HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: polekat@underg.ucf.org (Polekat)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: EFF-Austin November Membership Meeting
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 92 07:27:04 CST
Organization: Underground Computing Foundation

 
          -------------------------------------------------
          |             EFF-Austin Announces              |
          |                                               |
          |         A General Membership Meeting          |
          |                                               |
          |            Saturday, November 14th            |
          |                2:00 - 5:00 p.m.               |
          |            Meeting Room, 4th Floor            |
          |       Austin Public Library, Main Branch      |
          |                 800 Guadalupe                 |
          |                                               |
          -------------------------------------------------
 
EFF-Austin, the local chapter of the Electronic Frontier 
Foundation, will be holding a general membership meeting on 
Saturday the 14th of November from 2 to 5 p.m. at the Austin Public 
Library (Main Branch) 800 Guadalupe.  This meeting will provide a 
chance for EFF-Austin members and anyone else to get updates from 
the officers, hear about what EFF-Austin has planned, and find out 
what they can do to get involved. More importantly, it will allow 
members and others to ask questions, make suggestions and voice any 
ideas in an interactive, real-time discussion about our growing 
organization. 
 
The meeting is open to the public. Everyone who is interested in 
EFF-Austin is welcome and encouraged to attend. For more info about 
EFF-Austin or the meeting, contact Ed Cavazos (email polekat@tic.com / 
voice 385-2789) or Jon Lebkowsky (email jonl@tic.com)
 
At 4:00, the meeting will be turned over to representatives of various 
groups who are currently planning and discussing public-access internet 
services for the Austin Community.  EFF-Austin has been watching with 
interest as various plans have developed, and is excited to be 
able to provide a forum for the discussion and presentation of them.  
This part of the meeting promises to be lively and informative. For more 
information about the public-access internet portion of the meeting, 
contact Max Cray (email max@underg.ucf.org / voice 339-2724. Ask for 
Chris).                                            
 
See you on the 14th!

--
polekat@underg.ucf.org (Polekat)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Computer Crime Material Available From NCJRS
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:13:00 GMT

In article <15327.2AF79FC1@puddle.fidonet.org> Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart) writes:

> I would be fascinated to see some responsible review of the material 
> presented in the documents (etc) you list. Is is reasonable, or is it
> out of line?  Do they give appropriate emphasis to preserving civil 
> liberties even while investigating a possible computer crime?

At least two papers available from the ftp archives at ftp.eff.org
evaluate some of the materials listed here. One is by me and Mitch Kapor;
the other is by Harvey Silverglate and Tom Viles.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I can solve this Orient Express thing without
mnemonic@eff.org| breaking a sweat. It's that simple."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Hercule Perot
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6819 misc.int-property:1399 alt.suit.att-bsdi:599 comp.unix.bsd:8526
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Interface monopolies
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:34:42 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

> In article <R0ZPTB3w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) wr
> > guidance.  What I'm saying is that if you don't have a design patent on
> > your interface, you should have no standing to defend it.
> 
> fields (commercial art, for example) styling and format *have* been
> protected by copyright for a long time. A classic case is the typical
> copyright on greeting cards and lines of greeting cards. Similar designs,
> even under quite broad definitions of similarity, have been found to
> violate copyrights. Similarly, there is a copyright that has been defended
Design patents exist so that the utility of a form or formalism can be
owned and defended.  Much that is copyrighted should be patented instead.
The "style" aspect of an interface isn't patentable but its utility is.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7009 alt.privacy:2243 sci.crypt:4737
From: denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: New Developments on Digital Telephony
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:19:24 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

In article <1992Nov13.183229.11014@news.eng.convex.com>, gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:
> In article <1992Nov13.110529.1729@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>>Peter forwarded this to me this morning.  I thought you should
>>know about it because of its likely implications for crypto 
>>regulation.
> 	[ mildly amusing spoof of Clinton's jobs program deleted . . . ]
> 
> 	You know, this is just the sort of thing that many humorless 
> 	sorts on the net will jump right on and take seriously.
> 	Next time, it might be a good idea to use smileys.
> 
> 						smg
> 
Thanks for pointing this out.  I obviously need to improve my net 
skills :-)  So there is no confusion, Peter wrote the piece.

Dorothy Denning
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Organization: New Jersey Re-Education Facility for the Differently Clued
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:10:25 GMT

David Sternlight writes:
   ....public keys for transmitting random keys used to encrypt the attached
   message via, say, DES, is no stronger cryptologically than DES with a
   different key each time. Yet there has been no request by the
   government that DES keys be deposited, nor a requirement (which would
   be silly) that DES users always use the same key.

I'd expect that if the government requires registration of private
keys for public-key systems, they'll also require registration of
private keys for private-key systems.  If you can get a bunch of
non-technical Congresscritters to go for one in the name of getting
tough on crime, the technical subtleties won't bother them any....
--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
#Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.ho.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Trickle-Down Economics: Giving money to government bureaucrats 
#	and hoping some will trickle down to the people who need help.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: grady@public.BTR.COM ( )
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Radio vigilantism
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:40:54 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM

I'm not sure why everyone is so upset about the
"software felony" law that was just enacted; it
seems crimes of property involving even less 
substantial information have been around for
quite a while.

For example, the new fad of cellular vigilantism,
where citizens with scanners transmit cellular
conversations of drug dealers, shady businessmen, etc.
directly onto police radio frequencies is certainly
a felony under several laws, but those punishmentG
don't seem terribly out of line.

(Note for the non-radio buff: several commonly
available radios can simultaneously receive
celll phone calls while transmitting to a state
federal or local frequency.  The idea of doing this
is, while misguided, that the police are constrained
from directly monitoring cellular without a court
order, yet when an incriminating conversation is
taped on the ever-running police channels, that
police under the new loose interpretation of
"good faith" may use to begin an investigation.)


-- 
Grady Ward  grady@btr.com  Moby Lexicons (408) 373-1491
From: jem@calypso.uucp (Jonathan Magid)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Time For.... (was US Makes Commercial Software Piracy a Felony)
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:25:39 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <9211024810@drktowr.chi.il.us> magus@drktowr.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes:
>William J. Vajk (learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
>   bite you back.  Abbie Hoffman is no longer loved, and neither is Hanoi
>   Jane.  And if you think Clinton is a good example of someone who
>   was (slightly) radically active and can survive in politics, wait
>   five years til my generation's amount of voters catches up with
>   the children of the 60's and you'll see the non-existence of
>   liberalism in the highest order.  Government bashing is frowned
>   upon in general somewhere down the line, no matter how much good it does.
>   Do more people identify with radical activism that supports their
>   government (e.g., the Boston Tea Party), or goes against it (e.g.,
>   Kent State)?  

I think Mr. Giliberto is missing his own point here;  losers are not loved after
the fact: the winners get to write the history.  The "activists" 
of the boston tea party were revolutionaries; they were not supporting
their government, they were making the beginning steps to overthrow it.

Their government was not that of the United States (which did not exist yet
and not for many years) but that of Mother England, which could and
eventually did see their actions as treason.

Abbie Hoffman often wrote and spoke of revolution. His revolution lost: if
the Yippies had won, then he would be a "Father of his country" (strange
and scarey thought actually). Instead he is just a "radical activist"
who failed.

Radical action when it wins is revolution and starting something new and 
different, when it loses it is treason.
-- 
Jonathan Magid     jem@SunSite.unc.edu       SunSite Administrator
Virtual pizza Delivery (tm)::faxed in 30 cycles or less or you get it
----------------------------------------FREE!!!-----------------------
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: EFFector Online 3.09
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:14:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.18690.2B02FEA0
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO


 RMR>                      BUILDING BLOCKS TO SYSTEM SECURITY
 RMR>                             By Rebecca Mercuri
 RMR>          A Report from the 15th National Computer Security Conference 
 RMR>                     October 13 -16, Baltimore, Maryland.

 RMR> It is useful to juxtapose thoughts about covert channels with those
 RMR> about encryption systems. For the uninitiated, covert channels are
 RMR> created when  internal intermittent polling is performed in an effort to
 RMR> conceal illicit data collection activities. Bob Morris provided the
 RMR> statistic that 1/10 of a bit per second is enough to expose a key in
 RMR> approximately 1 month. This is at current processing rates, but one can
 RMR> extrapolate out the Silicon Valley curve and surmise that our current
 RMR> key encryption systems will be inadequate within the end of the century
 RMR> (if not now, perhaps).

 I don't understand this paragraph.  A 56 bit DES key would take only 10
 minutes to leak at this rate, a 1024 bit RSA key less than three hours.
 In a month, one could send 32 KBytes.  I also don't see how the Silicon
 Valley curve, or processing rates, affects this calculation meaningfully.
 Am I missing something, or was the author? (or a transcription error?)

 Generally a good article, otherwise.
    ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Dates of newspaper articles...
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:08:20 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1da018INN1mk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher) writes:

>  Anyone have the dates of the Pittsburgh Press & USA Today
>  articles on civil forfeiture handy?

The Pittsburgh Press article was actually a series of four, starting on
Sunday, August 11, 1991.  I have electronic copies available which I
believe I can legally send you (I'll have to check).  The USA Today
article appeared on May 18th, 1992, which I know because I have it in
my hot little hands at this very moment.  That issue spends its time
hanging out somewhere around my desk waiting for me to convince yet
another passerby to read it.
From: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Media hype - again
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:34:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.18688.2B02FE9D
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO


 FR> "Three high school honor students have been accused of stealing tens of
 FR> thousands of dollars worth  of long-distance calls as computer hackers."
 FR> "...allegedly tapped private telephone systems and 
 FR> dialed into an international
 FR> hacking network. One company's loss was $36,000."
 FR> "Some calls were made to computer bulletin boards in the United Kingdom,
 FR> Germany, and Canada, where a loose network of hackers allegedly shared
 FR> information about how to obtain computer access information."

 Sounds like they were probably mostly involved with telephone fraud, with
 icing.  It's getting all too common, and in many cases is just basic crime.
 Somebody breaks the tone codes for a corporate PBX with outdial (the telco 
 is getting much harder, so they move to easier targets), then goes wild.
 Nowadays, it's much more often commercial than in the early days, selling 
 the codes and/or the calls.  Ordinary street criminals are getting into it.

 FR> I suppose this isn't the worst example, but it does continue the 
 FR> trend of identifying "hackers" as criminals. 

 Sigh.  I think this is mostly a lost cause.  I fear that the negative
 usage of "hacker" has become too endemic to reclaim.  Oh, well, in the
 larger perspective, that isn't by any means the worst thing to disturb
 my sleep.  The main remaining problem in this regard is to try to educate
 law enforcement and media folks that note everybody uses "hacker" in the
 now most common sense.  For example, they should NOT assume that the
 "hackers conference" is about phone phreaking, system cracking, and
 credit card fraud; a few of them think that anyone who calls themselves
 a hacker is a self-admitted criminal.  (In fairness, there are also 
 quite a number of law enforcement or media folks who know and respect 
 the difference).

 I share your concerns about media created stereotypes driving legislators
 into taking some "showy" action to demonstrate to their panic stricken
 consitituents that they are cracking down on hacker crime.  Education.
 Letters.  Articles.  We *are* getting somewhere.  There are a lot more
 intelligently aware media and law enforcement types than there used to
 be.  There can be more.

 But I think it's way to late to keep the term "hacker" out of the
 negative stereotype circuit.

 ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
From: Brian.Lane@p0.f162.n138.z1.fidonet.org (Brian Lane)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: November 2, 1988
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:14:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.16506.2AFB192F
Organization: FidoNet node 1:138/162.0 - Callahan's Place, Ashford WA

In a message of 02 Nov 92  13:57:07, Matthew A. Lewis wrote:

MA> From: mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis)
MA> Date: 2 Nov 92 21:07:56 GMT
MA> 
MA> need more be said???

  Yes, what about him?


  Seems to me that he was just a programmer with a BIG bug in his code.

     -Brian


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!138!162.0!Brian.Lane
Internet: Brian.Lane@p0.f162.n138.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.conspiracy
From: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Re: A Trial Balloon on Registered Keys
Reply-To: craig@jido.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
	<BxCsyp.1Ez@world.std.com>
	<1992Nov8.040757.26340@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<9NOV199211371909@mivax.mc.duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:15:41 GMT

In article <9NOV199211371909@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (SETH) writes:
   In article <1992Nov8.040757.26340@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, burke@Turing.ORG (John R. Burke) writes...> 
JRB   >I take offense to your article. I love my country, I pay may taxes, and yes
   >I am a gun owner.. not all gun owners are rednecks or anarchists.
QED, taking your word for your neck coloration :-)

SETH   I've known a lot of anarchists and none of them owned guns.
And I know a lot of voluntarists (== propertarian anarchists) who do,
and plenty of anarchists of all stripes who are not violent people. I
tend to trust anarchists or "minarchists" more than I trust any others.

