HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Privacy
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:40:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.18687.2B02FE9C
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO


 BL>   I just remembered a project by Steve Ciarcia a while 
 BL> back in Byte magazine.  He had a device you could add 
 BL> to your modem(RS232 serial port) that had an 
 BL> implementation of the DES algorithm built in.  

 The CCITT committee responsible for V.42 and V.42bis (error correction
 and compression standards for modems) has also said that one of the items
 on their agenda (V.42ter?) may be standard encryption for modems.  This
 makes a good deal of sense, especially for compressing modems (it works
 *much* better for both purposes to encrypt after compression rather than
 vice versa).  The DSPs or control processors could probably find the
 spare cycles easily enough.  Presumably, you would send the key to the
 modem "out of band", and it would do the encryption/decryption on the fly,
 after compression/before decompression.  Kind of a neat idea.

 I doubt they would use DES, because of the restrictions on international
 use (CCITT produces international standards).  IDEA (IPES) might be an
 option.  Or something else.  We are talking about single key encryption
 here, not public key systems (most likely).

 Then again, nothing may ever come from this; certain governments may
 quash the idea.  A US government proposal (before the more recent FBI
 universal multimedia remote wiretapping one, but sure to resurface) has 
 already been made (thankfully losing the first round), to require that 
 all encryption devices have a "back door" for the government ("under 
 court order" of course); no encryption device without that would be 
 legal.  

 I don't think they would like the idea of standardized mass-produced 
 modems with built in serious encryption, with no back door.  And other 
 folks would not want to pay for any encryption WITH a back door.  So 
 the modem standards folks may be forced to indefinitely table this.  

 (Or produce a standard which can be used in Europe but not imported 
 to the US; while this has surreal attractions for highlighting the
 absurdity of it all, it would probably have marketing liabilities :-)
     ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: FBI Raids
From: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel) 
Date: 12 Nov 92 10:32:00 GMT
Reply-To: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121


Ronco D. * Included in  the confiscation were records  of everyone who'd
           ever called the BBS. Now, somewhere  in the back of my mind I
           seem  to remember  calling Davy  Jones' Locker  a year or two
           ago,  entering  all  the  standard  "new  user"  info  (name,
           address, phone #), browsing  around the message areas, seeing
           the  $40 fee,  and not  bothering to  ever call back. ("Forty
           bucks to get on a BBS? Right!" I seem to remember saying.)
                                 = = =

    You are the reason many good BBS's  end up getting shut down. Do you
    think it is cheap to run a  BBS? Remember these are hobby / personal
    boards and they don't come cheap..  we have almost $30 grand tied up
    here as well as the monthly phone bill.

    In response to your post though, I agree that pirate BBS's (or those
    that run  a pirate section) need  to be looked at.  And I can assure
    you that  they are. Several  years ago I  myself had the  unpleasant
    experience of being visted by the  'men with grey suits'. Most BBS's
    are honest, decent folks. The few  that violate the rules do leave a
    bad  mark about  BBS's in  general. I  too, am  curious what is done
    about these records  that are ceased and if we  are put on a 'watch'
    list. I  suppose it is  time to break  out the 'FOI'  forms and send
    off for any and all records that they may have?

    As for running a 'pirate' section I  wisely no longer do so nor have
    for some  time. The 'men  in grey' can  be most convincing  over the
    hazards <G>.

    I  did feel  it necessary  to  point  out though  that folks  should
    support their  local (or favorite) BBS  if they want to  continue to
    see them flourish. It is no  longer 'cheap' to run one. Especially a
    high quality one.
---
 * SM 1.06 A0059 * Life is not all lovely thorns and singing vultures.
                                                                     
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mcgovern_j@apollo.HP.COM (John McGovern)
Subject: Re: Software Patents: Promotion of science and the useful arts?
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:10:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <721582032.995@zooid.guild.org>, ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
|> From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor> >
|> One big reason that DES isn't included in every mail system is because many
|> companies want to sell outside the U.S.  As soon as that software gets to the
|> border, it becomes "munitions", and requires extensive paperwork to ship
|> it--if at all.  To ship outside of USA and Canada, you have to be in the
|> banking industry, or have a fancy exemption.
|> 
|> I worked for a company in Canada, that made DES hard disk encryption cards.
|> The paperwork needed for a customer to return a card from the US for repair
|> was simply amazing.
|> 
|>  - Ron Sharp.

There been a few changes in export U.S./COCOM export regulations on cryptography since 
the Gulf War, but it doesn't affect DES technology/software. 

DES technology is still regulated by the U.S. Dept. of State, Office of Munitions controls
(22CFR120-130), other software cryptography is regulated by Commerce (15cfr730-799) with no 
restictions to Canada other than the usual end use concerns (no libyan front companies, etc). 
Also, if the non DES software is available in a phone/catalog transaction, AND user installable without assistance, the software is further deregulated to ship almost anywhere under a General 
License. 

DES specific Disk cards would still be munitions controlled, but I've been getting about one week 
turnaround on licenses from Dept. of State lately (Oct.92)--faster than Commerce. There's 
a proposed rule change to permit repeated repair/exchange shipments for 3 years after original 
shipment without additional licensing, but it hasn't gone to final rule yet (2 yrs now). 

Just FYI, U.S. Customs will accept registration of your Copyrighted/Trademarked Software or 
Designs ($190 for 20 years, 19cfr133). This will prevent unauthorized importation of pirated/bottlegged copies (on disks, CD-ROMS, EPROMs, etc) I think it's very cheap insurance.
-- 
_________________________________________________________________________________________
John P. McGovern         Internet: mcgovern_j@apollo.HP.COM | "Who ARE those guys!??"
Import/Export Mgr                                           |-Butch Cassidy & Sundance
Hewlett Packard Co       HPDESK: HPJ600/31                  | Kid                                 
Exeter, NH 03833         VOICE: (603) 772-1500 X2592        |
(603) 772-1500 x2592     FAX: (603) 772-1698                |
____________________________________________________________|____________________________
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Election results - where's Andre Marrou?
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:01:20 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Re-Education Facility for the Differently Clued


In article <1992Nov4.213757.7671@b30.ingr.com> craig@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) writes:
   The "official" excuse was that county clerks were waiting about
   counting/certifying "non-mainstream" vote totals, so that AP did not
   have any data to report. I can (slightly) excuse this for write-ins,
   but we were ON THE BALLOT, and should have been right there with the others.

It's not all wrong, either - I've still only been able to get election
results from about half the counties in New Jersey, so I can send them
in to the Libertarian Party's election counting folks.
One REAL contrast has been between the counties that sound like they
do the job by hand and the counties that sound like they have computers.
The computerized folks had everything but the absentee and write-ins by ~11pm,
while the by-hand counties counted up the Rich Guys and local results first
and some of them still haven't finished counting the others.

Of course, the county clerks do the rich guys first because they're newsworthy,
and the smaller parties can't become newsworthy because they aren't on the news :-)
If the media were clamoring to get the results for the little guys
from each precinct like they do with the big guys, they'd get counted too.

I'm leaving this in comp.org.eff.talk because it _is_ a technology-and-society
issue - anybody who wanted to provide a few thousand PCs for use by the election
counters could substantially change the quality of election reporting,
even if they just provided rentals for a few nights.
Anybody want to talk IBM or Compaq or NCR into doing it next election?

(BTW, New Jersey also has easy ballot access for non-official parties,
so we had 13 people on the ballot for President, and tons for Congresscritter.
One county was handling Lyndon LaRouche's count separately, because
the forms only had room for 12 Presidential candidates, so they were doing
him later by hand along with the write-ins.  Obviously it's a CONspiracy! :-)
--
#				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
From: pollock@milton.u.washington.edu (Joe Pollock)
Subject: Re: Key registration
Organization: The Evergreen State College
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:46:20 GMT

In article <92311.001010MRAMPTON@auvm.american.edu> Mike Rampton <MRAMPTON@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>     It would seem that people using encryption must prove their innocence
>in the eyes of the law.  If you're using encryption, then you must have
>something to hide and if you have something to hide, then the government should
>know about it.  After all, the government does know what's best for us and the
>country.  They only have our best interests at heart.  ;^)
>
>Mike Rampton  -  Cartoons:  They're not just for breakfast anymore.
>

A few years ago (early 80's?) there was a case usually referred to as 
the "Ohio 7", where a group of radicals were arrested in a classic "break
down the farmhouse doors" raid.  My recollection is that the last of the
trials took place within the past year or two - of course, they were kept
out of circulation in the interim.

What struck me in the news reports concerning the raid was the comment
from a law enforcement official to the effect that "The group was using
encryption in their communications with other radical groups, and this
was prima facie evidence that they were engaged in illegal activities."
(Paraphrased to the best of my memory).  

Joe Pollock
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:10:10 EST
From: Mike Rampton <MRAMPTON@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Key registration

When I first read the suggestion of key registration I couldn't believe it.
Then I though about it and took more of a "I wouldn't put it past them" type
attitude.  After all, this is the same country where Hoover used the FBI as
his own personal information collection agency; where law enforcement has
demanded ways of tapping digital communications; etc.
     It would seem that people using encryption must prove their innocence
in the eyes of the law.  If you're using encryption, then you must have
something to hide and if you have something to hide, then the government should
know about it.  After all, the government does know what's best for us and the
country.  They only have our best interests at heart.  ;^)
     Key registration and monitoring would be too large an undertaking.  The
best thing I can think to compare it to would be speeding.  Many people speed
but only a fraction get caught.  That doesn't make registration and monitoring
right, it just shows it impracticality.  Hell, what's the point of encryption
if someone has access to your private key?  That key will be written down
somewhere and be accessable by people who may sell, steal or give
away that information.  "Hey pal, wanna buy Dan Quayle's private key?"
What happens when people's key are accidentally mixed, merged, folded, spun and
mutilated?  People end up wrongly accused.  In my opinion, registration and
monitoring keys is too large an undertaking even for the US governement(as nosy
as it is).  However, the problem still exists that if you encrypt, you are
looked upon as having something to hide.  By simple fact it's encrypted, law
enforcement will want to look at it.

Just my 0.5 cents worth,

Mike Rampton  -  Cartoons:  They're not just for breakfast anymore.

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
From: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Reply-To: Paul-Pomes@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:10:47 GMT

lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen) writes:

>In article<1992Nov11.151529.14633@cci632.cci.com> Steve Owens writes:
>
>> Stiffer penalties and more prisons get the
>>criminals off the streets.  This is a proven, working solution that
>>can be used as a band-aid until a better solution can be found.
>
>We have about doubled the prison population in this country in the
>last ten or so years.  Built a lot of prisons.  Spent billions.
>Emptied the mental hospitals to find money to do it (indirectly,
>but that's about what happened).

A sizeable fraction of the prison population is there for drug offenses.
We could make this country a good deal safer by legalizing drugs.  That
would leave room in the prisons for the violent criminals that should
be locked up.

/pbp
-- 
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the People to keep and read Books shall not be infringed."
	-- J. Neil Schulman
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: this week's illegal wiretap
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:00:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.184411.21@cobra.dra.com> sean@cobra.dra.com writes:
>If you are using a phone in a hotel, the hotel owner can't tap the phone
>in your room, even though the phone is their property.

Nevertheless they do.  Hotels routinely monitor all calls, and are
tacitly encouraged to do so by the local police, especially in
districts that are centres of drug activity.  I have this first hand
from someone who actually did the monitoring himself in a Howard Johnson
motel.

G
-- 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
Subject: Re: Interface monopolies
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:19:43 GMT

In article <JgqTTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

>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?

Thanks. 


-- 

Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
President			tel: 408-985-1824
Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
3494 Yuba Avenue
San Jose, CA 95117-2967
From: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 92 17:33:14 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO

 CDT> Quite possibly.  Our only point of disagreement is 
 CDT> that we expect that the
 CDT> folks who elect him will be not us, but the folks who 
 CDT> think like you -- that
 CDT> we gun owners need to be "protected from ourselves."

 In encryption or guns, restrictions are not meant to protect the users
 from themselves.  That is silly; guns are not restricted by the "unsafe
 toys" folks, but by very different agencies for very different purposes.

 This does bring up one of the key differences.  Folks want guns 
 restricted mainly because they are concerned that the guns will be used,
 deliberately or accidentally, against themselves or those they care for,
 like their kids.  This is a pretty basic fear, and cannot be dismissed
 as bigotry.  Only reason can (sometimes) help alleviate it.

 But encryption keys don't kill kids, in any gut level perceptible way.
 (I qualify because some folks will contrive convoluted scenarios to
 justify such an association; these are like outlawing guns because they
 can topple chandeliers which could kill kids - not visceral enough to
 have much political effect).  We *can* win the privacy battle much more
 easily than the gun debates, because of this.

 That is, IF we don't let the less rational gun advocates control the 
 privacy debates; if we do, they will bring down privacy using the same 
 inept methods that they use to alienate moderate on gun issues.
     ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
From: catfood@wariat.org (Mark W. Schumann)
Subject: Re: Election results - where's Andre Marrou?
Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Publi Access UNI* Site
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:27:42 GMT

wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.213757.7671@b30.ingr.com> craig@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) writes:
>   The "official" excuse was that county clerks were waiting about
>   counting/certifying "non-mainstream" vote totals, so that AP did not
>   have any data to report. I can (slightly) excuse this for write-ins,
>   but we were ON THE BALLOT, and should have been right there with the others.
>
>It's not all wrong, either - I've still only been able to get election
>results from about half the counties in New Jersey, so I can send them
>in to the Libertarian Party's election counting folks.

One local station (WKYC/Channel3/NBC) carried results for only the
Republican and Democratic candidates in my state House district (Ohio
13th).  An independent candidate outpolled the Republican by a factor
of two but did not show.  Another independent pulled a full 6% and
didn't show either.

-- 
Mark W. Schumann/3111 Mapledale Avenue/Cleveland, Ohio 44109-2447 USA
Preferred: mark@whizbang.wariat.org | Alternative: catfood@wariat.org
"Aren't you glad you didn't marry someone dumber than you?" --my wife
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: moon@Virginia.EDU (M. Yi)
Subject: right to have .plan
Organization: The University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:13:11 GMT

recently i recieve a complaint about my .plan file
which contains quote from the book of isaiah.  one
user in my system accuses, "[i was] protelyzing over
system."  i consider this as a challege in my freedom
of expressing my thought and freedom of religion.

is it freedom of speech valid in cyberworld?

since this is not a whole complaint, but a part of it,
administator's action might be irrelavant to this
issue.  but i don't want to take disadvantage of
loosing my right to expressing faith through .plan.
because of my other faults.

munho yi
moon@virginia.edu
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7059 alt.privacy:2287
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: this week's illegal wiretap
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:48:46 CST
Organization: Data Ressearch Associates, Inc.

In article <BxrG89.KI2@ibmpcug.co.uk>, gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
> In article <1992Nov14.184411.21@cobra.dra.com> sean@cobra.dra.com writes:
>>If you are using a phone in a hotel, the hotel owner can't tap the phone
>>in your room, even though the phone is their property.
> 
> Nevertheless they do.  Hotels routinely monitor all calls, and are
> tacitly encouraged to do so by the local police, especially in
> districts that are centres of drug activity.  I have this first hand
> from someone who actually did the monitoring himself in a Howard Johnson
> motel.

What do you mean by monitoring?  If you mean do they keep SMDR logs (the
digits dialed on the phone), you are correct.  And some hotels do cooperate
with police in pointing out calls dialled to certain numbers.  This falls
into the catagory of "billing information."  And it seems that most places
feel they may release that information without a court order.  Although most
public phone companies won't release the information.  And yes, we also have
a police department in St. Louis that visits every hotel and motel near the
airport in their jurisdiction to pick up copies of their records every
night (as reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, although they played the
story up as more racially motivated by saying they were looking for certain
catagories of "foreign" surnames).

I don't think the hotel that Phrack held their get togethers is in Florisant's
jurisdiction.

If you mean they listen to the conversations, that would be more unusual
and I can think of several newspapers that would be interested in speaking
with your friend.  Title 18 speaks of information "inadvertantly obtained
by the service provider."  It also says service providers may not "utilize
service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service
quality checks."  A hotel "routinely" monitoring calls for drug activity
may be setting themselves a mess of bad publicity and possibly civil
lawsuits.  Whether police can actually use the information I guess depends
on how far they went in encouraging the hotel in obtaining it.  I don't
know how the situation in the U.K. 

Of course that would explain why hotels charge "operator-assisted" rates
even when you direct dial the call, somebody has to pay for that person
to listen :-)
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk