HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI [BSDI response]
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:22:38 GMT

This is a complex issue.  In olden days, AT&T was praised resoundingly
by all concerned for letting universities get source to Unix under such
favourable terms.   But everybody knew the real terms, that the source
was trade secret and all the people who got it through official means
had to agree that it was trade secret.

I think that is now coming home to roost.  AT&T was generous, but not
philanthropic in those early days.  They have always wanted something in
return -- and they got that something: Unix became a leading OS.

They haven't said much in their suit, but the thread I see is this -- "we
gave you our source code under trade secret agreement, you studied it and
worked with it for years, learning every part of it, and then using that
knowledge you rewrote it and gave what you rewrote away, in particular
to people who want to compete with us."

Now IANALBIPOOTN, but that actually does sound like a valid trade secret
case to me.   There have been reverse engineering cases in the past that
have burned the reverse engineers.   These days, if you're cloning something,
the safe practice is to get one group to examine it and write abstract
specs, and have another group get only those specs and create a product
from them.

If you let the second group actually see the physical thing they are
duplicating, you take a risk.  To let them actually have it under trade
secret agreement -- that would be crazy.   That's how it has been in
some cases, like it or not.

I know the authors of Coherent did not have a copy of Unix source around
when they wrote it.

My feeling is that if AT&T wants to pursue a trade secret case, they
have a case.  Which is silly, because the amount of AT&T code left was
small, and careful planning could have avoided this trouble.  It sounds
like they were sloppy.

I also see AT&T's side.  One hardly gives people source code to one's
product just so they can clone it and sell their own version, after all.

The original V7 Unix was a brilliant innovation, but in today's world of
megabyte kernels, we forget how small it was, and how easy it would be
for a modern trained programmer who has never seen Unix source to duplicate
it.   But that's not what BSD did.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: NEWSDAY1@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:43:00 GMT

brad@clarinet.com writes:
 
>        
>        a) The accused has a right to privacy, and his/her name is not
>           to be disclosed by the justice system until a conviction is
>           made.
>
>        b) The accused has the right to publicity, if the accused wishes
>           it.   That means that in addition to the right of a phone call
>           to your lawyer, you would also have the right to contact the
>           press or any others.
>
>This is more consistent with a presumption of innocence.
 
Your suggestion is thoughtful and reasonable, if we're focusing on
the rights of the accused. However, the heart of the matter concerns
the public's right to know. This is a situation where we have two
competing concerns. While I am sympathetic with those who publicly
find themselves on the wrong side of the law, I place greater value
on the right of the people to fully know the activities of their
government.
 
Evan Rudowski
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:39:24 GMT
Organization: There's No Organization Like Dis Organization

In article <7iVHoB7w165w@freds.cojones.com> George W. Hayduke writes:

>NEWSDAY1@delphi.com writes:

>> Furthermore, as citizens, we have the right to know when our neighbors are 
>> accused of a crime. Since our system provides for a presumption of 
>> innocence, it's up to us to view an arrested individual as innocent until 
>> proven guilty. Therefore, there should be no presumed shame in having 
>> been charged with a crime, only in being found guilty of one.

>You can't be serious...

>If Waldo Q. Milquetoast, your next door neighbor, was listed in the paper as
>a suspect in a child molestation, I highly doubt you would let your 9 year
>old daughter play in the front yard anymore. 

If you lived next door to Waldo, had a nine year old daughter, and it turned
out Waldo was indeed warped (contrary to your view of him,) what happens to 
your perception of fairness?

>Most people simply don't think this way, which is why one must obtain 
>high-priced lawyers and buy one's way out of the charges.

You would be surprised at the costs which can be asociated with an ordinary
roadside stop by a policemen if (s)he decides to start writing paper. High
priced lawyers....is there any other sort????

>If the citizenry has the right to know who is supposedly a child molester,
>then why do we fool anyone by claiming innocent until proven guilty? If we
>are innocent until proven guilty, then no one should know if someone stands
>accused until they are convicted.

Are you a native Terran???

Bill Vajk
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security,alt.drugs,alt.hackers.malicious,alt.censorship
From: dank@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Kegel)
Subject: Re: Phantom Access - EFF
Keywords: Phantom Access, EFF, Privacy, Polls
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:26:52 GMT

blain@netcom.com (Blain Strickel) writes:
>The EFF from the results I have received is an organization without a purpose
>and without a following.  Only 52 people even had == opinions == about what 
>the EFF is doing...
>I know you can ftp to eff.org and get the newletters, I am just tallying up
>the replies that == I == got to my question.  This indicates that whatever 
>message the EFF has to give to the people of Cyberspace, its not getting out
>there too coherently.

Perhaps if you had chosen a more interesting subject than "Phantom Access",
more serious people would have read your original poll, i.e. it's not just
EFF that has trouble getting a coherent message to the masses :-)
I certainly support the EFF wholeheartedly.
- Dan Kegel (dank@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jnchan@nyx.cs.du.edu (James W.Y.F. Chan)
Subject: Re: Network Sex (Part I)-Globe and Mail (07/20/92)
Keywords: UseNet, Internet, Sex, Censorship
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 06:41:47 GMT

brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.165856.5833@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jnchan@nyx.cs.du.edu (James W.Y.F. Chan) writes:
>>This article appeared in the Globe and Mail (Canada's National Newspaper).
>>Reproduced here without permission.
>>

>Reproduction without permission is, as the phrase implies, not permitted.
>Please cancel this article.

>When this happened before, and the story was about me, I asked for and
>got permission to reproduce a similar article.   Is asking so hard?
>Anyway, the Globe and Mail sells itself in electronic form, expensively
>mind you, so while they might not grant it, it is still available, and
>you are depriving them of revenue.

>(Hey, some people will even argue that USENET works by granting permission
>to all the sites that propagate it to copy it.  But you didn't have
>permission.  Oh no!  :-)
>-- 
>Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366

After considering Mr. Templeton's above statements, I decided to cancel and
not distribute the last part of the Globe and Mail article.  If your public or
university libraries do carry the Globe, it's an interesting article to browse
through.  
Some of the interesting comments I received from colleagues at work today
(after they read the articles) include: "Do you read those :sex: groups?"
"How do I access the INTERNET to read these groups?" etc etc etc.
I believe the article carried some misinformation including the absence of the
word "USENET" in the article.                   
In any case, I wonder how this will affect our university since we do not
carry any UseNet groups (not until September of 92...maybe).  We are in
the dark ages still....:)

James W.Y.F. Chan
Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
EMAIL: EVBCHAN@VM.UoGuelph.CA, JNCHAN@Nyx.cs.du.edu
From: Mike.Tetreault@p54.f603.n157.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Tetreault)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Local Bulletin Board Gets Busted
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 13:06:16 PST
Organization: FidoNet node 1:157/603.54 - Tribute Test Point, Uniontown OH

In a msg of <07/24/92, 14:39>, Mark Meyer wrote to All:

 >> able to access adult movies, which are transmitted on color
 >> monitors.

 MM>         ?????  Surely they mean stills from movies, not the movies
 MM> themselves.  Unless there's been an enourmous improvement in bandwidth
 MM> capacity that I'm not aware of...

      As a former user of Akron Anomaly, I can tell you that they did
indeed mean "movies", in the form of .FLI and .GL animations, lasting
from a few seconds to four or so minutes, which consisted mostly of
"in an out" action.

                                                                      Mike


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!157!603.54!Mike.Tetreault
Internet: Mike.Tetreault@p54.f603.n157.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security,alt.drugs,alt.hackers.malicious,alt.censorship
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Phantom Access - EFF
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: Phantom Access, EFF, Privacy, Polls
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:50:36 GMT

In article <dank.712258012@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov> dank@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Kegel) writes:
>blain@netcom.com (Blain Strickel) writes:
>>The EFF from the results I have received is an organization without a purpose
>>and without a following.  Only 52 people even had == opinions == about what 
>>the EFF is doing...
>
>Perhaps if you had chosen a more interesting subject than "Phantom Access",
>more serious people would have read your original poll, i.e. it's not just
>EFF that has trouble getting a coherent message to the masses :-)
>I certainly support the EFF wholeheartedly.

Dan's point is precisely the one I would have made if I'd gotten here
first. Blain Strickel's poll is a sampling of a highly unrepresentative
fraction of the readership of this newsgroup: specifically, those who 
read the postings in the thread "Re: Phantom Access - EFF" *and* who were
willing to take the time to respond to Strickel's poll.

Blain's poll, and the conclusions he draws from it, demonstrate some of
the hazards of unsystematic and unscientific opinion-gathering.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Rot13
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:54:15 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org

Date: 7/30/92   3:27 PM
Subj: Rot13
 
Speaking of rot13'ed messages (as some of the last cascade were), would
somebody please tell me where I can get either (a) a Macintosh utility to
rot13, or better yet (b) the algorithm for rot13 encryption/decryption?
If this is a FAQ, email me at the address below.  Many thanks!
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 J. Brad Hicks                 | Poor is the man whose pleasures depend
 mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com | on the permission of another.
From: system@freds.cojones.com (George W. Hayduke)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Network Sex (Part I)-Globe and Mail (07/20/92)
Summary: The Great Undying Copyright Wars Revisited.
Keywords: UseNet, Internet, Sex, Censorship
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 09:56:03 ADT
Organization: Bedlam Institute of Higher Learning

jnchan@nyx.cs.du.edu (James W.Y.F. Chan) writes:

> This article appeared in the Globe and Mail (Canada's National Newspaper).
> Reproduced here without permission.

Gracious. We're just as guilty in the Great Copyright Wars as the evil
magazines, aren't we? Let he who is without sin cast the first tactical
nuclear device.

It is interesting to think of how many "reprinted without permission"s come
across the net in a day. The exact amount will be left as an exercise to the
reader. Suffice it to say we hardly have room to whine about netnews being
reproduced in other forums.


--------------------------------------------------------------!oo!----------
from the mythical, nonexistant SYSTEM 0PERATOR | The FredBox +1 907 344 8437
system@freds.cojones.com | uunet!coldbox!fredbox!system | ASFJP@ALASKA.BITNET
Home of a few raving lunatics and myriads of electronic publications.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.security,alt.hackers.malicious,alt.censorship
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Phantom Access - EFF
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:41:58 GMT
Keywords: Phantom Access, EFF, Privacy, Polls

In article <1992Jul29.220306.2270@eff.org> rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) writes:
)In article <1992Jul29.175933.26136@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)
)>The approach I'd predict is that this survey will be ignored, and there will
)>be a strong hint that the EFF considers people who publish such information
)>to be 'the enemy' or at least 'not with it', and not worthy of the EFF's
)>scarce, limited, and really very valuable and important time.
)
)	Actually, the survey has been forwarded around the office, and
)will probably be discussed at the next staff meeting.  But we probably
)won't make any official response to it, as it wasn't an official
)survey. 

)	Certainly, Bronis, I've always responded to your specific
)questions about the EFF.

Yep - you've certainly been outspoken and helpful, and I think a lot of the
recent postings giving more information about the EFF and its activites can
be traced to your efforts.

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:47:55 GMT

In article <01GMY1HF7I008WWDSS@delphi.com> NEWSDAY1@delphi.com writes:
   
>I am not a newspaper editor and haven't been in a position to decide 
>whether or not to print an address of an individual accussed of a 
>crime. I'm sure it can sometimes be a difficult decision.
   
The hard thing is to justify, ethically, the publication of addresses.
Addresses, in themselves, don't carry a lot of news value. (I'm inclined
to say they carry almost none.) How do we justify their publication, when
the publication may affect others besides the defendant. (Sure, Dahmer may
be safe in custody, but his family isn't.)


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.
From: peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Copyrights on netnews articles 
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 20:06:58 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: What organization???


In article <8411.Jul2521.20.3292@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu writes:

  > I think this means that Brad wins by default: as he was saying (though
  > he said it badly), there's no way that an author can grant ``implicit
  > permission'' for copying his articles. (This doesn't mean that USENET
  > distribution constitutes a copyright violation, for two reasons, as I
  > explained in a previous article.)
You are right, but the law only protects the copying of the message, not it's
idea's. So I can still extract the ideas from a posting and write them down in
my own words. Nothing illegal about that.

  > And, as he was saying, this is good, because if we were to interpret
  > USENET distribution of a single article as copying by many thousands of
  > individuals, then all of those individuals will be liable for (e.g.) the
  > recent posting of some writings by Douglas Adams.
Well, isn't USENET distribution based on *copying* the files from one machine
to another?

Greetings,
Peter Busser
---
I don't do .sigs

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: NEWSDAY1@delphi.com
Subject: Phreaks indicted
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:39:00 GMT

Regarding the Secret Service's release of the addresses of the indicted,
an indictment is a matter of public record and the addresses become
public information. If the Secret Service didn't release the information,
they'd be asked for it by the press. Check a news article featuring any
sort of arrest or indictment; the address of the accused will appear,
nine times out of ten. This is neither incompetence nor maliciousness on
the part of the Secret Service, just standard practice.
Evan Rudowski
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:35:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.201024.18145@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

>The press should also be admitted to such trials, on an off-the-record-unless-
>convicted basis.

I disagree very strongly with Brad on this particular point. There is a
valid social interest in the reporting of trials (a governmental function)
that is in no way diminished in criminal cases in which the defendant is
found innocent. The William Kennedy Smith trial is a good example--the
public learned a lot about the conduct of trials from that case.

Same thing goes for the "Rodney King beating" trial (King, of course, was
not on trial), in which the policemen who were videotaped beating King
were acquitted.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier)
Subject: Re: not-so-funny "joke message"?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 20:49:16 GMT
Organization: cellular
Distribution: usa

jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend) writes:

>>Municipal Code of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND IT'S AGENTS

>And "Cybertronics Secuirty Resources" has to be one of the stupidest
>company names I've heard in awhile, so maybe the message *is* real.
>:-)

Last time I checked, the USA was not a city. :-)

>Comments?  Thoughts?

This message may actually scare a naive user. I think you should bring
this to the local sysop's attention in the hopes that he will take
this less-than-funny joke down. It's not that it makes me angry, it's
just not funny. It's like a message about, say, human rights with a
.sig joking about forcible sodomy.
-- 
 Pete Gontier // EC Technology // gurgle@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: NEWSDAY1@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Phreaks indicted
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:02:00 GMT

Mike Godwin,
   
I apologize for not quoting you directly; I misfiled your message.
   
I am not a newspaper editor and haven't been in a position to decide 
whether or not to print an address of an individual accussed of a 
crime. I'm sure it can sometimes be a difficult decision.
   
I'm also sure, as you suggest, that some accused individuals can be 
the targets of revenge or retribution, and publicity may exacerbate 
that. However, I think we have to trust the system to do its job and 
protect these people while preventing overzealous vigilantes from 
running amok. And in reality, the alleged perpetrators of high-profile 
crimes such as child rape are usually already known to the victims and 
those close to them, the people most likely to seek to take matters 
into their own hands. I haven't heard of too many cases in which public 
vigilante squads have targeted people reported in the newspaper as 
having been accused of a crime. Most people, I think, are content to 
let the legal process run its course. The perpetrators of the most 
heinous crimes -- Jeffrey Dahmer, for example -- usually remain in 
custody after their arrests, anyway.
   
Evan Rudowski
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Request: Info about ECPA (was Freedom of Information Act)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:38:56 GMT

aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:

>There have been some inquiries at my university concerning the Freedom
>of Information Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

>Specifically, I would like to know to what extent the FOIA applies to
>a private university, such as ours.  The director of our computer
>center is aware that people consider their email private, and wants to
>know if this assumption can be supported.
[...]

Unless your university has its own FOIA, no FOIA will apply. The
ECPA might, however apply.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/ecpa.1986
=================
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.

=================
law/ecpa.1986.godwin
=================
Mike Godwin, legal staff for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
says that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) could be
reasonably construed to protect university email.

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986
  pub/academic/law/ecpa.1986.godwin

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law ecpa.1986
send acad-freedom/law ecpa.1986.godwin

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:18:48 GMT

In article <l6nl2kINNjuk@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
}[The UC Regents 4.3BSD-NET2 software was claimed not to contain any AT&T

}The bottom line is that AT&T claims NET2 is contaminated with intellectual
}property misappropriated from AT&T -- perhaps not direct copies of source
}code -- but at least ways of doing things (trade secrets)

}  Although USL has not sued the University of California, we expect that
}  USL (or its parent, ATT) will threaten to review or withdraw research
}  grants made to any university or research institution using or
}  distributing software based on NET2 ...

Well, if AT&T wants to play this kind of game, perhaps the appropriate
tit-for-tat would be for all the universities using these things to
get together and threaten to withdraw use of AT&T services (surely
there must be millions of students in University dorms & apartments...)

John
-- 
John Hascall           Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain
Project Vincent                                                              
Iowa State University Computation Center                     john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA  50011                                      515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk