HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: Conflict of interest?
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:43:30 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1993Jan27.044945.15944@mp.cs.niu.edu> tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas) writes:
>Good points. It's also worth noting that criminalizing such behavior
>increases the potential abuse for confiscation or forfeiture of
>equipment.
	Abuse of confiscation and civil seizure of private property in direct
	violation of the constitution has been going on for some time.	
	The groundwork was laid with the RICO statutes and was perfected
	with the "war on drugs" (actually the war on SOME drugs) 
	and then spread to the other law enforcement activities like
	confiscating the cars of johns in prostitution stings. 
	Civil seizure is INTRINSICALLY CORRUPTING to law enforcement
	agencies because it gives them a financial incentive to oppress
	the citizenry.  This cannot be tolerated in a free society because
	it will destroy not only freedom but respect for the law.
	The American people were sold a bill of goods by law enforcement
	and it is high time they woke up and DEMANDED an end to these
	corrupt practices.


>Criminalization also provides a justification for searches and
>seizures by law enforcement. 
	Law enforcement has already proven that it doesn't need a
	criminal conviction to steal from the citizenry.  This has
	been the rule in the war on some drugs for a number of years.




							smg
From: pbachman@scott.skidmore.edu (peter bachman)
Subject: Re: What AT&T get out of it...
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:40:30 GMT

you are on to something...keep with it. Why should anyone be stuck
with outrageous amoritization schedules? Why was ATT so happy to offer
the spinoff of the RBOCS when they did to settle the anti-trust issue,
the writing was already on the wall.

Peter Bachman
usual disclaimers.
.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
From: kxs5829@ultb.isc.rit.edu (K.X. Saunders)
Subject: Re: ENOUGH! Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:00:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.230616.25164@igor.tamri.com> jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) writes:
<First, the group at UCB, Joltz, BSDI, and others all have acted
<out a plan to attempt to place the AT&T/USL UNIX product into the
<public domain. A conspiracy based in false "Robin Hood" ethics.
<
<...cry about freedom of expression while tring ... it's WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
<
<...productively used to advance the art with a new design. Their actions
<have been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

	You seem a little bitter.

<I LOVE UNIX and have been a wild supporter for 17 years ... but it
<has it limits, and just as MS-DOS, those limits are preventing
<us from moving forward to better technologies.

	A wild supporter of that tired '60s design, eh?

<It's time we get out of the herd mentality and view the USL vs BSDI
<lawsuit as it really is ... a botched attempt by BSDI & Joltz to
<plagiarize UNIX. Let's not make folk heros of them over their petty
<actions. Lets focus instead on the other teams that are bringing us
<our future.

	Uh huh.  You, sir, are clueless.

<John Bass
<Consultant
<DMS Design

	- Kyle

-- 
_,--\_/>>    kxs5829@ultb.isc.rit.edu                   // Amiga weenie        
`"""-(_-\    kyle@nick.csh.rit.edu                  \\ //                     
  _,// \_\                                           \X/                      
*""'     "" not representing Phoenix Systems Inc.                             
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Conflict of interest?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:36:37 GMT

sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber) writes:

>Re: conversation about S 893 and EFF's decision not to get involved.

>I've been thinking about this for a while.

>I can understand EFF not wanting to get involved with the computer
>intellectual property morass.  I have quite a time making up my
>mind about the wisdom of such laws myself.

>It seems to though that EFF may have had a proper role in lobbying
>against harsh penalties for relatively minor infractions.  It's a
>question of proportionality.  This new law makes just about everyone
>I know into a felon.  Most of them are good people.  It seems absurd.
>The law ought not be absurd.  This goes straight to the heart of
>"ordered liberty" and a broad conception of civil rights, even if it
>does not fit neatly into existing civil libertarian categories.

>EFF could have at least played a better role by publicizing the bill's
>existence, without taking any stand at all.  I didn't know about this
>until it was over, and I watch this stuff.

Probably for good reason (i.e. inability of the oppostion to mobolize),
the S 893 legislation went "fast track" last fall. I have also questioned
the EFF's failure to get involved, but have been reassured that one
factor was the time frame. Frankly, they, along with everyone else
got caught with their pants down. 

I am of two minds on the legislation. First, I have been reassured by
a U.S. prosecutor specializing in white collar crime that the apparent
penalties under the bill are just that - apparent. Transgressions are
governed by mandatory federal sentencing guidelines. This means that
the minimum copyright felony (first offense) results in mandatory 
4-6 months of probation. All things being equal, U.S. prosecutors 
do not pursue cases unless there is jail time involved. (The more
jail time the better).

But - not all things are equal. U.S. Attorneys are if nothing else,
Political. They bend to the latest fad pushed by the Attorney General.
They also respond to local political pressure. This means that a
company could conceivably twist arms and get a prosecution.
This is where the civil liberties come in. The government now has
a much bigger stick to use against people it dislikes or against
people disliked by some powerful constituant. 

This possibility of selective prosecution is one of the things that
upset some people about the Zoe Baird nomination. There are quite
a few laws out there that are selectively enforced. This means that
whether or not you are prosecuted under them is essentially political.
When we enforce our laws selectively for political reasons, we cease
to be a nations of laws, and become a nation of politics
(including the assiciated corruption).
 
Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: kranitz@sol.med.ge.com (Wesley Kranitz  x7-4409)
Subject: Re: More Info To Come on EFF Shortly
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:30:04 GMT

Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org) wrote:
: Day One. (In private business, a company may run at a loss while building
: a market.)


Mike,

This is a characteristic of Japanese companies and one of the reasons
they have taken over many American markets. It is NOT a characteristic
of most american companies who are only concerned with how much profit
they can make during the current quarter.


To take it alittle further, ask the uppper management of most american
companies what competitiveness means. They'll probable answer "Profit".
Making a better product (or service)  that people want to buy doesn't 
enter into it.  If the profit can be made by laying off people, 
who care.......


This doesn't have anything to do with the current topic, but I just
had to answer.


Wes
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing p
Originator: fig@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:34:59 GMT

gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>I'd better go back and re-read it, but I *think* part of the EFF stand was
>that ISDN should be rated the same as a voice line.

>Is that right Cliff?  The only fair way to run 2B+D ISDN (which is what
>you get with "Existing Copper(tm)" ISDN) is to charge the same as you're
>paying for the lines already - ie time-metered, not volume-metered, and at
>the same charge for the 2Bs+D as the one voice line.

Yes, EFF has cited studies that put the expected rates for ISDN service
at close to voice-line rates for basic services.  Line charges may be 
somewhat higher due to the one-time capital costs.  The range of prices
for basic service as reported in several studies cited in EFF's Open Platform
white paper is from $13.00 down to $10.00 per month, with at least one
projection that it could end up as low as $4.50.

It is critical that these low rates are adopted if widespread use of the
service is to be encouraged.
-- 
                    <<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>                         
Cliff Figallo                                     fig@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation                    (617)864-0665 (voice)
Online Communications                             (617)864-0866 (fax)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: One good thing about the EFF mess
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:03:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.152915.12422@news.eng.convex.com> gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:
:	with the "real people".  Your weekly digest may be one of the few
:	doses of non-Washington-think that the board and Washington staffers 
:	ever get.  I wish you luck and success, the future of the EFF will

Would be interesting to post the weekly digest here too, so we see what
sort of a viewpoint is being relayed to Jerry Berman...

G
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix,gnu.misc.discuss,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: ppan@nobeltech.se (Per Andersson)
Subject: Re: ENOUGH! Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Organization: NobelTech AB
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:59:50 GMT

In article <MIKE.93Jan22144301@cuba.vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at> mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael Gschwind) writes:
>
>Wait a moment! Who copied design, algorithms, data structures,... from
>whom? UCB from ATT/USL? Or ATT/USL from ATT? 

Another amusing thought - how 'unix'-like is Plan 9 ? Will Bell Labs be sued
by USL ? I somehow get the feeling that these guys HAVE seen Unix sourcecode.
Will this prohibit Plan-9 from ever beeing distributed ?

Well,well,well....

/Per
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Andersson - ppan@nobeltech.se (perand@stacken.kth.se on free time)
Managing networks at, but not speaking for Nobeltech AB, J{rf{lla, Sweden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: Minors, laws, and "computer
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:29:16 GMT

>I remember about four or five years ago, law enforcement officials in
>Seattle and some town in California were jointly proposing legislation to
>make it a crime to permit a minor child to own or use a modem, period.
>(Their concern was more about pedophiles cruising BBS's to "recruit" kids
>than about downloaded porn.)

Taking modems from kids to punish pedophiles is a stupid as taking the house
from a burglary victim to punish the thief! And people though trying to pass
legislature to make Pi = 3 was the worst...

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,uk.net,alt.conspiracy,connect.audit
From: dbergin@ibmpcug.co.uk (Derek Bergin)
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author
	alone and may not represent the views of the IBM PC User Group.
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:23:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.004611.26685@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <jrk.727729306@zen.sys.uea.ac.uk>, jrk@sys (Richard Kennaway) writes:
>>In <6543@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane) writes:
>Rumor on the net tells this is covered already, ie. that UK has been a
>great buyer of telephone switching equipment with many more
>eavesdropping lines than elsewhere.
>
>(yes, eavesdropping is normally built into the equipment for "testing
>purposes", it's just that there's normally apparently only a few lines
>per exchange which wasn't enough for UK purposes)
>
>Of course this would probably be covered by the official secrets act so
>it might be a bit difficult to get information about in the UK.

OK - if this is covered by the official secrets act tough - I didn't sign it 
before I started the job below.

As of ~10 yrs ago, when system X was being cobbled together, the concept of 
'lines' for eavesdropping became redundant - or almost.  For most purposes 
all tapping will be done on the trunk side of the network, as a part of the 
Test Network which comes suitably sized for the exchange it's in.  

If you must use the local network only then there is a more limited tapping 
facility available, working funnily enough from the same card as the 
junction tapping kit.   Though I say so myself this bit was a work of art, 
although it may well have been superceded by now.  You could forget about this 
'hollow sound on the line' crap to tell you that you were being monitored - 
this baby introduced less noise than the edge connector.

SO 	- can they listen to your calls? - Yes
	- can you  detect it? - No
	- can you do anything about it? - Dont be silly
	- do they listen to your calls? - er - that IS covered by the OSA.

You wanna keep secrets AND use the government communication system ? what world
are you living in ?.

Regards
Derek

PS - If I was doing this sort of thing again I wouldn't take out the disable 
codes before final shipping.  Who knows - someone may have put them back in,
after all I'm sure the goverment would be only too pleased to have some BT
erk listening in to their calls to the local whorehouse.


-- 
Derek - The Duty Scapegoat
From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:37:35 GMT
Organization: PGP VER2 Key Available Upon Request

This move to licence BBS's in the UK Is a very very scary one and if
it succedes could very well pave the way for attempts at similiar
action in my home territory of the U.S. This action could happen on
a city, county, state, or federal level. As such, is there anything
people in the U.S. can do to help?

An International Community Requires International Action.

				The Jester
-- 
			The Jester
"Never trust an oyster"-Super Chicken
"You know the job was dangerous when you took it"-Super Chicken
"Trust me, I know what I'm doing"-Sledge Hammer
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Consumption tax...Oh no!
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:08:09 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

tony@morgan.demon.co.uk (Tony Kidson) writes:

>>>Actually, if you've got to have taxes, VAT is a far better tax than income
>>>tax.
>>
>>Maybe so, but if you noticed, nobody said anything about getting rid of the
>>income tax.  In fact, it's going to go up for everyone, and even get more
>>"progressive" (i.e., the more wealth you create and the more you contribute
>>to society in general, the more the government is going to take what you've
>>got).

>In which case, surely you're firing at the wrong target. Campain for the 
>abolition of income tax. I'd be right behind you.

I've tried!  But nobody wants to listen!  :-)  It's amazing how many people
have no idea that this country "survived" for the first 120 or so years of
its existence without "soaking the rich" via income taxes.  I wish people
would actually READ their history books and at least PRETEND that they're
interested so later in life they can carry on a somewhat intelligent
conversation.  Sheesh.  I suppose I'm expecting too much!  :-)  I have
noticed, though, that netters are generally more aware than non-netters.
It must help to have sources of information besides Dan Rather <hok! ptuey!>.

-- 
Michael T. Palmer         |  "A man is crazy who writes a secret in any
m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov  |   other way than one which will conceal it
RIPEM key on server       |   from the vulgar." - Roger Bacon
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:9168 comp.unix.bsd:11761 comp.unix.wizards:5631 comp.org.usenix:1380 gnu.misc.discuss:4615
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: ENOUGH! Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Date: 24 Jan 93 02:46:54 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <C1A118.2rs@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk> joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey) writes:
>
>   USL has had some original ideas in the last 20 years.
>

Read about Multics, Paid for by the US taxpayer; BCPL, paid for by the
British taxpayer. Should AT&T pay royalties for each use of a function
switch in UNIX source? If we are going to have aggressive protection of
property rights in software and software concepts, the taxpayers should, of
course, get their share. Agreed? 

BTW, UNIX was developed at AT&T while it was a federally mandated national
monopoly. 



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: More Info To Come on EFF Shortly
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<CKD.93Jan20191149@loiosh.eff.org> <1993Jan21.051306.19635@netcom.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:48:03 GMT

DS> == David Sternlight <strnlght@netcom.com>

 DS> First of all, current "commercial" services use partly subsidized
 DS> facilities. If the net were fully commercial, this would stop and
 DS> costs would rise. So, then, would prices.

CIX-connected networks only use "subsidized facilities" if talking to
organizations on the subsidized portions of the network.  It is quite
possible for a CIX-connected network not to be advertised outside the CIX,
so that they *can't* accidentally cross, say, the NSF-funded backbone.
(Heck, just ask Barry Shein, that's the situation he was in for a long time.)
--
 * Christopher Davis * <ckd@eff.org> * <ckd@kei.com> * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM *
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: LOOK AT THIS MESS!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:20:11 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead) writes:

>If this were the case, technology would never progress since the leaders
>would always have to conform to the standards of the slowest to change. 

Hence Microsoft.

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
The perfect .signature file.  Approximated but never actually attained.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing p
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:12:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.054608.26942@nwnexus.WA.COM> irving@halcyon.com (Larry Gilbert) writes:
:Don't forget, this is your telephone company providing the service.  A
:more truthful statement might be "You can use as many channels as you
:can afford."

I'd better go back and re-read it, but I *think* part of the EFF stand was
that ISDN should be rated the same as a voice line.

Is that right Cliff?  The only fair way to run 2B+D ISDN (which is what
you get with "Existing Copper(tm)" ISDN) is to charge the same as you're
paying for the lines already - ie time-metered, not volume-metered, and at
the same charge for the 2Bs+D as the one voice line.

Is that something like you're pushing for?

G
From: Mike.Riddle@inns.omahug.org (Mike Riddle)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: New case for EFF, ACLU, and CPSR
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:14:46 CST
Reply-To: mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk

>      I'm suprised the EFF is exercised about this.  The people involved
>seemed to have been doing something legal, but stupid, in a private mall,
>and they were hassled, but not arrested or injured.  What's the big deal?
>

 jt> Reporter Brock Meeks has the mall's director of security on tape claiming
 jt> that the disruption was instigated by the U.S. Secret Service. Comments by
 jt> the Secret Service do not challenge the statements. The "big deal" is the
 jt> possible USSS involvement, which, if true, strikes some as a serious abuse
 jt> of their power and possible violation of law.

Probably even more important, from an EFF perspective, is that the law
enforcement types, whoever they really were and whomever got them to do
it, appear to have been motivated by assumptions over the content of
the electronic (and print) 'zines 2600 and Phrack.  If I remember the
CuD stories correctly, this was a 2600 gathering.
 
For the non-phreaks, technological illiterates, and those who just never
bothered to learn this trivia, 2600 Hz used to be widely use as part
of in-band signalling in the public switched telephone network, and was
therefore a crucial part of Fone Phreaking. 
 
But anyway, the hasslees were known members of cyberspace.






Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:59:28 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1993Jan21.051825.20299@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>Yamani couldn't figure out why all those dinosaurs would want to go to 
>Saudi Arabia to die.
	Can you think of anything else to do there? ;-)

	Sorry, couldn't resist injecting a little humour.  . .



Newsgroups: uk.net,comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:12:51 GMT

In article <666@infocom.UUCP> pgoujard@infocom.UUCP (Philippe Goujard) writes:
:This is not of the damn business of FAST or ELSPA. If they want to protect 
:the interests of the software company who are paying them : fine. But they 
:have nothing to do with ruling on the morality or other activities people 
:who connect to bbs are involved with.
:
:> Courses of action, so far suggested:
:> 
:> Work to form a group, possibly similar to the EFF, but for UK-based
:> people, with advice from the EFF where appropriate.
:
:Could you rell us what the EFF is?

It used to be a leading player in the defence of civil rights in cyberspace.
I'm not sure what it is now.  read comp.org.eff.talk if you want to try to
find out more about EFF.

G
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:12:36 GMT

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>To the contrary, the Cable TV issue proves my point. It is a natural
>monopoly, and through lobbying heretofore they have gotten the regulators to

Yeah, a "natural" monopoly that just happens to be up to its ears in
all sorts of government attention.  It's amazing how hard it is for
the government to support these "natural" monopolies.
-- 
Always do right.  This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk