HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:19:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.093442.24753@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>: In article <1992Oct1.141116.10025@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>: 
>: >Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
>: >rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools
>: 
>: What are "burglary tools?"  Putty knives?  Glass cutters?  You know,
>: burglars don't put on a little black mask and send away to ACME for
>: "Burglar's Kits."
>
>Tools used for burglary, which are posessed with INTENT to use them for
>that purpose.

Uh-huh.  And what *are* those tools?  How do you identify them?
Attempting to bust me for owning a set of small screwdrivers and
X-acto knife would be pretty ridiculous, even if I *intended* to use
them for burglary.  There are too many legitimate uses for the tools
most often used in burglary: the guy next door might own an identical
collection of items but use them only for his model trains.

Similarly, I could own a copy of Crack, or some other security
protection software, simply because I wanted to learn more about
security or coding system software.  I could own this program but
divide it into unrelated parts to avoid detection.  If my system
manager went stomping through the filesystem, searching for "burglary
tools," he'd either not find me, or he'd find me and a couple dozen
other people.

>: I could see a perfectly legitimate use for owning even a small set of
>: lockpicks: my lock is such that I cannot *leave* it unlocked, but must
>: always have my key if I wish to open the door.
>
>Could try a (spare) key on a neck chain, though even this is not fool
>proof.
>(though maybe a spare key is not on where you are)

Alas, getting a second set of keys here is akin to cleaning the Aegean
stables.  A friend of mine actually had less hassle, two years ago,
ordering a lockpick set than he did trying to get another key through
the administration.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Let's try a different tack......
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:52:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.161525.21851@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.152257.20361@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
>Kadie) writes:
>
>>    "The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
>>    regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of
>>    expression so as to prevent disruption of the educationally
>>    process or interference with the rights of others, and prevent
>>    placing persons or property in danger."
>>                - constraints.constitutional
>
>rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>> This would seem to provide an adequate basis for reasonable restrictions
>> on what can be placed in '.plan'.
>
>If by "reasonable" you mean banning, for example, a very long .plan, I
>agree. If you mean content restrictions, one what grounds?

Restrictions based on '.plan' reasonably serving the intended purpose
of the 'finger' network protocol, and not being unduly annoying to those
who use 'finger'.  An excessively long '.plan' is a problem.  A '.plan'
with terminal escape sequences is a problem.  Putting the complete
contents of /etc/passwd in '.plan' is a problem.  So far the only problem
I have had to deal with was with terminal escape sequences, and the user
was quite cooperative.

>           If a right was interfered with, which right?

The right to use 'finger' for the intended purpose.

However, after reading all of your arguments on freedom of expression,
I hereby announce that I am a convert.  In future if a user has something
inappropiate in his '.plan', I will take no action.  Instead I will
relax and amuse myself by exercising my freedom of expression with the
contents of /etc/passwd :-) .
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk, et al.] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 3 Oct 92 03:50:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,soc.college
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[A repost - Carl]

From: brad@optilink.UUCP (Brad Yearwood)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:53:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com>, waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide) writes:
# 
# In the University of Limerick, Ireland, there was a security incident involving
# a user who had the process name "Baader". Subsequent to his "trial" and
# expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his process name to
# "Baader" and promptly found himself disusered.

What is the significance of "Baader"?  What if your name happens to be Baader?
(I once worked with someone with that name.)  How can the EC survive if what
is a perfectly good name in one part is a banned epithet in another part? 
Does invoking this name cause giant chickens to issue forth from cracks in
the Earth, or termination of pregnancy, or what?

Also, from Kadie's original post:

# All email or Netnews articles that "bring discredit" to the *University
# of Texas* or its Computer Science Department"

"Bring discredit."  This is truly precious.  Never before has the mindset of
the institutional bureaucrat been so starkly delineated in so few words.

This statement would itself, to any reasonable person, bring discredit to the
institution.  Who shall be punished if Kadie's post appears at UT?  Or does
UT lack even one reasonable person?

What if latent discredit exists because of some undisclosed act or policy?
Is there something special about email and netnews, that they should be
particularly chilled as a means of disclosing potentially discrediting acts,
and thereby _bringing_ the discredit?

Brad "Baader than you wanna be" Yearwood  brad@optilink.com
Petaluma, CA


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:55:11 GMT

In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> writes:
>Assume that sex/porn/necrophilia are all grounded in the rule of free speech
>and that indeed some universities are trampling on the free speech rights of
>their students.  I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
>this impinge the rights of their free speech?  Let us take the first example:
>suppose I carry a handgun tucked under my shirt.  I have not used it and don't
>intend to use it.  What right does anyone have to stop me and take away my gun
>when I enter their building?

A COMPUTER PROGRAM IS NOT A HANDGUN.  Computer programs, at least in
source code form, are PUBLISHED MATERIAL (and are considered such by
US law and many international trade agreements).  This is an _extremely_
important distinction...  yes, published material _can_ be dangerous,
but the greatest danger lies in authorities (whether governments or
University administrations) deciding what is "dangerous information"
and what is "good information".  This is precisely why many countries
have anti-censorship laws.

Let us say I have in my possession some computer files that describe
the process of making illegal explosives.  I have not made the
explosives, and do not intend to do so.  Does any authority have the
right to stop me and take away those files?  Not in the USA!  Let us
say I have in my possession a program that decrypts passwords... let
us say my field of study is crytography, and I intend to do some
independent study into the practical security of modern host systems.
Let us say my field of study is not crytography, I'm merely curious
about the code.  Let us say I'm going to see how well it works by
running it on a sample password file.  Etc., etc...

Who gives you the right to decide what information I may have access
to and what information I may not have access to?  If my use of
computer resources provided for a particular purpose to me and others
interferes with that purpose, then you have a right to take action (i.e.
tying up public terminals needed for other purposed with IRC).

But information itself may not be made "illegal" by _my_ code of
ethics, and by what we tend to think of as the basic principles of
democracy and human rights.  Punishing a person for being in
possession of published material that some authority considers
"dangerous information" is pure authoritarianism in its most
despicable form... not one iota better than any form of government
censorship that has ever been practiced in any totalitarian state.

--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3078 comp.org.eff.talk:6295 comp.admin.policy:1236 alt.censorship:7878 soc.college:4153
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:30:07 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky

ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>I always found it a hoot to keep an execute only program in my directory that
>claimed to be a Star Trek program, "detected" unauthorized access, then erased
>itself after sending codes to scramble the computer lab tech's terminal.  (Why
>they gave her sysadmin caps, I'll never know.)  It kept her from blatently
>stupid snooping after that.  

>This was perhaps a little mean, but I was
>provoked, and as I had the system master passwords at the time, quite a
>limited response.  (My error that year was in reporting obvious system
>breeches--passwords left in public readable files.  Bad move.)

Geez, your sysadmins must have been rather stupid IF you merely reported
the problem; thin skins are everywhere......

However, let's see if I understand this:

	1) You found system passwords in publicly readable files. (I'm
	   assuming that these files were not in your disk space).  There-
	   fore, you imply that you were wandering around looking for
	   publicly readable files.

	2) You deliberately set a trap in a publicly executable file to
	   prevent "blatantly stupid snooping".

Regardless of other actions, this seems like "Pot -- Kettle -- Black".

--Wes

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: banned newsgroup at u of o
Date: 3 Oct 92 03:51:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: dragon@camelot.bradley.edu (Matthew Korth)
Subject: Re: banned newsgroup at u of o
Date:  2 Oct 92 22:30:20 GMT

In <1992Oct1.193318.3721@nntp.uoregon.edu> () writes:
>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica has been banned from University of Oregon. 
>Isn't this
>censorship?

Not necessarily.

It depends on *why* the newsgroup was excluded.  We don't get it here
at Bradley, either.  There are two reasons given for this: first, that
pictures take up too much disk space, which we cannot afford; and
second, that there isn't enough readership to allocate disk space.  I
know that the first point is justified, since we don't get any of
the other pictures groups either.

However, if U of O has the money to support the disk space, and does
get other pictures groups, *and* there's a sufficient demand to have
the groups added, then this may be censorship.  You
might try asking your newsadmin why the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
newsgroup was removed.
--
*** Matt Korth *** dragon@camelot.bradley.edu *** dragon@buhub.bradley.edu ***
The Republicans are thinking of changing the Republican Party emblem from
an elephant to a condom, because it stands for inflation, halts production,
and gives a false sense of security while one is being screwed.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2928 comp.org.eff.talk:6078 comp.admin.policy:1107 alt.censorship:7737 soc.college:4033
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:33:43 GMT

rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

[...]
>>10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
>>Wyoming.  I provided access to this software to other users.  Upon
>>receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
>>users who had used IRC.  In order to get their accounts back, the

>You may think this a violation of academic freedom.  I don't.  If the
>situation arose here, I would have no choice but to act quite similarly.
[...]

>>users had to remove all IRC software from their accounts and agree not
>>to use IRC on the computer.  "After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster)
>>account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be
>>searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be
>>disusered without hope for reinstatement."
    <3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200@mrgate.uwyo.edu>

I agree that banning IRC because it is using up needed resources is
not a violation of academic freedom. However, 1) I don't think the
computer suspensions were necessary, 2) I don't think that the inert
code should have been banned, 3) I don't think the user files should
have been searched, and 4) I don't think the penalty for possision of
code should have been permanent computer expulsion.

In was on the second point, that I added U. of Wyoming to the list.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3049 comp.org.eff.talk:6258 comp.admin.policy:1202 alt.censorship:7846 soc.college:4135
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:23:27 GMT
Organization: Aston University

pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:
: 
: Well this should at least be a message to those hapless students who happen
: to have a shred of code in their $HOMEs that somebody might not like:
: encrypt everything.  It's the only way to keep unprincipled people
: from snooping in your stuff, whether they have "legal" access or not.
: A little script prompting for passwords that would encrypt and decrypt
: one's $HOME would be a useful little thing to make.

You could code your executables to check for a list of valid user ID's and
print a message telling them they are not authorised to run the program
the first time they try and then log them out after they try again.

(It will work even better if the snooper is trying to do this with a 
privilaged account)
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Oct2.083815.10045@bsu-ucs.uucp>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:26:57 GMT

HS> == 00hfstahlke  <00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp> 

 HS> I suppose if you carried around a set of lock picks on this campus
 HS> you would have no problem unless there were a rash of burglaries,
 HS> the campus police had some probable cause for arresting you, and
 HS> they searched you and found the lock picks.

What then is the "probable cause" used to search directories for
"programs like password crackers"?  Has there been a rash of computer
breakins?  Or does this analogy fall flat here?
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:52:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.031852.19873@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>Although obscenity is regulable
>under the Constitution,

Could you point out exactly how this is so?  My copy reads:

                                AMENDMENT I
   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

which seems simple enough to a layman - there's no "obscenity" mentioned.

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2964 comp.org.eff.talk:6129 comp.admin.policy:1140 alt.censorship:7772 soc.college:4069
From: michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:42:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: resonex.1992Oct1.124243.8622
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>The right to bare arms is not (usually) part of academic freedom.

I don't know about that.  Most universities have done away with
strict dress codes, and students can generally wear shirts with
short sleeves or no sleeves anytime they want...

;-)

-- 
Michael Bryan  michael@resonex.com  "Milk and Cheese in '92!"  |     ,_,
"Lovers are like... dentures.  You don't want them in your     |    /oo \
mouth all night, but you sure as hell want them within arm's   |    <>__|
reach in the morning!"  --- Miss Almira Gulch                  |    |  U|
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:49:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.145456.3062@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>To generalize, when a person in a position of authority is offended he
>or she must take care that criticism is not mistaken for an official
>orders. (What's the Shakespearian allusion?  "Will no one rid me of
>this priest"(?))

This is not a Shakespeare allusion at all, since Shakespeare wrote no play
about Henry II of England and Thomas a Becket.

Henry's nobles are alleged to have decided to murder Becket in the
cathedral after having heard Henry complain: "Will no one rid me of this
meddlesome priest?"


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk, et al.] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,soc.college
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:44:13 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,soc.college
From: waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:11:03 GMT

brad@optilink.UUCP (Brad Yearwood) writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com>, waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide) writes:
># 
># In the University of Limerick, Ireland, there was a security incident involving
># a user who had the process name "Baader". Subsequent to his "trial" and
># expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his process name to
># "Baader" and promptly found himself disusered.

>What is the significance of "Baader"?  What if your name happens to be Baader?
>(I once worked with someone with that name.)  How can the EC survive if what
>is a perfectly good name in one part is a banned epithet in another part? 
>Does invoking this name cause giant chickens to issue forth from cracks in
>the Earth, or termination of pregnancy, or what?

>Also, from Kadie's original post:

No, no, no, no and no! The point was that Student A, with a process name of X,
cracked the system. Big time. Got rapped on the knuckles so hard for it that he
fell out of college for a year :-7. Student B, for whatever reason, set his
process name to X, and within _seconds_ found himself disusered. Like as in
there was a program somewhere watching for 'X' to log in.....

Mind you, one year on from 'Baader''s expulsion, every student who logged in
set his process name to `Baader lives', `Baader II' and the like :-) 

>Brad "Baader than you wanna be" Yearwood  brad@optilink.com
>Petaluma, CA

Right buddy, that's _your_ account gone....;-)

Ronan
-- 
Ronan Waide, Motorola Ireland                        waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com

"You watch a talk show recently?  They're doing one next month on a normal,
happy heterosexual couple, assuming they can find one." - Prof R. Noble @ RPI
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3057 comp.admin.policy:1211 alt.censorship:7852
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Let's try a different tack......
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:32:12 GMT
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In article <1992Oct5.152257.20361@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>    "The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
>    regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of
>    expression so as to prevent disruption of the educationally
>    process or interference with the rights of others, and prevent
>    placing persons or property in danger."
>                - constraints.constitutional

This would seem to provide an adequate basis for reasonable restrictions
on what can be placed in '.plan'.
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3052 comp.org.eff.talk:6259 comp.admin.policy:1204 alt.censorship:7847 soc.college:4136