HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Organization: Aston University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:19:16 GMT

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: 
: Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
: Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: Message-ID: <ward1.713735730@husc8>
: From: ward1@husc8.harvard.edu (Lester Ward)
: Date: 13 Aug 92 19:55:30 GMT
: 
: There are two main issues brought up here, censorship and legality.  I'm
: completely ignoring the censorship issue, as that did not seem to be the
: original posters main issue.
: 
: As far as legality, a few comments:
: o Copywrites: Although the poster originally brought up images, which have
:   accepted copywrite standards, many other types of posted data is still
:   a bit hazy on exactly what a copywrite is.  Can you copywrite algrothms
:   for example.  I'm speaking from a vaccuum here, so someone will correct
:   me, no doubt.
: 
: o Juristiction: A post from Germany shows up in the USA.  It is illegal in
: the USA, but not in Germany.  Is the poster breaking the law?  There are
: probably not too many precidents for this (its not that likely), but I hope
: the point is clear.  Suppose the post is illegal in both countries; how is
: the poster prosecuted? etc.

This is quite possible as US copyright law has the idea of derived work,
which is still owned by the original copyright owner.
Under other laws such as UK law a work derived from other copyright works
may have copyright owen by the person who acually created it.
e.g. taking a set of images from scanning, clipping and retouching them
may well give the person doing this copyright ownership under UK law,
from what I have read they might well find themselves in trouble in the
US.

Presumably one could use the Berne convention in this case, anyone know
what it actually says about this sort of case?

: 
: o The law: Recent legal decisions have taken a somewhat counter-intuitive
:   slant regarding computer crime.  For example, there have been cases of
:   administrators being brought to trial for reading "private" mail, but
:   found not guilty because mail is not legally private.  There may be
:   similar cases where the administrator was found guilty. Which brings up
:   another point: law is just starting to deal with computers and networks.
: 
: I guess this is the real point: right now, we (the computer literate, network
: literate community) have the ability to steer the law one way or an other.
: The world at large (including most courts and lawyers) don't know much about
: computers.  When dealing with legislating computers, they will have to get
: advice from the experts (us) in making their decisions, decisions which will
: set legal president to the day when everyone uses computers.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin]  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 06:20:53 GMT


From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject:  Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 16:20:46 BST

clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
> In case you missed it, Canada is not only a democracy, but these laws
> enjoy the overwhelming support of the entire country.  State censorship?
> Bullshit.  The state is us.

Even for those of us who advocate its elimination?


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Organization: Aston University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:06:24 GMT

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: 
: From: werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig)
: Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
: Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: Date: 13 Aug 1992 12:56:26 -0500
: Message-ID: <l8l8iaINNnki@dimebox.cs.utexas.edu>
: 
: 	raising "the legal question" (and, anyway, the analogy between
: 	"real life" and CyberSpace ends, as news-distribution isn't
: 	done in a way analogeous to someone abusing my tree or fence,
: 	but more like people sending me junkmail and ringing my doorbell
: 	and phone for "solicitation"...  though by hooking up to the
: 	net, you are actually better off as you can filter out (most)
: 	of what you don't care for by not importing certain newsgroups.
: 	still there always be articles you may object to in newsgroups
: 	you generally care for...  oh, well..)

Oddly on my system I must actually do something to read netnews.
Viz, login and type commands.
Junk mail lies on the door mat in the way, the door bell makes a noise
I don't just walk in and have a terminal start displaying, or have
the phone ring with an insistent modem on the other end.

: 
: 	the problem of avoiding that people post "objectionable" material

In the netnews context 'objectionable' may mean posted to the wrong place
For example because people don't check to what newsgroups of sites they
are sending it to.

: 	from your site (or send it by email or make it available for FTP)
: 	is a "completely different animal" (which you'll have to handle
: 	administratively under considerations of "privacy" and "freedom
: 	of speech" and "criminal liability"); when it comes to people
: 	FTPing (or receiving in email) "objectionable material" to your
: 	site, the question of "privacy" becomes even stronger (as the

How are you going to find out what people are being sent in e-mail,
assuming that this information is requested/welcome to it's recipient?
What do you tell the judge if (or when) you get caught reading someone
elses mail or non world readable files?

: 	case to be made that you are criminally liable or that your
: 	reputation suffers (also) when "objectionable material" emanates
: 	from your site versus when someone receives it, is significantly
: 	different)

You support YOUR users if you have any decency.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:59:25 GMT


In article <1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:

>I am not against censoring reasoned argument
>that, for instance, "women like rape" or "children like sex with
>adults" (much as I abhor that position).  I am for censoring
>certain material that makes no arguments, presents no opinions,
>and can have the effect of reinforcing and encouraging rapists
>and child molesters.

	1) Speaking on a topic doesn't make people any less responisble
	   for how they act regarding that topic, nor does it make the
	   "author" responsible for the actions of those who "read" his work.

	2) Creating "straw man" arguments, like "women like rape" and
	   "children like sex with adults," will not get us any closer
	   to understanding what constitutes acceptible speech.  Some women
	   *do* have rape fantasies, far different from rape.  And some minors
	   are capable of forming relationships with older people.

	3) ANd who is to decide what material makes an argument, presents an
	   opinion, or is otherwise worthwhile, and what material is to be
	   censored?  Who is to censor the censors?  And who will censor 
	   them?  Humanity has free will.  We can pick and choose what
	   we see and read, and what we do about it.  America treats its
	   citizens much like adults, letting them have access to information
	   other nations paternalistically "guard" their citizens from.

	   We are not children.  We are capable of deciding right and wrong,
	   and of knowing what actions to take.  There is no rational basis
	   for censoring personal expression, except in **EXTREMELY** limited
	   circumstances, such as libel or "shouting fire in a crowded 
	   theater."

	   Let's move forward into the light of open, honest truth.



Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [rec.arts.fine, et al.]  Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:18:41 GMT


Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine,alt.censorship
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject:  Re: U. of Illinois may remove non"pleasant" art from vistor's center
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 09:15:26 EDT

In article <BsvpxF.AIH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>
>Perhaps one of you folks debating this topic can answer the following
>question for me:
>
>Why is it legal for a University to bad X-rated GIF files from its
>anonymous ftp sites, ban the importation of groups such as
>alt.sex.pictures onto camous machines, but NOT legal for them to take a
>couple of X-rated paintings off of the wall of a campus building?

Who said the paintings were "X-rated?"  According to the posted articles,
university officials specifically stated that they wouldn't go so far as
to describe the paintings as "pornographic"--they were just objectionable.

Furthermore, what makes you assume that it *is* legal for a (public)
university to ban x-rated GIF files, any more so than any other large-space
consuming non-academic related material.

Arguments can be (and have been) made suggesting that (public) schools can
legitimately limit such use of their computer facilities--but I have never
seen a legitimate argument that was based on the "x-rated" content of the
material.  Rather, the arguments are based on lack of resources to support
such (memory-) expensive, non-academically-oriented material.

If a public school attempted to limit access to "x-rated" gifs, solely because
of the content of the material (so long as it was not "obscene") then that
attempt would very likely *not* be legal.

To my knowledge, no such case has ever been litigated, however.


In any case, the issues involved in archiving gif files can hardly be
considered at all related to the case at hand.  The university has displayed
the paintings already, and has made no argument that "lack of resources"
require the removal of the paintings.  The University wishes to remove the
paintings *solely* on the basis of their content.


Can you just imagine the University--"We need to remove these two paintings to
make room for other, academically-related paintings..."

"Hey!  What are those academically-oriented paintings?  Paintings of the
alphabet?"


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin,alt.censorship
From: jtbell@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jon Bell)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Presbyterian College, Clinton SC
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:43:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.000939.2789@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>
>	What is getting ridiculous is the extent to which speech is
>being restricted in the attempt to prevent any mention of "religion" in
>the public schools.  When a student speaker is prohibited from
>mentioning the strong influence of religion in their own life, without
>attempting to impose any expectations on the others, or a student
>privately bowing their head to pray silently in a non-disturbing way
>gets pulled from the assembly, then things have gone too far.
>

Where have these things happened?

>Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den  (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
>news%wolves@cs.duke.edu     ...duke!wolves!news     "We don't need no
>There is a real person who watches this account.   stinking disclaimers"

Jon Bell / Dept. of Physics & Computer Science / Presbyterian College
Clinton SC USA / jtbell@presby.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 17 Aug 92 08:38:54 GMT
Organization: Aston University

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: 
: Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
: From: neuhaus@vier.informatik.uni-kl.de (Stephan Neuhaus (HiWi Mattern))
: Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
: Message-ID: <neuhaus.713788374@vier>
: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:32:54 GMT
: 
: Hi.
: 
:   This does not mean that anybody should read (private) email, by the
: way.  Once a service like mail is offered, it must be available in a
: secure and unoppressive manner.  For example, I believe it's OK for a
: University or company to cancel certain newsgroups, but students or
: employees must not be punished for reading any group once it's
: available, and tracing who reads which newsgroups must not be done.

I would go further and say that anyone who traces who reads what group,
or reads private e-mail or files should be punished. Unless they have
a VERY good reason for doing so.
Crackers are crackers, werther they have legit system privs or not!!

: 
:   In direct answer to the original poster, I believe you should not
: play God yourself and simply cancel the groups.  You should ask for an
: official policy, if only to get your head out of the sling.  If you
: cancelled newsgroups at your own will, that would be arbitrary and
: despotic, even if those groups carried copyrighted or otherwise
: illegally published material.

I think it is clearly implicity in all copyright law that the 'person'
to deal with the case is the copyright owner.
Your duty as a third party is to inform them and do nothing else
unless (and until) they actually ask you.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2656 alt.censorship:7032 news.admin:7189
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:37:00 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <UeYz6mS00XsEA6g0Vc@andrew.cmu.edu>, dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt) writes:
> Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.  
> What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
> (purposefully or by default).

Hmm... doesn't freedom of speech include freedom of assembly,
organized or not?  Those are the grounds that they still allow the
Elk's Club not to admit women. === Al Sparks
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 14 Aug 92 05:35:58 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


From: wengler@ee.rochester.edu (Mikey)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject:  Re: Groups used to distribute illegal material
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:05:16 GMT

In article <BsxH08.GE8@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>However, while I think that it is easy to demonstrate that merely
>controversial material such as the postings to alt.sex.bondage and
>similar groups should not be restricted, much of the material posted
>to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica is _illegal_ and therefor quite hard
>to defend.  (The illegality of this material stems from the fact that
>much of it is distributed in violation of copyright -- this means
>that it is illegal not only in the U.S., but in most of the world.
>There are other legal issues around the occasional depictions of
>bestiality and child pornography, but these appear to be rare enough
>that they are not as much of an issue.)

Aren't virtually all of the image-distribution groups violating
copyright?  Aren't most distributing images which have been scanned in
from copyrighted material?

It is not clear to me why you single out pornographic groups for this
charge.

SImilarly, the other image groups use similarly large proportions of
resources.

You probably need to take a uniform policy toward all image groups on
the basis of copyright or resource use if you don't wish to be involved
in censorship.
-- 
My situation is hopeless,		wengler@ee.rochester.edu
but not serious.			weng@uordbv  (bitnet)
					ur-valhalla!wengler
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2580 alt.censorship:6938
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: WLU sys admins search out "nasty" filenames and passwords
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:55:26 GMT

morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
: 
: I just received a complaint last week about a 
: program named "shit".  It had been placed in the background, and 
: it required several hours of runtime.  I sent the owner of the pro-
: gram a note, explaining the complaints; I also mentioned that, while
: I didn't plan to "take any action", any further complaints would be
: directed to him.  In his reply, he apologized (he didn't realize that 
: other users could see his command names via ps) and changed the name 
: immediately.
: 
	WHat are the privacy, & collaterally, academic freedom concerns
	regarding the ability of everyone on a system to see what you are
	doing?





-- 
Steven S. Brack                    |          sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive                |         STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, Ohio      43620   ________/^\________  brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 
+1 419 GR4 1010           | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Any info on Indiana U Admin?
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:17:20 GMT

gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:

>I hate to interrupt the flamewars, but UVa just hired Polley McClure,
>who was most recently the dean of academic computing at Indiana U.
>Anyone have any comments on her view on news, irc, and other such
>topics? Email would be fine.

One way to try to answer such questions is to do a full text search on
the CAF archive. (I did this. Polley McClure isn't mentioned. Not
incidents have been reported at Indiana U.)

Anyone who can ftp to eff.org can also do a fuzzy full text search on
the CAF archive using "wais".

If you already know what WAIS is, here is the comp-acad-freedom.src
record:

(:source 
   :version  3 
   :ip-address "192.88.144.4"
   :ip-name "wais.eff.org"
   :tcp-port 210
   :database-name "comp-acad-freedom"
   :cost 0.00 
   :cost-unit :free 
   :maintainer "wais@eff.org"
   :description "Files relating to the Computers & Academic Freedom lists.

Includes computer usage policies, bibliographies, archives of old
discussion, and much more.
"
)

Some popular wais programs (clients) include "swais" and "xwais".
Your site may already have these installed. If not, you can
access a client at Thinking Machines via telnet. Just telnet
to quake.think.com. Login as "wais".

In addition to the "comp-academic-freedom" server, there are servers
for recent Supreme Court decisions, for FAQ's, for EFF, for the bible,
etc, etc.

Here is some additional information from alt.wais.

- Carl

=====================================
>From: brewster@quake.think.com (Brewster Kahle)
>Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.wais,alt.wais
>Subject: Re: WAIS FAQ part 0 of n: getting started
>Message-ID: <BREWSTER.92May8180435@quake.think.com>
>Date: 8 May 92 23:04:35 GMT


In article <1992May6.140734.20789@klaava.Helsinki.FI> tolvanen@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Martti Tolvanen) writes:
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: Re: WWII is over!
Organization: GhostBuster Central - Southern NH Usenet Access, Nashua, NH
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 16:16:12 GMT

klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride) writes:

> maxwell@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Mark Story) writes:

> > And it has been for a long time!

> > Celebrate, free world!

> More "Good News" [tm]:

> Some people in the U.S. actually believe that we live in a free society.

Other people believe that the news media just reports the news and that
they would never use their powerful medium to manipulate public opinion.

-- 
Kevin "because that's what the TV told them to think, so it must be true."
Newsgroups: alt.good.news
From: panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio)
Subject: Re: I feel good!
Summary: Contradicting Oneself
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 20:52:46 GMT
Distribution: alt.good.news
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Keywords: The lighter side of depression

In article <3045LQN@obh.in-berlin.de> ob@obh.in-berlin.de (Oliver Brandmueller) writes:
>Even if everything is bad - I feel good! (Am I crazy???)

Are you taking any "medication" by any chance?  *snicker*

How can everything be "bad"? Take, for instance:

My wife left me for another woman (eh?), I just got fired, the
bank is repossessing my home and my car, I just found out that
my teenage son is doing cocaine and is wanted for armed robbery
and rape, my teenage daughter is pregnant and wants an abortion,
I'm dying of incurable bone cancer, I'm actually an adopted
child who was abandoned on the sidewalk, and there will be no
more new episodes of Star Trek The Next Generation...  :)

Mwahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* *choke* *cough* *wheeze*

No, you're not crazy. I AM.

:)

(Victor, laughing until men in white coats take him away...)
Newsgroups: alt.good.news
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: Re: Gave up smoking
Organization: GhostBuster Central - Southern NH Usenet Access, Nashua, NH
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 02:55:39 GMT

My next door neighbor gave up smoking last week.  They buried him a
couple of days later.  Officially, he died of a brain tumor.  The
brain tumor was just a spreading out of the lung cancer.  Actually, it
was kind of a race - they didn't know which would kill him first, the
lung cancer or the brain cancer.

On a lighter note, I've finished my regimen of the "patch" and have
not had a smoke in 5 weeks.

With a newborn baby in the house, I have even more motivation to quit
this time.  I really think I've got it licked this time and I have no
desire to "keep up with the Joneses", especially since they seem to be
kicking off all of a sudden.

Cheers

-- 
Kevin