HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: Re: "Civil Disobedience" et al.
Originator: rita@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:32:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.024419.4136@wixer.cactus.org> bladex@wixer.cactus.org (David Smith) writes:

>In fact, I resent Rita some ideas just last month!  It's fun.  It's easy.
>Anyone can do it.  Everyone should now.

	And you'll be horrified to see what I've done with them...
BTW, send the ideas to van@eff.org -- I don't want my mbox to explode
while I'm on vacation ;).




-- 
Rita Rouvalis                                Electronic Frontier Foundation
rita@eff.org                                                    eff@eff.org
CIS:70007,5621                                                (617)864-0665
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8491 soc.culture.usa:9634 alt.activism:20230
From: russell@alpha3.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Russell Schulz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: E-Mail Access to Congress (Was Re: Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 23:04:37 MST
Organization: Private System, Edmonton, AB, Canada
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.99

[removed alt.amateur-comp]

johnch@test22.sun.com (Where are the Prawns?) writes:

>> I doubt the White House would want its email addresses known. My son is
>> working for the Transition Team filtering mail, and they're still trying

> You must have a truly nightmarish excuse for a mail reader.  With
> mine, I can display a single message much more quickly than I can open
> an envelope, I don't have to decipher anyone's handwriting, and I can
> throw it into the appropriate electronic pile with a few keystrokes.

not to mention the piece I saw on CNN the other day about them investing
some serious dollars into optical character recognition hard/software, so
they could filter resumes (and grep for certain combinations of words)

I _believe_ it was the transition team they were talking about.

> The only advantages of paper mail that I can think of are 1. you don't
> need a computer to read it and 2. you can use the huge pile of torn
> envelopes to start a nice fire.

0. you don't need to be at a computer, connected to other computers,
to send it.  I am.  how many competent-but-not-Net-connected aren't?

if there's an appropriate group for this, please followup there.
-- 
Russell Schulz  russell@alpha3.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca  ersys!rschulz  Shad 86c
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: E-Mail Access to Congress
Date: 2 Jan 93 14:44:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

DR> .While I would like to be able to e-mail messages to my congressperson,
  > .I don't think it really opens up access all that much.  What percentage
  > .of the population actually have e-mail access?  The only thing e-mail
  > .will do is open access to the priviledged few who knowhow to work with
  > .computers and have access to e-mail. And, as others have pointed out,
  > .it's just as easy to ignore e-mail as regular mail.

How many more people use a computer-based conference format than get
together for regular discussion groups?  How many more people access
Internet, Prodigy, Compuserve, Genie, Rime, Fido, etc?  I don't see the
"Electronic Town Hall" as a replacement for, but rather a supplement to,
the other forms of communication.

DR> .If we want to really open up access to Congress, we are going to have
  > .to do something really different.  One idea I push is increasing the
  > .number of representatives.  Why is the magic number 435?  Most Western
  > .democracies have many more representatives.

Just what we need...  Even more overhead in the system.  We don't have
enough of a bureaucracy now?  Does the House work better than the
Senate?  More CongressCritters equate to more special interest groups at
work.

DR> .With more representatives, each person's voice will count for more.  I
  > .favor doubling or tripling the number of US representatives.

If you really want a more representational government, why not put a
QUBE-like system in everyone's home and let everyone vote directly on
all the issues.  I imagine about 5% of the population would actively
participate, which is certainly higher than at present!

I have the feeling that this wouldn't help the situation, but...

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                                        
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:02:27 GMT

In article <oV93wB1w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:
>phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>
>| My point is that you do not necessarily know which file is the marker.
>
>The virus knows which file it is because it was installed by the Install
>program that came with the virus when you received it.

It is a VIRUS.  What manual?  When did I receive it?

>| I'm concerned about a file that was compressed as it was put on disk, and now
>| may not be uncompressed.
>
>As has been remarked on already, the compressed file is no more than a
>self-extracting archive (such as LZExe and PKLite might create).

Agreed.  I have already been shown that this is the case for the described BCV.

>Those are two different questions -
>
>    1. How do I remove compression from a file which has been compressed?
>
>       A. Not sure you would ever want to do this.... ever looked at all
>          those utility file executables you've downloaded in the past?
>          Many more are compressed than you realize!

Not an answer.  I decide that the executables are not compressable enough to
warrant the delay in uncompressing them, running them, and recompressing them.
I decide to install a compressing disk instead, and compress all files.  I
want to remove all infection from the files.

>    2. How do I get rid of the virus?
>
>       A. Delete the marker file - either by a normal dos DEL VIRUSOK!.MRK
>          or by running a de-install program.  Such a de-install program
>          could also remove compression as desired.

Deleting the marker only stops compression.  If the marker file appears again,
compression resumes.

A de-install program?  It's a virus - where does this de-install come from?

-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:46:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.161132.28288@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.230620.27916@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>>This thread has just become one of the numerous ones in
>>comp.org.eff.talk where the "dissident" is made the target of several
>>straw man, ad hominem, distortions and other unpolite attacks which
>>increase to the noise.
>
>Don't forget the noise-increasing aspect of the nonspecific accusation.
>Oh, wait--I see you didn't forget it.
>
>One thing that bothers me a lot is the nonspecific accusation--as one a
>poster asserts that someone has made "straw man, ad hominem, distortions
>and other unpolite attacks" without specifying who the person is or what
>postings qualified as such attacks.

It's not an accusation targeted against anyone, it's an observation
about the newsgroup in general.  I don't think it's important to
discuss publicly _who_ is doing what in a matter like this, but
instead to be aware of the problem and discuss ways of how to solve
it.  If we start talking about how Jack is being nasty in his messages
to Jill, the discussion will quickly degenerate into a useless
kangaroo court handling the writings, ancestry and personalities of
Jack and Jill, while the issue of how the discussion could be
imporoved and kept on topic without the noise will be forgotten.

>It's very similar to the McCarthy-tactic of asserting that one has a list
>of traitors, but never showing the list.

I can't say whether it is, I'm not familiar enough with the purpose of
the naming of the list or what was achieved by it.

//Jyrki
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Bruce Sterling
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:01:13 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com
Keywords: please forward by email

In article <1irej3INNg3u@swan.doc.ic.ac.uk> mch@doc.ic.ac.uk (Mike C Holderness) writes:
>I almost hate to bring this up in the context of the debates on anonymity...
>but if anyone out there knows an email address for Bruce Sterling, could
>you drop him a line asking him to mail me

I hardly think Sterling is concerned about his anonymity online, as he
published his email address in his article on the Internet in the most
recent "Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction".
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:18:29 GMT

In <1993Jan5.153018.18935@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:

>In article <67iRwB1w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:
>>phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>>
>>| Suppose you need to copy an executable from one system to anothe
>>| and the new system does not have the marker?
>>
>>So put it on!  Sheesh.  Just like having to put MSDOS on the system
>>before you run that executable....

>My point is that you do not necessarily know which file is the marker.

How would this be possible?  You would have to have installed the
marker file in the first place to enable the virus to operate on your
system!  There is no way you could not know which it is.  The whole
point of this thing is that you have to deliberately let the virus
have access to your system.  They way you would do this is by placing
a specific file on your system that the virus would look for.
Otherwise it simply does not propogate.

>>| Or the disk crashes across
>>| the marker?
>>
>>Then the virus dies.  Are you really that concerned about the viruses welfare?

>I'm concerned about a file that was compressed as it was put on disk, and now
>may not be uncompressed.

The files are not changed by being without the marker!!  The only
thing which is changed is that the virus will no longer spread itself.
The compressed file _still_ has the virus prepended.  Thus it will
_still_ be able to decompress the file upon execution.  It will then:
[commit hari-kari/notify the user/do nothing] (discussed elsewhere).

>Still, the question arises - suppose I decide I don't want those files stored
>compressed any more.  How would I get rid of the virus?

Simple.  You remove the marker.  That is what the marker is for! 

Gak.

-- 
 Richard Powers    / Disclaimer: My keyboard is \   Computer=Amiga
rpowers@panix.com <  screwy.   Missing  letters  >  Music=Industrial
   Hail Eris!      \ should     be    expected. /   Food=Vegetarian
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8309 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3854 comp.security.misc:2440 alt.privacy:2842 alt.society.civil-liberty:7259
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Boycotting CERT because of the keystroke monitoring advisory?
Date: 5 Jan 93 11:47:22 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1ib0grINNhq3@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>  But what CERT is doing is
>>recommending unilateral announcement of "all users may be monitored
>>all the time", with no negotation and no negotiated policy of
>>watching/monitring only on "probable cause".
>
>My interpretation was that CERT was recommending that *if* you have a
>policy where you might monitor input, that you should put this warning in a
>login banner.

I didn't see anything to this effect in the advisory - it was an
unconditional recommendation the way I read it.

>They were not advising for or against the monitoring policy
>itself, nor specifying a particular justification for monitoring any given
>conversation.

This is true.  In effect, they were not recommending monitoring, they
were recommending a banner aimed to make it possible to legally
monitor everything.

> They were simply acknowledging that such monitoring takes
>place, and advising how to reduce legal liability in such cases.

The way I read the message the real contents was nothing like this at
all.

>Is that really so bad?

I don't think it'd be that bad to recommend an announced policy/rules
(binding to the operators performing the monitoring) which has the
rules about how and when monitoring may be performed (when intruders
are suspected etc.), but a blanket coverage for all monitoring is
unacceptable to me.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:09:48 GMT

In article <C0KIMB.HIv@world.std.com> mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves) writes:

>I will take issue with both of these arguments, first one first.  In 
>browsing through my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, I found a legal 
>concept which appears to correspond to my instincts in this matter.  

It is always a bad idea to suppose that one can assemble a legal theory
from a law dictionary. 

>It is an old concept in English law called "Invitation", concerning 
>the responsibilities of shopkeepers toward their customers, fair 
>organizers toward the fair's patrons, and so forth:

Online services have never been held to be a "place" for the purpose of
transforming customers into business invitees.

>Does this doctrine still have application today?  If so, why 
>should it not be applicable to "premises" located in cyberspace?

Because the doctrine of duties to invitees derives from physical hazards
on physical premises.

>First, referring to my hypothetical case, it does not seem obvi-
>ous to me that in consenting to a real-name policy, John Q. 
>Publius clearly intended to consent to the level of risk he 
>ultimately found in that policy.

What makes you think "clear" consent is required?

>It seems to me that conference system applicants cannot always be 
>presumed to fully understand what they are getting themselves 
>into.

So far, there have been no cases of conference-system users being stalked
on the basis of information given out by the system. So, it's unclear that
they're "getting themselves into" anything risky at all.

Moreover, at some point individuals do have to be held responsible for
their own actions and for the risks they take.

>It seems to 
>me the doctrine of "attractive nuisance" has been invoked before 
>in prosecuting BBSs in connection with obscenity or pornography 
>charges.

I've never seen such a case.



--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
Subject: E-Mail Access to Congress
From: derek.lyons@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Derek Lyons) 
Date: 6 Jan 93 11:46:00 GMT
Reply-To: derek.lyons@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Derek Lyons) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

DZ|If you really want a more representational government, why not put a
DZ|QUBE-like system in everyone's home and let everyone vote directly on   
DZ|all the issues.  I imagine about 5% of the population would actively    
DZ|participate, which is certainly higher than at present!                 

Actually, this is not the best of idea's....  Too many people
will be swayed by emotions-of-the-moment.  Part of the reason for
a bicameral legislature is that there is time for reflection and
compromise.

elde@aol.com
---
 . MegaMail 2.10 #0:I shave with Occam's razor
 * The Sports Complex'Network|Kitsap County,WA|(206)692-2388 7 Nodes!
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  TSCNET (#1607) : RelayNet(tm) Hub
                                                                      
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Organization: The World
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:06:50 GMT


From: Shawn.K..Quinn@f7550.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Shawn K. Quinn)
>I wonder if anyone has ever sued a soap factory for that... But
>seriously, this touches on another point I've wondered about: how are
>we going to stop abuses of the legal system in these instances? The
>late 80s and early 90s are almost becoming the "age of the lawsuit."

As the word gets out that the only ones who ever make any money on
these silly suits are each party's lawyers the public will lose
interest. With luck someone, someday will realize to what extent the
legal profession by its total failure to self-regulate encouraged this
abuse of the public and something will be done. But I think the
natural back-pressure I mentioned first will help.

If you (anyone) ever get the urge to pursue one of these silly suits
(or even not-so-silly), as you walk into an attorney's office who's
broad-beamed smile welcomes you in and you are plied with fresh coffee
and donuts and your outrage empathized with and encouraged, repeat
these words to yourself over and over again:

	Step into my parlor, said the spider to the fly...

You are the merchandise, you are today's lunch, your chances of ever
seeing a nickel versus your chances of paying this attorney thousands
(or just turning it all over to the attorney if they, not you, happen
to win something) are about as good as that fly's chances of getting
home on time tonight.

If lawyers were doctors then hospitals would be places where one of
them injects your arm with a disease and the other with the cure, and
both will expect to be paid.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:31:47 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:

| My point is that you do not necessarily know which file is the marker.

The virus knows which file it is because it was installed by the Install
program that came with the virus when you received it.

| I'm concerned about a file that was compressed as it was put on disk, and now
| may not be uncompressed.

As has been remarked on already, the compressed file is no more than a
self-extracting archive (such as LZExe and PKLite might create).

| Still, the question arises - suppose I decide I don't want those files stored
| compressed any more.  How would I get rid of the virus?

Those are two different questions -

    1. How do I remove compression from a file which has been compressed?

       A. Not sure you would ever want to do this.... ever looked at all
          those utility file executables you've downloaded in the past?
          Many more are compressed than you realize!

    2. How do I get rid of the virus?

       A. Delete the marker file - either by a normal dos DEL VIRUSOK!.MRK
          or by running a de-install program.  Such a de-install program
          could also remove compression as desired.


--
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        |  ... Files via Fidonet FREQ,
"...because appealing to the masses has |  anon uucp, first time login,
 never appealed to us."                 |  mail to fileserver@ruth.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Law-Enforcement Hates Encryption
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:13:07 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: ellisun.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan10.000754.14879@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> katop@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Chris Katopis) writes:
>[...] a NYS police officer
>saying how data encryption would be the death knell of investigation
>procedures.  


Along a similar line, has anyone compiled a good history of cases where
data encryption has been used to frustrate law enforcement?  I remember
reading of a couple of cases in Kahn "The Codebreakers", but I'm willing to
bet this has a long history.  Granted, the computer makes it easier, but
people have been inventing private cryptosystems and using them for
centuries.

-- 
-- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
-- Carl Ellison						cme@sw.stratus.com
-- Stratus Computer Inc.	M3-2-BKW		TEL: (508)460-2783
-- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298	FAX: (508)624-7488
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mfraase@mr.net (Michael Fraase)
Subject: Re: "Civil Disobedience" et al.
Reply-To: mfraase@mr.net (Michael Fraase)
Organization: Arts & Farces
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:17:48 GMT

In article <van-060193103022@gerard.eff.org>, van@eff.org (Gerard Van der 
Leun) writes:

> As Editor of EFFector Online, I'd like to note that Rita and I and
> the EFF in general do not see the newsletter as merely a PR tool
> for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We like to think of it as one
> source among many for interesting and thought-provoking items that
> concern life on the electronic frontier.

In case you haven't heard it lately, *thanks* to you and Rita. EFFector 
Online is one of the most interesting electronic publications I've seen. I 
look forward to each issue. I, for one, really liked the civil disobedience 
reprint (rephospher?). I hadn't read it in a long while, and it was 
synchronistic for me and my wife.

> As such, both Rita and myself are always on the look out for articles
> and items that we feel will be of interest. These items do not always
> reflect the EFF point of view any more than

That's one of the reasons for its consistency and excellence.
 
> Actually, speaking as an editor, the last two EFFOs have generated more
> email than the previous ten combined, so I assume I am doing my job
> at getting people thinking. What they think and how is their business.

That's the argument I used to use with my editors. I hope it works better for 
you than it did for me :-)

--
Michael Fraase, proprietor     |  Voice/Fax: 612/698-0741
Arts & Farces                  |  Internet: mfraase@mr.net
2285 Stewart Avenue            |------------------------------------------
Suite 1315                     |  Nothing to tell, let the words be yours,
St. Paul, MN 55116             |  I am done with mine. (Weir/Barlow)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk