HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 23 Dec 1992 21:34:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Distribution: inet
Reply-To: an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) says:

>
>	I agree.  This is why some systems allow anonymous accounts
>and others don't.  The WELL makes its decision on an individual basis.
>
>>The topic is a pretty mainstream one for this newsgroup
>>(comp.org.eff.talk).
>
>	Yes, I know all about what goes on in this newgroup.  But you
>haven't linked your concern with the WELL specifically into any kind
>of privacy debate I'm familiar with.  Are you arguing for or against
>anonymity? And how does the WELL policy fall into that debate?  So
>far, you've only made some vague allegations about an elite or
>arbitrary policy by a private system.
	
	My concern is the one that has been expressed about a general
attitude by private systems that some seem to have.  I personally do not
believe that anonymity is a bad thing, even if it leads to a few more
colorful conversations than if full accountability were enforced.  I
like the idea that I can be arguing philosophy with somebody I may never
know unless we mutually decide to exchange real id's.  Given the recent
passage of stalker laws, how soon will it be before having your real
name and address (electronic) available to anyone who fingers a system
will be considered a security threat?  Even Joe User, who isn't as
bothered yet by people at random much, deserves this basic right to
privacy.  What about Jane User?  Hubby can split with her, be working
accross town or state and still intimidate via email and IRC if need be
(currently a rare occurance, but more and more people are getting
nettable).  If you say these are the situations where the WELL would let
someone have a "pseudonymous" account, well and good, but why should a
subscriber have to wait to prove they need one?  It really is not any
more expensive to the system to have semi-anon accounts, its just a
matter of that word I so despise...."policy".   If the big bad feds
really want to get ahold of a user's id, what is the difference between
letting them call the service provider (or show up with a warrant, which
is more affable) instead of just looking it up like anyone can do to a
non-anonymous account?   I would never get an account on a system with a
policy like the Well's.   How do the well admins feel about livetime
connections to the internet where one party is anonymous and
uncontrolable by them?   Thats the key word...control.   I want
exclusive control over what I do, who knows about it and how I respond.
Censorship and penny-ante, ass-covering policies do not appeal to me.  I
bet they don't appeal to joe.net.user either.

				Korac MacArthur (not anonymous today)

-- 
Hey, George.....Nah na na na, NA NA NA NA,  HEEEY   HEYYY HEY,
GOOOOOODDDDBYYYEEEE!!!!!!   (and good riddance)
From: Don.Kulha@f7.n125.z1.fidonet.org (Don Kulha)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Info re: Liberty, EFF et All...
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 22:12:04 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:125/7 - Sonoma Online, Santa Rosa CA

    Howdy folks....We run Sonoma Online, a public BBS system in 
Northern CA, which operates as a node in FidoNet. In order to 
better serve our usership and promote awareness of electronic
libertys we would like to identify a good source of this info to
add to our file database. 
    I'm looking for refferals to where I can call in and download
(HST or V.32b prefferably) various texts relating to online rights,
the EFF and it's work, electronic citizenship and the like. Leads 
will be greatly appreciated. Please note that we don't currently
have access to FTP services hence I need to go dial-up.
   Thanks in Advance....DCK

--
Internet: don.kulha@f7.n125.z1.fidonet.org     FidoNet: @ 1:125/7
Snail:    Don Kulha/ Sonoma Online/ POB 7518/ Santa Rosa CA 95407
Voice:    +1 707 526 9473            BBS: 1 707 545 0746 HST/V32b


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!125!7!Don.Kulha
Internet: Don.Kulha@f7.n125.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:08:50 GMT

In article <1ho38qINNmtr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur) writes:

>	I mean in the respect that anonymous speakers are more likely to
>discuss provocative topics, use "bad" words (which I fully support the
>use of if the user of the words feels like its appropriate), and
>generally be more spontaneous.  THAT is what I mean by colorful.  

And that is what I understood. As any WELL user can attest, there is
an abundance of "provocative topics" on the WELL, a strong sense of the
freedom to use profanity, and very spontaneous interactions.

The notion that anonymity would increase any of these elements on the WELL
is grounded in unfamiliarity with the system.

>>Who said subscribers have to "prove" anything?
>>	
>	Whoever says that the WELL management consider  the private/anon
>account requests and determine if the anonymity is granted, possibly the
>ex-manager, I can't read the posts that far back for the name.

What that means is that subscribers have to *say* something. It doesn't
mean they have to *prove* something.

There is a difference.

>	Basically, this whole thread is a debate over whether a service
>should offer anything only to a select few (celebs and other special
>cases) or not and if this is an ethical stand.

Anyone can get an anonymous account on the WELL.



--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:11:24 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <1992Dec31.191448.29680@panix.com> rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:
>>>Quite a broad statement there.  I came up with an idea (never
>>>implemented BTW) for a file compression virus for use on my home
>>>computer(s).  Basically it would be a standard virus, but it would

>>So your "beneficial" virus gets loose on my computer.  And some time later,

>I said this would be for _my_ use on _my_ home computer, and it would
>look for permission before spreading.  It would not 'get loose' on
>your computer unless you asked for it _and_ placed a special
>permission file in your system.

In that case, it really isn't a virus. A disk compression program that
automatically compresses all files on the disk is a device driver in
my book. A "virus" is a program that replicates itself and attempts to
spread itself from one "host" computer to another.

--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:06:20 GMT

In article <1hm9vqINNo3p@agate.berkeley.edu>, spp@zabriskie (Steve Pope) writes:
>A few contributors to this thread (and some email responses) 
>indicate that there are those who share my concerns on
>this issue -- not in the sense of disagreeing with what
>the WELL is doing (none of us have much of a fight with that),
>but on the larger implications of this sort of practice on
>privacy issues.  The fact that these individuals are not
>in the majority, and thus fail to overpower all of the netnoise,
>does not surprise me particularly.  

I don't think there's any reason to think that the vocal people
flaming you are in any way representative of the newsgroup readers,
though.

This thread has just become one of the numerous ones in
comp.org.eff.talk where the "dissident" is made the target of several
straw man, ad hominem, distortions and other unpolite attacks which
increase to the noise.  Then, when the target of the attack tries to
answer to them, he gets attacked for repeating stuff and wasting
bandwidth.

I don't know what's a good way to deal with these kinds of attacks.
Just to ignore them and put the persons doing them into a killfile if
they are a trend of the person's posting style, I guess.  This however
is problematic when the persons in question have something interesting
or informative to say once in a while and/or are publishing
interesting and informative stuff connected to their job.

//Jyrki
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:06:13 GMT
Organization: The World


Before licensing computer professionals perhaps they should think
about certifying people who teach these skills in our universities
(i.e.  professors.)

Lemme tell ya, your typical CS prof is a retreaded logician who may
well have valuable contributions to make in his or her research field
(and is only in CS because it pays more and has more grant
opportunities and math depts have *real* standards due to the supply
of good people), but when it comes to teaching practical skills
they're only about 30 minutes ahead of their students in the textbook
and mostly consider themselves to have gotten "stuck" teaching some
programming or compilers course cuz of some foul deed they committed
in a previous life.

I've been there, and curriculum committee meetings! It's frightening,
truly frightening to hear our children's educators demand course
topics that were discontinued back when cars had fins due to
obsolescence, and then find the rest of the room in total agreement!

A few years ago when I was teaching they replaced my Unix/C systems
programming course with one focusing on assemblers and link-loaders
and the like, I mean...gak.  And after the course started they
discovered there really was no useable (in the old sense) assembler on
the system...after the course started...

You have to live it to believe it.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7867 alt.privacy:2722
From: aris@lasernet.co.za (Aris Stathakis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Calif DMV DEMANDS SSN for Driver License!?
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:24:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: lasernet.1992Dec21.142454.28487
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lasernet (Pty) Ltd.

In <1992Dec21.002505.1250@netcom.com> tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:

>There are two chunks to this discussion.

>I am so adamant about not giving out our ssn (no, even TRW doesn't
>have it) that I can't get my Prop. 13 homeowner's exemption
>(our county requires it to give you the exemption mandated by law).
>I will fight this tooth and nail, or move.  I did contact the
>Nevada DMV to find out how one gets a Nevada DL.


Sorry to ask such an ignorant question, but why don't you want to
give your ssn number out? 

Aris

-- 
Aris Stathakis        Tel:+27 11 887 4220 |Gimme a beer and money sandwich -  
SCO Unix Support      Fax:+27 11 887 1141 |Hold the bread. - Waldo D.R. Dobbs
Lasernet (Pty) Ltd    X25: 06550 11642692 |_________________________________
P.O. Box 78446, Sandton, 2146, R.S.A       Internet: aris@lasernet.co.za
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Re- Novell buys Unix System
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:45:37 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

Yo Brad! Good to see you!
Every time anyone posts to this list, we get a two-page mail bounce
back from attmail. This bounce has your home address among other
things.
   Can you help fix this? Gripe at your end, maybe?
Thanks, Betsy
--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:52:22 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1h5mrdINNkgk@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
(Steve Pope) writes:
>(John F. Whitehead) writes:
>>As I mention below, I don't think this is the case, though it certainly
>>is discouraged.
>
>Discouraged to the extent that well below 1% of WELL subscribers
>have pseudonymous privileges.  To me this is the same
>as "unavailable".

This is nonsense.  It's not meaningful to judge the
availability of a feature without considering how many
people desire the feature.

Part of the culture on the WELL is to accept responsibility
for one's own words.  Another part of the culture is strong
pressure to respect other participants.  This provides both
a positive incentive to make one's real name available and
the lack of a common deterrent to doing so.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:40:00 GMT

I'm as much in favor of e.communication to our congressmembers as anyone, 
although I think if there was a direct route from constituents' computers 
to the members, that a somewhat conservative viewpoint would dominate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that political conservatives seem 
more likely to take up new technology than liberals.  Liberals seem to be 
neo-Luddites in this respect.  

I didn't realize that for some time until I heard Rush Limbaugh point out 
that only liberals still have rotary telephones.  All I can say is I'm a 
liberal and I mostly have rotary telephones in my house. (That's one of the 
things Rush is good for, he makes liberals think about themselves 
(ourselves)).  So my point is that if a member were to rely heavily on 
input that came through electronic means (meaning e.mail) that the more 
conservative elements in society might have the upper hand.  No?

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell.Peabody College.Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 02:43:17 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1h5rn1INNla6@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
(Steve Pope) writes:
>No, my statement was totally meaningful.  Pseudonymity is
>available to less than 1% of WELL subscribers.

Pseudononymous status is now enjoyed by less than 1% of WELL
subscribers.  This says nothing about how many subscribers
could have this status if they requested it.

Only a small proportion of the residents of California
travel by wheelchair.  This is, similarly, a result of
differences in needs and in desires.

>It is
>available to 100% of people on Usenet since pseudonymous
>servers are now part of the Usenet infrastructure.

So what?  The availability of a feature on one service
does not invalidate different policies on another service.

>In article <1h5os6INNkrf@morrow.stanford.edu> karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU
(Chuck Karish) writes:
>
>>Part of the culture on the WELL is to accept responsibility
>>for one's own words.  
>
>Unless you're a celebrity.

Even if you're a pseudonymous user, you still are accountable
for the legal consequences of your postings because the
management knows who you are.  In terms of the social
consequences, I sincerely doubt that the WELL would tolerate
anti-social use of a pseudonymous account.

>>Another part of the culture is strong
>>pressure to respect other participants.  
>
>I submit that the culture of respect is just as strong here
>on Usenet as it is on the WELL.

This is a joke, right?  I can read an implied smiley
as well as the next subscriber.  Especially coming
from someone who finds it appropriate to yell
"Bullshit!" in the middle of a civil discussion.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: hauben@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben)
Subject: The Wonderful World of Usenet News
Keywords: Usenet News Amateur Computerist Supplement 
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:48:17 GMT


The Fall '92 Special Supplement on Usenet News is now
available via anonymous FTP at the Amateur Computerist FTP site.
You can obtain a copy by ftping to wuarchive.wustl.edu. Log in as
"anonymous" and type your email address for the password.

Then "cd /doc/misc/acn" and
"get acn4-5.txt".

If anyone has problems retrieving this issue, please send me
email.

	For the Amateur Computerist,
	-Michael Hauben

PS: Or send me email if you want me to send it to you, or read
alt.amateur-comp to perhaps see if your site still contains the
posting if the issue.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michael Hauben    CC '95      | Write ME for the NEW Amateur Computerist   |
| hauben@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu | Special Supplement on Usenet News called   |
| am893@cleveland.freenet.edu   | "The Wonderful World of Usenet News"       |




 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michael Hauben    CC '95      | Write ME for the NEW Amateur Computerist   |
| hauben@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu | Special Supplement on Usenet News called   |
| am893@cleveland.freenet.edu   | "The Wonderful World of Usenet News"       |
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Date: 29 Dec 92 06:37:42 MST
Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk
Summary: Lack of copyright notice != no copyright
Keywords: copyright, notice
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: inet
Expires: January 31, 1993

In article <1ho55fINN731@ftp.UU.NET> sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>In article <1ho25nINNm7n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>>So USL is claiming copyright violations.
>
>The 32V code that the university started out from was not copyrighted.
>(No explicit copyright notice, and it was done before the US said that
>things were automatically copyrighted.)
>So they would probably lose a copyright charge.

Not quite so simple.  It depends on two facts -- when was the code first
fixed in a tangible medium and whether the code was published.  Publication
generally means sale or other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or
lending.  It would probably not be code licensed with restrictions on
further distribution.

Before the effective date of the Copyright Act of 1976 (January 1, 1978),
the prior federal copyright act covered only published works, and required
notice on the work at the time it was published or copyright was lost.
Unpublished works were covered by state copyright laws (generally common
law rather than statutory law).

If a copyrighted work contained a notice, this generally meant that the
work would be considered as published, so unpublished works would not
normally have a copyright notice.

The Copyright Act of 1976 changed all this.  "Copyright protection
subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible
medium ..." (Section 102)  No notice is required, and state copyright
laws on unpublished works are preempted by the federal law (Section 301).
The notice requirement before the Berne amendments in 1988 read
"Whenever a work protected by copyright under this title is *published*
in the United States ... a notice of copyright shall be placed on
*publically distributed* copies ..." (Section 401)  Note that the
requirement is only for published works, and only on the publically
distributed copies.

So, if 32V is an unpublished work, it is likely protected either under
state copyright law (if written prior to 1978) or federal law, even if
it has no notice.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:37:01 GMT

In article <C03IE8.D9M@vcd.hp.com> edmoore@vcd.hp.com (Ed Moore) writes:
:A good awk or perl script should be able to select all the email messages on
:whatever topic the congresscritter wants to accept input on at the moment.
:The rest could go into the bit bucket unread by human eyes.  :-)

If they were serious about lay e-access to congress, mail to the office
of a congresscritter could be gatewayed into a local newsgroup, and read
with a threaded newsreader that made it obvious what had and hadn't been
answered.  Flunkeys could answer the mundane stuff and everyone would
see that it had been answered.

G
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 04:50:36 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec22.043110.1733@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>It is quite a leap from this assertion to your conclusions. As I have said
>before, I've never known a non-celebrity who wanted an anonymous WELL
>account to fail to get one. Have you?
>
>--Mike

Good point.  No I haven't.

But given that the admins tell new users pseudonymous accounts
are not allowed except in special circumstances, it would
be remarkebly two-faced of them to in fact allow them
on request, wouldn't it?

Steve