HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: One rec.music.synth reader's temper tantrum
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:04:30 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>This is my response to an email message I received. (name removed to protect
>the guilty). I think it goes to show how childish at least one of the r.m.s
>types is, and how far he will go to torpedo a legitimate voting result just
>because he doesn't like it. 

I hope that you (and others) don't liken the character of the entire argument
based upon one person's viewpoint. You, yourself, have been doing such a good 
job of relatively clean debating so far (albeit the side you are on is 
bogus IMO). 

>> My point
>> will be very direct.  You people are in the wrong, here.  Your reluctance to
>> allow a revote, now that everybody concerned in r.m.s. has been 'really'
>> notified, is reprehensible.  I can think of a lot of better places for DOD
>> to send its RDT&E dollars.  

The problem here is that this person (if they are truly connected with DoD)
can manage to cut off all the military sites from USENET. That's clearly
not for the help and health of USENET. (*NOW* what?)

>I will, however, post this message to news.admin.policy, news.groups, and
>rec.synth, jsut to show how low some folks will stoop to overturn a
>legitimately arrived at result.

Hey...the jury's still out on legitimate.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

                If you want to get rid of somebody, 
            just tell them something for their own good.
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: lear@yeager.corp.sgi.com (Eliot Lear)
Subject: innappropriate postings
Organization:  Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 08:27:41 GMT

I don't know whether there are underage postings in
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.  I haven't looked.  I don't want to
look.  Please let's nip this in the bud before I have to look.  The
legalities of the situation are quite nebulous, and I think we'd all
rather not deal with them.

Thank you,

--
Eliot Lear
[lear@sgi.com]
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: b645zax@utarlg.uta.edu (David Richardson)
Subject: "Illegal" postings (was: Child pornography)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Pornography Legal Child Porn
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:56:00 GMT

With regards to the problem of child pornography and other legally-risky
postings, here is a software solution which will take awhile (years) to fully 
impliment:

Define extensions to the distribution line, such as:

Distribution:  world - na + edu

This would distribute everywhere except North America, but would allow
distribution to edu sites, even if they were in North America.

Granted this system isn't problem-proof, but it is simple, clear, and
build on what we already have.

Using this scheme, selective cancelling can be done also.

-David Richardson  -  The University of Texas at Arlington  -  +1 817 856 6609
b645zax@utarlg.uta.edu                         after 12/15/92: +1 817 461 4799
Postal: 1904 Silverleaf, Pantego, TX 76013-3124 USA    (other nets on request)
SPAN:  UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTARLG::B645ZAX    uucp: uunet!utarlg.utarl.edu!b645zax
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:346 alt.sex:35932 alt.sex.bondage:21740
From: dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Do laws apply in the traditional sense to the net?
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:40:14 GMT
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK

In article <1992Nov11.152857.27463@nntp.nta.no> styri@nta.no writes:
>It's a common argument that `too much data comes through the news for
>anyone to take responsibility'. That's not a good argument, it's just
>giving up - it's anarchy.
 
That's not *necessarily* a bad thing. 
 
>Consider the fact that our electronic community will grow it's just a
>matter of time before the legislators start working on our problems. We
>should make an attempt to find out how to take some responsibility, not
>close our eyes to all kinds of illegal activities.

Well, you can hope in the possible truth of the quip ``Anything that 100
respected businessmes do is legal.''

IE, if it proves to be common practice it may become de facto and then 
de jure legal.  In the sense that not prosecuting a London cabbie for
failing to carry the statutory bale of hay for his horses is du facto
and probably de jure legal.
 
Damon
-- 
Damon Hart-Davis                          Internet: dhd@exnet.co.uk, d@hd.org

Public-access UNIX (Suns), news and mail for UK#5 per month.  FIRST MONTH FREE.
[1.35] Cheap Sun eqpt.  UUCP news/mail feeds.  Tel/Fax: +44 81 755 0077.
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,news.sysadmin
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e distribution, pay membership (Was: RE: Child Pornography)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:23:01 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov11161022@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>Telephone companies are not required to listen in on conversations and
>disconnecting circuits which are carrying illegal ones.  In fact they
>are prohibited from monitoring conversations, with few exceptions.

Actually, they routinely monitor conversations for "signal quality"
checking, last I heard.  (Of course, they have neither the manpower nor
the inclination to monitor more than a tiny fraction of them.)  I think
you're confusing authority to monitor with authority to disclose.  The
phone company can listen all it wants; it just can't tell anyone else
what it hears.  Things heard during signal-quality monitoring are supposed
to go in one ear and out the other.

>Why should that be any different for me?

Because the phone company is a "common carrier", and you are not.  It
would make sense for Usenet and similar entities to be common carriers,
but nothing short of a court decision would establish that.  Until that
happens, nobody knows quite what your legal status is.  (The recent
Compuserve case points in the right direction, but doesn't settle all
the angles by any means.)
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage
From: styri@hal.nta.no (Haakon Styri)
Subject: Re: Do laws apply in the traditional sense to the net?
Reply-To: styri@nta.no
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 13:24:38 GMT

In article <BxMHJ3.7py@exnet.co.uk>, Damon Hart-Davis writes:
>
> Well, you can hope in the possible truth of the quip ``Anything that 100
> respected businessmes do is legal.''

Huh, where have you spent the last decade? (yuppie ay ay, yuppie yuppie ay)

	:-) 

---
Haakon Styri			*** std. disclaimer applies ***
Norwegian Telecom Research
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,news.sysadmin
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e distribution, pay membership (Was: RE: Child Pornography)
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<EMCGUIRE.92Nov11161022@fuller.intellection.com>
	<1992Nov13.082629.5832@ais.com> <BxnuBM.HqL@cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:07:36 GMT

Carl> == Carl M. Kadie <kadie@cs.uiuc.edu> 

 Carl> Also, I believe that after the Steve Austin incident the
 Carl> government is being more careful with what it impounds.

I certainly would, too; can you imagine what the Six Million Dollar Man
*did* to those poor Secret Service agents? :)

[You mean the Steve Jackson Games case, in Austin, TX, of course.]
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.groups
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 08:28:07 GMT
Organization: None for me, thanks . . . I'm driving.
Followup-To: news.groups

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

> More and more people are sending mail in support...now I know that most
> of you guys discount this fact as either unprovable nonsense or
> statistical noise...but it's very real to me. 

The net is a *participatory forum*, not a pretty-blinking-light show for
the entertainment of a silent and unresponsive audience.  If the people
who support your position don't step out into the light and speak their
piece, their opinions will not be heard.  Otherwise you might just as well
be telling us that you're being encouraged onward by mysterious voices
coming out of your toaster. 

You might mention this to them in the course of your correspondence.

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: One rec.music.synth reader's temper tantrum
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:53:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.092054.11139@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>I still need to know why on earth it should make a difference to
>>someone like this *what* the name of the group is.
>
>As someone else has posted, "CFV" can mean "Criminal Forgery Violaters"
>for all a newbie understands. 

Yes, that's right. That is what every CFV I have ever bothered to read
said right at the top:

"This is a Criminal Forgery Violaters for the proposed USENET newsgroup..."
From: dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What are the requirements for a rmgroup?
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:11:54 GMT
Organization: Pacific ESI, Sydney, AUSTRALIA

In article <Bx95vA.Kw2@rivm.nl>,
    a3@rivm.nl (Adri Verhoef) writes:

| So, is there a default requirement for 'rmgroup' proposals?

Yes - 100 more rmgroup than newgroup messages...

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)         VK2KFU @ VK2RWI.NSW.AUS.OC
dave@esi.COM.AU                ...munnari!esi.COM.AU!dave
           Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?"
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:151 news.groups:20420 rec.music.synth:17828
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: One rec.music.synth reader's temper tantrum
Date: 9 Nov 92 11:54:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: jonh.H.ea.5cY0HSTLdes
	<1992Nov9.092054.11139@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Distribution: world
Organization: One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992

In <1992Nov9.092054.11139@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
												(Dave Hayes) writes:

>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>I still need to know why on earth it should make a difference to
>>someone like this *what* the name of the group is.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>As someone else has posted, "CFV" can mean "Criminal Forgery Violaters"
>for all a newbie understands. 

	How does this relate to what the group is called?  And just for
interest, what do you think the name news.announce.newusers means to a
newbie? 
	Do you think it should be renamed to
				hey-you.yah-you.the-new-guy.read-this-now ?  
	Or maybe misc.clues.newbies, though that might be a bit cryptic.


-- 
 John Henders      " Only _my_ words are relevant to the issue " 
  T.K.O.O.C.            <1992May11.073237.14684@rotag.mi.org>
                kevin@rotag.mi.org(Kevin "I'm not a net cop" Darcy)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Xanth Watch
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 14:56:56 GMT

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

>Many people on the net are ALIENATED by the bovine excrement that 
>passes for newsgroup creation processes. I've watched news.groups
>for a few years now. It's always the same...a small minority of
>people about to endure some onerous decision made by the politics
>of another small minority. 

It's possible to take part in a newsgroup creation process without
reading news.groups. All you have to do is to read a CFV and follow
the instructions within.

Reading news.groups is only neccesary if you want to have a say in the
look of the proposal.
-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   | 
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Organization: SCI Systems, Inc., Huntsville, Al.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:46:49 GMT

>Because we had a good newsgroup. Then the news.groups people stepped
>in and ruined it. It's that simple.

I'd like to see the results of a poll of the persons voting on the
rec.music.synth renaming showing:

	What percentage of them has read r.m.s, but not n.g, regularly;
	What percentage of them has read n.g, but not r.m.s, regularly;
	What percentage of them has read *both* r.m.s and n.g, regularly;

And while that's in process, why don't you enquire of the regular readers
of n.g as to the ones who did *not* vote on the renaming.

I suspect you'll find that the majority of the voters on the renaming
were regular readers of r.m.s, and that the majority of the readers
of n.g didn't vote.

You're swinging a rather broad brush here, and splattering a lot of
bystanders with it. That certainly is not going to help your position.

As far as the guy who was complaining about having a email forwarder
set up at an old site where nobody knows how to change it, *certainly*
someone reading r.m.m.s with rn can find it in their hearts to add an
entry in their killfile to forward it to him. That's trivial, if you
bother to read the documentation.


(Oh, all right. In your News/rec/music/makers/synth/KILL file, add
a line like this, with the proper email address inserted:

/*/:m | mail deprived@othersite.domain

and I'm sure he'll appreciate it.)

Nothing is growing faster than the number of KILLfile entries I have
on this matter....


-- 
Gary Heston    SCI Systems, Inc.  gary@sci34hub.sci.com   site admin
The Chairman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
"Data sheet: HSN-3000 Nuclear Event Detector. The [NED] senses the gamma
radiation pulse [from a] nuclear weapon." As if we wouldn't notice...
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,news.sysadmin
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e distribution, pay membership (Was: RE: Child Pornography)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:14:09 GMT

bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:

[...]
>If I take a friend out on my boat, and he happens to have some
>marijuana in his pocket that I don't know about, _my_ boat can be
>confiscated because I'm considered to be trafficing in marijuana.
>Likewise, computer hardware can be confiscated if various evidence of
>criminal activity is found on it, even if it was not known or
>approved of by the hardware's owners.
[...]

I think you are confusing civil forfeiture, where the government
claims ownership of the "drug boat", with impounding of evidence,
where the government holds possible evidence of a crime for a while.
I've never heard of the government applying civil forfeiture to
computer crimes. Also, I believe that after the Steve Austin incident
the government is being more careful with what it impounds.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:257 news.admin:8440 news.sysadmin:1407
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e distribution, pay membership (Was: RE: Child Pornography)
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:43:20 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <1992Nov10.055540.505@dsd.es.com>, rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:
> In article <josh.721329561@mowgli>
> 	josh@cqs.washington.edu (Josh Hayes) writes:
>>2) Much or all of the material distributed in the group is copyright
>>material, distributed without permission of the author.
> 
> However, Playboy is taking its copyright very seriously with respect
> to digitizing and has begun suing pay BBS services (most notably
> "Event Horizons BBS") that scan in Playboy's pictures and make them
> available for downloading under a pay-membership scam.  I think the
> copyright holders are much more likely to go after setups like this
> first than after usenet.

Why is a pay-membership a scam?  Do you just mean that this BBS
is on very shakey ground because of its use of copyrighted materials?
Or is the word a misspelling of `scheme'?  If you mean that all pay
membership setups are `scams' then I would very much disagree with you.

As for the original topic, given the current laws in the US it's
probably only a matter of time until one site or another on the
alt.net gets into some trouble over copyrighted or `pornographic'
material, especially if the sysadmin doesn't make any effort at all
to remove such questionable material.  (Which doesn't necessarily
mean a major effort to screen the material, just keeping an eye out
and removing articles that claim to be from copyrighted sources or
that are identified as questionable -- say in discussions such as
this one -- would probably be sufficient to prevent prosecution.
Ignoring the potential for problems would likely _not_ be sufficient).

It doesn't affect us very much directly, we don't carry any of the
alt.groups;  even apart from issues like this, there's just too much
traffic and too little of it useful.

I'd be concerned though whether any publicity on problems like this
in the alt.net might spill over into the usenet generally -- we can
say all we want to that the alt.net isn't part of usenet, but the
fact is that they are often carried together and in the minds of
many (_ESPECIALLY IN THE MEDIA_), the distinction will be lost.  The
chances are that this will all blow over without any untoward
consequences, but there is the possibility (either now or in the
future) for some very bad karma for the usenet in general or for
one or more sites in particular.

Bruce C. Wright
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.groups
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: John Palmer admits that he sold censored newsfeeds!
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:09:42 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

It is a historic occasion!  JP now _admits_ that he sold censored
newsfeeds!  Today is a red letter day.

According to jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer):
>We do not now nor have we ever censored stuff that our customers want.

So, John, did you _ask_ your customers if they wanted articles posted
by the other people who used zorch?

>Kents postings were clogging up my disk space and I'll be damned if I
>will let him store his slander on my system.
> 
>When a user said that they wanted some stuff from Zorch, I took out
>the kill-code. 

Of course, JP now has an even bigger hypocrite ratio than before.

Remember his repeated claims that DDMI never sold a censored newsfeed?
They were all lies.

And remember <1991Feb20.142553.29395@tygra.UUCP>, when JP posted under
his "Ian" persona:

+What you are asking us to do is to prevent Mr. Randall from posting
+because his opinions and personality are not to the liking of a 
+number of people. I have seen you dish out much worse in alt.flame and
+talk.bizarre in the last few weeks. Maybe we should censor you as well.

My, my.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "I am truly as big a genius as all other Rush fans." -- Bruce Bufalini
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Censoring innapropriate postiongs?
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:12:31 GMT

lear@yeager.corp.sgi.com (Eliot Lear) writes:

|I don't know whether there are underage postings in
|alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.  I haven't looked.  I don't want to
|look.  Please let's nip this in the bud before I have to look.  The
|legalities of the situation are quite nebulous, and I think we'd all
|rather not deal with them.

If you want to complain about what's been posted to abpe, perhaps
you should do so to root at the offending person's site.

Having news admins cancel "offensive" articles is (IMHO) unethical
and Wrong.  It stretches the boundaries of "legitimate censorship,"
--
Michael Adams
StarOwl@uiuc.edu
wi.4962@n7kbt.rain.com
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:359 news.admin:8514 news.sysadmin:1437
From: bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e distribution, pay membership (Was: RE: Child Pornography)
Date: 13 Nov 92 08:26:29 GMT
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov11161022@fuller.intellection.com>, emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.074320.5826@ais.com> bruce@ais.com (Bruce C. Wright) writes:
> 
>    As for the original topic, given the current laws in the US it's
>    probably only a matter of time until one site or another on the
>    alt.net gets into some trouble over copyrighted or `pornographic'
>    material, especially if the sysadmin doesn't make any effort at all
>    to remove such questionable material. [...]
>    Ignoring the potential for problems would likely _not_ be sufficient).
> 
> Telephone companies are not required to listen in on conversations and
> disconnecting circuits which are carrying illegal ones.  In fact they
> are prohibited from monitoring conversations, with few exceptions.
> Why should that be any different for me?

"`If the law supposes that' said Mr. Bumble ... `the law is a ass, a
idiot'" -- Charles Dickens.

_Personally_ I don't disagree with you.  But that's not the attitude of
many in law enforcement.  Legally, neither usenet nor any particular
site has the same status as the telephone company.  And I'm not even
sure we'd want it;  that would mean having to answer to PUC's (Public
Utility Commission) and so forth.

There are many situations in US law where _possession_ of something,
even unknowingly, is considered to be presumptive evidence of trafficing
in it.  Child pornography is one of them.  So are drugs or large amounts
of money (presumed to be evidence of drug dealings).  If I take a friend
out on my boat, and he happens to have some marijuana in his pocket that
I don't know about, _my_ boat can be confiscated because I'm considered
to be trafficing in marijuana.  Likewise, computer hardware can be
confiscated if various evidence of criminal activity is found on it,
even if it was not known or approved of by the hardware's owners.

I'm not arguing that this is fair or just or right -- in fact in most
cases I think it's not.  I'm simply saying that it IS, and that it's one
of the parameters we have to work within to avoid trouble with the cops.

Bruce C. Wright