HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:21:33 GMT
	<BZS.93Jan8234039@world.std.com> <C0M7Fv.9sA@world.std.com>
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

Re: what real harm could come from anonymous users?

True example: a system I was on had a user who sent death threats to a
former professor. The user name turned out to be a fake. There was
some reason to believe that the threats might have been serious
(memory fails; I think it was the degree of detail in the threats.) 
   Now, aside from the fact that sending death threats is itself a
crime, finding the person would have helped the police resolve the
threat and determine whether the recipient was in real danger.

--
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....
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:59:08 GMT

Right, though if you run an online service and offer *true* anonymity,
ie. you the operator don't even know who the posters are, I think you
run a risk of assuming liability for defamation and other materials you
publish from these truly anonymous users.

If you offer pseudonums, and know who the people are in your secret records,
then you might reduce your liability, if you're not ruled to be a publisher.
Publishers in general are co-liable with authors, whether they print the
author's name or not.

I can see the value of truly anonymous services, but I fear the law will
not look kindly on them.  I could easily see people viewing a truly
anonymous BBS (of which there are still many today) as nothing but
a facilitator for speech without accountability.  As such there is a danger
that courts could rule that all liability falls on the operator of a
truly anonymous system for copyright violation, libel, threats, obscenity
or violation of official secrets laws.   This could just about ban such
systems if there were such a ruling.

Which is bad, because the world sometimes needs these channels, though
lord knows that I wouldn't want to read them most of the time.

When you've been in the online world, you know that anonymity and
pseudonyms are great fun in their place, and great facilitators for
certain types of discussion.   However you also realize that for
serious discussion, people act more responsibly when their true name
appears on their posts, and the resulting forums are more pleasant.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: Boycotting CERT because of the keystroke monitoring advisory?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:57:10 GMT


I don't understand why some here are making a major fuss over CERT's
notice that if one is going to legally monitor keystrokes, users
should be warned in advance.

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jcluett@world.std.com (Jim Cluett)
Subject: Civil Disobedience
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:12:39 GMT

EFF Staff:
You're doing fine! Keep up the good
work. Thoreau is a classic. Good
reading anytime. Nice choice for
the newsletter.


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: "Civil Disobedience" et al.
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:05:06 GMT

It must be a slow month for computer news, if all the EFF can find to do
is republish Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," close on the heels of the
much-less-funny-than-its-author-thought "Bill o' Rights".

I thought the EFF was supposed to be a pool of computer-ethics expertise,
i.e., an organization of concerned people who have thought long and hard
about the ethical and social aspects of computing, and who have the
technical expertise to back up what they're saying.
  
The last two EFFectors look more like nostalgia for 1960s radicals.
Please, folks, let's get back on topic before we lose all credibility.

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington     internet mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **
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 23:01:41 GMT

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

[deleted]
>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
[deleted]

This "very clear line" exists in your mind.  I suggest you go on
feeling high-and-mighty and trying to shoot down any suggestion of
anything new and/or innovative which threatens your little world.  You
obviously can't handle it.


-- 
 Richard Powers    / Huh?  David Letterman is whipping  / Apathy.
rpowers@panix.com / his microphone with a rubber hose. /
	         /  No, wait!  Thats beef jerky!      /   Hail Eris!
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 22:13:01 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: Thibault & Friends

In article <C0IDMu.By5@panix.com> 
(Richard Powers) writes: 

> The whole idea has involved from the original to deal with a lot of
> nitpicking problems.  The original context was a hypothetical concept
> to refute the idea that a beneficial virus is inherently _impossible_.

        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.

> deal with.  And that is: a method to automatically PowerPack (an Amiga

        I don't know how you'd do it on an Amiga, Richard, but on my
        PC, I'd put the following in my backup script:

         global for /A:a %exe in (*.exe *.dll) do packexe %exe

        to compress every executable introduced or changed since my
        last backup. What would the miracle virus do that this
        doesn't?

        Cheers,
                Marc

---
 Marc Thibault        |  Automation Architect        |  All we are saying
 marc@tanda.isis.org  |  R.R.1, Oxford Mills,        |  is give global
 CIS:71441,2226       |  Ontario, Canada  K0G 1S0    |  warming a chance.
 NC FreeNet: aa185    |                              |

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQBNAiqxYTkAAAECALfeHYp0yC80s1ScFvJSpj5eSCAO+hihtneFrrn+vuEcSavh
AAUwpIUGyV2N8n+lFTPnnLc42Ms+c8PJUPYKVI8ABRG0I01hcmMgVGhpYmF1bHQg
PG1hcmNAdGFuZGEuaXNpcy5vcmc+
=HLnv
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:18:13 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

I'm glad I'm not paid to work on PC's <grin>
--
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....
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tony@morgan.demon.co.uk (Tony Kidson)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests 
Distribution: world
Organization: Not much.
Reply-To: tony@morgan.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.18)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:59:12 +0000


In article <1993Jan5.083531.3355@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu writes:

>In article <1iab94INNsdv@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
> writes:
>
>Wasn't America in the 50's such a society?  Even my father, who went to
>collage in the early 60's, could earn enough to send himself to collage
>
>more people wanting to go to collage than there are places for them, the

>It sounds really good to give poor people assistance to go to collage, and
>I have yet to meet a Libertarian who doesn't think that private scholarships
>shouldn't be encouraged, but the high-sounding, moralistic ideal of "giving
>everybody a chance to go to collage" is being perverted into just the opposite.

Going to college, might at least teach them how to spell it!

Tony

------------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tony Kidson     |`morgan' is an 8MB  486/33 Cat-| Voice +44 81 466 5127    |
| Morgan Towers,  |Warmer with a 670 MB Hard Disk.| E-Mail                   |
| Morgan Road,    |It  resides at Morgan Towers in| tony@morgan.demon.co.uk  |
| Bromley,        |Beautiful  Down Town  Bromley. | tny@cix.compulink.co.uk  |
| England BR1 3QE |            -=<*>=-            | 100024.301@compuserve.com|
+=================+===============================+==========================+
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:45:47 GMT

Mike Godwin writes:

>It is always a bad idea to suppose that one can assemble a legal theory
>from a law dictionary.

I can't argue with you there.  I realize that only a fool would 
attempt to mount legal arguments given my limited resources, and 
that is in fact the only qualification I claim to possess.  It's 
been fun, though, right?  And educational, at least for me.

>>It is an old concept in English law called "Invitation", concerning
>>the responsibilities of shopkeepers toward their customers, fair
>>organizers toward the fair's patrons, and so forth:
>
>Online services have never been held to be a "place" for the purpose of
>transforming customers into business invitees.

Your wording is ambiguous.  Have they ever been clearly held *not* 
to be such a place?

>Because the doctrine of duties to invitees derives from physical hazards
>on physical premises.

That appears to me to be a mere semantic red-herring, having no 
foundation in the obvious intent of the doctrine.  Why would this 
principle which is sound in a physical location be unsound in a non-
physical one?  I am also curious as to why you say the doctrine is 
limited to "physical hazards"; do you mean it doesn't apply to non-
physical injuries suffered on physical premises?  How odd.

>So far, there have been no cases of conference-system users being stalked
>on the basis of information given out by the system. So, it's unclear that
>they're "getting themselves into" anything risky at all.

I assume by "no cases" you mean no court cases, and that may be 
true.  But I myself have observed cases of users being stalked or 
otherwise annoyed, myself not least among them.  And although case 
law is certainly important, I don't imagine you meant that it is our 
only protection, did you?

With regard to whether conference users are getting themselves into 
anything risky, as I said to Barry Shein, it is probably impossible 
to assess the risk on a rigorous statistical basis.  But my own 
personal experiences and observations lead me to believe that the 
risks are not altogether insignificant.

In any event, we are all aware of cases of stalking which have 
resulted from exposure in other media.  The nets may have been 
relatively immune so far, because they have been accessible to only 
a small audience.  But this is changing rapidly; the nets are grow-
ing at an amazing pace, and will soon be on a par with other mass 
media.  I see nothing in principle which makes this medium less 
risky than others in regard to stalking, do you?

                                   --- mkj


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Motivated libertarians (was: Clinton Office Requests Comments)
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 13:42:09 GMT

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
: 
: There are certainly points the libertarian movement has that are
: commendable in my view. But the motivation of many of their strongest
: proponents show an unhealthy frustration to something else entirely
: (as the responses to this note will quickly convince the more
: disinterested among you is true.)
: 
One of the shining examples of a libertarian with good motivation is Dr.
Mary J. Ruwart.  Her book "Healing Our World:  The Other Piece of the
Puzzle" is an excellent explanation of how we can help the poor an
disadvantaged through the ideals of non-aggression and acheive healing
through restitution rather than retribution for aggressors.  From the
back cover:

	"The Easy Way Out" is the realization that others do not create
	our global harmony and abundance andy more than they create our
	inner peace and enrichment; our reactions to others determines
	our fate.  "Healing Our World" is more than just ivory-tower
	ideals, however.  Historical examples illustrate its
	effectiveness in the most stringent testing ground of all -- the
	real world.

I recommend this book highly to those who want to create a world of
peace and plenty and feel that it is our civic duty to help the poor and
disadvantaged.  The solutions are progressive and offer a promise of
reducing suffering tremendously in the world.  It is unfortunate that
some of the best known libertarians did not have a sense of civic duty
(like Ayn Rand) and as a result have kept some people from examining
these promising ideas as a solution to many of the problems we face
today, such as poverty and war.

The book can be ordered from The Advocates for Self-Government
1-800-932-1776 and costs $14.95 plus shipping.  (The Advocates is a
non-profit educational organization and I will not receive any
monetary compensation for any book sales.)
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Organization: The World
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:34:15 GMT


From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
>> My instincts tell me (1) that the exposure of users to unnecessary 
>> risks is wrong, and (2) that when such a wrong results in serious 
>> harm to someone, there ought to be a legal remedy.  
>
>#2 is part of the root of your problem. it's a tendancy to legislate
>away any wrongdoing or inconvenience. and it doesn't work. legislation
>should -not- be treated as a cure-all.

You're being too knee-jerk libertarian. He didn't say anything about
legislation, he was asking who has the civil liability (i.e. torts.)

[more party-line stuff elided...]

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: serickso@ub.d.umn.edu (Scott Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Alternative viewpoints
Date: 7 Jan 1993 09:20:12 -0600
Organization: University of Conformist Thought
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: serickso@ub.d.umn.edu (Scott Erickson)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ub.d.umn.edu


Previously betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) wrote: 
>I for one get frustrated by the tendency to categorize to the extreme
[deleted]
>certainly a place where opinions from past definers of our freedoms
>should be welcome!
>  I value diversity and hearing things which I might not have
>otherwise heard. Keep up the good work! 
>--
>System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
[deleted]

I agree wholeheartedly with the above.  If it was not for the Usenet News,
newsgroups like this one, and publications like Effector, I most likely would
not have become aware of many of the ideas and views available to me.  I too
value diversity of views and I too enjoy hearing views which I might not
have otherwise heard. I may not agree with what I hear, but hearing other
viewpoints helps me to codify and clarify my own beliefs.

I live in and have come from an area that did not encourage and actually
discouraged free thinking and critical thinking.  You may notice that my
organization line says "University of Conformist Thought".  That is my way of
mocking all of the people at this institution (University of Minnesota,
Duluth) who follow the party line and expect others to follow the party
line.

As it is, the Internet and Usenet News is one of my few avenues to
learning about other viewpoints and I do NOT appreciate when others try to
suppress other viewpoints because they do not "fit" in with someones
preconceived notions.  I realize that some discussions may better fit in
some other newsgroup, if that is the case, then it would be appropiate to
suggest/request that the discussion be moved.  However, requesting the a
particular discussion end is usually inappropiate.

--
serickso@ub.d.umn.edu                                         Scott Erickson 

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:20:44 GMT

>>>You can compare an executable (for non-changing code) against a known
clean
>>>copy, to check for infection after the clean copy date.
>>
>>Not if you d/l it from a BBS or FTP site, you can't be sure that what you
>>are getting is clean code.. You can compare later versions with this to see
>>if it changes, but that's another story, you're not sure it's clean.
>
>Again, if you are trying to run a virus-free operation, then you do not d/l
>code from othe rplaces unless you CAN vet them for virii, etc., and can get
>a clean executable copy.

If you never import any files then you need not worry about getting the
virus, it wouldn't spread over networks so the only way to get it would be to
d/l a file that someone put on a BBS or FTP site etc..

>>Then why wouldn't someone d/l a new version of some PD utility and install
a
>>virus in there? It's just as likely to happen in the compression virus as a
>>space invaders clone.
>
>It's easier policy to say: "No games allowed on this machine"

Are you purposely being dense? It could be in any anything, a spell checker,
accounting software, 3d rendering software, etc.. (Besides, try to actually
make people obey that rule).


--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:56:54 GMT

In article <C0IBzw.MH8@world.std.com> mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves) writes:
         
>Thank you for your response to my message.  I find your answers disturbing.  
>Although I don't question your expertise (I'm not qualified to do so), your 
>answers seem to defy common sense.

Really? If so, it is a common sense that is not very common.

>  And although I do not generally welcome 
>increased liability for sysops (I've been one, and may be again), if true, 
>this particular lack of liability seems unfortunate to me.

Perhaps we should sue publishers of phone directories when some stalker
looks up a phone number or address while we're at it.

>Is this a general principle, or do you feel that BBSs are less liable than 
>other businesses in analogous situations?

The general principle for nonintentional torts is negligence. What you
described is not negligence.

>Like I said, I'm no lawyer, but I happen to have a reasonably recent copy 
>of Black's Law Dictionary, so I decided to take a look at entries relating 
>to the term "negligence".  According to Black's, "Doctrine of negligence 
>rests on duty of every person to exercise due care in his conduct toward 
>others from which injury may result".  This appears to me to bode ill for 
>those who impose real-name policies.

It doesn't when you realize that "due care" does not mean "all possible
care."

>Would I be on 
>the right track, therefore, in speculating that the reason why you feel 
>real-name policies cannot constitute negligence is simply that such poli-
>cies are so widespread as to define "ordinary prudence"?

Nope. I base my conclusion on the fact that, in general, mere refusal to
offer a service anonymously is not considered negligence. Your plaintiff
always has the option of not contracting with the BELL.


--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 
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8433 alt.amateur-comp:532 soc.culture.usa:9585 alt.activism.d:4441
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Programmers and Libertarians
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:08:52
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
Distribution: inet
	<1993Jan3.113435.20545@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: lachman@netcom.com's message of 3 Jan 93 11:34:35 GMT

> My guess is that the correlation between programmers and
> Libertarians is due to the fact that programmers (the smart
> ones at least) keenly understand the KISS principle (Keep
> It Simple, Stupid).

=o= One wonders, then, why so many can't deal with such simple
matters as not crossposting non-activism related topics to
alt.activism.

=o= Seriously, though, I think there's something to both
arguments.  Propertarianism does indeed follow the same type
of simple logic that programmers find so handy.  It should
be noted, though, that there are plenty of other simple
systems that meet this criteria; so this in itself does
not suffice to explain its appeal to programmers.

=o= Most programmers are, as was mentioned, comfortably well-off
and educated (though said education tends not to be very well-
rounded, it must be admitted).  From this position of privilege,
the simple system of propertarianism might seem to map pretty
well onto real life.

=o= From a less-privileged vantage point, however, that system's
logic doesn't look very simple, but rather simplistic.  The many
things it takes for granted are thrown into sharp relief, and it
collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.

=o= Workarounds are tried, kludges are added, and pretty soon we
find ourselves with a system run by lawyers. :-)
    <_Jym_>