HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,rec.photo,misc.legal,alt.bbs
Subject: Ways of chilling or banning Usenet(was Re: Illegal photograph postings)
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:41:46 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Apr5.212321.19972@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, whs70@dancer (24411-sohl) writes:
>>(alt.hackers, alt.security).  Expect it to appear in a generic
>>anti-crime bill [ .. ]

>Think some more about the prospects (not likely in
>my opinion) that any lawsuit would be successful
>against internet, usenet, or any site
>based on some portion of material being copyrighted and posted
>without the copyright holder's permission.

I wasn't talking about a lawsuit based on current laws, I was talking
about a new law designed for the purpose of limiting unsupervised
information exchange needed to limit increasing computer crime,
copyright violations, child pornography, terrorism and credit card and
wire fraud.  Perhaps it could be implemented by requiring reporting of
editors responsible for the contents of any public electronic forums,
requirements to have real names used everywhere, requirements of
cleartext communications (already proposed), requirements to respect
"community standards" on the media, requirements for "equal coverage"
and other such good-sounding rhetorics.  Perhaps by some other means.

Does that seem so impossible or improbable when looking at FCC content
restrictions, the proposal circulating to require the telephone
network to be built for the purpose of surveillance on everyone, the
civil forfeitures, the proposed anti-cryptography bill, all of the War
on Constitution legislation?

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:3392 alt.activism:7406
From: brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Let's get nonprofit info on-line
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:29:15 GMT
Organization: Widener University Computer Science Dept, Chester PA
NNTP-Posting-Host: lisa.cs.widener.edu

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>1) Explicitly allow (at least some) material to be copied without
>prior permission.
>      Copyright 1992 [author's name]
>      Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this
>      guide provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are
>      preserved on all copies.
>
>      Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
>      booklet under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the
>      entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a
>      permission notice identical to this one.
>
>      Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this
>      booklet into another language, under the above conditions for modified
>      versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a
>      translation approved by the author.

Just as a warning, a lot of places will flinch when they read this.
From a purely legal standpoint, it really gives away a lot (I just
went through this); anything that they wish to retain any rights to
will probably not be available for this kind of a rights agreement.

-- 
Brendan Kehoe, Sun Network Manager                      brendan@cs.widener.edu
Widener University                                                 Chester, PA
                    Isaac Asimov: A step above the rest; may he rest in peace.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to UNL CRC: Removal of alt.*
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general,alt.censorship
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 15:32:58 GMT

[This is a copy of a letter printed in the _Daily Nebraskan_ yesterday
(3/30/92).]

Carl M. Kadie, Co-Editor
Computer and Academic Freedom News
kadie@uiuc.edu and kadie@eff.org

Editor
The Daily Nebraskan
Nebraskan Union, Room 34
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0448

Dear Editor:

I write to protest the University of Nebraska's ban of my newsgroup,
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. Alt.comp.acad-freedom.news (CAF-News) is
an edited on-forum for discussions of computers and academic freedom.
Contrary to the impression left by your article of March 17, it is not
"recreational", "sick", "pornographic", or "illegal.

According to the article, the ban was justified in part because the
"alt" newsgroups are recreational. This justification has three flaws.
First, recreation is generally not prohibited at universities. Second,
"alt" newsgroups such as CAF-News, CAF-talk, alt.censorship, and
alt.civil-liberty, are not recreational. Third, many newsgroups such
as rec.skydiving and rec.games.chess are recreational, but were not
banned.

I suspect that the overly broad ban was modivated by a desire to
prohibit discussions of sex. (This is like the Library banning all
magazines that start with the letter "P" in order to get rid of
Playboy.) Because, however, the committee that banned the "alt"
newsgroups worked in secret and produced no detailed selection policy,
we cannot know.

Traditional libraries have had to deal with limited resources and
selection-versus-censorship for a long time.  One of the foundations
of a library's protection of intellectual freedom is that selection
policies should be written, detailed, and created in the open[1]. In
my opinion, the University should offer the same protection to
"computer libraries". A detailed selection policy for computer
material will not necessarly stop the Univeristy from banning
disucssions of sex, but it will make such bans explicit and open to
discussion. Also, a detailed selection policy is less likely to
exclude newsgroups such as my own.

Sincerely,


Carl M. Kadie
Co-Editor, Computers and Academic Freedom News

cc: Leo Chouinard, Academic Senate
    Douglas Gale, Director of Computing
    Kent Henderickson, Dean of Libraries
    Office of the President

===============
1. Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library
Association, Wookbook for selection policy writing, 1983.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Public supported network will hurt poor
Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:07:42 GMT

From article <CKD.92Mar31174407@loiosh.eff.org>, by ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis):
> 
> There was a piece in _Newsweek_ recently about giving voice mail
> capabilities to homeless people who were trying to find jobs; apparently
> the ability to reliably get messages (as opposed to having the shelter
> take phone messages, which wasn't terribly reliable) was a big help in
> getting a job interview (and, hence, improved their chances of getting a
> job).  Electronic mail has the same capacity for "delayed action", and
> adds the ability to search a jobs database and send out inquiries all in
> one sitting, without having to scribble down addresses, print out stacks
> of boilerplate cover letters, and wait for the oh-so-efficient USPS to
> get them to their destinations.
> 
I want people out of work to be able to get jobs.  I don't know what 
solution that _Newsweek_ was proposing.  If they were volunteering to pay 
for these services - GREAT!  If they were proposing to make a for profit 
industry out of it - GREAT!  If they were hoping to influence government 
to force people to pay for this service, then it will do more harm than 
good, and will hurt the poor.  This was the original message in this 
chain that quoted Hazlitt from "Economics in One Lesson" and the 
reasoning behind the statement that a tax funded network will hurt the 
poor.

> Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org> |    ECONOMIC OBSERVATIONS DEPARTMENT
> System Manager & Postmaster     |  "There's always something going out of
> Electronic Frontier Foundation  |      business in Central Square."
> +1 617 864 0665  NIC: [CKD1]    |   -Rita Marie Rouvalis <rita@eff.org>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schmidt - President        "Freedom seems to have unleashed the
Davy Crockett Chapter:          creative  energies of the  people --
Advocates for Self-Government   and leads to ever  higher  levels of
706 Judith Drive                income and social progress."
Johnson City, TN 37604                         United Nations report
(615)283-0084  --  uunet!tijc02!pjs269
From: Mark.Goodman@f485.n101.z1.fidonet.org (Mark Goodman)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: RE: PUBLIC SUPPORTED NETWORK WILL H
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:51:37 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:101/485 - BCS Macintosh TBBS, Somerville MA

Sorry, but I haven't figured out how to quote from previous messages.
 You quote from a number of sources to support your argument that unplanned economies work best.  The less planning, the better, it seems.  But finding quotes does not make it true.  And it is certainly _not_ true that the Japanese economy is less planned than that of the United States.
 
There is one important area where economic planning is essential: the environment.  It is abundantly clear that unfettered markets cannot incorporate the delayed costs from environmental degradation and resource depletion.  It is also clear that unless serious action is taken soon, the planet is headed for collapse.


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!101!485!Mark.Goodman
Internet: Mark.Goodman@f485.n101.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,rec.photo,misc.legal,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Illegal photograph postings (was: Your police at work for y
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:57:07 GMT
Organization: The Greg Lake Fan Club

dave@compnect.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
> <sigh> I just love statements like this. You cannot BAN Usenet since
> Usenet does not exist in any real sense of the term. There is no group,
> organization or executive hierarchy. There is no corporate entity,
> managing office or employees. No-one runs Usenet per se and we all run
> it. So there is a Court order issued (USENET BANNED - ULTIMATE DEATH OF
> USENET - Film at 11). Who gets the court order? Where do they deliver it
> for execution? WHO can they deliver it to? The backbone sites? Won't
> kill Usenet, just severly cripple it. Deliver it to ALL sites currently
> carrying Usenet in the states? Look at the maps data base. Now figure
> the cost per copy of a court order and multiply it by the total number
> of sites. Now add in the cost of delivery to each and every site. THAT'S
> what you'd need to 'kill' Usenet and even then it wouldn't die
> completely since there are an awful lot of sites not in the maps and we
> haven't even STARTED to discuss the international sites. 

You cannot _ban_ it, but you certainly can make it so hot for individual 
sysadmins that they'll dump everyone except  upstanding yuppies, and 
maybe even a few of them, effectively isolating the net from everyone 
else.  How many sysadmins do you think would keep public accounts when 
they hear how _The Waffle House_ was found guilty of such and such and 
ordered to pay x-million dollars, etc.?  Not very many, I'll wager.


"Sometimes what you say is going to fly right in the faces of the 
powerful people who really run this world, but you don't care...you know 
it's your place to challenge authority..."

                                          Rockerboy
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: Sarek@world.std.com (Garrett S Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Public supported network will hurt poor
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 05:30:07 GMT

In article <CKD.92Mar31174407@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
> Dave> == Dave Borden <borden@cfa.harvard.edu> 
> Dave> Very few people living
> Dave> in a ghetto slum and going to spend money on a computer terminal
> Dave> of all things.
>I agree that computer terminals, modems, and similar connectivity tools
>are pretty low on the list of someone who's worried about making the
>rent, putting food on the table, and paying the heating bill.

I don't disagree with you, but a while ago, I heard a statistic that
VCR were in 77% of US households. What happens if terminals and
connect costs are brought down to the approximate price of a VCR and
tapes? 

>I,
>personally, believe it can scale up, given universal accessibility (in
>both facilities and interface...

I think universal accessibility will have to happen soon--it will be
vital to our national interest to have an informed public. If we can
make it as easy to read news as to read a newspaper, we'll be all set.
Who knows, this could even be the solution to children growing up not
learning to read--needing it to carry on a net.conversation would be a
big incentive... :-)
-- 
Sarek of Vulcan
a.k.a. Garrett Fitzgerald

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:3406 rec.photo:6983 misc.legal:9129 alt.bbs:3409
From: rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,rec.photo,misc.legal,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Ways of chilling or banning Usenet(was Re: Illegal photograph po
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:41:08 GMT
Organization: The Veronica Lake Fan Club

whs70@dancer.uucp (24411-sohl) writes:

> Is it possible, yes.  Probable, not very.  Remember such a law would
> have to gain widespread support amongst the federal legislators (senators
> and representatives).  One need only look at the inability of the
> recording and movie industry with regard to that industry's desire
> for restrictive legislation against copyright infringing duplication
> of movies anbd audio recordings.  There has yet to be any law passed
> that even partially addresses movie/recording piracy, etc.
> 
The problem with this argument is that most people, even congresspersons, 
seem to have a fairly decent understanding of video and audio recording.  
On the other hand, knowledge of telecommmunications and computers in 
general is sorely lacking in a lot of our public officials.  Ignorance 
breeds fear, fear breeds attack.  There are quite a few examples of the 
govt cracking down on things which any of us, as reasonable computer 
literates, know are patently absurd.  They are allowing phone companies 
to charge BBS operators business rates.  That wrecked poor Craig 
Neidorph's life for writing a magazine.  Never have too much faith in the 
integrity or intelligence of those in charge of us.  You may regret it 
when they drag you away simply because they have decided that your life 
long hobby is "dangerous to society."  Think about it.


"Sometimes what you say is going to fly right in the faces of the 
powerful people who really run this world, but you don't care...you know 
it's your place to challenge authority..."

                                          Rockerboy
From: Joshua.Lee@f542.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joshua Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Commercial lines?
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:15:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.14578.29E5288F
Organization: FidoNet node 1:109/542 - Confuscious Max, Temple Hills MD

In a message of <Apr 05 19:21> Mike Batchelor (mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US ) writes:

> what kind of phone lines you are supposed to order? Does charging for use
> mean that you have to get business lines? Under what conditions can you get

 MB> You can usually get residential lines if you don't give the phone
 MB> company any indication that you are charging your users.  I just 

 MB> the options available.  Don't tell them you will be charging for 
 MB> use of your BBS though.  Tell them it's a hobby and you want the most

You know, it's actions like this that made sysops in Indiana have to
all pay business rates, it made sysops in Virginia Beach (where I 
used to live) go to court, it made sysops in Portland Oregon, subject 
to possible business rates accross the board. (No pun intended). 
People like you who take advantage of the system are endangering 
those like me who *do* operate it as a hobby and never ask for 
money (nor expect it) from users.

Perhaps in your opinion, like other business BBS operators I talk to, 
think it'd be a good thing if hobby BBSs were wiped out and only 
"professional" BBSs were left. I think you're wrong on that, alot of 
the reason for commercial BBS's successes are the users on the free 
BBSs. If the hobby is destroyed or curtailed, the BBS businesses 
will suffer to. 

Think about it, and consider how you're endangering other sysops and
the entire hobby and small information provider process.

--
ArfaNet: Joshua.Lee@f542.n109.z1.fidonet.org
FidoNet: Joshua Lee on 1:109/542
MaBellNet: (301) 702-9467 (BBS) "Disclaimers? We don't need no steekin..."


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!109!542!Joshua.Lee
Internet: Joshua.Lee@f542.n109.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Is there a moral requirement to provide the poor a safety net...
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 20:08:33 GMT

In article <rdippold.702242645@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>The idea of the maximum cap doesn't scare me as much as the mimimum
>cap, although both will work to lower the standard of living.  If you
>limit someone to $x million dollars, once he's reached that amount
>he'll just stop.  If you guarantee someone a minimum, however, where's
>the incentive?  If you know you're going to get housing, food,
>clothing, cable, and beer no matter what you do, where's your
>motivation to get out and work?  If you want extra, you'll either do
>something on the black market, or do as so many here in San Diego do -
>get welfare and hold a job on the sly.

I think you'd do well to worry about both of them.  Think about what
happens in the 'maximum cap' situation.  Person A is only allowed to
make a certain amount of money.  The same reasoning applies as you
apply to a 'minimum cap' situation.  Since he can't gain by producing,
he will stop producing.  Since the guy making all that money is
probably more productive than the people who aren't anyway, it could
be argued that the maximum cap is MORE damaging to the economy because
it removes the incentives from the most productive fraction of the
people. 

The minimum, on the other hand, can be argued for on the basis of
simple humanity; people shouldn't starve to death.  Of course, in
order to pay for that, it's necessary to unleash the more productive
part of the economy.  Hence, it is once again apparent that the
maximum cap is more harmful to both the economy AND the poor than the
minimum cap is.

After all, somebody has to pay for all this stuff.
>-- 
>One child is not enough, but two children are far too many.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:3454 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1636
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general
Subject: Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:14:41 GMT
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: kadie@eff.org

brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

>The main point is whether they removed alt to get at alt.sex or not.  The
>quoting of the laws is a good piece of evidence.
[...]

A secondary point is *how* they decided to remove alt. Selection
policy and selection decisions (at university computer centers) should
be made in the open. In other words, not only should selection be made
on proper criteria, selection should be seen to be made on proper
criteria.

- Carl


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From: Joshua.Lee@f542.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joshua Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Public supported network will hurt poor
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:56:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.14580.29E52892
Organization: FidoNet node 1:109/542 - Confuscious Max, Temple Hills MD

In a message of <Apr 08 05:30> Garrett S Fitzgerald (Sarek@world.std.com ) writes:

 GSF> VCR were in 77% of US households. What happens if terminals and
 GSF> connect costs are brought down to the approximate price of a VCR 
 GSF> and tapes? 

They already are within that range, since many ways to interact in e-mail
on a network are free. The knowledge level is near zero though, most BBSs
have several hundred users, but only a handful read the conferences on 
each of the systems. 

Of course, I'm not sure what would happen if more of us BBSsers read conferences or newsgroups, we're already pulling 10 megs a day, and 
it shows no signs of shrinking. (I'm importing 500K a day of compressed 
mail, and it is a fairly full-filling experience [no pun intended].)

Upon reflection though, I guess it'd continue OK through a couple of orders
of magnitude. It costs $25 a year to compensate our inbound gate's phone
bill now, it could still be affordable at larger levels, and the 14.4K
modems seem to be able to transfer more than we're doing and still maintain
some availablity.

>personally, believe it can scale up, given universal accessibility (in
>both facilities and interface...

They've got universal access to FidoNet, almost every city has 10-100
systems. Most of those systems are for the price of a modem call. Most
people who own modems are unaware of the systems, and only a few percent
who are aware of them notice the conference mail capabilities, or bother
doing anything except transfering files.

 GSF> make it as easy to read news as to read a newspaper, we'll be all 
 GSF> set. Who knows, this could even be the solution to children growing 

That's part of the problem, it requires a high level of english literacy,
for reading conferences there are tools such as offline readers which
are easier to use than most word processors and thoroughly menu driven.
Most users just ignore them though. Most people just plain aren't
interested in electronic mail, or if they are, think most of the 
capabilities exist only on Compuserve or Prodigy. Most don't realize
that several larger networks that also have skilled people, technical
support, etc like Usenet and FidoNet exist for the price of a local 
phone call.


--
ArfaNet: Joshua.Lee@f542.n109.z1.fidonet.org
FidoNet: Joshua Lee on 1:109/542


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!109!542!Joshua.Lee
Internet: Joshua.Lee@f542.n109.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,rec.photo,misc.legal,alt.bbs