HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lemon@unssun.nevada.edu (John A. LeMon)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Comp. privacy policies in diff countries?
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:40:33 GMT
Reply-To: lemon@unssun.nevada.edu (John A. LeMon)
Organization: University of Nevada, Reno

Hello comp.org.eff.talk!!! ;)

Hope this in the right place....i'm betting my mbox on it. *grin*

I am curious about what other countries, especially those in Europe, are
doing about computer privacy W/RE email, files, sysadmins searching files,
and stuff like that.  I know the USA's government and judicial system
seems to be having a hard time deciding what to do in terms of extending
our bill of rights to the electronic medium.  But are other countries' 
governments having the same troubles?  If so, why?  If not, what are they
doing about it (laws, amendments, policies)?  Oh, and for that matter, is
the privacy "thang" considered by computer users in Europe to be _as_
important as it is to users here in the USA?  Or do we in the USA just
tend to hold more stringently to the ideal of privacy?  Does anyone forsee
a problem with the EC and differing thoughts on privacy from within Europe?
Just that I can't recall seeing anything related to this topic come out
of Europe, and it makes me wonder....

Anyhow, if anyone has any insights as to the above, or, i'm sure, can direct
me to a prior-work/FAQ-like-thingy on this subject, much obliged. ;^) 

John A. LeMon

      John A. LeMon           "Good my Lord, put your discourse in some frame  
     U. Nevada, Reno              and start not so wildly from my affair."     
  lemon@unssun.nevada.edu                       --Shakespeare              
 "My voice will rise and be heard, even if it kills me (or my mbox)!" -- Me.
From: wombat@key.COM (Joan Eslinger)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: How is current legislating affected?
Keywords: gore nren windo
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:07:24 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Advanced Systems, Fremont CA

Now that Sen. Gore is off campaigning all over, what's happening with
all the legislation like NREN he's sponsored or supported or takes "the
right position" on? Has he already done everything he can, or will it
languish while he's away, or what? Did he take such an interest in these
things because he's really interested in them, or because he happened to
be in charge of the Science & Technology committee? Would he have more
or less influence on such matters if he were to become V.P.? Enquiring
minds....

wombat@key.amdahl.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:56:10 GMT

What would be wrong with a justice system where:
	
	a) The accused has a right to privacy, and his/her name is not
	   to be disclosed by the justice system until a conviction is
	   made.

	b) The accused has the right to publicity, if the accused wishes
	   it.   That means that in addition to the right of a phone call
	   to your lawyer, you would also have the right to contact the
	   press or any others.

This is more consistent with a presumption of innocence.

Now, the fact is that this right of privacy would never be perfect.  If
you're Mike Tyson, and you're arrested on rape charges, somebody's going
to find this out even if you don't give your name to the press.

And there is a potential for abuse.  If quiet arrests and trials become
the norm, there is the chance that somebody might be sneakily tried
quietly against their will.   Particularly if the accused is dead or
otherwise can't file a complaint about an unwanted silent trial.

And while the accused could demand a closed trial, should a conviction be
brought, the transcript would enter the public record, of course.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From: dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: The computer in the rebirth of democratic ideals
Keywords: Project Vote Smart
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:21:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

The computer is now being used as a way to correct the bias introduced
into political campaigns by the television media.

Project Vote Smart is making available through the use of a 800 number what
the candidates (congressional) true positions are on the issues no matter
what their sound bites say.

The project has accumulated voting records, campaign financing, and
position statements of the candidate and is making this information
available.

Call 1800 786 6885 to get information about your favorite candidate.

and this project is not being funded by political parties, PACs, or
corporations.  And it is not biased either left or right


Denny F@misvax.mis.arizona.edu
-------------------------------------
Imagination is the beginning of creation.  You imagine what you desire, you 
will what you imagine, and at last you create what you will.
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: BSDI's defence (was Re: AT&T vs. BSDI [BSDI response])
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:39:23 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <qdlm9yn@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>I hope the guys at BSDI will keep us closely posted and if this dismissal
>motion fails, will set up a legal defense fund.

BSDI can afford their own defense.  I might chip in if it were Gnu,
but *no* amount of bucks is going to out-lawyer AT&T.  If my impression
of the US judicial process is even half right, AT&T are going to win
irrespective of whether they're in the right :-(

>While I don't have the time to fool with YAOS and thus won't be buying
>BSDI anytime soon, I'll gladly donate some money to the effort.

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!

G
From: system@freds.cojones.com (George W. Hayduke)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 17:05:05 ADT
Organization: Bedlam Institute of Higher Learning

NEWSDAY1@delphi.com writes:

> Furthermore, as citizens, we have the right to know when our neighbors are 
> accused of a crime. Since our system provides for a presumption of 
> innocence, it's up to us to view an arrested individual as innocent until 
> proven guilty. Therefore, there should be no presumed shame in having 
> been charged with a crime, only in being found guilty of one.

You can't be serious...

If Waldo Q. Milquetoast, your next door neighbor, was listed in the paper as
a suspect in a child molestation, I highly doubt you would let your 9 year
old daughter play in the front yard anymore. Most people simply don't think
this way, which is why one must obtain high-priced lawyers and buy one's way
out of the charges.

If the citizenry has the right to know who is supposedly a child molester,
then why do we fool anyone by claiming innocent until proven guilty? If we
are innocent until proven guilty, then no one should know if someone stands
accused until they are convicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------!oo!----------
from the mythical, nonexistant SYSTEM 0PERATOR | The FredBox +1 907 344 8437
system@freds.cojones.com | uunet!coldbox!fredbox!system | ASFJP@ALASKA.BITNET
Home of a few raving lunatics and myriads of electronic publications.
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

system@freds.cojones.com writes:

>You can't be serious...

>If Waldo Q. Milquetoast, your next door neighbor, was listed in the paper as
>a suspect in a child molestation, I highly doubt you would let your 9 year
>old daughter play in the front yard anymore. Most people simply don't think
>this way, which is why one must obtain high-priced lawyers and buy one's way
>out of the charges.

>If the citizenry has the right to know who is supposedly a child molester,
>then why do we fool anyone by claiming innocent until proven guilty? If we
>are innocent until proven guilty, then no one should know if someone stands
>accused until they are convicted.

I am serious -- are you? Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, 
are you suggesting that we hold secret trials so that the identities of 
the accused remain hidden? Should law enforcement be permitted to conduct 
secret raids and arrests, all ostensibly to protect those caught in their 
nets? 

Certain representatives of the justice system would gladly support your 
arguments, but not for the same reasons as you. Other countries, like 
China, happily follow such practices. The justice system is open here 
in order to protect us from those kinds of excesses. Certainly, an 
individual accused of a crime may find such openness not to his or her 
liking. Unfortunately, that's the way it works sometimes. It's not a 
perfect world.

The accused are entitled to a presumption of innocence. If you mean to 
suggest that the public at-large doesn't always grant that presumption, 
you're right. Fortunately, however, our laws aren't written with public 
opinion as the primary consideration. Sometimes the system works despite 
the public's lack of deep thought about how it works.

I wonder how the Craig Neidorf case would have turned out if the charges 
against him had remained secret (for his own protection, of course)?

Evan Rudowski
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:10:24 GMT

In article <01GMWSTQU4EC8WWANR@delphi.com> NEWSDAY1@delphi.com writes:
>Your suggestion is thoughtful and reasonable, if we're focusing on
>the rights of the accused. However, the heart of the matter concerns
>the public's right to know. This is a situation where we have two
>competing concerns. While I am sympathetic with those who publicly
>find themselves on the wrong side of the law, I place greater value
>on the right of the people to fully know the activities of their
>government.

As a news"paper" publisher, I am fully aware of concerns about the
public's right to know.  And I do believe that should a conviction be
returned, all records should be public.

The press should also be admitted to such trials, on an off-the-record-unless-
convicted basis.

The question is, what is the public's right to know about the trials of
those who are found innocent?   The press has to watch the justice system
and keep it in line, that's true.

However, if the accused has the right to publicity, perhaps something is
served if it is up to the accused and her lawyer to decide if their
rights have been infringed and the public should know about it.

I do see a downside -- private deals in the interests of the accused but
not in the interests of justice.   So we can modify this.  To obtain
privacy, one must get a 100% finding of innocence.  Any deals, immunities,
etc. would be public.

Does the public have a right to know about the details of the witness
relocation program?

There are two sides to this coin, like any.  Under the system I propose,
the cops who beat King would not have their names released.  (However,
it is certain their names would be found out independently by investigative
press, from whom I would not protect them.)

On the other hand, consider today if you're accused of child molestation.
Even if you are innocent -- truly innocent -- you life is ruined.  You
may have to leave your neighbourhood, your job and other worse things may
happen.   Is that the presumption of innocence?
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From: markmc@sierra.com (Mark McWiggins)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Overloading of the net: Don't worry (was: Network Sex)
Keywords: UseNet, Internet, Sex, Censorship
Date: 23 Jul 92 02:18:59 GMT
Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc.,  Kirkland, Wa

tinsel@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Insel) writes:


> ...  I'm not sure 
>I really want the general public to find out about these networks
>(of course they should, but the sheer volume of USENET if only 10% of
>the U.S. population used it would be unimaginable) ...

Don't worry  -- not even 10% of this (high-tech) COMPANY uses Usenet to
any degree.

With the advances in communications technology and filtering software,
we ought to encourage everybody who has interest to join the net.  After
all, it is a Group Mind, and we are its brain cells!
--
Mark McWiggins           +1 206 822 5200x377 days      Box 31356
markmc@sierra.com        +1 206 632 1905 24 hrs.       Seattle WA 98103-1356
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

teddybur@netcom.com writes:

>From whence do you have this right to know that your neighbor is 
>accussed of a crime?  I do not see it in the US Constitution.

Are you under the impression that the U.S. constitution is the sole
source of laws in this nation? The constitution also doesn't ban
murder, rape, kidnapping, prostitution, drug dealing, etc. Are they
legal then? A lot of laws have been passed since the 18th century.
Books full of them. If a law is challenged, the courts determine
whether or not it is in keeping with the principles set forth in
the constitution.

To set things straight, I'm not advocating a "right to know my
neighbor's business." I'm advocating a "right to know government 
business." When my neighbor becomes involved in government business, 
whether by being arrested, applying for a swimming pool permit, 
applying for a driver's license, etc., then I have a right to know 
about that.

Evan Rudowski
From: Adam.Gaffin@f190.n322.z1.fidonet.org (Adam Gaffin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: PHREAKS INDICTED, P.2
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:52:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.13198.2A6FBAC3
Organization: FidoNet node 1:322/190 - Middlesex News, Framingham MA


 > What the hell is the Secret Service doing here?  Do they routinely 
 > hand out the home addresses of people they indict?
 > 
 > My first response is to think they're attempting to harrass the 
 > defendants by removing their privacy.  Even if they damage their own 
case,   > they seem more interested in damaging the defendants' lives.

Right or wrong, this is strictly routine and is not an attempt to embarrass 
the defendants. Law-enforcement agencies almost always give reporters the 
addresses and ages of people they arrest.  Besides, such information is 
usually contained in court records which, except in rare cases, are open to 
the public.  On the local level, police logs also contain such information 
(even more in some cases).  In Massachusetts, at least, these logs are also 
public records.

 Adam Gaffin
 Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass.
 adamg@world.std.com
 Voice: (508) 626-3968.  Fred the Middlesex News Computer: (508) 872-8461

--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!322!190!Adam.Gaffin
Internet: Adam.Gaffin@f190.n322.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:34:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD

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

>
>I find this very interesting considering how much they [AT&T]stole from BSD
>to go into SVR4.  Everything that makes SVR4 viable are BSD
>contributions.  I don't think AT+T can say they developed the Unix of
>today - all those faculty members and students at Berkeley (and
>elsewhere) did.
>

All of whom were covered under the Regents' license agreement w/AT&T, and
therefore bound under Trade Secret law, as well as Trademark, Patent and
Copyright.

No one who hasn't seen AT&T source, or source produced bu its licensees,
could possibly create a *IX.
-- 
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security,alt.drugs,alt.hackers.malicious,alt.censorship
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Phantom Access - EFF
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:59:33 GMT
Keywords: Phantom Access, EFF, Privacy, Polls

In article <dank.712258012@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov> dank@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Kegel) writes:

)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 Kegel (dank@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov)

This wouldn't really solve the problem with self-selection, unfortunately.
In general, only people with strong opinions (one way or the other) are
going to respond to such a survey.  It might help a little bit, but the
main problem would remain.

It is interesting to observe how the EFF handles the PR problems that this
survey  (unscientific as it is) raises, however.

One approach would be to express concern, open a dialogue, and point out
that the EFF has published its goals numerous times,is concerned about
its public image, and is doing everything it can and that one can reasonably
expect to talk about its goals and accomplishments.  This, however, is NOT
the approach I've come to expect....

The approach I'd predict is that this survey will be ignored, and there will
be a strong hint that the EFF considers people who publish such information
to be 'the enemy' or at least 'not with it', and not worthy of the EFF's
scarce, limited, and really very valuable and important time.

(Sort of 'The Few.  The Proud.  The Elite.  The EFF! approach).
From: brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Date: 23 Jul 1992 22:59:18 -0400
Organization: Widener University Computer Science Dept, Chester PA
NNTP-Posting-Host: betty.cs.widener.edu

NEWSDAY1@delphi.com wrote:
>Regarding the Secret Service's release of the addresses of the indicted,
>an indictment is a matter of public record and the addresses become
>public information.

I have to put forth that it's not often that you get street addresses
published, however.  You know that "Steve, of Footown", or somesuch,
was involved; not that they were in apartment 41B.  I've never seen a
news article give a precise address before.

-- 
Brendan Kehoe, Sun Network Manager                      brendan@cs.widener.edu
Widener University                                                 Chester, PA
            "Life is a process, and it shouldn't matter what the hardware is."
                                                              -- Chris Langton
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security,alt.hackers.malicious,alt.censorship
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: Phantom Access - EFF
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: {not speaking for the} University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 07:39:40 GMT

mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:

> In article <1992Jul29.220306.2270@eff.org>, rita@eff.org (Rita Marie
> Rouvalis) wrote:
> > -- 
> > Rita Marie Rouvalis              rita@eff.org 
> > Electronic Frontier Foundation   | Inbred Jed sez: Check with the Morman
> > 155 Second Street                | Church before marrying; inbreeding 
> > Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | is everyone's problem.

> By the way, that's "Mormon" Church. This isn't some kind of slur, is it?
> It's hard to tell. I'm not taking offense, though.

I think it's just a reference to the fact that the Mormon church keeps
an incredibly extensive archive of geneological data, not an implication
about Mormons.
-- 
Thomas Aaron Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  I speak for myself, and not for the State or University of Illinois.
  "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." -- Edward R. Murrow
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: SEC'S  EDGAR SYSTEM
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:22:37 CDT
Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO

In article <199207211614.AA00126@eff.org>, LOVE@pucc.Princeton.EDU (James P Love) writes:
> a)      The GPO Gateway/WINDO will provide one-stop-shopping for online
>         access to government databases.  The service will be provided by
>         the Government Printing Office, which now provides one-stop-
>         shopping for paper publications.  The Gateway/WINDO will be
>         priced at the "incremental cost of dissemination," for most
>         users, and will be free to 1,400 federal depository libraries.

Don't you just love warm, fuzzy words.  "Incremental cost of dissemination" is
a phrase that sure sounds good.  Many people might think this means
inexpensive, but this isn't the case.  The government isn't the most
efficient data processor on the planet (maybe the largest, but not the
most efficient).

I once asked a part of the U.S. government for a copy of about 300 records
that were stored electronically (about 1,000 bytes each, or about 300K total).
Currently, I believe, the the price is set by law to be "cost" plus 10% (which
goes to the U.S. treasury).  The price to get the records in electronic format
was over $1,000.

A more frightening part of the WINDO bill is it gives the government an
excuse for REDUCING the amount of information it makes available to the
public.  Read the current issue of BOARDWATCH for an example.
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk)
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
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:01:11 GMT



Alexander-James Annala wrote:

>If it took a
>small company like BSDI only a couple of years with a small team of people
>to produce BSD/386 vs the multi year investment of a corporate giant - then
>it is very possible AT&T may prevail on the unfair competition claim.

>All in all, this filing by a corporate giant with virtually unlimited funds
>for legal expenses would seem to spell the doom of 'free' UNIX projects as
>they are presently conceived.  There is simply too much risk someone with a
>prior exposure to AT&T source codes could manage to contaminate the product.

If AT&T attacks Mark Williams Company, then your conclusions are probably
correct. The necessary exception, however, continues to exist. After all,
$ 100 for the full OS including a development system equates to free in
my book, in the case of a *nix product.

Bill Vajk

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk