HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Cyberspace Dimensions
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 05:46:28 GMT

watpod62@alfred.carleton.ca (George Bragg) writes:

>I think cyberspace has, as dimensions, any number we care to give it.
>I mean, theoretically, we could travel forever in a straight line on
>cyberspace without coming back.  It may actually be pointless to talk
>about dimensions in cyberspace.  It simply is.  How far is it across a
>black hole?

  perhaps a problem we encounter when thinking about this is that our notion
of the word dimension perhaps assumes our 3-dimensional world.  since whenever
i've thot about cyber-anything, the normal constraints of the 3D world remain
outside the bounds of what i intuit would be reasonable.  further, since i 
am *highly* unsure what dimesion i'm in when i'm thinking cyber-ly, i cannot
come up with a replacement for my ole' trusty length/width/depth crutches.


---
  Stephen Buckley        /   my opinions are not in the public domain.  they are
  sbuckley@sfu.ca       /  shareware.  if you agree with them, you are required 
TrueNorthStrong&Free   /   to send me $15 and a postcard of your hometown.  
   1-800-REALITY      /      further upgrades available to registered users.
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
From: watpod62@alfred.carleton.ca (George Bragg)
Subject: Re: Cyberspace Dimensions
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:18:40 GMT

I think cyberspace has, as dimensions, any number we care to give it.
I mean, theoretically, we could travel forever in a straight line on
cyberspace without coming back.  It may actually be pointless to talk
about dimensions in cyberspace.  It simply is.  How far is it across a
black hole?
From: mortel@chose.cam.org (Stephane Lussier)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Cyberspace Dimensions
Summary: The Meaning of Life in less that 3 KiloBytes
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:11:59 GMT
Organization: J'en aurai une!  Un jour, j'en aurai une!!
X-Newsreader: MeNews 2.7.0 for Amiga

[ sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes in article <sbuckley.702625588@sfu.ca>: ]
   watpod62@alfred.carleton.ca (George Bragg) writes:

| >I think cyberspace has, as dimensions, any number we care to give it.
| >I mean, theoretically, we could travel forever in a straight line on
| >cyberspace without coming back.  It may actually be pointless to talk
| >about dimensions in cyberspace.  It simply is.  How far is it across a
| >black hole?
|
|   perhaps a problem we encounter when thinking about this is that our notion
| of the word dimension perhaps assumes our 3-dimensional world.  since whenever
| i've thot about cyber-anything, the normal constraints of the 3D world remain
| outside the bounds of what i intuit would be reasonable.  further, since i
| am *highly* unsure what dimesion i'm in when i'm thinking cyber-ly, i cannot
| come up with a replacement for my ole' trusty length/width/depth crutches.


 What about ONE?  Two if you count time -- or one if you count that
 cyberspace+time = cyberspace-time(!)

 We have to ask ourselves "what does a dimension measure?"
 -My guess would be that it mesures infinities.
 -Infinities? How many are they out there?
 -"Out there?"  Who told you they where "out there"?
  -- and why do I keep calling them "they"?

 The TURING machine: an endless monodimensional tape containing 0s & 1s.

 With this Turing thing, you can (try to) simulate:

		-natural numbers (an endless combinaison of 0s & 1s)
		-x |
		-y |  (3 infinities of an infinite amount of natural numbers)
		-z |
		-real numbers (an infinity within an infinity)
		-and so on... (trust _your_ imagination! We've got 5 so far)


 -     PHILOSOPHY WARNING      -
      (proof by induction)

 Infinities within infinities...      |
 Endlessly fragmenting infinities.    |  I apologize for the poem
 What is this obsession?	      |  I am not a poet
 Endlessly Fragmenting order,	      |  I am not english
 To find nothing but order.	      |


 Oh! & please... don't give me that "get a life" reply;
 this message is only a fragment of my life.

 I honestly hope that this particular message
 is _not_ representative of me in any or all of my dimensions,
 shall they be space, time, or any infinity whatsoever.
 I apologize, deeply.


 [...maybe I should have cross-replied to talk.bizarre...]
<--							-->

\/	   - "think BIG"
/\/	   - "infinitely infinite times infi --"
\/\/ /	   - "No! think BIGGER!"
/\/\/\/ /  - ""
 /\/\/\/\ Stephane Lussier, mortel@chose.CAM.org
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: [soc.men]  Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 12:44:16 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <9204170340.AA03393@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>The full-boat definition is:
>
>Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
>physical conduct of a sexual nature constitue sexual harassment when (1)
>submission to such conduct is mae either explicitly or implicitly a term or
>condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of
>such conduct by an individual is use as the basis for employment decisions
>affecting such an individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect
>of unreasonably interferring with an individual's work performance or
>creating an intimidating, hostile, or offesnive working environment.
>
>The EEOC argued for the current broad interpretation (based on work by
>McKinnon, co-author of the much discussed 'anti-pornography' ordanance)
>though Clarance Thomas probably deserves his share of the 'credit', being the
>head of the EEOC at the time.  The courts bought this interpretation, and it
>is now the effective law of the land.  I believe the ACLU is challenging it
>in its current form as a violation of the first ammendment (freedom of
>speech) - arguing (correctly IMO) that federal law (which is what Title VII
>is) should not impose content/value judgement restrictions (such as
>'offensive') on speech.

Want to bet on which side Thomas will be on if this comes before him
again?  I don't think Thomas is going to be a supporter of such a
broad definition anymore.

The first two are OK, but that last... "purpose or effect" means you
can get nailed if you 'harass' unintentionally.  And 'offensive' puts
the definition in the hands of the complaintant-- there is no defense.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.unix.programmer, et al.]  Re: ethics of logging telnet destinations (was Re: logging outgoing...)
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:00:03 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,comp.admin.policy
From: spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale)
Subject:  Re: ethics of logging telnet destinations (was Re: logging outgoing...)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:57:02 GMT

shandon@cats.ucsc.edu (Timothy Daniel Kolar) says:

> This leads to the reasonable idea that you only start tracking telnets
> when someone at another site reports an attack from your site.  However,
> if you trust your system administrator (and you had better) then having
> logs that aren't looked at until a problem arises is about the same thing.

No, they are very different things. 
Investigating a crime after it has taken place is standard policy;
however, surveilance without motive is not.
If the police want to watch me, or the FBI wishes to tap my phone, it
is my understanding that they have to suspect me of a crime BEFORE
they start logging.

You seem to feel that it is fine whether or not you are being accused;
I do not. The ability to monitor everyone does not mean that you
should; in this respect, I do not think telnet logging - including
ones not originating at your site, as the original poster also
wanted to do - should occur until a break-in is suspected.

> |> Also, the safety of user's data is most easily secured with backups...
> 
> 	Safety also entails protecting the information from 
> unauthorized access (ironically, backups make that harder instead of
> easier).  
How so?

A reasonably secure system can be had by making sure people don't pick
poor passwords, and making sure people don't give them out. I doubt there
have been a lot of systems broken into that had adequate security measures.

Followups directed to comp.admin.policy.

-- 
Steven Miale - spm2d@virginia.edu   | Backwards compatibility is backward.
Undergraduate Researcher            |
Department of Computer Science      |
University of Virginia              |
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy]  Re: ethics of logging telnet destinations (was Re: logging outgoing...)
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:02:55 GMT


Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Subject:  Re: ethics of logging telnet destinations (was Re: logging outgoing...)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:54:56 GMT


Despite the "rightness" and "wrongness" of logging these things, one
should consider the overall chilling effect of the monitoring. What
effect will it have on the users--and the institution--as a whole?

One might compare and contrast it to other forms of monitoring such as
license plate scans to see where you go, audit trails such as
recording your every command, etc.

It would be a good idea to study how these things affect the minds of
non-criminals, and weigh the overall effect with the security gained.

Sean

-- 
                  |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey        | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.men]  Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:40:07 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


From: baba@Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject:  Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:58:34 GMT

In article <12394@tamsun.tamu.edu>, (Charles Herrick) writes:
|> In many places, you can be charged with sexual harrassment if you put  
|> a calender on the wall of your personal office that has a picture of  
|> a female in a bikini leaning against a '57 Chevy.

This may be so. While I was in the manufacturing floor of a computer company
I got around the exclusions by displaying a portrait of an orchid in full
bloom. Naked Genitalia. 

Let them find a way to make me take it down. Even after I make clear just
what it is and means.

|> Fight misandry effectively. Fight it in the halls of government. Only  
|> when men have their own lobbying groups will this start to turn  
|> around.

"There is no po li ti cal so lu tion." - Police

I see no great difference between, 'My fast talker can out-proselytize your
fast talker!' and 'My lawyer can beat up your lawyer." The adversarial trip
is not the way toward a better quality of life.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
                                         baba@Tymnet.Com
Warning: Expicit Thoughts
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [misc.legal.computing]  E-mail privacy.
Date: 17 Apr 92 06:38:07 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


From: doctor@cs.mcgill.ca (Howard PICAIZEN)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject:  E-mail privacy.
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:35:40 GMT


Hi.

I haven't been following this group, so I'm not aware of what has been
said on this topic. However, I am in need of some information
pertaining to this topic.

Has there been any legislation or any legal precedents set concerning
a third party interception of email messages, say, by a system
administrator? If anyone is aware of such an occurence, please email
me with the details. I am interested in whether or not such an act has
ever been ruled illegal, or whether or not evidence obtained through such
interception was permitted to be presented in court.

I am mostly interested in the Canadian legal system, but any
information will do...

Thanks,
HP.

-- 
Captain Howard Picaizen (doctor@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca), IKN SANG.
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." -Kirk
"A warrior does not let a friend face danger alone." -Worf
"Let's be sure that history never forgets the name... Enterprise." -Picard
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [cs.general, et al.]  Re: A question of ethics
Date: 12 Apr 92 08:53:18 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: cs.general,aus.aarnet,comp.admin.policy
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject:  Re: A question of ethics
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 16:11:05 GMT

mikec@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Michael CIAVARELLA) writes:
}I have a (hypothetical) situation which I'd appreciate ...

[... a short paraphrase ...
    User A has accounts on machines XX & YY operated by separate departments.
    Admin of XX forbids use of program P on XX or while using XX.
    User A compiles P on YY.
    Admin of XX impersonates A on XX and deletes P from A's account on YY.
...]

Were I the Admin of YY I would have the Admin of XX called on the carpet
post haste where I would urge that s/he be fired on the spot.

If, as someone else suggested, the XX admin called me and asked me to
delete P from A's account on YY, I would politely refuse (assuming P
was allowed on YY).

John
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv]  Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 16:07:22 GMT


Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: jcurran@nic.near.net (John Curran)
Subject:  Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 14:26:01 GMT

--------
	From: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
	Subject: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
	Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 18:10:53 -0500

	
	...

	Let's face it, we've built a world-wide postal system with basically
	flat per-year rates which only really constrains the common citizen of
	modest means (and even that's breaking down thank to people like me
	:-), but is wide open and cheap cheap cheap for organizations (e.g.
	under $20K/year for unlimited communications access to millions, I'll
	guess that UW spends more than that per day on communications.)

	It's a brave new world.

	I don't think laws or regulations per se (like AUP) are quite the
	right head-on approach, they should exist to cover the periphery of
	activity only, restricting that which is truly undesireable under all
	conditions.

	I'd like to see harder thinking about installing the time-honored
	feedback loop: $$$. Works for the post office and phone company...

It doesn't quite work for the phone company; note the recent rash of laws
regarding telemarketing despite the fact that many of the calls are long-
distance and thus a proportional expense incurred by the telemarketer.  

A feedback loop is definitely needed if the current damping (read: AUP) is
lifted.  One might claim that paying an additional annual fee for commercial 
access (as is proposed by one backbone service provider) provides such a 
system, particularly if the proceeds are used to increase the infrastructure.

A more granular system for cost recovery may not result in more responsible
behavior, since the actual of cost of delivering a single mail message is
quite low and getting less expensive each day.  If the Internet community 
wants certain "content-based" behaviors, such as no bulk solicitations, some
form of acceptable usage policy will remain long after the commercial use
issues have been settled.

/John
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.motss, et al.]  frightening law
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:28:01 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi,ne.motss,alt.personals,comp.org.eff.talk
From: entropy@yaya (Lawrence C Foard)
Subject:  frightening law
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:57:44 GMT

The following was recently sent to me after I requested more info about
something appearing in alt.censorship, if I'm reading it right this would
outlaw all pornography in Massachusetts. 

From a newspaper article on it --
"A bill of divorcement: women are split on anti-pornography law," by
Thomas C. Palmer, Jr., Boston Globe, March 29, 1992, p.69 -- I've
gotten part of it, though:

    Sec.2(e): It shall be sex discrimination to produce, sell,
    exhibit, or distribute pornography, including through private
    clubs.  This subsection applies only to pornography made using
    live or dead human beings or animals...

    City, state, and federally funded public libraries or private
    and public university and college libraries in which pornography
    is available for study, including on open shelves but excluding
    special display presentations, shall not be construed to be
    trafficking in pornography.

    Any woman may bring a complaint hereunder as a woman acting
    against the subordination of women.  Any man, child, or
    transsexual who alleges injury by pornography in the way women
    are injured by it may also complain.

The fun part is that, according to the Globe article:

       The provision that would define trafficking in pornography as
    sex discrimination, which is already illegal and subject to
    triple damages, is the most far-reaching and dangerous one,
    according to an opponent, Nan C. Hunter, a cofounder of the
    Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force.

       It is something of a "stealth" provision, buried in the bill
    but one opponents believe would be used the most -- and of the
    greatest harm to free expression.  "There is no proof of harm
    required," Hunter says.  "The other sections at least try to
    address situations that involve harm and coercion."

As a technical note, the use of the word "illegal" may be misleading
-- sexual discrimination is a civil offense, not a criminal offense,
in Massachusetts.  You can't go to prison or be fined for it, but
you sure as hell can be sued for everything you own...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

-------------------------------
End repost

Obviously if this is for real we have some serious problems. I don't think
USENET will survive in its present form if this passes.
-- 
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true.            ------  0<p<1  
Hackers do it for fun.  |  Being Bisexual squares your         \    / therefore
"Profesionals" do it for money. |  probability of not getting   \  / p^2<p and
Managers have others do it for them. |  laid on a saturday night.\/ 1-p^2>1-p 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.men]  How do *you* say 'harassment'?
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:37:01 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald)
Subject:  How do *you* say 'harassment'?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 23:34:45 GMT

I would like to say that, for the most part, my personal encounter with
'sexual harassment' appears to be over. (see thread "A neat Story...") My
supervisors have told the woman (I still do not know anything about this
woman, not even a name) that I have been 'spoken to about his [my]
behavior.' This particular horror story has, if not a happy, at least an
acceptable ending.

However, the whole thing still rankles. Iam now sitting in our lab, working.
A friend has just handded me a book called "Female Orgasm", I would like to
talk about it, but of course certain words might creep out of my mouth which
some person might find offensive. So, I'll just sit here and say nothing.

It really pisses me off that I would have to be afraid of discussing
something in an *academic* setting. What kind of policy is it for an
institution of 'learning' that causes a portion of its students to feel
afraid of talking about certain things? I don't really need to point out
what position most of this population assumes durring urination.

At any rate, thanks for the comments/sympathy. It helped.


-- 
   Shawn FitzGerald           |   chungkuo@ais.org
   (Rational Romantic         |   University of Michigan
    Mystic Cynical Idealist)  |   Computing Club
"I love you so I keep dreaming . . ." -Bananas, _The House of Blue Leaves_
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: (none)
Date: 26 Mar 92 15:21:06 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org

Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom,comp.unix.admin
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: [comp.unix.admin]  Is this privacy violation ?
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 15:21:00 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
X-Bytes: 2701

>From: wjin@cs.uh.edu (Woochang Jin)
>
>Before we delete the users' accounts we e-mail to them a notice
>that their accounts will be deleted in 10 days.
>We simply used  'mail  xx yy zz ...... etc'.
>
>Now a user zz complain that he does not want others (xx zz .... etc) to know
>that he is not registered and  argues that we simply violated his
>privacy.
>
>We are going to mail to each user from now on anyway, but I am still confused.
>Does anyone have a similar experience ?

I've been thinking about user deletions for some time; here's the method
I've developed (and will be implementing in a day or so):

When I delete accounts, I won't send advance email.  The users are told,
upon receipt of their userid/password, that their accounts are only valid
while they are affiliated with the College.  

I'll change their login shell to a program that merely prints out something 
like this:

	According to our records, you are no longer affiliated with the
	College of Engineering.  Therefore, your access to Engineering
	systems has been terminated.

	Your files will not be deleted until <insert date here, usually
	about one month after the locking of the account>.  If you would
	like to transfer your files to another system, or if you would
	like to have a tape containing your files, contact <staff person>
	at <staff person's office>.

	If you believe that this action has been taken in error, please
	contact <staff person> in <staff person's office> as soon as
	possible.

If the user doesn't contact me within the prescribed time period, his/her
files are written to a master backup (the "Spring 1992 Deletions" tape, for
example), and then their directories are removed.

I think this addresses the most important concerns:

	- User privacy is (supposedly) assured; the only way to see this
	  message is to use the proper login/password.

	- Mail hackers (if they exist) won't get advance notice that an
	  account is to be terminated.

	- The user is informed that he can transfer his files or make a
	  backup tape for personal use; his files are maintained during
	  the availability of this service.

	- The management is rather easy; when the time window is closed,
	  a simple shell script will find all affected users, collect their
	  files in a single location, and archive them to tape.  (I've already
	  written/tested this shell script, by the way).

Comments?

-- 
 morgan@ms.uky.edu    |Wes Morgan, not speaking for|     ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
 morgan@engr.uky.edu  |the University of Kentucky's|   morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
 morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
        "I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk