HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:14:37 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1hb7v9INNm74@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu 
	(Steve Pope) writes:

>one disadvantage is you can't be completely anonymous --

Not even celebrities can do this (their postings still identify
themselves, though as a pseudonym)

>Not only can't you participate pseudonymously in WELL 
>conferences (which is not really a disadvantage of the WELL
>because nobody can, except the exceptions) but your real name is 
>emitted to the free world by smtp.

Well, this only happens if you try to send email to the free world.

>(Other disadvantages I am told are a low limit on disk filespace, 
>and a slow connection out to the Internet, but those topics 
>are not germane to this newsgroup.)

These perceptions are not true.  There is no real limit on your disk
space.  You do get charged for excessive disk usage.  You get the first
half-a-megabyte free; each megabyte over that is charged 67 cents for
each day you have it (and you can delete it the same day to avoid
charges).  This is reasonable for a system that supports more than 7500
users. 

And the Internet connection really is not slow.  For connecting from the
Well in San Francisco to my system here in North Carolina, I got figures
that are basically the same as vice versa:

	well% /usr/etc/ping neuro.duke.edu 10
	PING neuro.duke.edu: 56 data bytes 10 packets     
	...
	10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
	round-trip (ms)  min/avg/max = 130/143/190

and when I did the same thing from my machine here to the Well, I got

	neuro> ping -s well.sf.ca.us 56 10
	PING well.sf.ca.us: 56 data bytes
	...
	10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
	round-trip (ms)  min/avg/max = 133/157/227

-- 
 ________________________________________________________________________
|   John      jfw@neuro.duke.edu          Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead   jfw@well.sf.ca.us           Department of Neurobiology     |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mandel@netcom.com (Tom Mandel)
Subject: WELL anonymity policy
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 19:09:11 GMT



Whatever may be the merits of the WELL's policy against anonymous
accounts, actually getting an anonymous account on the system is
fairly easy.
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:31:10 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <1h63l0INNmdh@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>When on their behalf I inquired about this among well users, the uniform
>answer was that exceptions were made primarily for 
>celebrities.  I then posted this information (which nobody
>has refuted, btw) here to see what others thought.

In my lexicon, "primarily" does not mean "exclusively."

It seems likely that WELL management took your question to concern the
kinds of instances in which WELL users seek anonymity--they quite
correctly told you that it was mostly celebrities who sought it.

It is quite a leap from this assertion to your conclusions. As I have said
before, I've never known a non-celebrity who wanted an anonymous WELL
account to fail to get one. Have you?


--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
From: Wes.Perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org (Wes Perkhiser)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: QC Department (Was: Stupid Licenses)
Date: 22 Dec 92 05:15:32 CST
Reply-To: wes.perkhiser@ivgate.omahug.org
Organization: 
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

In a message of <Dec 22 03:08>, Andrew M. Dunn writes:


 AMD>   (a) developing test plans
 AMD>   (b) design review, and not just at a shallow level
 AMD>   (c) testing code as it's built, extensively
 AMD>   (d) veryify the results against the test plan

 AMD>_and_ making them responsible for fixing their own bugs, too.  

 AMD>You wind up with well-rounded software engineers (well, not all 
 AMD>of us
 AMD>look like that...) who understand the implications of their 
 AMD>actions,
 AMD>know how to troubleshoot, and have a pretty good idea of who 
 AMD>their
 AMD>customer (read, target user) is.

 AMD>And no QC payroll to burn cash on.

It may not be an "official" QC section, but that is what QA is all about.  
The company could use an accounting scheme that would charge hours doing 
the above as QA/QC type work, but why bother?  The only thing that would 
do is give some number for some bean counter to say "We spend too much on 
this:  cut it back."

Wes (Don't ask me the differnce between QC and QA)
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: "Hackers on NPR"
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:37:43 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

jdp@poppy.cs.odu.edu (JD Powell) writes:

| Anyone else hear the segment on National Public Radio this morning?

I'm sorry I missed it....

| For years I've been a big fan of NPR, enjoying their coverage of the 
| news on "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered".  Until now, I've
| not had any reason to view their commentary with anything more than the
| regular caution.  When my membership support renewal notice arrives from
| my local public radio station, it's gonna be returned with $0 and a 
| nastygram concerning their disappointing coverage of the CUD.

Ridiculous!

Why not call in or write and register your complaint -- not that I would
disagree with you.  However, there are far too many people who are more
willing to duck tail and run.... we need some people to try and
re-educate the public about what a TRUE hacker is like.  I was saddened
to see "The Hacker Crackdown" perpetuate the "hacker" mis-definition;
at least he recognized the fact (in one paragraph or so)....

Also on NPR, I heard (about a year or two ago) an episode of "Fresh Air"
with Richard Stallman.  The host seemed to be a bit mystified by this
hacker and his ideals, but it was a most informative and refreshing
interview.  Anyone remember when that was?  I've been meaning to get
a copy on tape...


--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat        |  Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: rat@ruth.UUCP                 |  80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23        |
"...because appealing to the masses has |  Files available more ways than
 never appealed to us."                 |  any other BBS in America!
Files via: anon uucp, Fidonet FREQ, mail to archive-server@ruth.uucp, etc.
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: ftp query
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:14:04 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: rita@eff.org

In article <1992Dec22.201614.27@magill.unisa.edu.au> kerrb@magill.unisa.edu.au writes:
>Could someone advise me about what subdirectories to look in at
>ftp eff.org to obtain more information about the aims and organisation
>of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

	Look in pub/EFF.





-- 
Rita Rouvalis                                Electronic Frontier Foundation
rita@eff.org                                                    eff@eff.org
CIS:70007,5621                                                (617)864-0665
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jmcarli@srv.PacBell.COM (Jerry M. Carlin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:15:25 GMT

In article <1h63l0INNmdh@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>When on their behalf I inquired about this among well users, the uniform
>answer was that exceptions were made primarily for 
>celebrities.  I then posted this information (which nobody
>has refuted, btw) here to see what others thought.

One thing no one has brought up is how many of the pseudononymous users
identities are really known to many participants. For example, many
readers of this posting would recognize one individual as having been
busted for "hacking". Your celebrity status may vary.

BTW, As a well user, I don't see any problem with the policy even in
those cases where I don't know the name behind the pseudonym:-).
-- 
Jerry M. Carlin	(510) 823-2441 jmcarli@srv.pacbell.com
Alchemical Engineer and Virtual Realist
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 05:29:25 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

Chuck Karish writes in response to my response to his post:

|>>Another part of the [WELL] culture is strong
|>>pressure to respect other participants.  
|>
|>I submit that the culture of respect is just as strong here
|>on Usenet as it is on the WELL.
|
|This is a joke, right?  I can read an implied smiley
|as well as the next subscriber.

No, my remark was completely serious.

Steve
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Software as PE
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 21:33:36 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: Thibault & Friends

In article <bhayden.725733100@teal> 
(Bruce Hayden) writes: 

> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
> >In <889520164DN5.61R@tanda.isis.org> marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault) writes
> >A lot of 'real
> >engineers' who don't understand what software engineering is about
> >produce execrable software.  
> 
> Here, Here

        Maybe there, there; but around here (though not around hear),
        a lot of software "engineers", who don't understand what
        engineering is about, produce execrable automated systems.

        Fred J has, however, asked for me to define my terms. This
        deserves a well-considered response, so please stay tuned.

        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: Michael.Lutas@p918.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Michael Lutas)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Stupid Licenses (YUCK!)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 10:52:54 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:109/70.918 - No Montgomery Co Na, Rockville MD

In a msg on <Dec 20 14:16>, Erik Oliver of 1:105/42 writes:

 EO> From: eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver)


 EO> every configuration is unrealistic, if not impossible.  Even in 
 EO> the Mac
 EO> world, there are problems that occur because of interactions 
 EO> between
 EO> INITs and CDEVs with applications.  Are these bugs?

Yes, these are bugs. The INIT CDEV problems usually occur when one or both software manufacturers try to break the normal programming guidelines for the Macintosh. It is most common where *both* programs "cheat". Each program works fine with compliant software but combined they produce crashes.


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!109!70.918!Michael.Lutas
Internet: Michael.Lutas@p918.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: re:Calif DMV DEMANDS SSN
From: john.asselin@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (John Asselin) 
Date: 24 Dec 92 09:43:00 GMT
Reply-To: john.asselin@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (John Asselin) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

RJB>Here is what the License Renewal form says:

RJB>"Collection of your social security number is mandatory. Failure to
   >furnish the information requested will result in denial of an
   >application for issuance or renewal of a driver license. Print your
   >social security number in the box above and present a verification
   >document at the time you renew your license."

RJB>It doesn't meet the Privacy Act of 1974 To quote hibbert@xanadu.com
   >(Chris Hibbert) and his SSN FAQ:

RJB>"The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552a) requires that any federal, state, or
   >local government agency that requests your Social Security Number has to
   >tell you four things:

RJB>1:  Whether disclosure of your Social Security Number is required or
   >    optional,

RJB>2:  What law authorizes them to ask for your Social Security Number,

RJB>3:  How your Social Security Number will be used if you give it to them,
   >    and

RJB>4:  The consequences of failure to provide an SSN.

RJB>In addition, the Act says that only Federal law can make use of the Social
   >Security Number mandatory.  So anytime you're dealing with a government
   >institution and you're asked for your Social Security Number, just look for
   >the Privacy Act Statement.  If there isn't one, complain and don't give you
   >number.  If the statement is present, read it.  If it says giving your
   >Social Security Number is voluntary, you'll have to decide for yourself
   >whether to fill in the number."

They should have the privacy act statement printed on the form. It
appears that they have met obligations number 1 and 4. Since it is
mandatory, it's not optional. And they explain quite well what the
consequences are. Remember, possessing a drivers license is a right, not
a privilege. I don't see why they need your SSN though.


John

---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3424 . Welcome to the Ozone Motel
 . SFMail Qwk v3.0
---
  SFUTI 3.16 . Abort, Retry, Fail?  19200  (402)292-8290
 * Abort, Retry, Fail? BBS! (402)292-8290 HST
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  ABORTRETRY (#1053) : RelayNet(tm)
                                                                                                               
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:06:23 GMT

In article <1hb30lINNlfe@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>For me it has shown up in face-to-face conversations
>with WELL users.  

How many?


--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
From: raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:55:33 GMT
Organization: Eaton-Peabody Lab, Boston, MA

In article <C063rH.IML@panix.com>,
rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:
> I'm beginning to see that many people have some _serious_
> misconceptions about virii.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA! First sensible thing you've said about this, Richard.

Seriously, though, what you've described as a theoretical "good" virus does
*not* match most of our conceptions. My mental picture of a virus is a simple
structure that invades host organisms and reprograms their reproductive
mechanism to reproduce the virus, rather than themselves. By this definition,
your "virus" is almost but not quite a virus, since the host programs had no 
reproductive mechanism in the first place. How about calling it a "parasite",
to avoid confusion?

If your "virus" is resident on the OS, instead, and alters the files it
finds, (which would probably be the only way to make it work reasonably),
then it is most definitely *not* a virus unless it is attempting to reproduce
itself to other OS'es. In fact, it's behavior would then resemble that of
a device driver providing access to the compressed files. See where the
confusion happened?
-- 
			Nico Garcia
			CIRL/MEEI
			eddie.mit.edu!eplunix!raoul
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:59:48 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) writes:

>Steve, the thrust of many of the points that you claim
>not to understand in this thread is that your use of the
>term "consistent" is unintelligible to many of the rest
>of us.  The term seems to be value-laden for you in a
>way that it's not for me.  By my understanding, which
>I illustrated in a previous article, your usage has
>been incorrect.
>
>Please tell us what you mean.
>
>My reference to a venerable comment, usually quoted as
>"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", was
>directly to the point.  Your insistence on consistency
>as an essential criterion for an acceptable membership policy
>seems silly and wrong-headed to those of us who fail to
>understand your use of the term.

Chuck, you seem to dislike the word "consistent", enough so
that you're willing to focus on the fact that I used this
word rather than on the substance of what I've written.

So, again, I previously wrote:

>> I did not say [ WELL's preferential policy allowing celebrities
>> pseudonymous accounts ] was "wrong", and I do not believe it is 
>> "wrong" in the sense that it's unethical.
>> 
>> What it is, in a minor sort of way, is inconsistent and a little 
>> elitist. 

*Nowhere* have I "insisted" that "consistency [is] an essential
criterion for an acceptable membership policy".  For the
record: the WELL's policy is in my opinion "acceptable".
But, that does not mean that the attributes, positive and
negative, of this policy are not a valid topic to discuss
here on c.o.e.t.

Most access services are willing to let the _subscriber_
decide if a pseudonymous login is desirable, whereas
WELL puts its own criteria ahead of those of the subscriber.
This is, at least, an atypical way of approaching
fairly important privacy issue.  I cannot for the life
of me imagine why so many people posting here have
a problem with the fact that I have a few misgivings 
about this policy.  

Steve
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jcluett@world.std.com (Jim Cluett)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:59:55 GMT

It's seems like such an odd discussion. Aren't we all
anonymous? Do you have a clue who I am? Even after you
finger me? How much do we ever know about anyone? Even
after we meet them personally?
 
And I'm pretty sure I could get an account on any public
system with any name I wanted to use. All the easier on
one of the free-nets or bbs.oit.unc.edu. When I signed
up for the WELL, I don't think they did anything more
than verify that my credit card number was valid.
 

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 05:51:49 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: QueerNet

In article <1992Dec22.140854.1085@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>  Why do I have the feeling that the intent is to keep UNIX from
>competing with netware?

The word from our contacts with USL is that the intent is to *enable*
UNIXware (UNIX with IPX/SPX and other Netware capabilities) to compete
with Windows NT. Novell feels Netware is stronger as a file/network server,
but lacks application server capabilities; UNIX's problems are the opposite.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:40:13 GMT

In article <1h5qkoINNl60@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>I'm sure WELL management is exteremely sensitive.  Even
>so you could be right, I might still be underestimating them....

I don't mean to be impertinent, but what is the basis for your
generalizations about the WELL? Have you used it?


--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
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:26:58 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <1hm9vqINNo3p@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>David, you haven't been reading this thread very carefully;
>I have ignored no facts.  I contacted the WELL admins who
>confirmed for me that the anonymity policy is quite restrictive,

I think "quite restrictive" is your term, not theirs.

>You, like Godwin, are 
>trying to twist things around for the sole purpose of provoking 
>disagreement.  

This is nonsense. I'd much rather that you agree with me.


--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: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Re- Novell buys Unix System
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:00:41 GMT

In article <199212212107.AA23802@eff.org> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com writes:
>Me, I'm waiting to see what happens when Novell HQ (in Provo UT) tells the
>ex-AT&T jocks in New Jersey that they have to get rid of the coffee and
>soda machines.  Novell doesn't allow caffeine anywhere on its corporate
>property.

Duh!  So, THAT'S why Novell's software is so buggy... no 30-hour debugging
sessions!

--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 24 Dec 1992 18:01:06 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

>Now, of these two WELL users, how many sought anonymous accounts,
>specifying that they had privacy concerns, and were refused?
>
>>The actual number of users who have stated this to me is
>>irrelevant.  Any knowlegable person who is familiar with
>>WELL, netcom, wet, a2i etc. would come up with the same
>>assessment.  I don't have to ask 5,000 well users to confirm
>>what I already know.
>
>Ah, science!

Mike, if the only standard of proof that you will accept
is if I actually produce an individual who was refused,
I can't help you.

Since you don't believe me, why don't you float your theory 
that anybody who wants can get an anonymous WELL account by 
their general manager (mo@well.sf.ca.us) and see if (s)he 
concurs.

Steve