HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:02:18 GMT


The Constitution, like any other use of language, is subject to interpretation.
There are limits, however, on the "range" over which this interpretation
may be _reasonably_ made.  For example, changes in technology have made
certain ideas obsolete, or significantly enhanced others.  Back when news
traveled at the speed of a steamship or railroad locomotive, it was not
unreasonable to involve groups of people (e.g. Congress) in certain types
of decisions that are in today's faster world better left to _one_ man
(i.e. the President).  Military and diplomatic decisions come to mind.
The Constitution, remember, is a series of *What*s and *How*s.  There are
few *Why*s.  These may be found, however, in the Declaration of Independence,
and are supported by Reason (e.g. the Law of Identity, which states that
A=A, or, what a thing _is_ determines how it ought to behave).  The chartered
purpose of the U.S. Government is to secure individual rights.  That is the
light in which the Constitution *must* be viewed if it is to live up to the
purpose set for it by our Founding Fathers.  Unfortunately, today our
government violates individual rights as a matter of Standard Operating
Procedure, so how the Supreme Court or any other Government body chooses
to interpret the Constitution may be wholly inconsistent with the ideals
from which it was born.  Act _Honestly_, and no Reasonable Man (upon whom
the interpretatio of our laws is *supposed* to be based) shall have cause
to quibble, even if your actions are technically "illegal".

-JTT

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6421 misc.int-property:1187 alt.suit.att-bsdi:497 comp.unix.bsd:7340
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:30:28
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
Distribution: usa
	<1992Oct12.162211.8722@netcom.com>
	<RLK.92Oct12172516@underprize.think.com>
	<1992Oct13.044353.17298@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: mcgregor@netcom.com's message of Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:43:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.044353.17298@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:

   In article <RLK.92Oct12172516@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:

   >I don't believe that the clearinghouse scenario you propose would ever
   >get off the ground in the form you suggest.  

   Definately, this is hypothetical, but then so are the hypothetical
   variations on the patent law that are under discussion here.  Probably
   none of these things will occur exactly as speculated on here, but may
   occur with various improvements or changes.  But things might be
   close, and I suspect the same thing is true for clearing house
   scenarios.

Well, there are a lot of ways that it might be "close" in some ways, but
very different in practice.  For example, if individual membership (for
freeware) cost $100 or $1000/yr. rather than nothing.

   >In this case, are you
   >saying that ATT (say) would keep *no* technical secrets from
   >clearinghouse members? 
   Anything that AT&T (or anyone else wants to keep SECRET it can. But
   then it doesn't count toward the extra royalties that they might
   claim. Also, they can't keep it secret AND cover it by a patent, since
   a patent explictly publicizes it.  

Your claim was that you might be sued by ATT for receiving stolen
property.  This clearinghouse issue is irrelevant here, and would give
you no protection (from charges of misappropriating/receiving stolen
trade secrets) whether you're a member or not.

   > It's hard to see what ATT would hope to gain
   >from being that open. 

   A lower cost way of licensing than case by case licensing.

And in return they have to give up exclusive rights to all of their
patents?  I would be very surprised.

   > Similarly, I really don't think that big
   >companies would be happy to see people writing freeware using their
   >patents without paying them anything -- it still cuts into their sales,
   >whether or not the author is making a penny off the deal.

   Company's might not be happy about this, but they can't do much to
   stop it now either.

Sure they can.  They can get an injunction to stop future use, which
could be quite worthwhile if it preserves a monopoly.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu (pinkerton floyd)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 23:20:55 GMT

In article <1atujmINNod2@agate.berkeley.edu> stoll@ocf.berkeley.edu
(Cliff Stoll) writes: 

|Sheesh!  

Jeesh!

|Brad Hicks (or anyone on this forum) can get my opinions
|just by sending me e-mail.  Go ahead and rant about Cuckoo's Egg,
|but if you're wondering whether I'm a running dog of the 
|arch-unrepentant capitalist roaders, well, just ask.  Mike Godwin
|already has -- he knows!
|
|I just got Bruce Sterling's book, The Hacker Crackdown.  
|I'll be reading it this weekend.  So far, it reads well
|and certainly recognizes the good work from the EFF.
|Only complaints so far are the price ($23 might keep it
|out of the hands of many who would like it), and the
|page layout (lots of pull-out quotes, like newspapers).

As far as the page layout is concerned, the quotes are cool, I
think...Makes it easier to look back and find a specific place you're 
looking for, aside from garnering your attention (you noticed 'em!)

(BTW - oops, I forgot I've moved out of alt.cyberpunk...Can I still
use words like 'cool', and write flameless posts?? :)

As far as the price goes, *please* don't quote me on this, but I
recall reading somewhere that Sterling has said he would like to send
away free copies if he could (of the paperback version), or might put
the book on the net....Just one more reason why you should buy it...

(PS- as far as I know, I have a review of the book coming up in a CuD
fairly soon, and from what I've heard there's going to be a review in
the upcoming Mondo....[Which I also have an article in, as far as I
know...{gee, aren't I cool! :) :) :)  }])

Also, has the EFF made any official or unofficial comment as to how it
is portrayed in the book??  

|-cliff

(rhymes with BiFF!!  [just kidding....now I'll take my 5 yr-old self
back to the alt. groups])

--
 ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu   FutureCulture E-List: [future-request@nyx.cs.du.edu]
 andy (hawkeye)         new edge, technoculture, cyberpunk, virtual reality,
                        raves, etc. Home of the famous :) FutureCulture FAQ!
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Things
Date: 15 Oct 1992 04:30:43 GMT
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org) wrote:
: 
: I don't believe anyone ever posted that Pengo is "practically a
: psychopath." I don't think anyone posted even that Pengo is "an amoral
: person."
: 
: The closest thing to a charge of this sort was when Brad Hicks cast
: aspersions on Cliff Stoll's mental health.

Bill Vajk was calling the Jester a sociopath last year (for using a handle,
I guess), but the roster of eff-talk psychopaths is pretty small.

On the other hand, this very same conversation about the purported morality
or amorality of East German hackers either has was going strong
this June, the Amorality / Political Hacking thread.  Plenty of stuff from
Mike Godwin there.  Plenty of, er, mostly the same stuff that was being
talked about before, nothing particularly new, is someone more or less
moral for hacking, being paid for hacking, actively marketing your hacking
skills, hacking for one "side" or the other, what drugs or drugs money may
or may not have to do with morality.  Is Pengo like Mohandas Gandhi?

--Ed

"Usenet is a slow-moving parody of itself."  Peter Honeyman

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6418 misc.int-property:1185 alt.suit.att-bsdi:495 comp.unix.bsd:7319
From: mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:32:10 GMT
Reply-To: mattb@olympus.ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Organization: Cabletron Systems INc.

(Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>                            Bruce Sterling
>>                         bruces@well.sf.ca.us

>>The single most stinging example of this syndrome is "Pengo," a member
>>of the German hacker-group that broke into Internet computers while in
>>the pay of the KGB. He told German police, and the judge at the trial of
>>his co-conspirators, that he was inspired by NEUROMANCER and John
>>Brunner's SHOCKWAVE RIDER.

>I don't know if Bruce is reading this, but anyway I would be
>interested in knowing people's viewpoint on this:
>
>Is it equally evil to work for U.S. government?

That is much too broad a statement; Sterling implied evil motives of the KGB,
not every agency in the XSoviet government. He didn't even imply that every
person who worked for the KGB was the moral equivalent of Pengo. It is
too wide a net to say the same thing about the US government. Narrow it
to the CIA or NSA, or rather to specific actions of the CIA/NSA types, and
I don't think you would get much argument (though the difference between
evil, illegal, and despicable might be argued). Granted, Sterling calls
Pengo et al "evildoers" but even that is a more narrow use than "evil"
in Jyrki's context, which seems akin to "evil in its very nature."

It is pretty clear that there are acts being done in the name of the US
and other governments that are as bad as the hacking cited. The very same
Steve Jackson raid that started Sterling's investigation falls into the
category of overzealous persecution at least, in my opinion. Whether the
motives were to prevent anarchy and crime, or a power play to control
information and supress, is debatable, but not totally relevant, because
regrdless of motivation, the action was excessive, again IMO.

I guess my best answer to Jyrki is that there are cases where agencies and
individuals overstep their rightful charter (if they have one), and that
these instances must be detested as publically as possible, when they are
discovered. This does not mean that anyone who works for the US 1government is
doing evil, any more than Pengo's case implies that all Germans are evil,
or that the Internet is a network for criminals.

Matt
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:04:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.122907.4824@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>I think you simply don't understand the point I was making. In the
>examples you give, the law-breaking was incidental to the work. In Pengo's
>case, the law-breaking was central to the work.

OK - you are correct that I didn't get the point earlier.  Thanks for
the clarification.  Still, I haven't seen anything to support your
assertion of it being central to the work.

>Then you are almost alone in how you read Hicks's comments on Cliff's
>sanity and moral character.

Again, how do you know?  Have you conducted a poll among 26 000
estimated comp.org.eff.talk readers plus all the ones from the Fidonet
echoes?

>>>Perhaps you apply a different standard to me than you do to
>>>Brad Hicks? If so, what does this say about your fairness?
>>
>>You tell me.
>
>I've done so.

You keep repeating and repeating the claim about "different
standards".  That seems quite pointless, as I've already said that I
probably use different standards and explained the reason I probably
do so.  You just disregard it.

This doesn't seem much like discussion on your part, you just seem to
keep repeating your assertions and ignoring what others say.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: FBI, Laws, PGP, etc.
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:51:22 GMT
Keywords: privacy, FBI, encryption, PGP

In article <1992Oct12.023035.17126@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> pfarrell@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Pat Farrell) writes:
>How come? is this an all talk, no action feed?

No, but all the 'action' is on alt.security.pgp ...

G
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:41:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.002901.14966@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> >How about one recorded in a mathematics textbook? How is LZW any more a
> >physical process than Euler's method? I was born in a world where neither
> >of these were patentable. Now one of them is.

> Again, I disagree.  I still think that neither is patentable and
> neither is patented.  But an application of the mathematical algorithm
> underlying LZW is patented.  There may also be applications of Euler's
> method that were patented in some process patent.

OK, what if I held the patent on "the application of long division to the
calculation of divisors and dividends"? You can syill use long division
for divination or artistic works, but as soon as you write down the result
of the calculation you're stuck. I don't see how there's any difference.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                         `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                              'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012           "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
+1 713 274 5180                       "Tjener, denne ret er stadig levende."
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:17:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.075245.19311@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> Peter claims that patents on threading are still common.

Yes, check out NASA Tech Briefs. For some reason, NASA has become fascinated
with connectors in the past few years. :->

> > Thus, every software developer is
> >in the position of having to deal with licensing issues.

> Not really, only every software distributor.

I'm not sure there is a reasonable distinction.

> And in any cases less
> onerous licensing mechanisms such as clearinghouses are possible.

Unless you want to distribute source.

> >Scott MacGregor has posted that he's been involved in software licensing
> >issues for many years.  I suspect most of this has involved licensing large
> >packages: specialized software libraries and self-contained application
> >programs.  
> 
> Also individual widgets, objects and the like.

Yeh, but those (a) aren't algorithms, but implementations of algorithms, and
(b) copyright works fine for them.

> From a societal standpoint there is a reasonable question to raise
> about whether is really desirable from the respect of industry
> maturity  that so many people DO remanufacture there own base objects
> which not only require the re-invention time, but testing, etc.

Because it's cheaper to do that than to (a) research canned applications,
(b) contact the supplier, and (c) purchase them, for anything but substantial
libraries and modules (Motif, for example, or operating systems).

You want to encourage their re-use, make it cheaper to use canned code instead
of making it more expensive to grow your own.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                         `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                              'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012           "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
+1 713 274 5180                       "Tjener, denne ret er stadig levende."
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6405 misc.int-property:1176 alt.suit.att-bsdi:487 comp.unix.bsd:7295
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:25:16
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
Distribution: usa
	<1bamugINN275@early-bird.think.com> <1992Oct12.162211.8722@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: mcgregor@netcom.com's message of Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:22:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.162211.8722@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:

   In article <1bamugINN275@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
   >In article <1992Oct11.031616.854@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
   >>Today, if I use some of Peter's code, I might be sued by AT&T because
   >>they might claim that Peter's code was derived from their trade secret
   >>protected code (doesn't require copyright, or patent).

   Note that this refers to a situation in the absence of a clearing house.

   >>On the other hand, under the clearinghouse model if both
   >>AT&T and I were members AT&T can't sue me.
   >
   >By definition, trade secrets can't be patented, so presumably they wouldn't
   >be covered by the protection of the patent clearinghouse.

   I think it would be reasonable to expect that terms of the clearing
   house would mean that members get to use contributed materials, this
   would grant copyright, trade-secret and patent license thereby freeing
   the user from risk from suits of any of these types. In exchange for
   contribution, the contributors get royalties instead of specific
   negotiated license fees.

I don't believe that the clearinghouse scenario you propose would ever
get off the ground in the form you suggest.  In this case, are you
saying that ATT (say) would keep *no* technical secrets from
clearinghouse members?  It's hard to see what ATT would hope to gain
from being that open.  Similarly, I really don't think that big
companies would be happy to see people writing freeware using their
patents without paying them anything -- it still cuts into their sales,
whether or not the author is making a penny off the deal.

For these and other reasons, I simply don't think that life would be
quite so simple.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Re- EFFector Online 3.06- B
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:19:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.125936.19981@news.acns.nwu.edu> learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk) writes:

>See, idealism isn't devoid of payment....only commonly accepted ideas
>of what payment is. And if one is paid in other than currency, then
>the work accomplished becomes tainted, in narrow minds, by the
>form of payment. Had Godwin's articles been written 30 years ago, and
>homosexual favors part of the payment scheme for Pengo, he would have
>held up the same negative images he does today with drugs as payment.

You imply, mistakenly, that I wouldn't have held up the same negative
images if the favors had been heterosexual, or if they had been in the
present rather than 30 years ago, or if payment had been solely in cash.
The fact that Hagbard, at least, was interested in being paid in drugs by
the KGB, is not decisive on the issue of whether he was acting
altruistically, but it is suggestive.

One may believe, as I do, that the American War on Some Drugs is
misconceived and should be terminated, and at the same time look askance
at any claim that a person who hoped to support his coke habit by breaking
into a foreign country's computers was acting out of idealism. Cokeheads
hoping to score more cocaine rarely act altruistically, in my experience.
Those who wish to generalize about the selfless idealism of cocaine
abusers should, of course, feel free to dispute me here. 

>Some months ago I mentioned the conservative bent I saw in the articles
>from the eff. Gdwin's response was "that's a hoot..." But here it is
>again, in all the splendor of conservative wrap.

I long ago quit worrying about whether Bill Vajk wants to call me a
"conservative." This was at about the same time I quit worrying about
whether Clayton Cramer was calling me a "liberal."



--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gross@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Ben Gross)
Subject: Current papers/information on intellectual property
Keywords: intellectual property patents copyright
Reply-To: b-gross@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:51:04 GMT

I would like to write a paper concerning intellectual property, copyrights, and
patents relating mainly to computers.  If there are any papers/essays about
this that are FTPable or otherwise availiable throught the net, I would
appreaciate pointers to them.  Any hints towards books, magazine and or
journals articles would be great too.
Thanks,
Ben

-- 
! Mail to: b-gross@uiuc.edu       /!\    NeXT mail: gross@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu !
! No matter where you go, there you are.   --Buckaroo Bonzai--                !
!-------------> Reality is only for those who lack imagination. <-------------!
!-----------> Disclaimer:  I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees. <-----------!
From: mandel@unix.SRI.COM (Thomas F. Mandel)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: IRC discussion of security and cyberspace
Keywords: Security, Cyberspace, Hackers, Networks
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:18:04 GMT
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, California

In article <1992Oct6.225251.27887@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <39251@unix.SRI.COM>, mandel@unix (Thomas F. Mandel) writes:
>>the subject on Wednesday and Thursday (October 7-8th) from about
>>3pm-8pm Pacific Daylight Time (6pm-11pm EDT), and interested
>>parties are invited to join in.
>
>What's that in GMT (date -u in Unix)?  And what is the name of the channel?
>
>//Jyrki



I believe there is 7 hours difference between California and GMT at
present, so the discussion would start at 2200 GMT on Wednesday
and Thursday (Oct. 7-8th) and run on for roughly 5 hours each evening.

We haven't decided on the name of the channel, but just do a /LIST
and look for a notice.

Thanks for the response.
-- 
Tom Mandel		mandel@unix.sri.com

The opinions stated here are my own and not those of anyone else.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk