HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Virus design
Date: 30 Dec 92 06:36:49 GMT

From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
>betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>|    I'm not psychic; if a program shows up on my system, unannounced,
>| and says "Hi! Sorry I cracked su on your machine, but I'm a GOOD virus
>| so don't mind ME" I'm not gonna waste time trying to guess if it is
>| lying :-)
>
>What about a virus that showed up on your system, and said "Hi!  I used
>security hole x, but I fixed it!"  Imagine what would have happened
>(with appropriate warnings and so on) if a virus was written (very similar
>to what rtm did), but instead it closed up the security holes that rtm
>eventually used.
>
>Those holes are the perfect example - after all, they *HAD* been fixed
>as I understand it, but many people did not update their software to
>fix them.  See what happens when you leave it up to the admins?
>

As soon as a virus/worm/trojan announced that, I would flush the system, and
rebuild from the backups.  Then I would check and fix the hole myself.  Then I
would try and track down the writer, and charge him for my time to do the
rebuild.

Sorry, but I don't trust uninvited software to break into my system and make
fixes.  Heck, I don't trust my *own* code to do that sort of thing without
testing, checking and a backup to restore from.

Vigilante patching is no more beneficial than outlaw cracking.  People need to
abandon the idea of beneficial viruses before someone gets hurt, and someone
else gets sued because of it.

Any software trying to kick my door down is going to get shotgunned, no matter
what its motives are.

 - Ron Sharp.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,eff.mail.com-priv
From: ses@sunSITE.unc.edu (Simon Spero)
Subject: Re: [eff.mail.com-priv]  Internet, Muslim Brotherhood, Skull & Bones
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:07:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.195149.11767@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A repost - Carl]
>
>Trilateral Commission 3 4 4 3 5 2
>cand best of all
>USENET and Internet 4 3 3 1 0 5
>"In the future the best networks may be electroic, not personal,
>and their models will be USENET and Internet" followed by a brief
>history of both with a couple of errors: there are more than
>'a few hundred newsgroups' on USENET and an exclusivity rating of
>'5' may be true in Great Britain but certainly not here in the U.S.
>cNo byline on this article.

Errrrr....
It does help if you look at the ratings for the right organisation....
The ratings come *after* the text, not before. The ratings you're looking 
at for usenet are in fact those for the trilateral commisson... usenet is
given a score of 0 for exclusivity and secrecy, and maxes out with a 5/5
score for "Strangeness of ritual". Also, if you discount all non-usenet 
newsgroups you do drop down into the middle hundreds.

"The internet specialises in sharing software and salacious images between
serious researchers. Usenet specialises in argument"

Simon
-- 
Hackers Local 42- National Union of Computer Operatives, Chapel Hill section
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Arise you users of compression, though the   | WAIS/Z39.50 spoken here
tarfiles hold you down" - The Internetworkale | DoD #612 | Tel: +1-919-962-9107
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 23 Dec 1992 09:00:31 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec23.024537.20216@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>How are the WELL's interactions dependent on its policies about
>pseudonyms? 

Mike, there was a discussion here a couple months ago on how
the availability of pseudonymous posting and email affects
the discourse on a newsgroup/conference.  Perhaps you missed this?

Steve
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: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:06:24 GMT

In article <1hd3qoINNsls@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>You're speculating as to what Mo would tell you.  Again,
>why don't you ask?

Mo and I know each other. If you doubt my guess as to what he
would say, you know his e-mail address. Me, I don't plan to 
bug him with trivial shit. Especially since I've got a former WELL
director working with me at EFF.


--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: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:40:30 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
	<8186@news.duke.edu>
	<1h5e5sINNinm@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1h5e5sINNinm@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
(Steve Pope) writes:
>In article <8186@news.duke.edu> jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead) writes:
>> Anonymity is available 
>
>You mean "pseudonymity is available"  -- don't complain about
>my misnomer, then use it yourself!!

Another reason people want pseudonyms: to stay a bit further
out of the line of fire from those who take intellectual
disagreements personally, and escalate to scatology and
personable abuse on the slightest of pretexts.

>> (as
>>mentioned earlier "by special arrangement") to anyone who signs up on
>>the Well.  It is given for good reason.  To protect yourself if you are
>>a celebrity has been a valid reason in the past 
>
>The only *consistent* way of deciding who is eligible to
>have a pseudonymous account is to simply leave it up to
>the discretion of subscriber.  Anything else is arbitrary.
>Since it is not done this way, I am correct in saying that policy 
>is inconsistent.  

This is the first time I've seen "consistent" held
up as an antonym for "arbitrary".  We've all heard the
famous dictum about those who see consistency as an
end in itself.

>>If you as a
>>non-celebrity could come up with a good argument as to why you wanted to
>>be anonymous, you could probably get an account that way.  It's just
>>that celebrities are the main group that have wanted to protect their
>>identities and have the most valid reasons.
>
>I think it is pompous for you to try to assert what constitutes 
>a "valid reason". 

The WELL tries more to be about people and about human
interaction than it is about legalisms.  The managers have
been able to exercise their powers in ways that have earned
them the trust of the subscribers.  The subscribers don't
mind that some of the policies are dealt with according to
the managers' best judgement, because they trust that
judgement.

What better criterion than subscriber satisfaction
can you propose to decide whether their policies are
appropriate for a commercial service?

>Example: suppose a user asked for a pseudonymous account because they
>are simply too shy to socialize on the computer under
>their real name?
>
>My guess -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the Well admins would
>say "sorry" to such a request.

Mr. Pope, your guess is not well informed.  You greatly
underestimate both the sensitivity to subscriber concerns
exercized by WELL management on their own initiative
and the pressure they would feel from their subscribers if
they were not that sensitive.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Virus design
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:08:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: ra.BETSYS.92Dec27120852
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <725430469.26792@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:

>If anyone thinks they have a beneficial virus, they only need sign their name
>to it, and add a remark that they take full legal responsibility for any
>problems it creates on any and all platforms.  (It would also be helpful if
>they had a few million dollars in the bank to make sueing them worthwhile.)
   
    Or take the bad-virus-fighting part and make it available, for
free, with source and no liability, via ftp and other common channels.
Good programs don't have to break into systems; we will invite them in
by the front door.
   I'm not psychic; if a program shows up on my system, unannounced,
and says "Hi! Sorry I cracked su on your machine, but I'm a GOOD virus
so don't mind ME" I'm not gonna waste time trying to guess if it is
lying :-)
--
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: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Rewriting PGP w/RSA toolkit?
Date: 29 Dec 92 02:28:08 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam

In article <1992Dec29.011416.21070@wariat.org> catfood@wariat.org (Mark W. Schumann) writes:
 > This is what I don't get.  What is the problem with just using RSA's
 > toolkit if you want public-key encryption?  Why don't the developers of
 > PGP rewrite using this toolkit and go "legit"?  I suppose I understand
 > the anarchic aspect of it, but if it is really true that RSA will let
 > you use their algorithm legally I don't see where the excitement is.

For one thing the developers of PGP have no (legitimate) access to the RSA
toolkit.  It can not be exported.
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Subject: Re- Novell buys Unix System
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:21:35 GMT

Date: 12/21/92  2:50 PM
Subj: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
 
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.  Can you imagine big hairy C programmin' UNIX studs with NO
CAFFEINE?
 
Can you say "mass defections?"  Sure, I knew you could.
 
 
 J. Brad Hicks     Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com
 X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:31:08 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

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

| For the
| record: the WELL's policy is in my opinion "acceptable".

| 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.  

Huh?  First you say the WELL policy is "acceptable," then you say you
have "a few misgivings about [it]" ... please make your position
CLEAR.  Thank you!


--
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.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Mary Ellen Carter Salvage Crew
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:41:35 GMT
	<33370.2B3C884A@puddle.fidonet.org> <1hj8hdINN92d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>

In article <1hj8hdINN92d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
   >>Is there any E-Mail address for Congress? I was told by Senator Paul
   >>Simon's Office that The U.S. Congress has email communication 
   >>internally among Congress but that the public is NOT ALLOWED to
   >>have access to it.
   >>I want to be able to send E-Mail to Simon's Office. Does anyone
   >>know of any way to do so?
   >>It seems archaic that there is no electronic access via email for
   >>the public to the U.S. Congress. 


My Congresscritter gets about 1 million letters per year.
Email to the office would be practical; email to Himself wouldn't.
It's just too many letters.

The staff tries to read them all :-), and only extremely interesting
ones get passed on to him for reading, though many routine things like
"why is my social security check late" or "can my kid go to West Point"
get handed to him for signing.  Letters obviously coming from
organized letter-writing campaigns get piled together and the
pro and con piles are mainly compared by how many pounds or inches
of mail the different sides can generate .....
letters that appear to be from real individuals do better.
Stuff with money attached gets more attention :-)

Telegrams get attention, because they cost more than paper-mail and
are generally short; faxes do ok, pre-printed-postcards get piled.
I'd guess that email to a congressional office could get managed
adequately, though it will take a while before they learn to give it
treatment similar to what they give paper-mail.
--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# !egassem terces eht dnuof ev'uoY  !snoitalutargnoC
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:39:44 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <1h7j0eINNs02@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>When a new user signs up for the well he is told:
>
>> The WELL does not accept anonymous accounts except by special 
>> arrangement.
>
>There are essentially two possibilities:

<text deleted>

Rather than speculate about the possibilities, why not take the empirical
approach. I'd prefer to hear from people who actually had problems with
the WELL (a system I use every day) than from folks who *speculate* that
there *might* be problems with its user policies.

This thread doesn't seem to have any connection with the WELL as it
actually operates.


--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,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:42:17 GMT


In a previous article, wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) says:

>In article <1hj8hdINN92d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
>   >>Is there any E-Mail address for Congress? I was told by Senator Paul
>   >>Simon's Office that The U.S. Congress has email communication 
>   >>internally among Congress but that the public is NOT ALLOWED to
>   >>have access to it.
>   >>I want to be able to send E-Mail to Simon's Office. Does anyone
>   >>know of any way to do so?
>   >>It seems archaic that there is no electronic access via email for
>   >>the public to the U.S. Congress. 
>
>
>My Congresscritter gets about 1 million letters per year.
>Email to the office would be practical; email to Himself wouldn't.
>It's just too many letters.
>
>The staff tries to read them all :-), and only extremely interesting
>ones get passed on to him for reading, though many routine things like
>"why is my social security check late" or "can my kid go to West Point"
>get handed to him for signing.  Letters obviously coming from
>organized letter-writing campaigns get piled together and the
>pro and con piles are mainly compared by how many pounds or inches
>of mail the different sides can generate .....
>letters that appear to be from real individuals do better.
>Stuff with money attached gets more attention :-)
>
>Telegrams get attention, because they cost more than paper-mail and
>are generally short; faxes do ok, pre-printed-postcards get piled.
>I'd guess that email to a congressional office could get managed
>adequately, though it will take a while before they learn to give it
>treatment similar to what they give paper-mail.


Well, it seems that there is a real problem with U.S. Congressmen
getting any feedback from the people they are supposed to represent.

Email access maybe would begin to bring them into modern times
as maybe it wouldn't be so easy to ignore the effects of the 
laws they pass on the commonfolk.


I had tried to get in touch with various Congresspeople for a few
years to demonstrate some of the horrors that some of their legislation
led to when the Job Training Partnership Act legislation was used
to cut out computer programming classes at the Ford Rouge Plant
in Dearborn, Michigan, and then to cut out programming classes in
local and state high schools as well.

Meanwhile, my Congressman  was giving private meetings of all
types to Keating so he could sidetrack the regulations.

So there is a definite problem.

Maybe any email to Congress has to be public.

              ronda

>--
>#				Pray for peace;      Bill
># Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
># !egassem terces eht dnuof ev'uoY  !snoitalutargnoC 
>
-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: RSA sucks (Re: PGP warning (ooo; I am scared))
Date: 28 Dec 1992 04:54:35 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec28.042435.7802@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>John Nagle says "RSA isn't sitting on the technology, they license it..."
>
>Some details, from an RSA letter to NIST:
>"A growing number of major computer industry companies have licensed
>and endorsed the patented RSA system.  [..]

My understanding is that RSA has patented "all implementations"
of a public key algorithm.  (You can't patent an algorithm,
but at some point some patent lawyer figured out you can
patent the implementations.)

The RSA system that is licensed is only a subset of all
conceivable instantiations of the algorithm.  Unless RSA
licenses all of these under reasonable conditions, there
may be some merit to the "sitting on the technology" criticism.

So for example, if I wanted to hack out a non-conforming
implemenation of an RSA-type encrypter, for small-scale
use, I would probably in RSA's opinion be in infringement.  Would
they sell me a license at reasonable cost and hassle?
(Defined as less cost and hassle than it took to write the
code in the first place...)

Steve


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: vancleef@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Robert VanCleef--RCS)
Subject: Re: Stupid Licenses (YUCK!)
Organization: NASA/Ames Research Center
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 17:42:08 GMT

I am not a user of the Well, and I missed the start of this thread,
so I have no idea of thier policies. However, I use GEnie quite a
bit, and they have always allowed you to pick any "email address"
that you want.

You may also change that name at any time, for a $10 fee. There was
one lady who changed her name three times in as many months to
avoid what she percieved as improper messages, only to immediately
give herself away with her posting style...

I do not know of any problems that have been caused by this policy.

Bob
-- 
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>
Bob Van Cleef 				     vancleef@george.arc.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center			   	   (415) 604-4366
      Practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty!
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 24 Dec 92 18:21:41 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <1hctt2INNs0h@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>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.

Well, then, you can't help me. The only standard of proof I'll
accept when someone asserts a problem is actual evidence of the
problem.

>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.

Mo would tell you what I tell you and what Cliff has told
you--that it's easy for someone who really wants an anonymous
account to get one. 


--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