HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 2 Jan 93 18:50:42 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:

A virus could
| >[...] also check
| >for some file or other sort of marker on the system that the user
| >would have placed to give the virus permission to spread.  Thus
| >keeping it from spreading to anyone who didn't want it around.
| >
| >Certainly a virus, and certainly beneficial.  (Assuming it wasn't
| >buggy of course.  :-)  )

| So your "beneficial" virus gets loose on my computer.

So it dies.  Simple.  No marker, no virus.

| And some time later, I
| want to, hmm, edit the icons in a Windows .exe.  Or maybe I've got an ugly ol
| program that modifies its exe so that it knows where it is.  Crunch!  The
| virus just got in the way--and if I didn't install the virus on my computer,
| I'm going to go looking for the owner.

If it used a marker as is relevant to this discussion, IT WOULD DIE.
If not, that would be a big mistake..

| I don't think I'd trust even a controlled virus--it's too much of a kludgy
| technique.  Why infect each program, when you could load an honest device
| driver?

There are many many places where a device driver is not appropriate:

     - there are several computers that may execute a particular program to
       be infected
     - the "installer" is not knowledgeable
     - machines change with some regularity
     - in a network situation, new nodes are added and/or removed
       [how about a NETWORK marker?  node removed, local virus dies!]

Besides, when all is done, a controlled virus is the ONLY way to go.  You
don't want the virus?  Fine - don't do anything - the virus will die when
it gets to your system.

On the other extreme, if you're a hacker and don't mind pushing the envelope
of software technology, you can put the marker on your system and have a
blast while everyone else just flaps their gums :-)


--
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
From: Don.Kulha@f7.n125.z1.fidonet.org (Don Kulha)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Electronic Citizenship...Text
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 22:16:34 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:125/7 - Sonoma Online, Santa Rosa CA

     I've been looking for something for ages and it occured
to me you folks might be able to help. I would very much like
to get an ASCII text copy of "Electronic Citizenship" a very
good document published by Pacific Bell several years back.
The key here is the ASCII part of this. When we hosted the '89
FidoCon conference Bob Deward of Pac Bell was kind enough to
give us a box load of copies of this and also a mac format disk
containing the postscript file itself.
     Unfortunatly we were never able to satisfactorily convert
the file to ASCII so as to make it more widely available for
online dissemination. Since we run a public BBS we get callers
with a wide variety of machine types and the postscript files
were of little use to any of them. If anyone knows where we can 
snag an ASCII text copy we'd be forever grateful.
    Thanks in Advance....DCK

P.S.- We no longer have even the postscript files.
--
Internet: don.kulha@f7.n125.z1.fidonet.org     FidoNet: @ 1:125/7
Snail:    Don Kulha/ Sonoma Online/ POB 7518/ Santa Rosa CA 95407
Voice:    +1 707 526 9473            BBS: 1 707 545 0746 HST/V32b


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!125!7!Don.Kulha
Internet: Don.Kulha@f7.n125.z1.fidonet.org
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Virus design
Date: 27 Dec 1992 07:30:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <725430469.26792@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>
>I doubt any virus could be beneficial.  

I've always regarded netnews software as a form of
computer virus.

I won't touch the question of whether it's beneficial, though.

Steve
From: kerrb@magill.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: ftp query
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:16:14 CST
Organization: University of South Australia - Magill

Could someone advise me about what subdirectories to look in at
ftp eff.org to obtain more information about the aims and organisation
of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
 Thank you,
 Bill
From: trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: AT&T TIMEOUT & DISABLED
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:37:24 GMT
Organization: ASCI

In article <476.42.uupcb@rsbbs.uucp> robert.seely@rsbbs.uucp (Robert Seely) writes:

   AT&T has initiated a practice of auto disconnecting calls after x amt.
   of rings/time for LD calls (at least).

This was discussed recently in the Telecom digest.  Apparently this practice
started around the time Larry King told callers to simply call the number and
let it ring until they answered it and put you on the air; the result being
people letting the phone ring for 30 minutes or more.  While I'm not
particularly fond of AT&T, I don't see why they should have to foot the bill
for this.

   While I can see the practicality of this as a standard practice, I also
   am of the opinion that it is in violation of the Disabilities Act.

   There seems to be no facility in place to disable this feature on a per
   request basis, and in fact, at&t operators are (from my experience)
   rather unknowing of the feature.