SETH   Anarchy is not chaos.  Viking Iceland had very reasonable form of anarchy.
Wherein all freemen were armed. See David Friedman, _Machinery of
Freedom_, for one informed discussion thereof.

Why the followup to sci.crypt, anyway? I have removed sci.crypt
entirely as this is totally off-topic there. "USENET tried to
reach a viable form of anarchy in the late 20th century ..."

-- Craig Presson
L. Neil Smith fan club, anyone?
From: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Clinton Endorses Right to Information Privacy
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:43:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.18089.2B009BF6
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO


 JT> Capitalism - the only morally acceptable system.  If 
 JT> you want something, you earn it, by providing a product or service 
 JT> of value to a willing consumer population.

 Ah, romantics.  And it's not even spring :-)
    ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
From: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Look and Feel Infringement (was: Interface monopolies)
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 12:00:48 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO

 > "Look and feel" is a direct result of an attempt to 
 > extend the protection
 > granted in a copyright to effectively produce a 
 > "software patent", or at
 > least the equivalent. 

 TC> "Look and Feel" did not originate with software 
 TC> copyright.  It originated in 
 TC> a case where Sid and Marty Kroft sued McDonald's for 
 TC> producing television 
 TC> commercials with the same "look and feel" as (but no 
 TC> literal copying of) the 
 TC> Kroft TV shows like "H.R. Puffenstuff".  It's not a 
 TC> result of an attempt to 
 TC> effectively produce a software patent.

 Another early case was when a small greeting card company with a 
 distinctive style (Blue Mountain Arts of Boulder area) sued Hallmark 
 for producing a similar (but not duplicate) line of cards.  I think 
 they won.  One a gut level I was tempted to cheer for a small, local 
 company against a huge corporation which was trying to take over their 
 niche.  But I think the precedent is terrible; how about if the 
 author of a Science Fiction series sues any authors who have "similar" 
 plotlines, writing styles, etc?  (Imagine the Cyberpunk SF subgenre 
 being copyrighted for life+50 years) That would be a travesty of 
 copyright law, and would inhibit more than enhance.

 How about similar musical styles?  How about microprocessors with similar
 architectures (RISC, say)?

 OK, so I'm basically against "look and feel" copyrights in software or
 elsewhere.
   ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 12 Nov 1992 19:13:53 CST
From: <U60145@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: 2600 meeting breakup

If this is the wrong place for this post, kindly tell me, and I'll scram.


Has anyone heard anything new on the breakup of the 2600 meeting in
Washington D.C.?  From what I understand (mostly from CuD), they had mall
security come in and boot everyone, after a search of their persons.  Sounds
pretty unlawful to me.....
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Interface monopolies
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 07:27:28 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:

> In article <JgqTTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) wr
> 
> >Design patents exist so that the utility of a form or formalism can be
> >owned and defended.  Much that is copyrighted should be patented instead.
> >The "style" aspect of an interface isn't patentable but its utility is.
> 
> Pressman distinguishes Design patents from Utility patents by claiming
> that Design Patents cover only the appearance and NON-Utility aspects
> of a product. Utility can be covered only by a utility patent
> according to his book.  Can you give some pointers to source material
> showing that design patents really do cover the utility of a form?
I'll try to dig up some sources, but my point is more one of what
should distinguish design patents from copyrights.  There is, for
example, a design patent covering handle angles for some tools.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6794 misc.int-property:1394 alt.suit.att-bsdi:597 comp.unix.bsd:8487
From: wixer!cactus.org!wixer!pro-smof.cts.com!echrist@cactus.org (Therel Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 8 Nov 1992 20:16:44 -0600
Organization: The SMOF-BBS: Science Fiction Online Since 1985 [512-467-7317]

Sorry guns are used every day as a presence against opression by police
officers who are 'having a bad day'. Being descended from three generations
of Law enforcement, I can quote my pater and say "you always respect the
man with a gun".
as for keys being publicly held ,  by the 4th 'papers [plain text] shall be
avaialable at the presentation of a warrant to the named individual.

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd