HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jem@sunSITE.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid)
Subject: Re: "Hackers on NPR"
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:30:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.120437.2740@cs.odu.edu> jdp@poppy.cs.odu.edu (JD Powell) writes:
>
>Anyone else hear the segment on National Public Radio this morning?
>William Flanagan (sp?) of Forbes was interviewed in a free range
>discussion that bounced from 'sport hackers' to hackers that have
>been co-opted by organized crime.  Mr. Flanagan explained the 
>organized crime link by pointing out Crime Inc.'s need for stolen
>phone services...after all, those calls to Colombia can be very
>expensive....
>
>All in all, it was a lightly sensationalized little sound bite, 
>sounding for all the world like they were trying to perpetuate 
>any hysteria they can instigate.  They being the people of the press
>that involve themselves in these stories.

Yeah, Yesterday I read the article in this month's Forbes on the "new hackers"
and was not impressed with either the depth of their coverage, their research,
or how much thought they gave to the things they were saying.

Interestingly, the article mentioned the 2600 "crash", but without any thought
to the First Ammendment issues that seem rather obvious...

The gist of the article is that there are fewer and fewer "harmless hackers"
(I think they did actually explain the history of the term, but I may be
confusing it with the _Hacker Crackdown_ which I am currently reading) and
more "hard nose criminals"; saying that more of the modern day crackers
are the people you remember as "bullies" in school rather than the harmless
"nerd or geek".

Pretty silly and superficial treatment of a complex subject I thought.

<sigh>
jem.

-- 
Jonathan Magid     jem@sunSITE.unc.edu       sunSITE Administrator
Virtual pizza Delivery (tm)::faxed in 30 cycles or less or you get it
----------------------------------------FREE!!!-----------------------
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 24 Dec 1992 19:42:16 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

>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. 

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

And as for what Cliff has said here, it was along the
lines of: anybody can get an anonymous account if they are 
willing to cover up and lie about their identity going in.
(I imagine lying about one's reasons for wanting
anonymity might work also.)

The fact that devious individuals can work around the WELL's
policy is not at issue here.

Steve
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8029 alt.privacy:2758
From: trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Calif DMV DEMANDS SSN for Driver License!?
Date: 24 Dec 92 18:17:48 GMT
	<1992Dec21.144707.23096@crd.ge.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: ASCI

In article <1992Dec21.144707.23096@crd.ge.com> volpe@bart.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Christopher R Volpe) writes:

   Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Path: rdsunx.crd.ge.com!bart!volpe
   From: volpe@bart.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Christopher R Volpe)
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Sender: volpe@bart (Christopher R Volpe)
   Nntp-Posting-Host: bart.crd.ge.com
   Reply-To: volpe@ausable.crd.ge.com
   Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development
   References: <1h013iINNg88@news.cerf.net> <19DEC199213415306@vax.sonoma.edu>
   Distribution: usa
   Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:47:07 GMT

[...]

   Whassa mattur, Rip? Is yur speling checkir brokun? Get a cloo. 

What's the matter, Chris?  Is your posting software broken?  Get a clue.
If you're going to use xrn, at least get it to generate an accurate from.

Bob
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Virus design
Date: 27 Dec 92 04:27:49 GMT

From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
>I've just finished reading "Cyberpunk" (by Hafner & Markoff) recently and
>read the story about rtm ...
>
>I read with interest about his writing a virus designed to be INNOCUOUS, and
>I've also read other stories (such as an Apple II "virus" -- written before
>viruses were both common and vicious).  There have been numerous viruses
>written in past years, either vicious and malicious and destructive, or
>innocuous and harmless (in most cases)...
>
>Suppose someone wrote a virus that was BENEFICIAL?  One that spread just
>like others, but had a beneficial effect on the system.  I can't think of
>a better way to FIGHT viruses.... especially with people who won't check
>their systems.  The way viruses spread, this method would probably render
>viruses obsolete in several years (presuming such an "antibody" was
>updated.... and perhaps SELF-updating!)
>
> ...

I doubt any virus could be beneficial.  The closest idea for one was to have
one only erase edlin from MSDOS systems.  In my mind, that would be fairly
beneficial, but there are a few people who actually use it as a down'n'dirty
editor.

What it boils down to is:  my computer is MY computer.  Any unauthorized
programs are going to waste a lot of my time as I track them down and
eradicate them.

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.)

 - Ron Sharp.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: edmoore@vcd.hp.com (Ed Moore)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:25:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Ronda Hauben (ae547@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
: 
: Email access maybe would begin to bring them into modern times

A good awk or perl script should be able to select all the email messages on
whatever topic the congresscritter wants to accept input on at the moment.
The rest could go into the bit bucket unread by human eyes.  :-)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: fig@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:40:51 GMT

jcluett@world.std.com (Jim Cluett) writes:

>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.
> 
Once again, my credentials:  Director of the WELL 1986-1992.

What Jim says above is really true.  Although we did random phone checks
on new users to establish, at least, that the person registering actually
answered the phone number given, if a user was really determined to use a
false name, there are many ways to get away with it.  As long as we got
paid, we had no real reason for further investigation or for terminating
the account.

The WELL has always tried to balance needs for security and financial
survival against paranoia about being ripped off.  An user existing under
a pseudonym who pays and does not cause serious problems online is really 
not a problem, right?  The vast majority of users are happy to use their
real names.  The number of requests I handled (and I handled every one)
for anonymous accounts was very small.  Most people, when explained our
preference for using real names, went along with us.  I can remember 
two or three cases in six years where the caller got pissed.

I believe the WELL is now phone-checking every new registrant because of
some users accounts having been cracked.  So I imagine fewer phoney
accounts are getting through.  But the fact remains, users interacting
under their real identities nurtures trust in the community.


-- 
<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
Cliff Figallo                                     fig@eff.org
Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation          (617)864-0665 (voice)
Cambridge Office                                  (617)864-0866 (fax)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 08:56:28 GMT

In article <30DEC199221400138@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell) writes:
>I'm as much in favor of e.communication to our congressmembers as anyone, 
>although I think if there was a direct route from constituents' computers 
>to the members, that a somewhat conservative viewpoint would dominate.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that political conservatives seem 
>more likely to take up new technology than liberals.  Liberals seem to be 
>neo-Luddites in this respect.  
>
>I didn't realize that for some time until I heard Rush Limbaugh point out 
>that only liberals still have rotary telephones.  All I can say is I'm a 
>liberal and I mostly have rotary telephones in my house. (That's one of the 
>things Rush is good for, he makes liberals think about themselves 
>(ourselves)).  So my point is that if a member were to rely heavily on 
>input that came through electronic means (meaning e.mail) that the more 
>conservative elements in society might have the upper hand.  No?

I ran in the primary against our incumbent (12 years) democratic
representative.  I ran what I'm told was the first on-line campaign
using Internet, AOL, and Compuserve.

1. re: Email to members of Congress
   A key plank of my campaign was that information is power and
   that we should use technologies like email to get Congress back
   in touch with the people.  I got quite a few email responses asking
   whether I expected to actually respond to email if/when elected.
   YES.  As we online denizens know, we can read our email when and
   where we choose.  It is quite easy to reply as needed.  Of course,
   I only receive 20-40 messages a day, and that would go up by an
   an order of magnitude when elected.

   The reality is that the amount of email could easily be unmanageable.
   So, staff would need to filter it into several groups.  But the
   representative would still need to skim through each message.
   Of course, I would likely look at the first screenful and decide whether
   to read further -- just as many of us do today when reading netnews.

2. re: conservative viewpoint would dominate
   My experience says no.  Well, sort of no.  Well, it's like this...
   I received gobs of email during my campaign.  Of course, some of it
   was quite thoughtful, and some was flaming (from rare to well done).
   A vast amount of the flames were from people who fell into the rough
   camp of:  All taxes are theft; almost all government is wrong; etc.
   I don't think I would classify those as 'conservative', but perhaps
   the conservatives I've met just hadn't flamed that way in person.

p.s.
No, I didn't win the primary this time.  I got 11%, though.
-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
From: Roger.Franz@p0.f16.n8012.z86.toadnet.org (Roger Franz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 11:23:02 cdt
Organization: FidoNet node 86:8012/16.0 - Java Shoppe, Manchester MO


  > JR: You spoke about licensing of computer professionals creating 
  > JR: a caste system that's scary. 
  > JR: 
  > JR: I would ask, what is so scary?  Such systems already exist in 
 
  > JR: professional areas, specifically medicine, law, engineering and 
 
 Yeah. Now look at the ridiculously high cost of health care, lawyers, 
 engineering work... 
 
  > JR: The licensing itself will guarantee nothing, I agree, unless 
  > JR: the communities, both professional and user, are behind it. 
 
 And even then you get loads of incompetents who become licensed. How 
 many drivers do you see on the highway who shouldn't be allowed on the 
 road? Yet they've got licenses... 
 
 How many medical doctors kill people regularly through badly-performed 
 services? Yet, the state says he's okay because he's licensed. I'd much 
 rather see a privately-run _certification_ program than a gov't-run 
 _licensure_ program. It simply makes more sense to privately certify 
 someone's competence than to publicly test their knowledge. Moreover, 
 the gov't typically spends twice to thrice as much to achieve the same 
 objective as a private program would. 
 
  > JR: I still recommend to folks, though, that this should be carefully 
  > JR: considered and that a means of licensing or registration needs 
  > JR: to be 
  > JR: established before one is established _for_ the computer community 
  > JR: by the same folks who brough you the postal service. 
 
 And who would enforce this? Are all the folks in the Virus-construction 
 community going to go out and be registered simply because a law 
 (another of which they already violate) requires them to do so? 
 Licensure and/or registration of programmers and/or admins and/or other 
 such is silly and counterproductive. 
 
 We should fight it tooth and nail. 
 
 Roger 

--- Opus-CBCS 1.99.13
 * Origin: Bob and Rog's Java Shoppe (86:8012/16.0)
--  
Roger Franz - via Toadnet/UUCP Gateway 86:86/200
UUCP: ....!wupost!8012!16.0!Roger.Franz
INTERNET: Roger.Franz@p0.f16.n8012.z86.toadnet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: rita@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:34:27 GMT

In article <1h87qlINN53p@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>You probably don't have an interest in computer
>privacy issues then.

	It would be safe to assume that I have at least a passing
interest in privacy issues.  I also have anonymous accounts on the Internet.


>To illuminate you a bit, the WELL is primarily a social
>computer network -- I've never subscribed, but I often
>recommend it to friends who don't like the flaming and
>noise on usenet.

	I'm on the WELL, also.

>The interations that occur on socially-oriented networks
>are very dependent on things like psedonymity policies
>and practices, and on privacy issues in general.  

	I agree.  This is why some systems allow anonymous accounts
and others don't.  The WELL makes its decision on an individual basis.

>The topic is a pretty mainstream one for this newsgroup
>(comp.org.eff.talk).

	Yes, I know all about what goes on in this newgroup.  But you
haven't linked your concern with the WELL specifically into any kind
of privacy debate I'm familiar with.  Are you arguing for or against
anonymity? And how does the WELL policy fall into that debate?  So
far, you've only made some vague allegations about an elite or
arbitrary policy by a private system.



-- 
Rita Rouvalis                                Electronic Frontier Foundation
rita@eff.org                                                    eff@eff.org
CIS:70007,5621                                                (617)864-0665
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: This is an Outrage!!!
Date:  1 Jan 93 19:31:11 GMT

From: Emmanuel Goldstein <emmanuel@halcyon.com>
> Instead uh wuztin' yo' time debatin' whut punishment be best fo'
>hackers/crackers/phreaks, try dinkin' about wheda' whut  dey do be really 
>some
>crime.  What it is, Mama! Dink uh all de crimes out dere  where sucka's 
>are
>basically out t'hurt one anoda' and come  out on top. Is dis whut dese 
>kids are
>doin'? And please  duzn't  brin' down sucka's who steal usin' credit 
>cards o'
>who crash systems.  I'm rapin' about da damn act uh hackin' itself.  What 
>it is,
>Mama!  around me curbin' deir
>curiosity and actin' likes criminals a'cuz  dere's no oda' way fo' dem 
>t'learn. 
>'S coo', bro. It's ridiculous and  we  duzn't gots'ta accept it. ah' 
>believe
>'esplo'ashun should be  encouraged and rewarded, not punished and d' 
>fosta' public hysteria dan find and 
>investigate some REAL news sto'y.  Slap mah fro!   
> 
>An 'esplo'a' gots'ta pursue an end no matta' whut sucka's say.  Slap mah 
>fro! 
>Only criminals and da damn weak gots'ta be intimidated by nonsense.  What 
>it is,
>Mama! 
>
>/l

Dang, I can't find my copy of dejive...

 - Ron Sharp.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Caller ID suggestion
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:49:21 GMT

jdc@access.digex.com (John Cochran) writes:

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

I think that by default any caller should be able to block his or her
number and that any callee should be able to refuse calls where the
number is blocked.

Recorded message: "I'm sorry 555-1123 does not accept blocked calls.
If you would still like to call 555-1123, unblock your number with *67
and dial again."

This is sometimes called block blocking. It allows callers and callees
(rather than the phone company) to decide for themselves,
case-by-case, what information will be exchanged.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 28 Dec 1992 23:40:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Distribution: inet
Reply-To: an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Korac MacArthur)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) says:

>>believe that anonymity is a bad thing, even if it leads to a few more
>>colorful conversations than if full accountability were enforced.
>
>This statement in itself suggests a misunderstanding about the WELL:
>as users can attest, there is no shortage of "colorful conversations"
>there.
>
	I mean in the respect that anonymous speakers are more likely to
discuss provocative topics, use "bad" words (which I fully support the
use of if the user of the words feels like its appropriate), and
generally be more spontaneous.  THAT is what I mean by colorful.  

>If your concern is stalkers, you should have no trouble getting anonymity
>from WELL management. In the meantime, ask your system adminstrator to 
>limit the information that finger displays.
>	
	Its not a particular instance of stalkers, etc., but the general
concern of privacy and preventative measures that I am concerned about.
A new subscriber to a service should be given the anonymous option out
front without having to seek out special consideration, imho.

>>someone have a "pseudonymous" account, well and good, but why should a
>>subscriber have to wait to prove they need one?
>
>Who said subscribers have to "prove" anything?
>	
	Whoever says that the WELL management consider  the private/anon
account requests and determine if the anonymity is granted, possibly the
ex-manager, I can't read the posts that far back for the name.

	Basically, this whole thread is a debate over whether a service
should offer anything only to a select few (celebs and other special
cases) or not and if this is an ethical stand.  Legally, there may be
some justification for letting all have it or none at all, like trying
to make a suit and tie requirement to be served in a restaurant stick in
court.  Its a fine line between that and descrimination, whether its
descrimination based on appearance, political views or net
accountability may be irrelevant.   How 'bout it, net.minds.legal?

-- 
Hey, George.....Nah na na na, NA NA NA NA,  HEEEY   HEYYY HEY,
GOOOOOODDDDBYYYEEEE!!!!!!   (and good riddance)
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date:  1 Jan 93 19:19:28 GMT

From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)

Technically, a compression virus is kludgy system, and would be extremely
prone to nasty interaction with other software.  Write it if you want, and use
it on your own computer, but make sure that it has your name and address, and
your lawyer's phone number--just in case you have a RTM level "oops".

 - Ron Sharp.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:08:01 GMT

In <1333@eplunix.UUCP> raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia) writes:

>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?

Your mental picture of a virus fits only a biological virus.  "Virus"
programs got the name because it has similarities to biological virii,
but it is _not_ an exact analogy.  There is no such thing as a
computer virus if we use your (strictly biological) definition.
Beneficial _or_ otherwise.  There are quite a few virii out there,
none of which would be defined as a virus if we use your definition!

>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.

The virus I was describing need not be resident in memory, although it
very well could be.  It could, upon execution, search once for a file
to infect, (possibly) infect what it found, and then exit.  (And it
would definately work reasonably, even so).

At any rate, your characterization of what is, and is not a virus
is quite faulty.  Does a biological virus which, through some
mutation, is no longer able to propogate outside of one host, cease to
be a virus?  I think not.

>In fact, it's behavior would then resemble that of
>a device driver providing access to the compressed files.

No.  Wrong.  Just plain wrong.  A device driver does not copy itself
to other files.

>See where the confusion happened?

Yes.  You have no idea what you're talking about.  So its easy for you
to become confused.




-- 
 Richard Powers    / Disclaimer: My keyboard is \   Computer=Amiga
rpowers@panix.com <  screwy.   Missing  letters  >  Music=Industrial
   Hail Eris!      \ should     be    expected. /   Food=Vegetarian
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk