HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 25 Dec 1992 19:34:36 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1hd4qtINNsp4@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
(Steve Pope) writes:
>But I do see limiting one's privacy options, in a selective fashion, as
>an issue that needs to be handled carefully.  Although I agree that the
>WELL admins are acting within their privilege, I do not agree with
>Cliff that this is an issue without ethical ramifications.

Cliff never claimed that the issue is without ethical ramifications.

He explained his actions in view of the implied criticism that there
were ethical problems with the way the WELL was administered.

>It is the
>sort of policy choice that, if administered by the wrong individuals,
>could in fact become a problem.

Most policies fall into this category.

Some policies have to be made explicit and elaborate to protect
people from abuses, and some policies are better off left to
the judgement of the administrators.  The decision as to which
policies need safeguards has to be made on the basis of the
goals of the institution that the rules are meant to govern.

In the case of the WELL, personal accountability is seen to be
a desirable feature.  It's an integral part of the culture.
Having an on-demand anonymity policy would defeat some of the
aims of the organization.

>As an analogy, suppose the admins of a conferencing system announced
>that only selected individuals would be granted the privilege of
>engaging in encrypted communications on the system.  I would expect
>quite a few objections to such a policy -- particularly from
>the readership of this newsgroup.

I don't doubt that it happens all the time, on BBSs around the
world.  I don't see a problem unless the service is being run
in a situation where the users have some reasonable expectation
that the sysop must treat them according to some external notion
of fairness.  It's his system, and he's entitled to set the rules.

>In the broader sense, both functionalities
>provide a measure of privacy to the individual employing them,
>and I strongly feel that an individual ought to be able to
>choose their own privacy mechanisms, for their own reasons,
>with a minimum of administrative oversight.

I would agree with this in the context of communication
using a common carrier that's bound to respect user
privacy.  That's not the case for most on-line conferencing
systems.  Some of them choose to offer the service and
some don't.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: No Caller ID in California
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:41:25 GMT

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:


>Pacific Bell announced yesterday that they won't be offering
>Caller ID in California, following on GTE's similar decision
>a few months ago.
[...]
>Look for a lot of Commissioners to be thrown out of office
>at the next opportunity--far more want Caller ID than
>want per line blocking, in my view. No flames about "where
>do I get my numbers", please. It's my opinion.
[...]

Here is a number: 40% of California phone users pay PacBell or GTE to
exclude their phone numbers from the telephone directory.  (Source:
Newsbytes article of 12/23)

I can see that PacBell might make money selling these unlisted phone
numbers to, say, Radio Shack (via Caller ID). I can't see why I should
be sorry that they will not be allowed to.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 25 Dec 1992 19:14:41 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1hd3qoINNsls@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
(Steve Pope) writes:
>And as for what Cliff has said here, it was along the
>lines of: anybody can get an anonymous account if they are 
>willing to cover up and lie about their identity going in.

Steve, please don't summarize away the things Cliff said that
were most relevant to the discussion.

His first response was that he'd had about half a dozen
discussions with prospective subscribers over this issue
in six years, and that two had been vocally dissatisfied with
the outcome.

His comments to the effect that the WELL can't ultimately
identify their customers absolutely, and that they don't
really care as long as the bills get paid, is a simple
acknowledgement of the reality that overrides any and all
administrative policies.  The most common motivation for
registering with a false name is to avoid paying for the
service.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 09:02:05 GMT

In <BETSYS.92Dec31161124@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.191448.29680@panix.com> rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:

>>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.

Wrong.  Just plain wrong.  This is in no way a device driver, and I
find it hard to believe that a "system administrator" could make such
a mistake.  Just because a virus doesn't "attempt" to spread from one
host computer to another does not mean it is not a virus.  This
hypothetical virus _does_ spread from file to file, compressing every
file it infects.


I'm beginning to see that many people have some _serious_
misconceptions about virii.
-- 
 Richard Powers    / Disclaimer: My keyboard is \   Computer=Amiga
rpowers@panix.com <  screwy.   Missing  letters  >  Music=Industrial
   Hail Eris!      \ should     be    expected. /   Food=Vegetarian
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:53:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.235206.20192@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
>compress a file it prepends itself to, so that upon execution
>it would uncompress the file for normal execution.  It would _only_
>infect files that could benefit from compression.  It would also check
>for some file or other sort of marker on the system that the user
>would have placed to give the virus permission to spread.  Thus
>keeping it from spreading to anyone who didn't want it around.

Beneficial?  Suppose you need to copy an executable from one system to another,
and the new system does not have the marker?  Or the disk crashes across
the marker?  How do you get the files back?

-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: "Hackers on NPR"
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:17:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.120437.2740@cs.odu.edu> jdp@poppy.cs.odu.edu (JD Powell) writes:
>
>For years I've been a big fan of NPR, enjoying their coverage of the 
>news on "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered".  Until now, I've
>not had any reason to view their commentary with anything more than the
>regular caution.  When my membership support renewal notice arrives from
>my local public radio station, it's gonna be returned with $0 and a 
>nastygram concerning their disappointing coverage of the CUD.  I think
>they jumped in over their heads on this one, and didn't even bother 
>to tread water.

CuD will have the transcript of the NPR segment in about two weeks
(NPR transcripts can be orded for $10 hardcopy or $12.50 audio cassette
from (202) 822-2323).

I didn't hear the segment, but from what others described, and from what 
an NPR spokesperson read, it sounds like JDP's summary is, if anything,
understated. Flanagan was the co-author of the "Hacker Hood" article in
FORBES (21 Dec issue) that won CuD's annual GERALDO MEDIA AWARD for '92.
We'll drop a note to NPR after we've read the transcript and see if they
won't do an "opposing view" segment. Those wishing to contact NPR about
the segment can do so by writing:
  Ellen McDonnel (NPR Producer)
  National Public Radio
  2025 M Street, NW
  Washington D.C.  20036     

Orcall the comment line at (202) 775-8685

Jim Thomas
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 04:23:17 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec22.032925.27653@netcom.com> dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross) writes:
>Steve Pope (spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>: I do not think the WELL's policies are off limits
>: for discussion just because their subscribers are
>: all happy.  If you lobotomized all 12-year-olds then
>: the high schools would be full of kids who are
>: happy.  Does that make lobotimization good policy?
>
>Very virtuous, that you have elected yourself the savior of all
>WELLperns.  It's a joke to think they are all placid on *any* issue that
>could possibly be imagined, however; much less, lobotomized.

You are trying too hard to read between the lines.
I did not intend to imply that WELL users are lobotomized.
Since you brought it up I find it amusing, but I
don't consider it true even in a highly exagerrated sense.


>The "policy" conference on The WELL, where this type of issue would be
>discussed, is one of the most rife (and interesting) places of
>contention on the entire system.  

At this point I'm willing to believe that...

>Again, I'm just not sure what you
>think The WELL's management could do in this regard that would somehow
>be "better."

Perhaps explain themselves, and spell out who is or
isn't entitled to a pseudonymous account.

Or allow them to anybody.  

Or disallow them categorically.  

Any of the above would be more consistent than the
present circumstance.

Steve
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:42:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.175816.9718@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1992Dec22.170211.10292@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>I don't see how. "Special circumstances," as a practical matter,
>>seems to mean that you have to want anonymity for something more than a
>>whim.
>
>Who decides whether your reasons are whimsical or not?

WELL management. Is there an important issue here? I strongly believe
the operators of a private system should have the autonomy to interpret
their own membership policies, and the autonomy to decide with whom and
how to enter into subscriber contracts. Do you disagree?


--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 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re:Virus Design (Antibodies)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 13:44:28 GMT

>Suppose someone wrote a virus that was BENEFICIAL?  One that spread just
>like others, but had a beneficial effect on the system.

You might mean the virus to be totally transparent and not cause any problems
but I'm sure it would have problems with at least one program that wasn't
written quite properly, but had worked fine when the virus wasn't around.

>Imagine what would have happened with a PROPERLY written "antibody"
>released into the Internet after the worm slipped out of rtm's fingers...
>If the virus could spread in 12 hours the way it did, what would a
>(PROPERLY written!!) antibody do?  (of course, that ignores the fact
>that many sites went off the internet....)

You have a little more faith in human nature than me.. I'd think that as soon
as it was discovered someone would try to mutate it into an RTM type virus.

And do you think that sysadmins would leave known backdoors in their system
so the antibody could get in? If they just closed the doors they wouldn't
have to worry about the viri/worms that this would protect them against...
And if new versions of viri came out using new backdoors it would be helpless
against them because it wouldn't be able to tell them from a legitimate
process. Not to mention the fact that as soon as more viri were written they
be programmed to fight the antibody (can you say immune systems)...

Maybe it can be made to work someday... Probably not on a much larger than
machine by machine scale. I think it this thing was roaming the nets that a
lot of people would be more scared than they would be about the CHANCE of a
virus.

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
From: Barry.Kapke@f33.n125.z1.fidonet.org (Barry Kapke)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:31:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.33370.2B3C884A
Organization: FidoNet node 1:125/33 - BODY DHARMA ONLINE, Oakland CA

Hello Chris!

Monday December 21 1992 13:48, Chris Fedde wrote to All:

 CF> I take it from this post that our president elect's transition team
 CF> does not have an email address?

Of course, they do.

Jock Gill
Public Access Email
Office of the President-Elect
75300.3115@compuserve.com

The Clinton E-Mail Team was incredibly effective as a two-way feedback loop in the election campaign. Hopefully, the groundwork laid will expand and we can get email access to ALL government representatives. <grin>

Ciao.
Barry (1:125/33, 8:914/133, 88:881/172, 93:9050/0, 94:5100/1, 96:101/33)

... What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters
compared to what lies within us.   -RALPH WALDO EMERSON


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!125!33!Barry.Kapke
Internet: Barry.Kapke@f33.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: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:23:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.070621.1581@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>Also, it seems that the motivation and argumentation behind many of
>the followups is personal relations to WELL and WELL management, and
>some of the persons posting the somewhat less-than-polite answers are
>working for the EFF.  Somehow this feels a bit bad to me, and I don't
>think it "gives a good impression".

I don't recall posting any less-than-polite answers myself. As for the
WELL, I disagree with characterizations of the WELL here *not* because I
have personal relations with anyone, but because I use the WELL, and what
Steve is saying doesn't seem to be connected in any way with the system I
know.

>I hope this
>part of the global village doesn't turn into one where dissenting
>opinions and questioning the "village elders" are not tolerated.

Is expressing disagreement the same thing as intolerance? 


--Mike


P.S. Jyrki, it is only fair, if you are going to mention EFF staff
and "less than polite" responses, that you specify which persons and which
responses you're talking about. If you don't, it is impossible to 
gauge whether some of the "less than polite" responses were
unintentionally so. If you are talking about me in particular, I insist
that you specify which of my responses were "less than polite."




-- 
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 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7877 alt.privacy:2728
From: bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Calif DMV DEMANDS SSN for Driver License!?
Date: 21 Dec 92 12:07:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.MfBY0AO00XsF1=8n1L
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>Whassa mattur, Rip? Is yur speling checkir brokun? Get a cloo.
>
>Chris Volpe
>G.E. Corporate R&D
>volpecr@crd.ge.com

You know, it really annoys me that Chris ignored a rather interesting
article, just so he could prove he could spell-flame someone.  And
you work for GE R&D?  Typical arrogance for GE's R&D people.

David Hunt
bluelobster+@cmu.edu
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8219 alt.privacy:2799
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Calif DMV DEMANDS SSN for Driver License!?
Date: 1 Jan 93 09:16:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i125pINN6qj
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

>Whassa mattur, Rip? Is yur speling checkir brokun? Get a cloo. 
>
>-Chris

Maybe he couldn't read his dictionary because his reading lamp used a GE
bulb. 

>Chris Volpe
>G.E. Corporate R&D
Lines: 15
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 09:30:18 MST
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu
	<1992Dec22.133249.26028@ulysses.att.com> <Bzo3tp.66w@news.iastate.edu>

john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:

> then why not sucker
> a few hundred million out of some rubes from Utah?                     ;-)

   Being only a few miles down the road from Novell, I get a clear
picture that these particular rubes are every bit as evil as the USL
folks. Given Novell's current practive with Netware, I see a
per-machine yearly license-to-use for UNIX coming real soon now. Oh
yeah, and I'm sure they relish the thought of raking in the bucks from
BSDI.
   Don't worry about Novell. They've got the skills necessary to screw
us all over yet.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From: Harry Goodman <goodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:14 PST
Subject: Re: "Hackers on NPR"
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec21.120437.2740@cs.odu.edu:-1881602978:cdp:1353000009:000:1927
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!goodman    Dec 23 10:14:00 1992


> Anyone else hear the segment on National Public Radio this 
> morning? William Flanagan (sp?) of Forbes was interviewed in a 
> free range discussion that bounced from 'sport hackers' to 
> hackers that have been co-opted by organized crime. ....

I caught the tail end of Flanagan and had hoped there'd been earlier
material to which he was providing a counterview.  Apparently that
was not the case.

We've been beseeching NPR (and, to a lesser extent, American Public
Radio) to make our series a regular network offering.  We've been
less than successful, first because of NPR's disbelief that info
tech issues would be of regular/ongoing interest and more recently,
I believe, because they succeeded in getting $400,000 from Hitatchi
to establish their own coverage of high technology.  

NPR has a passel of very good people working under the general
leadership of Bill Buzenberg (VP for News & Info) and John Dinges
(NPR's top news editor) but they simply don't have the background
and perspective the work (coverage of info tech issues and products)
requires.  

[Selfserving Suggestion Department]

We've been offering our 3+ yr old public radio series, _Your Expanding
InfoSphere: CommonSense ComputerTalk_, FREE to all the country's
satellite interconnected public radio stations since 10/3/92.

If you'd like to hear more well rounded commentary and coverage
of the CUD you should __urge__ your local public radio station
to pick up our series on a weekly basis.  Contact can be made
at the addresse(s) and number below.


|==============================================================|
| Harry Goodman | Editor and Senior Producer                   |
| Your Expanding InfoSphere: CommonSense ComputerTalk          |
| PO Box 808 | Sausalito, CA 94966-0808                        |
| Internet: goodman@igc.apc.org  | Voice: 1-415-332-5945       |
|==============================================================|
From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:04:08 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <D4JRwB3w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:

>rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:

>| If you copy an executable from one system to another without a
>| permission file/marker it would still run.  The virus would just not
>| stay in memory after doing its job of decompressing the file it was
>| attached to, and thus not spread.

>Interesting - NOT committ hari-kari?

If by har-kari you mean remove itelf from the infected file, see
below.  I would rather not have it do so on its own without telling
me.  If something happened to my marker, I would want it to tell me
something was wrong, and give me a choice, as below.

>| Alternatively (prefferred), it
>| could alert the user to its existence, and give the user the choice of
>| letting the virus stay in the file, or telling the virus to remove
>| itself from the file.

>PREFERRED?  I think far too many people would PANIC and would do something
>drastic.  Better to either die or not stay resident...

It would not stay resident in any case, (without marker) but since
what we're talking about would be for private use only, anyone who
accidentally gets this virus would know exactly where it came from.
Thus they wouldn't PANIC.

-- 
 Richard Powers    / Disclaimer: My keyboard is \   Computer=Amiga
rpowers@panix.com <  screwy.   Missing  letters  >  Music=Industrial
   Hail Eris!      \ should     be    expected. /   Food=Vegetarian
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: No Caller ID in California
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:52:50 GMT


Pacific Bell announced yesterday that they won't be offering
Caller ID in California, following on GTE's similar decision
a few months ago.

The reason is the PUC's insistence on per line blocking, which
both companies say would make the system virtually useless
to so many that they wouldn't get enough subscribers to
justify it.

They will be offering call trace and callback next March.

There are only about two other states (Colorado and one other)
in similar positions.

This is going to enrage a lot of people. Pac Bell hinted that
if the PUC changed their position on per line blocking they
might reconsider, but not otherwise. They've been in extensive
negotiations with the PUC, who won't budge on this.

Look for a lot of Commissioners to be thrown out of office
at the next opportunity--far more want Caller ID than
want per line blocking, in my view. No flames about "where
do I get my numbers", please. It's my opinion.

David


-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail