HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.politics.clinton, et al.]  Does Bush oppose contraception?
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.women,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.abortion
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:50:26 GMT

From: peerson@neyman.ucdavis.edu (Jan Peerson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.abortion
Subject:  Does Bush oppose contraception?
Date: 16 Aug 92 19:09:22 GMT

The following is excerpted from the Garry Wills column which
appeared on page B7 of the August 15, 1992 Sacramento Bee.  It is
reproduced without permission for your reading pleasure.

     We all know how Bush suddenly reversed himself on
     abortion when he wanted to run with Ronald Reagan in
     1980.  But his reversal on contraception and family
     planning is less known.  Bush has surrendered even more
     abjectly to the right wing on these issues.  The proof
     of that is his appointment to the family planning post
     in his administration of William R. Archer III, who
     thinks the Griswold decision was wrong -- that is, that
     the states should still have the power to ban the sale
     of contraceptives.

     To put such a man in such a post is like making a
     pacifist the secretary of defense.  How do you promote
     family planning while opposing the government's
     permission to sell contraceptives?  Archer's preferred
     solution to the family planning problem -- as well as
     to AIDS and abortion and teenage promiscuity -- is
     abstinence.

     Unlike most right-wing moralists who rely on
     abstinence, he practices what he preaches.  As a 37-
     year-old bachelor who tells others to refrain from sex,
     he was challenged at a family planning clinic in
     Denver, asked if he abstains from sex himself.  He
     answered yes, though he admitted to having tried sex
     six years earlier and regretting it.


[I guess he didn't inhale.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:05:53 GMT
 <1992Sep2.195247.15369@nntp.hut.fi> <Btyz8z.K3K@apollo.hp.com>  
 <1992Sep3.155535.471@tvnews.tv.tek.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep3.155535.471@tvnews.tv.tek.com>
stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.) writes:

> There are foolproof encodings for data, but the statistics of the
> messages will clearly reveal that they are encoded.  The very next thing
> you'll hear is the KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK of the FBI on your  door.  You
> will then have a chance to explain just why you are encoding your
> communications.  The judge may not be very sympathetic.

Perhaps the judge won't be sympathetic, but it won't matter. 
Encrypting communications is not against the law.  Let's keep it that
way.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:19:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep2.195247.15369@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>     (2)  in the signal form representing the content of the 
>communication between the subject of the intercept and any individual 
>with whom the subject is communicating,

  Does this mean I can't encrypt the content, or does "the content of
  the communication" include the encryption?   How can they tell?  I've
  been experimenting for some time with "clear text" encryption methods
  in which the content appears to be perfectly normal email and postings, 
  but which include additional data.   Since the data is represented as
  the statistical variance in the use of synonyms and by other similar
  means these are virtually undetectable, and encrypted messages can
  easily be piggybacked onto perfectly legitimate messages.


---peter


Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5652 alt.privacy:1795 talk.politics.misc:43718 soc.culture.usa:7120
From: nick@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:01:07 GMT
	<Btyz8z.K3K@apollo.hp.com> <1992Sep3.155535.471@tvnews.tv.tek.com>
Organization: Naff Green Shorts Dance Co.
In-reply-to: stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com's message of 3 Sep 92 15:55:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.155535.471@tvnews.tv.tek.com> stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.) writes:

   There are foolproof encodings for data, but the statistics of the
   messages will clearly reveal that they are encoded.  The very next thing
   you'll hear is the KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK of the FBI on your  door.  You
   will then have a chance to explain just why you are encoding your
   communications.  The judge may not be very sympathetic.

Not that the FBI are going to knock on MY door (being outside their
jurisdiction - I hope!) but: why would I have to explain just why I am
encoding my communications? Aren't I allowed to do that on a whim?

Besides, is the FBI going to analyse every single piece of plaintext
going over the entire Internet?

But in general, yes, this whole thing stinks. Consider yourself lucky
that you have an investigation agency that your Congress can actually
pass laws about. We have an official secrets act.

Nick.
--
  Nick Rothwell, LFCS, Edinburgh | "Say, how many contemporary dancers are
               nick@dcs.ed.ac.uk |     there in this bar?"
CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | "Dunno; count the Dr. Martens and
     cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk |     divide by two..."
Lines: 9
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 92 08:58:54 MDT
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

> This is the Big Brother bill that's been circulating previously.  See
> the original article in comp.org.eff.talk for the bill itself.

This has no more to do with news administration policy than it it does
with American culture. Keep the garbage out.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5646 alt.privacy:1788 talk.politics.misc:43525 soc.culture.usa:7098
From: stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:55:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: tvnews.1992Sep3.155535.471
Organization: Tektronix TV Products

In article <Btyz8z.K3K@apollo.hp.com>, Peter Nelson (nelson_p@apollo.hp.com)
asked how it was possible for the government to tell if communciations had
been encrypted.  He added:

>                                                           . . .  I've
> been experimenting for some time with "clear text" encryption methods
> in which the content appears to be perfectly normal email and postings, 
> but which include additional data.   Since the data is represented as
> the statistical variance in the use of synonyms and by other similar
> means these are virtually undetectable, and encrypted messages can
> easily be piggybacked onto perfectly legitimate messages.

Don't be fooled!  THESE PEOPLE AREN'T AMATEURS!!!  Methods such as
you describe were used by spies in World War II, and the "secret"
messages were routinely intercepted and decoded.  Cryptology has
advanced significantly since then.

There are foolproof encodings for data, but the statistics of the
messages will clearly reveal that they are encoded.  The very next thing
you'll hear is the KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK of the FBI on your  door.  You
will then have a chance to explain just why you are encoding your
communications.  The judge may not be very sympathetic.

					Steve Rice

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! *
stever@tv.tv.Tek.com                                   [phone (503) 627-1320]
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:30:04 GMT

>What bugs me about this is *not* that I may have to resort to encryption to
>keep my privacy, but that I AM PAYING FOR THIS SNOOP SYSTEM.

So, you think the government should be paying for it instead and all
would be OK?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
From: dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 3 Sep 92 08:39:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UedXz1e00iUyE3lF0q
	<1992Sep3.143004.10072@nntp.hut.fi>
Organization: Masters student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>>What bugs me about this is *not* that I may have to resort to encryption to
>>keep my privacy, but that I AM PAYING FOR THIS SNOOP SYSTEM.
> 
>So, you think the government should be paying for it instead and all
>would be OK?
> 
>//Jyrki

The point I think he was making is that we (americans) pay for this system
that Big Brother, er, I mean our benificent government uses to spy on us, er,
I meant make sure we aren't wrongthinking, er, I mean planning crimes.



David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own.          | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
============================================================================
Email:  dh4j@cmu.edu            Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"You must think before you act."  --The Children's Hour (Man-Kzin Wars)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
    <Btyz8z.K3K@apollo.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:48:37 GMT

In article <Btyz8z.K3K@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.195247.15369@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>>     (2)  in the signal form representing the content of the 
>>communication between the subject of the intercept and any individual 
>>with whom the subject is communicating,
>
>  Does this mean I can't encrypt the content, or does "the content of
>  the communication" include the encryption?   How can they tell?  I've

The way I read it, it does not restrict your right to encrypt
communications.  But if the phone company does it for you, they must decrypt
it for the government.  I believe the purpose of this is to make sure the
government is not saddled with complicated engineering tasks.

What bugs me about this is *not* that I may have to resort to encryption to
keep my privacy, but that I AM PAYING FOR THIS SNOOP SYSTEM.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I don't dance to music; music dances to me.  Email me for my PGP key.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu (LANGER STEVEN C)
Subject: Federal Marshall Jurisdiction
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Distribution: mi
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:52:25 GMT


Can anyone, preferably with some law experience, tell me precisely what
the jurisdiction of US Federal Marshalls is? I've read somewhere that
without explicit permission from a state gov., they can only go into
US territories and Indian reservations. I'd like some citations to
support/disprove this assertion. I'm trying to settle an argument.

thanks in advance, steve
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:33:14 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Sep3.024837.7190@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>In article <Btyz8z.K3K@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.195247.15369@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>
>>>     (2)  in the signal form representing the content of the 
>>>communication between the subject of the intercept and any individual 
>>>with whom the subject is communicating,
>>
>>  Does this mean I can't encrypt the content, or does "the content of
>>  the communication" include the encryption?   How can they tell?  I've
>
>The way I read it, it does not restrict your right to encrypt
>communications.  But if the phone company does it for you, they must decrypt
>it for the government.  I believe the purpose of this is to make sure the
>government is not saddled with complicated engineering tasks.
>
>What bugs me about this is *not* that I may have to resort to encryption to
>keep my privacy, but that I AM PAYING FOR THIS SNOOP SYSTEM.

Not only that, If I read the bill correctly, you have to give them an
ear that does NOT LET YOU KNOW WHEN THEY ARE USING IT! Then, how will
you know when an "unauthorized" tap took place?

Or, maybe they will say that they can use it anytime under a spurious
"implied consent" doctrine, since you provided the ear "voluntarily".
(I know, voluntarily my ass, but that that never stops the feds)


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
From: wcs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Organization: Your typical phone company involved in your typical daydream
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:33:25 GMT

In article <j6@byu.edu> gritton@byu.edu writes:
] jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
] > This is the Big Brother bill that's been circulating previously.  See
] > the original article in comp.org.eff.talk for the bill itself.
] This has no more to do with news administration policy than it it does
] with American culture. Keep the garbage out.

Sure it does!  Is part of the policy of your news system to provide
private email for your users, possibly protected by encryption?
Many people around here either offer that or are thinking about it.

Are you considering a news system that keeps some newsgroups encrypted,
so users can discuss topics like proprietary company business without
them being readable by random unauthorized users or system-crackers,
	(like several big companies I know about)
or so random users can talk about system-cracking or skateboarding or CRIME
or political philosophy or guns or cyberpunk-roleplaying-games or Kermit
or other topics that use big scary words you don't want the FBI
listening in on, because you'd rather not be the next Steve Jackson Games
getting your company's assets stolen by a bunch of cowboys?

If I were running a news system, I'd sure be working on it,
and I'd like to be warned if that were about to be made illegal.

For that matter, if the phone company started offering an encrypted
data networking service, and I were trying to decide whether my news
/ email system should buy it or roll our own encryption,
I'd SURE want to be told that the FBI had the encryption keys written
on a yellow-sticky-note next to their desk .....

-- 

				Pray for peace;      Bill
#Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced ...
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:16:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.230553.606@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.155535.471@tvnews.tv.tek.com>
>stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.) writes:
>
>> There are foolproof encodings for data, but the statistics of the
>> messages will clearly reveal that they are encoded.  The very next thing
>> you'll hear is the KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK of the FBI on your  door.  You
>> will then have a chance to explain just why you are encoding your
>> communications.  The judge may not be very sympathetic.
>
>Perhaps the judge won't be sympathetic, but it won't matter. 
>Encrypting communications is not against the law.  Let's keep it that
>way.

Sitting at home minding your own business while a criminal you've never met
and who has just been caught red-handed implicates you as his partner isn't
a crime, either.  But it's more than enough to allow the government to come
and take your house, cars, and business.  It's the law that doesn't
matter.  Please don't think that it will protect you.

  Thanks awfully,
            Patrick

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5661 alt.privacy:1800 talk.politics.misc:43805 soc.culture.usa:7131
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:47:12 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1992Sep3.155535.471@tvnews.tv.tek.com> stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.) writes:
>In article <Btyz8z.K3K@apollo.hp.com>, Peter Nelson (nelson_p@apollo.hp.com)
>asked how it was possible for the government to tell if communciations had
>been encrypted.  He added:
>
>>                                                           . . .  I've
>> been experimenting for some time with "clear text" encryption methods
>> in which the content appears to be perfectly normal email and postings, 
>> but which include additional data.   Since the data is represented as
>> the statistical variance in the use of synonyms and by other similar
>> means these are virtually undetectable, and encrypted messages can
>> easily be piggybacked onto perfectly legitimate messages.
>
>Don't be fooled!  THESE PEOPLE AREN'T AMATEURS!!!  Methods such as
>you describe were used by spies in World War II, and the "secret"
>messages were routinely intercepted and decoded.  Cryptology has
>advanced significantly since then.
>
>There are foolproof encodings for data, but the statistics of the
>messages will clearly reveal that they are encoded.  The very next thing
>you'll hear is the KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK of the FBI on your  door.  You
>will then have a chance to explain just why you are encoding your
>communications.  The judge may not be very sympathetic.

I hate to introduce a little reality here, but it is fairly easy to
reshuffle the statistics of solidly-encrypted data so that the 
result cannot be (statistically) distinguished from whatever kind
of plaintext you choose. The cost is a certain expansion of the
original message, but I would expect that's worth paying if you
really want to transmit data safely. There is a nice paper on this
by Peter Wayner (?) at Cornell, to whom my apologies (as last time
this came up) for not having the ref immeidatley to hand.

paul
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:56:45 GMT

In article <Bu0Iu2.92G@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.155535.471@tvnews.tv.tek.com> stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.) writes:
>>In article <Btyz8z.K3K@apollo.hp.com>, Peter Nelson (nelson_p@apollo.hp.com)
>>asked how it was possible for the government to tell if communciations had
>>been encrypted.
>>Don't be fooled!  THESE PEOPLE AREN'T AMATEURS!!!  Methods such as
>>you describe were used by spies in World War II, and the "secret"
>
>  The methods used in WWII were very simple compared to mine. And even
>  then the clear-text methods often required outside sources of
>  information or other tricks to break.
>[...]
>  or thousand characters, even the fastest computer on earth running 
>  for centuries cannot examine all possible permutations of these
>  things.  
>
>>There are foolproof encodings for data, but the statistics of the
>>messages will clearly reveal that they are encoded.  The very next thing
>>you'll hear is the KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK of the FBI on your  door.  You
>>will then have a chance to explain just why you are encoding your
>>communications.  The judge may not be very sympathetic.
>
>  First they have to show that it IS encoded.

Not necessarily.  You are based in the U.S.A.  You are experimenting with
cryptographic technology.  Are you sending encryted messages to destinations
outside of the USA?  If so, be warned that the NSA _will_ catch you at it. 
They may not be able to break your encryption, if it's good, or may not even
consider it important enough to try (since an attempt may cost them a 
significant amount of computing resources, the most valuable resource to
the NSA even though they own half of the computing power in the world.)
However, in the USA it is _illegal_ to send encrypted messages to destinations
outside the USA, and a violation may fall into the hazy area of "National
Security" where the Constitution appears to be little more than a piece
of historical fiction, and "due process" may be very different from what
you'd imagine.  For example, if the federal government invokes a suspected
thread to national security you can be held without trial for an essentially
arbitrary period of time, and when something does come to trial the burden
of proof is _not_ necessarily with the prosecution.

So be careful.
--
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.society.civil-liberty:5614 misc.legal:16558