HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 31 Dec 92 14:23:31 GMT

From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
>In <725430469.26792@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>
>>I doubt any virus could be beneficial.  The closest idea for one was to have
>         ^^^
>>one only erase edlin from MSDOS systems.  In my mind, that would be fairly
>>beneficial, but there are a few people who actually use it as a down'n'dirty
>>editor.
>[...]
>
>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.
>
>Certainly a virus, and certainly beneficial.  (Assuming it wasn't
>buggy of course.  :-)  )
>

So your "beneficial" virus gets loose on my computer.  And some time later, I
want to, hmm, edit the icons in a Windows .exe.  Or maybe I've got an ugly old
program that modifies its exe so that it knows where it is.  Crunch!  The
virus just got in the way--and if I didn't install the virus on my computer,
I'm going to go looking for the owner.

I don't think I'd trust even a controlled virus--it's too much of a kludgy
technique.  Why infect each program, when you could load an honest device
driver?
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: This is an Outrage!!!
Keywords: eff 2600 jive turkey explosives shoot the president oswald
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:20:34 GMT

       Yeah, we know about the "jive filter" too.

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.usenix,comp.org.sug,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: tg@cs.toronto.edu (Tom Glinos)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: alt
Date: 25 Dec 92 23:40:56 GMT

In article <BZS.92Dec24223645@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) [responding to me]
>No one outside of USL is quite sure why UCB was not named in the
>original suit, it's easy to speculate of course. But it was clear that
>this was an error (based on what USL was trying to claim), and that is
>why UCB was named in the second round of claims.

I don't think they wanted to go after a "non-threat". UCB claims to
be research oriented and shutting down their research in the short term.
There is little benefit going after the "dying." Looks and is a cruel
thing to do.

>If USL manages to bankrupt BSDI by removing their only livelihood I
>can't see USL expecting (or even pursuing) much in damage claims on
>other matters. However, USL could seek damages from the University of
>California I suppose, they'd still be solvent.

Kick'em while they are down! Any good lawyer will go after twice as much in
damages as he thinks he can get. After the case is done, or mostly through,
then one side or the other can propose an honourable and generous way out.
Still to early in the game yet, they haven't even gotten to court.

Things may never make it to court. Legal actions like this tend to stall
when company management changes hands. It's really up to Novell now.
Do they really want the wrath of the network???
-- 
=================
No regrets, ever!			| Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics
For down that path, lies madness	| tg@utstat.toronto.edu
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:04:48 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: rita@eff.org


	Comparing Internet providers is not off-topic for this group.

-- 
Rita Rouvalis                                Electronic Frontier Foundation
rita@eff.org                                                    eff@eff.org
CIS:70007,5621                                                (617)864-0665
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7878 alt.privacy:2729
From: gallaghe@vax.sonoma.edu (Rip Torn)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Calif DMV DEMANDS SSN for Driver License!?
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:14:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sonoma State University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BzMFHB.Awr@vcd.hp.com>, johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes...
>Rip Torn (gallaghe@vax.sonoma.edu) wrote:
If he has a claim (esp a Big one) the
>first thing they will do is check to see if they can deny coverage.
> 
>John Eaton
>!hp-vcd!johne

I think that he has it insured at the calif address.  I will ask.  

On a side note, car rental companies are doing this.  The local Budget rent
a car place has a company car with nevada plates.  This is a car they do
not rent.  It even has the local address on the door.

rip

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: Caller ID suggestion
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:22:16 GMT


Carl Kadie posts a description of blocked blocking. As long as it
considers calls from phones that don't have the possibility of sending
their ID as calls not blocked, it sounds fine.  But I'd want to be
sure my mother in Lower Siwash Falls, which still uses tin cans and
string, can get through. In other words, it should require a call
or line to take some affirmative action to be considered
blocked, whether per call, or per line with per call unblocking.

I have nothing against those who wish to block their calls, as
long as I can automatically refuse such calls without difficulty
or annoyance. That is a brilliant scheme for preserving the caller's
definition of privacy (he doesn't want to be known even when HE made
the call), and mine (I don't want masked men ringing my phone).

I think most people on both sides of this issue would be happy with
this approach, assuming it's readily feasible in the next year and
isn't yet another stall by the blockers.

David
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: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 05:01:07 GMT

In article <1hg8hcINN7l5@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>It *is* a quite restrictive policy, despite the
>quite inexplicable insistence of Mike Godwin on this
>thread to the contrary.  Although Mike really should know better,
>he is completely off-base on this one.

My insistence becomes explicable when one considers that I actually use
the system and know people who have gotten anonymous accounts.
I'd say that the WELL policy is less restrictive than the
average application for a video-store membership.


--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 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7959 alt.security.pgp:380
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: [sci.crypt, et al.]  Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: 23 Dec 1992 00:15:58 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

I'm not a big fan of the RSA patent, but I'm posting a Devil's Advocate
article because Czeranski's posting relates to patents in general.

In article <1992Dec22.211800.12981@solaris.rz.tu-clausthal.de> injc@helios.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Joerg Czeranski) writes:
>David Sternlight (strnlght@netcom.com) wrote:
>: My position is clear. RSA has patents on a wonderful invention and they are
>: entitled to the fruits of their work. To cheat them of those fruits is wrong,
>: regardless of the legal situation outside the US., or whether one will get
>: caught or not.
>
>I don't doubt, that RSA is a wonderful invention, but it is not solely the
>work of Rivest, Shamir & Adleman.  

Very few inventions in any field are solely the work of the inventor.  An
inventor builds upon past design and practice, adds something he came up
with himself, and produces something novel.  He can then patent the part he
came up with, and anything that incorporates that component is subject to
the patent.

>				    They proposed the encryption scheme
>(and discussed it), but many articles were written about RSA by others,
>investigating how secure single bits are, etc.  Isn't RSA only interesting
>because it's strength was broadly discussed in the open literature?

Other people writing about an invention after the fact doesn't affect the
validity of the patent.  Would these articles have been written at all if
R, S, and A hadn't published the design of their encryption system in the
first place?  Patents exist to encourage publication, which then encourages
others to comment and build upon the invention.

>How can PKP hold a patent, withholding the fuits of others' work from
>U.S. citizens regardless of any legal situation?  Isn't such a patent
>very unethical?

Some people believe that patents in general are morally wrong, because they
legally permit a patentholder to prevent an inventor from using the fruits
of his labor.  Independent invention is not a valid excuse for infringing a
patent.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: rita@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:52:00 GMT

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

>One point that comes to my mind is the tone of the followups to the
>raising of the question.  The guy raises a reasonable question with a
>polite tone (I read it like that, anyway), and gets back many quite
>rude flames and ad hominem attacks.

	This was not the original poster's point.  I may be a little
vague on what it actually was (maybe through fault of my own), but I
am fairly certain this wasn't it.  And don't be such a kettle, because
I've watched you do your share of flaming over the past year or so.

>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".

	Ok, I know EFF bashing is a popular pasttime in this group.
And do feel free to bash away (we all live for it).  But exactly three
paid staff members have posted on this thread.  Cliff has not been
rude.  I haven't intended to be rude (and don't think I was).  And
Mike hasn't been rude either (which we are all aware he is quite
capable of being).

	If we're going to twist this thread (as most of the others)
into How EFF Staff Should Behave, let me know.  I know it never occurs
to you all that we, also, may have opinions on issues that we would
like to express.  Perhaps you would prefer that we just never
participate in online discussions at all?  Pretty strange twist when
folks tell their advocates of free speech what they can't say what
they want.



-- 
Rita Rouvalis                                Electronic Frontier Foundation
rita@eff.org                                                    eff@eff.org
CIS:70007,5621                                                (617)864-0665
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:34:26 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

| In article <1992Dec22.032225.27282@netcom.com> dman@netcom.com
| (Dallman Ross) wrote:

[Quoting Steve Pope here....]
| I'm not particularly "worked up" over this issue.

Could've fooled us, Steve.

| I am (a)
| trying to figure out just who (general terms) the class of pseudonymous
| WELL users is;

This question has been answered.

| and (b) are there any implications of this
| sort of in-between policy on pseudonymity?

This question seems to have been answered, too.

| I figure this is the
| right newsgroup to discuss such things.  

No one said it wasn't.

| >So, what would you *like* the WELL management to do?  
| 
| Explain themselves.  Other than that, nothing different than
| they are doing.  They may be up-front about their policy
| if anybody should ask them.  

They have.  In fact, they do so UP FRONT - their policy has
been quoted several times.

| >I don't get what you want to have happen.  
| 
| Then go back and read my posts to get a clue.  I haven't
| suggested that I want the WELL to change.  

So you've been ranting and raving to no purpose.  I guess this
thread is over, eh?  I DO wish I had kill files in this Waffle box...


--
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.
From: trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AT&T TIMEOUT & DISABLED
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:02:36 GMT
	<TRSNYDER.92Dec28093724@vf0031.mcs.drexel.edu>
	<BzzE7A.Ms@news.iastate.edu>
Organization: ASCI

In article <BzzE7A.Ms@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:

      [cordless phone or person-to-person suggestion]

   (do they even make cordless TDDs, for example?)

I don't know; I haven't been in the market for one recently.  However, at
least in this area, there are TDD operators that could connect you.

   Wouldn't it much simpler for them(AT&T etc.) to charge for ringing time over
   some reasonable amount (say 1 or 2 minutes) just as if it were "connected" time?

Then when you see connect charges to some number you were never able to reach,
you will call up AT&T and demand they be taken off.  (You is the generic you.
:-) I believe MCI set up a system similar to what you describe, since I have
seen a fair number of people complain about MCI charges for numbers they
never connected to.  People weren't real happy with it.

I don't think limiting the number of rings is a problem except for a very, very
small minority.  People who aren't very mobile tend to stay in one place (bed,
favorite chair, etc), next to which the telephone (and other neccesary
equipment, such as a TDD) could be placed.

I don't think this is a case of discrimination against the handicapped.

Bob
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:06:14 GMT

In <1992Dec23.152701.25676@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>I wasn't talking about "the exact same technique." I was talking about
>*using* the WELL and finding out for yourself whether its anonymity
>policies create problems or complaints. The only data you seem to have are
>based on a speculative reading of one sentence of the WELL's membership
>policy. You are talking about a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

Admittedly, I am coming into this thread a little late but why don't you
simply charge a premium for "pseudonymity".  That way people who genuinely
desire to remain anonymous could pay for the privilege.  If you make the 
premium high enough then those who desire anonymity on a "whim" will have
to think twice.

rm

-- 
Roger Maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
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: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:28:37 GMT

In article <Bznw3w.Fpz@world.std.com> jcluett@world.std.com (Jim Cluett) writes:
>It's seems like such an odd discussion. Aren't we all
>anonymous? Do you have a clue who I am?

Well, we're not totally Cluett-less.


--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: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: AT&T TIMEOUT & DISABLED
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:04:21 GMT

trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder) writes:
}robert.seely@rsbbs.uucp (Robert Seely) writes:
}   AT&T has initiated a practice of auto disconnecting calls after x amt.
}   of rings/time for LD calls (at least).
    [and how this relates to the disabled]

}This was discussed recently in the Telecom digest.  Apparently this practice
}started around the time Larry King told callers to simply call the number and
}let it ring until they answered it and put you on the air; the result being
}people letting the phone ring for 30 minutes or more.  While I'm not
}particularly fond of AT&T, I don't see why they should have to foot the bill
}for this.

   [cordless phone or person-to-person suggestion]

(do they even make cordless TDDs, for example?)

Wouldn't it much simpler for them(AT&T etc.) to charge for ringing time over
some reasonable amount (say 1 or 2 minutes) just as if it were "connected" time?

John
-- 
John Hascall                   ``An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.''
Systems Software Engineer
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center  +  Ames, IA  50011  +  515/294-9551
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: fig@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:54:20 GMT

maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:


>Admittedly, I am coming into this thread a little late but why don't you
>simply charge a premium for "pseudonymity".  That way people who genuinely
>desire to remain anonymous could pay for the privilege.  If you make the 
>premium high enough then those who desire anonymity on a "whim" will have
>to think twice.

The reason the WELL did not handle it this way when I was managing it is 
because cost was not the major consideration.  The major consideration
was the social dynamic.  We molded WELL policy around the comfort of our
users.  Of our vocal and *identifiable* users.

As Mike Godwin said above, the WELL is a commercial service.  It reserves
the right to make (or not make) policies as it sees fit.  Given that, 
about the most you can say negatively about its anonymity policy is that
it is "weird".  There is no proof that it is right, wrong, unethical or
exemplary.  It is what it is.
-- 
<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
Cliff Figallo                                     fig@eff.org
Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation          (617)864-0665 (voice)
Cambridge Office                                  (617)864-0866 (fax)
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7926 comp.org.sug:534 comp.org.usenix:1110
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:46:36 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
}neil@cadreor.cadre.com (Neil W. Van Dyke) writes:
}> Barry Shein (bzs@world.std.com) wrote:
}> > Announced today on the news, $350M, official announcement 2PM EST,
}> > Unix is a trademark of Novell, Inc.

}> Hmm...  Maybe we'll be seeing a commercial Plan 9 release soon...

}Plan 9 is still a research project at AT&T Bell Laboratories.  It's got
}nothing to do with USL, so far as I know.

Yes, but it still makes a reasonable amount of sense though -- if you were
thinking of taking Plan 9 to the market and were confident that it was
going to sweep the market with its wonderfulness, then why not sucker
a few hundred million out of some rubes from Utah?                     ;-)

Hmmm, maybe this will revive OSF ...

John
(not at all looking forward to Novelix)
(Novelix is a trademark of me; ha, you can't have it)
-- 
John Hascall                   ``An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.''
Systems Software Engineer
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center  +  Ames, IA  50011  +  515/294-9551
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:17:49 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

(John F. Whitehead) writes:

> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>> jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead) writes:

>What I am saying was not true was not your entire description, which
>indeed is pretty accurate, but what I had quoted above my statement:
>
>>>>Whereas WELL anonymity is unavailable to J. Random Subscriber
>>>>at any price.
>
>As I mention below, I don't think this is the case, though it certainly
>is discouraged.

Discouraged to the extent that well below 1% of WELL subscribers
have pseudonymous privileges.  To me this is the same
as "unavailable".

>>I think it is pompous for you to try to assert what constitutes 
>>a "valid reason". 
>
>I wasn't asserting that those are valid reasons (though I tend to think
>that they are), here I was only inferring that from the behavior of the
>administrators that I have witnessed, those are reasons that they
>find valid.

Okay then, I'll retract that.  You are defending those who pompously 
assert these as valid reasons,  while at the same time agreeing with 
them, but without you yourself being pompous.

>One other thing that you may not be aware of: the Well allows you to
>use pseudonyms in your postings [..]

This feature, wherein WELL users can have a per-conference
nickname, is cute, but has nothing to do with pseudonymity or
anonymity, since the true identity is not kept private.

>>Example: suppose a user asked for a pseudonymous account because they
>>are simply too shy to socialize on the computer under
>>their real name?
>>
>>My guess -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the Well admins would
>>say "sorry" to such a request.
>
>My guess would be that they would say, "we have a policy against it".
>And if you insisted that you be able to do it, and had a decent
>argument against it, and it was a factor in your decision as to
>whether you'd join, perhaps you'd get it your way.

(Or perhaps you'd get a lecture on why the lack - almost - of
pseudonymous accounts allegedly improves the quality of
discussion on the WELL....)


Steve