HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: LOOK AT THIS MESS!
From: steve.coletti@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Steve Coletti) 
Date: 11 Dec 92 01:40:00 GMT
Reply-To: steve.coletti@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Steve Coletti) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

 -=> In a message to Crssysop Rick on 12-08-92  13:36, Antoon Vanroon said: <=- 

 AV> 
 AV> Rick:   Someone is importing the wrong stuff in this conference.
 AV> Looks like usenet or something.....

It is, and not by accident.  This IS a crosslinked conference with USENET.
Dosen't it look messy with all those headers?  Just think, I decided not to
subscribe to this on usenet, so I'm subscribing to it here?

... Keyboard error or no keyboard, F1 to continue  
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11
---
 * MoonDog BBS (718) 692-2498 Bklyn,NY
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  MOONDOG (#35) : RelayNet(tm) Hub
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Brad Hicks forwarding
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:49:36 GMT
Organization: Mount Holyoke College

In article <BETSYS.92Dec19145529@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>Aha! THAT'S where those are coming from!
>Who is Brad Hicks? Does he know that what appears to be his home
>address is bouncing all over the Internet, buried in the bounce?
>
>Why would any site's bounce include a mail address anyway, unless it
>was the mail address of the site?

Broken X.400 gateway.  (Is there any other kind?)
--
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
From: Michael.Lutas@p918.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Michael Lutas)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Caller ID solution? (was Re: ACLU/EFF and Scanner restrictions?)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 23:45:12 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:109/70.918 - No Montgomery Co Na, Rockville MD

In a msg on <Dec 11 13:27>, David Sternlight of 1:105/42 writes:

 DS> From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
 DS> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:51:56 GMT
 DS> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 
 DS> 241-9760 guest)
 DS> Message-ID: <1992Dec11.195156.8120@netcom.com>
 DS> Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk


 DS> Joe Thomas posts a simple and elegant solution to the problem of
 DS> "rights" in conflict with respect to Caller ID. However, it
 DS> would produce an annoying delay in many phone calls. Far easier
 DS> (since the caller should assume he WILL be IDed) would be an
 DS> announcement or special tone on lines that don't ID. Thus that
 DS> could be used for suicide prevention lines, etc., a legitimate
 DS> place to provide assurance of no ID. This would have the result
 DS> of interfering with the fewest calls.

I think that the obligation to provide notice should not rest on those that do not pass information, rather it should be that those who *do* pass information on should have a "special" tone. Since the default right now is to not ID and anyone who wishes it needs to change their phone set up, it would be more practical to have a different tone for CID lines than non CID lines.

There are still plenty of rotary phones out there in the boonies. Should they all be *forced* to update their premise equipment or CO equipment (that is often very primitive itself) merely to adopt your proposal?


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!109!70.918!Michael.Lutas
Internet: Michael.Lutas@p918.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: PGP (Public Key Encription Software)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 10:32:18 GMT

What is this Munitions act that the use of PGP supposedly interferes with,
and how can any law interfere with the first amendment? I'm not informed of
US law (being Canadian) but it seems ludicrous that the government should
have any say about how you encode the data you send. It's like them requiring
people not say any word to another person unless they are within hearing
range of a governement employee or they make a tape and provide it for
government scrutiny.

P.S. Wouldn't a modem with a different encoding method for it's data be the
same as PGP for purposes of this law, if not, what's the difference? If so,
where does it stop?

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:28:01 GMT

mdw@db.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:

>In article <Bz89rD.LH8@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.054110.8618@tc.cornell.edu> mdw@db.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:

>I've never had a programming class where I didn't 'get my hands on the material'
>and actually program. A college degree is a good way of getting this experience,
>but I never said it was the ONLY way. Of course there are things one needs in
>addition to said degree. Note that I said "...and so on", implying that there 
>was more involved than just a degree.

It may be true that almost all classes require some hands on. However,
that does not mean that you actually get any experience. I recently 
worked with a woman who got a 4.0 on her MS/CS degree. It became 
readily apparent that though she was very bright, she had _no_
experience with writing a program over 50 lines long. What had
happened?? We hypothesize that she levereged her looks and southern
charm into having her male partners do most of the work throughout
school. This is the downside of the almost universal practice,
espeically in upper division or graduate courses of working in teams.

>>I have met more people who are truly talented without degrees in the
>>computer industry than those with.  I have discovered, much to my chagrin,
>>that many of the people who have degrees, especially advanced ones, couldn't
>>program their way out of a paper bag and have NO idea how to design a
>>complex system so it works reliably.

>That's your personal experience. Mine has been quite the opposit, but the
>point here is not whether or not a degree will ensure that a certain person
>is qualified. A degree is ABLE to ensure this, but it doesn't in most cases.
>And, as you say, in many cases you don't need a degree at all. My example
>was simply pointing out a single case.

Well, as mentioned above, a degree (even a MS degree) doesn't ensure
anything of the sort.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: chris@engineer.mrg.uswest.com (Chris Fedde)
Subject: Re: Caller ID solution? (was Re: ACLU/EFF and Scanner restrictions?)
Organization: USWEST Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: engineer.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:15:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.195156.8120@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Joe Thomas posts a simple and elegant solution to the problem of
>"rights" in conflict with respect to Caller ID. However, it
>would produce an annoying delay in many phone calls. Far easier
>(since the caller should assume he WILL be IDed) would be an
>announcement or special tone on lines that don't ID. Thus that
>could be used for suicide prevention lines, etc., a legitimate
>place to provide assurance of no ID. This would have the result
>of interfering with the fewest calls.
>
>In this message I had continued by discussing the substance of the
>caller ID issue, but have deleted that matter because I don't
>want to rehearse the arguments yet againwe've had more than enough
>of thatbut just respond to Thomas' suggestion.


OK  I've got a PBX in my basement.  Here's what
I'm going to do. I'm going to start an anonymous dialer service.
you dial up my service and register with the autoattendant.   from then
on when a call arrives with your ID the pbx will pick up and present you with
a dial tone.  You are then free to dial what ever number you want and I'll send you a bill for any charges you may incure.

What do you think?

 
Chris Fedde, USWEST MRG, chris@mrg.uswest.com, voice +13037842823
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: CPSR & Caller ID?
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:54:16 GMT

In <1992Dec17.191910.23097@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:

>As the purchaser of a privacy enhancing phone service option
>(we have an unlisted number), I will be very peeved if I start
>receiving sales calls because some marketing slime starts
>selling my number as part of a "likely purchasers" list generated
>from caller ID.  A big part of the reason we got an unlisted number 
>was to prevent sales calls (they sometimes still happen due to 
>organizations or computered phone ads just running the gamit of
>all possible phone numbers in a certain area).

You do realize that companies with 800 numbers have been able to
see your number all along, don't you?  Unless you don't deal with
toll-free numbers, your number is probably already on dozens of
lists being sold at a good profit to marketers large and small.

Caller-ID may give small, local businesses access to your number,
but it won't do much for national-scale teleslime who use 800
numbers and public documents to get your number.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
From: dbenson@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (David "Network Man" Benson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: getty problems/booting single user
Keywords: getty single-user oops
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:16:47 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

Two questions:
1. How do I boot into single user mode if I've made a mistake and once I
get to a login nothing is working?

2. (Here's why I need single user mode) Does getty work properly on the
serial ports? I'm running 98pl5 with tcpip (and that's been working
great) on a AT&T (yes, that's right AT&T :-) 6386/25 WGS. I wanted to
attach a terminal to linux, so I changed /etc/inittab and ran init -q to
start the getty processes. Since then I haven't been able to login in
either on the console, over tcpip or from a serial port. This shouldn't
be happening right? Anyway to get into linux before I get a login prompt
to edit /etc/inittab?

Thanks.

David
-- 
== David Benson          dbenson@csugrad.cs.vt.edu          Virginia Tech ==
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: CPSR & Caller ID?
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:41:32 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:

>As the purchaser of a privacy enhancing phone service option
>(we have an unlisted number), I will be very peeved if I start
>receiving sales calls because some marketing slime starts
>selling my number as part of a "likely purchasers" list generated
>from caller ID.  A big part of the reason we got an unlisted number 
>was to prevent sales calls (they sometimes still happen due to 
>organizations or computered phone ads just running the gamit of
>all possible phone numbers in a certain area).

Though I must admit to the opposite bias - this is the first legitimate
reason against caller ID that I have seen. The battered women argument
doesn't hold water - there are too many ways to solve their problem
without impacting caller ID. Besides, how many battered women need to
call their husbands from a neighbor's or friend's phone? 

Unfortunately, due to ISDN, those businesses that you are worried
about, especially the national ones most likely to sell your number,
already have caller-ID. You just don't know it because the noise
made when AMEX made it obvious by answering the phone with your
name. They have it, they use it, they just don't advertise it.

>At the very least, folks who pay for the service of having their
>phone number unlisted should have their privacy guaranteed.

>I'd like to see the burden the other way about though. No caller ID
>*unless* the caller specifies that it is OK with them (or even just
>provide some mechanism for the average phone customer to request that they
>not be IDed). I think caller ID has the potential to be a resource
>wasting nuisance on par with gratuitous junk mail. What is the
>huge societal benefit to be accrued from caller ID anyway (other
>than making the Ferengi style marketeers happy that is)?

Well, I like my privacy also. This means though that I would like to
know who is calling me - often before I answer the phone. Caller-ID
would bring some type of accountability to using the phone. If someone
is going to call you, you can determine who (or at least where) is
calling you. I cannot think of a legitimate reason for someone to call
me at my home, and not be willing to give me their telephone number.
(after all - they have mine).

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,isu.cc.general,isu.talk.usenet-policy
From: linda@iastate.edu (Linda Hutchison)
Subject: Re: ONE YEAR AGO: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Keywords: bogus!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:50:36 GMT

In article <BzH0L8.Ap6@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>I don't believe that the supression at Iowa State University was
>motivated by any well-founded fear lawsuits. Rather, I believe that
>the supression was a reaction to a critical newpaper article in the
>Daily Iowan. (The supression policy was announced about two weeks
>after the article appeared.)

I've watched kadie's posts over the past year+ and sometimes reacted with
amusement and sometimes with disgust.  I can't let this one go without a
reaction.

Carl, I suppose I'm one of the "bad guys", being part of the Comp Ctr
administration, and I can tell you that here at Iowa State University
                                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
we're not particularly affected or concerned with articles that appear in the
Daily Iowan -- the University of Iowa student newspaper.
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As with many of the people posting reactions to the usenet policy at ISU, you
are unqualified to comment on why or how the policy originated since
you were not at any of the meetings where the policy was discussed and were in
no way involved in the development or implementation of the policy.

We were and still are dealing with interpretation of state laws and are acting
in response to recommendations from the university's legal advisors.

Do I agree totally with the policy or how it has been handled?  No.  Do I
support the administration in the enforcement of the policy?  Yes.  I work for
the institution and I believe they are sincere in imposing and enforcing the
policy.  As long as the director of the center, in concert with the university
lawyers, the Affirmative Action Office, the Dean of Students Office, etc.
believes the policy is necessary as it stands to conform with Iowa law, they
will have my support.

A fact that keeps getting totally ignored is that no student, faculty or staff
member is denied access to any newsgroup.  Get a username on the HDS.  I agree
the newsreader there is less fully-featured than the newsreaders on PV and
other systems.  But the fact remains that accounts are available and access is
unrestricted on that platform.

Now back to being a spectator vs. a participant in this discussion.  I just
get really peeved at uninformed, outside observers stepping and making
comments that receive blanket acceptance from a segment of the readers of this
group.

Having ISU confused with UofI is one of my special pet peeves -- otherwise I
probably would have had enough sense to keep entirely out of the discussion.

[She steps down from her soapbox and gets back to more productive pursuits.]
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,isu.cc.general,isu.talk.usenet-policy
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Testing Computer Prof
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:36:51 GMT

In <3860.492.uupcb@grapevine.lrk.ar.us> don.bivens@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Don Bivens)  writes:


>R>I have a personal gripe about the use of the title "software engineer."
>JR>In most states, the use of the term "engineer" in advertising allows the
>JR>reader to infer that at least one principal in the firm is a registered
>JR>professional engineer, under the professional engineer regulations of the

>Yes, but professional, licensed engineers often deal with building
>structures and it is imperative that building codes be met for obvious
>safety purposes.

>Software engineers CANNOT write code that they don't know.  Besides,
>nobody lives or works inside of a program (like a building).  If the
>code doesn't work it'll be obvious.

Well, it'll be EVENTUALLY obvious; as a structural problem in a bridge
will be eventually obvious.  Code that is 'broken' may or may not kill
someone when it finally shows that it's 'broken', depending on the
application area in question.  How would you like to be riding in an
Airbus when the full authority flight software breaks?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: colinj@engin.umich.edu (Colin Johnson)
Subject: Re: Rime now joins EFF.org
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 11:49:28 EST
Organization: Students for a Cooperative Society

	Someone want to let the rest of us in on this RIME thing?  

	What is it?

	Colin J.

-- 
Colin Johnson     	|When Knowledge Is Outlawed
Ann Arbor Michigan	|Then Only Outlaws Will Have Knowledge
colinj@ccs.itd.umich.edu|
From: lowe@fnx.uucp (Phill Lowe)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Effector?
Summary: Was the post in eff.talk actually the effector 4.00?
Keywords: Effector
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:22:10 GMT
Organization: I/Ovations

There was a post there that seemed to be the Effector v4.00.  I didn't
see it in comp.org.eff.  Does this mean that I have a feed problem or
did it not get posted to comp.org.eff?
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:22:34 GMT

In article <1gj3luINNfs3@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, unruh@physics (William Unruh) writes:
>Of course what is amazing in the message is that it is really directed
>at unathorised users.

Is it?  Doesn't seem like that to me:

"      Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring
       and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible
       evidence of criminal activity, system personnel may provide the
       evidence of such monitoring to law enforcement officials."

It clearly says "anyone using", not "any unauthorized user".

>Like the thief who breaks down your door, and then sues you
>because he got a splinter from the broken door in his eye. 	
>The US law of torts really is a totally screwed up mess.

Well, if there's any truth at all to the folklore about the product
liability laws and such (and I think there is), they probably have
problems.  But this notice is analoguous to a public museum placing a
notice on the door "Anyone entering this museum expressly consents to
having all his or her actions monitored and taped with cameras and
microphones, his or her rectum and other bodily cavities searched, and
being X-rayed to reveal possible stealing or swallowing of museum
property.  If such monitoring reveals possible evidence of criminal
activity, museum personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring
to law enforcement officials."  Hmm, actually I'm not sure if the
federal systems include those with access by people other than federal
employees (but apparently it is, since it is for all federal
agencies), so it might be that it's just the personnel door of the
museum which would have such a notice.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Fun things to do to R
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:16:11 GMT

In <3825.110.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) writes:

>FJM> You should probably try taking this to one of the gun control groups.
>FJM> I think you might get some numbers that would open your eyes a bit.
>FJM> The probability of injury from a computer is probably higher than the
>FJM> probability of an injury from a gun, if you scale your numbers by the
>FJM> quantity of the things that are out there, for example.  And if you
>FJM> restrict yourself to legally owned and licensed weapons, the
>FJM> probability drops even further.  Some people would probably make an
>FJM> argument that the probability of injury from guns is negative, if you
>FJM> take into account the injuries that people receive because they DON'T
>FJM> have one.  :-)

>   Aw c'mon Fred. If hundreds or thousands of people were being injured by
>computers every year don't you think the media would be playing it up to
>the hilt? Do you honestly expect ANYONE to believe that computers are more
>dangerous than guns? 

Anyone who knows what you can do with one OUGHT to believe that
they're more dangerous than guns.  And certainly a lot harder to trace
after the fact, too.

>And what about the injuries that are prevented by
>computers? I'm willing to bet Saddam Hussein missed his computer systems
>pretty badly while the United forces were bombing Baghdad back to the
>bronze age.

What about the injuries that are prevented by guns?  The balance in
favor of guns when you do the math is some ridiculously large number,
taking into account guns people use to protect themselves.

>   Lighten up man! Computers don't bite!

Not unless they're told to.  But then, the same can be said of guns.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Testing Computer Prof
From: don.bivens@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Don Bivens) 
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:36:00 GMT
Reply-To: don.bivens@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Don Bivens) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121


R>I have a personal gripe about the use of the title "software engineer."
JR>In most states, the use of the term "engineer" in advertising allows the
JR>reader to infer that at least one principal in the firm is a registered
JR>professional engineer, under the professional engineer regulations of the

Yes, but professional, licensed engineers often deal with building
structures and it is imperative that building codes be met for obvious
safety purposes.

Software engineers CANNOT write code that they don't know.  Besides,
nobody lives or works inside of a program (like a building).  If the
code doesn't work it'll be obvious.

---
 . SPEED 1.00 #856 . End all foreign aide now!!!
 * Carolina Forum - Charlotte, NC - (704)568-1663
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  CAFORUM (#1272) : RelayNet(tm)