HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:37:39 GMT
	<1993Jan11.014705.11465@netcom.com> <C0o5Dv.7B2@world.std.com>
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

I don't mind anonymity on a limited forum such as a private BBS. I use
a few local BBS's that allow anonymous accounts, and a fun time is had
by all. One problem is that the Internet is *one big* net, and those
of us who are on through our jobs are sharing space with those who are
on for education(formal or independant) and those who are on for  pure
amusement. 
  There *are* anonymous areas on the net, and there are anonymous
servers that are publicly accessible and cater to specific needs such
as personal ads. Any message that goes through an anonymous server is
clearly identified, so any user who strikes up a correspondence or
business deal with an anonymous person *knows* that they are dealing
with an alias, and can do so by choice and at their own risk.
  I don't really care if a system allows "handles" or not, personally,
and I think a private BBS, however large, can do what they like. For
that matter, I don't see anywhere in the guidelines (correct me if I'm
wrong) that says I can't give an internet account to a user with a
fake name. For my own purposes, and to be responsible to my employers,
*I* want to know who all of my users are. No user is anonymous to me. 
  As long as we're sharing the wires and the groups with business,
professional and academic organizations, I think the "play" space will
have to be separate from the "work" space. In the PC BBS world, most
systems started out allowing handles, but had to go to real names to
reduce the "noise" level. If the Internet allowed handles, I think we
would see True Chaos (Imminent Death of the Net Averted....)

  


--
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....
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:56:20 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <1993Jan7.152804.25976@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:

>But if the environment requires virus-free code, ANY infected program is not
>acceptable.  Just because the pop-up message says "I'm just a decompression
>virus, I won't hurt your system." does NOT means that's true.  Once this
>compressor virus was out for a while, there would be a dangerous virus that
>mimicked it up to the point where it entered the system, then attacked.

Exactly, exactly. i wonder if these cheery hypothesizers have ever
EXPERIENCED a virus infection on a PC in a work environment? Or
discovered that there were altered system files on a multi-user
networked machine, which they were being paid to keep secure?
   There's a very clear line on this group, and in comp.unix.admin,
between the paid system maintainers and what I would categorize as the
inexperienced users. Anyone who's ever seen a weird message appear on
a system console late Friday afternoon or early Monday morning has a
different attitude about "fool-proof" "guaranteed harmless" programs!

--
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: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:00:13 GMT

In article <C0psy4.KtL@panix.com> rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:
>In <1993Jan11.164043.6756@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>>Algorithmic integrity.  A virus has all of the algorithm contained in the
>>single infected program, and does not need to access another file for part
>>of the algorithm.  If it needs to access another file for part of its 'real'
>>code, it cannot spread by itself.
>
>No program of any kind has _all_ the code it needs to run.  The OS is
>an integral part.  On top of that, I've seen quite a few "lazy"
>programs which call a DOS command to do something instead of
>duplicating the code.  

But there is usually more than a trivial wrapper around the DOS command,
no?  THAT is the algorithm.  That the virus calls a system function is not
relevant - the intent on the program can be deduced from the code in the
virus section of the code.


-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Software as PE
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:31:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <1993Jan5.154910.19144@nastar.uucp> phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>In article <522322457DN5.61R@tanda.isis.org> marc@tanda.isis.org writes:
>>        It was a software engineer who decided that the brakes on the
>>        Fokker 100 shouldn't operate if a sensor indicated the wheels
>>        were up. They were designated part of the "on the ground"
>>        module. An aircraft systems engineer would have understood the
>>        difference between the sensor and the fact, recognised that
>>        applying brakes in midair could do no harm, and saved a few
>>        pilots a change of underwear.
>First of all, is this a confirmed thing?
>Secondly, just to clarify:  is the problem here that a sensor failed, thus
>preventing the brakes from operating when the wheels were in fact down?

It is my understanding that the decision of the software engineer was the
CORRECT one.  On a large jet aricraft the wheel brakes MUST NOT be applied
until after the wheels are on the ground and rolling because there is too
much chance of blow-out on touchdown otherwise.  The real problem was that 
there was no emeregecy override in case the weight-on-wheels sensor failed.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
From: drhg9552@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen)
Subject: Re: Motivated libertarians (was: Clinton Office Requests Comments)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:42:20 GMT

pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:

% It is unfortunate that
% some of the best known libertarians did not have a sense of civic duty
% (like Ayn Rand) and as a result have kept some people from examining
% these promising ideas as a solution to many of the problems we face
% today, such as poverty and war.

I don't think it is correct to say that Ayn Rand did not have a sense
of civic duty.  Afterall, she spent many years of her life trying to
promote a philosophy that she believed would be good for everyone.  I
think the above sentiment derives from a misunderstanding of her
philosophy of rational self interest.  One must understand that
helping one's self can also be a way of helping other people.  For
instance, successful businesses are usually generated by people that
work hard at finding ways to benefit other people.  For example, the
founders of the airlines reasoned that people could benefit from rapid
transportation and would therefore be willing to handsomely compensate
the provider of that service.  Similarly, Rand knew that she would be
rewarded, in the form of book contracts, for her efforts to enlighten
other people.  In addition, it is a truism that pushing for a free and
just society would benefit everyone and it is therefore in everyone's
interest to spend some amount of time pushing for it, even if the
profits are not direct.  Even better is to find profitable ways of
helping those that need it.  It is the ultimate moral triumph to find
a way of benefitting everyone including one's self.

Darrell R. Hougen
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Boycotting CERT because of the keystroke monitoring advisory?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 23:48:27 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1993Jan5.162622.11875@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>  The warning is based on wiretapping
>>statutes, which do not require a warning if the recording is being
>>performed by one of the parties to the conversation.

>This is not law in Illinois. The law varies from state to state. Look
>in the front of your phone book for the law in your state.

Massachusetts also requires consent of both parties.  However, the
analogous statement in the phone book specifically refers to "wiretapping",
not "recording".  I don't know the legal definition offhand, but my
dictionary defines "tap" as "to connect into secretly so as to receive the
message being transmitted".  This implies that the party performing the
recording is a third party, since the connection of one of the intended
parties to the conversation is hardly "secret".

If the conversation being recorded is interstate, does the state law apply?
And in the case of a cracker hopping from node to node, is it his point of
origin or the node from which he connects to my node that is used to
determine whether the conversation is inter- or intra-state?
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:54:57 GMT

>Just turn your own example around which started this:
>
>You get into a disagreement with mickey_mouse@bell. MM threatens to
>nail your cat to your door. You don't give it any mind (but you save
>the msg.) You get home that night and there's your cat nailed to the
>door. So you call Bell and say "hey, who is this mickey_mouse guy I
>want to report him/her/it to the police...etc". And they say "damned
>if we know, he's one of those anonymous users you sued us over not
>having last year so we changed our policy."
>
>You don't find that analogous? I do.
>
>At the very least hanging ones' real name out there might temper one a
>bit, and I believe that's basically what, um, Bell's policies are
>claimed to be motivated by.


You've got it wrong.. BELL would have the name of annonymous users, otherwise
how would they bill them? By annonymous people meant that BELL would put
Mickey_Mouse@Bell on all messages from John_Smith@Bell..

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Boycotting CERT because of the keystroke monitoring advisory?
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:26:22 GMT

barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:

[...]
>We passed the CERT advisory on to our company lawyer.  His opinion is that
>the warning notice is unnecessary.  The warning is based on wiretapping
>statutes, which do not require a warning if the recording is being
>performed by one of the parties to the conversation.
[...]

This is not law in Illinois. The law varies from state to state. Look
in the front of your phone book for the law in your state. Here is the
Illinois law (according to my phone book):

"Recording Calls

Recording conversations is not permitted unless:

* All parties first consent either verbally or in writing, or
* A distinctive tone sounds every 15 seconds during the recording, or
* The party intending to record the converstation notified the other party
   -- at the beginning of the conversation -- that the call is being recorded.

Exceptions include recording made by law enforcement officed and broadcast
stations recording for the sole purpose of broadcast."

- Carl

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: PROGRAMMERS AND LIBERTARI
From: derek.lyons@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Derek Lyons) 
Date: 6 Jan 93 11:46:00 GMT
Reply-To: derek.lyons@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Derek Lyons) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

HL|It Simple, Stupid).  They know that the simpler a system is,
HL|the more likely its effectiveness and integrity can be                  
HL|maintained.  They look at the federal government and see a              

I don't think Micro$oft has ever heard of KISS....

elde@aol.com
---
 . MegaMail 2.10 #0:Please cite a reference!
 * The Sports Complex'Network|Kitsap County,WA|(206)692-2388 7 Nodes!
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  TSCNET (#1607) : RelayNet(tm) Hub
                                                      
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:32:23 GMT

>It's funny how, once we get used to being abused, we start defending
>everyone else's right to abuse us in the same ways.  What we seem to
>have here is a classic "slippery slope", with a dash of conditioned
>submissiveness-to-authority thrown in.  Kind of scary if you ask me.

It's funny how anytime someone is trying to convince people that everything
done by the government or by a corporation of more than 3 people is bad that
they go on about how much people are being conditioned for
'submissiveness-to-authority'.

I don't know why they can't just accept the fact that certain people don't
think it's a corporations fault if someone using a service of theirs is an
idiot! If you don't want to use a service where someone has your info then
don't, they tell you that you can not be annonymous so you go to a service
that will let you be annonymous. If you accept their offer of service then
anything resulting from lack of anonymity should be your fault!

This is totally different if they knew a weird was stalking their customers,
then if they didn't tell their applicants I would find THEM liable.


P.S. If a credit agency reports false data then they should be charged for
whatever problems arise.. That is a stupid law that gives corporations too
much power. If they want to sell your info then they better make sure it's
correct!.

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 15:00:28 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: Thibault & Friends


In article <C063rH.IML@panix.com> (Richard Powers) complains:
> I'm beginning to see that many people have some _serious_
> misconceptions about virii.

        Actually it's our poverty of imagination; we can't conceive of
        anything a 'good' virus will do that couldn't be done by a
        driver, daemon or utility in a simpler, more elegant and safer
        manner.

        Point is, all sorts of beneficial things can be dreamed up for
        virii to do, if you are desparate to justify their use; but
        none of these things (so far) are best done by a virus.

        Can anyone enlighten us with something that takes advantage of
        the _unique_ properties of a virus? The "incredible shrinking
        binary" virus is an immediate loser; utilities like PkLite
        (specific) and Stacker (general) already provide this service
        without involving a virus.

        Cheers,

                Marc

---
 Marc Thibault        |  Automation Architect        |  All we are saying
 marc@tanda.isis.org  |  R.R.1, Oxford Mills,        |  is give global
 CIS:71441,2226       |  Ontario, Canada  K0G 1S0    |  warming a chance.
 NC FreeNet: aa185    |                              |

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQBNAiqxYTkAAAECALfeHYp0yC80s1ScFvJSpj5eSCAO+hihtneFrrn+vuEcSavh
AAUwpIUGyV2N8n+lFTPnnLc42Ms+c8PJUPYKVI8ABRG0I01hcmMgVGhpYmF1bHQg
PG1hcmNAdGFuZGEuaXNpcy5vcmc+
=HLnv
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
From: mch@doc.ic.ac.uk (Mike C Holderness)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Bruce Sterling
Date: 11 Jan 1993 09:28:03 -0000
Organization: c/o Dept Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: swan.doc.ic.ac.uk
Summary: please forward message to...
Keywords: please forward by email


I almost hate to bring this up in the context of the debates on anonymity...
but if anyone out there knows an email address for Bruce Sterling, could
you drop him a line asking him to mail me: science writer Mike Holderness
<mch@doc.ic.ac.uk>. I already have his fax number, but I know I find it
harder and harder to read paper... and he's probably on tour. Tell him it's
about our scheduled meeting (probably a surprise to him) on January twenty-umm.
If, of course, anyone out there _is_ Bruce Sterling (under some name) -- hi!

Mike Holderness
London UK
--
I detect no opinions herein. In any case, I don't give opinions away, I sell
them  I have not sold anything herein.
.
 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff
Subject: Bruce Sterling
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
Keywords: 

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: NEW PARTICIPANT
From: ron.fitzherbert@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Ron Fitzherbert) 
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:54:00 GMT
Reply-To: ron.fitzherbert@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Ron Fitzherbert) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

The Arts Place BBS is now carrying this conference.
---
 * The Arts Place BBS 703-528-8467 14.4V
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  ARTS (#1680) : RelayNet(tm)
                                                                                                            
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Clayten_Hamacher@mindlink.bc.ca (Clayten Hamacher)
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:53:35 GMT

>Certainly, if the sysadmin was the installer.  But if Mary User was
>the installer, and Joe Public gets his files compressed, and can't
uncompress
>them, or is concerned when the "Warning:  VIRUSOK.MK not found.  Install?"
>message appears on his home machine when a copied executable is run, how
>does the info get to Joe?

How many people do you know who have a unix workstation at home that runs the
same executables as the one at the office? Some versions of the same
workstation won't even run each other's executables so for Joe to take an
executables file home with him is VERY rare.

>You are assuming that every user can (and should) have all his/her files
>locked up tighter than a drum, on a multi-user system.  The first is
possible,
>but the second is debatable.

Almost all multi-user systems I have been on have had write permission denied
as a default.. Even on systems that don't (considering a different version
would need to be done for each OS) the virus could be restricted so it looks
in YOUR root directory (I can't see why it would do otherwise) for the marker
file, and will not do anything unless the marker file AND the executable
you're running belong to you. That's incredibly easy.

This way the sysadmin could install the virus for bin (who usually has root
privs, or very near) and it would just pack the files in /bin.. Considering a
user has absolutely no need to look at the executable then this would be a
100% legit way for the sysadmin to pack the files without being obligated to
tell you.

>It is the assumption that you (or the virus writer) know better than I what
>is beneficial to my system/files that is the problem.

Where did you get this idea? If that was the thought of the virus writer then
they wouldn't make it dependant on a marker file.

--

Clayten_Hamacher@Mindlink.bc.ca                 Land of the rising snow.
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:50:18 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <m093wB2w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:

>| You are missing a basic point. For a virus to "check for the presence
>| of a marker file" that virus has to be executing on my system, whether
>| or not I have authorized it to. 

>   2. You did not install the viral software - there is no marker.
	 The file decompresses, and the virus deactivates itself and
	 does NOT take up residence in memory and does NOT run.  This
	 virus could also erase itself from the self-uncompressing code,

Right there, right where you say "the file decompresses." If something
is executing a program to decompress a file, on my system with no
marker, that something is an unwanted intruder on my system. 

  If you're talking about a self-extracting archive that offers to
install its compression code into other files on my system, then that
sounds more like a vaccine than a virus, in that it is not
self-replicating. 
  
  The original discussion, and the original software I was objecting
to, had to do with sending a virus-prevention virus out over the net
to infect and then immunize un-knowing systems. This seems to have
evolved into a discussion about a specialized utility program
with a complex installation method...interesting from a creative
standpoint but not that relevant to a discussion of beneficial
viruses.


--
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: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:31:01 GMT

In article <C0ns5y.DxA@world.std.com> mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves) writes:

>The thought I had in my mind was of a phrase which I believe comes
>from old English common law: "No wrong without a remedy".

This explains your mistake. The phrase is "No right without a remedy."
That is, if there's no remedy, then there's no enforceable right.


--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