HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lfa1@cec1.wustl.edu (Lorrie Faith Ackerman)
Subject: current legislation
Keywords: congress GPO WINDO/Gateway to Government Act
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:08:57 GMT

Yesterday I attended the Congressional hearing on the GPO Gateway
to Government Act and Wide Information Network for Data Online Act.
These two bills would establish an electronic gateway at the
Government Printing Office for distributing government information.
The bills were introduced by Rep. Charlie Rose (D-N.C.) and Sen. 
Albert Gore (D-Tenn.).  There seems to be a lot of support for 
these bills, however there are a few issues yet to be resolved
including: how much info should be put online, how soon info
should be put online, and whether the system should be centralized
or distributed.  Also, there seems to be some confusion about how
much funding is needed (and the remarks of the GPO people 
yesterday did little to clarify things).

Most of the people who testified yesterday spoke in favor of distributing
the Congressional Record, Federal Register, and other documents over
the Internet.   They also talked about plans to make these electronic
documents available at libraries.  However, Steven Metalitz, vice
president and general council of the Information Industry Association
suggested that these documents be made available to "non-governmental
information providers" that could sell access to the documents.
He suggested that libraries be given vouchers to defray the cost of
using the information services.  (It seems to me this plan would help
no one but the IIA companies.)

I do not have copies of these bills or transcripts of the hearing, but
I should have all this soon.  To request information on this legislation
you can call Amelia Fields at the Joint Committee on Printing 
(202) 224-5241.  The American Library Association, a supporter of the bills,
also has some info.  They can be reached by phone at (202) 547-7363
or email at nu_alawash@cus (this is a Bitnet address).

Lorrie

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: BSDI's defence (was Re: AT&T vs. BSDI [BSDI response])
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:46:46 GMT

In article <4867@tuegate.tue.nl> gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl writes:
>As for operating systems... this is getting desperate!  I won't use Apple
>or Microsoft products on principle... if I feel I have to abandon Unix
>too there's not going to be much left to use!  Argh!

Hey don't forget Linux! :-)

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: NEWSDAY1@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:51:00 GMT

bill@hacktic.nl writes:

>Even true cop shows, like Dragnet, say "the names have been 
>changed to protect the innocent".  
Yes, but I always thought that this was to protect the innocent
victims, not the perpetrators. And whether "Dragnet" is true, or
maybe just based on truth, is another question.

>Maybe a little more effort in preventing crime, instead of 
>building more prisons is in order in the country that has the 
>highest percentage of its population in incarcerated.  
No disagreement there.

>It is all to obvious the vast majority of crime is repeat
>business, which alot could have been prevented by keeping 
>all criminal records a state secret, accessable only to 
>the courts.
Big disagreement there. I don't buy the argument that the "state"
is a more responsible guardian of personal information, such as
arrest records, than the public. I'd rather risk the minefield of
public perceptions than trust a faceless bureaucrat as guardian
of my private secrets. If I'm accused of a crime, I don't think
I'd want Joe Friday to smile and say, "Your secret's safe with
me." Also, what makes you so sure that repeat crime could be
prevented by keeping the public in the dark regarding the names
and crimes of the convicted? I'd like to know who they are,
thank you.

Evan Rudowski

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI [BSDI response]
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:16:46 GMT

I have been reminded that I should add a caveat to what I just posted.
AT&T has not been too vigourous, particularly of late, of protecting
the trade secret status they originally declared for Unix, and many
fact about how to write a Unix are available unprotected today.

This is CSRG's best defence, I am guessing, but these points of law should
be left to the IP lawyers.  Of course CSRG hasn't yet been sued.  By suing
BSDI they're going after a relatively small fish and scaring away the
other fish, even though if any trade secret violation was done, it was
done by UCB.  Whether any was done depends on a court.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5013 alt.security:4045 alt.hackers.malicious:59 alt.censorship:6482
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security,alt.hackers.malicious,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Phantom Access - EFF
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:21:52 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: rita@eff.org


	The fact that folks have suddenly taken a keen interest in
analyzing my .sig (of all things), must surely indicate that they are
as weary of the Holy War of Copyright as I am..  (But notice I've
fixed the spelling.)

-- 
Rita Marie Rouvalis              rita@eff.org 
Electronic Frontier Foundation   | Inbred Jed sez: Check with the Mormon
155 Second Street                | Church before marrying; inbreeding 
Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | is everyone's problem.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security,alt.drugs,alt.hackers.malicious,alt.censorship
From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
Subject: Re: Phantom Access - EFF
Organization: The Evil Fascist IRC Admins From Hell, Inc.
	<1992Jul17.190539.1621@polaris.async.vt.edu> <tbcm85=.blain@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:14:29 GMT

Blain> == Blain Strickel <blain@netcom.com> 

 Blain> I know you can ftp to eff.org and get the newletters, I am just
 Blain> tallying up the replies that == I == got to my question.  This
 Blain> indicates that whatever message the EFF has to give to the
 Blain> people of Cyberspace, its not getting out there too coherently.

Small clarification. it's ftp.eff.org (if you ftp to eff.org it'll point
you over there, but it saves a step).

newsletters are in pub/EFF/newsletters

--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose             	email eff@eff.org for EFF info
Electronic Frontier Foundation   	irc operators: operlist@eff.org
Systems and Networks Administration	Flames to: 
<hrose@eff.org, hrose@cs.bu.edu>	women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security,alt.hackers.malicious,alt.censorship
From: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick)
Subject: Re: Phantom Access - EFF
Originator: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:00:25 GMT

From article <1992Jul29.220306.2270@eff.org>, by rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis):
> 
> 	Actually, the survey has been forwarded around the office, and
> will probably be discussed at the next staff meeting.  But we probably
> won't make any official response to it, as it wasn't an official
> survey. 

[At the risk of seeming argumentative...]

Um... pardon me, but what then, exactly, _is_ an "official survey"?
And who proclaims it such?

I should think that anything appearing in the newsgroups is as
"official" as it ever gets here, just by it's being there.

I certainly hope I'm not reading more into your statement than you
really intended to put there, but your statement reads like a "_We_
don't have to answer that because _we_ have decided this wasn't
_official_, so there!" statement.  I would hope that this was not the
intended message, but the wording hints of a slight bit of "snootiness"
to me.

> 	Simply because the EFF doesn't make official responses to much
> of what goes on in this group, doesn't mean we don't view it as
> valuable feedback.  Even the most outrageous crap is discussed and
> analyzed for pointers about what we might be doing wrong or need to
> improve.  Now, the survey may indicate that our PR is too passive.  Or
> it may indicate that we aren't communicating as clearly as we thought
> our activities in EFFO.  It could also indicate nothing more than that
> there are people operating on false assumptions about the organization
> and there isn't much we can do about it if they refuse to read the
> newsletters and general information files that get posted here on a
> regular basis.

In which case, isn't it better to educate the readership of this group,
or these groups, and correct misconceptions?   Just a thought.


Awaiting clarification,
-- 
John G Dobnick                          ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Computing Services Division             INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee     UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: wln-mail@cs.columbia.edu (William Lee Nussbaum)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Reply-To: wln@cs.columbia.edu
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:22:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.020910.27812@homecare.com> jessea@homecare.com (Jesse W. Asher) writes:

>arrogant to long.  The hand writing is on the wall.  If it isn't BSDI,
>it will be somebody else.  Perhaps Plan 9, or maybe Windows NT?  The

Plan 9: from Bell Labs...

Don't think they're going to do anything nasty to AT&T.
From: me@isnext9.msu.edu (My Account)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Please Feed the Spooks
Keywords: communist terrorist assassinate plutonium iraq bomb CIA RIA KGB MI6 Mossad SDI sabotage anarchy revolution kidnap nuclear blackmail
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:56:05 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <1992Jul24.134841.3050@resonex.com> dan@resonex.com (Dan Kell)  
writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.192150.8185@ampex.com> russest@ampex.com (Steve  
Russell) writes:
> >In article <cass8806.99@elan.glassboro.edu> cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu  
(KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
> >>In article <1992Jul22.063823.22045@Princeton.EDU>  
spencer@burn.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) writes:
> >>
> >>>Use alt.cascade, please, that's what it's there for.
> >>
> >>what exactly is a "spook" and why is it always so hungry? and is there 
> >>really an alt.cascade?
> >
> >SPOOK - generic term for an employee of one of
> >        those "black" organizations such as
> >        Secret Service, CIA, NIA, NSA, etc...
> 
> 
> Also used as a reference to people who work for Defense contractors in 
> classified positions that don't allow them to talk about their work. At  
all.
> Like "I'd tell you what time I get to work, but I'd have to kill you."
> 
> 
> >
> >SUPER SPOOK - refers to someone specifically in
> >              the NSA: the ones who gather information
> >              about everything but share it with no one.
> >
> >-steve
> 
> And don't forget: CLUELESS SPOOKS
> 
> 
> 
> aka Dan Qualye and George Bush.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dan Kell                  
> email to dan@resonex.com
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."   A. Einstein
Speaking of clueless.  Sometimes spook groups have one arm that inserts  
confusing information into the target.  Like the CIA writing an article  
and then using someone else's byline.  This can be used to create the  
impression that so and so is communist.  The other arm is devoted to  
monitoring and because spook groups don't even talk to the guy down the  
hall they monitor their own disinformation and get *really* clueless.  So  
when you here that someone is supposed to be communist, feel free to be  
skeptical.  
=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"Why don't you let the word 'Machine' conjure up images of patterns
of shifting light rather than of giant steam shovels."
--Douglas R. Hofstadter
PS communist terrorist assassinate plutonium iraq bomb CIA RIA KGB MI6  
Mossad SDI sabotage anarchy revolution kidnap nuclear blackmail
                                      :-)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: NEWSDAY1@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:41:00 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org writes:
>I have no trouble with the publication of the names of the accused. I 
>have a lot of trouble with the publication of their addresses. I realize
>this may be standard policy for NEWSDAY, but not all newspapers follow
>such a policy.
 
>After the indictments were publicized, media representatives camped out
>on the doorsteps of the defendants in order to get statements from them,
>even though such statements, including exculpatory ones, could be used
>at trial. Is there any doubt that publication of these defendants
>addresses made this easier?
 
Your concerns are legitimate, of course. It's no picnic when one is
accused of a crime, especially one that is newsworthy.
 
Certainly it's possible that some of the media camped outside the
door got the address from a print publication, but any reporter
(or reader, for that matter) worth his or her salt could easily
have obtained the defendant's address from law enforcement. If anything,
publication of the address may have saved some reporters a phone call.
 
Evan Rudowski
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: SEC'S EDGAR SYSTEM
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:16:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


       This is a great idea, but it should be noted that the beginning of the
article gives the impression that this is actually happening.  It's just
pending legislation at this point.

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security,alt.drugs,alt.hackers.malicious,alt.censorship
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Phantom Access - EFF
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:44:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
: In article <dank.712258012@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov> dank@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Kegel) writes:
: >blain@netcom.com (Blain Strickel) writes:
: >>The EFF from the results I have received is an organization without a purpose
: >>and without a following.  Only 52 people even had == opinions == about what 
: >>the EFF is doing...
: >
: >Perhaps if you had chosen a more interesting subject than "Phantom Access",
: >more serious people would have read your original poll, i.e. it's not just
: >EFF that has trouble getting a coherent message to the masses :-)
: >I certainly support the EFF wholeheartedly.
: 
: Dan's point is precisely the one I would have made if I'd gotten here
: first. Blain Strickel's poll is a sampling of a highly unrepresentative
: fraction of the readership of this newsgroup: specifically, those who 
: read the postings in the thread "Re: Phantom Access - EFF" *and* who were
: willing to take the time to respond to Strickel's poll.
: 
: Blain's poll, and the conclusions he draws from it, demonstrate some of
: the hazards of unsystematic and unscientific opinion-gathering.
: 
: 
: --Mike


Sorry to take you this far but there is a Phangom Octipus universe
attempting communication.  Just say no.

Bob

-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

I love the Olympics!!!!
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI [BSDI response]
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:55:00 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <1992Jul24.202238.18012@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>The original V7 Unix was a brilliant innovation, but in today's world of
>megabyte kernels, we forget how small it was, and how easy it would be
>for a modern trained programmer who has never seen Unix source to duplicate
>it.   But that's not what BSD did.

But they did.  I volunteered to write a clone of spell for bsd a couple
of years ago, and they insisted at the time that I must not look at
the existing sources.  I cloned it by reading the man page and playing
with the program.  I'm fairly sure most of the other utilities were
handled this way too.

Still, it's all academic now.  I hear bsd has dropped out of the game
and I'm not going to waste my time on supporting bsdi who probably
are the trigger for waking up ATT.  Without them, I suspect Bill Jolitz
would have brought out a free BSD for 386's, and no-one would have
complained.

G
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Local Bulletin Board Gets Busted
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:16:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: m2.MMEYER.92Jul24101622
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc. - Plano TX

In article <1992Jul21.213052.17723@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx953@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David R. Cohen) quotes:
> ...  However, when police seized Lehrer's records they found that
> even the "clean" files contained images not entirely wholesome.
> 	"One was Bugs Bunny eating a carrot, one was Bart Simpson riding a
> skate board ...

	It's a good thing our authorities are acting to keep those
dirty, sleazy, pornogrpahic pictures of Bugs Bunny and Bart Simpson
away from our innocent children...

> One file allegedly shows a nude image of Christina Applegate, who
> plays Peg on the television show "Married With Children."

	Christina Applegate plays Kelly (the daughter), not Peg (the
mother).   <Sigh>...

> 	In addition to the graphic interface images, juveniles were able to
> access adult movies, which are transmitted on color monitors.

	?????  Surely they mean stills from movies, not the movies
themselves.  Unless there's been an enourmous improvement in bandwidth
capacity that I'm not aware of...

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
"Your present is under the tree.  It's the ticking one marked 'Open Me First.'"
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:4738 misc.legal.computing:1416 misc.int-property:786
From: ulmo@netcom.com (Brad Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:30:52 GMT

"  BV> If AT&T attacks Mark Williams Company, then your conclusions are

" Of course, if I remember right, MWC is claiming a patent on the idea of
" a designated byte order for interchange between machines of differing
" endianness.

Geez, I consider that a joke, but if it really matters ...

Does it predate this?

Network Working Group						4691
RFC-5								Jeff Rulifson
								June 2, l969



				DEL

[...]

   All input from the Utah console first goes to the NLS NEP.  It is
   processed, parsed, blocked, translated, etc.  When NEP receives a
   character appropriate to its state it may finally initiate
   transfers to the 940.  The bits transferred are in a form
   acceptable to the 940, and maybe in a standard form so that the
   NLSW need not differentiate between Utah and other NET users.


ADVANTAGES OF NST

   After each node has implemented the library part of the NST, it
   need only write one program for each subsystem, namely the
   symbolic file it sends to each user that maps the NET hardware
   representation into its own special bit formats.

[...]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: lwv26@cas.org (Larry W. Virden)
Subject: In search of EFF response wrt CACM's 6/92 Debunking article
Reply-To: lvirden@cas.org (Larry W. Virden)
Organization: Nedriv Software and Shoe Shiners, Uninc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:55:48 GMT


I am on a slow routing list - has there been a formal thoughtful response 
to Paul Heckel's "Debunking the Software Patent Myths" article published on
pp 121-140 of the V35n6 June 1992 issue of Communications of the ACM yet?
-- 
Larry W. Virden                 UUCP: osu-cis!chemabs!lvirden
Same Mbox: BITNET: lvirden@cas  INET: lvirden@cas.org
Personal: 674 Falls Place,   Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614
America Online: lvirden@aol.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: peterd@bunyip.com (Peter Deutsch)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: McGill University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:30:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.033435.2197@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> peterd@bunyip.com  
(Peter Deutsch) writes:

[* stuff about archie operations deleted *]

Oops, I sent that out with an Organization: line of McGill University, 
and it more properly should have gone out as Bunyip Information 
Systems. Bunyip currently operate a server at McGill, and we still
access the net through McGill resources, but I am not
authorized to be a McGill spokesperson on this. Bunyip Information
Systems owns the archie code and will license copies or operate servers 
for those who want it, but we don't currently operate any servers
of our own, nor have any definite arrangements with McGill other than 
an ad hoc agreement to share development resources and a handshake deal 
with the School of Computer Science to run their archie server.

Thus, if you were to sue anyone, I suspect it would have to be McGill, 
since they own the hardware and are actually providing all the needed 
resources. We are not paid to run it, but neither do we pay them for 
doing so. You could try to sue Bunyip, but I'm not sure on what 
grounds, since we are only providing the program, not the service. 
Of course, I'd rather you didn't if I have a choice... :-)


			- peterd





Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:4836 misc.legal.computing:1490 misc.int-property:790 comp.unix.wizards:3310
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Date: 25 Jul 92 22:24:35 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards
Organization: IR

In article <l6nl2kINNjuk@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
> The bottom line is that AT&T claims NET2 is contaminated with intellectual
> property misappropriated from AT&T -- perhaps not direct copies of source
> code -- but at least ways of doing things (trade secrets) -- and therefore
> any system derived from NET2 requires an AT&T source code license [it used
> to be about $10,000 to get an AT&T source license].

You know, I'm suddenly glad about the past four years, in which I could
have looked at ``the source'' to solve problems but always declined to
do so, often to the amazement of onlookers. Now I'm still free to sit
down and reimplement UNIX without threats from AT&T. Whew.

From what I've seen of how CSRG attacks projects, AT&T-derived programs
are replaced wholesale by code imported from outside or written anew. I
would be astounded if AT&T could actually prove that anything in the
free BSD distributions contained intellectual property stolen from AT&T.

Followups to comp.unix.wizards (which shouldn't exist; comp.unix.future
would be much more appropriate).

---Dan
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk