HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: morpheus <morpheus@entropy.mcds.com>
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Professional registration
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 22:25:44 EST
Organization: No Pity For The Majority!  [private]

Jim.Riddle@inns.omahug.org (Jim Riddle) writes:

> I'm personally tired of hearing from all of these people who could've
> gotten college degrees if they wanted to do so.  I'd like to know why
> they didn't and why they seem to hold it against we who did!

Lack of money could be a hell of a good reason.



morpheus@entropy.mcds.com ("morph")   |   A name changes toys into tools..
Obsolete diety for hire.  Cheap.      |          - Skinny Puppy
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
From: mack23@avalon.eecs.nwu.edu (Chris Walsh)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:26:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.180915.13795@cc.ic.ac.uk> cmaae47@imperial.ac.uk writes:
>
>Though property rights come into it, they are not the only issue.

I'll say!  Various posters have asserted that "If you work for WidgetCo,
and WidgetCo owns your workstation, plus the associated networking infra-
structure, then its is OBVIOUS that WidgetCo can monitor your keystrokes."

True.  But folks, not every workstation belongs to a commercial firm!  If
the CERT advisory were directed solely at such organizations, I'd have no
beef with it.  The fact, however, is that it had a far broader audience.
Implicit in the notice was a recognition of the practice of keystroke
monitoring.  At some non-commercial sites (such as some public universities),
the use of e-mail is encouraged, as a means of familiarizing students with
the global connectivity and collaboration options that The Net(TM) offers.
Often, an analogy is drawn to telphony and snail mail, upon which more or
less clear restrictions on eavesdropping/snooping exist.  How surprising it
would be, I think, for these same students to learn that many professionals
in the field (perhaps some at their own site!) feel that this type of wire-
tapping has no privacy ramifications!  As governmental entities, these sites
are as bound by the Constitution as the FBI.  While I'm not saying that
a court order should be obtained to monitor for seconds at a time (just as
I'm sure that TelCos occasionally migh catch snippets of my words on the
phone while they track down problems), it seems patently clear that when
the border between troubleshooting and evidence-gathering has been crossed,
some sort of formal permission to proceed needs to be obtained.  Merely 
stating that the user does not own the workstation does not cut it.  I don't
own the phone lines leading from my apartment to the neighborhood switch, but
I'd be damned outraged if someone who *did* owned them decided to tape all
my calls!  Anyone who wouldn't is either a fascist or a fool, perhaps both.
OTOH, I'd extend this outrage only to authorized users.  The notion that one
needs to inform trespassers that trespassing is bad, and that trespassers will
be looked for and dealt with seems astonishingly idiotic -- as if "Duh, I
thought it was OK to trespass, use your stuff, and leave" were an excuse.
I'd like to have a similar ignorance == exoneration policy in place come
tax time, believe me!

Chris

P.S. How would you feel about the adminstrators of a router doing the same
kind of thing, assuming that this router tied together traffic from many
diverse autonomous entitities? I see no logical reason to argue against it,
assuming for a moment that the property rights crowd is correct.  The
privacy ramifications *there* give one pause.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Fun things to do to RTM
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:48:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.144942.26492@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>No, Mike's forte is the snide characterization, as "all you people who
>disagree with me are being malicious and only interested in doing bad
>things to poor Mr. Morris because it makes you feel good to hurt him
>for no reason."  Gee, nothing 'non-adult' or 'insulting' there, is
>there? 

Fred McCall has a decidedly idiosyncratic notion of the proper use
of quotation marks. As should be obvious, the remarks he "quotes"
here are his own invention. I've never said such a thing.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Everything one invents is true."
mnemonic@eff.org| 
(617) 864-0665  |                           --Flaubert
EFF, Cambridge  |                           
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu (gogo is insane)
Subject: Who's Who of the InterNet
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 04:29:05 GMT



 ______________________________________________________________________
|______________                        /                               |
|                                     /                                |
|                u  t  u  r  e       <___________  u  l  t  u  r  e    |
_______________________________________________________________________|


WHO are you?

Hi.  I publish the FutureCulture FAQ file, which is a self-described
"somewhat definitive guide to resources bringing you the future."  It
is basically an ever-growing guide to the new edge, technoculture,
cybperculture, etc., particular the relevant on-line aspects of the
aforementioned subculture(s)

One of the sections is a "who's who" of on-line 'celebrities', and
appears in the file like this:

	V. Important Person		Musician/Author 
	John Q. NetPublic		Hacker/Writer

So, if you are someone who would like to be mentioned in the file (no
email addrresses are given out), or if you know of someone who you
feel garners recognition, please send relevant info. (including a
basic summary of credentials in-case I fall knowledge-impaired) to:

      ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu

I am looking for on-line people from all walks of life, including:
hackers (in the underground sense), writers, magazine editors,
artists, musicians, DJs, NetGurus, authors, or any other
characteristic that might seperate onesself from the mass.net.public.

Thanks in advance.

--

    ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu	        FutureCulture:  In/f0rmation
    ahawks@mindvox.phantom.com		future-request@nyx.cs.du.edu

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: Jim.Riddle@inns.omahug.org (Jim Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:04:16 CST
Reply-To: jim.riddle@inns.omahug.org
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

>So, there's a possibility it will someday be illegal for me to login as 
>root on my '386 box unless I've first been admitted to a trade organization
>of admins?  Or, to be a little less paranoid, I can do my own electrical 
>work even if I'm not an electrician, but I can't do someone else's.  So,
>I'd need to join some guild before I could log in as root on my friend's
>machine to help him install a new piece of software?

>Dare I ask, how would any of this be enforced.  Also, especially since
>copyright for computer programs currently falls under the same category
>as copyright for novels, does anyone see any free-speech problem with
>licensing programmers?
>Thomas Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)

No, it would not be illegal for you to login on your 386 as root.
 
No, it would not be explicitly illegal for you to help your friend.
 
How any of this is enforced would be that if you _do_ work for someone
else and it fails, then your failure to be registered would be
prima-facie evidence of incompetence and, of itself in most instances, a
crime, so your customer would not only have an open-and-shut lawsuit but
the opportunity to have criminal charges against you.
 
Plus, you would not be allowed to advertise as a unix boss unless you
were registered.
 
That's how it works in other professions.
 

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: timhu@ico.isc.com (Timothy Hu)
Subject: Re: CPSR & Caller ID?
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:03:36 GMT

If you live in a state where CallID is not available, will your number
still show up on their machine?


-- 
-----
 
The intelligence (or lack of) expressed above does not necessarily reflect
the opinions/policies of Interactive Systems Corp.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jthomas@kolanut.mitre.org (Joe Thomas)
Subject: Re: Caller ID solution? (was Re: ACLU/EFF and Scanner restrictions?)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:35:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.201523.546@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>  
chris@engineer.mrg.uswest.com (Chris Fedde) writes:
> >
> >Joe Thomas posts a simple and elegant solution to the problem of
> >"rights" in conflict with respect to Caller ID. 

Gosh, thanks :^)

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

To which, in article <1992Dec11.195156.8120@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com  
(David Sternlight) replies:
> 
> OK  I've got a PBX in my basement.  Here's what
> I'm going to do. I'm going to start an anonymous dialer service.
> you dial up my service and register with the autoattendant.   from then
> on when a call arrives with your ID the pbx will pick up and present you  
with
> a dial tone.  You are then free to dial what ever number you want and I'll  
send you a bill for any charges you may incure.
> 
> What do you think?

Sure, that will work, too.  But I doubt that everyone, every time they make a  
call will want to go through an anonymous dialer.  The Caller-ID  
announcement/tone is still a good solution for finding out whether or not you  
want to use an anonymous dialer.  Having a tone only when Caller-ID is not in  
use doesn't seem too useful.  By the time you realize there's not going to be  
a tone, your number has already been passed and it's too late to do anything  
about it.

There are some practical problems with anonymous dialers, too.  If your  
dialout provider isn't trustworthy, they could still log your ID and pass it  
to law enforcement if LE asks for it--they might get harassed and threatened  
if they don't.  What LE could legally do about uncooperative redialers  
remains to be seen.  Dialing through a convoluted network of redialers can  
minimize these problems, but this rapidly becomes very inconvenient.

Joe
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jthomas@kolanut.mitre.org (Joe Thomas)
Subject: Caller ID solution? (was Re: ACLU/EFF and Scanner restrictions?)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:55:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.181556.8815@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David  
Sternlight) writes:
> But seriously, folks, I've noticed a very disturbing tendency on
> the part of such so-called civil liberties groups as the ACLU
> and CPSR to side with those who wish to preserve their right to
> interfere with others, and against those who wish to be
> unmolested.
> 
> A typical example is CPSR's position on caller ID, which has
> the effect of defending the right of others to block their lines
> from being IDed when they call you and thus invade YOUR privacy
> as the initial overt act. It doesn't occur to CPSR that a pure
> libertarian position would say that if someone didn't want to
> be IDed he simply need not call.

Okay, I'm going way off topic here, but I've seen arguments both ways on this  
get pretty heated, while the solution seems obvious to me.

When you call someone with caller ID, have a 5 second announcement like those  
on 900-numbers inform you that your phone number will be passed to the  
receiving party's Caller-ID set if you don't hang up.  If you don't like that  
(like if it's a business whose mailing lists you don't want to end up on),  
hang up and don't call them anymore.  This solution seems to protect  
everyone's rights.

Joe
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: acoggins@dial.Princeton.EDU (Adam Cody Coggins)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID (was Re: ACLU/EFF and Scanner restrictions?)
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: aclu,eff,scanner
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:16:21 GMT

In article <bhayden.724089005@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>>[...]
>>>A typical example is CPSR's position on caller ID, which has
>>>the effect of defending the right of others to block their lines
>>>from being IDed when they call you and thus invade YOUR privacy
>>>as the initial overt act. It doesn't occur to CPSR that a pure
>>>libertarian position would say that if someone didn't want to
>>>be IDed he simply need not call.
>>[...]
>[...]

There is a debate going on in alt.cyberpunk on caller id that some of you 
may be interested.  The debate is beginning to address privacy issues in
general...

-Cody Coggins <acoggins@phoenix.princeton.edu>
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Rime now joins EFF.org
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:25:17 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

Hey RIME! How are ya guys?? Long time no see!

RIME is a large, PC-based bulletin board network. Unlike
Fido, it's run on a membership basis with a fairly tight structure.   
The founders are a NY-state brother and sister (hiya Bonnie! hiya
Howard!) 
  I used to be a member of Channel1, a Boston BBS which has got to be
one of the largest and best-organized independant commercial BBS's
around. (plug, plug!) RIME BBS's have gateways to Fido and to the
Internet. (617-354-8873 BBS number. Hi Brian! Hi Tess!)

I left because I now work full-time at the University and get more net
access than I can handle. :-) but it was a nice place. The RIME mailer
software did have a few glitches, umm, well nevermind. I'm sure it's
all fixed now.


  

--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"?
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:22:41 GMT

You can try to claim a generic term as your trademark, but you won't
succeed.   Canadian trademark law is a bit different, but that principle
is the same.   They can trademark a combination of phrases that has not
yet been used.  You could probably call a product "The Network Solution(TM)"
but only get some protection on some limited uses.

One important thing to remember about trademark law is that trademarks must,
in general, be adjectives.  Not nouns.   There is no such think as a Xerox,
for example, but there are Xerox copiers.   Xerox even runs ads that say,
"You can't Xerox a Xerox on a Xerox" reminding people that it is neither noun
nor verb, nor of course generic term.

The net is a generic term, it is also the name of the Texas Higher Education
Network.   (They registered the.net as a domain.)
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: gagme.general,comp.org.eff.talk
From: johnsomr@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Mark R Johnson)
Subject: Re: Hacker Crackdown
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:18:48 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S.

In article <1992Dec13.174849.24106@gagme.chi.il.us> datec@gagme.chi.il.us (Charles Robinson) writes:
>Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling (Bantam ISBN 0-553-08058-X)
>is now available in your local bookstores ---- $23.00.
>
>IMHO A good read --- well worth it as an XMAS gift to your net friends.

I second that.  By the way, it is $28 in Canada.

--
;---------------------------------------------------------------------
; Mark Johnson             ; msdos has 6 types of RAM - dos ram,
; My views are my own and  ; upper memory, high memory, extended memory,
; nobody else's.           ; expanded memory, and video ram.
;                          ; YUCKKK!!!!!!!!!!!
; flames >/dev/null        ;
;---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Riddle@inns.omahug.org (Jim Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Testing Computer Professionals
Date: 15 Dec 92 05:59:10 CST
Reply-To: jim.riddle@inns.omahug.org
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

I agree with your comments about the ineffective self-policing of the
computer industry.
 
One of these days, many computer professionals are going to wake up and
find that there are now registrations required to work in the industry. 
The way to see to it that they are done _right_ is to be involved now and
to set them up. 
 
Personally, I am old enough to have been grandfather registered as a
professional engineer in a couple of states (although my initial
registration is by exam and experience).  I am now going through quite a
bit of effort to make sure that I am registered in several of the nouveau
categories of environmental science disciplines with some organizations
that have a questionable survival rate just to make sure that I _will_ be
registered with the right one (i.e., the one that survives and from which
the laws spring).  If I were still active as a computer professional, I
would likewise go after those registrations, mundane as they might seem.
From: Jim.Riddle@inns.omahug.org (Jim Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:08:04 CST
Reply-To: jim.riddle@inns.omahug.org
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

You spoke about licensing of computer professionals creating a caste
system that's scary.
 
I would ask, what is so scary?  Such systems already exist in several
professional areas, specifically medicine, law, engineering and
accounting that I think of right off the top of my head.  You may find
the trainee, the technician, the professional-in-training (finished
degree and first exam, looking for experience), the true professional,
and the grizzled old fart in any of these categories.
 
The licensing itself will guarantee nothing, I agree, unless the
communities, both professional and user, are behind it.
 
I still recommend to folks, though, that this should be carefully
considered and that a means of licensing or registration needs to be
established before one is established _for_ the computer community by the
same folks who brough you the postal service.
 

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [sci.crypt, et al.]  Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security.pgp,alt.society.civil-liberty
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:58:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.201426.15779@netcom.com> David Sternlight writes:
>This means the ethical position is still unchanged in this discussion. Using
>PGP in the US. is wronging the patent holders and violating the Munitions Act.

What does "violating the Munitions Act" have to do with "ethical
position"?  Or even "infringing on a patent" with "ethical position"?
You seem to be confused about the distinction between law
and ethics.

You seem also to be confused about the difference between "property"
or "property rights" and patents, you talk about "stealing".  Patent
infringement is not stealing, at least according to the philosophy of
the U.S. Constitution.  You might want to read the part where the
limited monopolies are mentioned.

>It might jeopardize your ability to pass the scrutiny needed to obtain
>government employment, receive government research funds, or work on
>government contracts if somebody, somewhere, has a note in a file about you
>"violated Munitions Act." And you'd never know. Something to think about. Life
>is long, government files last forever, and some of the Yippees of the '60's
>now have government jobs.

This hardly is an argument about ethics, btw, but rather about the
practicalities.  Analoguous to "No matter if you don't care about it
being unethical to break the law against marriages of people of
different races, you should consider the implications to your possible
government employment."  Not a bad idea per se to consider the
implications, but it hardly makes you very credible when you keep
talking about ethics in the same posting.

>My position is clear. RSA has patents on a wonderful invention and they are
>entitled to the fruits of their work.

Not all people feel the same.  Some people think some or all of
positions that software and algorithm patents are a bad idea, against
the U.S. patent law, and overstepping the mandate of the U.S.
Constitution.  They don't believe MIT/RSADSI/PKP are entitled to
anything.  Even if you acknowledge patent rights on algorithms, it's a
bit hard to argue for the ethics of being "entitled" to something
since the work was done on U.S. government money.

>Now a word to my colleagues all over the world. Though you may be able to (or
>think you may be able to) use PGP with impunity, why not voluntarily send RSA
>a reasonable contribution for their invention--think of it as a shareinvention
>fee analogous to a shareware fee. Say $20.

A practical note against this wrt people under U.S. jurisdiction -
such an act might be legally harmful for you.  Also, I personally
recommend against it for the abovementioned reasons.  If you want to
contribute, contribute something to the folks who wrote PGP, or any of
the EFF, FSF, any ftp server / public access system funds, etc.

Followups directed out of sci.crypt.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: CPSR & Caller ID?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:50:13 GMT

Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:

>In article <1992Dec10.181556.8815@netcom.com>
>strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>> A typical example is CPSR's position on caller ID, which has
>> the effect of defending the right of others to block their lines
>> from being IDed when they call you and thus invade YOUR privacy
>> as the initial overt act. It doesn't occur to CPSR that a pure
>> libertarian position would say that if someone didn't want to
>> be IDed he simply need not call.

>There is nothing "libertarian" about your position.  And if ringing
>your phone is an invasion of your privacy, I would think that ringing
>your phone and supplying a # would also be an invasion of your privacy.
> 

>I simply don't accept your premise(s).  

I seem to have missed something. Are you arguing for or against
Caller Id? Are you arguing that the caller has a higher expectation
of privacy than the recipient?

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