HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Date: 14 Dec 92 09:07:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec14.090707.17076
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>You could always do electrical work at a friend's house with their consent.
>>But don't plan to start up business as a professional electrician.
>
>Why not?  If I am honest with people about the fact that I have no
>"certification" why should it be illegal for me to sell my services wiring
>homes?
>
>Note that whether I'm certified or not if your house burns down due to my
>shoddy work you (or your insurance company) can still sue my ass off or
>worse.

Even though I might want to take the risk for a non-certified electrician,
note that if my house catches fire, there is a reasonable chance that it
might spread to my neighbors house (hey, you blew the wiring -- you
probably blew the smoke detectors, too! :-)).

Perhaps my neighbors whould much rather have their houses not burn down
than sue your ass afterwards.

I think the key question is whether or not a given profession is one in
which mistakes can easily be compensated for by monetary damage awards
or not, and if damages are likely to be limited to the people engaging the
services of the professional.

If the damages can be easily compensated for with money, and they are likely
to limit themselves to the client, then why license?

On the other hand, if the damages are hard to compensate for (e.g., badly
designed building collapses, killing occupants), or are likely to affect
third parties, then some form of enforcing competency seems to be a good
idea.


--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7682 alt.privacy:2643 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3768 comp.security.misc:2268
From: pcl@ox.ac.uk (Paul C Leyland)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:33:00 GMT
	<e6TZ03sdc2.200@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	<1992Dec12.064534.3499@nic.csu.net>
	<26Cu03elc3du00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Organization: Oxford University Computing Services, 13 Banbury Rd Oxford OX2
	6NN
In-reply-to: grjost@uts.amdahl.com's message of 12 Dec 92 21:33:26 GMT

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.

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


Paul
--
Paul Leyland <pcl@oxford.ac.uk>          | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Oxford University Computing Service      |     the English way.
13 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6NN, UK     | The time is come, the song is over.
Tel: +44-865-273200  Fax: +44-865-273275 | Thought I'd something more to say.
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:48:49 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.activism.progressive
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Subject:  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:54:45 GMT

The Transition Office for President-Elect Clinton needs some feedback
in order to keep this Internet connection open.  If you would
like to see material from the President's Office regularly posted
to Usenet Newsgroups please write Jeff Eller in the
Communications Office of the President-Elect at the following address.


 The U. S. Mail address for the Clinton/Gore Transition Team is:

	Office of the President-Elect
	Atkins Building
	105 West Capital Street,  Suite 400
	Little Rock,  Arkansas   72201

	Telephone: (501) 374-3322
        Fax: (501) 399-7195 or 7194  

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Professional registration
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 10:15:54 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

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!

I didn't because I discovered something better.  Engineering Apprenticeship.
I worked for a utility, went to school half a day for 4 years and 
worked the other half while getting paid union scale for technicians. 
I finished the program with 4 years' work experience under my belt
in addition to my certificate.  My income advantage has persisted
over the last 20 years.  I got bored with nuclear power and drifted
over to programming.  After a 1 year personal sabbatical to teach
myself programming, I entered the industry.  I've made sacks of money
comming into organizations and cleaning up after all their 
highly educated "software engineers" (NOT) who sit around mumbling
Yourdon and such trash under their breaths while never managing to 
get the job done.  On larger jobs I bring along a couple of colleagues,
each of which shares a common trait with me.  Neither has ever
set foot on a university campus other than to use the library or 
to buy research.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: CERT, DoJ, and Keystroke Monitoring
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 09:51:33 GMT

It seems to me that the owner/representatives of the owner of a system should
if they do not already, have full control of a system.

The only exceptions I can see would be the contract for service including a
section saying that they will not monitor you etc....

Yes, I see this extending to a companies PBX when you make calls. After all,
they ARE paying for it and if you don't want them to listen then chances are
it's not bussiness and you shouldn't be doing it at work anyway, that's what
payphones are for.

This should also extend to a landlord's privileges, to be able to do ANYTHING
as long as it's not specified against in the rental contract. To enter your
apartment with no reason, forbid you to have pets, require that you wear pick
sunglasses to bed etc.. Of course if the landlord was going to change things
in the middle of the contract period I can see THAT being illegal.

Forgive the rambling, I am basically saying that if you are using a computer
and not paying for the access and they want to monitor you or chop your
access then I side with them totally. If you are paying for access then this
is a different story.

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Professional registration
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:54:19 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!
> 
>No, I do not think that having a degree makes a person any more or any
>less qualified; I just recognize that the degree is, in most cases today,
>a prerequisite for certain forms of employment.
> 
>Continuing,
> 
>I am also getting tired of a lot of people telling me what my
>professional engineering registration means.  It means that I had the
>right degree from the right school, that I passed a couple of exams, that
>I had enough experience, that I had enough suitable references, and that
>I have now earned the opportunity to put my balls on the line when I
>perform engineering work.  It means that I am legally qualified to
>advertise as an engineer and to be sued as the person in charge if the
>damned thing breaks or kills someone, and that the buck stops at me.  In
>other words, it means that when someone gets to put up or shut up, it's
>me.
> 
>Off the soapbox, now, and girding my loins for the expected onslaught.
> 
>Jim

But it doesn't mean that you know anything at all about software.
Indeed, it usually means exactly the opposite (your case excluded).
They have spent time in school learning about the properties of 
concrete, and have not taken the compiler design, OS, database, etc.
classes required in a CS curriculum.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Fun things to do to RTM
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 04:19:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.134625.19374@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Frankly,
>your behaviour here has convinced me that you wouldn't know ethics if
>they came up and bit you on the ass. 

It seems unlikely that you can adduce any evidence that I have acted
unethically here.

Whether I've acted uncivilly is another matter, of course. But I have
never been one to suffer fools gladly.


--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: ujacampbe@memstvx1.memst.edu (James Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Caller ID solution? (was Re: ACLU/EFF and Scanner restrictions?)clo
Date: 12 Dec 92 12:41:42 -0600
Organization: MSU Cryptosystems

In article <1992Dec11.201523.546@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, 
  chris@engineer.mrg.uswest.com (Chris Fedde) wrote:

> OK, I've got a PBX in my basement.  Here's what
> I'm going to do.  I'm going to start an anonymous dialer service.
> You dial up my service and register with the autoattendant.  From then
> on when a call arrives with your ID the pbx will pick up and present you 
> with a dial tone.  You are then free to dial what ever number you want 
> and I'll send you a bill for any charges you may incur.
> What do you think?
> Chris Fedde, USWEST MRG, chris@mrg.uswest.com, voice +13037842823

    Suppose Charlie, an obscene phone caller put out of business by the
Caller ID service, registers with your pbx and continues to ply his trade.
Alice, his victim, sees "(303) 784-2823" pop up on her ID box with each of
Charlie's calls.  One thing leads to another, and the FBI (county sheriff,
whatever) is standing at your door.  What do you do?
    You turn over your billing records, of course, to avoid arrest as an
obscene caller yourself, or as an accomplice to Charlie's crimes.  Easy 
enough answer, right?  But it raises an uncomfortable truth:  In order to 
provide yourself with this legal out, you must keep _detailed_ records of
each call's source, destination, and exact time and duration.  People 
serious enough about anonymity to consider subscribing to your system 
would be quite apprehensive about such records existing _anywhere_ where
they might be leaked, subpoenaed, or sold.  And if you elect _not_ to keep
them, your legal position would be questionable at best, and your customer
bills would of necessity contain only information about total charges.
     I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), so I hope someone with
legal knowledge will take a stab at this.  But you asked what we thought...

 ===========================================================================
 James Campbell, Math Sciences Department, MSU; ujacampbe@memstvx1.memst.edu
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:43:38 GMT

      I think the major exception was for members of some '60s rock band.

					John Nagle
From: honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Fun things to do to RTM (was: Internet worm)
Date: 13 Dec 1992 14:16:29 GMT
Organization: Center for Information Technology Integration, Univ of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: honey@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: hone.citi.umich.edu

fred j mccall asks:
|> Is there any doubt that Morris released the Worm deliberately
|> (whatever his intentions were with regard to it causing loss or
|> damage) and that he deliberately intended for it to enter other
|> peoples' systems and od things without permission?

based on discussions with people who were there at the time and other
personal knowledge, i am under the impression that the release of the 
worm to the internet at large was accidental.

	peter
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Subject: Re: Re- Megatrends or Megaflops
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:36:22 GMT

In article <199212181727.AA14243@eff.org>
mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com writes:

> Every computer-related project that I've been involved in that had a
> spectacular budget "runaway" (and I've seen some doozies) was related not
> to the complexity, but to one of two things:
> 
> 1) Unrealistic, management-imposed deadlines for development, or
> 2) Too large and poorly organized development teams, or
> 3) Last-minute changes in the specification.

Doesn't even take that much.  The University of Minnesota has a new accounting
system called CUFS.  This spring we learned that there had been a 6 million
dollar cost overrun (from 12 to 18), maybe not a spectacular doozy but
nontrivial.  Just recently we also found out it doesn't work.  Hand work
is required to get out the normal budgets -- not just for special projects.
Also (it figures) the old system has been taken off line before the new one
is working right.

This is apparently customer doofusity.

  1. The vendor chosen had never done a system for a university half our
     size.

  2. Many changes to the vendor's product were put into the requirements
     to meet our special "needs".  Every department got in to the act because
     "we have a strong tradition of participatory democracy".

  3. We accepted delivery and sent all the vendor's people home back in
     the spring.

A guaranteed disaster.  There was never any possibility of anything else.
But we're not the only ones.  I've been hearing stories like this for years.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mdw@db.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Organization: The Linux Inquisition, Propaganda Division
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:31:02 GMT

In article <BzC00v.GEv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tinsel@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>#include <stdio.h>
>main() { 
>    printf("Hello, ma.\n"); 
>    }
>
>Since I'm not a licensed practical engineer, you're saying it would 
>(hypothetically, of course) be illegal for me to sell this computer
>program to anyone.... 
>
>Now, tell me this isn't different than plumbing.

Exactly. In fact, I just compiled and ran the above program on my
computer, and the kernel crashed, corrupting the filesystem and
destroying all of my files. And I plan to sue, big time.

:) mdw

-- 
Matt Welsh     mdw@tc.cornell.edu     Cornell Theory Center
  "It's a Katana, ya Midwestern Computer Geek." --Tom Payne
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Brad Hicks forwarding
Date: 20 Dec 92 00:28:13 GMT
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <BzJ0Mp.9Hx@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article <BETSYS.92Dec19145529@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>>Aha! THAT'S where those are coming from!
>>Who is Brad Hicks? Does he know that what appears to be his home
>>address is bouncing all over the Internet, buried in the bounce?
>>
>>Why would any site's bounce include a mail address anyway, unless it
>>was the mail address of the site?
>
>Broken X.400 gateway.  (Is there any other kind?)

So how does anyone get the attention of the guilty sysadmins?  Mail to

  postmaster@att.com

or

  mc/S=E-Mail_Services_Administrator/OU=0205216@mhs.attmail.com

gets no results.  How do we get the attention of someone with a clue at AT&T?

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From: G.DALE@applelink.apple.com (Geoff Dale)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: 2600 Pentagon City Mall "bust"
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:33:44 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Dec15.045443.23872@anomaly.sbs.com>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com
(Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
> 
> skipm@dorsai.com (Skip Mac-Stoker) writes:
> 
> >Let's see here - we have the illegal breakup of a public meeting (isn't that
> >unconsitutional?), illegal seizure, and harassment. Nothing like your tax
> >dollars hard at work for you. Absolutely disgusting. Once again, there are
> >those individuals in the guv who feel what they cannot control, they must
> >destroy. <sigh>
> 
> 1. Private property, not "public".

Quite true. Although the treatment of these individuals seems to have been
quite unusual.

> 
> 2. No "tax dollars" involved, just local police-authority-wannabes hired by
>    the maul. 
> 
> 3. No "government" officials, unless you count the one VA police officer
>    which someone said was there.

While the "facts" aren't clear in this matter, there are persistant
indications that the "operation" was "ramrodded" by the US Secret Service.
Perhaps you shouldn't be jumping the gun on telling this guy to get his
facts straight.

I for one am extremely interested in seeing the facts come to light in
this case.

Geoff Dale         "The perversity of the universe tends toward the
maximum."
> Private activities on the net.                              - Finagle's Law
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Godot's Information Tech revolution
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:00:27 GMT

An interesting and thought-provoking address.

I'll be one of those erroneous predictors, however, and say that we've
learned that these sorts of changes, which we like to say will happen
in 5-10 years, may mostly take generations.

In the case of may of the IT revolution predictions, it is not a question
of whether it is possible, but whether and how quickly people will adapt
it.

The network world exists now, if only for under 1% of the population.
It's not like the VTOL air-car which never developed any following
or cheap production.   

There are many who transact a lot of their life on the net or a net these
days, doing most of their communication with friends, even distant family,
through e-mail.  It will take a generation that grew up with this, however,
for us to see ubiquity.   Likewise for paperless offices, electronic
newspapers and books (though the economies of books and newspapers are
huge).

Other things, like work-at-home for everybody and high leisure, are indeed
unlikely to come from today's world.  Having done the work-at-home thing,
I know it's no panacea.  Though we do need to do what we can to reduce
the damage we do our atmosphere by commuting.

The technology today is mostly at the level where it pleases afficianados
and thralls of technology.  That means us.  To win the world, a technology
has to really surpass what it replaces in the eyes of the ordinary person,
and we aren't at that level.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 18 Dec 1992 22:54:07 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec18.215628.735@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>In article <1gpee1INN9l7@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>>Is it reasonable for
>>a professional access service to do this?  I have some
>>doubts.

>I have some bad news for you.  If you don't like this, you're in trouble.
>It's a trivial affair compared to what really goes on.
>
>All the big online services give *free* accounts to famous people -- not
>just some minor perk like anonymity.   

I disagree with your estimate of the scale of the two
"perks".

A free account on a big online service is worth exactly
the price of an account.

Whereas WELL anonymity is unavailable to J. Random Subscriber
at any price.

> And I see nothing wrong with this, nor can I imagine why you see 
> anything wrong with the Well's practice.

I did not say it 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. 

I don't care if access services PAY celebrities to have 
accounts.  But, once they're in, it would seem nicest to me
if they were on the same basis as everybody else.   

Steve
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Rime now joins EFF.org
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 23:50:37 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: world
Organization: Thibault & Friends

In article <3739.492.uupcb@grapevine.lrk.ar.us> 
(Jim Wenzel) writes: 

>   I will try to  handle the RIME side and bring it's  readers up to date
>   on what UseNet  is and/or isn't. I ask that  all UseNet readers please
>   bear with us during this transition period.

        Good Luck, and (I guess) welcome to Bonnie's Bombers!

        ,Marc