HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:53:12 GMT
	<C0IBzw.MH8@world.std.com>
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

For one thing, no-one makes you post. You could choose to use another
service which provides anonymity, or you could choose to not post
controversial opinions.
  If a radio station airs a controversial interview, and the
interviewee is later shot at by a member of the enraged public, the
radio station isn't responsible. They might be if they broke a promise
of anonymity, or broadcast your address without your consent.
  For that matter, you don't have to list your name in the phone book.
If you ask to have an unlisted address and that information is
released by some data bank, seems to me that you would have a case
against *them* (and lots of eager defenders...check out
comp.society.privacy as well as this group)
--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progre
Date: 7 Jan 93  3:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 

MH> >So let me see if I understand this. Premise 1: Your parents were poor.
MH> >Premise 2: You needed an education to suceed. Conclusion: Joe Richguy
MH> >down the street should be compelled, at gunpoint, to pay for that
MH> >education. Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I'm missing the logical leap
MH> >there.

MH> Yes, quite obtuse, in addition to misrepresenting my thought.

MH> Nobody is compelling Joe Richguy to do anything: he has chosen to live
MH> in the
MH> USA and abide by our government.  Nobody is pointing a gun at him and
MH> commanding him to stay here where by mutual agreement we are taxed.

   Sure they are compelling him! He is compelled to make a choice between
paying the tax and leaving his home. (or suffering the consequences of
doing neither!) And as for mutual agreement, nobody asked ME if it was OK
to snatch a third of my paycheck to pay for thing I'd rather not have!!!
Taxation is theft, plain and simple.

MH> Joe Richguy has now benefitted, since I have by now already repaid
MH> (through
MH> taxes on my greater earnings) those subsidies, and can now better share
MH> supporting the costs of society with him.

   How does he benefit if he dosn't want the stuff your taxes bought for
him? You are making the huge assuption that those tax dollars are wisely
spent for socially beneficial things that Joe Richguy would be willing to
pay for. I for one will not grant you that this is the case.

MH> You have also ducked my challenge.

MH> Mike Huben

   David Brooks

>>> Thank God we don't get all the government we pay for! <<<

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *                                                                                
----
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Cutting Edge BBS (cutting.hou.tx.us)    A PCBoard 14.5a system  |
| Houston, Texas, USA    +1 713 466 1525          running uuPCB       |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: "Civil Disobedience" et al.
Date: 6 Jan 1993 13:38:37 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

In article (Gerard Van der Leun) writes:
>In article (Michael Covington) wrote:
[stuff deleted]
>> The last two EFFectors look more like nostalgia for 1960s radicals.
>> Please, folks, let's get back on topic before we lose all credibility.

>Actually, speaking as an editor, the last two EFFOs have generated more
>email than the previous ten combined, so I assume I am doing my job
>at getting people thinking. What they think and how is their business.

	Why don't you just post some of the stuff out of alt.sex.stories?
It is about as relevant, and you should get some mail(If that is your
true measure of success).

>I'd point out that Thoreau was not a 1960s radical but an 1860s radical,
>so I guess you are half-right.

If you are implying that he said that Thoreau was a 60's radical; I guess
you are totally wrong. There is a difference between '1960s nostalgia' and
"..nostalgia for 1960s radicals."  The way you(plural) are jumping on 
this guy shows a severe lack of tolerance. 

 /  Amiga  ///    |  U.S.C. Trojans  | O Bar  | David Leslie        \
|         ///     |     Fight On!    | E O    |                      |
|     \\\///      |        --        | Meu    | dleslie@usc.edu      |
 \     \XX/ A1000 |     Go Kings!    | Lar!   |                     /
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:57:47 GMT

In article <C0L073.HxM@panix.com> rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:
>In <1993Jan8.152210.29106@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>>But that's just what the BCV does, in one description.  It prompts the user
>>for an action (suicide, install marker file, etc).  If the BCV existed,
>>how long do you think it would be before someone wrote a copy-cat virus
>>that looked for the same marker file, performed the same compression, and
>>at some later date, wiped the disk clean?
>
>But it wouldn't be the same BCV.  You could check for alterations the
>same way you use a checksum to check the integrity of existing files.
>The BCV does not change the extent to which you are vulnerable to
>"bad" virii.  If you are not taking precautions against unwanted
>virii, you will be vulnerable.  BCV or not.  

If the BCV is present on your system, and you did not install it yourself,

                       YOU ARE VULNERABLE!


-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Subject: Re: Law-Enforcement Hates Encryption
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7750D65DF01AC74@lincoln.eff.org>
X-Xxdate: Sat, 9 Jan 93 04:16:53 GMT
Organization: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Washington Office
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:35:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.000754.14879@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> Chris
Katopis,
katop@astro.ocis.temple.edu writes: >I would like to find more about the
law
enforcement community's >standing on encryption and their proposed
"solution" to an >inevitable technology.  >



The next issue (maybe two at this rate) of CACM (Communications of the
ACM)
will have an article by Professor Dorothy Denning of Georgetown
University,
CS Dept. presenting the law enforcement view about wiretapping and
encryption. It will also include responses from LE and civil liberties
representatives.
From: katop@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Chris Katopis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Law-Enforcement Hates Encryption
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:07:54 GMT
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]


Hello-

I am a law student writing a law review article on criminal investigation
procedures and computer communications.  On the Charlie Rose show	
featuring Sterling, Goldstein et al, there was a NYS police officer
saying how data encryption would be the death knell of investigation
procedures.  

I would like to find more about the law enforcement community's 
standing on encryption and their proposed "solution" to an
inevitable technology.  

Is there a specific file in the ftp.eff.org law directory on this?  I
didn't see one per se.  

Thanks 
'Legally Yours
Chris Katopis
Temple School of Law
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:28:53 GMT

In <1993Jan11.165747.6941@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>In article <C0L073.HxM@panix.com> rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:
>>In <1993Jan8.152210.29106@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>>>But that's just what the BCV does, in one description.  It prompts the user
>>>for an action (suicide, install marker file, etc).  If the BCV existed,
>>>how long do you think it would be before someone wrote a copy-cat virus
>>>that looked for the same marker file, performed the same compression, and
>>>at some later date, wiped the disk clean?
>>
>>But it wouldn't be the same BCV.  You could check for alterations the
>>same way you use a checksum to check the integrity of existing files.
>>The BCV does not change the extent to which you are vulnerable to
>>"bad" virii.  If you are not taking precautions against unwanted
>>virii, you will be vulnerable.  BCV or not.  

>If the BCV is present on your system, and you did not install it yourself,

>                       YOU ARE VULNERABLE!

If you did not install it yourself then it dies for lack of marker.
If someone else installed it purposefully, without your knowledge
and/or permission, then said person is the problem.  Not the BCV!
-- 
)                    )  I am more than this...  )               )
) rpowers@panix.com  )                          )   Apathy...   )
)                    )      Continue...?        )               )
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:46:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.194622.2669@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>It's not an accusation targeted against anyone, it's an observation
>about the newsgroup in general.  I don't think it's important to
>discuss publicly _who_ is doing what in a matter like this, but
>instead to be aware of the problem and discuss ways of how to solve
>it.

But how can we solve a problem if you aren't specific about what the
problem is? 

>If we start talking about how Jack is being nasty in his messages
>to Jill, the discussion will quickly degenerate into a useless
>kangaroo court handling the writings, ancestry and personalities of
>Jack and Jill, while the issue of how the discussion could be
>imporoved and kept on topic without the noise will be forgotten.

I don't see how it can be discussed, except in the vaguest and most
abstract terms, without being particular. How can Jack solve the problem
of his nastiness to Jill when he's not even sure he's being the one
discussed, and he's given no clue as to what in particular about his
posting was objectionable?

Are there other fields in which problem-solving is done without any
mention of the particulars of the problem?


--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
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:48:56 GMT

        No wonder this thread has gone on and on to the point of
        absurdity! Richard has been trying to refute the wrong idea!
        We all know it's possible. The point is that the idea of a
        beneficial virus is inherently _silly_; that anything such a
        program would do is more effectively done any of a number of
        other ways with less opportunity for disaster.


Please, smack yourself in the head a few times, your eyes are stuck! No one
type of program is any worse than any other, any type of program can have 20
bytes of code installed with a DOS call to format the current drive. If you
knew what checksum would be used to check the file you could even make it
match the original checksum and file size.

If someone wants to get you then all they have to do is put a program where
you will download it.. That type of dos call is totally undetectable because
every program that loads a file from disk makes a DOS call and it just
depends what the registers are loaded with before it makes the call.

Considering that if someone wanted to get you they could go it with ANY
program, why are you afraid of them modifying a compression virus? It doesn't
have the capabilities to spread itself over networks or LANs etc.. If they
were good enough to modify it then they would just write their own.

The only other risks from this are to the user who installed the marker file
and those risks are basically that the decompression routine gets garbled by
a bad disk and fails to unpack a file, considering that the decompression was
part of the file, the file would be lost anyway.

A power surge could modify the recompression code in memory and it could do
any dos function you can imagine, but then so could ANY program that makes
DOS calls.

Nothing is inherently evil about a virus, especially one restricted by a
marker file.

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: awestrop@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Westrope)
Subject: Re: "Civil Disobedience" et al.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 18:09:44 GMT

rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) writes:
>
>	Well, it is nice to see that somebody is paying attention!
>Sometimes I wonder.
>
>	On a more serious note, _Civil Disobedience_ has been around
>since the 1800's (I wish I could remember the exact date). 

1849
 
>	Now I *realize* that we all read the essay in our 10th grade
>English classes.  But I don't think it hurts to remind ourselves what
>_Civil Disobedience_ has to say.

	Actually, I never was forced to read it in school, but I found
a nice edition in a used book store c. 1975, and found it very relevant
then.  Thanks for reminding me -- it was nice to read it again in the
quiet of the holidays.

--
| Alan Westrope          | "You will have the tallest, darkest, leading man  |
| awestrop@nyx.cs.du.edu |  in Hollywood." -- Merian C. Cooper to Fay Wray   |
                                                                            -- 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.software-eng,misc.jobs.misc
From: tcubed@ddsw1.mcs.com (James Hanlon)
Subject: Re: Software as PE
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:07:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes:
: 
: I forgot one important point (and possibly others):
: 
: - can handle or at least help with administrative tasks, such as
:   project planning (estimating schedules, estimating manpower and
:   equipment requirements), managing a bug-tracking database, and
:   doing engineering-related paperwork (like patent applications)
: 
With these sorts of talented engineers on the job, who needs managers?
Or do they realize that?

: Hans Lachman
: lachman@netcom.com

James E. Hanlon, PE
tcubed@ddsw1.mcs.com
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:53:58 GMT
Organization: The World


From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
>You've got it wrong.. BELL would have the name of annonymous users, otherwise
>how would they bill them? By annonymous people meant that BELL would put
>Mickey_Mouse@Bell on all messages from John_Smith@Bell..

Maybe, maybe not, I know for a fact that this is not necessarily the
case, people who want to be anonymous can pay in cash. Remember, I
run/own a large service of this sort (The World, >2200 active, paying
customers), I know what of I speak...

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:20:46 GMT

In <BETSYS.93Jan7125620@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:

>Exactly, exactly. i wonder if these cheery hypothesizers have ever
>EXPERIENCED a virus infection on a PC in a work environment? Or
>discovered that there were altered system files on a multi-user
>networked machine, which they were being paid to keep secure?
>   There's a very clear line on this group, and in comp.unix.admin,
>between the paid system maintainers and what I would categorize as the
>inexperienced users. Anyone who's ever seen a weird message appear on
>a system console late Friday afternoon or early Monday morning has a
>different attitude about "fool-proof" "guaranteed harmless" programs!

In <BETSYS.93Jan6180458@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth
Schwartz) w\
rites:

>I for one get frustrated by the tendency to categorize to the extreme
>in this medium.
[...]

Isn't that exactly what you are doing above?

>  I value diversity and hearing things which I might not have
>otherwise heard.
[...]

Unless they come from someone you would CATEGORIZE as "inexperienced
user"?

Or maybe this diversity extends only to ideas that fit your
world-view?


It seems hypocrital to say on the one hand "I value diversity and
hearing things...".  While on the other hand attacking an idea that
you don't find palatable.
-- 
 Richard Powers    / Huh?  David Letterman is whipping  / Apathy.
rpowers@panix.com / his microphone with a rubber hose. /
	         /  No, wait!  Thats beef jerky!      /   Hail Eris! 

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:18:06 GMT

triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley) writes:
> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

> a wonderful summing up!  libertarianism as the ideology of the
> frustrated children of the elite.  of course, none of the randites
> believes in society (as has been painfully demonstrated on this
> network), 

I think you need to try reading those postings a bit more closely.
"Randites" are NOT libertarians, and they DO very much "believe in 
society" as being a good thing.

Regarding the assertion that libertarians and/or objectivists are 
the spoiled children of "the elite", I think that this generalization
applies much more to the liberal/socialist mindset (people who feel
guilty about positions they consider unearned) whereas more of the 
objectivists tend to be "self-made" and from less 'elite' backgrounds.

Do you have any evidence of this other than your tiresome class
warfare theories?

> so making an argument, however sensible and consistent,
> about libertarianism as being cultivated by socio-economic variables
> rather than the incredible reasoning powers of a few gifted 
> bootstrap-pulling horatio algers is bound to fall on deaf (and 
> hostile) ears. still, nice job, mr. shein.  expect, as you 
> anticipate, dozens of replies from "lower class libertarians" (who 
> of course toiled their "self-defeating ethic" of the underclass 
> into which they were born) who will see in their social
> point of origin a refutation of your argument because they aren't
> quite prepared to admit that in a libertarian society there'd be
> no school loans, scholarships, etc. 

If you think that in a fully capitalist society there would be no school
loans and scholarships?  Do you think that nobody cares about education enough
to donate money without being threatened with jail?  Do you think that
there were no loans and scholarships before the days of the welfare state?
Perhaps you ought to read some history too.

--Brian
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:49:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.190324.15756@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.120157.6068@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>>In any case, I think email is more appropriate than the public forum
>>for pointing out the details (involving personal issues) what someone
>>thinks is the problem.
>
>Yet without some reference to the details of the conduct you're
>criticizing, how can readers of this conference know which conduct is
>objectionable? What one person thinks is harassment may be seen by another
>as reasonable discourse. For an example of this, see below.

After discussing this with Mike and some other people via email and
refreshing my memories of past discussions on comp.org.eff.talk I have
concluded that it isn't useful for me (or the readers of the
newsgroup) that I continue on this thread with Mike, and thus I will
not do so.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: msk@doomsday.micro.umn.edu (Mark S. Kassem)
Subject: Re: The machine that changed the world.
Organization: University of Minnesota
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:51:31 GMT

Kevin P. Brunner (dgarrett@engr.LaTech.edu) wrote:
: 	Our local student chapter would like to publically display the
: series 'The Machine that Changed the World'. We don't, however, have a
: complete copy of this series on tape. I understand that these tapes are
: available from ACM, but for a sizable fee. Is there any way that we could
: 'borrow' a set, or receive a set for a low student fee? If worst comes
: to worst, would anyone loan us a set? 

	Our local chapter would also like to get a copy.  If there are any
	other sources please let us know.
__
_________________________    __________________________________________ 
Mark S Kassem            \+++\ Another month ends, all targets met, all 
CIS Sys & Net Manager     \   \    systems working, all users satisfied
msk@doomsday.micro.umn.edu \+++\        All Pigs Fed and Ready to fly!!


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: adair@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Jonathan Edward Adair)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Subject: SigGraph '93
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:54:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu

How much is the registration for SigGraph '93?  
What are the hotel rates out there?

(Why, yes, it is Student Government budget time...)

--
Jonathan E. Adair  -  Programmer at Large                          /\
adair@gnu.ai.mit.edu             <-  Best choice                  /<>\
adair@eggo.csee.usf.edu          <-  Almost as good              /    \
adair@cfrrisc1.cfr.usf.edu       <-  Works for now              /______\
adair@psycho.fidonet.org         <-  Read yearly             The Illuminati
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm,comp.parallel,comp.sys.super,sci.math.num-analysis
From: wmitchel@fergie.dnet.ge.com (Bill Mitchell)
Subject: email problems for Bill Mitchell
Reply-To: wmitchell@atl.dnet.ge.com
Organization: GE Advanced Technology Labs
Date: 6 Jan 1993 15:33:10 GMT

Due to a screw-up on the part of our Purchasing department, ATL has been
disconnected from the Internet.  It will probably be several weeks before
it is straightened out.  Please send any email to me to my na.mitchell
address below.  Also, if you have sent me email since Dec. 17, please resend it.

Thank you, and sorry for any inconvenience.

-- 
 -- Bill

William F. Mitchell           |  wmitchell@atl.ge.com        <-- disabled
GE Advanced Technology Labs   |  na.mitchell@na-net.ornl.gov <-- use this

Just the facts -- no opinion disclaimer necessary.

Xref: sparky comp.org.acm:1044 comp.security.misc:2471 alt.security:5284