HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com (Ronan Waide)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Motorola Ireland Ltd., Cork, Ireland.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:00:12 GMT

[Background: I mailed an example of a user losing his account over a process
 name which had previously been associated with a cracker. Tim Pierce mailed
 me asking for clarification, and suggested that I post my reply to the net.]


Previous writings from Tim Pierce stated :
> 
> I might understand your post a little better if I knew what the word
> "Baader" connotes. :-)
> 
> -- 
> ____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
> \  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
>  \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
> 

Sod all, really! It was just the fact that the original Baader had been caught
cracking, and the Ops then apparently assumed that any process called Baader
was a cracker.....

Actually, since the `security incident', things have gotten realy hairy in
the University; First they made it a disciplinary offence ( ie not funny :-7 )
to use someone else's account, even with their consent, which is fair enough.
Except that (i) disciplinary offences can get you kicked out of college and
(ii) _every_ student entering the college gets an account, however some
students don't even _know_ they have accounts throughout their college life (!)
so that their allocation of diskspace, etc. is never used. Actually, come to 
think of it, the second point is a little lame, but I still stand by the first
one. Anyhow, since then, they've decided that `shareware' programs constitute
a security risk. Like I write a program that mails the Ops and says nasty things
to them, and tell you to run it. Or whatever. Okay, it's a fair point. Their 
initial implementation was simple: on login, all WORLD and GROUP privileges on
your account are cleared, and any ACL files are removed. This, of course, can
be circumvented by using your LOGIN.COM to restore all this stuff. They are now
(apparently - I've been away from colege on work experience, hence the `mot.com'
address!) pushing to get shareware removed entirely by making it a disciplinary
offence to run a program which resides in someone else's account.

The sad thing is, I'd like to get a job with the Ops..... :-7

Ronan
-- 
Ronan Waide, Motorola Ireland                        waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com

"You watch a talk show recently?  They're doing one next month on a normal,
happy heterosexual couple, assuming they can find one." - Prof R. Noble @ RPI

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments?
-- 
Ronan Waide, Motorola Ireland                        waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com

"You watch a talk show recently?  They're doing one next month on a normal,
happy heterosexual couple, assuming they can find one." - Prof R. Noble @ RPI
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spam@iastate.edu (mike begley)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:13:26 GMT

In article <BvI6zz.7w7@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> writes:
>>Assume that sex/porn/necrophilia are all grounded in the rule of free speech
>>and that indeed some universities are trampling on the free speech rights of
>>their students.  I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
>>this impinge the rights of their free speech?  Let us take the first example:
>>suppose I carry a handgun tucked under my shirt.  I have not used it and don't
>>intend to use it.  What right does anyone have to stop me and take away my gun
>>when I enter their building?
>
>A COMPUTER PROGRAM IS NOT A HANDGUN.  Computer programs, at least in [...]

Remember...Usenet doesn't kill people, people kill people...



-- 
Michael Begley             Ask me how           "the man and the woman were
spam@iastate.edu      Iowa State University        both naked, and they were
(515) 296-8378    is censoring my usenet access      not ashamed..." Gen:2.25
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:45:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.192125.18758@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>You said you agree with me that the Constitution does not prohibit
>obscenity but guarantees freedom of speech.  Now you are saying that
>obscenity is regulable under the Constitution.  (sorry if my
>undersanding was incomplete).  I think there's a contradiction here
>somewhere.

Not at all. There's a distinction between "prohibited" and "regulable."
The Supreme Court has never held that obscenity is *prohibited* by the
Constitution. The Supreme Court has held on a number of occasions that
obscenity *can be* prohibited (or otherwise regulated) under the
Constitution.

>I'll try to clarify.  I have a document, the U.S. Constitution.  I
>call "Constitutional" things that comply with that document.  I call
>"unconstitutional" things that don't comply with that document.

So does the Supreme Court. But the difference is that they have a bit more
interpretive authority with regard to that document than you have. Their
interpretations become part of American Constitutional law.

>Does it hold a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution?

No. Only a monopoly on interpretations that become part of American
Constitutional law.

>If there's no such distinction, then if tomorrow the Supreme Court
>announces that it is not unconstitional for police to shoot all
>persons who have ever written to Usenet at first sighting, it is
>perfectly constitutional to shoot all Usenetters without trial.

Of course, even the current U.S. Supreme Court would not "announce" any
such thing.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:31:33 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:13:01 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:

>[...]
>>Also, I frankly have little patience for dealing with what some snot-
>>nosed teenager whose parents have come up with tuition may have to say
>>on the subject, based solely upon his belief that one slow reading of
>>the Bill of Rights entitles him to thus draw sweeping conclusions
>>about what *must* have been in the minds of the Founding Fathers with
>>regard to his personal login privileges.
>>
>>Most of the people who post here, by contrast, bring at least some
>>modicum of experience and thoughtfulness to the discussion.
>[...]

>It appears that one person who posts here brings a modicum of rudeness
>to the forum.

Dispute the content. Else push off. If my statement above does injury
to one of your major constituencies, then that is one of the several
hazards which accompanies the presumed benefit of accepting their
undiscriminating support.

And as to rudeness, your list is rude in the extreme. I've not been 
the only person to point that out. You seem to be highly selective
about where you choose to apply your alleged standards. And that is
*precisely* the concern being expressed.

Again.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2937 comp.org.eff.talk:6095 comp.admin.policy:1114 alt.censorship:7746 soc.college:4044
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 1 Oct 1992 09:06:48 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <BvELx1.A4J@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>What if users include sexually explicit text in their .plans, preceded
>by a sequence of form feeds (^L) and the statement "Sexually explicit
>material follows; press ^C now if it is likely to offend you?"

The problem with any such scheme is that the creator of the material may
not feel that it's offensive, yet may be censured (or at least censored)
later if some reader takes offense.  Since harassment is in the eyes of the
receiver, a claim of "I didn't think it was bad" generally doesn't work.
The only system that's safe for authors is either no restrictions or an
independent pre-publication review system (i.e. you would have to submit
your .plan text to a review board in order to get it declared
"acceptable").

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2982 comp.org.eff.talk:6157 comp.admin.policy:1155 alt.censorship:7791 soc.college:4086
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:43:08 GMT
	<BETSYS.92Oct1150743@ra.cs.umb.edu> <1992Oct2.010637.13133@eff.org>
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <1992Oct2.010637.13133@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>>  I'm not a prude, I read some of the more offbeat newsgroups myself.
>>I just dont want to have bathroom limericks scrolling across my
>>screen.

>This seems a slender thread on which to hang a policy.

Well, we have to keep this in perspective. THis isn't a formal,
take-it-to-court sort of policy anyway. I agree with the poster who
said that trying to make rules to cover every detail is oppressive. 
  When we see an offensive plan (and as Tim mentions, a gay-bashing or
racist one would count, but we've never seen one here) we ask the user
politely to change it, and so far they have all thought this was
reasonable. 
--
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....
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:25:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.111319.26055@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?

	Pragmatically speaking, yes. We have a saying, "the Constitution
is what the Supreme Court says it is".

	The Constitution does not give this right to the Court
explicitly, but the Court asserted the right back in the 1830s, and has
hung onto it.

	Every citizen, of course, has the right to make their own
interpretation of what the Constitution really says, but only the
opinion of the Supreme Court has any legal weight.

						Kayembee
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2954 comp.org.eff.talk:6120 comp.admin.policy:1133 alt.censorship:7764
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 1 Oct 1992 17:06:01 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Oct1.075258.499@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.031852.19873@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>Although obscenity is regulable
>>under the Constitution,
>Could you point out exactly how this is so?  My copy reads:
...
>which seems simple enough to a layman - there's no "obscenity" mentioned.

It doesn't mention shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre, but that's illegal
unless there's actually a fire.  Nor does it mention libel, slander, and
fraud, yet those are also illegal.  The Supreme Court has ruled that there
are limits to the freedom of speech the first amendment confers.  For
instance, when freedom of speech conflicts with some other rights (e.g.
the right not to be trampled by stampeding moviegoers, or the right not to
lose one's good reputation through malicious lies), speech loses.  And
obscenity has been declared by the Supreme Court not to be protected
speech.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:13:37 GMT

In article <718348832.11442@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
>>
>>The speech could not be composed without running the program.  Of
>>course, the act of composing the speech and the act of producing it
>>are two different things.
>
>Why should they be forced to pay for your "free speech"?

Calm down.  Who's being forced to do what?  Insofar as a college or
university is a private entity (and most universities are not
completely private) it has every legal right to place arbitrary
restrictions on what users may and may not do.  I claim, though, that
the restrictions in question are inconsistent with other regulations
and simply not in the spirit of free speech.

On the other hand, if you'll reread that quote in the context of the
discussion, you'll see that it supports the notion that the act of
running a program is not "speech."  Take a Valium already.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Scanners
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:45:14 GMT

Here's an interesting question:

What is the legal status of owning a 'scanner' in the US today?

This came up in practice when President Bush decided to visit the Motorola
campus to give a speech.  While waiting for the speech to start (it was
very late starting - and I suspect it was for reasons of security), I
overheard that someone was being questioned by the police because they had
a scanner (and also a video camera,BTW) and was listening in to the
police frequences.  The police didn't like that at all.  (I remarked to
a friend that we needed to get our salespeople to start marketing our
secure radios - the officer who's radio I overheard heard my remarks and
got rather defensive, but that's another story.  However, it does look to
me like civil liberties tend to suffer a bit when the President comes to
visit.  The police were generally quite 'jumpy' IMO)  BTW - from what I
overheard, the guy was basically hassled - oops, questioned -  a bit and
required to show some ID.  That's probably within police perrogative in any
event.

Anyway, the incident (which happened last week) caused me to realize that
I wasn't too sure about the legal status of scanners anymore.  At one
time all radio reception was covered by the Federal Communication act (of
1934?) - and it was legal to listen to *anything* on the air.  However, there
were certain restrictions on what could be communicated to a third party. I
really am unsure of what the current status of the law is in this area
nowadays.

Other interesting issues are just what should one do if one is being
'questioned' about a scanner?

Digressing a bit - what was the speech like?  Well, it was quite late in
starting (because of security, I believe - I'm fairly sure that the delay was
caused by some concern by the police and/or Secret Service about people
'on the roof' and 'in the parking lot' [EVERYBODY had to be in the area
by the president that involved walking through a metal detector] though
I am of course not *positive* that this was the reason for the delay.  I
never did see the president over the heads of the crowd. The media had a fine
view from their specially constructed stands, but the average person didn't
see so much.  I gather he did come out into the crowd to shake hands after
the speech was over, but I didn't stick around, being rather frustrated at
that point.

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society.privacy] SSN in login ids
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.society.privacy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:58:12 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 19:47:27 CDT
From: Eric Hunt <bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: SSN in login ids

The University of Alabama/Birmingham's Engineering dept uses a student's 
full SSN as a part of their computer login ids. This machine in Internet
reachable. 

I was wondering what relevant laws, if any, applied to this situation? I found
out about it through a friend who told me what his Internet address was. I
was shocked, and told him not to give that address to ANYONE because it 
contained his SSN.
--
Eric Hunt                     | bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred)
Birmingham-Southern College   | ehunt@aol.com
Birmingham, Alabama 35254     | <<insert witty saying here>>

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2974 comp.org.eff.talk:6146 comp.admin.policy:1148 alt.censorship:7783 soc.college:4080
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:08:51 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>, Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM writes:
>Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
>free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.
>Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
>a law of free speech as the US does?  Or are you merely applying your own
>form of geocentricism which dictates that the entire world has to follow
>what the USA says and does?

The document was not about illegalities or illegal censorship, it was
about banning material in general.

>The reason I am extremely annoyed is that this is not the first time that
>people in the USA assume that the entire world has to jump in line to their
>definitions of how the world should work.  No wonder that American foreign
>policy around the world has nose-dived in the past 20 years.  Why do you
>think people demonstrate against the "Great Satan" in Iran or Indochina
>or the Phillipines?  Americans are extremely insensitive to cultures other
>than their own.  Your posting is a very good example that things have not
>changed.

I strongly disagree with your view of Carl's posting.  There are
people outside USA who support freedom of speech - freedom of speech
or civil liberties are not an US monopoly.  To the contrary, it rather
seems that they are declining a lot faster in USA than most other
parts of the world and the U.S. government's actions certainly seem
very anti-freedom in many senses.

>>Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
>> =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
>
>Hank Nussbacher
>Israel

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] banned newsgroup at u of o
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:18:46 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From:  ()
Subject: banned newsgroup at u of o
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 19:33:18 GMT

alt.binaries.pictures.erotica has been banned from University of Oregon. 
Isn't this
censorship?
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Let's try a different tack......
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:30:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.161525.21851@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:

>If by "reasonable" you mean banning, for example, a very long .plan,
>I agree. If you mean content restrictions, one what grounds?

rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>Restrictions based on '.plan' reasonably serving the intended purpose
>of the 'finger' network protocol, and not being unduly annoying to those
>who use 'finger'.  An excessively long '.plan' is a problem.  A '.plan'
>with terminal escape sequences is a problem.  Putting the complete
>contents of /etc/passwd in '.plan' is a problem.
[...]

Agree, I wouldn't object to any of these restrictions.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =