HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:04:48 GMT

In article <1hb6usINNm35@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>Based on what the WELL has told me, your definition of
>"serious" is so narrow that I would have to label it as
>disrepectful of the propestive subscribers privacy interests.

I don't recall defining "serious." But let me repeat this: everyone
who has ever wanted an anonymous account has been able to get it,
so far as I know.

>It's quite another, in my view, for you to dismissively label 
>somebody's desire for privacy as "not serious".  I am finding you more
>and more offensive as this thread continues.

Weren't you the guy complaining about Straw Man Arguments? 

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

It proves more than the single WELL user you've mentioned talking to.
Could you please state a number for the number of WELL users you've talked
to? Is there some reason you are avoiding saying the number?

>>Because I know that those who want anonymity can get it. 
>
>It's funny that you can "know" this, since unless WELL
>changes its stated policy your statement above is completely
>false.

Really? How so?

>I've tried to be careful to properly qualify those statements
>where not all the facts are in evidence and an assumption
>or guess is necessary.  You should learn to do this yourself, BTW.

I find this an ironic comment.

>You may use the WELL, but you seem to have no desire to
>present a factual description on this issue.  Instead, your
>whole thrust seems to be to declare that there's "not a
>problem", no matter what evidence and considerations surface.

What evidence of a problem has surfaced?

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

This seems unlikely. I suspect that I "come off" at least as
informed about the WELL as you are. If not more so.


--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
Subject: Info re: Liberty, EFF et
From: terry.begley@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Terry Begley) 
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:02:00 GMT
Reply-To: terry.begley@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Terry Begley) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

DK>>    I'm looking for refferals to where I can call in and download
DK>>(HST or V.32b prefferably) various texts relating to online rights,
DK>>the EFF and it's work, electronic citizenship and the like. Leads
DK>>will be greatly appreciated. Please note that we don't currently
DK>>have access to FTP services hence I need to go dial-up.
DK>>   Thanks in Advance....DCK

        Well, I run a small BBS (2400 only, unfortunately) that has a
        lot of EFF and CUD and CAF files on it that I have pulled off
        the Internet.  The BBS, called Dittos! is available 24 hours a
        day at 402.556.4944.  Unlimited downloads on the first call.

Terry
tbegley@creighton.edu


 * OLX 2.1 TD * Robot Roll Call - Cambot,Gypsy,Tom Servo, Croooowwww!
---
 * Onwards And Upwards BBS (402) 341-7408
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  ONANDUP (#1600) : RelayNet(tm) Hub
                                     
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 PL8]
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:58:24 GMT

Steve Pope (spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu) wrote:
:                               I cannot for the life
: of me imagine why so many people posting here have
: a problem with the fact that I have a few misgivings 
: about this policy.  

Discussing the policy is fine.  Addressing your misgivings is fine.  In
the first half of your contributions to this now-approaching-50-article
thread, though, you came across as doctrinaire and antagonistic (imho).
Your more recent postings seem to be more tempered and thoughtful,
which is fine by me.

Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org) wrote:
: How are the WELL's interactions dependent on its policies about
: pseudonyms? In my extensive experience of the WELL, I have yet to
: see the issue of pseudonyms come up at all.

Mike, I've agreed with most of the things you've written in this thread.
There is one particular moment of history on The WELL that you may not
be familiar with, though, that indirectly (or perhaps directly) did go
to this.  About 2.5 years ago, an experiment was tried wherein there
was an "anonymous conference" on The WELL.  The sysops set it up so
that when you went in that one conference, your userid did not follow,
and you could theoretically post anything you wanted there without the
shackles of known identity.  Neat idea, we all thought.  (I was very
new to The WELL and to telecom in general then.)  Anyway, notwithstand-
ing that a few hackers were able to crack the anonymity (one emailed
me with a quote of something I'd written and asserted that he'd
bet $25 it was me), the experiment was doomed as a dismal failure.
Within a month, it was history, flames and all (the conference had
quickly degenerated into the virtual equivalent of a men's toilet
wall), though some indelible scars were left on a few vulnerable
personalities.

Apropos of nothing, perhaps.  But interesting, imho, what happens when
accountability disappears.

--
 __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|_____________________|_
From: Wes.Perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org (Wes Perkhiser)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Brad Hicks forwarding
Date: 22 Dec 92 05:06:57 CST
Reply-To: wes.perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org
Organization: 
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

In a message of <Dec 21 15:59>, Jamie Gritton writes:
 JG>(From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton))
 JG>(Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA)

 JG>charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:

> How do we get the attention of someone with a clue at AT&T?

 JG>Indeed.

E-mail to Brad also bounces, (or, if it gets there, the return bounces.)  I 
guess I'll just have to print out and mail a copy of that error report.  
Good thing it includes Brad's home address. :)

Wes
 


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Emmanuel Goldstein <emmanuel@halcyon.com>
Subject: This is an Outrage!!!
Originator: bbs@halcyon.com
Keywords: eff 2600 jive turkey explosives shoot the president oswald
Organization: 2600 Magazine -- The journal of the American Hacker
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 03:07:26 GMT

 Instead uh wuztin' yo' time debatin' whut punishment be best fo'
hackers/crackers/phreaks, try dinkin' about wheda' whut  dey do be really 
some
crime.  What it is, Mama! Dink uh all de crimes out dere  where sucka's 
are
basically out t'hurt one anoda' and come  out on top. Is dis whut dese 
kids are
doin'? And please  duzn't  brin' down sucka's who steal usin' credit 
cards o'
who crash systems.  I'm rapin' about da damn act uh hackin' itself.  What 
it is,
Mama!  around me curbin' deir
curiosity and actin' likes criminals a'cuz  dere's no oda' way fo' dem 
t'learn. 
'S coo', bro. It's ridiculous and  we  duzn't gots'ta accept it. ah' 
believe
'esplo'ashun should be  encouraged and rewarded, not punished and d' 
fosta' public hysteria dan find and 
investigate some REAL news sto'y.  Slap mah fro!   
 
An 'esplo'a' gots'ta pursue an end no matta' whut sucka's say.  Slap mah 
fro! 
Only criminals and da damn weak gots'ta be intimidated by nonsense.  What 
it is,
Mama! 

/l
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.eff.news
From: an4139@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Looking for Uncensored NNTP site 
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 07:28:59 GMT


Could anyone out there point me in the direction of an Uncensored NNTP site
that I could possibly read/post to ?????? 

My site is censored!


Thanks,

Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: RSA sucks (Re: PGP warning (ooo; I am scared))
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:35:52 GMT

From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
>
>      For only 17 years, RSA gets to control the technology.  Then it
>becomes public domain, and joins all the freely available technology
>everyone can look up and use.   RSA isn't sitting on the technology;
>they licence it, they give out a free toolkit, they give seminars,
>they carry on the export control fight, and they try to get people to
>use it.  Admittedly, they have no talent for marketing mass-market software.
>
>					John Nagle

How many more years are still on the clock for the RSA patent?  It should be
ready to expire in the next few years.

 - Ron Sharp.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: Virus design
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:58:42 GMT
Organization: Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A.

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) wrote:
:In article <ZmLawB1w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:
:
:>Suppose someone wrote a virus that was BENEFICIAL?  One that spread just
:>like others, but had a beneficial effect on the system.
:
:Virus researcher Fred Cohen has theorized about such viruses. Some of his
:work has appeared in the proceedings of the DPMA's annual Virus and
:Computer Security conferences.
:

I remember John Dvorak writing a column for PC Magazine about a
year and a half ago theorizing that vriruses could be written
to do good as well as bad.

Since then, however, I've wondered: what's the difference between
a good virus and a patch?

I guess the good virus would get passed along to other systems
without user permission, ostensibly to perform the same beneficial
functions it did on the original system (the infector).  But 
without the infected's permission.  Sounds like asking for trouble
to me.

Aaron
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: RSA sucks (Re: PGP warnin
From: derek.lyons@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Derek Lyons) 
Date: 24 Dec 92 15:37:00 GMT
Reply-To: derek.lyons@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Derek Lyons) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

LC|Will I be arrested if I do an RSA encryption in my head?
LC|What if I do it with pencil and paper?                                  
LC|What if I do it with a calculator pencil and paper?                     

No, but probably the guys in little white coats will come after
you....  <g>

Derek L.
elde@aol.com
---
 . MegaMail 2.10 #0:Life would be easier if I had the source code...
 * The Sports Complex'Network|Kitsap County,WA|(206)692-2388 7 Nodes!
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  TSCNET (#1607) : RelayNet(tm) Hub
                                                                                                                               
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: cmiller@mcs213j.cs.umr.edu (Christopher Miller)
Subject: Re: AT&T TIMEOUT & DISABLED
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:39:35 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <TRSNYDER.92Dec28140236@vf0031.mcs.drexel.edu> trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder) writes:
>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?)
>
>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.
>
>Bob

I believe in the early days of MCI, they had to charge for more than 5
rings because the bugs weren't out of their long distance system yet.  
MCI couldn't detect when the phone had stopped ringing and the talking
had started, so they just started charging for the call after the time
it would take for the fifth ring.  Eventually, they were able to make
the detection, and this problem was resolved.

By no means am I positive, I just remember hearing something about it at
the time.

chris.

-- 
--cmiller@cs.umr.edu      Chris Miller
--#include <std_witty_sayings.h>
--for(;;){printf("Happy Happy Joy Joy ");}
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8218 alt.privacy:2798
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Calif DMV DEMANDS SSN for Driver License!?
Date: 1 Jan 93 09:12:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1i11u6INN6pq
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

gallaghe@vax.sonoma.edu (Rip Torn) writes:
>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.)

Federal law explicitly says states can use the SSN for the driver license
number.  This has been so for about 15 years.

--Tim Smith
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 01:40:49 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1h5os6INNkrf@morrow.stanford.edu> karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) writes:
>In article <1h5mrdINNkgk@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
>(Steve Pope) writes:
>>
>>Discouraged to the extent that well below 1% of WELL subscribers
>>have pseudonymous privileges.  To me this is the same
>>as "unavailable".
>
>This is nonsense.  It's not meaningful to judge the
>availability of a feature without considering how many
>people desire the feature.

No, my statement was totally meaningful.  Pseudonymity is
available to less than 1% of WELL subscribers.  It is
available to 100% of people on Usenet since pseudonymous
servers are now part of the Usenet infrastructure.

>Part of the culture on the WELL is to accept responsibility
>for one's own words.  

Unless you're a celebrity.

>Another part of the culture is strong
>pressure to respect other participants.  

I submit that the culture of respect is just as strong here
on Usenet as it is on the WELL.

>This provides both
>a positive incentive to make one's real name available and
>the lack of a common deterrent to doing so.

And you'll notice that both you and I are posting to
Usenet under our real names.  The same positive incentive
exists here on Usenet without any restrictive policy
on pseudonymity.  

>--
>
>    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
>    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 24 Dec 1992 02:23:24 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

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 [ pseudonymity policy ] being 
>>fairly restrictive, including what I've been able to
>>learn from WELL admins thus far.
>
>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.

Based on what the WELL has told me, your definition of
"serious" is so narrow that I would have to label it as
disrepectful of the propestive subscribers privacy interests.

It is one thing to deny requests for pseudonymity because the
management have goals they feel would be best served otherwise.

It's quite another, in my view, for you to dismissively label 
somebody's desire for privacy as "not serious".  I am finding you more
and more offensive as this thread continues.


>Oh, about 5000 have never said anything about the issue. 

This proves nothing.  

>>Why do you believe the users I've talked to are not representative?
>
>Because I know that those who want anonymity can get it. 

It's funny that you can "know" this, since unless WELL
changes its stated policy your statement above is completely
false.

>>Mike, here you are being ludicrous.  If someone does not wish
>>to use the system other than anonymously, they're not in
>>much of a position to "experience the system a bit" before
>>forming an opinion, are they?
>
>Sure they are. Ever heard of lurking?

That's a good point.  (Maybe there is hope for you, Mike.) Perhaps the
WELL will allow pseudonymous "lurk-only" accounts that you can't post
from and that don't make your identity publically accessible.  That way
you could see what the system while maintaining privacy.  I would
conjecture the admins would allow this unless there's a techinal
problem with it.

>
>>And you keep using the word "speculating" inappropriately.
>
>On the contrary: "speculation" means going beyond what you know to be a
>fact. You clearly have done this a lot.

I've tried to be careful to properly qualify those statements
where not all the facts are in evidence and an assumption
or guess is necessary.  You should learn to do this yourself, BTW.

>The fact that I, who use the WELL, disagree with the perception of you,
>a person who never has used it? There is no logical connection between
>these two propositions.

You may use the WELL, but you seem to have no desire to
present a factual description on this issue.  Instead, your
whole thrust seems to be to declare that there's "not a
problem", no matter what evidence and considerations surface.  Thus,
even though you have more raw data at your disposal than
do I, your statements still come off as semi-uniformed.

Steve
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Software as PE
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:53:24 GMT

In <889520164DN5.61R@tanda.isis.org> marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault) writes:

>In article <bhayden.724605662@teal> 
>(Bruce Hayden) writes: 

>>  So - What can you test?? I don't know.

>        Bruce puts his finger on it. "Software Engineer" is a
>        meaningless and misleading term. Don't agree? Okay, design a
>        test that distinguishes between a software engineer and a
>        programmer. Before you do that, talk to a real engineer.

Define 'real engineer' in a way that isn't recursive or
self-referential.  

>        The one good to come of this is now that Software Engineer is
>        the fashionable euphemism for Programmer, the real Systems
>        Analysts may be able to reclaim their title.

Sorry, but the difference between a 'programmer' and a 'software
engineer' is about the same as the difference between any other kind
of engineer and a good technician in the same field.  A lot of 'real
engineers' who don't understand what software engineering is about
produce execrable software.  

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 23 Dec 1992 18:18:43 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec23.152323.25579@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> I disagree with characterizations of the WELL here *not* because I
> have personal relations with anyone, but because I use the WELL, 
> and what Steve is saying doesn't seem to be connected in any 
> way with the system I know.

Humm.  Characterizing my posts as "not connected in any way" 
with the WELL is false on the surface: the starting point of
this discussion was the WELL's pseudonymity policy as stated to new
users; the very small percentage of psedonymous users, and
their frequent celebrity status; and the fact that some
WELL users and potential WELL users have expressed the view
that the unavailability of pseudonymity is a disadvantage of
the WELL.

If this seems not to be "connected" to the system you use
every day, I can only assume that this is because you
are SO familiarized with the way the WELL works now
that you don't want to even THINK about whether there's
any alternative ways of doing things.

It is not my intent to bash the WELL in this thread.  My
interest, really, is in *privacy*, and pseudonymous 
functionality is certainly one method of providing a form of 
privacy to individuals.  The issue is potentially as important
as other privacy techniques, such as encryption algorithms,
physical system security, password security, etc., and
I feel that much of the same philosophy applies.

The *perceived* suggestion that pseudonymous services should be 
reserved for a privileged class of users (e.g. celebrities)
initially struck me as wrongheaded, in the same sense that I would
consider it wrongheaded to suggest that encryption services 
be limited to only military users.

I will acknowledge though, after reading what Cliff and a
few others have written, that in practice the WELL has managed to
administer this restrictive-seeming policy in a pretty
much reasonable fashion.

Steve
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: NOW ECHOING (AMERISERVE)
From: david.shapiro@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (David Shapiro) 
Date: 27 Dec 92 21:23:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.shapiro@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (David Shapiro) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

 AmerIServe is now echoing this conference.
---
 * AmerIServe . 212-876-5885/289-3965 V.32bis/CSP . New York, NY
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  AMERISERVE (#927) : RelayNet(tm)
                                                                                       
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk