HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:00:50 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1h5qkoINNl60@agate.berkeley.edu> 
	spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) writes:

>|Another reason people want pseudonyms: to stay a bit further 
>|out of the line of fire from those who take intellectual 
>|disagreements personally, and escalate to scatology and 
>|personable abuse on the slightest of pretexts.  
> 
>OK Chuck, you have now added a complete non-sequitar to 
>this thread.

I don't think he has.  He means that people would be more likely to
spout off without thinking if they were not held more accountable (i.e.,
identifiable).  And btw, it's "non sequitur". 

>|This is the first time I've seen "consistent" held
>|up as an antonym for "arbitrary".  
>
>Not a direct antonym, however it's obvious that
>given the usual definitions of the terms, if a policy
>is arbitrary, then it cannot possibly be consistent. 
>That is the meaning of my statement above.

There is no evidence that the policy is inconsistent or arbitrary.

>My guess is logical given the facts in evidence.  The only public 
>information the WELL gives out on this policy is that "anonymous 
>accounts are not accepted except by special arrangement".  This 
>directly implies that they are not given out routinely.  Which
>implies that the most common reason for wanting a pseudonymous
>account -- simple shyness about posting -- is not acceptable
>to the WELL admins.

A lot of what you are saying (and some of what I am saying) is just
making assumptions from a very few cases.  I'm going to see if I
can scare up a real, live Well policy maker...


-- 
 ________________________________________________________________________
|   John      jfw@neuro.duke.edu          Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead   jfw@well.sf.ca.us           Department of Neurobiology     |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Virus design
Date: 24 Dec 92 15:16:58 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

I've just finished reading "Cyberpunk" (by Hafner & Markoff) recently and
read the story about rtm ...

I read with interest about his writing a virus designed to be INNOCUOUS, and
I've also read other stories (such as an Apple II "virus" -- written before
viruses were both common and vicious).  There have been numerous viruses
written in past years, either vicious and malicious and destructive, or
innocuous and harmless (in most cases)...

Suppose someone wrote a virus that was BENEFICIAL?  One that spread just
like others, but had a beneficial effect on the system.  I can't think of
a better way to FIGHT viruses.... especially with people who won't check
their systems.  The way viruses spread, this method would probably render
viruses obsolete in several years (presuming such an "antibody" was
updated.... and perhaps SELF-updating!)

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....)

As a sidebar, did anyone ever read the science fiction book "The
Adolescence of P1" by Thomas J. Ryan?  It's a fascinating story
that has some amazing parallels to the story of rtm and the
Internet virus.  Imagine, if you will, that the Internet virus
was (though still innocuous) artificially intelligent and had a will
to live -- that was P1.  Besides, the computer instructions in the book
are even more obtuse than they are today :-)


--
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:7862 alt.privacy:2721
From: volpe@bart.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Christopher R Volpe)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Calif DMV DEMANDS SSN for Driver License!?
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:47:07 GMT
Reply-To: volpe@ausable.crd.ge.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development

In article <19DEC199213415306@vax.sonoma.edu>, gallaghe@vax.sonoma.edu (Rip Torn) writes:
|> 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
                ^^^^ we're           ^^^ By

|> requirement would probibly fall to a cort battle, but that cort battle could
                     ^^^^^^^^ probably  ^^^^ court            ^^^^ court

|> be costly.  One of my co workers is battling the local dmv now.  and will
                         ^^-^^^^^^^ hyphen

|> probibly no get his licence issued, so he will problibly op to get a nevada
   ^^^^^^^^ ^^ probably not                       ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ probably opt

|> licence through a mail drop (this is also good if you wan't to buy guns in
                                                         ^^^^^ want

|> 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
                      ^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^
                      fictitious      statement

|> state, the car is owned by the company stated on the ficticious name statment.
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^
                                                       fictitious    statement

|> 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
      ^^^ it's

|> privacy.  I wonder if you could take the dmv to small clames cort over this?
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
                                                   small-claims court

|> Who would you serve?  The fed law states that failure to provide services
   ^^^ Whom

|> because someone will not give there ssn carries a min fine of $1000 (excluding
                                 ^^^^^ their
|> for tax and ssn uses.)
|> 
|> 
|> Rip

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

-Chris
-- 
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 25 Dec 92 14:27:40 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

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

| In article <1992Dec24.005022.4888@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
|    writes:
| >In article <1haqotINNjdk@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
|    (Steve Pope) writes:

| >All the evidence points to no such thing. You are dismissing evidence that
| >doesn't support your point, such as when I point out that no one who has
| >seriously wanted an anonymous account has failed to get one.

| >Oh, about 5000 have never said anything about the issue. 
| 
| This proves nothing.  

Case proven.  When you don't like the facts, ignore them, eh Steve?

| Instead, your
| whole thrust seems to be to declare that there's "not a
| problem", no matter what evidence and considerations surface.

Your whole thrust seems to be there IS a problem.... "Don't bother me with
the facts, my mind's made up."

| Thus,
| even though you have more raw data at your disposal than
| do I, your statements still come off as semi-uniformed.

Even though 5000 (Mike's number) people don't complain, you STILL give no
numbers of those who have complained.

Want more facts to ignore?  Count up how many people disagree with you on
this newsgroup... But then you probably wouldn't want to vote on policies
anyway...


--
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.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Virus design
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:32:59 GMT

Pete Hardie (phardie@nastar.uucp) wrote:

: If I understand the Internet Worms methodology correctly, it would have been
: very much the same.  Morris used bugs in programs to get his (wholly self-
: contained) worm running on the new system.  Most, if not all, virus detection
: software assumes that the virus is not a self-contained entity, but a code
: fragment that lives w/in another program executable.

Which brings up another thread: the self-mutating virus.  All the virus scanners
I know of work by scanning your system for a signature generated by the virus
when it installs itself on your system.  This, of course, is to prevent the
virus from installing itself more than once.  But what if, when installing
itself on another system, it changed the signature in a pseudo-random way
(just for that system - a unique signature for that system, not just that virus)
to avoid virus scanners?  We could see viruses that mutate everytime they
replicate themselves.  How would one stop them without checking every possible
digital signature?  Interesting question, methinks.
-- 
Ed Carp			erc@apple.com, erc@saturn.upl.com	801/538-0177
1935 will go down in history.  For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration.  Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient,
and the world will follow our lead into the future.  --Adolf Hitler
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 2 Jan 93 19:06:49 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:

| 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.

The way he was describing it, it would not automatically compress all
files on the disk.  You would only need to infect the first, then any
new executables run on the system would be compressed and written back
out to disk.  What's more, with the controlling feature, if the executable
is run on another system, it will either not infect others (his idea) or
commit hari-kari (my idea).

| A "virus" is a program that replicates itself and attempts to
| spread itself from one "host" computer to another.

Viruses don't necessarily spread themselves from one "host" to another -
just from one executable program to another.  If an infected executable
is run on a system, the virus loads, whether the system is already
infected or not.  It would then proceed to infect new exectables on
a regular basis - even though the system is already infected.


--
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        |  ... Files via Fidonet FREQ,
"...because appealing to the masses has |  anon uucp, first time login,
 never appealed to us."                 |  mail to fileserver@ruth.uucp
From: Wes.Perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org (Wes Perkhiser)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Good virus/Bad virus
Date: 31 Dec 92 09:22:49 CST
Reply-To: wes.perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org
Organization: 
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

In a message of <Dec 28 12:35>, David Douthitt writes:
 DD>(From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt))
 DD>(Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253)

 DD>What about a virus that showed up on your system, and said "Hi!  
 DD>I used
 DD>security hole x, but I fixed it!"  Imagine what would have 
 DD>happened
 DD>(with appropriate warnings and so on) if a virus was written 
 DD>(very similar
 DD>to what rtm did), but instead it closed up the security holes 
 DD>that rtm
 DD>eventually used.

I would *almost* be willing to accept a virus/worm/whatever that broke 
into my computer and said "Hi!  I used security hole x, but I have not
changed a thing.  If you need help to close hole x, contact y at z."

That way, I can do all the things I need to verify that nothing 
was in fact changed (checksums, etc.), and then I would be a 
little more willing to trust the virus.

Once *anything* tries to change a file without my knowledge/consent, 
though, it looses any respect I ever had for it.  There have been
far too many problems fixing bugs from stuff that I did trust to be 
willing to take some worm writer's word for his program's ability to
fix the hole and not break something else.

Wes
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: NOW ECHOING (AMERISERVE)
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:15:10 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: rita@eff.org


	
	Welcome AMERISERVE!

	And thanks to everyone who has been patient with the recent
influx of various alternative news feeds.




-- 
Rita Rouvalis                                Electronic Frontier Foundation
rita@eff.org                                                    eff@eff.org
CIS:70007,5621                                                (617)864-0665
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Re- Novell buys Unix System
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:28:15 GMT

In article <1ht2jrINNk8l@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> honey@citi.umich.edu writes:
>Brad Hicks writes:
>|> Novell doesn't allow caffeine anywhere on its corporate property.
>
>this is nonsense.  i have been served coffee at novell in provo and in
>walnut creek.

I'm pretty sure I was able to get a Diet Coke out of a machine
at the Provo office when I was there.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:27:01 GMT

In article <1h995rINNb1h@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>Mike, I talked to quite a few people involved with the WELL
>before starting this thread.

Perhaps, but you don't seem to have talked to anyone who ran into any
genuine disagreement with WELL management about its anonymity policy.

>  Why are you so quick to label
>any information so gathered as "speculation", while proposing
>that additional information gathered by the exact same technique
>might somehow be more reliable?

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.


--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:8085 alt.amateur-comp:411 soc.culture.usa:9370 alt.activism:19840
From: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 27 Dec 1992 03:39:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Distribution: inet
Reply-To: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) says:

>
>In a previous article, ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben) says:
>>

>>Is there any E-Mail address for Congress? I was told by Senator Paul
>>Simon's Office that The U.S. Congress has email communication 
>>internally among Congress but that the public is NOT ALLOWED to
>>have access to it.
>>I want to be able to send E-Mail to Simon's Office. Does anyone
>>know of any way to do so?
>>It seems archaic that there is no electronic access via email for
>>the public to the U.S. Congress. 
>>-- 
>>


>
>        Archaic?  Typical is what I would say. 
>        Why would congress want to deal with the people?
>
>
>
      I'm saying that the People exist - whether Congress 
      acknowledges it or not, and at least some of us
      want email access to the congressional network
      rather than feeling ok about the fact that the
      public is barred from it.
         
                              ronda


-- 
Ronda Hauben  Amateur Computerist Newsletter
P.O. Box 4344   other email addr:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: PLEASE CHECK!!!
From: antoon.vanroon@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Antoon Vanroon) 
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:45:00 GMT
Reply-To: antoon.vanroon@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Antoon Vanroon) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121


  Rick, someone is still importing the wrong mail into this conference.
        I don't know where it comes from but it looks like usenet
        messages.   I know you're busy but please check into it at your
        convenience.   Thanks in advance.

-Tony (and ALL the other GAP sysops)
---
 * Canada Remote Systems, Toronto, 416-629-7000
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  CRS (#118) : RelayNet(tm)
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Syst
Date: 2 Jan 93  6:59:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 

LH> That means
LH> that if the copyright owner renewed in 1990 (27 years after 1973),
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                           Damn! And I thought I was 27
years old (born in '65)! Now your telling me I MISSED a decade somewhere? =)


David

david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *                 
----
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Cutting Edge BBS (cutting.hou.tx.us)    A PCBoard 14.5a system  |
| Houston, Texas, USA    +1 713 466 1525          running uuPCB       |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
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: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:06:34 GMT

In article <1hb7v9INNm74@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>Not a great number -- at least 2, possibly one or two more.

You don't recall? 

Now, of these two WELL users, how many sought anonymous accounts,
specifying that they had privacy concerns, and were refused?

>The actual number of users who have stated this to me is
>irrelevant.  Any knowlegable person who is familiar with
>WELL, netcom, wet, a2i etc. would come up with the same
>assessment.  I don't have to ask 5,000 well users to confirm
>what I already know.

Ah, science!


--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
From: triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 4 Jan 1993 02:33:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <BZS.93Jan2232208@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>
>Anyhow...
>
>The point being that these are people who have the appurtenances of
>the upper-middle class (cultural grounding, education, and tastes,
>etc) but don't have the wherewithal to obtain their "expected" rewards
>in the world of today (and some of this may be a temporary thing, but
>no doubt 5+ years of that to a young person can be very frustrating.)
>
>So, libertarianism tends to speak to such people: Something must be
>holding them back, right? Something must be unfairly standing in the
>way of their getting their birthright, a comfortable life etc (even if
>the specifics of that aren't exactly the same as their parents it
>still costs a lot of money, that's how their tastes run and were
>trained, regardless of the fashion turns it takes, both Sinatra and
>thrash sound better on a $5,000 stereo system...)
>Now, what is holding them back? What could it be? What is making life
>so much harder than their relatively comfortable upbringing ever led
>them to believe? Why...it must be...THE GOVT! Rules and regulations
>which make the playing field more competitive to people who DON'T HAVE
>A BIRTHRIGHT! (not to mention complicate life immensely, a melancholy
>longing for simplicity in all human affairs is a hallmark of this
>particular mindset.)
>
a wonderful summing up!  libertarianism as the ideology of the
frustrated children of the elite.  of course, none of the randites
believes in society (as has been painfully demonstrated on this
network), so making an argument, however sensible and consistent,
about libertarianism as being cultivated by socio-economic variables
rather than the incredible reasoning powers of a few gifted bootstrap-pulling 
horatio algers is bound to fall on deaf (and hostile) ears.
still, nice job, mr. shein.  expect, as you anticipate, dozens of
replies from "lower class libertarians" (who of course toiled their
"self-defeating ethic" of the underclass into which they were
born) who will see in their social
point of origin a refutation of your argument because they aren't
quite prepared to admit that in a libertarian society there'd be
no school loans, scholarships, etc. for people like them and so
they'd be preaching the religion of the mighty and asocial
individual while sweeping up the shit in the rich folks' back yard.

tristan