HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
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 93 15:38:00 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1i8r1lINNlke@pongo.West.Sun.COM>, 
johnch@smaug.West.Sun.COM (John Chandler [Contractor]) writes...
>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'd like to see his research on this.  I know no one who still has [a
>[rotary phone], and only one of my friends admits to believing 
>Ronald Reagan is a member of the animal kingdom.

<arf!> I should have been clear that mine is a personal observation, not 
based on research or even fact.  Only hints, suggestions, innuendo, rumors, 
and whispers in the dark.  Oh, and Rush Limbaugh's 'opinion.'

>> (That's one of the 
>>things Rush is good for, he makes liberals think about themselves 
>>(ourselves)).
> 
>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. 

I can't believe I'm *actually suggesting there's any good reason to listen 
to thEwIndBag!* but it doesn't hurt (all that much) to listen to the other 
side once in a while.  Besides, I find him to be an excellent early warning 
system for the next batch of froth to come out of the mouths of the 
radical-christian-right.

>I strongly suggest that at the earliest opportunity, you email your
>representatives this observation. :-)

Good Idea.  What's the address again...  BTW, in a previous life when I was 
a cable television activist, I tried to get Senator Al Gore's D.C. fax 
number and was told, in no uncertain terms, that it wasn't for public use.  
Harraumph.  Next time I pay my taxes I just may deduct that portion of then 
that I believe go to buy him fax paper <arf!>


+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell.Peabody College.Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:21:10 GMT

In article <1i8r1lINNlke@pongo.West.Sun.COM> johnch@smaug.West.Sun.COM (John Chandler [Contractor]) writes:
>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 would say the *perception* of Liberals is such.  You see all the "New
Age-y" and "Tree Hugger" stuff of the Environmental Extremists and it makes
it very easy to peg all Left-wingers [even moderate ones] as anti-technology.

I grant that 4 out of 5 Anti-technology activists are far left, and probably
are refugees from the now discredited Communist movements.  But thats only my
personal opinion... :)

>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?)

He definately couldn't touch the Monkey! :)


-- 
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
| Brent L. Irvine         | For a mere $50 these personal  | I will be gone: |
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | opinions can also be yours!    | 20 Dec - 4 Jan  |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: Re: "Civil Disobedience" et al.
Originator: rita@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:41:02 GMT


	Well, it is nice to see that somebody is paying attention!
Sometimes I wonder.

	On a more serious note, _Civil Disobedience_ has been around
since the 1800's (I wish I could remember the exact date).  It was
used during the 60's, yes, but also it is also a rallying text for
many political movements outside the United States.  I re-read it
recently and was able to draw many, many parallels between what
Thoreau is saying and what gets discussed every day on the Net.

	Now I *realize* that we all read the essay in our 10th grade
English classes.  But I don't think it hurts to remind ourselves what
_Civil Disobedience_ has to say.

-- 
Rita Rouvalis                                Electronic Frontier Foundation
rita@eff.org                                                    eff@eff.org
CIS:70007,5621                                                (617)864-0665
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bladex@wixer.cactus.org (David Smith)
Subject: Re: "Civil Disobedience" et al.
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 02:44:19 GMT

In article <C0CtKJ.BsG@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael C
ovington) writes:
>It must be a slow month for computer news, if all the EFF can find to do
>is republish Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," close on the heels of the
>much-less-funny-than-its-author-thought "Bill o' Rights".
>
>The last two EFFectors look more like nostalgia for 1960s radicals.
>Please, folks, let's get back on topic before we lose all credibility.

I am sure that the editor of EFFector Online  (rita@eff.org) would be more
than willing to listen to any ideas you have about what should or shouldn't
go into EFFector.

In fact, I resent Rita some ideas just last month!  It's fun.  It's easy.
Anyone can do it.  Everyone should now.

>
>--
>:-  Michael A. Covington     internet mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu :    *****
>:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
>:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
>:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **


-- 
  bladex@wixer.cactus.org           |              Cyberlicious Software
 "I think cyberpunk is the latest attempt by American hipsters to escape
the squalid intellectual environment that surrounds them.  This is not a
bad goal."  Karl Myers, Talking Raven 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:20:28 GMT

In <1993Jan11.164043.6756@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>In article <C0Kztn.Hvu@panix.com> rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:
>>This I do not agree with.  If a virus makes calls to code that is
>>available to any program via the OS, this does not make it any less a
>>virus.  (ie: calling code contained in libraries.)  If the code it
>>calls resides someplace else, what difference does it make?

>Algorithmic integrity.  A virus has all of the algorithm contained in the
>single infected program, and does not need to access another file for part
>of the algorithm.  If it needs to access another file for part of its 'real'
>code, it cannot spread by itself.

No program of any kind has _all_ the code it needs to run.  The OS is
an integral part.  On top of that, I've seen quite a few "lazy"
programs which call a DOS command to do something instead of
duplicating the code.  
-- 
)                    )  I am more than this...  )               )
) rpowers@panix.com  )                          )   Apathy...   )
)                    )      Continue...?        )               )
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8347 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3865 comp.security.misc:2454 alt.privacy:2854 alt.society.civil-liberty:7281
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
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: 6 Jan 93 00:54:25 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1id4usINNap1@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think (Barry Margolin) writes:
>That's a silly interpretation.  The only purpose of the warning is to get
>the people monitoring off the hook if the monitoree complains about
>invasion of his privacy.  Why would anyone who has no plans to monitor
>keystrokes need to warn that they do?

To reserve the right to monitor in case the need arises, for example.

A recommendation that everyone should do this, if implemented, has the
effect of "setting a trend" that monitoring is acceptable and a
routine procedure.  I think such a trend needs to be fought against.

(The need for monitoring might arise for example in the case an
amendment is made to the drug-free workplace requirements that every
session and file needs to be grepped for the keywords "joint", "drug",
"hash", "trip" and such and the matching sessions/files forwarded to
the appropriate drug councelors and authorities.)

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
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: 5 Jan 1993 03:49:47 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <1993Jan4.212439.4278@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>For privately owned commercial and hobby sites property rights do
>apply, and whether the property rights override privacy rights depends
>is mostly a matter of opinion.  

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.

>  For work-related calls I think
>it's negotiatable, also at certain environments monitoring all calls
>might be defensible (places with highly confidential information).

Also where phone conversations are used to perform financial transactions
(e.g. mail order houses, brokerage firms).  Without the phone, the
transaction would have involved paper and signatures, which can be saved
for verification purposes.  When the phone is used to conduct such
business, recordings are often necessary to prove later on that a
transaction took place.

>  But what CERT is doing is
>recommending unilateral announcement of "all users may be monitored
>all the time", with no negotation and no negotiated policy of
>watching/monitring only on "probable cause".

My interpretation was that CERT was recommending that *if* you have a
policy where you might monitor input, that you should put this warning in a
login banner.  They were not advising for or against the monitoring policy
itself, nor specifying a particular justification for monitoring any given
conversation.  They were simply acknowledging that such monitoring takes
place, and advising how to reduce legal liability in such cases.

Is that really so bad?
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: "Civil Disobedience" et al.
Date: 6 Jan 1993 15:59:29 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

In article  mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article  dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie) writes:
>>	Why don't you just post some of the stuff out of alt.sex.stories?
>>It is about as relevant, and you should get some mail(If that is your
>>true measure of success).
>
>Wait a minute. You're saying Thoreau is no more relevant to people
>concerned about electronic freedoms than the postings to alt.sex.stories
>are? If so, you have given civil libertarians like me a very strong
>argument for subscribing to alt.sex.stories.

	Hmm. I meant it in the sense that the alt.sex.* groups are
provoking a lot of the net-censorship discussion, and are therefore,
at least partially relevant. And hey, I guarantee it would increase
readership. :)

>>If you are implying that he said that Thoreau was a 60's radical; I guess
>>you are totally wrong. There is a difference between '1960s nostalgia' and
>>"..nostalgia for 1960s radicals."  The way you(plural) are jumping on 
>>this guy shows a severe lack of tolerance. 

>It seems ironic for someone to condemn a Thoreau reprint, then criticize
>others for a lack of tolerance. 
>--Mike

	I wasn't condemning the Thoreau reprint, I was critcizing the
criticism of the critic of the EFF effector.  I stand by the statement
that there was showing of intolerance, witnessed by silly flames - 
twisting his words to make him look ignorant. 

 /  Amiga  ///    |  U.S.C. Trojans  | O Bar  | David Leslie        \
|         ///     |     Fight On!    | E O    |                      |
|     \\\///      |        --        | Meu    | dleslie@usc.edu      |
 \     \XX/ A1000 |     Go Kings!    | Lar!   |                     /
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:22:10 GMT

In article <19348@mindlink.bc.ca> Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher) writes:
>>But if the environment requires virus-free code, ANY infected program is not
>>acceptable.  Just because the pop-up message says "I'm just a decompression
>
>Then you shouldn't use any program that is over a month old.. Someone could
>have written a trojan into it. But then you can't trust new programs because
>they might be trojans... Hmmm, hire in-house programmers to make ALL your
>s/w.

Although this isn't the group for a security discussion.....

You can compare an executable (for non-changing code) against a known clean
copy, to check for infection after the clean copy date.

>P.S. if someone was going to write a virus they wouldn't have it say "Hi, i'm
>nice, trust me", they'd have it secretly infect..

But that's just what the BCV does, in one description.  It prompts the user
for an action (suicide, install marker file, etc).  If the BCV existed,
how long do you think it would be before someone wrote a copy-cat virus
that looked for the same marker file, performed the same compression, and
at some later date, wiped the disk clean?

-- 
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,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Boycotting CERT because of the keystroke monitoring advisory?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:42:24 GMT

In article <7776@dove.nist.gov>, wack@ariel (John Wack) writes:
>I'm hesitant to enter the fray on this issue, but I'd like to point out
>that CERT/CC is simply passing on some guidance from the U.S. DoJ and 
>shouldn't be blamed if you disagree with the guidance -- although I don't 
>dispute your right to disagree.

Actually, it appears from the advisory and my correspondence with CERT
that CERT considerably expanded the scope of the original advisory and
is not taking the privacy issues at all into account in the advisory,
and as a result is recommending to everyone a policy allowing any
surveillance whatsoever.

>I believe that CERT/CC felt that the 
>guidance should be out there to the widest audience, despite the
>guidance being less than precise.

The advisory by CERT doesn't seem to support this belief.  If CERT
posts another message that takes the privacy issues into account and
does not recommend methods to make all surveillance possible then I
don't think there's a problem.

>But I don't think that the CERT/CC
>should be avoided or "ignored" or whatever because of this issue.

I encourage everyone to judge the information and decide for
themselves.

>By
>and large I think that the CERT does a lot of good.

I agree that they do good things also.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:49:52 GMT

Bruce.Hayden.Of.285/1@ivgate.omahug.org (Bruce Hayden Of 285/1) writes:
>(From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden))
>(Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.)
>wkaufman@us.oracle.com (William Kaufman) writes:
>>    If Usenet is any reasonable sample, though, there *does* seem to be
>>a relation between being a programmer and a libertarian.  I don't think
>>anyone can prove a definite correlation; but my guess is that the two
>>are related by the fact that programmers are overwhelmingly white,

>I do not think that it is really because programmers are white, educated,
>upper-middle-class. These characteristics would usually correspond to

>I will agree that you do have a large number of libertarians in the
>programming ranks. I don't have any good ideas of why, but you can

Because computer networks are one of the few places you can actually
find out about libertarianism.  I was fairly well read before getting
on here (Economist, WSJ, all three weekly newsrags, New Republic,
National Review) and I'd really never heard of them except when they
were mentioned in passing (usually in "Lyndon LaRouche is a
Libertarian" type blatant errors).

Reporters are Democrats and Republicans.  They don't write about what
they don't think they know about, and when they do they usually get it
wrong.  The computer networks are one of the only places you can get
complete information and even see the subject discussed, and computer
types naturally are more likely to be on computer networks.
-- 
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman
Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church,
nor by any Church that I know of.  My own mind is my own Church. - Thomas Paine
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:35:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.001243.20659@umr.edu> ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>>In the same vein, their life-skills were acquired from a basically
>>mercantile upper-middle class society, so their instincts tell them
>>that only the most viciously competitive society works to their
>>advantage. A world where cripples and orphans and other unfortunates
>>are left to make their own case. You can't beat up the govt, but you
>>can certainly choose between a $5K stereo system and feeding some
>>unfortunate if the govt would just get out of the way. And we know
>>which they'd choose (and if something is left over and their
>>birthright delivered to them as is only *fair* no doubt a few crumbs
>>would be thrown to the lepers, but only noblesse oblige of course.)
>>
>>I think that about sums it up as a psycho-socio-political profile.
>>
>>There are certainly points the libertarian movement has that are
>>commendable in my view. But the motivation of many of their strongest
>>proponents show an unhealthy frustration to something else entirely
>>(as the responses to this note will quickly convince the more
>>disinterested among you is true.)
>
>Come on, Barry, it's not like you to beat around the bush.
> 
>Say it.
> 
>"Programmer-libertarians are, as a rule, selfish punks who only give 
>a shit about themselves.  They must be FORCED to contribute to the
>GOOD of SOCIETY!!!"
>
>Hee hee.  Well, I apologize if that's not what you meant, but it
>sure seems like it.  :)
>
That's about how I read it, too, but decided not to comment.  Then I changed 
my mind and replied to you instead.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 6 Jan 93 04:37:20 GMT
	<1993Jan5.153018.18935@nastar.uucp> <C0EJAu.HuI@panix.com>
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

You are missing a basic point. For a virus to "check for the presence
of a marker file" that virus has to be executing on my system, whether
or not I have authorized it to. 
  
    Besides, how does the virus *get* to my system? Either it cracked my
security, again without my permission, or it was hidden on a file
imported onto my system, without my knowledge (if I *know* about it,
and import it deliberately, then packaging it as a virus was not
necessary.)
 
As another poster said, I don't see that there's anything you can do
with a virus that doesn't have a non-viral alternative that is safer
for the rest of the world.

--
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
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:11:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.230620.27916@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>This thread has just become one of the numerous ones in
>comp.org.eff.talk where the "dissident" is made the target of several
>straw man, ad hominem, distortions and other unpolite attacks which
>increase to the noise.

Don't forget the noise-increasing aspect of the nonspecific accusation.
Oh, wait--I see you didn't forget it.

One thing that bothers me a lot is the nonspecific accusation--as one a
poster asserts that someone has made "straw man, ad hominem, distortions
and other unpolite attacks" without specifying who the person is or what
postings qualified as such attacks.

It's very similar to the McCarthy-tactic of asserting that one has a list
of traitors, but never showing the list.



--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 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8265 alt.amateur-comp:452 soc.culture.usa:9432 alt.activism:19994