HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Fun things to do to RTM
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:03:56 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Dec13.054800.15684@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.144942.26492@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>No, Mike's forte is the snide characterization, as "all you people who
>>disagree with me are being malicious and only interested in doing bad
>>things to poor Mr. Morris because it makes you feel good to hurt him
>>for no reason."  Gee, nothing 'non-adult' or 'insulting' there, is
>>there? 

>Fred McCall has a decidedly idiosyncratic notion of the proper use
>of quotation marks. As should be obvious, the remarks he "quotes"
>here are his own invention. I've never said such a thing.

It wasn't my intention to imply that these were Mr. Godwin's exact
words, as he ought to know if he's spent any amount of time on the net
at all.  It is, however, in pretty close accord to what his attitude
seems to be, given the way in invariably characterizes the motivations
of anyone who disagrees with him.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,isu.cc.general,isu.talk.usenet-policy
From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Date: 14 Dec 1992 23:00:14 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

vulture@imperial.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau) writes:

>In article <mt_rrwn@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>- 
>- There is no "rights" issue
>- involved here except property rights.  That is, the property I own

>Though property rights come into it, they are not the only issue.
...
>Getting back to the motd message, it is an attempt to enforce a particular
>reading or aspect in a one to one fashion when a general clarification of
>law and process is required, and I hate it.
..
>of presonal rights to privacy, employer's or university's rights to property.

Of course what is amazing in the message is that it is really directed
at unathorised users. The fear is that unauthorised users could sue you
for your infringement of their rights, even if they broke onto your
system. Like the thief who breaks down your door, and then sues you
because he got a splinter from the broken door in his eye. 	
The US law of torts really is a totally screwed up mess.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: cooper@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen)
Subject: Re: Professional registration
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:40:17 GMT

Jim.Riddle@inns.omahug.org (Jim Riddle) writes:

> I'm personally tired of hearing from all of these people who could've
> gotten college degrees if they wanted to do so.  I'd like to know why
> they didn't and why they seem to hold it against we who did!

Well, in my case I couldn't pay for my University, so I after 2 years at
studying physics and CS, I got offered a 20-hour/week job at AT&T as an
administritive kind of job. After a couple of weeks I'd re-written all their
administration tools that sucked, all of which were written by, you guessed
it, people with degrees. They then offered me a full-time position which
I accepted, and since then I haven't had the urge to study at an institution.
I do however still study, but I do that by self-teaching the necessary new
skills and I keep up-to-date with most major branches of technology. As a 
person wihout a degree, but with a good job, I make the following observation:

- A lot of people on the net have no formal education
- most of them have jobs, and a majority of those who have jobs, have
  good jobs.
- Of all people in the computer industry I've met, those without degrees seem
  to be:better at what they do than those with degrees
	more idealistic
	happier in their personal life
	slightly anarchistic
	pot smokers
	pink floyd fans
	
So, while you say 'we' hold it against the folks who do have degrees, I think
it's reversed. I have noticed the sentiment that those with degrees hold it
against us without them, that we are happier, nicer people :-)
Seriously though, a lot of people with degrees I think feel that we are taking
away their jobs. I say, get the best person for the job, regardless of 
degrees. If that's someone else than me, then fire me. I can get work any 
time, even if it means earning less. 

--Ralph Moonen
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jet@boxer.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Subject: DoJ monitoring memo
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:51:57


Keep in mind, folks, that the DoJ sent that to *government* sites,
concerning *federal* computers.  According to the local security
folks, several "intruders" have gotten out of charges by claiming that
unannouned gov't keystroke monitoring (ala Stoll's lineprinters on
incoming dialups) is equivalent to an unauthorized wiretap. 

Some folks here at NASA claim that the DoJ message also gives them
blanket coverage with regards to individuals monitoring general system
usage.  ie: logging the amount of times xterm is executed w/o letting
the user know what you're doing *could* be seen as an unauthorized
wiretap.  Yeesh.

One last item -- the government can play by different rules than
private businesses.  If I, as an individual, hire someone to kill a
non-US citizen threatening my life, it's a felony.  If the government
drafts me, and tells me to kill Canadians because they threaten my
life, it's perfectly ok.  Likewise, gov't policies on "appropriate use
of computing facilities" have been interpreted by NASA to mean that:
"Computer resources and electronic mail services are provided for
official government use only, and personal use of such resources is
against the law."

When it comes to private businesses, your milage may vary.
--
             J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
              '92 R100R, DoD# 0378, BMWMOA, AMA, ACLU, EFF, CPSR
                                "HotHead Rules!"
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mcgregoa@cognos.com (Alayne McGregor)
Subject: Re: Testing Computer Prof
Organization: Cognos Incorporated, Ottawa CANADA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:13:38 GMT

In article <3860.492.uupcb@grapevine.lrk.ar.us> don.bivens@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Don Bivens)  writes:
>Yes, but professional, licensed engineers often deal with building
>structures and it is imperative that building codes be met for obvious
>safety purposes.

Quite true -- there have been some horrendous examples of what happens when
they are not.

>Software engineers CANNOT write code that they don't know.  Besides,
>nobody lives or works inside of a program (like a building).  If the
>code doesn't work it'll be obvious.

This is so egregiously out of touch with reality that I'm sure the poster
must have meant something different. I don't know a programmer who hasn't
dealt with bugs that took years to surface.

On the general topic of licensing:

I have found that possessing a university degree has some correlation with
competence, but it's a weak correlation. Two of the best professional
programmers I know dropped out of high school. I know other excellent
programmers who dropped out of university, or took a "degree" in ham radio.

A stronger correlation (to my mind) is the person's interest in continuing
their education. Do they read technical journals or industry mags? Do they
take courses? Do they attend meetings of local user groups? Do they hack
on home machines (and I don't mean playing tetris)? Do they spend their
own money to buy new computer books?

Doctors are required to take continuing education courses in order to keep their
licenses; unfortunately, I hear that this often turns into a sham.

What might be more effective is government/industry support for continuing
education: perhaps even a requirement by government that companies receiving
government contracts have an education program (properly funded) for all
technical employees.

I think this would work better than licensing, which, frankly, only tests
the ability to take tests, not the ability to bring a year-long project in
on time, on budget, and working according to spec and to the customer's
satisfaction.

Alayne McGregor
mcgregoa@cognos.com
alayne@ve3pak.ocunix.on.ca
Newsgroups: gagme.general,comp.org.eff.talk
From: anton@gagme.chi.il.us (Andrzej Borowiec)
Subject: Re: Hacker Crackdown
Originator: anton@gagme
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:21:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.031848.10904@newton.ccs.tuns.ca> johnsomr@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Mark R Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.174849.24106@gagme.chi.il.us> datec@gagme.chi.il.us (Charles Robinson) writes:
>>Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling (Bantam ISBN 0-553-08058-X)
>>is now available in your local bookstores ---- $23.00.
>>
>>IMHO A good read --- well worth it as an XMAS gift to your net friends.
>
>I second that.  By the way, it is $28 in Canada.
>

>--
>;---------------------------------------------------------------------
>; Mark Johnson             ; msdos has 6 types of RAM - dos ram,

Well boz, I bought mine along with January's Guns&Ammo and paid
~$22 for both, including sales tax at the Crown Books.

Andrzej
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
From: viljanen@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lea Viljanen)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Organization: Pussy Galore's Flying Circus
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:11:55 GMT

In <PCL.92Dec15173300@rhodium.ox.ac.uk> pcl@ox.ac.uk (Paul C Leyland) writes:

>In article <26Cu03elc3du00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> grjost@uts.amdahl.com (Garrett Jost) writes:

>   I'll leave on this note:  On many systems, if you mail a letter to a non-
>   existent user, the message gets sent back, but a copy also goes to
>   "postmaster".  So if you mistype a friend's e-mail address and write
>   he/she a very personal message, it isn't very personal anymore, is it?

>For this very reason, I made very strong requests to our mail guru to
>fix it for Postmaster to get only the mail headers.  She did, and now
>only the originator gets the message body.  I, as joint-postmaster
>still get to see the headers in case they indicate problems with the
>system.  Still not ideal privacy, perhaps, but better than the
>alternative.

This is a two edged sword here. By enhancing the user's privacy
you also diminish their chances to get information. Just guess
how many internet guides tell people to mail postmaster@site
to get information about e-mail addresses. These mail messages
get truncated too.

It's not altogether obvious where to cut off the rest of 
the the mail message either.

>I strongly recommend that everyone else either fixes their mailer
>similarly, or gets their Postmaster to fix it.

I strongly recommend everybody to at least think this carefully over.

I think the best solution would be to encrypt the message body
(by rot-13 or something) to eliminate the accidental reading
of the message. But the message in its entirety should be available
to the Postmaster if he/she needs it. 

>Paul

-- 
Lea 'LadyBug' Viljanen     University of Helsinki   "Every real program
Lea.Viljanen@Helsinki.FI   Computing Centre          has some input" - H&P
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Fun things to do to RTM
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 13:46:25 GMT

In <1992Dec15.194255.5831@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1992Dec14.190356.23433@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>It wasn't my intention to imply that these were Mr. Godwin's exact
>>words, as he ought to know if he's spent any amount of time on the net
>>at all.

>Whether it's common on the Net to invent "quotations" is irrelevant to the
>issue of whether it is ethically acceptable to do so.

Nobody 'invented' quotations (gee, did I use the word 'quotations'
anywhere, Mike?  How dare you put it in double quotes!).  Frankly,
your behaviour here has convinced me that you wouldn't know ethics if
they came up and bit you on the ass.  See you after the holidays,
Mikey.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
From: vulture@imperial.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Reply-To: cmaae47@imperial.ac.uk
Organization: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 18:09:15 GMT

In article <mt_rrwn@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
- 
- There is no "rights" issue
- involved here except property rights.  That is, the property I own
- and provide to my employees to use is to be used in accordance with
- my rules.  Period.  if my employees don't like the rules, they can
- work elsewhere or buy their own equipment with THEIR money.

Though property rights come into it, they are not the only issue.
A store has the right of ownership on its building, and can therefore 
exclude you and also move you off their premises. They have not the right
to beat you up in process, and where it comes to searching the law is hazy
at best, and certainly varies much across countries.

Conversely stores have been prevented to exercise their right of exclusion
to enforce blanket bans on, say, blacks. 

Getting back to the motd message, it is an attempt to enforce a particular
reading or aspect in a one to one fashion when a general clarification of
law and process is required, and I hate it.

Imagine picking up a telephone and hearing an announcement that the 
telephone conversation may be taped by whoever may do it. I know it can
technically be done. I know it is done in many countries. I know it is 
legally done in those countries that bother to make a law regulating it, 
an it is also illegally done in these same countries. But imagine hearing
this announcement in 150 different languages just to make sure you really
must have known that tapping might be being done. 

If I logged in (from Britain) to any machine in the states displaying such
message, it could cost me real money to ignore that message, to the tune of
some 40 cents on a 300 baud line, for every time I log in. (670 char in the
message, 30 char/second, #45 or so per hour call charge to the US, $1.50 or
so per #)

Of course you have no feasible right to refuse an employers computer system,
just as you cannot refuse to appear at your place of work because doing so
requires you to drive on the right (or left in Britain) which you object to
for some reason. This is not an issue that can be fully discussed in terms
of presonal rights to privacy, employer's or university's rights to property.

                                     Thomas

-- 
*** This is the operative statement, all previous statements are inoperative.
*   email: cmaae47 @ ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau) (uk.ac.ic on Janet)
*   voice: +44 71 589 5111 x4937 or 4934 (day), or +44 71 823 9497 (fax)
*   snail: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
*   The Center for Computing Services, Kensington SW7 2BX, Great Britain
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,isu.cc.general,isu.talk.usenet-policy
From: gclarkii@NeoSoft.com (Gary Clark II)
Subject: Re: ONE YEAR AGO: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:27:09 GMT
Keywords: bogus!


Hello,

Just a short question.  Why don't the admins of the these sites just require a
waiver from _ALL_ persons wanting access saying that they will not sue
or otherwise bring to court for the contents of a piece of electronic media?
Then they don't (hopefully) do not need to worry about a student sueing.

Gary Clark II *N5VMF*
Admin for the gbdata.COM domain
gclarkii@tghost.gbdata.com
From: Wes.Perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org (Wes Perkhiser)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Caller ID pros/cons
Date: 19 Dec 92 10:33:14 CST
Reply-To: wes.perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org
Organization: 
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

In a message of <Dec 17 19:19>, Bob DeBula (11:30102/2@fidonet.org) writes: 
 
 BD>wasting nuisance on par with gratuitous junk mail. What is the
 BD>huge societal benefit to be accrued from caller ID anyway (other
 BD>than making the Ferengi style marketeers happy that is)?

My wife has this habit of picking weirdos for friends.  (I guess that's 
good, because she likes me.)  The down side is that we gets a LOT of calls, 
at strange hours, from people where the conversation goes:

"My daughter just got bit by the Rotweiler down the street.  What should I 
do?"  "Is the skin broken?"  "No."  "I wouldn't worry too much about it."  
"What about the bleeding?"
 
We currently use the answering machine to screen these calls, knowing by 
listening if it seems like an emergency or just that the caller is bored 
and wants someone to entertain them.  Personally, it seems to work a little 
better than caller ID *IF* they actually talk to the machine.

I LIKE the ability to find out who is calling before I get up from the 
dinner table and listen to the guy try to sell me aluminum siding (I still 
don't know how they can install it on a brick building, but...)  And, I 
like the local pizza company to be able to have my past purchase on the 
screen when they answer the phone.  I just have to verify the address, and 
then I don't have to explain that I want a big pizza with no green stuff, 
some extra cheese, hold the tomato sauce, and slap some peanut butter on 
it.

I could see where there are times when I would NOT want to be identified.  
Like when I want to call in sick to work from the local bar.  Or if I was 
calling around to different stores to get prices for something I plan on 
buying.  As long as the local telephone company provides the Caller ID with 
FREE ID blocking, there is no problem in my book.

Wes 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:36:12 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>>The whole thing about plumbing and registrations and licensing is the
>>same as it is with engineering and probably should be with some aspects
>>of software.  Anytime you do anything affecting the public health and
>>safety you need to be certified capable of doing it correctly and,
>>perhaps the point that is being overlooked, you have to lay your own
>>ticket on the line if what you do fails.

Its easy to test plumbing - but how do you accurately test the ability
to design and implement a large system and get it to work properly on time.
The ability to write a 50 line program is irrelevant in determining 
your ability to protect the public.
- so how do you test what you need tested ???

>The reasons plumbers, general contracters, roofers etc.
>are licensed is it allows them to put a mechanic's lein
>on your house or other property.  

Its also a guild system.

>It has little to do with public health and safety.
From: jdc@access.digex.com (John Cochran)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Caller ID suggestion
Date: 21 Dec 1992 05:33:21 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

The way I see the Caller ID problem breaks down into two major catergories.

  1.  Calls being made to commercial businesses.
      For this type of call, I fully support the ability to block caller ID.  I
      currently receive far too many unsolited offers for "products, services,
      etc." to allow yet another source of information for a business to
      annoy me.

  2.  Calls being made to private individuals.
      For this type of call, I can't justify being able to block caller ID.

I would like to hear comments on this.


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
From: craig@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Craig Nordin)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Organization: U.S. D.O.L - Occupational Safety & Health Admin.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:38:52 GMT

In <1992Dec14.180915.13795@cc.ic.ac.uk> vulture@imperial.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau) writes:


>Imagine picking up a telephone and hearing an announcement that the 
>telephone conversation may be taped by whoever may do it. I know it can
>technically be done. I know it is done in many countries. I know it is 
>legally done in those countries that bother to make a law regulating it, 
>an it is also illegally done in these same countries. But imagine hearing
>this announcement in 150 different languages just to make sure you really
>must have known that tapping might be being done. 

Let's look at a few other ways that more established technology works
in "accordance" with the law.

If I call up (voice) the local (Maryland, USA) State Police, I hear a beep
every three or five seconds, signifying that the conversation is 
being recorded.  In some parts of the USA, either side of a two
way phone conversation has the right to record the conversation
without warning.  In other parts, neither side can do it.

Just because it is your friend's phone, I don't think he/she
has the right to record the conversations.  It takes the police
(FBI,NSA, whatever), WITH A WARRANT (a "warranted cause" to do so),
to tap your conversation. It is the Owners' of the Conversation that
have the rights.

 -
 US Department of Labor      Craig Nordin          craig@osh3.osha.gov
 OSHA OMDS FSDB #N3661                  uunet!osh1.osha.gov!osh3!craig 
 200 Constitution Ave. NW Phone (FTS/202) v:219-7788 x57  fax:219-5830
 Washington D.C. 20210    Standard, Complete, and Constant Disclaimers