   Case in Point:
   I am at a pay phone, trying to reach my disabled relative who is in a
   wheelchair to give lifesaving info. At&t times out before my party can
   reach the phone. True that if the payphone operates properly, I get my
   coin back.  What if it does not?  What if by the time I redial it's too
   late? (extreme but possible).

   It has happened, but tG it was not too late.

   feedback welcome.

So get your relative a cordless phone.  There is a diminished level of
privacy, but if it was truely lifesaving info, that shouldn't be a major
concern, and if it isn't critical, and privacy is desired, a "Hold on while
I get to my other phone" should work.

Or a person to person call would work, as long as you notify the operator that
the person is disabled and would be slow to answer.

Bob
From: robert.seely@rsbbs.uucp (Robert Seely) 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: AT&T TIMEOUT & DISABLED
Date: 25 Dec 92 11:37:00 GMT
Reply-To: robert.seely@rsbbs.uucp (Robert Seely) 
Distribution: world
Organization: R's Little BBs - Stone Mtn, Ga - 404-879-1600

AT&T has initiated a practice of auto disconnecting calls after x amt.
of rings/time for LD calls (at least).

While I can see the practicality of this as a standard practice, I also
am of the opinion that it is in violation of the Disabilities Act.

There seems to be no facility in place to disable this feature on a per
request basis, and in fact, at&t operators are (from my experience)
rather unknowing of the feature.

Case in Point:
I am at a pay phone, trying to reach my disabled relative who is in a
wheelchair to give lifesaving info. At&t times out before my party can
reach the phone. True that if the payphone operates properly, I get my
coin back.  What if it does not?  What if by the time I redial it's too
late? (extreme but possible).

It has happened, but tG it was not too late.

feedback welcome.
From: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us (Marco S Hyman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 4.04 Civil Disobedience by H.D. Thoreau
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:00:34 GMT
Organization: MSH Software, Hayward, CA

In article <725429868.26743@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
 > Maybe he just needs a more modern editor to help make his writing a little
 > more concise.  What's Thoreau's net address anyway?  :)

	henry@walden.concord.ma.us  walden!henry
-- 
marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us -- pacbell!dumbcat!marc
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: catfood@wariat.org (Mark W. Schumann)
Subject: Rewriting PGP w/RSA toolkit?
Summary: Sounds perfectly legal, practical enough--why not do it?
Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:14:16 GMT

nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>                                RSA isn't sitting on the technology;
>they licence it, they give out a free toolkit, they give seminars,
>they carry on the export control fight, and they try to get people to
>use it.  Admittedly, they have no talent for marketing mass-market software.

This is what I don't get.  What is the problem with just using RSA's
toolkit if you want public-key encryption?  Why don't the developers of
PGP rewrite using this toolkit and go "legit"?  I suppose I understand
the anarchic aspect of it, but if it is really true that RSA will let
you use their algorithm legally I don't see where the excitement is.

Flames to /dev/null; other replies by news or mail.
-- 
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
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 24 Dec 92 19:59:25 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec24.192549.13258@gateway.ssf-sys.DHL.COM> bdaniels@ssf-sys.DHL.COM (Ben Daniels) writes:
>I never saw this policy as a problem because I trusted the people who
>were implementing it. I thought Cliff and Tex were amazing. Just enough
>organization to make it happen, and not too much to keep if from happening.
>
I do not see this policy as a "problem" either, for the exact reasons
you just said.  As I've said, the WELL is a great little conferencing
system, I have a number of friends there, and I consider their policies
acceptable.

But I do see limiting one's privacy options, in a selective fashion, as
an issue that needs to be handled carefully.  Although I agree that the
WELL admins are acting within their privilege, I do not agree with
Cliff that this is an issue without ethical ramifications.  It is the
sort of policy choice that, if administered by the wrong individuals,
could in fact become a problem.

As an analogy, suppose the admins of a conferencing system announced
that only selected individuals would be granted the privilege of
engaging in encrypted communications on the system.  I would expect
quite a few objections to such a policy -- particularly from
the readership of this newsgroup.

Certainly in a technical sense, encrypted communications and
pseudnoymous communications are closely related, since a
pseudonymous communication is simply one in which the user I.D.
information is encrypted.  In the broader sense, both functionalities
provide a measure of privacy to the individual employing them,
and I strongly feel that an individual ought to be able to
choose their own privacy mechanisms, for their own reasons,
with a minimum of administrative oversight.

Steve
From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:49:42 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1gtkqfINNa98@agate.berkeley.edu> 
spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>Whereas WELL anonymity is unavailable to J. Random Subscriber
>at any price.
>
>What it is, in a minor sort of way, is inconsistent and a little 
>elitist. 

First of all, our thread on "Well anonymity" is a misnomer.  There are
no "anonymous" users on the Well, but there are some that have aliases. 
Celebrities can't be unaccountable or completely anonymous; they just
have their true names withheld.

But in any case what you say isn't true.  Anonymity is available (as
mentioned earlier "by special arrangement") to anyone who signs up on
the Well.  It is given for good reason.  To protect yourself if you are
a celebrity has been a valid reason in the past (though there are quite
a few celebrities who have had non-anonymous accounts).  If you as a
non-celebrity could come up with a good argument as to why you wanted to
be anonymous, you could probably get an account that way.  It's just
that celebrities are the main group that have wanted to protect their
identities and have the most valid reasons.

The benefits of the individual are weighed against that of the
community.  Most of the time, for reasons Cliff described, it has been
decided that users' true names should be available for the benefit of
the community.  Celebrities have to deal with a lot of privacy invasions
if they follow these rules, which would mean that they would not join. 
Anonymity actually helps the celebrities fit in because they don't have
to worry about playing the role of a celebrity.  They can just be
"normal people", whereas they can't do that in any other aspect in their
lives.  They can't go to the store or a movie without getting stared at
or confronted.

Now we have a medium that gives them the potential to avoid the
negatives of celebrity, so why not let them use it? It really does no
harm to the community, since within the community they are still
identifiable.  They just have left their celebrity behind to enter the
Well, a problem that most of us don't need to deal with. 

And isn't that a wonderful thing we can do with this technology?

-- 
 ________________________________________________________________________
|   John      jfw@neuro.duke.edu          Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead   jfw@well.sf.ca.us           Department of Neurobiology     |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:27:23 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1h693lINNna0@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
(Steve Pope) writes:
>Chuck Karish writes in response to my response to his post:
>
>|>>Another part of the [WELL] culture is strong
>|>>pressure to respect other participants.  
>|>
>|>I submit that the culture of respect is just as strong here
>|>on Usenet as it is on the WELL.
>|
>|This is a joke, right?  I can read an implied smiley
>|as well as the next subscriber.
>
>No, my remark was completely serious.

Then, Steve, it's interesting that you removed from your
quotation of my previous article the example I provided,
referring to one of your own articles, to support my view.


Steve, the thrust of many of the points that you claim
not to understand in this thread is that your use of the
term "consistent" is unintelligible to many of the rest
of us.  The term seems to be value-laden for you in a
way that it's not for me.  By my understanding, which
I illustrated in a previous article, your usage has
been incorrect.

Please tell us what you mean.

My reference to a venerable comment, usually quoted as
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", was
directly to the point.  Your insistence on consistency
as an essential criterion for an acceptable membership policy
seems silly and wrong-headed to those of us who fail to
understand your use of the term.

A policy does not have to be absolutely egalitarian to
be consistent.  A policy that's arbitrary does not have
to be unfair or inconsistent.  A policy that leaves some
scope for judgement on the part of the people who apply it
is not necessarily bad; in many cases, it's more likely
to produce desirable results than a policy that's overly
rigid.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
From: Michael.Lutas@p918.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Michael Lutas)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: ONE YEAR AGO: New news censorship policy at Iowa State University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 20:49:58 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:109/70.918 - No Montgomery Co Na, Rockville MD

In a msg on <Dec 18 10:41>, Gary Clark II of 1:105/42 writes:

 GCI> Just a short question.  Why don't the admins of the these sites 
 GCI> just require a waiver from _ALL_ persons wanting access saying that they  
 GCI> will not sue or otherwise bring to court for the contents of a piece of 
 GCI> electronic media? Then they don't (hopefully) do not need to worry about 
 GCI> a student sueing.

I believe there is no truly binding way to waive your right to sue for damages at a later date especially if there was malice involved. Such waivers might have the effect of reducing suits but I doubt they would get rid of enough that the site administration doesn't have to worry about lawsuits.


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!109!70.918!Michael.Lutas
Internet: Michael.Lutas@p918.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org
From: rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:34:59 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Dec31.145332.9194@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.235206.20192@panix.com> rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:
>>Quite a broad statement there.  I came up with an idea (never
>>implemented BTW) for a file compression virus for use on my home
>>computer(s).  Basically it would be a standard virus, but it would
>>compress a file it prepends itself to, so that upon execution
>>it would uncompress the file for normal execution.  It would _only_
>>infect files that could benefit from compression.  It would also check
>>for some file or other sort of marker on the system that the user
>>would have placed to give the virus permission to spread.  Thus
>>keeping it from spreading to anyone who didn't want it around.

>Beneficial?  Suppose you need to copy an executable from one system to another,
>and the new system does not have the marker?  Or the disk crashes across
>the marker?  How do you get the files back?

Well, its becoming obvious that you and others here have a deep
prejudice against programs which self-replicate.  I came up with a
simple outline for a virus which is beneficial, just to use as an
example that such *is* possible, and you can't take that for what it
is.  You have to pick holes in the idea.  *shrug*

Just for the sake of argument:

If you copy an executable from one system to another without a
permission file/marker it would still run.  The virus would just not
stay in memory after doing its job of decompressing the file it was
attached to, and thus not spread.  Alternatively (prefferred), it
could alert the user to its existence, and give the user the choice of
letting the virus stay in the file, or telling the virus to remove
itself from the file.

What if the marker is lost?  So what?  You don't need to "get the
files back".  They didn't go anywhere.  They are still quite usable.
The only thing which is changed, is that without permission, the virus
will not spread itself.

And don't you make backups?  So you restore the permission file.  Why
is this any different from when you lose any other file?

-- 
 Richard Powers    / Disclaimer: My keyboard is \   Computer=Amiga
rpowers@panix.com <  screwy.   Missing  letters  >  Music=Industrial
   Hail Eris!      \ should     be    expected. /   Food=Vegetarian
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Caller ID suggestion
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:42:57 GMT

jdc@access.digex.com (John Cochran) writes:

>The way I see the Caller ID problem breaks down into two major catergories.

>  1.  Calls being made to commercial businesses.
>      For this type of call, I fully support the ability to block caller ID.  I
>      currently receive far too many unsolited offers for "products, services,
>      etc." to allow yet another source of information for a business to
>      annoy me.

>  2.  Calls being made to private individuals.
>      For this type of call, I can't justify being able to block caller ID.

>I would like to hear comments on this.

How would you tell them apart? Besides, large businesses already have
your number throught 800 services. So, this would only affect small 
businesses - the ones that probably couln't capitalize on it anyway.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 24 Dec 1992 02:40:41 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec24.020623.5763@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1hb30lINNlfe@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>> For me it [ the information that the lack of pseudonymity is
>> one disadvantage of the WELL ] has shown up in face-to-face 
>> conversations with WELL users.  
>
>How many [users]?

Not a great number -- at least 2, possibly one or two more.

The context arises when I query along the lines of, "what is 
a good access service around here"?   WELL has the huge
advantage that you get all of the WELL conferences.  But
one disadvantage is you can't be completely anonymous --
Not only can't you participate pseudonymously in WELL 
conferences (which is not really a disadvantage of the WELL
because nobody can, except the exceptions) but your real name is 
emitted to the free world by smtp.

(Other disadvantages I am told are a low limit on disk filespace, 
and a slow connection out to the Internet, but those topics 
are not germane to this newsgroup.)

The actual number of users who have stated this to me is
irrelevant.  Any knowlegable person who is familiar with
WELL, netcom, wet, a2i etc. would come up with the same
assessment.  I don't have to ask 5,000 well users to confirm
what I already know.

Steve

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: ftp query
Date: 24 Dec 92 06:24:06 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <1992Dec22.201614.27@magill.unisa.edu.au> kerrb@magill.unisa.edu.au writes:
>Could someone advise me about what subdirectories to look in at
>ftp eff.org to obtain more information about the aims and organisation
>of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

At ftp.eff.org, the EFF files are in the EFF subdirectory of the
pub subdirectory. Check the ReadMe files for further info.


--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
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:27:14 GMT

In article <1h63e2INNmd5@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>One should always advance the most likely
>hypothesis given the facts in evidence.  This is the
>essence of the scientific method....

But the meaning of "most likely," when one is hypothesizing about human
motivations and purposes, may be impossible to determine. Seems
likely that you read your own agenda into the "most likely" hypothesis.


--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