HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clayton@gandalf.cs.andrews.edu (Bryan Clayton)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Organization: Andrews University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:16:22 GMT


I am concerned about the Internet (NREN in its next incarnation)
becoming like Compuserve. I have an Internet account by the good grace
of my system admin. I have full access (ftp,telnet,rlogin) and even a
little storage space. I call up through a local Merit dialin and pay no
charges of any kind. I would never want to lose my access. I can talk to
someone I don't even know halfway around the world just by fingering the
name on the system and sending a talk request to a username who's logged
on (I had a total stranger do this to me a while ago). I can spend as
much time as I want investigating the Internet without incurring
charges of any kind(local calls are free). 

My personal feeling is still that the NREN should be a PUBLIC network. I
don't trust profit driven corporations owning the NREN. I think it
should belong to (be owned by?) some aspect of the government. I have no
problem with private business selling access to or administering the
network. That would give competitive access prices. The network should
be setup to be as modular and as transparent as can be( this last
statement may seem to be mutually exclusive but its not). In this I mean
encryption schemes should be replaceable, any type of sound or video
should be made to run on it.

More later as the ideas flow....

Bryan Clayton
clayton@edmund.cs.andrews.edu


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: kranitz@sol.med.ge.com (Wesley Kranitz  x7-4409)
Subject: Re: Did EFF *really* do this!?
Organization: Nowhere, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:19:28 GMT

Tim Smith (tzs@carson.u.washington.edu) wrote:
: [I've been having posting problems, and suspect this did not get out.  If
:  you've seen this already, sorry!]

: John Perry Barlow <barlow@icecube.pinedale.wy.us> writes:
: > Had we thought that Gerard or Rita would have been willing to make the move,
: > we would have offered them positions there. 

: Did you really mean to say this?  This seems to imply that you just assumed
: that they would not want to move, so you fired them rather than asking them.

: --Tim Smith

Don't be surprised. This happend to my wife some years ago. The company
she worked for moved and fired her. When she asked why, the answer was "Your
work was just fine. We didn't think you'd want to move, so we hired someone
to replace you." She loved the job. We would have moved without blinking
an eye...... Shows what some people think of their employees.

Wes
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo)
Subject: Re: New case for EFF, ACLU, and CPSR
Originator: fig@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:59:33 GMT

kranitz@sol.med.ge.com (Wesley Kranitz  x7-4409) writes:

>John Nagle (nagle@netcom.com) wrote:
>:       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?

>: 					John Nagle

>It's just so that they can look like their still for Civil liberties
>instead of for the big guy's who are paying them. If the big flap over
>what they did when they got rid of various people had not occured, I 
>doubt that they would have persued the matter. 

>This is all my opinon, of course.

And it's hogwash, Wes.  Get a grip, man.  We got involved well before the 
meeting where the changes were decided.

-- 
<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
Cliff Figallo                                     fig@eff.org
Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation          (617)864-0665 (voice)
Cambridge Office                                  (617)864-0866 (fax)
From: reinitz-john@cs.yale.edu (John Reinitz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:15:26 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyaya.systemsz.cs.yale.edu
Summary: What would you lobby *me* to do?

In article <C16231.4BG@ibmpcug.co.uk> gtoal@rachel.ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>
>I just don't see where your current priorites come from.  What's the
>point?  Where's the relevance to the computing community?
>
>I've read eff's documents and I'm none the wiser.  Could you explain
>your mission/brief at a more concrete level please, in simple english; then
>give a few examples of practical consequences and plans.  I read all the
>meta stuff and think 'that sounds reasonable' then I look for the
>practise and am befuddled.

Graham speaks for me as well. John Perry Barlow criticized me
for forming an opinion based on soundbytes, so I read the
stuff from eff.org. I have no *clue* what you are actually recommeding
in the way of legislative action. If I were in Congress, what would
you lobby *me* to do? And why?


>
>Thanks
>
>Graham

John

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: New case for EFF, ACLU, and CPSR
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:10:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.222429.28695@mr.med.ge.com> kranitz@sol.med.ge.com (Wesley Kranitz  x7-4409) writes:
>John Nagle (nagle@netcom.com) wrote:
>:       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?
>
>: 					John Nagle
>
>It's just so that they can look like their still for Civil liberties
>instead of for the big guy's who are paying them. If the big flap over
>what they did when they got rid of various people had not occured, I 
>doubt that they would have persued the matter. 
>
>This is all my opinon, of course.

The 2600 Mall incident and the CPSR/EFF/et. al. involvement occured in
November, '92, well before any "big flap."

Jim Thomas


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: One good thing about the EFF mess
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:29:15 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 <1993Jan26.212255.26836@eff.org> fig@eff.org (Cliff Figallo) writes:
>I am compiling a weekly digest
>of net activity to circulate among EFF staff and board so that viewpoints on 
>issues under discussion are represented within EFF.  
	This is an excellent idea.  I'm glad you are doing this.



>I am also working
>with EFF staff to address misunderstandings of EFF positions and policies,
>wording EFF outgoing communications to better explain what we are doing
>and why.  EFF does not pretend to believe that it will convince everyone
>of the correctness of its positions, but it wants to make sure that those
>positions are stated clearly.
	It's impossible to convince *everybody* on the internet of
	*anything*. If you spent more time on the net you would know
	this. ;-) ;-) <---(Just so it is clear to the humor impaired).

	Really, Cliff I think that despite the fact that some of
	the changes were kind of abrupt and perhaps poorly handled,
	you have done a really excellent job of maintaining
	the lines of communication.  I think it is possible to
	live in Washington without having "Washington live in you"
	but it takes a lot of contact with folks outside the beltway.
	It appears that your job will make you the contact point
	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
	depend on how well it stays in contact with its natural 
	constituency.

>This meeting showed
>all of us that EFF and the grassroots networking community are, indeed,
>still on the same planet.
	Yeah, well, its your job to make sure that the EFF doesn't
	end up stranded on Planet Washington. ;-)  Suerte!



							smg
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: What the State of Iowa is doing while EFF does the D.C. shuffle
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:20:53 GMT
	<C1E1xH.Cu@news.iastate.edu> <1jvu5g$4un@nic.near.net>
Distribution: inet
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

John, you'd know the answer to this: What would happen to NEARnet if
the government asked us to "go private?" What's the extent of NSFnet
funding involved in NEARnet? I'm a bit confused about how both
educational and commercial enterprises get our connectivity from the
same place. Aren't some NEARnet members commercial?

  If we (UMass) for example, had to start buying our service from the 
commercial providers, could we, and would it be a huge cost increase?
I know that we have connections to NSFnet, Alternet, and um, um, the other
commercial net....does NEARnet sort out traffic from different NEARnet
members?

  Pardon me for asking all this in public, but there seem to be a lot
of different ideas floating around about the public and private
funding of the Net. I assume that NEARnet is comparable to the other
Regional service providers in mix....

Thanks, Betsy 
(*wishing I could remember who borrowed my NEARnet booklet*)

--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: What the State of Iowa is doing while EFF does the D.C. shuffle
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:36:52 GMT

}john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
  [...Iowa Communications Network...]

brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
}Only, I hope, as an experimental prototype project.   The vast worldnet
}we are building will become the foundation of our society, even more so
}than the roads or other networks.   To have it owned and controlled by
}any one entity, particularly the government, would be highly unwise.

It seems to have been not terribbly unwise to have (essentially) all the
roads owned by the government -- what leads you to believe networks are
different?  In any event, there hasn't exactly been a flood of companies
taking the lead...

John
-- 
John Hascall                   ``An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.''
Systems Software Engineer
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center  +  Ames, IA  50011  +  515/294-9551
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:43:24 GMT

In article <9301221520.AA04007@pizzabox.demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>:Graham, who talked about a "technological elite"? I am wholly uninterested
>:in providing high-bandwidth services to an elite. The only thing that will
>:satisfy me is seeing it available to everybody.
>
>You're going to personally ensure that high-bandwidth high-performance
>interactive video etc etc computers are available to the massed public?

Did I say I was personally going to ensure anything?

>:Why the "Before"? Can't we be concerned with both at the same time?
>
>Frankly, no.

Then we must agree to disagree. I believe an organization can do more than
one thing at a time. It is possible to drastically improve individuals'
connection to high-bandwidth services within five years.


--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: EFF and its growing pains...
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:47:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.050845.14967@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Mike Godwin still misses the basic point that we are talking about a single,
>large capital facility with economies of scale in the NREN.

You're right. I'm still missing the point that we are talking about that.
I was talking about something else.

>Competition only works when a particular set of circumstances is
>present--for details see any introductory economics textbook.

Thanks for the reference.

>Those
>circumstances aren't present in the case of large-scale facilities such as
>the NREN or the national Supercomputer network.

Which introductory economics textbook says this?


--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: timhu@ico.isc.com (Timothy Hu)
Subject: Consumption tax...Oh no!
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:50:24 GMT

I was just listening to NPR ATC. I suppose that we're starting to look a lot like Canada. Not
that Canada's bad or anything, but the VAT sure is.
-- 
Timothy Hu timhu@ico.isc.com	 | The intelligence (or lack of) expressed
Interactive Systems Corporation  | above does not necessarily reflect
Resource Solutions International | that of anyone else.
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: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:22:09 GMT

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>Lionel Robbins, certainly not. As one who has been Chief Economist of two of
>America's Fortune 50 companies for 10 years each, you may rely on me to
>oppose any suggestion of inappropriate central planning or government
>regulation. But the present case is different.

Wish I could remember the quote, but it seems very appropriate here...
Paraphrased, it goes something like this: "To truly know what a
politician really means, don't listen to anything before the first
'but.'  Everything before that is him covering his butt."  The only
"natural" monopolies are those that the government helps.
-- 
Better to have [your enemies] inside the tent pissin' out than outside pissin'
in. -- LBJ
From: marcusj@apricot.co.uk (Marcus Jenkins)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,uk.net
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:10:45 GMT
Organization: Apricot Computers Limited

Has somebody pointed out to (that awfully nice person) Bob Hay, that you
can just dial a BBS abroad (say Holland, I don't suppose a call to Holland
is very expensive (I guess that would cover the porn aspect))(OK, what does
a call to Taiwan, say, cost (to get Word for Windows 2.0, say, at 14400bps
- cheaper than buying it, might I suggest))?

I don't suppose that these anti-piracy bodies want any of this #1000 fee to
go to themselves do they?

Why can't we put the boot on the other foot and introduce some legislation
to protect anybody wrongfully pillaged by such a body waving an Anton Pillar
order?  As I understand it at the moment, if such an instance does arise, the
situation is this:
FAST et al. have no money to speak of themselves - they are just fronts for
giants like Lotus, Microsoft etc..  If you sue them for ruining your business
after a raid supported by an Anton Pillar order, you are wasting your time.
Now if you could get some money out of Microsoft... ;)

Marcus
From: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,uk.net
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:01:20 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <1993Jan21.175643.21087@orbital.demon.co.uk> steveh@orbital.demon.co.uk (Stephen Hebditch) writes:
>In a follow-up message, a FAST official
>said he considered that the current situation in which anyone with the
>right equipment can communicate around the world was anarchic, and
>should be much more strictly controlled. When a possible figure of 1000
>UKP a year for a licence was suggested it was not denied. This would
>effectively wipe out all the smaller boards, and force the others to
>start charging in order to be able to cover their costs.


This guy must have a real problem with the telephone system - imagine all
those crooks can actually use a phone to talk to each other and plan crimes
- obviously should be regulated :-)


Wouldn't be a lot cheaper for FAST just to dial into the known boards every
so often and warn or prosecute those with copyright s/w on offer rather than
spend thousands getting the law changed, licence authority set up and the
STILL having to dial all the suspected unlicenced BBSs to see if they exist
and then take them to court.  


What about BBSs outside the UK?  Are they suggesting that all international
calls be blocked/monitored just in case?




-- 
Geoff. Lane. | Internet: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk | Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin,  Manchester Computing Centre,  Oxford Rd,  Manchester, M13 9PL
Exactly who makes the Tannoy announcements in M*A*S*H?  It can't be Radar
and there is never anyone else in the office.  (This refers to `classic'
M*A*S*H of course, not M*A*S*H*Lite with all the Radar removed at source.)
From: rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis)
Subject: Re: What news of FOIA disclosures?
Originator: rita@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:10:39 GMT

In article <C0xDH3.KrF@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>Chatting to Rita a couple of days back, she was just recovering from a
>busy session of typing in the results of Mike Godwin's FOIA request that
>we heard about here some months ago.  Could you see that that info is
>posted sometime?  We're all looking forward to it.

	This was John Gilmore's FOIA suit, Graham.   The filings are
all in /pub/crypto in the FTP archives.  John Gilmore was to flip the
permissions when he looked over the files -- I have no idea if he has
done that already.  He can be reached as gnu@cygnus.com.


Rita




Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix,gnu.misc.discuss,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: ade@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Adrian Collins)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,uk.net
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Date: 22 Jan 93 11:21:21 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In <6543@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane) writes:
>This guy must have a real problem with the telephone system - imagine all
>those crooks can actually use a phone to talk to each other and plan crimes
>- obviously should be regulated :-)

I think it's absolutely disgraceful that you can get phone calls from your
Mother-in-law just because they happen to have the right equipment.  Truely
Anarchic...

>Wouldn't be a lot cheaper for FAST just to dial into the known boards every
>so often and warn or prosecute those with copyright s/w on offer rather than
>spend thousands getting the law changed, licence authority set up and the
>STILL having to dial all the suspected unlicenced BBSs to see if they exist
>and then take them to court.  

I was going to argue that they could recoup their costs by charging 1000 UKP
per bulletin board, but thinking about it that's wrong.  Most sysops run
bulletin boards just for fun or to chat to people.  They put up with enough
hassle as it is without having to find a 1000 quid to register every year.
I reckon that most sysops'll just give up if faced with more hassle.

The story I heard quite a while back was that Netmail area coordinators
refused to let BBSs join the netmail & echomail systems (where messages are
transferred between bulletin boards) if they contained porn or pirated
software.  I think porn was allowed but only in closed groups where users had
to subscribe and provide some proof of age when joining.
I don't know if this was limited to the Manchester area or across the country.  

It seemed like this issue flared up after the press blew it all up out of
proportion with articles suggesting that school kids could easily get access
to pornographic material via bulletin boards.

However, judging that FAST and the other orginisation seem to be rallying for
BBS registration, I think it is software piracy and not pornography that is
the issue.  It is just some feeble excuse to push their dictatorship.

Cheers,

  Adrian
-- 
Adrian Collins, MCC Network Unit, The University, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
    (061)-275-6009  or for those of the computer age: ade@mcc.ac.uk 

"How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on"
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:20:02 +0000

:Graham, who talked about a "technological elite"? I am wholly uninterested
:in providing high-bandwidth services to an elite. The only thing that will
:satisfy me is seeing it available to everybody.

You're going to personally ensure that high-bandwidth high-performance
interactive video etc etc computers are available to the massed public?
In how many years?  10? 20?  All this high-bandwidth talk *IS* for the
technological elite.  As someone points out later on, most of the non-
elite who are connected at all (to BBSes etc) are on 2400bd modems.
If your main focus (as you repeatedly claim) is a civil liberties
stance to ensure that the nets remain free of Govt interference, then
you could be working on that right now and not directing all your
effort to some 'technological fix' that like star wars will make
everything in the garden lovely overnight.

:> Before you start thinking about folks
:>like us finding better ways to burn bandwidth, how about thinking of
:>ways to get the masses connected - old big ears and his 'electronic
:>town halls' etc.

:Why the "Before"? Can't we be concerned with both at the same time?

Frankly, no.  The trite way of phrasing it is  "don't put the cart before
the horse".  Or if you prefer it in big business speak (or actually in
military speak where I learned it at Officer's Training College) "Choose
only one primary objective and stick to it."  If you try to 'concentrate'
on more than one objective you'll fulfil neither.

:>Is getting a significant percentage of the US poplation net connected
:>one of your priorites?  If so, what percentage?  In how many years?
:>If so, how do your current initiatives (like pushing high-bandwidth
:>access, and presumably high-cost computers to make good use of it)
:>fit into that picture?

:Are you saying we must choose *between* promoting access and promoting
:infrastructure improvement? Why must we choose between these two goals?

Are you saying that that *is* one of your goals?  In which case, answer
the question please.  What level of public connectivity are you aiming
for?  (In gross figures I mean - 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 100%?)
and in what timescale? (1yr, 5yrs, 10yrs, 20yrs, 30yrs, 50yrs, 100yrs?)

I'm not asking to to choose between useful goals; I'm asking you to
inform us what your priorities are.  At the moment the only priority
I see coming through clearly is to lobby Washington to make changes
that directly benefit your big financial sponsors.

G
PS On priorities: there are two ways of looking at priorities - 1) by
listing all the things you say are important; and 2) by ordering all
the things you plan to support by share of planned budget.  I'll be
more inclined to pay attention to the latter.