HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Gregory.Hempel@f603.n130.z1.fidonet.org (Gregory Hempel)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Hey There, Help Out
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:14:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.9051.2ADE14F2
Organization: FidoNet node 1:130/603 - The Cell, Fort Worth TX


 Ok.
  

  I dont want this to seem like an advert or any thing but...

  Here goes...

  I run a BBS called The Cell, we have lots of adult stuff and misc other things, but the one thing that Ive alway been interested in since I got into the whole BBSing thing (about 5 years ago) is information, I guess Im really an info.freak and/or a packrat, I keep almost every thing that I come across. I was wondering if any one out there can tell me where I can find articles on the following :


        Cyberpunk
        Virtual Reality
        By: Bruce Sterling
        By: William Gibson
        Info on drugs, I.E. -
                       Prevension
                       Household
                       Economy
                       Use
                       Questionarres on use of-
                       Anything
                       Mostly chemical drugs,
                       Nature stuff also acceptable
        Info on Gov'mnt, I.E. -
                       Laws on information
                       "Cyberspace" law/religion
                       Suits
                       Police State Action
        Info on most anything interesting
        Info on 2600 type material
        Church of the Subgenius Info
        Mondo 2000
        Soma
        That type stuff



 I guess you all get what Im interested in, if any one could point me in the correct direction I would really appreeciate it! I dont have an Inet account but I will soon hopefully, just moved to DFW/Texas area and dont know who to contact here about any of this info.

 I appreciate it!

 G.



 P.S. Is this indeed a one way echo Ive heard various views on the whole thing! I would really like to know. Thanks




--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!130!603!Gregory.Hempel
Internet: Gregory.Hempel@f603.n130.z1.fidonet.org
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6345 comp.admin.policy:1269 alt.censorship:7957 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3117 alt.society.civil-liberty:6193
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:22:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.010909.22723@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>Having this jurisdiction doesn't mean they have the power to make final,
>binding interpertations of the Constitution.

No. But the lack of any legislative or executive power to overrule the
federal courts does in fact mean just this.

> It at least implies that
>they can make rulings on specific cases, based on their understanding
>of the Constitution. But it does _not_ even hint that everyone else
>is required to defer to their interpertation.

I think there's just such a hint, actually, in the language of Article
III.

>By the way, since you seem to think Supreme Court rulings carry 
>great weight in matters of interperting the Constitution, can you
>cite a single ruling, where the jurisdiction clause of Article Three
>was interperted as a grant of the ultimate authority to interpert
>the Constitution?

You probably should read Charles Alan Wright's FEDERAL COURTS.

>(Don't waste your time: There are no such rulings. The
>Court has only claimed these powers, without reference to the 
>Constitution.)

Frank, you should be cautioned about attempting to prove a negative.
Try going to the law library and researching judicial review.

>The generally accepted view, is that they have the power to make 
>binding interpertations of the Constitution. However, it is _not_
>the accepted view, that this power comes from the Constitution. Rather,
>it comes from the people's expectations, and the political pressure
>this puts on elected officials.

You are mistaken. Spend some time in a law library and read a few
law-review articles on the possible sources of judicial review.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Toronto Teenager Charged in 911 Case
Organization: NDA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:45:01 GMT


Here is a press release that I received from the Metropolitan Toronto
Police. The Toronto Star ran a story (based on the press release) on its
front page today.
 
 1992 October 06, 1950 hours
 
 Teenage Computer Hacker Nabbed by Police
 
 Detectives from the Major Crime Squad at Police Headquarters have
arrested a 15-year-old North York boy and charged him with a number of
computer-related crimes. Investigations have revealed that on some
occasions his pranks paralyzed the Metropolitan Toronto 911 emergency
telephone system.
 
 Last July, a young man called the 911 emergency number from a location in
the west end of Metropolitan Toronto and reported a number of medical
emergencies which caused units from the Metropolitan Toronto Police,
ambulance services and local fire departments to respond. All of these
calls were determined to be false.
  
 On one occasion, he totally monopolized the 911 system and rendered it
inoperable thereby denying citizens access to the 911 lifeline throughout
the Metropolitan Toronto area.

 Bell Canada security officers assisted police in their search for the
source of the calls. Acting on a Criminal Code search warrant, police
today entered a North York home, seized a quantity of computers and
arrested a teen-age boy.
 
 He is to appear in Youth Court, 47 Sheppard Avenue East, North York,
Friday, November 6, 1992, charged with theft of telecommunications, 24
counts of mischief and 10 counts of convey false message.
 
 Investigations are continuing.
 
 (end of press release)
 
 Note from NDA: More information may be available from the public affairs
office of the Metropolitan Toronto Police at (416) 324-2222 or from
Detective W. Johnston of the Major Crime Squad at (416) 324-6245.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: jxh@attain.icd.teradyne.com (Jim Hickstein)
Subject: Re: FBI digital telephony bill?  (Tapping BBSes)
Organization: Teradyne, Inc. Boston MA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:06:39 GMT

C-SPAN is airing a press conference by the leadership of the Congress
talking about the session "just ended".  If it's over (and men are once
again safe, for a time): WHAT HAPPENED?  Does anyone know anything about
the FBI Digital Telephony proposal's status?  C-SPAN didn't carry anything
about it (that I saw).  Surely someone at the EFF knows the play-by-play.
Speak up!

C-SPAN is great, by the way!  Networks?  What networks?
-- 
"Neither can His Mind be thought to be in Tune whose Words do Jarre;
 Nor His Reason in Frame whose Sentence is Preposterous."
Jim Hickstein, Teradyne Inc., San Jose CA, (408) 434-0822 FAX -0252
jxh@icd.teradyne.com   ...!apple!attain!jxh
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Things
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:46:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.232512.17939@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> ahawks@nyx.cs.du.edu (andy) writes:

>...After that, I got
>into an e-conversation lasting only about 10 messages or so, but in
>that 10 messages I asked him a plethora of questions concering his
>activities and his general views on hacking and the computer
>underground and I must say that I did not see him as an amoral person
>- far from it...In fact, I would say that portrayals (uninformed, mind
>you) on this newsgroup of him being practically a psychopath without a
>conscious are about as far from the truth as one could possibly get...

I don't believe anyone ever posted that Pengo is "practically a
psychopath." I don't think anyone posted even that Pengo is "an amoral
person."

The closest thing to a charge of this sort was when Brad Hicks cast
aspersions on Cliff Stoll's mental health.


--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
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:14:16 GMT

In article <id.9R0U.QCD@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>nobody else has ever had anything to do with. All your clearinghouse is is
>an attempt to reduce this burden, forcing *you* to give up your intellectual
>property rights to some clearinghouse in exchange for protection.

You are not forced to submit anything to the clearinghouse.  You can
be a use only member (a good deal if you are not doing for profit
distributions, since fees are revenue based).  Keep your own property
secret if you like (but then you won't get any royalties). This is
exactly the same as with ASCAP -- you don't have to submit your own
songs to be a member.  You can just be a user. But if you don't submit
any songs you won't collect any revenues.

> all the benefit will accrue to
>the lawyers in the clearinghouse as they play musical patents with other
>organizations.

Take a look at clearinghouses.  There aren't a lot of lawyers in them.
There is really no need for them--the licenses are already predefined,
there is nothing more to negotiate.  There are few suits because
people join to AVOID suits. In the proposal I gave there are NO
musical patents, since what the clearinghouse does is share ALL the
submitted patents with anyone who is a member--they don't even have to
do a search and identify it.


-- 

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



Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 15:54:30 GMT

In article <11738.Oct1103.23.3892@virtualnews.nyu.edu>,
   brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:

| You are unable to exhibit a single beneficial software patent. [...]
| How can you believe that software patents might possibly be good if
| you can't come up with any examples where they've helped?

Call me a skeptic, but I'll bet it would be impossible, using your 
definition of ``beneficial'' (whatever it is), to name *any* patent
that is (was) ``beneficial''.

On the outside chance I am wrong, however, why don't you name off five
patents (of any kind) that you feel were (are) beneficial, and why, ok?

(And since I rather anticipate you won't, allow me to assert that your
gripe is with patents as a whole [and not just ``software'' patents].)

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: US Makes Commercial Software Piracy a Felony 10/12/92
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:05:56 GMT
Keywords: Bureau-TOR


The following article comes from today's issue of Newsbytes, our
daily computer industry news service.  I think it will be of interest
to EFF members.  For info about our electronic newspaper service,
write to info@clarinet.com

--------

WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 1992 OCT 12 (NB) -- The United States
government has elevated commercial software piracy from a
misdemeanor to a felony, a move some say will help reduce the
illegal copying of software. 

Late on October 8, the Senate approved changes made by the House of
Representative to S. 893, The Software Copyright Protection Bill,
sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and originally passed the
Senate on June 4. The bill had passed the House by voice vote the
night of October 3. S. 893 now goes to the President to be signed
into law.

The law defines commercial pirates as individuals who willfully copy
software for commercial advantage or private financial gain. 
Prison terms of up to five years and fines of up to $250,000 can
now be imposed on persons convicted of infringing at least 10
copies of a copyrighted software program or any combination of
programs with a retail value greater than $2,500. Repeat offenses
can include up to 10 years' imprisonment. 

According to Ilene Rosenthal, a spokeswoman for the Software
Publishers' Association which backed the bill, the law is not
aimed at the individual who makes a single copy of a program to use
at home or to share with a friend.

According to the SPA, piracy in the US alone cost the industry
$2.4 billion in 1990. Worldwide losses that year are estimated
between $10 billion and $12 billion.

Misdemeanor penalties have not been enough to deter commercial
software pirates, Rosenthal said, and also have not been enough to
justify the amount of effort investigators needed to put into a
piracy case. Law enforcers were reluctant to make the effort,
Rosenthal said, when "at the end of it all you're going to get is
a $500 fine or a suspended sentence."

The new law brings software piracy into the same category as the
illegal copying of movies or commercial music recordings, which
became a felony in 1982, Rosenthal said. Since that time, she
noted, piracy of movies and recordings has dropped off
substantially in the United States. The SPA expects similar results
from S. 893. 

"As the federal authorities get more involved," Rosenthal said,
"it's going to make it not worth the risk for people that thought
they could play the odds and not get caught."

The Washington-based Software Publishers Association has more than
950 members, representing publishers of business, consumer, and
education software markets. It has been active in fighting software
piracy for several years.

(Grant Buckler)
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: FBI, Laws, PGP, etc.
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:12:27 GMT

Pat> == Pat Farrell <pfarrell@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> 

 Pat> I'm a bit confused. I see all kinds of postings about the
 Pat> (thankfully dead) FBI wiretap bill on the c.o.eff.talk feed, but
 Pat> very little about pgp20, while can provide "privacy for the
 Pat> masses".  How come?

Well, haven't you seen the many postings talking about software patents?  :-)

PGP is in rather a legal gray zone in the USA, more so than even other
encryption programs are, because of the RSA patent.  Anyone using it for
more than personal "educational" use (I don't remember the exact words
of the patent law) *may* be in violation of the patent.

(I'm not a lawyer.)
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6353 misc.int-property:1156 alt.suit.att-bsdi:467 comp.unix.bsd:7118
From: george@wixer.cactus.org (George Wenzel)
Subject: Re: Commercial MUD - Continued
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 21:51:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.174600.189093@zeus.calpoly.edu> jaiken@zeus.calpoly.edu (Abdual McClamwacker) writes:
>I am afraid I don't understand how you could make money off of a MUD when
>there are thousands of MUDs that are free,  What about problems between
>players?  They pay for it so they don't want to just quit, seems with would
>be more hassel than it is worth.  What could you do to this MUD to make it
>so cool people woulc choose to pay to play yours rather than just go for a
>cool free one?

Well, first of all, SOMEONE pays for access to the Internet.  If your
school is providing you the connection, then you are paying for it through
student fees and such.  Most people who are not students have to pay to get
access to the Internet.  So I can see several reasons that someone might
want to access a host with a Mud running, and be willing to pay for it.

Not to mention, sometimes you get what you pay for.  Of course if you are
charging for access I would hope that you offer more than your average MUD.

There are a lot of conferencing and chat systems that make lots of money
charging for access.  Many of these systems are run in towns where the same
type of services are available abundantly for free.  Sometimes it is worth
paying to get on a system with a quality userbase.  The same thing applies
to services available on the Internet.  Say you get your internet access
for "free"...  You STILL might pay to use a system you access through the
net just because you like it.  There is a lot of "noise" in the free
offerings.  Look at the Well.  

George
-- 
George Wenzel                    |  Real/Time Communications
george@wixer.cactus.org          |  "faster, smarter and costs less..."
cactus.org!wixer!george          |  "Hardware solutions for the real world."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Things
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:10:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.192231.4691@tic.com> erikb@tic.com (Chris Goggans) writes:

>What prompted this little outburst was several posts back
>that alluded to the lack of moral fiber of a person known
>as Pengo.  Until you have talked to a person, don't judge him or her.

This is a very limiting restriction. It means, for example, that we can't
ever pass judgments on historical figures (take Attila the Hun or
Caligula, for example) because we can't talk to them.

Still, if one chose to apply Chris's principle, it would have to apply
in both directions: it would be just as wrong to paint Pengo as a moral
hero as it would be to criticize his actions on moral principles.
And the same goes for Cliff Stoll.

I think it likely that Chris hasn't given full consideration to the
consequences of the principle he articulates here. If Chris means to 
defend Pengo's actions, it should be noted that Chris also has strongly
criticized the members of MOD, whose actions seem less invasive and less
tied to reward than Pengo's. 

Since the discussion of Pengo came up in the context of a discussion of
Cliff Stoll's work in calling law-enforcement attention to Pengo's
actions, it's worth asking Chris in this public forum whether he and
other Comsec members made a decision to report other hackers' actions to
the legal authorities. According to an interview he gave Winn Schwartau,
Chris did just this, apparently as part of a personal quarrel with MOD
members.



--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
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992)
Originator: tt@tarzan.math.jyu.fi
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
	<TT.92Oct12113420@tarzan.jyu.fi>
	<1992Oct15.085605.28696@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:08:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.085605.28696@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>In article <TT.92Oct12113420@tarzan.jyu.fi> tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:

>>I rather suspect the vast majority believes words in general and
>>(to Americans) those of the Constitution in particular have
>>one true, absolute meaning and very the notion of interpretation
>>never enters their minds.

>Come on--words and the constitution have "one true, absolute meaning??!!"

>Almost *every* word has multiple uses and definitions--check a dictionary.
>And that's not even to mention those words which are inherently vague and
>subjective, like "reasonable," "cruel," "unusual."  (All of which have
>already been mentioned in this thread.)

I agree with you.
I was just trying to be a bit sarcastic about the notion that
"the vast majority" would be at all concerned with this kind of 
academic discussion.
(And surprisingly many people actually _do_ believe words have
absolute meanings.  Talk to a randroid or a fundamentalist one day.)
--
Tapani Tarvainen  (tt@math.jyu.fi, tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
From: stoll@ocf.berkeley.edu (Cliff Stoll)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Date: 7 Oct 1992 06:03:34 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: headcrash.berkeley.edu

Sheesh!  

Brad Hicks (or anyone on this forum) can get my opinions
just by sending me e-mail.  Go ahead and rant about Cuckoo's Egg,
but if you're wondering whether I'm a running dog of the 
arch-unrepentant capitalist roaders, well, just ask.  Mike Godwin
already has -- he knows!

I just got Bruce Sterling's book, The Hacker Crackdown.  
I'll be reading it this weekend.  So far, it reads well
and certainly recognizes the good work from the EFF.
Only complaints so far are the price ($23 might keep it
out of the hands of many who would like it), and the
page layout (lots of pull-out quotes, like newspapers).

-cliff
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:22:11 GMT

In article <1bamugINN275@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.031616.854@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>>Today, if I use some of Peter's code, I might be sued by AT&T because
>>they might claim that Peter's code was derived from their trade secret
>>protected code (doesn't require copyright, or patent).

Note that this refers to a situation in the absence of a clearing house.

>>On the other hand, under the clearinghouse model if both
>>AT&T and I were members AT&T can't sue me.
>
>By definition, trade secrets can't be patented, so presumably they wouldn't
>be covered by the protection of the patent clearinghouse.

I think it would be reasonable to expect that terms of the clearing
house would mean that members get to use contributed materials, this
would grant copyright, trade-secret and patent license thereby freeing
the user from risk from suits of any of these types. In exchange for
contribution, the contributors get royalties instead of specific
negotiated license fees.
-- 

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