HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Munitions act analogies
Date: 19 Dec 92 18:23:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <18694@mindlink.bc.ca> Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca
(Clayten Hamacher) writes:

>What is this Munitions act that the use of PGP supposedly interferes with,
>and how can any law interfere with the first amendment? I'm not informed of
>US law (being Canadian) but it seems ludicrous that the government should
>have any say about how you encode the data you send. It's like them requiring
>people not say any word to another person unless they are within hearing
>range of a governement employee or they make a tape and provide it for
>government scrutiny.


No it's not. There is no law of the kind you compare it to. You can
communicate in person secretly by voice all you want. Once you start
to use technical means the game changes. By the way, this is in the
U.S. I don't think Canadians have free speech guarantees anything like
as strong as we do. Note also that Canada is a COCOM member and that
the Munitions Act is, in effect, a Canadian law as well, so it's not
the Bad Ole U.S. but the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and (not sure)
Australia and New Zealand and others as well for whom something like
the Muniions Act is, in effect, a local law since they are COCOM
members. Since each country in COCOM adopted it voluntarily, a good
deal of the U.S. bashing that's going on about this subject is
entirely unwarranted. Each COCOM member has received many benefits
from it, including sharing and availability of a lot of U.S. military
technology, so it's not at all one-sided.

>P.S. Wouldn't a modem with a different encoding method for it's data be the
>same as PGP for purposes of this law, if not, what's the difference? If so,
>where does it stop?

A modem with a secret encoding method, that wasn't publicly sold,
would be a cryptographic device under the munitions act. Even
a modem with a public encoding method could be a cryptographic
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: eric@j30264293.reslife.cornell.edu (Eric L. Beyer)
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Nntp-Posting-User: elb1@cornell.edu
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: The Solaris Development Group
X-Newssoftware: GRn-beta 1.16g (10.12.92) by Michael B. Smith & Mike Schwartz
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:11:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.064217.21806@samba.oit.unc.edu> jem@sunSITE.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid) writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.054110.8618@tc.cornell.edu> mdw@db.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:
> >Perhaps institutions that wish to hire responsible 
> >programmers or system administrators should require a few common-sense
> >prerequisites, like some kind of degree from an educational institution,
> 
> Is this a "common sense prerequisite"? perhaps. but not a very good one,
> as I know some very good programmer's with no degree but high school.
> 
> I'm sure Bill Gates is glad that a computer science degree or any degree
> for that matter was not a "common sense prerequisite" when he was starting
> out.
> 
> I have no doubt that eventually the hacking business will become regulated
> by such prerequisites, but must we be in such a rush?
> 
> Does anyone actually have any evidence that a degree proves programming
> ability? How much less than for a licensing test.
> 

-- 
   Such restrictions would be silly.  Personnel departments at the
individual companies are more than capable of sniffing out the incompetent.
Should we license every profession, just because there might be one or two
ninkompoops there?

   NOT.
--
  Eric L. Beyer
  Proud owner of his rusty A500
  Paper pusher of Solaris Devlopment Group
  (elb1@cornell.edu)

 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Brad Hicks forwarding
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:54:11 GMT

Could whoever is forwarding this newsgroup to Brad Hicks via attmail.com
please stop or fix the gateway.  For a month, it seems that every posting I
make to this group gets a long and detailed message about why he didn't
get the mail.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,isu.cc.general,isu.talk.usenet-policy
From: greeny@eff.org (J S Greenfield)
Subject: Re: ONE YEAR AGO: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Originator: greeny@eff.org
Keywords: bogus!
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:30:46 GMT

In article <BzGLHA.6uF@NeoSoft.com> gclarkii@NeoSoft.com (Gary Clark II) writes:
>
>Just a short question.  Why don't the admins of the these sites just require a
>waiver from _ALL_ persons wanting access saying that they will not sue
>or otherwise bring to court for the contents of a piece of electronic media?
>Then they don't (hopefully) do not need to worry about a student sueing.

(I didn't read the previosu several re-posts in this thread, because they were
just to long, so my answer refers only to the specific question above.)

For one thing, waivers of this sort don't provide blanket protection, as you
may think.  I would expect the sort of waiver that you want to be similar
to a waiver one signs when, say, going sky-diving.  You sign a liability
waiver, but that still doesn't protect the drop zone from negligence suits,
for example.  I mean, if the place didn't do basic maintenance on their planes,
say, and while you were on your way up a wing fell off, then your next of kin
could still sue--and the waiver wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.


The point is, a liability waiver doesn't necessarily prevent either lawsuits
or liability.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,                            greeny@eff.org 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: Jack.Winslade@drbbs.omahug.org (Jack Winslade)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Software as PE
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:09:20 CST
Reply-To: jack.winslade@drbbs.omahug.org
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

In a message dated 15-DEC-92, Jim Riddle writes:

>I've been working, although only nominally to date, with the concept of
>software becoming an engineering discipline.  When I say working with, I
>mean I have frequently been discussing this with other PEs and at my
>professional society meetings.  I am working to get a better ear on a
>couple of the state boards where I'm registered.
 
I can see how an optional certification like this might add some
credibility to the profession of software engineering.  However, the way
state PE exams go, I can just see it full of questions about such things
as beam stress.
 
Good day      JSW

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:44:47 GMT

Steve Pope (spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: It is pretty much clearly stated.
: 
: If you call the WELL and go through the newuser registration,
: they say "The WELL does not accept anonymous accounts except
: by special arrangement".  Based on what fig@eff just posted
: here that's an accurate summary.

Oh, yes, I had forgotten about that "except by special arrangement"
language.  Good thinking.

--
 __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |dman@netcom.com  /or/  |"You sound like a man|
 l  \\ l\\   /l  /\\  l\\   l |dross@well.sf.ca.us    |with a rubber nose." |
 l   >)l \\ /ll /  \\ l \\  l |vox/fax: 1.510.645.1883| -- One-Lung Bill    |
 l  // l  \X ll/--- \\l  \\ l |350 Perkins St., #108  |     Remmer (deceased)
_l//______________________\\l_|Oakland,_CA__94610-3422|_____________________|_
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.eff.news
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: CPSR & Caller ID?
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:59:09 GMT
 <1992Dec10.181556.8815@netcom.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b2@newshost.dartmouth.edu

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

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

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

I simply don't accept your premise(s).  
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:03:44 GMT

In article <1gj3luINNfs3@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
writes:

> The US law of torts really is a totally screwed up mess.

Yes, but we like it that way.  There was a presidental candidate in the
last election who agreed with you, but he lost.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From: Jim.Riddle@inns.omahug.org (Jim Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Date: 17 Dec 92 06:00:26 CST
Reply-To: jim.riddle@inns.omahug.org
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

Thomas Aaron Insel asked me to tell him that the whole thing isn't
different from plumbing.
 
I can't, because it isn't
 
The whole thing about plumbing and registrations and licensing is the
same as it is with engineering and probably should be with some aspects
of software.  Anytime you do anything affecting the public health and
safety you need to be certified capable of doing it correctly and,
perhaps the point that is being overlooked, you have to lay your own
ticket on the line if what you do fails.
 
What's wrong with that?
 

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jpe@ee.egr.duke.edu (John P. Eisenmenger)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:18:13 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

viljanen@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lea Viljanen) writes:

>In <PCL.92Dec15173300@rhodium.ox.ac.uk> pcl@ox.ac.uk (Paul C Leyland) writes:

>>For this very reason, I made very strong requests to our mail guru to
>>fix it for Postmaster to get only the mail headers.  [...]

>This is a two edged sword here. By enhancing the user's privacy
>you also diminish their chances to get information. Just guess
>how many internet guides tell people to mail postmaster@site
>to get information about e-mail addresses. These mail messages
>get truncated too.

It depends.  It seems to me that the postmaster delivery program would
have to keep the headers of the failed mail and thus must scan the body
of the message.  If it were designed well it wouldn't toss away the body
if there were no error messages.

-John

-- 
*************************************************************************
* John P. Eisenmenger			 Phone: (919) 660-5248		*
* Duke University			 FAX:   (919) 660-5293		*
* Department of Electrical Engineering	 Email: jpe@egr.duke.edu (pref)	*
* Box 90291				        jpe@cs.duke.edu		*
* Durham, NC 27708-0291							*
*									*
*  Reports of problems w/EE systems should go to problem@egr.duke.edu	*
*************************************************************************
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: "The Net <tm>"?
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:45:53 CST
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.

In article <199212142121.AA09811@eff.org>, mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com writes:
> There's an article in the October 15th {Electronic Mail and Micro
> Systems}, which just made its way to me, about a reorganization of
> Mediatel and Telecom Canada to market both of their products (and a few
> other bits of this and that) under a new company name: "The Net."

There is a story that is told by the shipping clerks that once upon a time
a freight company changed their name to "Best Way."  Since most shipping
orders say ship via best way (i.e. least expensive) a whole bunch of
people were suprised to get bills from "Best Way" shipping for a whole
lot more than they were expecting.

Oh, by the way, the name Internet(tm) has also been taken by another company
called Internet Communications, Inc.  It gets very confusing when one of
your competitors announces they have signed an "exclusive" arrangement
with the Internet.

Gee, maybe there is a place for intellectual property rights on the "net"
after all.
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7837 alt.privacy:2713
From: gallaghe@vax.sonoma.edu (Rip Torn)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Calif DMV DEMANDS SSN for Driver License!?
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:41:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sonoma State University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1h013iINNg88@news.cerf.net>, rberger@nic.cerf.net (Robert J. Berger) writes...
>I just got my California Drivers License Renewal form and at the top
>it has a place for me to add my Social Security number. It does not seem to 
>meet the Federal Privacy Act's requirements for a State Govt agency to
>demand a SSN. 
> 
>Does anyone know what the proper way to handle this?
>
Not yet, but were working on it.  Buy looking over the law, the california
requirement would probibly fall to a cort battle, but that cort battle could
be costly.  One of my co workers is battling the local dmv now.  and will
probibly no get his licence issued, so he will problibly op to get a nevada
licence through a mail drop (this is also good if you wan't to buy guns in
nevada :)

Also on the same note, I have another friend who registers his car out of
state.  He filed a ficticious name statment and has a mail drop out of
state, the car is owned by the company stated on the ficticious name statment.
He clames this is legal since the car is a company car from out of state and
he doesn't have to go through half the bull that california makes us do and
it costs him much less money.

So its your choice, but I say don't do it, don't give up your right to
privacy.  I wonder if you could take the dmv to small clames cort over this?
Who would you serve?  The fed law states that failure to provide services
because someone will not give there ssn carries a min fine of $1000 (excluding
for tax and ssn uses.)


Rip
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Rime now joins EFF.org
From: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel) 
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:37:00 GMT
Reply-To: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121



  I  probably should  of posted  this before  we made  the bridge active
  <sigh>...

  With permission of the E.F.F. and  RIME this conference is now bridged
  between the two networks (UseNet and RIME).

  During the initial weeks (as has already been seen) there will be some
  confusion on both sides as to what is going on.

  I will try to  handle the RIME side and bring it's  readers up to date
  on what UseNet  is and/or isn't. I ask that  all UseNet readers please
  bear with us during this transition period.
---
 * SM 1.06 A0059 * Defiance - a five year old with an attitude.
                                                                                                                  
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: Caller ID solution? (was Re: ACLU/EFF and Scanner restrictions?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:29:30 GMT

Joe Thomas incorrectly attributes an article about a PBX in the basement
to me.

I did not write that.

I don't have a PBX.

I would never be a party to helping others beat caller ID.

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: CPSR & Caller ID?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 15:33:53 GMT

timhu@ico.isc.com (Timothy Hu) writes:

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

I believe so - I think that the caller's id is carried down to the
local exchange, where it is stripped out (since traditionally we
had no way of using it). It is supposedly there for call setup and
accounting purposes. This is why (at least in Colorado) all caller ID
requires is an upgrade of the software in the local exchange - an
upgrade that is probably going to happen anyway (meaning that your
local exchange will have the capability for Caller ID probably long
before the local PUC will give you access thereof).

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Date: 17 Dec 1992 23:40:35 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

>The whole thing about plumbing and registrations and licensing is the
>same as it is with engineering and probably should be with some aspects
>of software.  Anytime you do anything affecting the public health and
>safety you need to be certified capable of doing it correctly and,
>perhaps the point that is being overlooked, you have to lay your own
>ticket on the line if what you do fails.

The reasons plumbers, general contracters, roofers etc.
are licensed is it allows them to put a mechanic's lein
on your house or other property.  


It has little to do with public health and safety.


And I don't want to be foreclosed upon by no software
engineers.



Steve Pope, hardware type
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 17 Dec 1992 23:23:30 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

Korac MacArthur asks:

> Yes, but was the fact that you could apply for and GET anonymity
> [ from the WELL] ever clearly stated?  I doubt it.

It is pretty much clearly stated.

If you call the WELL and go through the newuser registration,
they say "The WELL does not accept anonymous accounts except
by special arrangement".  Based on what fig@eff just posted
here that's an accurate summary.

Steve
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: 2600 Pentagon City Mall "bust"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:04:41 GMT

brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

>The problem is that rights are different and complex in private public
>spaces, such as mall food courts.  I expect Sherri might clear this up
>with a posting on some of the history of this, but what I have read indicates:

>a) Malls are not entirely private, ie. you don't surrender all the rights you
>would surrender going into a private home, because there is an implicit or
>explicit invitation to the public to enter a mall.

>c) There are limits on what those mall rules can be.  They can't discriminate
>against you on the basis of race, sex, etc.   However, there are all kinds
>of totally legal activities which they can forbid.

       Yes.  Whether malls can forbid passing out leaflets has been
litigated; I think you can in California, but it's an open question 
elsewhere.  That's about as far as freedom of expression issues in malls
have gone, as far as I know.  Many malls forbid taking pictures; it's
not clear why.  Vending by non-tenants is almost invariably prohibited.
See "City", by William H. Whyte, for a good discussion of mall and street 
behavior and law.  

       It raises some major issues, though.  Where can you have a private
meeting? Remember how the "hacker crackdown" started, with a group of people
meeting in a properly rented motel room, being videotaped by the Secret
Service using hidden cameras.  [For those who came in late, this is not
a paranoid fantasy; it's been established in court.  The tapes didn't show
any illegal activity, either.]  So now some of the same people are meeting
in a mall.  This doesn't work either.  What's left?  A public sidewalk?
Then what?  "Obstructing the sidewalk" charges?  The First Amendment
has been held to permit some "time, place, and manner" restrictions on
expression and association, but any group which finds it difficult to
meet because of state action has a legitimate beef.

>This status, by the way is something that we as a society have asked for.
>We like the safe, organized and controlled nature of private malls,
>and we abandoned the public malls and downtowns for them.

       Indeed.  "City of Quartz", one of those books about LA, critically
analyzes this issue.  The private mall and the gated community are coming to 
define life in LA, at least for the Anglo population.  Still, the
Santa Monica Mall and Venice Beach thrive as public spaces, so the 
ethos that built Disneyland has not yet taken over completely.

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: wilcoxt@cuug.ab.ca (Terrance Wilcox 229-3361)
Subject: Re: ISDN rates
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:37:13 GMT

In article <BzCy78.HqK@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> dbenson@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (David "Network Man" Benson) writes:
>I contacted my local phone company (C&P) about having an ISDN line
>installed in my apartment (for the purpose of connecting to campus's
>network). I was quoted a $300 installation charge, $58 per month, plus
>$0.05 per minute. Are these rates fair (average)? 

When ISDN becomes available in Alberta (next May), AGT will charge $30
installation, $65/month for line, $17/month for NT1 if you need it.

No per minute charges, no packet charges. The only per minute charges
are for long distance, at regular rates.

If you get Datapac (Canada's network) you get packet charges.

So, that $0.05/minute seems a bit expensive.

Terry Wilcox
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 06:48:21 CST
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

jem@sunSITE.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid) writes:

| In article <1992Dec11.054110.8618@tc.cornell.edu> mdw@db.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt

| I'm sure Bill Gates is glad that a computer science degree or any degree
| for that matter was not a "common sense prerequisite" when he was starting
| out.

Or W. Daniel Hillis, of Thinking Machines, Inc. - arguably the hardware
equivalent of Bill Gates...

Of course, neither of them would probably be hired by their own companies
today - "I'm sorry, sir, but our first choice had a 4-year degree..."

I think the college degree is in many cases overrated and abused - there
are a LOT of people without degrees who can run circles around the new
so-called college graduates; however, without that piece of paper
many employers won't hire you.

Perhaps that's why some US industries are going down-hill.... Hiring
is done not by ability but degrees.


--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat        |  Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: rat@ruth.UUCP                 |  80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23        |
"...because appealing to the masses has |  Files available more ways than
 never appealed to us."                 |  any other BBS in America!
Files via: anon uucp, Fidonet FREQ, mail to archive-server@ruth.uucp, etc.
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7767 alt.privacy:2684 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3801 comp.security.misc:2327