using this.  One is that I had to manually select every file to
be compressed.  With a BCV I wouldn't have to do this.  I also would
have to recompress after every time I wanted to edit a file
(decompressing to view the original code of course).  A BCV would take
care of this for me.

>P.S. I think people misunderstood the way original poster would have the
>virus use the marking file. The presence of the file would enable the virus,
>therefore if the marker was not present the virus would NOT infect any files.
>It seems some people thought it was the other way, the virus would always
>infect UNLESS it found the marker.

Being the original poster, I'm sorry if anyone got that impression.
It was originally worded as a PERMISSION file.  (The presence of the
marker/file being the permission it needed to spread).

-- 
 Richard Powers    / Disclaimer: My keyboard is \   Computer=Amiga
rpowers@panix.com <  screwy.   Missing  letters  >  Music=Industrial
   Hail Eris!      \ should     be    expected. /   Food=Vegetarian
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:09:10 GMT

>If the BCV is present on your system, and you did not install it yourself,
>
>                       YOU ARE VULNERABLE!

Quit the hysterics, if you install ANY program on your computer then you are
at risk.. A game could have a bug in the high score routine and instead of
recording the high scores it clears half the disk.

>So lesee now....I have the virus program, the marker file/compression
program,
>the install program, the de-install program....

Or, it could all be contained in the breeder virus which would then write all
except the decompression routine into the marker, it could either give you a
menu of choices or it could be all command line driven..

>Manual?  Which manual?  The virus manual?  Why make it a virus if you need
>a manual to use it?

Stop nitpicking, it could just be as simple as running the virus with -H as
the flag.

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
From: raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Beneficial viruses and others: great article....
Date: 10 Jan 93 13:26:07 GMT
Organization: Eaton-Peabody Lab, Boston, MA

There is a *very* nice article in Analog magazine, the February 1993
issue on the newsstands now. It explains in detail the distinctions
between different classes of computer infestations in a few pages,
with good historical references and sound science.

It could answer a lot of the FAQ's about this subject that I've seen
here.
-- 
			Nico Garcia
			CIRL/MEEI
			eddie.mit.edu!eplunix!raoul
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Organization: Netcom
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:47:05 GMT

In article <C0ns5y.DxA@world.std.com> mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves) writes:
>jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>>
>>... legislation should -not- be treated as a cure-all....
>
>You seem to be of the opinion that, at least in certain cases, we
>should have the freedom to harm one another without fear of legal
>recourse.  I find this a poor ideal.

Wake up dude, nobody has or wants that kind of freedom.  We
already have laws that give you a legal recourse against
those who harm you.  Where have you been?

You've been trying real hard to argue that you should be able
to sue not only the party who harmed you, but anyone who is
even peripherally involved in the circumstances in which the
harm occured.  Are you a card-carrying member of the "Committee
to Increase Litigiousness in America"?  I still want to know
(refer to my earlier post) whether you would sue the soap
manufacturer if you got attacked after standing on one of
their soap boxes to deliver a controversial speech.  I hope
you are starting to realize how absurd this discussion is.

Hans Lachman
lachman@netcom.com
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:53:35 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

PS in answer to your other question, "hidden decompression code
attached to executables....self-extracting archives" is not a problem
because self-extracting archives do what they claim to do, decompress
themselves,  and don't go messing with other files on my system. 
  If they DID *offer* to compress other files, we are back at the
"novel installation method." If they messed with other files *without*
saying so, we are back to the "bad" virus.

--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.software-eng,misc.jobs.misc
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Hiring, specialization, and so on (was: Software as PE)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:14:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.222148.1164@netcom.com> lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes:
			.
			.
			.
>In article <522322457DN5.61R@tanda.isis.org> marc@tanda.isis.org writes:
>>
>>        No electronic engineer has ever advertised himself as expert
>>        only with the "Apex Model 5 Logic Analyser".
>
>Software engineers advertise themselves this way because the hiring
>managers typically hire this way.  I would like to see the day when
>hiring managers put more weight on how good an engineer the candidate
>is, based on criteria like those in my list above, and put secondary
>weight on whether the candidate knows how to tweak bit X in operating
>system Y.
Of course, that's the way all of us right-thinking persons
see it, but is history on our side?  This is a big topic,
but are either of these aspects clear to others:
1.  is there something inherent in software
    work that makes the contractor/high
    turnover/narrow specialization/inade-
    quate training/... constellation more
    probable/profitable/desirable than
    obtains in other engineering domains?
2.  has the answer to 1. changed in the
    last ten years?  How will it change in
    the next ten?
			.
			.
			.
-- 

Cameron Laird
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)	+1 713 267 7966
claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net)  	+1 713 996 8546
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8422 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3877 comp.security.misc:2466 alt.privacy:2864 alt.society.civil-liberty:7312
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Boycotting CERT because of the keystroke monitoring advisory?
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:47:59 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <matt-070193085339@wardmac2.med.yale.edu> matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) writes:
>Oh lord, what a horrid possibilty--the electronic equivalent
>of urine testing!
	But much easier to fight.  Read on.

>PS: Now that I have posted this message those keywords will
>turn up in connection with *my* name!  I hope this doesn't
>trigger a dossier on me!  If you think I'm being paranoid, read
>Bamford's {The Puzzle Palace} about some of the things NSA has
>done in the past with keyword searching and "watch lists" of
>trigger words!  Just for completeness I'll add a few more
>keywords: CIA DIA MI5 MI6 NRO KEYHOLE GCHQ KGB (do they still
>operate?).
	Probably the NSA does such things. The have very powerful
	computers and very idle hands just now.  Hopefully they
	will be consigned to the ash-heap of history along with their
	erstwhile friends the KGB BUT should that not happen they are
	unlikely to use any information they get in any but most
	serious of cases.  Why?  For the same reason that the Brits
	let the Germans bomb Coventry.  If they go after people they
	run the risk of showing their hand.  You have to save such a
	system for something really important.  Nickle and dime drug
	users are not worth the effort.  Besides, if busting people
	for words became commonplace it would be the patriotic duty
	of all loyal Americans to resist the illegal parallel government
	in every way possible. (Not that it isn't now mind you!)  It would 
	be the duty of all of us to put trigger words in all of our internet 
	email to keep the job queues on the NSA nice and full. ;-)

	Do everything you can to foul up the parallel government that our
	friends in the the national security apparutus run.  Our foreign
	policy is already run by these guys, don't let our domestic
	policy fall into their hands too.  There is already too little
	freedom left in America.


						smg
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk