HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:03:08 GMT

Dave> == Dave Shaver <shaver@convex.com> 

 Dave> The question: If your management questioned the value of your news,
 Dave> what would you say?  What if they said they wanted to turn the whole
 Dave> thing off or eliminate 90% of it?  (The "non-business" newsgroups.)
 Dave> What arguments would you use to maintain your feed?

Certain companies have basically "made" their reputation with me by
having highly technically literate members of their staff participating
in USENET.  Convex (in the person of Tom Christiansen) is one of those.
This is an argument to keep at least the "business" newsgroups.

That said, the kind of person that is likely to participate heavily (and
meaningfully) will probably want a full newsfeed (in fact they are
likely to choose their employers based on net access).  These people are
invaluable technical resources, both because they export technical
knowledge to the net (returning goodwill) but also because they import
technical knowledge (and sources, and techniques) *from* the net.

Netnews is a cheap draw for some *very* good staff.  The cost of a 3/60
and a couple gig of disk is pretty far down there; even if you buy, say,
a SPARCstation ELC and a couple gig of disk that's only going to run you
$7500, and it'll last for years.
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
From: lpc@dickens.com (Luis P Caamano)
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:46:19 GMT
Organization: Dickens Data Systems, Inc.

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov18113627@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>it without question.  We remove newsgroups which are not read.  Some
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How can I tell which newsgroups are read?  Can I also tell how often?


-- 
Luis P. Caamano                        |         lpc@dickens.com
Dickens Data Systems, Inc. Atlanta, GA |         uunet!dickens.com!lpc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I think I know it all, I'll stop learning. -myself
The more I learn, the more I know I know nothing. -somebody else
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 19:38:56 GMT

For political groups: Encouraging community/political involvement, enhancing
employee's political/civic awareness.  It's likely your company gives money
to charities that aspire to less lofty goals than this.  What better way to
give to the community than making the folks in your employ better citizens?

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Harmlessness of a.b.p.e (long, but read it anyway)
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:37:34 GMT

In article <1ejagjINNt04@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:

>So what gives you the right to assume this without asking the copyright holder?
>You may not care but some creators may care and you DO NOT have the right to
>make a decision on the use of their creations without asking THEM. This is the
>point that people are making; the assumption that the creators would be happy
>but failing to ASK them. 


    So do you ASK the publisher whenever you make a PHOTOCOPY? Do you PAY 
royalties on the copies? Do you OBEY all laws, all the time? Do you not reserve
for YOURSELF some right to judge harm? 

   BTW I like the IDEA of capitalizing random WORDS in your article.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:460 rec.humor:34176
From: cudep@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Ian Dickinson)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,rec.humor
Subject: Re: =5= The Last of the Usenet Winter Olympics
Date: 18 Nov 1992 15:21:54 -0000
Organization: Team Limpid's Meathead With Aptitude - Kunst und Wahnsinn
NNTP-Posting-Host: spatula.csv.warwick.ac.uk
Keywords: Usenet Winter Olympics coverage -- exclusively on USPN!

In article <1992Nov18.073649.23538@cbfsb.cb.att.com> forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Scott Forbes) writes:
>The preceding events are fictional, sort of.  There is no secret Backbone
>Cabal trying to gain control of the net and drive normal people insane with
>silly Guidelines and anal-retentive policies written in stone by a committee
>of lunatics.  I think.

You're mostly right.

There is a "no secret" Backbone Cabal.

There's no "trying" about it - it's in place and has been for a long time.

How that affects people is anyones guess, though I suppose *THEY* know.

Cheers,
-- 
\/ato - Ian Dickinson - NIC handle: ID17                   No-one is to molest
vato@csv.warwick.ac.uk  ...!mcsun!uknet!warwick!vato           the wombat when
/I=I/S=Dickinson/OU=CSV/O=Warwick/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/            anyone is
@c=GB@o=University of Warwick@ou=Computing Services@cn=Ian Dickinson  watching.
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
	<1992Nov17.221810.7621@news.columbia.edu> <4005@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:01:55 GMT

In article <4005@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

   the test is simple - whether it meets the above definition:
   pictures produced using minors engaged in sexually explicit
   conduct.

   given the above legal definition, a SA will usually have no trouble
   knowing whether a specific picture is illegal.

A picture of a vase might be produced by two minors engaged in
sexually explicit conduct.  How would we ever know?  :) :)

Thanks for (hopefully) making it clear that the issue is child abuse.
On to serious matters.

   If you saw, say, a picture containing 6 year old having sex with an
   adult: not only is the material itself illegal, but receiving (and I
   presume transmitting) such material after you've been warned
   is also a crime that *you* are committing:

	 "[The law] requires only knowing receipt of visual depictions
	 produced by using minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Knowing that sometimes people post child porn to a.s.p.e is completely
different from knowing that a picture has actually been posted.  I
never knowingly receive child porn, even if I carried a.s.p.e.  The
situation is more like getting it in the mail unsolicited and
unwanted.  Of course I am responsible for action if I notice it or if
it is brought to my attention, but not because somebody posted it.
The poster is responsible for that act.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:475 news.admin.misc:366
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:01:46 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy
Organization: negligable

We just get news.*, comp.* and from there we go to specifically requested
groups.

This is mainly for bandwidth (UUCP feed) and disk space reasons, but
you could probably use the "we only want the comp groups <innocent grin>"
argument w/ upper management....

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
But I am frightened for you, children,		|
that the life that we are living is in vain,	|	-Richard Hartman	
and the sunshine we've been waiting for		|	hartman@uLogic.COM
has turned to rain....				|
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:25:36 GMT

dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:

|   More to the practical point, I am not aware that _any_ child porn has
|been posted to a.b.p.e, FBI investigations not withstanding. If you've seen
|any post here.

The only posting that I am aware of that qualifies as child pornography
under most peoples' definitions was the set of articles that, when 
properly assembled and uudecoded, formed RUKO.GIF, a picture of a young
girl (8 or 9 years old), with a close up of her private region.
I promptly deleted the file, as I have no interest in such pictures, and
because I don't feel like having my computer confiscated.

There have been other gif's and jpg's posted where the person or people
pictured have been of "questionable" age.  However, at least a couple
of those have been posted from outside the U.S., and I think that there 
would be some question as to whether or not they would constitute kiddie
porn.

America in the 90's: Big Brother is watching....
--
Bigotry is not a family value.  Boycott Colorado and Tampa.

Michael Adams (StarOwl@uiuc.edu, wi.4962@n7kbt.rain.com)	
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: rkrouse@netcom.com (Robert K. Rouse)
Subject: Copyrights of FAQs
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:36:57 GMT



  Someone told me that everything on the Internet is automatically
copyrighted to the author.  Is this true and what does it mean
if it is true?

   I would like to collect together my favorite FAQs into a book
with a little editing but not too much rewriting.  How would the
copyrights affect my plans.  Would I have to pay royalties?


-- 
            
	Robert K. Rouse		rkrouse@netcom.com

  "No creature with the right values is an alien to me."
						John Salter


Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:54:33 GMT

In article <shaver.722015212@convex.convex.com> shaver@convex.com (Dave Shaver) writes:

  [about justifying news to managment]

   Take the line that news is a perk that the employees have gotten used to.
Therefore, removing it will take away a real (if difficult to quantify) part
of thier benifits. Managment would then have to justify this move to the
employees or risk alienation.
   There may be good reasons for removing news (I suspect not). Maybe they
need to cut costs, or can't afford a new disk to carry the ever expanding
flow. But it has to be balanced by the effect on morale. If they want to do
it, get them to broadcast thier intentions. If enough people complain, they
may not do it.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:563 news.admin.misc:411 alt.censorship:9014 alt.culture.usenet:928 comp.admin.policy:1537
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 18:30:42 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft math/inf, Uni Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: irau28.ira.uka.de

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov18113627@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
>We do not receive a full feed.  Our unofficial policy is that we
>receive any newsgroup which adds value to the company.  We assume that
>anyone who requests a new newsgroup is doing it for the value, and add
>it without question.  We remove newsgroups which are not read.  Some

You receive Email from one of your employees, demanding the following
newsgroups be added:

comp.os.linux,alt.sex.*,alt.binaries.*,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.monty-python,
comp.databases.*,rec.bicycles.

(Incidentally, the same he read at his former employer's machine with
full feed.)

You would not look at their names, contents, or remember the name of
the employee who sent the mail, you simply would add them, right?

olaf
-- 
| Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student  |   o     | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address |
| univ. of karlsruhe - germany |  _>\ _  | s_titz@ira.uka.de   | is still    |
| +49-721-60439                | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc      | valid       |
   "Stop talkin' and start chalkin'!" - Eight Ball Deluxe
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:57:16 GMT

hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:

RE: Child Porn

[...]
>Whether you know when a specific instance comes in or not is
>immaterial.
[...]

Child porn could be distributed in any free speech forum. By your
reasoning, all free speech forums must be closed down for fear of the
government.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:469 news.admin.misc:363 alt.censorship:8884 alt.culture.usenet:916 comp.admin.policy:1519
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:31:14 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <shaver.722015212@convex.convex.com> shaver@convex.com (Dave Shaver) writes:

>While some companies budget entire machines to be net gateways and news
>servers, other companies argue that news should be eliminated.

>The question: If your management questioned the value of your news,
>what would you say?  What if they said they wanted to turn the whole
>thing off or eliminate 90% of it?  (The "non-business" newsgroups.)
>What arguments would you use to maintain your feed?

I can itemize times when news has saved us time and money. It is
fairly easy to do this for the technical groups, of course, but it
isn't that hard to do for the rest.
  How much work time is saved by being able to find a list of
auto mechanics on the net, instead of spending company time on the
telephone? Has a posting in rec.pets.dogs allowed a worker to not take
an afternoon off to visit the vet? Have you gotten any office
furniture cheap from misc.forsale?
  Of course, netnews DOES lead to users spending some company time for
entertainment purposes. That is hard to deny and your company might
legitimately decide not to provide this service. Fortunately,
commercial services are proliferating, so soon anyone who wants rec.
soc., alt.binaries should be able to buy access. 
--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd                     Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?
Date: 21 Nov 92 04:46:16 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Nov18.162614.356@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>In article <4005@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>>>   In the strict legal sense, you don't know anything is child-porn until it
>>>has been ruled as such. The same goes for obscenity.

>[some text deleted]

>> In those cases, the test is simple - whether
>>it meets the above definition:  pictures produced using minors engaged
>>in sexually explicit conduct.  Simple.

>>*Not* whether:
>>	- it had artistic merit
>>	- it was within community standards
>>	- it was unreasonable censorship - remember the issue is
>>	  child abuse, *not* pornography.
>>	- viewing the pictures could cause harm to society

>  I for one have never been confused about his.
>  But I challenge the word "simple".  What does the phrase "sexually explicit
>conduct" mean? I don't think it has been defined.

Look the words up in any dictionary, add them together, and what have you got?

>Is it a nude picture of a child?

Nope.

>A picture where the childs genitals are exposed?

Nope.

>Does there have to be sexual activity depicted?

Yup.  That's what "conduct" means.  Even narrower: *explicit*, not simulated,
not hinted, *explicit*.

See?  Simple.

>>>   So a sysadmin doesn't "know" that anything in a.b.p.e is illegal.
>
>>On the contrary, given the above legal definition, a SA will usually
>>have no trouble knowing whether a specific picture is illegal.  If,
>>for example, you see a picture going by that shows a minor having
>>sex with anyone or anything, it is illegal, period.  Simple.

>   How do you know it is a minor? It may be easy if it is a 5 year old, but 
>how do you distinguish (unambiguosly) between a 17 year old and an 18 year old?

I'm not suggesting that it's simple in all cases.  Just that it will be
simple in *many* cases - the 5 or 10 yearolds.

>Do you read a.b.p.e?  What pictures (specifically) do you suggest are child
>porn? Is it ruko.gif or kapsters.gif? (the two that were talked about most).

I'm not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that either of these are.
And it doesn't sound like they are.  But that isn't the point.

>   We all want to do what we can to stop child abuse. But it doesn't do any
>good to get real upset by a situation that isn't happening.

Who's getting upset?  While the present material is probably not in
contravention of the law, it's clear that real violations are possible,
and quite likely in future.  And that similar illegal postings (say,
credit card numbers) have happened in the past.   My postings are about
*that* eventuality and real legal concerns, not any specific current case.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.policies,alt.sex
From: covey@us-es.sel.de (David Covey US/ESS3)
Subject: Re: Do laws apply in the traditional sense to the net?
Organization: SEL-Alcatel LTS Dept. US/ES
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 11:28:39 GMT


Whilst all this is very interesting, there is a simple answer to the problem.  Shoot anyone posting the kind of stuff originally referred to and the problem will cease. Simple and - I would venture to suggest - socially acceptable to the great majority of people regardless of race, creed or politics AND could be environmentally friendly if you intercepted shipments of arms to Iraq and used those for the purpose.

Trouble with you techies - never do something simply if there's an easy way and never use one word when fifty will do.

Have a nice day!


David 
Xref: sparky news.admin.policy:490 news.admin.misc:375 alt.censorship:8922 alt.culture.usenet:918 comp.admin.policy:1524
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Desperately seeking advice: How do you justify news?
From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:36:27 GMT
Organization: Intellection, Inc.

We do not receive a full feed.  Our unofficial policy is that we
receive any newsgroup which adds value to the company.  We assume that
anyone who requests a new newsgroup is doing it for the value, and add
it without question.  We remove newsgroups which are not read.  Some
employees have commented that unrestricted netnews is a condition of
their continued employment, and is therefore of value to the company
simply by virtue of keeping valuable employees.  Nobody here has
questioned the effects of netnews upon productivity.  We assume that
it enhances productivity by providing timely technical information.

If management questioned the value of netnews, I would study myself
over a week period and produce a report.  I would include the time I
spent reading news (and news-related mail) and discuss the benefits to
the company.  I would discuss how these benefits could have been
gotten without news, and what the cost might have been.  I would also
discuss historical anecdotes about how news added value to the
company, and discuss how my week's study was or was not representative
of my overall news reading pattern.  I would discuss how posting
information is the activity which generates these benefits, and
include my time spent writing articles as an overhead cost along with
telephone charges, spool space cost, etc., required to participate in
news.  I would relate my experience with what I would expect for other
news readers.  Based on the study I would make a recommendation to
management.  If I found that news wasn't worth it to the company, that
would be my frank assessment.  However, I assume I would recommend
continuing the news feed.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,news.sysadmin
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e distribution, pay membership (Was: RE: Child Pornography)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:22:33 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov16.163545.5382@nntp.nta.no> styri@nta.no writes:
>> It would make sense for Usenet and similar entities to be common carriers,
>> but nothing short of a court decision would establish that.
>
>Why should all services on Usenet and similar entities be common carriers?
>Email - sure. Moderated newsgroups or mail distribution lists - not. Routing
>a message is one thing, storing a message for public access is another.

You've covered two cases -- ordinary mail, and moderated groups/lists --
but not the interesting one, unmoderated groups/lists.  Common carriers are
often *not* free to carry illegal traffic once they know it exists (indeed,
such traffic is usually sufficient grounds for them to discontinue service
to you).  Moderators would (probably) remain responsible for their postings
even if the network involved was formally a common carrier.  It's the
unmoderated groups whose legal status is very unclear.

The question is not whether a network can ignore illegal traffic when it's
brought to their attention, but whether they are responsible for it even
if they weren't aware of it.  Publishers are; they can't get out of (say) an
obscenity charge just by claiming that they didn't know what their staff
was doing.  They are legally obliged to pay attention and make sure that
they publish no illegal material.  Common carriers typically must act on
illegal traffic when they become aware of it, but are not responsible for
seeking it out.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin.misc,alt.censorship,alt.culture.usenet,comp.admin.policy