From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Fundamentals of the Law
Message-ID: <920217201542.20208f1d@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 20:15:42 GMT
I came across an article which I thought Usenet readers (especially those in
the US) might find of interest!
It is extracted from the August 1989 edition of _Australian Law News_, with the
quotes taken from an article printed on pp13-15. The article is based on a
speech given by US Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:
Title: Lawyers must Understand Fundamentals of the Law, Judge Says.
The essense of the speech was Justice Kennedy urging lawyers to look beyong the
more immediate aspects of delivering legal services to understand and protect
the philosophical and ethical precepts on which the law rests.
To quote:
"Justice Kennedy said the four elements on which the law and a legal system
rested were:
. that government rested on the consent of the people
. that government protected a core of personal rights - today called human
rights
. that there must be an enduring structure which guaranteed the first two
elements
. that there be an obligation on each citizen to obey the law and to transmit
the rule of law to a subsequent generation.
"Justice Kennedy outlined the historical background to the concept of rule by
consent and said: 'The consent of which we speak is a very ancient one. It is a
consent to a system, it is a consent to a social order.'
He continued: "It does not derive from any contract that was created at some
particular historic time; it does not involve a contract at all, because in
American constitutional theory and in constitutional theories of most western
democracies, government does not exist as a party to make a contract with the
people; it is created by the people".
"So this consent is fundamental and it may not be withdrawn unless the
Government is not preserving the other elements of the rule of law...All of us
can identify laws that we dislike. This does not give us the right to withdraw
consent".
Kennedy discussed several truisms as he saw them surrounding the upholding of
the rule of law, one of which was that personal rights must be guaranteed
by the Government
He notes that it is dangerous for any one person or generation to compile an
exhaustive list of human rights. But nevertheless, the basics are as follows:
(a) There must be, at a minimum, protection for the rights of expression, of
conscience, of speech and belief, in all their forms.
(b) There must be freedom from arbitrary and evasive physical restraint by the
Government
(c) There must be freedom from classification based on race, creed,
colour, sex, national origin and religion
(d) There must be the right to own and acquire property.
He then goes on to comment that the Constitution of the United States was
written in the same style - it talks about life liberty and property.
Any comments?
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
From: tp@jet.uk (tarang patel)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb17.122309.27428@jet.uk>
Date: 17 Feb 92 12:23:09 GMT
I am sure this question turns up from time to time, but to date as I
have not come across a satifactory reply [ from Politicians or Software
/Hardware Industry managers ;-) 'I dont like being given bullshit'
but now and again I like to hear from the 'bulls' or 'the sh..ers'
of the world ]
Insults apart, this is a serious question.
When it comes to every day consumerism, say in the not so distant future
every home will have a P.C, very much like a Telephone, Fridge etc...,
except P.C will be ever hungary for UPGRADES/SOFTWARE and Computer
BOOKS, so
1) Why is it that software/hardware suppliers or manfacturers work
on 1 U.K sterling => 1 U.S dollar rate, and sometimes 0.75 U.K
sterling => 1 U.S dollar, when it comes to pricing their products ?
This policy applies to whatever the nationality ( if one can ever say
that ) of the parent company.
2) Will this policy ever change ?. As I said, a P.C will be to every
household what telephone is today, i.e not a luxury comodity.
3) Why, are they no 'Mail order/ Direct mail' Suppliers for latest
SOFTWARE/ HARDWARE/ BOOKS/ OTHER consumables operating from
U.S and selling products at the proper prices, i.e Scaling at the
current currency EXCHANGE RATE. (In my case U.K sterling to U.S greenback)
4) Why not undercut a MANUFACTURERs monopoly on the RETAIL pricing,
i.e there isnt much difference, if any, between the M.R.P (manfacturer
recommended price) and the actual R.P (retail price). I suspect,
companies like MicroSoft, Appel, IBM, Dell, etc... setup their arms over
here and then tell the 'middle man' retailers/suppliers that they will
only get their products if R.P is at or above M.R.P (which the consumer
never hears off)
Finally are their any enterprising companies out there, who agree with me
and would like to do something about it.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Tarang Kumar Patel | snailmail : Jet Joint Undertaking,
Hunterskil ltd, | Abingdon,
Project House, | Oxfordshire OX14 3EA,
110/113 Tottenham Court Road, | England.
London W1P 9HG |
| Email : tp@jet.uk
{ o'| `0 } |
-~~- | Tel : (+44) (0235) 464533
uu | Fax : (+44) (0235) 464766
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.03
Message-ID: <1992Feb17.150021.26602@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 15:00:21 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News followings the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv02n03
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending January 19th, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 concern the UC's court-ordered search of computer files.
1. Dean Pentcheff (dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu): This is a summary of
the events surrounding "UC's court-ordered search of files on two of
its Unix mainframe computers... [This summary is] based on my own
understanding of what's going on. These are not "official" summaries,
either from the University of California, or from the plaintiff in the
case. I am not involved with the case in any capacity except as an
interested observer."
2. There are some grave inconsistencies inherent in defining a user's
files as 'university records'.
<1992Jan14.032659.8519@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 3-5 regard the rights of universities to restrict use of their
facilities.
3. Universities have the authority to limit the uses to which their
facilities are put, provided that those limitations are impartially
applied.
<1992Jan14.161057.27161@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
4. The owner of a computer system does not have the right to freely
inspect private mail held on that system. The owner may make it clear
to users that he or she reserves the right to inspect mail, but
without the tacit or explicit consent of the user such a declaration
is meaningless.
<920115103016.21400522@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
5. The onus is on an institution to make users aware of its policies
and intentions regarding private mail. Without such an explicit
statement the user can assume that a reasonable expectation of privacy
is warranted.
<920115105919.21400522@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Note 6 states students' rights with regard the closure of computer accounts.
6. A university cannot cut off a student's computer access - or deny
him or her the use of any other university facility - without due process.
<1992Jan15.025831.29351@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 7-8 are a response to Brian Peretti's paper "Computer
Publications and the First Amendment".
7. Peretti gives a definition of computer publications, and offers a
rationale for giving such publications the same protection afforded to
the printed press, radio and television.
<920116161057.2140105f@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
8. Peretti's claim that computer 'publication' is most nearly
analogous to the public media has some problems with it. It does not
address the issues of electronic mail, and is based on a prioritising
of the channel of communication over the content.
<920117103003.21401617@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Note 9 describes a trivial reason behind a request for an account closure.
9. CERT requested that a user's account be investigated after a
complaint that the user had made 'offensive' netnews postings. The
offensiveness turned out to consist of the relatively minor flaming of
the complainant during a political discussion.
<406@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Note 10 describes the outcome of the recent Cubby vs. Compuserve case.
10. The effect of the Compuserve decisions has been to show that the
more a computer-mediated forum is monitored, the greater the liability
of the moderators/owners for what is said in that forum. If there is no
censorship then liability rests entirely with the authors of
individual posts.
- Elizabeth]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or
by me, Carl M. Kadie. It is not an EFF publication. The views I
express and editorial decisions I make are my own.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
From: igreenaw@hemel.bull.co.uk (ian greenaway)
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb17.144318.10119@hemel.bull.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 92 14:43:18 GMT
tp@jet.uk (tarang patel) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>1) Why is it that software/hardware suppliers or manfacturers work
> on 1 U.K sterling => 1 U.S dollar rate, and sometimes 0.75 U.K
> sterling => 1 U.S dollar, when it comes to pricing their products ?
I am a small mail order computer dealer here in the UK, and it pisses me off
as well. It isn't the dealers that are making a killing over here you know.
The average profit margin on PC and Home Computers (Amiga/ST etc) is between
10 and 20%. I have tried to buy products direct from the states at $ prices
to sell over here, but the manufacturers have agreements with UK distributers
and I have to buy from them in order to get the warranty and UK version (for
modems etc.).
Another point to mention is that a product selling at $100 will cost $100
+ Shipping & Freight Handling + 4.9% (roughly) Import Duty + VAT at 17.5%
on the whole lot. This totals $141.75 (if you allow $15 shipping costs).
Convert that to pounds at roughly 1.70 and you get 83 pounds, so the pound
for a dollar is not far off (and gets closer if the product is fragile or
heavy due to the shipping costs involved). I am not condoning the blatent
rip offs that are occurring in the industry, but hope that I have cleared
up a few points relating to the hidden costs involved in importing goods.
>3) Why, are they no 'Mail order/ Direct mail' Suppliers for latest
> SOFTWARE/ HARDWARE/ BOOKS/ OTHER consumables operating from
> U.S and selling products at the proper prices, i.e Scaling at the
> current currency EXCHANGE RATE. (In my case U.K sterling to U.S greenback)
There are. Look in Computer Shopper or Amiga Computing and you will find a
a small number of companies offering goods direct from the US at US prices.
Don't forget that you will have to pay the Post Office or Courier Service the
import duty and VAT when the product arrives in the UK though !
[More Stuff Deleted - sorry about that, but I had no comment on those bits]
Anyway, If you are in the market for anything for your computer, give me a
bell on (0992) 714539 and I'll try and get a good price for what you're after.
We are (in our spare time) White Knight Technology and you can Fax us oin that
number too.
Outside the UK, the number is (international dial code) + 44 992 714539
Good Luck in getting cheaper goods fron the States!
Ian alias igreenaw@hemel.bull.co.uk
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mr Tarang Kumar Patel | snailmail : Jet Joint Undertaking,
>Hunterskil ltd, | Abingdon,
>Project House, | Oxfordshire OX14 3EA,
>110/113 Tottenham Court Road, | England.
>London W1P 9HG |
> | Email : tp@jet.uk
> { o'| `0 } |
> -~~- | Tel : (+44) (0235) 464533
> uu | Fax : (+44) (0235) 464766
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
> be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
From: ddfr@quads.uchicago.edu (david director friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb17.153907.5224@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 17 Feb 92 15:39:07 GMT
Does anyone know how U.S. prices of U.K. computers or software
compare to U.K. prices? I ask for two reasons. The first is that it
is relevant to explaining the price differences being discussed,
since transportation costs and import duties would have the opposite
effect on price ratios in the two different cases (U.S. to U.K. vs
U.K. to U.S.). The second is that I have just gotten a Psion 3, which
is British made, and am wondering about buying software or additional
hardware from Britain.
David Friedman
DDFr.Midway.UChicago.Edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: We need help!
Message-ID: <9202171618.AA29632@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 04:18:08 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: scott@netcom.COM (Scott Corcoran)
Subject: Re: We need help!
Message-ID: <1992Feb17.045055.23605scott@netcom.COM>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 92 04:50:55 GMT
In article <13FEB199218372759@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu> cvafyhds@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu (We want better computing!) writes:
>We are a group of students who aren't happy how our school's computer
>systems are run.
There are two sides to this issue and both are right.
As a former student of CPSLO, CSUN, and SJSU in the same system, as well as
UCLA, I agree there is a tremendous difference in policy between different
universities. Last summer, I was the accidental dept. system administrator
at one university. I sympathize with CRC members who sometimes need to
teach 4 other classes as well.
Computing is a scarce resource. A recent issue of an IEEE
publication claimed that ALL engineers must be computer literate.
Practical skills are severely limited in many fields for want of computer
resources. Partly because of this problem, I cannot hire software engineers
out of college in the company where I work.
Rich kids buy their own computer. The rest of us fight to use the (usually
inadequate) university facilities. Perhaps it is time to put a
high-quality PC or computer-service fee into the Financial Aid budget
of every student. Supplying computer access is not the business of the
universities.
Since time spent studying is highly correlated with grades, time wasted
fighting the bureaucracy, waiting in line for a time-limited turn to use
a computer, and experimenting because there is no manual denigrates
the student. One learns that money buys privilege.
>o Difficulty of getting computer access:
>o No permanent accounts:
It is my personal experience that many of these accounts, after being
set up on request, are themselves underutilized because the person
who wants the account has more ambition than time. Perhaps the
secret is to have accounts for as many as who want them. Remove
accounts after they are idle for N months.
>o Incompetent administrators and consultants:
Many "consultants" are little more than asset-protection babysitters.
Experience shows that they are needed mostly because the random
university student cannot be trusted with millions of dollars of
equipment. Many "consultants" are hired because if they had no job
they could no longer attend the university. Good unix consultants
can cost $50+/hour, an expense the University can hardly justify
nowadays.
>o Lack of program manuals/documentations:
Of the schools that I attended, CSUN had the most accessible documentation
albeit for a Cyber:
For every computer system and every software program, there
were single mimeographed pages in open wooden bins in the
computer room which described how to log in, how to get
started, what books to buy for more help, who the
manufacturers were, and where to get the manuals. Another
similar page described how to get an account on any given
machine. Today, there is so much software that it is nearly
impossible to buy enough manuals onhand to satisfy the need
for them. This was not a problem when everybody used Fortran.
Manuals for quality software are a good investment if the
manufacturers don't rape you for them.
>o CRC is wasting computer resources:
>o Machines in the advanced workstation lab are poorly set up.
This is a common problem. The ratio of administrators to users on
these machines usually runs very high. Good system administrators
for these machines are not easy to find. If you have experience configuring
these machines, perhaps you should offer to help and/or babysit them in
return for accounts on them.
Perhaps you should consider obtaining access to a system outside of
campus. I personally know of two such providers in SF; one includes usenet,
telnet/ftp access, and more public domain software than I could ever use;
for this, about $10-20 per month. If I could figure out how to print,
I'd have all I need.
>P.S. Where else can i cross post this? We need as many response as possible.
Please don't! I resent reading duplicates; it wastes bandwidth; it is
inconsiderate of the reading audience; and is not likely to solve
your problems. Quantity is not quality.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: We need help!
Message-ID: <9202171618.AA22184@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 04:18:20 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
From: alanc@ocf.berkeley.edu (Alan Coopersmith)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: We need help!
Message-ID:
Date: 17 Feb 92 09:48:59 GMT
In article <13FEB199218372759@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu> cvafyhds@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu (We want better computing!) writes:
)We are a group of students who aren't happy how our school's computer
)systems are run.
I am a member of a group of students that runs U.C.Berkeley's open access
Unix computers. We are basically completely-student run, with funding from
the Assoc. Students of UC, and a faculty adviser who is technically in
charge, but prefers to let students make most of the decisisions. We have
20 donated Apollo workstations and 2 Apple LaserWriters. Policy decisions
are made by the Board of Directors, and the machines are run by the OCF
Staff - both groups compsed entirely of student volunteers.
)o Difficulty of getting computer access:
Anyone associated with the University (staff/faculty/student) can get an
account by filling out a simple form and showing a photo ID.
)o No permanent accounts:
Accounts last until graduation (or otherwise leaving the school 8), but must
be "re-registered" every fall to prove that a) you still actually use the
account and b) you still deserve to have an account (still part of the UC
community).
)o Incompetent administrators and consultants:
Well, as one of the "adminstators and consultants" I can promise you that
our 15 student volunteers are here to help, but have no formal training and
may not meet your definitions of "comptetent" - but hey - we get the job
done as best we can with 3500+ users on 16 currently working "Single-User
workstations." (Hey they just pump those 4 MIPS out of the 25 mhz 68030's 8)
)o Administrators do not wish to communicate with students:
We try to answer all e-mail within a day. All questions that we can answer
are, those we can't are sent to those who can. Most of our questions are
from people who are new to UNIX, but they are also the easiest to answer 8).
)o Tiny quotas:
We currently have 2 Megabyte quotas, but our disk space is running out so if
we can't get a hard disk donation soon, we will have to reduce quotas.
)o No legible account id's
Our agreement with the University that allows our existence specifies that
account names are to be based on real names and that finger will always
return your real name. (finger alanc@ocf.berkeley.edu and you will see that
I am "Alan Coopersmith" - not "Bartman" or "Soldier 4 Christ" that I see on
other accounts with unlimited chfn's)
)o Lack of program manuals/documentations:
All we can afford is on-line help. (We do have the standard Apollo docs, but
they are more geared to Sys Admins, not Joe New-user.)
)o Management is not being held accountable and has too much power:
We'll help you fix it (or fix it for you) if something goes wrong with yout
account, but we are not perfect and do make mistakes (and don't make backups
8-( ).
)o CRC is wasting computer resources:
We're overusing ours to the point that we're really starting to have
problems as the machines are constantly overloaded.
-Alan
--
+--------------------------------------------------+
| -Alan Coopersmith- |
| alanc@ocf.Berkeley.edu | alanc@soda.berkeley.edu |
+--------------------------------------------------+
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: We need help!
Message-ID: <9202171619.AA30446@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 04:19:25 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
From: lwl@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lydia Leong)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: We need help!
Message-ID: <66352@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 17 Feb 92 10:07:25 GMT
In article <1992Feb17.045055.23605scott@netcom.COM> scott@netcom.COM (Scott Corcoran) writes:
>
>In article <13FEB199218372759@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu> cvafyhds@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu (We want better computing!) writes:
>>We are a group of students who aren't happy how our school's computer
>>systems are run.
>
>There are two sides to this issue and both are right.
I've had the fortune to acquire UNIX accounts at many different sites,
giving me an opportunity to experience many different policies. Computing
policy is a combination of resources and the support for these resources.
It tends to break down into generous/adequate/insufficient resources,
and excellent/adequate/indifferent technical support.
>>o Difficulty of getting computer access:
>>o No permanent accounts: [ must be renewed every semester ]
At my school, computing is broken down by school - engineering,
Wharton (business), and Arts and Sciences (A&S) are the primary
divisions. Engineering provides free accounts to all engineers and
students taking computer-dependent engineering courses. Non-engineer
accounts last only so long as a student needs them. Wharton
provides some undergrad accounts on a VAX, upon request. A&S provides
email access via a BBS-style system, to students who beg hard enough.
A lot of engineering accounts sit idle; student accounts at Wharton
and on the A&S computer are almost always active. Students who have to
go through the red tape in order to get an account almost always use
it. It's not such a bad idea to have non-permanent accounts. although
then some poor secretary has to go through dozens of forms each semester,
which seems like a waste of time.
My high school was lucky enough to be connected to the Internet. Students
keep their accounts until they no longer want them; alumni are encouraged
to use the computing resources, since they are usually happy to help the
high schoolers with problems.
You're fortunate that your university doesn't add insult to injury
by making accounts both non-permanent and paid.
I don't like the idea of universities charging by CPU resources
consumed. Charging for CPU time tends to strongly discourage people
who are trying to do programming work, since compiling eats large amounts
of CPU time. In this highly technical age, I believe that universities,
and especially engineering schools, should encourage students to do all the
programming they can.
>>o Incompetent administrators and consultants:
UNIX-based computing in Penn engineering is extremely well supported.
Complaints receive prompt attention, software is kept up-to-date,
equipment is well-maintained, the sys admin and his assistants are
helpful and knowledgeable.
By contrast, UNIX-based computing at another place I have an account at
is, IMHO, rather poorly supported. It takes days for the syadmin to
answer email, and his attitude is, "If I don't install it, I don't have
to support it." This means that I run essentials like gcc and gdb out
of my personal account. The sys admin is competent, but just doesn't
want to deal with a lot of software. He leaves most of the sys admin
work to a pair of students, resulting in a chaotic, poorly organization
file system.
Resources aren't really worth all that much if you don't have an
administration willing to make the best of them.
>Many "consultants" are little more than asset-protection babysitters.
>Experience shows that they are needed mostly because the random
>university student cannot be trusted with millions of dollars of
>equipment.
UNIX is an environment which more or less assumes you know what you're
doing; learning it is often a matter of experimentation and reading.
I don't see how a consultant can become extremely competent with
UNIX without a lot of formal training. Consultants are generally
equipment baby-sitters. This is okay as long as your sys admin is
competent and willing to answer questions.
>>o Lack of program manuals/documentations:
A lot of UNIX documentation is on-line. For other things, it is generally
assumed that the professor told you what you needed to know. Insufficient
documentation seems to be a common problem; the best solution is to find
a technical bookstore and buy your own.
>>o CRC is wasting computer resources:
I walk by a lot of laboratories full of unused workstations. Most of
these belong to individual departments and not to the regular computing
services. This is rather annoying, but there's not really much one
can do about it.
>>o Tiny quotas
Disk quotas have their up and down sides; two of my accounts enforce
quotas, and the rest do not. On systems where quotas aren't used,
there's a _huge_ amount of space wasted. On systems where quotas are
used, there never seems to be enough. Inadequate quotas, coupled with a
sys admin unwilling to install a lot of software, can be disastrous.
Very small disk quotas are nearly impossible to work with. If your
administration imposes temporary accounts coupled with tiny quotas
(500 K or less) it's likely that you can't use the machines for much
more than email and news.
Engineering here gives all students 1.5 MB of disk quota. Quotas can
be extended to up to 3 MB. This is adequate for most people; policy
states that the main engineering computer is for small programs, and
very few people do large programming projects.
The strenght of computing facilities is dependent upon the "higher ups"
commitment to making sure they are adequately funded, the policy of
the school towards computer use, and the attitude of the system
administrators. A very well-funded set of machines isn't much use if
the sys admin can't/won't set them up at maximum efficiency; even the
world's best sys admin can't do much with out-of-date equipment and
no money to spend on maintenance. If you're going to complain about
computing resources, make sure to find out where the problem lies.
>Perhaps you should consider obtaining access to a system outside of
>campus. I personally know of two such providers in SF; one includes usenet,
>telnet/ftp access, and more public domain software than I could ever use;
>for this, about $10-20 per month. If I could figure out how to print,
>I'd have all I need.
If you have a specific project in mind, you might want to consider trying
to get an account with the GNU project. There are also a few other sites
on the Internet which give out accounts, although most of these can only
be used for mail, news, and occasionally telnet/ftp.
You might also consider transferring someplace with better computer
facilities. :-)
---
#include
Of course I don't speak for my school. I'm just a student.
All opinions are IMHO. Take them or leave them.
---
/~\______________________________________________________________________/~\
|n| Lydia Leong | If there is anyone here that I have not |n|
|~| lwl@eniac.seas.upenn.edu _| offended, I deeply apologize. -- Brahms |~|
|_|_________________________|#|__________________________________________|_|
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Recent Changes to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
Message-ID: <1992Feb17.184550.3456@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 18:45:50 GMT
The CAF Archive is an electronic library of information about
computers and academic freedom.
It is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3) in
directory "pub/academic". It is also available via email. For
information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In
the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index".
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/abstracts
=================
These are abstracts to the Computers and Academic Freedom News
(CAF-news). Referenced issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous
ftp to eff.org in directory "academic/news".
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/feb_02_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/feb_09_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/feb_16_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/feb_23_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/jan_19_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/jan_26_1992
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/price,_janet_r.2
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ (3rd edition)
by Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. It says that school
cannot prohibit students from handing literature such as underground
newspapers on school property.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/books/van_tol,_joan_e
=================
_College and University Student Records: A Legal Compendium_, Edited
by Joan E. Van Tol, 1989. Details the Family Education and Privacy
Act (Buckley Amendment).
Excerpts cover provisions on directory information.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civics/house-of-reps.tel-and-fax
=================
House of Representatives faxes and phones
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civics/senate.label-ready
=================
Mailing labels for U.S. Senators
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/ferpa
=================
Excerpts from _College and University Student Records: A Legal
Compendium_, Edited by Joan E. Van Tol, 1989. Details the Family
Education and Privacy Act's (Buckley Amendment's) provisions on
directory information.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/other
=================
Information on other on-line collections of legal information. Also
see ftp.eff.org:pub/legal.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ (3rd edition)
by Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. It says that school
cannot prohibit students from handing literature such as underground
newspapers on school property.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv01n44
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafv02n03
=================
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/cso.uiuc.edu
=================
The directory information policy for Computer Services Organzation at
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It says in part: "The
system currently has utilities [e.g. finger - cmk] or operating
procedures which disclose student information which we plan to let you
[, the user,] control in a manner consistent with other sources of
directory information." Also, that an effort will be made to
accommodate students who exercise their FERPA rights and suppress
directory information.
=================
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/reg2rights
=================
The history of student regulations at the University of Illinois
from 1904 to present. Shows how policies evolve.
=================
=================
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
From: berger@median (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb17.185229.11756@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 18:52:29 GMT
tp@jet.uk (tarang patel) writes:
>When it comes to every day consumerism, say in the not so distant future
>every home will have a P.C, very much like a Telephone, Fridge etc...,
>except P.C will be ever hungary for UPGRADES/SOFTWARE and Computer
>BOOKS, so
>3) Why, are they no 'Mail order/ Direct mail' Suppliers for latest
> SOFTWARE/ HARDWARE/ BOOKS/ OTHER consumables operating from
> U.S and selling products at the proper prices, i.e Scaling at the
> current currency EXCHANGE RATE. (In my case U.K sterling to U.S greenback)
*----
What makes you think there aren't any such places? I suspect that
Programmer's Workshop and other large software mail-order firms would
be just as pleased to sell to you as to anybody else. But don't forget
that their prices are based on easily-transferrable currency and
domestic support. You'll probably have to send U.S. dollars (or use
a Visa card and hope the exchange rate for that day was good). You'll
have to cover the cost of an overseas phone call for support. And
unless you use a well-known computer (IBM, NEC, Toshiba for example)
they may not be able to help you with problems unique to your system.
--
Mike Berger
Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET 217-244-6067
Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [clari.news.issues] School press granted limited freedom of expression in bill
Message-ID: <1992Feb17.215457.6817@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 21:54:57 GMT
[I assume that this article is about *high school* newspapers. - cmk]
Copyright 1992 by UPI. Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.. For more info on
ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.
MADISON, Wis. (UPI) -- Students working on official school newspapers
would be guaranteed limited freedom of expression under a bill given
preliminary approval by the Assembly Tuesday.
Under the measure, censorship of school newspapers would be banned
except when an administrator determined publishing a certain story would
present ``a clear and present danger of causing material and substantial
disruption or disorder in a school or of a school activity.''
Those who objected to the bill said it gave broad rights without
responsibility, since a minor's parents, not the child, would likely be
sued in a case of libel or slander.
An amendment added during almost two hours of debate would prohibit a
school newspaper calling for a person to be harmed. Administrators could
at their discretion censor a story that advocated illegal activity under
another amendment.
The bill's author, Rep. Peter Bock, D-Milwaukee, objected to that
amendment.
``What about Henry David Thoreau and the whole concept of civil
disobedience? We might have a draft again,'' he said. ``What if some
editor of a student newspaper decides the war in Afghanistan or Libya or
wherever is unholy and we ought not to go?''
Rep. Robert Welch, R-Redgranite, said students would more likely
advocate underage drinking, which could compel some students to engage
in activities in which they would hurt themselves. Bock disagreed that
they would do that.
``The people who are the student newspaper editors are the best kids
and we want to muzzle them,'' he said.
``You want to deprive children of their right to protest,'' Rep.
Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, accused the amendment's backers.
``What we're really talking about is the principles of the
constitution and whether the principles of the constitution enter the
schoolhouse door,'' Schneider said.
Bock said students enjoyed a great deal of freedom of the press until
1988 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in the Hazelwood case that
school administrators had broad censorship powers.
``There has been an explosion of censorship since Hazelwood,'' Bock
said.
The bill must still be given a third reading in the Assembly.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 17 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: DOANE@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (BETSEY DOANE)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <920217215303.2220d143@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 16:53:03 GMT
Unsubscribe Betsey Doane
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Hacking - a ground for dismissal?
Message-ID: <920218194602.2020c632@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 19:46:02 GMT
A recent article in the _Solicitors Journal_ (Sept. 1991, p.1008-10) posed the
question as to whether the unauthorised access to a Company's computer
was grounds for dismissal of an employee. It was written by Geoff Holgate, and
the following is based on it.
The issue came before the court English Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) and
is reported in Denco Ltd. v. Joinson [1991] 1 Weekly Law Reports 330.
The employee, Michael Joinson, worked as a sheet metal worker for Denco Ltd.
which manuafactured air drying and airconditioning equiptment. In 1988 Denko
installed a computer which had a number of VDU terminals attached to it.
The computer was also used by another company, Intek, which operated
out of the same premises. Denco's policy was to encourage its employees to
use the terminal even though their jobs didn't strictly require it.
The computer, via a series of menus, provided information relating to the part-
icular department within the company.
To gain access to a particular menu (or sub-menu) the user was required to enter
a user identity code and password. The password was changed every week. The
purpose of the passworded system was that the information was provided on a
'need to know' basis, and only those authorised to access a particular menu
were entitled to use it.
The system's history file (which recorded every stroke entered on every
terminal on the system) revealed an unauthorised access to certain of
Intek's records on the system. This access was traced to Joinson (who
admitted the unauthorised access). He had used the password of the daughter
of a fellow employee who was an Intek trainee.
Joinson was a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Indeed, he was
chairperson of a joint committee representing the AEU and other unions.
Denco alleged that Joinson had used the identity code and password to obtain
information which would be of use to him in his trade union activities, such
use being hostile to the company. Joinson claimed that his access to the
unauthorised information was accidental.
He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. Joinson complained he had
been unfairly dismissed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (hearing an appeal by Denco against an industrial
tribunal which found in favour of Joinson) held that
"if an employee deliberately used an unauthorised password in order
to enter, or attempt to enter, a computer known to obtain information
to which he was not entitled, then that of itself was gross misconduct
which prima facie would attract summary dismissal..."
[quote from article, p.1009, not judgement]
However the EAT then went on to limit their decision by emphaising that
"there may be some exceptional circumstances in which such a response
might be held ule".
[quote from case in article, p.1009]
The tribunal reasoned that as maintenance of the integrity of information
stored on an employer's computer was important, it was in the best interests
of management to make it "abundantly clear" that interference with its integrity
would result in severe penalty.
Any comments from the floor?
___
Mark Neely
Articled Clerk (Slave) | Tutor
Messrs Cridlands, | Law School
Barristers and Solicitors. | Northern Territory University
Darwin, NT Australia
neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.074603.19827@rtf.bt.co.uk>
Date: 18 Feb 92 07:46:03 GMT
In article <1992Feb17.122309.27428@jet.uk> tp@jet.uk (tarang patel) writes:
>I am sure this question turns up from time to time, but to date as I
>have not come across a satifactory reply [ from Politicians or Software
>/Hardware Industry managers ;-) 'I dont like being given bullshit'
>but now and again I like to hear from the 'bulls' or 'the sh..ers'
>of the world ]
>
>Insults apart, this is a serious question.
>
>When it comes to every day consumerism, say in the not so distant future
>every home will have a P.C, very much like a Telephone, Fridge etc...,
>except P.C will be ever hungary for UPGRADES/SOFTWARE and Computer
>BOOKS, so
>
>1) Why is it that software/hardware suppliers or manfacturers work
> on 1 U.K sterling => 1 U.S dollar rate, and sometimes 0.75 U.K
> sterling => 1 U.S dollar, when it comes to pricing their products ?
>
Ahh, greed maybe? Getting pound signs to print out? Spelling?
> This policy applies to whatever the nationality ( if one can ever say
> that ) of the parent company.
>
>2) Will this policy ever change ?. As I said, a P.C will be to every
> household what telephone is today, i.e not a luxury comodity.
>
Yes, Borland prices reflect exchange rates. I suggest people should
stop buying software from companies that do not do likewise. Just
becuase the bloody spelling checker has "colour" instead of "color"
is no reason to pay an extra 150 smackeroonies.
>3) Why, are they no 'Mail order/ Direct mail' Suppliers for latest
> SOFTWARE/ HARDWARE/ BOOKS/ OTHER consumables operating from
> U.S and selling products at the proper prices, i.e Scaling at the
> current currency EXCHANGE RATE. (In my case U.K sterling to U.S greenback)
>
There are many of these companies operating, look at any copy of
PC-Direct or Computer Shopper for details.
Now for the bad news. I bought DESQview 386 from one of these US
companies. When I tried to upgrade to the latest version the European
(Ireland) head office said I would have to pay 41 quid to
"internationalise" my copy! This is so I get a local telephone number for
support rather than a US number! I never call any support people, they
never know the answer and trying to get them to admit something is a bug
is like trying to get water out of a stone.
So be warned, you can buy cheaper by going direct to the US, but you may
end up with an unsupported product.
-------
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.150939.18057@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 15:09:39 GMT
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
[...]
>I'm sorry, but I've seen a lot of reasons posted suggesting it might be
>wise to restrict terminus to serve the mit.edu domain only, and not much
>(if any) posted to suggest the opposite. Why should terminus have
>unrestricted, unauthenticated access to the Internet? (I posted this question
>before and got no responses).
[...]
It's possible that different parts of the Internet have different
restrictions and requirements for authentication. If terminus violates
NSF rules, its access to NSFnet should be restricted. This could be
done by NSFnet; cooperation from MIT is not necessary.
Put another way, two solutions keep getting proposed:
1) MIT cuts terminus off from all outside networks, even those
whose rules it does not violate.
2) NSFnet cuts off all of MIT
I think a third choice is better:
3) NSFnet cuts off terminus (assuming terminus really is violating
NSFnet rules)
Increasing, different networks have different rules (mostly relating
to commercial use). I think it is important that we establish the
principles that networks enforce their rules in the most specific
possible way.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
From: masjpf@gdr.bath.ac.uk (J P Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.124308.21486@gdr.bath.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Feb 92 12:43:08 GMT
We, that is the company of which I am a director, sells software for
#320 + VAT as against our American colleagues who sell the same for
$500 + postage. The price was fixed by them and we translated to
ponds at the rate then current. Actually at that price our margin is
well down on the 20% someone else quoted.
==John
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Survey about public libraries
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.164016.20191@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 16:40:16 GMT
An article in _Inside Illinois_ reports on a survey by the U. of
Illinois Library Research Center. The article appeared on Feb 6, 1992
(Vol 11, No. 10). _Inside Illinois_ is the staff newspaper at the U.
of Illinois-UC. Quoting from the article:
"The [national public opinion] survey found that while 93 percent of
the 1181 people interviewed believe public libraries should provide
literacy programs for adults, close to 70 percent said that certain
kinds of reading material -- including 'Playboy' and 'Penthouse', and
books on how to commit suicide -- should be kept out of the library
altogether. Almost half (44 percent) believe that records and tapes
with sexually explicit language should not be available in public
library collections."
I hope to get the press release from the Library Research Center soon.
I will post it when I get it.
- 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 caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Survey about public libraries
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.165522.20473@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 16:55:22 GMT
In article <1992Feb18.164016.20191@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:
>An article in _Inside Illinois_ reports on a survey by the U. of
>Illinois Library Research Center. The article appeared on Feb 6, 1992
>(Vol 11, No. 10). _Inside Illinois_ is the staff newspaper at the U.
>of Illinois-UC. Quoting from the article:
>"The [national public opinion] survey found that while 93 percent of
>the 1181 people interviewed believe public libraries should provide
>literacy programs for adults, close to 70 percent said that certain
>kinds of reading material -- including 'Playboy' and 'Penthouse', and
>books on how to commit suicide -- should be kept out of the library
>altogether. Almost half (44 percent) believe that records and tapes
>with sexually explicit language should not be available in public
>library collections."
[...]
I think this survey sheds light on some of the resistance to computers
and academic freedom. Specifically, the unofficial, draft CAF
Statement says:
"The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries should
be applied to the administration of information material on computers.
These principles are explained in such American Library Association
documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the Freedom to Read
Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement."
Resistance to this principal almost always *seems* to be a reaction
against the first sentence:
"The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries should
be applied to the administration of information material on
computers."
I now believe that most resistance is actually based on the second
sentence:
"These principles are explained in such American Library Association
documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the Freedom to Read
Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement."
In other words, it's not the idea that Netnews facilities should be
treated like a library that is opposed. Instead, it's the idea that
libraries should follow the principles set forth in documents like the
Library Bill of Rights that is opposed.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
./caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/freedom-to-read.ala
=================
The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association
and Association of American Publishers.
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom caf-statement
send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala
send library-policies freedom-to-read.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.ala
send library-policies README
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/./caf-statement
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/README
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin] Re: Cancelling an inappropriate posting
Message-ID: <9202181723.AA29798@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 05:23:01 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
From: powers@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Cancelling an inappropriate posting
Message-ID: <1992Feb17.080034.9432@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
Date: 17 Feb 92 13:00:34 GMT
In article <1992Feb13.100153.9251@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, powers@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
> An inappropriate message was posted to ALT.PERSONALS from
> JPALEXANDER@MIAVX1.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU on 2/11/92. I cancelled the message
> and assumed it would be removed from the feed at other sites. I didn't know
> that some (most?) sites don't honor control messages.
>
> Two questions:
>
> If you have NEWSMANAGER access to your news database would you please delete
> this message. The woman will probably need to have her phone number changed
> anyway, but cancelling the message will reduce the problems this message has
> caused here.
>
> Is there some mechanism in place for dealing with problems like this ?
>
> Mark Powers
> Academic Computer Service
> Miami University
I received a message telling me that my original post (above) was cross posted
to an anti-censorship list. Let me explain a little further...
The message referenced above was posted by someone else using this woman's
account. Miami University does not censor its news feed in any way. I'm
attempting to have the message cancelled at the request of the woman involved.
Mark
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Fighting for equality or freedom?
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.175715.21810@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 17:57:15 GMT
[Random thoughts triggered by the library survey.]
I can imagine two strategies for fighting to academic freedom on
computers. The first works directly for academic freedom on computers.
The second works for equality between computers and more traditional
facilities and in parallel works for general academic freedom.
I think the second strategy is more effective. For example, last
December student at Marquette University was expelled from the
University's computing facilities as a result of posting an
inflammatory message [./banned.1991, news/cafv01n44]. It turns out,
however, that the University recently punished the editors of the
student newspaper for accepting an advertisement for a pro-choice
rally (Marquette is a Catholic university) [batch/jan_05_1992]. If I
was a student at Marquette, I would not be working for academic
freedom for computer users; I would be working for academic freedom in
general. Just as a practical mater, it seems futile to expect freedom
of expression on a computer medium (Netnews) that is roughly 30 years
old unless there is also freedom of expression on a traditional medium
(newspapers) that is roughly 300 years old. Also, the number of people
interested in general academic freedom is likely larger than the
number interested in computers and academic freedom.
On the other hand, at schools where computer facilities are treated
differently that traditional facilities, I think working for equal
treatment is a good strategy. It's not too hard to argue for the
essential similarity between paper publications and computer
publications or between university-assigned office space and
university-assigned disk space. It is more difficult (but not
impossible) to argue for freedom of expression and privacy for
computer users from first principles.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
./banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
news/cafv01n44
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
batch/jan_05_1992
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freeedom banned.1991
send caf-news cafv01n44
send caf-batch jan_05_1992
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/./banned.1991
pub/academic/news/cafv01n44
pub/academic/batch/jan_05_1992
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.112035.26089@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 16:20:35 GMT
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>Put another way, two solutions keep getting proposed:
There is another solution, proposed (in Usenet) by several people,
including me:
Open (unauthenticated) terminal servers should only allow
connections to port 23 (telnet) on remote systems.
Many open terminal servers currently allow access to any TCP/IP port.
This provides an avenue of attack against remote systems. Many ser-
vices, including smtp, ftp, rlogin, and rsh/remsh, use these ports.
Those services are neither designed nor intended for interactive use
by humans. No one has been able to give me a concrete justification
for the availability of this access through anonymous terminal servers.
As a secondary solution (one which many servers have implemented):
Open terminal servers should now allow "bouncing"; a user
connecting to such a server via TCP/IP should now be allowed
to use the server to connect to remote systems via TCP/IP.
Many open terminals servers allow users to connect via TCP/IP AND
connect to remote systems via TCP/IP. This is both inefficient and
(potentially) dangerous. If a user can "telnet to" the server, why
can't they "telnet to" the remote machine directly? I have never seen
a network that required this behavior. I am certain, however, that
such networks exist; their terminal servers could be configured to
allow such "bouncing" on an per-machine or per-network basis. (Note
that this capability would actually INCREASE the security of such
machines/networks.)
>Increasing, different networks have different rules (mostly relating
>to commercial use). I think it is important that we establish the
>principles that networks enforce their rules in the most specific
>possible way.
Agreed. I believe that the proposal above would allow the maximum
installation of open terminal servers. This, in turn, would enable
us to offer a much greater level of connectivity to the rest of the
world. Access to remote systems from open servers would be limited
to the normal telnet service, i.e. the login prompt. The bulk of the
security burden would then be placed (in large part) on each system's
passwording protection/scheme, where it belongs.
The restriction of anonymous access to TCP/IP services other than
telnet would also reduce overall cracking activity. Many, if not
most, crackers use anonymous services to attack TCP/IP services.
(Hey, if you had to login with your true identity, would *you* use
that access for cracking? I thought not. 8) ) Restricting their
anonymous access to those services would achieve several goals:
-- Access to those services would be limited to users for
whom an audit trail could easily be constructed, even
through the use of "stock" programs such as netstat(1).
-- With the growing acceptance of the Identity Server (RFC
931), individual sites can easily authenticate individual
connections.
-- With TCP/IP "wrappers" (available from several sources,
contact me for info), each site can customize the availa-
bility of its services. For instance, a site may decide
to only allow "fingers" from machines on its own network,
or not to allow any TCP/IP connections from a particular
host; this is easily accomplished with TCP/IP wrappers.
-- Maintenance of this scenario can be easily facilitated
by the use of network monitoring tools such as NNStat (in
software) and Network General's Sniffer (in hardware).
All of these suggestions achieve, in essence, the same goal; they
place responsibility for site security squarely on the shoulders
of each site's administrators. Arguments such as this become both
irrelevant and nearly extinct in this environment.
Right now, implementing this scenario requires a rather sizable
effort on the part of the sysadmin; many of these tools are either
hardware- or OS-specific. For instance, many of these tools fail
miserably under certain implementations of TCP/IP. As the major
vendors converge on standards, this problem will slowly evaporate.
This difficulty is one of the major contributors to the anger
directed toward open servers such as terminus; without a relatively
easy fix, most admins are quick to point the finger elsewhere.
Until such fixes are available, I believe that the "port 23 only"
approach is the best solution for the problem of open terminal
servers.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
From: root@Bogus.UUCP (David Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 11:43:34 CST
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
> Put another way, two solutions keep getting proposed:
>
> 1) MIT cuts terminus off from all outside networks, even those
> whose rules it does not violate.
>
> 2) NSFnet cuts off all of MIT
>
> I think a third choice is better:
>
> 3) NSFnet cuts off terminus (assuming terminus really is violating
> NSFnet rules)
>
I don't think thatt MIT will cut terminus off. Maybe I am mistaken, but
it seems that they are pretty firm in wanting it open.
Do you really think that NSFnet would cut off the .mit.edu domain?
Haa.. Hardly, that would raise some chaos.
You're third choice does seem to be valid.
Why don't we let NSFnet decide, and act upon this? Seems like the best
way. Terminus is breaking their rules....
->David
** Bogus.COM -- Public Access Internet (501) 525-1681 14400 HST/V.32 **
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
From: berger@median (Mike Berger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.214532.4699@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 18 Feb 92 21:45:32 GMT
traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>So be warned, you can buy cheaper by going direct to the US, but you may
>end up with an unsupported product.
*----
This seems misleading to me. You talked specifically about QEMM. You
COULD call the U.S. support number. If you want local support, then buy
an "export" copy of the software. Part of the extra cost of that
export copy is your "local" support. If you don't want to pay extra up
front because you don't need the support as you indicated, then it
doesn't seem legitimate to complain about it.
--
Mike Berger
Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET 217-244-6067
Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
From: root@bogus.UUCP (David Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 15:39:04 CST
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
> As a secondary solution (one which many servers have implemented):
>
> Open terminal servers should now allow "bouncing"; a user
> connecting to such a server via TCP/IP should now be allowed
> to use the server to connect to remote systems via TCP/IP.
>
> Many open terminals servers allow users to connect via TCP/IP AND
> connect to remote systems via TCP/IP. This is both inefficient and
> (potentially) dangerous. If a user can "telnet to" the server, why
> can't they "telnet to" the remote machine directly? I have never seen
> a network that required this behavior. I am certain, however, that
> such networks exist; their terminal servers could be configured to
> allow such "bouncing" on an per-machine or per-network basis. (Note
> that this capability would actually INCREASE the security of such
> machines/networks.)
>
Agreed that this is a BIG risk, as it does make connections harder to
track. (via the anonymous servers on internet)
You say that you have not SEEN a network that requires that behavior.
Right here on internet:
Well, unforunatly, I have seen just that. From the server WORLD.STD.COM,
the connections are VERY limited actually. It has a very nice machine,
but if I am going to connect from another server/account that is cheaper
for me to call, usually I must find a hopping stone. ;-(
I can't get to world.std.com from much of anything but servers on the
east coast, with a few exceptions here and there, and they are more
expensive to call. ;-(
I have several options with this:
1. Get an account somewhere else where I don't have these problems.
2. Ignore the extra cost, and call direct.
3. Bounce through another computer on internet.
I have at least temporarily opted for the latter two. When I know I am
going to have to be on a while, I call late at night, when there isn't
much activity on the net, and bounce.
I would gladly go bounce through an account, if I was given one.
The reason I use that "hole" you have brought out, is for very legit
purposes.
The sad fact is though, that same asset, can be abused just as easy.
Perhaps, we can instead of having those servers open like that, give
guest accounts for people that require such a service?
->David
** Bogus.COM -- Public Access Internet (501) 525-1681 14400 HST/V.32 **
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: 18 Feb 92 23:38:20 GMT
In article <1992Feb18.112035.26089@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> There is another solution, proposed (in Usenet) by several people,
> including me:
>
> Open (unauthenticated) terminal servers should only allow
> connections to port 23 (telnet) on remote systems.
I proposed this solution too, and got the following answers by mail:
(1) it would be a lot of work, "maybe a whole day", to make the
changes. This is merely a plea of incompetence or laziness.
(2) There are lots of valid reasons to telnet to a port other than 23,
like IRC, Mud, and library catalogs. But if you have an account
*somewhere* on the internet, you can telnet there first, and then
access random ports to your heart's content. If you don't, you have no
business getting on anyway.
There is no excuse for not taking this simple measure, or at least
giving compelling reasons in a public forum why it is not taken.
Wayne
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jqj@duff.uoregon.edu (JQ Johnson)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.234819.28914@nntp.uoregon.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 23:48:19 GMT
>Why don't we let NSFnet decide, and act upon this? Seems like the best
>way. Terminus is breaking their rules....
I agree completely that it would be useful to hear from some official
source at NSF. However, I do not agree that "Terminus is breaking their
rules." I see no reason to believe a priori that an unauthenticated
terminal server by itself violates any NSFnet "acceptable use" policies.
The *use* of such a server by the wrong people or even the right people
for the wrong purposes certainly does violate NSFnet use policy.
--
JQ Johnson
Director of Network Services Internet: jqj@oregon.uoregon.edu
University of Oregon voice: (503) 346-1746
250E Computing Center fax: (503) 346-4397
Eugene, OR 97403-1212
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
From: kyle@WENDY-FATE.UU.NET
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <9202182357.AA16953@wendy-fate.UU.NET>
Date: 18 Feb 92 23:57:09 GMT
Ultimately MIT will have to answer to their network service provider,
the NSF, and (I guess) Ghod about TERMINUS. If any of these entities
read USENET, even the most patient of them would have acted upon
and/or kill-filed this discussion by now. Therefore TERMINUS'
continued existence seems to be proof-positive of its legitimacy, at
least in the eyes of those can do anything about it.
If, on the other hand, no one empowered to kill TERMINUS reads USENET,
then there is no reason to continue the discussion here, neh?
From caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.013045.226@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 01:30:45 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>There is another solution, proposed (in Usenet) by several people,
>including me:
> Open (unauthenticated) terminal servers should only allow
> connections to port 23 (telnet) on remote systems.
[...]
This seems like a reasonable policy.
The terminus case highlights two orthogonal issues: 1) what policies
are wise? 2) how should polices be enforced? To see the importance of
the second issue consider this scenario:
A university is on two networks, Blue Network and Red Network. Blue
Network has a open-telnet-policy as described above. Red Network has a
no-open-server policy. So what should the university do? Should it set
up its terminal server to allow open telnet (thus, violating Red
Network's policy) or should it forbid all open access (thus, applying
Red Network's more restrictive policy to a network on which it has no
jurisdiction).
I find this dilemma intolerable. We must find technical solutions that
allow each network to enforce its policy without infringing on the
rights of other networks to set their own policies.
- 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 caf-talk Caf Feb 18 00:00:00 1992
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.215827.4@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 18 Feb 92 21:58:24 CST
In article <9202182357.AA16953@wendy-fate.UU.NET>, kyle@WENDY-FATE.UU.NET writes:
> If, on the other hand, no one empowered to kill TERMINUS reads USENET,
> then there is no reason to continue the discussion here, neh?
They may read it (or more likely someone else passed the messages on), but
the lack of action doesn't mean approval or disapproval. In the past until
a formal complaint was been received by the NSF (i.e. a real, paper letter
directed to the NSFNET program director listing specific allegations would
do it), they seemed to prefer wait and see how things developed. Perhaps
the user community will even figure out the answer themselves, which would
be the best for all concerned. Besides that way they don't have to admit
to USENET's existence, and then have to decide whether USENET is an acceptable
use of the network. Acting god-like takes a lot out of you, so most gods
like to conserve their energy (resting on the seventh day, etc...)
This actually makes a lot of sense. Even during this debate about TERMINUS,
exactly what the problem is (if there is one), and the best way of solving
it has evolved. By waiting you allow the issue to more fully develop, and
perhaps get clearer.
My personal opinion is the NSF has no obligation to prevent people from
using TERMINUS to break into your site (which seems to be the original
complaint). I wouldn't expect NSF to cut off MIT or TERMINUS any more
than I would expect the phone company to disconnect MIT's phones just
because someone used their phone lines to break into my system. I especially
hate the concept that TERMINUS is a nuisance to the Internet, arrest the
person who broke into your system not the person whose backyard they crawled
through.
Or I might try to argue that MIT is assuming that TERMINUS users are using
the Internet for "approved" purposes because the remote system provides the
authentication when they access the remote service. It is actually the remote
system's failure to provide adequate authentication that is allowing the
unapproved use of the network, not MIT. If all services (i.e. destination
ports) on the Internet provided adequate authentication, then nobody could
use TERMINUS for unapproved use of the NSFNET. So it is really your fault
for have an insecure system which is allowing this unapproved use of the
network.
That seems farfetched? Look what happened last time that someone from the
NSF is publicly known to have inquired about some use of the network being
acceptable. It seemed to be claimed the site providing the service (for
example, access to certain GIF files (well, this was cross-posted :-)) is
responsible for blocking use of certain networks.
I agree it is damn annoying trying to trace connections hopping through
multiple hosts that don't provide even minimal authentication. And the
Internet likes making it harder just by its distributed nature. I also
have problem with systems that are providing "menued" access to various
systems, in addition to the "wide-open" access that TERMINUS allows. Often
one of the items on the menu is yet another system with anonymous login
to yet another menu. Even with authd, you just end up with the name of
the other machine's anonymous login account.
What does the future hold?
I think they'll get shutdown not by the NSF, but by the privatization
of the network. This type of access also wrecks havoc with anyone trying
to do any type of traffic control or monitoring based on source or destination
addresses. Why pay com-bits when you can just TELNET to someplace like
services at wugate.wustl.edu and pick dra.com on their menu so the traffic
that hits the ANS/NSF gateway has that "good/free" non-profit educational IP
net address rather than whatever the original IP address was.
If you still want to make a formal complaint, give NSF a call first to at
least warn them. A formal letter has the effect equivalent to a small nuclear
device on a bureaucracy. In addition, if they decide to turn it over to the
Justice Department be prepared to testify.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: root@bogus.UUCP (David Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Feb 92 04:36:35 GMT
jqj@duff.uoregon.edu (JQ Johnson) writes:
> >Why don't we let NSFnet decide, and act upon this? Seems like the best
> >way. Terminus is breaking their rules....
>
> I agree completely that it would be useful to hear from some official
> source at NSF. However, I do not agree that "Terminus is breaking their
> rules." I see no reason to believe a priori that an unauthenticated
> terminal server by itself violates any NSFnet "acceptable use" policies.
> The *use* of such a server by the wrong people or even the right people
> for the wrong purposes certainly does violate NSFnet use policy.
>
>
I would agree with that myself. But it doesn't seem to be the general
consensus.
The crackers are the ones violating the rules.
** Bogus.COM -- Public Access Internet (501) 525-1681 14400 HST/V.32 **
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.082013.28162@rtf.bt.co.uk>
Date: 19 Feb 92 08:20:13 GMT
In article <1992Feb18.214532.4699@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@median (Mike Berger) writes:
>traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>So be warned, you can buy cheaper by going direct to the US, but you may
>>end up with an unsupported product.
>*----
>This seems misleading to me. You talked specifically about QEMM. You
>COULD call the U.S. support number. If you want local support, then buy
>an "export" copy of the software. Part of the extra cost of that
>export copy is your "local" support. If you don't want to pay extra up
>front because you don't need the support as you indicated, then it
>doesn't seem legitimate to complain about it.
>
I have as you say already indicated that the support was not required.
What is required is the ability to *upgrade* the product when new
releases come out. Quarterdeck will not ship upgrades outside the US. To
upgrade I would have to find a US mailing address for the software to be
sent to and then get the product forwarded.
I have now paid out another 41 pounds ($70 (US)) for the privilege of
upgrading to the "international" version. This so called "international"
version is the same bloody version as the US version, but I get to
register my copy in Ireland instead of in the US, and they will honour
upgrades.
-------
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.nren] access to and acceptable use of NREN networks
Message-ID: <199202191407.AA06995@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 04:07:44 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.nren
From: jqj@duff.uoregon.edu
Subject: access to and acceptable use of NREN networks
Message-ID: <9202182129.AA25590@phloem.uoregon.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 21:29:05 GMT
An interesting discussion of NSFnet "acceptable use" policy has been
occuring on the news group comp.security in context of an open-access
terminal server at MIT. I think the issues of access to the national
network deserve wider discussion, hence this message.
At issue here is what policies are required and/or appropriate for
determining which individuals may have Internet access. NSFnet
"acceptable use" policy does not address this issue, since it is mostly
neutral on "who", and only discusses "what" and "where".
There is, of course, some linkage. The presumption, I gather, is that
anything a faculty member at a "not-for-profit institution of research or
instruction" does is likely to support research or instruction. Biases
I've seen expressed on the net indicate that many people have the
presumption that anything a high school student does outside of the
regular curriculum is by definition cracking and not "scientific research,
education, and other scholarly activities".
Still, a large grey area exists. Some test questions:
Is it legitimate from NSF's point of view for an educational institution
to allow supervised access to the Internet by students in a local high
school class? If so, what form must the supervision take?
What are the responsibilities of an institution in proactively overseeing
the use of its connection to the Internet? Absent any evidence of abuse,
is it necessary for the institution to restrict Internet access to regular
students/faculty/staff (e.g. to deny access to visiting researchers)? Is
it necessary for the institution to guarantee that no open-access
terminals exist on campus (including in faculty offices)? Is it necessary
for the institution to monitor traffic to insure that the people using
its facilities are abiding by acceptable use policies?
Let's return to the Terminus case. Presumably, it is permissible for an
institution to provide individual-password-protected dialin access to the
Internet for use by its students/faculty/staff. Is it permissible for an
institution to provide such access with a single well-known password
distributed within the institution? Absent actual abuse, it permissible
to provide unprotected access, but with large warnings that use must be
consistent with "acceptable use" policies.
More generally, what mechanism should decide issues like this? Has the
answer to this question changed given the new focus on education (as
opposed to scientific research) in the NREN legislation?
JQ Johnson
Director of Network Services Internet: jqj@oregon.uoregon.edu
University of Oregon voice: (503) 346-1746
250E Computing Center fax: (503) 346-4397
Eugene, OR 97403-1212
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.telecom-priv] Re: Can employers monitor email?
Message-ID: <199202191409.AA07058@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 04:09:16 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.telecom-priv
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Can employers monitor email?
Message-ID: <9202181949.aa05383@claudius.pica.army.mil>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1992 02:16:15 GMT
woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu (Bill Woodcock) writes:
[...]
> The University of California at Berkeley has recently become embroiled
> in something of scandal, which pertains to this issue. A student's (or
> ex-student's, I'm afraid I don't remember many details of the original
> case,) parents sued the university trying to prove that some form of
> discrimination had occurred which had adversely affected the student
> in some wise. The Alameda County court ordered the University to
> search _all_ e-mail on all UCB machines and the historical backups of
> these machines for anything which might pertain to the case.
[...]
My understanding of the case is that student X's parents only expected
a search of the files of some University sys admins. It was the
University that asserted that the files in the home directories of
other students might be "student records" of student X. The University
then claimed that it would be impractical to search all the computer
files.
If the Univeristy is correct then:
Students cannot legally look at files in their home directory if
those files mention other students by name. (Because the files are
the student records of all students mentioned by name and it is
generally illegal for a student to look at the student records of
another student.)
University can get around the the FEPRA law by keeping "real" student
records on computers in which students have home directories. (Because
it is impractical to search both the "real" student records and the
student home directories.)
If the University is not correct then:
Files in a student's home directory are not "university-maintained
student records."
- 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=
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Ethics of Digital Librarianship
Message-ID: <199202191413.AA07128@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 04:13:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 12:51:23 PST
From: Brewster Kahle
Subject: Ethics of Digital Librarianship
Message-ID:
Ethics of Digital Librarianship
Brewster Kahle
Thinking Machines
February 1992
"As digital librarian, you should serve and protect
each patron as if she is your only employer."
As more of us become involved in serving information electronically
to other users, we so-called "digital librarians" must become
conscious of our ethical responsibilities to protect the privacy of
our the users being served. Since computers are being used by many
more people to find answers from diverse information sources, we
librarians that operate these servers are coming exposed to the exact
questions and interests of people we do not know. This information
has power, a power that can be abused and thereby thwart the
usefulness of the tools we promote. In this essay, I will use the
Wide Area Information Server system as an example of a system of
digital librarians to show what information is collected and used.
With this example, I hope to illustrate some of the dangers and help
list some of the rules of etiquette for this emerging class of
information providers.
The Wide Area Information Server (WAIS) system is an electronic
publishing system that allows end-users to ask questions of remote
information sources. The system encourages people to ask questions in
natural language so that the server system can try its best to find
appropriate documents. Therefore the operator of the server can
collect the questions, and importantly, collect what documents the
users thought were worth looking at. This combines to portray exact
interests of the users. While the identity of the user is not trivial
to determine since only the machine that the query came from is
accessible from the server logs, as personal computers become
networked, the identity of the machine will approximate the identity
of the user.
On the positive side, this means that the server operator (the
"digital librarian") can use that data to refine the database and the
search techniques used in the system. On the negative side, this is
exposing many remote operators to private information that may not be
consciously given by the users.
This surrender of information is not new to librarians; and the
responsibility is taken very seriously by the professionals in the
field. Through training in library schools and by an intuitive sense
of ethics, reference librarians do not betray their patron's interests
to others that are curious or devious. This ethical code is not coded
in law as it is with psychiatrists, so these records can be extracted
through subpoena, but this level of demand is usually required to pry the
information from librarians. From the patron's point of view, having
a librarian know what she is interested in can be a great value
because the librarian can help select and route useful information in
the future.
The same type of information is available to the digital librarians of
the WAIS system. I operate the directory of servers in the WAIS
system, and as such, I know what users are requesting access to what
what type of servers. I know, for instance, every time Mitch Kapor
uses the system, and what he asks for (he specifically allowed me to
include his name here). At this point this is not a problem since
few servers are of a personal nature yet, but as the system
grows to include entertainment, employment, health and other servers,
it is easy to imagine the types of information that will be accessible
through operating such a server. Furthermore, I know when particular
users are at their machines, and therefore know where they are and
when.
The abuses possible with this information are often not as direct as
other offenses, but should not be discounted. People will act
differently if they think they are being watched. Most people will
try not to look silly or ignorant in public, and therefore might be
less willing to try something new, to learn about a subject that they
know nothing about. If using a WAIS server feels like raising one's
hand in school, then people will craft their questions more carefully
than if it felt more like browsing through a new book. Often people
say "I have nothing to hide," which may be true, but if a stranger
approaches on the street and knows quite a bit of personal
information, then the innocent will likely take that person more
seriously than if a cold stranger approached. Even with nothing to
hide, most people feel they should who knows what about them. The
personal nature of information access makes distributing collected
questions a bit unnerving.
The information collected by the digital librarians have some different
characteristics from physical librarians which can make abuse easier
and more widespread: more people can be served, these people are often
in other organizations, and the digital librarians rarely have personal
contact with these users. Therefore, the patrons seem further away
and therefore less real as human beings. Since the computer networks
that are being used with WAIS span the globe and span company
boundaries, the information collected can be useful in knowing what is
important to a distant, and possibly competitive group. The lack of
human contact can lead to the decay in social relations as has been
documented in studies of electronic mail where the language and nature
of relations tend to be stripped of grace, etiquette, and often respect
[cite Sherry Terkle]. This detached nature of electronic
interaction might lead librarians to not respect their patrons
interests where they would if they knew them personally.
On the other hand, the information collected from patrons can be very
useful to the digital librarian to refine and enhance the server. An
example of this is a reporter at a financial newspaper. She is in the
business of collecting information from corporate contacts, finding
the trends in that information, throwing out the proprietary details,
and selling it back to that same population. If the reporter
published too many details, then her contacts would not be forthcoming
the next time, and if she sanitized the information to the point of
uselessness, similarly, her contacts would not invest the time.
Therefore, it is precisely the interaction with the users that builds
the information that is sold. This example shows another facet, and
that is value of the contacts invest in the reporter for their own
benefit. The digital librarian is a less extreme case, but still she
is being invested and entrusted with what the users want, and if this
information is misused or not used, then the users will not be as well
served as could be. Thus, the users will want to be able to be
served better by the librarian through feedback on services rendered.
While there are some technological mechanisms to obscure the identity
of the patron, such as encryption and redirection, hopefully these
will only be used in extreme cases. Encryption can be used to protect
packets in transmission and also be used to sign packets so that they
can not be forged [cite Whitfield Diffie]. This can be useful in a
system where the transport media is insecure, such as radio
transmission. Redirection is a server forwarding technique that would
concentrate all the requests from one trusted host so that the
individual requesters are more difficult to determine. Combinations
of these techniques have been contemplated to provably obscure
requesters while still providing accountability for charges, but
hopefully these techniques will not be the norm if most server
operators will act in good faith towards their patrons.
To try to list a code of ethics for this field is difficult since the
technology keeps changing, but I will offer a principle that can be used to
test a code. As digital librarian, you should serve and protect each
patron as if she is your only employer. Therefore each patron should be
served and protected individually. In terms of WAIS, I feel it is safe to
suggest:
* Dont give away user logs except for scholarly use. Consider
sanitizing the records before any transfer is undertaken.
* Take the job of information serving seriously. This means to
provide a consistent, reliable service and represent the service
provided accurately.
* Count on wide use of the information served, for good
uses and bad, so be proud of the information and the collection.
* Completeness is important. Users learn as much from a question
that has no answer as from the ones with answers. This requires a
complete and up-to-date collection.
* Assume that the patron will not know the your affiliations, and
therefore do not tempt patrons to use a service they would regret if
they new more about you.
* Respect your patrons. The opinion that users are "rocks with
arms", as said by a colleague years ago, will not lead you to become a
very helpful digital librarian.
In conclusion, the rewards from being a digital librarian are numerous
and can be evident from notes from users from remote countries and
companies. This electronic publishing revolution allows anyone with a
personal computer and a modem to be a publisher will have far reaching
effects on the structure of our society. Being a good digital
librarian is a concrete way to create a future we all want to live in.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.91901.29022@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 14:19:01 GMT
In article <1992Feb18.215827.4@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>
>Or I might try to argue that MIT is assuming that TERMINUS users are using
>the Internet for "approved" purposes because the remote system provides the
>authentication when they access the remote service. It is actually the remote
>system's failure to provide adequate authentication that is allowing the
>unapproved use of the network, not MIT.
The only *standard* service needed by legitimate remote users DOES provide
a means of authentication; it looks like this:
login:
No anonymous user has a legitimate need to use any other standard TCP/IP
port. If anyone can prove such a legitimate need, I'd love to see the
proof; no one has been able to do so in this discussion.
I realize that *non-standard* services, such as MUD/WAIS/IRC/Gopher, are
intended for anonymous access by humans; the implementation of those ser-
vices are at the complete discretion of the admins. Besides, those facili-
ties can be accessed through an authenticated login on most "internetted"
systems.
>If all services (i.e. destination
>ports) on the Internet provided adequate authentication, then nobody could
>use TERMINUS for unapproved use of the NSFNET. So it is really your fault
>for have an insecure system which is allowing this unapproved use of the
>network.
Let me get this straight. Since I can neither afford nor justify a source
license for my systems, I am dependent on my vendor's binaries. Since my
vendors do not support complete authentication, it's my fault?
At this time, authentication cannot be reliably performed at the remote
end of a connection. Software such as RFC 931 servers can help, but it
still requires cooperation on both ends.
I'm going to attempt an analogy (even though this is a hazardous tactic
on Usenet):
I have a car, which transports me along the Interstate highways.
-- I have a computer (or terminal) which transports me along the
network highways.
The states to which I travel cannot reliably/efficiently authenticate either
my car or its driver(s).
-- The sites to which I travel cannot reliably/efficiently authenticate
either my computer/terminal or its users.
It is the responsibility of my home state to license (authenticate) both my
car and me (as the driver).
-- It is the responsibility of my home site to license (authenticate)
both my system and its user.
>Often
>one of the items on the menu is yet another system with anonymous login
>to yet another menu. Even with authd, you just end up with the name of
>the other machine's anonymous login account.
Yup, design problems such as this are a large part of the problem. Don't
even let me get started on anonymous login accounts.
>In addition, if they decide to turn it over to the
>Justice Department be prepared to testify.
That's one of the very things we're trying to avoid through these discussions!
If ANYONE could provide a logical defense of things like full-access terminal
servers and anonymous login accounts, we could work for compromise. As it
stands now, the only defense I've seen is "It's my system, and I can do as
I please"; there is hardly room for compromise in that.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.163425.9651@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 16:34:25 GMT
It may be time to look past the details for principles. How about:
Principle: Network policy should be written or technical tools
provided such that a site is not compelled to apply one network's
policy to other networks.
Principle: The network service requester, not the network service
provider, is responsibility for compliance with network policy.
Aside: The second principle is based on the codes for another kind of
information network, interlibrary loan networks. Their policies say:
"The borrowing library should carefully screen all request for loans
and reject any that do not conform to this code" and "The decision to
loan material is at the discretion of the lending library. Each
library is encouraged, however, to interpret as generously as possible
its own lending policy with due consideration to the interest of its
primary clientele". For more information, see [news/cafv01n37] or
Boucher, Virginia. Interlibrary loan practices handbook. Chicago :
American Library Association, c1984.
Applying these principles to terminus: if it is technically feasible to
cutoff terminus from NSFnet (without cutting it off of other
networks), then NSFnet could do this or require that MIT do it.
Applying these principles to Usenet: when site 1 requests articles from
site 2 across NSFnet, it is the responsible of site 1 and not site 2
to comply with the AUP. [I believe this is the way things currently
work.]
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
news/cafv01n37
=================
[No annotation available.]
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send caf-news cafv01n37
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/news/cafv01n37
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.nren] access to and acceptable use of NREN networks
Message-ID: <199202191647.AA09937@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 06:47:42 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.nren
From: steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov (Stephen Wolff)
Subject: access to and acceptable use of NREN networks
Message-ID: <9202191440.AA20298@cise.cise.nsf.gov>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 14:37:06 GMT
FIRST: The new NSF Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) is available by anonymous
ftp from nis.nsf.net in directory cise. It's in PostScript.
->Is it legitimate from NSF's point of view for an educational institution
->to allow supervised access to the Internet by students in a local high
->school class? If so, what form must the supervision take?
Fully legitimate; it's covered by the General Principle of the AUP. The
supervision should be adequate to provide reasonable assurance against
misuse. There is I believe a principle of "due diligence" which, if I
understand it aright, seems appropriate here.
->What are the responsibilities of an institution in proactively overseeing
->the use of its connection to the Internet? Absent any evidence of abuse,
->is it necessary for the institution to restrict Internet access to regular
->students/faculty/staff (e.g. to deny access to visiting researchers)? Is
->it necessary for the institution to guarantee that no open-access
->terminals exist on campus (including in faculty offices)? Is it necessary
->for the institution to monitor traffic to insure that the people using
->its facilities are abiding by acceptable use policies?
I guess due diligence is the watchphrase again. And I note that access to
most public/private high school facilities is not "open"; I cannot, for
example, walk in anonymously to my local school's gym with a bunch of friends
and start shooting baskets - let alone use the locker room and showers
afterwards. Network access would, I should suppose, be treated much like
any other school facility.
I am utterly opposed to monitoring traffic, absent a court order.
->Let's return to the Terminus case. Presumably, it is permissible for an
->institution to provide individual-password-protected dialin access to the
->Internet for use by its students/faculty/staff. Is it permissible for an
->institution to provide such access with a single well-known password
->distributed within the institution? Absent actual abuse, it permissible
->to provide unprotected access, but with large warnings that use must be
->consistent with "acceptable use" policies.
cf. supra.
->More generally, what mechanism should decide issues like this? Has the
->answer to this question changed given the new focus on education (as
->opposed to scientific research) in the NREN legislation?
For the NREN, the FNC, as advised by its (private-sector) Advisory Committee
is the policy-making body.
The NREN is still the least costly of the four pieces of the HPCC program, so
I would hardly call whatever-it-is on education a "focus". Nor is whatever-
it-is "new": it's been in the Administration's program since the 9/89 OSTP
report and probably even earlier in the (until recently unsuccessful)
initiatives of the Legislative branch.
-s
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: New NSF AUP (was Re: [eff.mail.nren] access to ...)
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.172752.10962@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 17:27:52 GMT
Steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov (Stephen Wolff) writes:
[...]
>FIRST: The new NSF Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) is available by anonymous
>ftp from nis.nsf.net in directory cise. It's in PostScript.
[...]
I've manually converted it to ASCII.
- Carl
========================================================
THE NSFNET BACKBONE SERVICES ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
GENERAL PRINCIPLE:
1. NSFNET Backbone services are provided to support open research plus
research arms of for-profit firms when engaged in open scholarly
communication and research. Use for other purposes is not acceptable.
SPECIFICALLY ACCEPTABLE USES:
2. Communication with foreign researchers and educators in connection
with research or instruction, as long as any network that the foreign
user employs for such communication provides reciprocal access to US
researchers and educators.
3. Communication and exchange for professional development, to
maintain currency, or to debate issues in a field or subfield of
knowledge.
4. Use for disciplinary-society, university-association,
government-advisory, or standards activities related to the user's
research and instructional activities.
5. Use in applying for or administering grants or contracts for
research or instruction, but not for other fundraising or public
relations activities.
6. Any other administrative communications or activities in direct
support of research and instruction.
7. Announcements of new products or services for use in research or
instruction, but not advertising of any kind.
8. Any traffic originating from a network of another member agency of
the Federal Networking Council if the traffic meets the acceptable use
policy of that agency.
9. Communication incidental to otherwise acceptable use, except for
illegal or specifically unacceptable use.
UNACCEPTABLE USES:
10. Use for for-profit activities (consulting for pay, sales or
administration of campus stores, sale of tickets to sports events, and
so on), or use by for-profit institutions unless covered by the
General Principle or as a specifically acceptable use.
11. Extensive use for private or personal business.
This statement applies to use of the the NSFNET Backbone only. NSF
expects that connecting networks will formulate their own use
policies. The NSF Division of Networking and Communications Research
and Infrastructure will resolve any questions about this Policy or its
interpretation.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.132851.5@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 19 Feb 92 13:28:51 CST
In article <1992Feb19.91901.29022@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> Let me get this straight. Since I can neither afford nor justify a source
> license for my systems, I am dependent on my vendor's binaries. Since my
> vendors do not support complete authentication, it's my fault?
Well, it certainly isn't MIT's fault. They didn't hold a gun to you head
and make you buy such shoddy equipment. Yes, security costs money, and
you are taking a risk by not spending the money. I wouldn't depend on,
or expect MIT to spend anything to protect "my" systems.
MIT seems to believe that their security on their systems is strong
enough that such an anonymous terminal service is not a hazard to their
work. If they don't think it is a risk to their systems, why should
you expect them to worry about other people's systems?
This smells like a deep pockets argument. Since you can't catch the actual
crooks, go after MIT instead because it is easier to track them down.
> At this time, authentication cannot be reliably performed at the remote
> end of a connection. Software such as RFC 931 servers can help, but it
> still requires cooperation on both ends.
>
> I'm going to attempt an analogy (even though this is a hazardous tactic
> on Usenet):
>
> I have a car, which transports me along the Interstate highways.
> -- I have a computer (or terminal) which transports me along the
> network highways.
> The states to which I travel cannot reliably/efficiently authenticate either
> my car or its driver(s).
> -- The sites to which I travel cannot reliably/efficiently authenticate
> either my computer/terminal or its users.
> It is the responsibility of my home state to license (authenticate) both my
> car and me (as the driver).
> -- It is the responsibility of my home site to license (authenticate)
> both my system and its user.
>
Yes, I support this, but perhaps not quite how you might be thinking.
I would like to have distributed authentication. For example, if one of my
users wanted to use TERMINUS, and TERMINUS wanted to authenticate them, then
TERMINUS could contact one of my servers to check their credentials. But
once again it is the responsibility of the remote system to verify their
credentials (or rather, as of this moment, that they aren't known to be
compromised).
But I wouldn't sue another driver's home state because the driver was driving
without a license. It is not the responsibility of my state to license or
authenticate me. Whether you trust their authentication is another wrinkle,
(to stretch this analogy beyond its limits :-) a bar can still refuse to
serve you even if your license says you're 21.
> That's one of the very things we're trying to avoid through these discussions!
> If ANYONE could provide a logical defense of things like full-access terminal
> servers and anonymous login accounts, we could work for compromise. As it
> stands now, the only defense I've seen is "It's my system, and I can do as
> I please"; there is hardly room for compromise in that.
Most of the open terminal servers have been closed for exactly that reason,
they are "my systems, and I can do as I please." They are normally closed
because the site found that they couldn't get their own work done because
all the ports were being used by MUD players. Or other forms of enlightened
self-interest, such as fear that they'll lose their NSFNET connection if
they allow them.
I just find it frightening that people are trying to hold MIT responsible
for not implementing a particular form of access control. Go after the
crooks, not the bystanders.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.150725.987@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: 19 Feb 92 15:07:25 GMT
In article <1992Feb18.214532.4699@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@median (Mike Berger) writes:
>This seems misleading to me. You talked specifically about QEMM. You
>COULD call the U.S. support number. If you want local support, then buy
>an "export" copy of the software. Part of the extra cost of that
>export copy is your "local" support. If you don't want to pay extra up
>front because you don't need the support as you indicated, then it
>doesn't seem legitimate to complain about it.
Ah, but you're making the same mistake, in the reverse direction. The
'export' copy of the software does have to have the price raised to
reflect the cost of providing the 'local' support office. On the other
hand, it should also have some cut taken out of the price to reflect
the fact that since the user is getting 'local' support, the US support
people won't have to support him. Feels like these should balance out.
On the other hand, a lot of the British complainants are neglecting the
fact that UK software prices include the 17.5% VAT (roughly akin to US
sales tax) where US price listings normally don't include sales tax.
British import duties (yes, they grab your money with both hands) also
tend to get ignored.
Finally, like it or not, there ARE economies of scale. For random
example (taken from one of the earlier postings) it costs the same
amount to make up a UK spelling/hyphenation dictionary as to make up a
US one. However, the British potential market is on the order of 1/6th
the size. That's going to require UK purchasers to pay a larger share
of that part of the costs. Similar comments apply to the other
internationalizations involved.
Whether it's enough to justify an effective 50% markup (I've removed
VAT and customs from the calculation, since the manufacturer isn't
getting that) is not totally clear to me, but the issue is more complex
than some people seem to think. And, a lot of software -- particularly
games -- HASN'T been internationalised, so such arguments don't apply.
--
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!ukc!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <4213@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 19 Feb 92 20:14:29 GMT
In article <1992Feb19.132851.5@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
|In article <1992Feb19.91901.29022@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
|> Let me get this straight. Since I can neither afford nor justify a source
|> license for my systems, I am dependent on my vendor's binaries. Since my
|> vendors do not support complete authentication, it's my fault?
|
|Well, it certainly isn't MIT's fault. They didn't hold a gun to you head
|and make you buy such shoddy equipment. Yes, security costs money, and
|you are taking a risk by not spending the money. I wouldn't depend on,
|or expect MIT to spend anything to protect "my" systems.
And I wouldn't expect MIT to do anything to increase the threat to other
systems, either.
|MIT seems to believe that their security on their systems is strong
|enough that such an anonymous terminal service is not a hazard to their
|work. If they don't think it is a risk to their systems, why should
|you expect them to worry about other people's systems?
Because, by furnishing an open terminal server, they are increasing the risk
to other people's systems.
|This smells like a deep pockets argument. Since you can't catch the actual
|crooks, go after MIT instead because it is easier to track them down.
There's no reason to not go after the actual crooks, but open terminal
servers make this more difficult.
|> That's one of the very things we're trying to avoid through these discussions!
|> If ANYONE could provide a logical defense of things like full-access terminal
|> servers and anonymous login accounts, we could work for compromise. As it
|> stands now, the only defense I've seen is "It's my system, and I can do as
|> I please"; there is hardly room for compromise in that.
|
|Most of the open terminal servers have been closed for exactly that reason,
|they are "my systems, and I can do as I please." They are normally closed
|because the site found that they couldn't get their own work done because
|all the ports were being used by MUD players. Or other forms of enlightened
|self-interest, such as fear that they'll lose their NSFNET connection if
|they allow them.
|
|I just find it frightening that people are trying to hold MIT responsible
|for not implementing a particular form of access control. Go after the
|crooks, not the bystanders.
So, what is the justification for having an open terminal server in the
first place?
|--
|Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
|Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.155034.6@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 19 Feb 92 15:50:34 CST
In article <4213@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
> And I wouldn't expect MIT to do anything to increase the threat to other
> systems, either.
Every site that connects to the Internet increases the threat. People
who buy insecure software increase the threat. Perhaps we should just
ban all systems that don't run MULTICS in sealed rooms from the Internet.
> So, what is the justification for having an open terminal server in the
> first place?
Putting a password on TERMINUS means MIT is going have to fund some
administrative structure to inform people what the password is. If you
don't want to spend the money protecting your system, why expect MIT to
spend the money putting passwords on TERMINUS?
One justification is it is cheap (ok, low-overhead), which is about as
good a justification as those people who won't get good software have.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.feminism] Pornography questions
Message-ID: <9202192312.AA02532@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 11:12:50 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: wyang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William D Yang)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Pornography questions
Date: 19 Feb 1992 15:43:31 GMT
Message-ID:
Hello, everyone.
I'm trying to run a survey about how people on the Internet view Pornography as
part of a Women's Studies class at The Ohio State University. My goals for the
project are as follows:
(1) Create a composite definition (read: necessary and sufficient conditions)
for distinguishing Pornography from any other form of expression (if
possible; if not, theorize as to why)
(2) look at the varying moral/ethical viewpoints of a wide variety of people
(note the crosspost to soc.feminism, soc.motss, soc.men, soc.women,
alt.sex, and alt.sex.bondage) to aid in demonstrating part of my thesis
which hinges upon the theory of cultural relativism.
To achieve these ends, I've decided to ask YOU in a survey. Responses will be
kept as confidential as I can keep them (note the Reply-To line above, which
sends all mailed responses to an alias from the Anonymous Contact Service @
wizvax). So, please respond to any of the following questions you might like
to... All responses will be included to the best of my ability as part of the
survey; no names will be used unless you specifically grant permission for
their use.
The questions:
(1) How do you define Pornography?
(2) How do you feel about Pornography? (any responses will be helpful; though
I'm particularly interested in moral/ethical viewpoints, I'd also like to
know how you think it's affecting society, how it affects sex-roles, and if
there are any larger effects. Why might you think this?)
(3) What commentary might you have about pornography and it's relationship to
women and/or men?
I will, by request, mail copies of my paper to either an alias or an address;
if sufficient interest is warranted, I'll simply post the paper to the
newsgroup of preference. Thus, if you want to read it after it's done, please
indicate what newsgroup you'd like to see it posted to (I'll default to alt.sex
if I get no preference whatsoever). Again, sufficient interest will prompt me
to cross-post with directed follow-up.
I'd rather keep discussion off the newsgroups until after I can finish my
research (mostly to keep it pseudo-objective; I'd like to hear individual
responses before hearing group responses since groups go outside my research
parameters for now); however, for you folks who are intent upon discussion,
I've directed follow-up to alt.sex (the group I personally see as most fitting
to the concept of 'Pornography').
Thank you for your time and effort,
-Bill Yang (wi.3332@wizvax.methuen.ma.us)
--
William D. Yang wyang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Yang.25@osu.edu
Technical Assistant to North Area Computing Sites at The Ohio State University.
It's my opinion, but if you really want it, you can have it for a nominal fee.
ObPhilosophy: Man's mind should reach further than his overbite.
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Date: 19 Feb 1992 23:09:17 GMT
Message-ID:
In article <1992Feb19.132851.5@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>But I wouldn't sue another driver's home state because the driver was driving
>without a license.
Indeed, here's the appropriate analogy:
When I had a New York driver's license (late 70's, early 80's) the licenses
were very simple: stiff paper, computer printed, no picture, no plastic
coating. I imagine they were trivial to forge. If I were to drive in
Massachusetts with a fake NY license, and use that to escape prosecution in
MA, could MA have sued NY because they didn't make their licenses harder to
forge?
MA could decide not to accept NY licenses as valid licenses to drive in MA
(unless there's some federal law that requires states to honor each others'
drivers licenses). This is like the suggestion that sites who are worried
about Terminus add it to their packet filters.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <4216@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 19 Feb 92 23:10:55 GMT
In article <1992Feb19.155034.6@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
|In article <4213@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
|> And I wouldn't expect MIT to do anything to increase the threat to other
|> systems, either.
|
|Every site that connects to the Internet increases the threat. People
|who buy insecure software increase the threat. Perhaps we should just
|ban all systems that don't run MULTICS in sealed rooms from the Internet.
|
|> So, what is the justification for having an open terminal server in the
|> first place?
|
|Putting a password on TERMINUS means MIT is going have to fund some
|administrative structure to inform people what the password is. If you
|don't want to spend the money protecting your system, why expect MIT to
|spend the money putting passwords on TERMINUS?
|
|One justification is it is cheap (ok, low-overhead), which is about as
|good a justification as those people who won't get good software have.
Actually, this still isn't a justification for the existence of an open
terminal server. However, let me rephrase the question. What is the
justification for having TERMINUS, as an open terminal server, connect to
any machine outside of the mit.edu domain?
|--
|Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
|Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Feb 92 23:45:45 GMT
In article barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>MA could decide not to accept NY licenses as valid licenses to drive in MA
>(unless there's some federal law that requires states to honor each others'
>drivers licenses). This is like the suggestion that sites who are worried
>about Terminus add it to their packet filters.
No, MA could not do this; the constitution requires each state to honor what the
other states do. Here's the clause (article 4, section 1):
Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
If this weren't true, imagine the chaos that would result -- you might find
that some states considered you married, others not; some bankrupt, others
liable for debts, etc.
--
Joe Buck jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <60323442@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 20 Feb 92 00:19:21 GMT
In article <4216@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>Actually, this still isn't a justification for the existence of an open
>terminal server. However, let me rephrase the question. What is the
>justification for having TERMINUS, as an open terminal server, connect to
>any machine outside of the mit.edu domain?
The specific justification offered is that it makes it easier for
researchers VISITING from OTHER institutions to access their own systems
back home while they're staying in the Cambridge area. In other words,
MIT is offering this as a professional and collegial courtesy.
The problem with this, of course, is that it's impossible to distinguish
the innocent Stanford physicist dialing up at his guest quarters from
Gjurt Altoona the >>>COUNTRY 1<<< cracker as he taps away from across
>>>OCEAN A<<<. MIT makes available a wide-open resource in the hope
that good people will enjoy using it, but bad people learn about it
quickly as usual and start abusing it. When victims complain, MIT
responds that since none of the good people using it legitimately have
complained or asked that it be taken away from them, there must not be a
problem!
My own view is that the TERMINUS server should be password protected,
and the password should be available to sysadmins at the price of a
phone call. Any legitimate visiting researcher ought to be able to ask
his home admin how to access the server. The server interface should
also be changed to terminate the phone conversation after N login
attempts, so that nobody can sit there and bang away all night.
There may be a better technical solution, but anything's better than
hearing either (a) that everyone should be free to crack the net, or (b)
that responsibility for net safety rests exclusively with the many
beleaguered target sites, and not with the single egregiously attractive
nuisance being used to attack them.
--
I'm a Leo. Leos don't believe * * * Tom Neff
in this astrology stuff. * * * tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: We need help!
Message-ID: <9202200202.AA29542@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 14:02:32 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Re: We need help!
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.204019.19138@rice.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 20:40:19 GMT
The following is a description of Rice University's computing
facilities for students, as compared to the issues/complaints given by
the original poster. So you'll know my perspective without having to
read to the end of the article to find out who I am, I'll tell you
now. My title is Deputy Director, Owlnet. Owlnet is the Rice School
of Engineering educational computing network. I am part of the
"management". I am not a system administrator in the classic
definition, but a large part of my job is to manage the day-to-day
operations of the network. I work with several technical system
administrators.
This article is not intended to be an "up with Rice" session, but
simply my (hopefully reasonably accurate) perspective on the computing
environment here. Other people at Rice, students in particular, may
have a different perspective on things.
In article , cvafyhds@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu (We want better computing!) writes:
>
> Here's a list of complaints on the CRC we gathered:
>
> o Difficulty of getting computer access:
> o No permanent accounts:
At Rice University, the students have the following: All students are
automatically given an account on our IBM ES/9000 mainframe. To my
knowledge, the account exists as long as they are students. All
students have access to Macs and PCs, which are networked and provide
a basic suite of software (word processor, spreadsheet, some
communcations s/w, other stuff). The School of Engineering has a Unix
network, which all engineering students are entitled to accounts for
as long as they are at Rice. Non-engineers taking engineering courses
that use the network are given accounts for the time that they are
taking the course. A separate Unix Facility exists mostly for the
School of Natural Sciences students, but will accommodate other users too.
The student accounts are automatically created on the mainframe. The
student need merely show up at the IS center and pick up the account
information after showing a photo ID. A student gets a Unix account via
an on-line application process that takes about five minutes to
complete. Within 24 hours, they can pick up a new account packet that
has their account information as well as a new user guide. For the
engineering network, the guide contains information on the particular
network and a basic Unix tutorial. The new account packet is about 60
pages of material and is provided at no cost to the student. The Unix
application system is tied into the University Registrar's database and
a campus wide name database so that a student can be uniquely
identified and can use the same userid across multiple systems and
accounts.
>
> o Incompetent administrators and consultants:
>
We work hard to insure that our staff administrators know what they
are doing. I think every one would agree that they do. Our student
administrators are hired and trained by the staff administrators.
We have several staff consultants and a number of student consultants.
The IS division maintains a consulting center where students and
faculty can walk in and talk to a consultant. We also staff a
satellite consulting center in one of the larger labs. Yes, the
knowledge and skills of the consultants do vary, but I do think that
they are all honestly doing their best to help the students and
faculty with their problems. Generally, if the consultant can't answer
the question, they can pass it on to someone who can, such as the
managers and administrators. Users can also communicate with the
consultants via phone or e-mail. Every lab has a phone and the
consultant phone numbers are posted next to it.
> o Administrators do not wish to communicate with students:
>
On the engineering network, we have the following communication
methods:
Several electronic news groups that students can post to devoted
exclusively to topics relating to the network. Every manager and
administrator reads these newsgroups and responds as appropriate.
A number of e-mail aliases that go directly to the managers (vs.
system administrators) of the network. They are: suggest for
suggestions, complain for complaints, director for direct communication
with both the Director and Deputy Director of the network. We try to
respond to every piece of mail sent to suggest, complain, or director.
We do respond within a couple of days to every piece of mail sent to
complain or director. We are somewhat less complete with suggestion
mail, but we are working on it. These aliases are published in our own
documentation, and are presented to the students every time they login,
as a reminder of their existence. In addition, the managers' personal
e-mail addresses are published and posted to news articles. The
managers' and administrators' office and sometimes home phone numbers
are available via on-line lookup.
There is also an E-mail alias for reporting problems with the equipment
(this is an IS wide system - all problems are logged into a database
with resolution and tracking capabilities) and an alias for asking
consultants questions about the system or software.
Similar communication facilities exist on the other Unix networks and
the mainframe.
>
> o Tiny quotas:
>
I don't know about the mainframe, but the standard student quota on the
Unix systems is 5 Mbyte soft, 6.5 Mbyte hard. Students who can justify
a larger quota based on work needs generally get the larger amount of
space. We are contemplating increasing the standard student quota to 6
Mbyte soft, 7.5 Mbyte hard.
> o No legible account id's
>
Account IDs are generally related to the student's name in an
intelligible fashion. Students are allowed to choose their own IDs on
the Unix systems, although we encourage them to relate their id to
their name in some fashion.
>
> o Lack of program manuals/documentations:
>
On the engineering network, we take pains (and factor in the cost in
all software purchase decisions) to put one copy of the documentation
for every sofware application we have in each lab (there are five
labs). Rice also has a Computing Reference Area that maintains a
library of software documentation for checkout by students and
faculty. We try to have the latest version of the documentation
available. The engineering network has even hired a student whose
major task is insuring that the documentation is maintained in good
order and is up-to-date. That student reports directly to me.
>
> o Management is not being held accountable and has too much power:
>
Accountability is influenced by the role of the particular management.
If the management is tasked with defining, anticipating, and providing
for the needs of the students, and they don't, then you have an
accountability issue. If however, the management is tasked with simply
implementing the computing resource plans of other groups, such as the
academic departments, or the University administration, then one needs
to determine if management failed to execute the plans they were given,
or they completely executed bad plans. In the former case they should
be held accountable, and in the latter case they did the job they were
tasked to do.
I personally consider myself accountable to the network Director, the
faculty committee that sets overall policy for the network, the
University administration, and the faculty and student users. I am
accountable to the Director and the faculty committee for insuring that
the plans, goals, and policies that they set are implemented properly
and with a high degree of quality. I am accountable to the University
administration for insuring that overall University computing goals and
policies are met, and for insuring that the University gets maximum
benefit from the resources it invests in the network. I am accountable
to the users for insuring that they are treated fairly and with
respect, that they have available the information and tools to complete
their work, and that their needs, as expressed through the faculty and
students, are anticipated and met as best as possible. Having said
that, let me also say that it doesn't mean that we don't take
disciplinary action against students, nor does it mean that all of the
users think that the computing environment at Rice is Nirvana. There
is still room for improvement here, both in the computing environment
and in the way that I manage my part of it.
Students have several levels of appeal of actions taken against them
by IS management. Their appeal route involves individuals and
committees who are outside the IS management hierarchy, all the way up
to the University president. I do not believe that it is possible for
any one individual in Information Systems to totally destroy, without
any review or accountability by outsiders, a student's ability to
complete an education dependent upon computers.
> o CRC is wasting computer resources:
>
We try to insure that the appropriate level of resource is allocated
to a task. What tasks are done is heavily influenced by what the
faculty wants to teach with the computers. We try to insure that
everyone who needs access to a particular kind of resource (e.g.
graphics workstations) has access. But we can only work to provide
access if we know that it is needed or desired.
>
> o Machines in the advanced workstation lab are poorly set up.
>
This is a function of the diligence and the competence of the system
administrators and their management. It is also influenced by the
personnel resource level. We think our machines are well set up and
competently managed, but we are fortunate to have a professional cadre
of dedicated and highly competent staff system administrators and a
student body to draw from that is intelligent and motivated. The
engineering network has approximately 100 machines and 1800 users that
are managed by 5 full time system administrators, one full-time manager
(me), a part-time Director, and 5-7 students. The full time system
administrators also spend a significant portion of their time working
on 3 other Unix networks on campus, so out of 5 people, the engineering
network actually gets the equivalent of about 3 people.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.183510.7@sdg.dra.com>
Date: 19 Feb 92 18:35:10 CST
In article <4216@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
> Actually, this still isn't a justification for the existence of an open
> terminal server. However, let me rephrase the question. What is the
> justification for having TERMINUS, as an open terminal server, connect to
> any machine outside of the mit.edu domain?
TERMINUS is used, therefor it exists. If TERMINUS didn't serve some
useful purpose to MIT, I assume that MIT would use the money for other
things. I know, I'm assuming that the mythical rational consumer is
spending money at MIT.
Three possibilities come to mind for having TERMINUS, as an open terminal
server, connect to any machine outside of mit.edu: minimization of resources
consumed, ease of use, and ease of administration.
Gee, is anyone else having flashbacks to economics 101 :-)? If you want
to change MIT's behavior, you have the burden of showing how it benefits
MIT to make the change.
So far all the proposals would increase MIT's costs, but gain them nothing.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.032755.25627@eng.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 03:27:55 GMT
In article jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>In article barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>MA could decide not to accept NY licenses as valid licenses to drive in MA
>>(unless there's some federal law that requires states to honor each others'
>>drivers licenses). This is like the suggestion that sites who are worried
>>about Terminus add it to their packet filters.
>
>No, MA could not do this; the constitution requires each state to honor what the
>other states do. Here's the clause (article 4, section 1):
>
>Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
> Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
>And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
>Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
>
>If this weren't true, imagine the chaos that would result -- you might find
>that some states considered you married, others not; some bankrupt, others
>liable for debts, etc.
I don't think full faith and credit will help entirely-- for instance,
according to AAA, NYC (or is it the whole state?) does not allow 16 year old
drivers, whether licensed in another state or not.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The Simpsons
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Feb 19 00:00:00 1992
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <4218@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 20 Feb 92 04:11:20 GMT
In article <1992Feb19.183510.7@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>In article <4216@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>> Actually, this still isn't a justification for the existence of an open
>> terminal server. However, let me rephrase the question. What is the
>> justification for having TERMINUS, as an open terminal server, connect to
>> any machine outside of the mit.edu domain?
>
>TERMINUS is used, therefor it exists. If TERMINUS didn't serve some
>useful purpose to MIT, I assume that MIT would use the money for other
>things. I know, I'm assuming that the mythical rational consumer is
>spending money at MIT.
If you are inferring that MIT is being paid to supply open access to
Internet, that's possibly a violation of their regional net's acceptable
use policy, and that of NSFNet.
>Three possibilities come to mind for having TERMINUS, as an open terminal
>server, connect to any machine outside of mit.edu: minimization of resources
>consumed, ease of use, and ease of administration.
TERMINUS would not likely consume more resources if it were restricted to
mit.edu. It would probably be just as convenient for MIT users to use (as
they should already have accounts somewhere in mit.edu from which to telnet),
and restricting TERMINUS to mit.edu should be easy to administer.
>Gee, is anyone else having flashbacks to economics 101 :-)? If you want
>to change MIT's behavior, you have the burden of showing how it benefits
>MIT to make the change.
>
>So far all the proposals would increase MIT's costs, but gain them nothing.
Actually, as an MIT alumnus, who is frequently bombarded with requests for
contributions by the Alumni Association, I'd kind of like to see some
rationale for how having TERMINUS connect to the general Internet, instead
of being restricted to the mit.edu domain, contributes to MIT's mission, and
is an appropriate expenditure of my financial contributions.
>--
>Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
>Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
This question started out as an honest query as to why TERMINUS should have
open Internet access. I'm still waiting for a some reasonable justification
for why this is an appropriate avenue for MIT (or another school) to take.
All I get is that there must be one or it wouldn't have been set up that
way.
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 06:18:12 GMT
> The only *standard* service needed by legitimate remote users DOES provide
> a means of authentication; it looks like this:
>
> login:
>
> No anonymous user has a legitimate need to use any other standard TCP/IP
> port. If anyone can prove such a legitimate need, I'd love to see the
> proof; no one has been able to do so in this discussion.
I don't know about "proof", but do you mean to say that you've NEVER
found anonymous FTP useful for obtaining software or other files from
an archive site? This is hard to believe. And port 21 certainly
looks like a standard port to me, at least as standard as the port 23
(telnet) interface you describe in your post. Of course, not every
site is an archive site, but requiring a local user name, with a
password, to exist for every user of every archive site on the
Internet would effectively prevent any such sites from operating.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Date: 20 Feb 1992 07:19:33 GMT
Message-ID:
In article popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich) writes:
> I don't know about "proof", but do you mean to say that you've NEVER
> found anonymous FTP useful for obtaining software or other files from
> an archive site? This is hard to believe. And port 21 certainly
> looks like a standard port to me
How could you do anonymous ftp from Terminus? Where would you put the
files? The point isn't that other ports shouldn't be accessible, it's
that unless you are logged onto a real machine under your own name, you
have no business accessing any of these ports.
If the only thing that crackers could do is type user names and
passwords, there would be no problem. The login: prompt is as secure
an interface as you can get. It's all those other ports, like NFS, YP,
SMTP, and so forth, that are hard to secure, and are favorites of
crackers.
I hope the fact that we haven't heard anything from the Terminus
defenders about this issue is because they are busy fixing their telnet
program to disallow non-telnet-port connections.
Wayne
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.85650.15207@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 92 13:56:50 GMT
In article <1992Feb19.132851.5@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>
>I would like to have distributed authentication. For example, if one of my
>users wanted to use TERMINUS, and TERMINUS wanted to authenticate them, then
>TERMINUS could contact one of my servers to check their credentials.
Something like RFC 931 support, eh?
>Most of the open terminal servers have been closed for exactly that reason,
>they are "my systems, and I can do as I please." They are normally closed
>because the site found that they couldn't get their own work done because
>all the ports were being used by MUD players. Or other forms of enlightened
>self-interest, such as fear that they'll lose their NSFNET connection if
>they allow them.
>
>I just find it frightening that people are trying to hold MIT responsible
>for not implementing a particular form of access control. Go after the
>crooks, not the bystanders.
I'm not trying to "hold MIT responsible"; I just want to know why they offer
the service! I have said, time and time again, that I support the idea of
terminal servers; I do not support the idea of a terminal server that can
connect to any tcp/ip port on any machine. No one has been able to give me
any justification for such access; if anyone could show me a real need for
it, I would find it much easier to accept. Heck, they may even be doing
something that I want to emulate; I just want to know.
I have no problems with an anonymous user being placed at my "login:" prompt.
That places the burden of protection on my password security/protection
schemes. Open, anonymous access to any tcp/ip port on my system places that
burden on an unknown (the reliability of my vendor's binaries and the presence
or lack of security holes therein).
If the user wants to access some "nonstandard" service, such as WAIS or
gopher, that's a different story. There are login-based solutions for
that problem.
I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: Why does any anonymous user
*need* to connect to any tcp/ip port on a remote system other than 23 (telnet)?
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.90620.20771@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 92 14:06:20 GMT
popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (that's me) writes:
>> No anonymous user has a legitimate need to use any other standard TCP/IP
>> port. If anyone can prove such a legitimate need, I'd love to see the
>> proof; no one has been able to do so in this discussion.
>
>I don't know about "proof", but do you mean to say that you've NEVER
>found anonymous FTP useful for obtaining software or other files from
>an archive site? This is hard to believe. And port 21 certainly
>looks like a standard port to me, at least as standard as the port 23
>(telnet) interface you describe in your post. Of course, not every
>site is an archive site, but requiring a local user name, with a
>password, to exist for every user of every archive site on the
>Internet would effectively prevent any such sites from operating.
You missed my point.
To use anonymous ftp, you must first be authenticated by your local
system (through the login process); that gives you access to your
local ftp client, which makes the connection to the remote ftp server.
(I realize that this does not cover PC FTP packages, but those PCs can
still be traced by IP address. It isn't foolproof, but it's all we
can really do with them.)
You do not need the ability to connect DIRECTLY to my ftp (or ftp-data)
port; the client on your machine does that for you. My ftp logs will
tell me that a connection was made from machine www.xxx.yyy.zzz. The
authentication has already been performed (ostensibly) by your home
machine, and I have an audit trail.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [] Re: access to and acceptable use of NREN networks
Message-ID: <199202201631.AA00691@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 06:31:57 GMT
Message-Id: <9202201627.AA11258@tsar.cc.rochester.edu>
Subject: Re: access to and acceptable use of NREN networks
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 11:27:57 -0500
From: Richard Mandelbaum
The only viable solution is for government to get out of acceptable use
issues. We did this with NYSERNet internally by using NSF and State monieas
to help subsidize academic institutions purchase of networking services.
Thus there is no direct subsidy of the NYSERNet intrastate backbone or
of any portion of the network structure. Thus we were able to eliminate all
usage restrictions. Furthermore for any givrn campus the subsidy is no
more than 50% of the cost so that the campus simply has to make sure that
at least the subsidized portion of its network is used for the requisite
purpose which is generally trivial to do administratively.
We don't subsidize for-profits so there are no problems there.
A similar solution can easily be devised on the national level.
For example, the regionals can buy backbone connections.
The amount of money NSF etc. would have put into the backbone could be put
into the regionals.
NSF can subsidize a portion of the backbone which can be done solely on
behalf of R&E institutions. Then the non-subsidized portion of the cost
would allow the rest of the so called non AUP traffic to flow over the
backbone.
I should note, as I have done in the past, that the current virtual nature
of the NSF backbone puts the NSF AUP's in a peculiar position.
If you send something not covered by the NSF AUP then ipso facto
NSF is not "paying" for it and we can presume it is flowing over the
ANS portion of the backbone rather than the NSF portion. Thus ANS
might have the right to go after you for theft of services, but as long as
you haven't effected the ability of the NSF to get what it paid for you
haven't violated any NSF regulation.
As a practical matter then the NSF AUP's don't seem to have a lot of
significance. ANS could make things much clearer for a lot of people
by charging the connection sites a nominal sum to allow R&E institutions
to transact non NSF AUP business on the ANS network. This could probably
be done in a way which would not effect the ANS combit policies for
ANS CO+RE sites but at least eliminate any worries about questionable
uses for standard R&E sites.
____________________
while this is the usual idea most people work under, it seem unworkabl
e
given current technology. i work for FTP software. if i send mail to s
omeone
at CMU, is it acceptable based on the NSFnet policy? unfortunately, yo
u
cannot tell without looking at the information passed. i am allowed to
engage in research with them, i am allowed to support software they ha
ve
bought for use in research, but i am not allowed to try and sell them
software to use in their admin department. this communication can not
be
segregated based on the hosts, the protocol, or the senders, but only
on the
text.
not easy, is it? now, consider that *even* if you added a sidecar to a
ll
network applications, you have to discover all possible paths to your
destination, and what their policies are, and figure out how this comp
ares
to what the user wants. *hopefully*, you will use keywords for the use
r to
select, rather than having him type a description to you. now, note th
at
this is going to have to go on *each* mail message you send, and on ea
ch
telnet connection you make. then we get to file transfer. shoudl the
questions be asked about each file, or just about the connection in ge
neral?
it would be *much* better if we would view this more like the post off
ice or
the highway system, and assume that all of it is just open and availab
le.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Date: 20 Feb 1992 16:20:36 GMT
Message-ID:
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>So, what is the justification for having an open terminal server in the
>first place?
I think this was meant to be an unanswerable, rhetorical question, but
I'm going to try to answer it anyway.
I worked at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, and later at the Stanford
one, during the early days of the Arpanet. In those days, most of the
academic/research machines on the net had guest accounts with no password.
(The military machines, of course, were always more concerned about
security.) In some cases the guest accounts were restricted in what they
could do; for example, at Stanford you couldn't store files in the guest
directory after logout. But the idea was that each computer had unique
software resources that people were proud to show off and make available
to the computing community. I still have, somewhere, my Arpanet Resource
Handbook in which each site listed the neato programs guests could use.
Some fraction of the guest usage was always by people who had no Arpanet
account of their own. They connected to the net through TIPs, anonymous
terminal servers, just like Terminus that everyone's dumping on. The TIPs
were set up and supported by the Department of Defense. Everyone thought
this was a great idea. (And yes, you could connect to any port you wanted.
I believe that it was precisely for the sake of TIP users that the FTP
control information was sent using ASCII text over a Telnet connection
instead of some less verbose signalling scheme.) Some of these guests were
random teenagers. Most of them just played games and contributed nothing,
but every so often one of these hangers-on started contributing software
development to the facility and became a Real User. Or sometimes, after
playing around over the net, they showed up in the flesh and started
working for real.
Yes, occasionally some guest user did something malicious. It was a pain
in the neck. But the general climate of opinion was that these problems
were outweighed by the convenience and friendliness and openness and
communitarian spirit that guest accounts provided.
Times have changed. In particular, more kids are interested in computing
than there used to be, and people are less willing/able to support the
increased load of unofficial use. I do understand that. But it seems to
me that some people on the security-above-all side of the discussion don't
understand that something good has been lost along the way.
Here is how I make sense of the argument that says that security should
be at the serving host, not at the entry point: Let's just say that some
'60s-retro wild and crazy site manager wants to allow guest access.
It would be nice if the network worked in a way that made that possible,
while still letting the people who want secure systems to have them
(just as the military systems were meant to be secure in the old days).
Someone is going to tell me that my hypothetical guest users are spending
NSF's money with their traffic over the network itself. I do not find
this argument compelling. Lots of us who happen to be employed on NSF
business, and therefore have net access, also use our net access for
all sorts of unauthorized frivolity, like reading Usenet, and inviting
our friends for dinner. The whole idea of a hardwired net is that there's a
large fixed cost but a low-to-zero marginal cost; using the economic
argument to freeze out guests while playing around ourselves is, I think,
disingenuous.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: 20 Feb 92 17:27:46 GMT
In article bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
> I worked at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, and later at the Stanford
> one, during the early days of the Arpanet. In those days, most of the
> academic/research machines on the net had guest accounts with no password.
> ... but every so often one of these hangers-on started contributing software
> development to the facility and became a Real User.
Times have changed, but for the better I think. Any curious teenager
can pay for an account at a place like the Well, for an increasingly
small fee. If he can't afford it, or is really interested in
particular software at a particular site, depending on the person
running the site, he can usually get a guest account, if he promises to
be good.
Free guest accounts were a good thing in times of scarcity, but given
the abundance of reseources today, anybody can get a "real" account,
which, along with its definite benefits, has the additional property of
accountability.
Wayne
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: berger@median (Mike Berger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.175339.16272@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 92 17:53:39 GMT
smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>In article <1992Feb18.214532.4699@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@median (Mike Berger) writes:
>>This seems misleading to me. You talked specifically about QEMM. You
>>COULD call the U.S. support number. If you want local support, then buy
>>an "export" copy of the software. Part of the extra cost of that
>>export copy is your "local" support. If you don't want to pay extra up
>>front because you don't need the support as you indicated, then it
>>doesn't seem legitimate to complain about it.
>Ah, but you're making the same mistake, in the reverse direction. The
>'export' copy of the software does have to have the price raised to
>reflect the cost of providing the 'local' support office. On the other
>hand, it should also have some cut taken out of the price to reflect
>the fact that since the user is getting 'local' support, the US support
>people won't have to support him. Feels like these should balance out.
*----
On the contrary, I expect it costs more for a U.S. company to provide
support in England than it does to provide support locally. You don't
eliminate the need for U.S. staff, since many technical problems will
be passed on to them by the local rep. And the company has to supply
office facilities away from their main location, which will be costly.
Upgrades are a special problem, of course, but for the cost difference
it might pay to just buy a new copy of the software as needed. I'll
bet you could have gotten a new domestic version of QEMM sent from the
U.S. (VAT and import duty excluded) for the pride you paid to "upgrade"
to the export version.
--
Mike Berger
Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET 217-244-6067
Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: fin@unet.umn.edu (Craig A. Finseth)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.180456.10987@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 92 18:04:56 GMT
In article , bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
|> schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
|> >So, what is the justification for having an open terminal server in the
|> >first place?
...
|> Times have changed. In particular, more kids are interested in computing
|> than there used to be, and people are less willing/able to support the
|> increased load of unofficial use. I do understand that. But it seems to
|> me that some people on the security-above-all side of the discussion don't
|> understand that something good has been lost along the way.
...
I am not sure that your conclusion is correct. I believe that most
"security-above-all" people *wish* that times had not changed,
*realize* that something has been lost, and would prefer to operate in
the old style. They believe that they are being in essence forced to
adopt a variety of defensive tactics which include (attempting to)
remove attractive nusiances.
I was a part of the original ARPAnet and liked the way that it
operated. In a similar fashion, I know of many small towns where
people don't lock their doors. I don't believe that the current
Internet qualifies as a small town in any sense.
Craig A. Finseth fin@unet.umn.edu [CAF13]
Networking Services +1 612 624 3375 desk
Computer and Information Services +1 612 625 0006 problems
University of Minnesota +1 612 626 1002 fax
130 Lind Hall, 207 Church St SE
Minneapolis MN 55455-0134, USA
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <9202201853.AA03362@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 18:53:05 GMT
> This question started out as an honest query as to why TERMINUS
> should have open Internet access. I'm still waiting for a some
> reasonable justification for why this is an appropriate avenue for
> MIT (or another school) to take. All I get is that there must be
> one or it wouldn't have been set up that way.
Your question has buried deep within it the following implicit
assumptions, all of which I seriously question:
1) The Internet is a "private" data highway rather than a publicly and
openly accessible part of the national telecommunications
infrastructure.
2) Authentication is of value in all circumstances for all users of
the Internet.
3) Security violations at your site are institutionally "encouraged"
by remote sites that provide anonymous services such as TERMINUS.
4) MIT's service seems so unique and bizarre that there doesn't seem
any justification for it. (E.g. no other sites provide this kind
of service, so why is MIT arrogant enough to believe that it needs
to offer this service?)
5) At the very minimum, MIT is acting in an anti-social manner by
providing TERMINUS service and endangering the Internet "community"
of sites.
Here is why I question all of these assumptions:
1) The Internet is a "private" data highway rather than a publicly and
openly accessible part of the national telecommunications
infrastructure.
The fact is that federal dollars have for decades created and built up
the Arpanet and then the NSFnet as a mainstay of American data
communications infrastructure. This fact virtually ensures that the
data highways constituting the Internet must be open and accessible to
all who wish to agree to the acceptable use policy in effect (which
basically prohibits commericial use).
In other words, the NSFnet and the upcoming NREN are *public*
resources. And just as other public resources, ranging from the
interstate highway system to the postal service, do not demand
authentication from its users, there is no reason to demand
authentication on packets that flow over the NSFnet and the upcoming
NREN.
(Yes, I am aware that private network service providers do exist, and
they are of course free to establish policy for their own networks as
they see fit. Yet to the best of my knowledge, no commercial network
service provider has seen fit to demand that all packets flowing over
its wires be authenticated.)
2) Despite what some security experts (mostly those who like the
"orderliness" that heavy-handed security provides) may think, it is
by no means the case that authentication is required or even of
value in all circumstances for all users of public resources.
In fact, the US Congress has consistently refused for at least five
decades to install a program that creates national identity cards.
In many European countries, you can be hauled off to jail if you
are unable to present proper identification papers on demand. Not
so in the US. The Supreme Court also ruled back in the late 1960s
(I don't have a citation at the moment, but I could get it if you
really want it) that the "right to be left alone" is a fundamental
right.
In sum, this refusal to require authentication-on-demand is
fundamentally part of the American legal and social heritage.
Authentication on demand is not a requirement to use any public
resource, and anyone who wishes to reverse this decades-old
tradition in the case of the NSFnet had better have an extremely
compelling case that the goals of authentication-on-demand cannot
be attained in any other, less intrusive, way.
3) Security violations at your site are institutionally "encouraged"
by remote sites that provide anonymous services such as TERMINUS.
This is the classic "If you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't demand
anonymity." This statement is a cat's whisker away from being the
same as Joseph McCarthy's old tactic of labeling witnesses who refused
to testify as "Fifth-Amendment Communists".
Compare for yourself the following statements:
"I refuse to identify myself when I use TERMINUS" -- Oh, then
you must have something to hide, you must be involved in some
nefarious activity that should be stopped.
"I refuse to testify against myself and my friends before this
committee." -- Oh, then you must have done something that you're
trying to cover up. You're a Fifth-Amendment Communist, and you
should be stopped.
There are many legitimate reasons for wanting to not disclose one's
identity while using the Internet. What might be some of these
reasons?
Whistle-blowing (i.e. providing an anonymous tip about illegal or
unethical behavior by an individual or institution). Or speaking out
politically without invoking retribution upon oneself -- this might be
very appropriate, for example, for Chinese student activists who might
want to criticize the Chinese government in a public forum but dare
not reveal their identity. Simple convenience of avoiding
administrative costs and user hassle is yet a third. And so on.
4) MIT's service seems so unique and bizarre that there doesn't seem
any justification for it. (E.g. no other sites provide this kind
of service, so why is MIT arrogant enough to believe that it needs
to offer this service?)
This view is factually incorrect. MIT is not the only site providing
anonymous access to remote Internet sites.
Sites in the UK that have access to JANET (Joint Academic Network)
have full anonymous access to the entire Internet, not just the
NSFnet: there are at least two such services that I am aware of
operating in the UK, neither of which require user authentication.
Both services are consistently in high demand, particularly during the
daytime hours. In fact, without these services, many researches in
the UK would not have access to the Internet at all. And as for
security violations, well incidents certainly have occurred, but it is
a far cry from claiming that these anonymous services have unleashed a
horde of crackers onto the Internet.
So MIT's services are not so bizarre and unique after all. And what
do you know, TERMINUS might actually be providing a useful service for
scientists and researchers who don't otherwise have convenient access
to the Internet.
5) At the very minimum, MIT is acting in an anti-social manner by
providing TERMINUS service and endangering the Internet "community"
of sites.
Nope. I would argue that those who want security should implement it
themselves. Just as you might insert a telephone answering machine
between you and a caller to help screen your phone calls, you should
insert a packet filter between you and the rest of the Internet if you
are seriously interested in preventing any unauthenticated packets
from flowing over your networks.
Besides, I don't see anyone arguing that public telephone booths are a
bad idea. Indeed, public phone booths have enabled executives and
children alike to make important contacts while away from their
regular office or home phone. Why not have public access terminals
for the Internet at large, so that travelers on the road or in the air
can login if they are away from their home or office site?
Having public Internet terminals in subways, airports, streets,
libraries, and office buildings would expand the scope and utility of
the Internet as an integral part of the telecommunications
infrastructure -- just as public phone booths, and more recently,
radio phones in commerical airline jets, have expanded the use and
utility of the the telephone system.
So I would argue that far from unleashing and hurting the "community"
of the Internet, MIT has taken a giant step toward expanding the
availability of the Internet to those who did not have access, or who
did not have access readily available. Far from deserving
condemnation, MIT's actions are far-sighted and visionary and should
be applauded and encouraged by our public policy makers.
Finally, it bothers me that those who object to services like TERMINUS
seem unable to imagine that others might have legitimate uses for such
a service. However, after examining the fundamental assumptions that
underlie one's conception of the Internet and how it works, room
certainly opens up for some differing interpretations. I encourage
anyone who objects to services like TERMINUS to re-examine their
fundamental assumptions about the Internet and ask themselves whether
or not those assuptions are still valid.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: nick@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID:
Date: 20 Feb 92 10:20:44 GMT
In article <1992Feb19.150725.987@bristol.ac.uk> smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
On the other hand, a lot of the British complainants are neglecting the
fact that UK software prices include the 17.5% VAT
Maybe, but I'm not. I always compare by adding US->UK shipping and
multiplying the result by 1.235 (VAT + duty). There are still big
differences. (Recent example: Opcode MAX development system: US $250,
UK #440.)
As for local support: well, in a lot of cases, the UK-based importer
is importing and selling the product, and nothing else. No local
registration or anything. (Example: Performer sequencing software via
MCM in London. It comes with US registration card.) The dealers don't
provide any kind of support. They just cream the prices.
My approach: buy direct from the US, after phoning or faxing the
software company to check that they'll honour overseas registration.
Often, the US developers don't believe the UK prices when I tell them.
Nick.
--
Nick Rothwell, LFCS, Edinburgh | "Chai ch t'chai ch't chnna chnna chnna ch'th
nick@dcs.ed.ac.uk | Chai ch t'chai ch't chuth chena chann ch'tt
Mentation Consultancy Services | Chie ch t'chie ch t'chaaa chn chattr chattr"
cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk | -- Wavestation, V3 software, my dragon.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <18251@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 20 Feb 92 12:19:53 GMT
In article <1992Feb17.122309.27428@jet.uk> tp@jet.uk (tarang patel) writes:
--
--3) Why, are they no 'Mail order/ Direct mail' Suppliers for latest
-- SOFTWARE/ HARDWARE/ BOOKS/ OTHER consumables operating from
-- U.S and selling products at the proper prices, i.e Scaling at the
-- current currency EXCHANGE RATE. (In my case U.K sterling to U.S greenback)
You are quite at liberty to order items direct from the US. You have to
pay shipping, VAT and customs duty.
--
-jeremy henderson | You taught me language, and my profit is
egpv29@uk.ac.ed.castle | I know how to CURSE.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <18252@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 20 Feb 92 12:27:29 GMT
In article <1992Feb19.150725.987@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
--
--On the other hand, a lot of the British complainants are neglecting the
--fact that UK software prices include the 17.5% VAT (roughly akin to US
--sales tax) where US price listings normally don't include sales tax.
This is not really relevant to mail order prices, since out-of-state
purchasers don't pay the sales tax either.
--
-jeremy henderson | You taught me language, and my profit is
egpv29@uk.ac.ed.castle | I know how to CURSE.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <9202201911.AA20365@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 19:11:27 GMT
> The fact is that federal dollars have for decades created and built up
> the Arpanet and then the NSFnet as a mainstay of American data
> communications infrastructure.
<>
The fact that federal dollars have for decades created and built up the
U.S. Armed Forces as a mainstay of American Defense. Why can't I walk
into a National Armoury and borrow some weapons? These are *public*
resources. Why can't I own a nuclear weapon?! Why should I have to
show any ID to own a gun?!
The fact that federal dollars have for decades helped educate and develop
a medical profession is a mainstay of the Amerian medical program. Why
can't I walk into a doctors office and get free medical care? Why do I
have to identify myself to a pharmacy? Why can't I prescribe my own drugs?!
Why do I have to own a driver's license? Why do I have to identify myself
to a police officer when she stops my car? After all the highways are
*public* resources.
Why do I have to have identification to check out a book from the library?
These are *public* resources. Don't they trust us to return books?
<>
The NREN is the National RESEARCH AND EDUCATION Network. It is not Ma Bell!
Aydin Edguer
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: U38373@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: FTP, anonymous access, and NSFNET AUP
Message-ID: <199202201937.AA03898@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 19:03:57 GMT
Let me second the contributor who defended the legitimacy of anonymous
FTP, in the course of the debate over anonymous servers at MIT and elsewhere.
I'd now like to dissent from the assertion that all telnet access should be
through login to accounts at established installations.
At the computer center on my campus, there are public PC's which can also
connect to the mainframe here; this connection is made through TCP/IP and
Telnet. It is also possible to use these machines to utilize anonymous FTP
(files can be saved directly to one's own diskette, or saved to the central
hard drive--to which the individual machines are connected via a server--and
then copied to one or more floppies), and other services accessed through
Telnet; or to Telnet to other computing installations at which one has
accounts, and log on to those systems. None of these types of access to non-
local machines from the public PC's require logging on to one's mainframe
account (they can also be accessed on regular terminals within the mainframe
session environment, which requires using one's account); nor, in my opinion,
should they. If alternatives are available to dipping into one's allocated
computing resources, in order to access these remote services, what could be
wrong with it? Surely the solution to the cracking problem does not stand or
fall on the end of all anonymous remote access. (These same comments apply,
IMHO, to the matter of telnet access via home PC's and dialups. Those who
don't happen to have accounts on established systems, including public access
systems, shouldn't be frozen out of access to the files in anonymous FTP
archive sites for that reason.)
To change the subject a bit: It gives me pause that many common, every-
day uses of the net--such as most of the rec and alt newsgroup hierarchies,
many of the available mailing lists, and a lot of private email--are technic-
ally in violation of the NSFnet acceptable use guidelines. I doubt if any
sweeping crackdowns on these things are imminent, but is does give us all one
more potential cause for worry :-).
Mitch Pravatiner
U38373@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: dj1l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Demian A. Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Terminus WAS: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: 20 Feb 92 18:50:57 GMT
In-Reply-To: <4218@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Sorry I am just jumping into this discussion, but what is TERMINUS?
Is it just an open phone line that allows telnet access to the internet?
And am I to infer that this is the route taken by the Dutch hackers?
Demian J. =======> dj1l+@andrew.cmu.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: msf@rotary.Central.Sun.COM (Mike Fischbein)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <11072@eastapps.East.Sun.COM>
Date: 20 Feb 92 19:49:05 GMT
In article <1992Feb19.91901.29022@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>The only *standard* service needed by legitimate remote users DOES provide
>a means of authentication; it looks like this:
>
> login:
>
>No anonymous user has a legitimate need to use any other standard TCP/IP
>port. If anyone can prove such a legitimate need, I'd love to see the
>proof; no one has been able to do so in this discussion.
How about ftp and tftp?
One could probably make a case for mail also.
mike
--
Michael Fischbein, Technical Consultant, Sun Professional Services
Sun Albany, NY 518-783-9613 michael.fischbein@east.sun.com
These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person
or organization. Save the skeet!
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: root@bogus.UUCP (David Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 13:28:05 CST
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: Why does any anonymous user
> *need* to connect to any tcp/ip port on a remote system other than 23 (telnet
>
Well...... Most of the uses would seem very trivial... IRC is on port
6667, if you had an IRC SERVER one could use a PC IRC package to access
IRC anonymously via port 6667, actually, you don't really even need the
package. Raw irc isn't exactly a picnic though.
The MUDs are on various ports, 2000, 2200, etc etc... Again, trivial...
HOWEVER. I have seen a few LEGIT net services on the ports.
Ham Radio Callbook for example, it is on port 3000 (I think) of some host
that I have written down somewhere. It lets Ham radio operators "look"
eachother up. Its kind of a nice service.
There are a few others out there like that too...
The question is, why from an open terminal server?
Well, the only thing I could say, its easier that way. But, I sure don't
mind all that much logging into my shell account, and telneting back out.
I think part of the reason MIT has left terminus open, is so that their
guest users (The do give guest accounts via mail, still I think), are not
using system resources on their other machines.
I could be wrong on that, but who knows.
There are those few people that wouldn't otherwise have net access
without servers like Terminus. (Some of which are nice people, and some
of which are crackers and crashers).
I think that this is something best decided by the people at MIT.
If you don't want connections from TERMINUS.LCS.MIT.EDU, add it to the
hosts.deny file. ;-) Simple fix.
->David
** Bogus -- Public Access Network Services (501) 525-1681 14400 HST/V.32 **
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.nren] Re: access to and acceptable use of NREN networks
Message-ID: <199202202109.AA05842@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 11:09:36 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.nren
From: penrose@silvertone.princeton.edu (Christopher Penrose)
Subject: Re: access to and acceptable use of NREN networks
Message-ID: <9202201842.AA04067@lespaul>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 18:42:17 GMT
>it would be *much* better if we would view this more like the post office or
>the highway system, and assume that all of it is just open and available.
Excellent point!
It seems silly and dangerous to attempt to regulate network usage behavior.
It is a potential breach of privacy and it undermines many possibilities of
network development and expansion.
Christopher Penrose
penrose@silvertone.princeton.edu
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: newsham@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Timothy Newsham)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.205452.28330@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 20:54:52 GMT
In article <4216@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>In article <1992Feb19.155034.6@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>|In article <4213@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>|> And I wouldn't expect MIT to do anything to increase the threat to other
>|> systems, either.
>|
......
>|
>|One justification is it is cheap (ok, low-overhead), which is about as
>|good a justification as those people who won't get good software have.
>
>Actually, this still isn't a justification for the existence of an open
>terminal server. However, let me rephrase the question. What is the
>justification for having TERMINUS, as an open terminal server, connect to
>any machine outside of the mit.edu domain?
>
>|Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
>
>Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
what justification? How about because its their terminal server
and they want it that way?
.....
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Censorship and bigotism come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9202202121.AA23449@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 09:21:40 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: brossard@sic.epfl.ch (Alain Brossard EPFL-SIC/SII)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news
Subject: Censorship and bigotism come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.180752@sic.epfl.ch>
Date: 20 Feb 92 17:07:52 GMT
For those who thought that Switzerland is a democratic and open
country, read on to see the subversive groups we are not allowed
to read (like talk.politics.guns for example). I used the
adjective bigot because of the obvious anti-homosexual feelings
of Switch (see the list of banned newsgroups for yourself).
I'm posting this widely in the hope of getting feedback and
usefull suggestions. Some of the contents is only of local interest.
For those who are joining us in mid-stream, the Swiss universities
are linked together by Switch a federal institution (?) set up
just for that purpose. Following newspapers articles at the beginning
of the year, Switch decided to cut all alt.sex newsgroups. This created
a small furore which hadn't resolved itself yet. The latest is the following:
---> From: Peter Gilli
---> To: switch-coord@verw.switch.ch
---> Message-Id: <2236*gilli@verw.switch.ch>
---> Subject: News Groups Classification
---> Autoforwarded: TRUE
--->
---> Dear members of the CC
--->
---> I asked you to comment the proposed methode of making categories
---> within four weeks from the last meeting.
--->
---> REQUIRED NEWSGROUPS will remain longer on our disk than OPTIONAL
---> NEWSGROUPS. PROHIBITED NEWSGROUPS are considered to be not in accordance
---> with Swiss law. NOT AVAILABLE NEWSGROUPS can eventually be procured with
---> extra effort.
--->
---> Changes of individual News groups from one category to another will
---> be performed at your request and according with Swiss law.
(By the way the only Swiss law that MIGHT come into play
is the one related to Pornography, so they let yourself be
intimidated by the reference to Swiss law.)
---> This will be an ongoing activity.
(I can't wait to see what they will come up with next, maybe official
censorship of all mail bearing a suspicious subject line?)
---> What follows is the _initial_ categories of News groups:
(Yep, after all why stop at banning only 30 newsgroups when there
is a 1000 more out there waiting to be cut!)
---> REVISED CLASSIFICATION OF NEWSFEED
(I guess revised added a neat touch, there never was a classification
of news in Switzerland prior to this year)
--->
---> Version Febr. 3, 1992/Sn
--->
--->
---> CATEGORY 1: REQUIRED NEWSGROUPS
--->
---> (exceptions: see category 3)
---> bionet.* bit.* biz.* ch :* comp.* gnu.* ieee.* mail* news.* sci.*
---> sco.* u3b.* ucb.* unix-pc.* vmsnet.*
--->
--->
---> CATEGORY 2: OPTIONAL NEWSGROUPS
--->
---> (exceptions: see category 3)
---> alt.*
---> clari.*
---> de.*
---> k12.*
---> misc.*
---> rec.*
---> soc.*
---> srg.*
---> sub.*
---> talk.*
--->
--->
--->
--->
---> CATEGORY 3: PROHIBITED NEWSGROUPS
--->
---> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
---> alt.drugs
---> alt.fax.bondage
---> alt.personals.bondage
---> alt.politics.homosexuality
---> alt.psychoactives
---> alt.satanism
---> alt.sex.* (6 groups)
---> alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
---> alt.tasteless
---> bit.listserv.gaynet
---> de.talk.sex
---> clari.news.group.gays
---> clari.news.law.crime.sex
---> clari.news.law.crime.violent
---> clari.news.law.drugs
---> clari.news.sex
---> clari.news.terrorism
---> rec.arts.erotica
---> soc.bi
---> soc.motss
---> sub.sex
---> talk.abortion
---> talk.bizarre
---> talk.politics.drugs
---> talk.politics.guns
---> talk.rape
--->
---> CATEGORY 4: NOT AVAILABLE NEWSGROUPS
--->
---> eunet.*
(I guess we are not supposed to compare notes with the
rest of Europe)
As the news administrator at the EPFL, I have to deal with this.
Though I'm not overly anxious to take the job of official censor of
the EPFL (as my title is becoming to be known!).
My boss is of the opinion that some of the images in
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica are illegal in Switzerland. The
lawyer of the University is supposed
to come back to me with the legal texts on the matter. Though I'm
not overly anxious to take the job of official censor of the EPFL
(as my title is becoming to be known!). However nothing
else seems illegal in the above list and we want to keep those newsgroups.
The situation is such that I have users who use news servers in the
US (Hawai!) and Germany (over slow and saturated links!) and who
knows where else to read the
newsgroups they want. So a local decision is costing everybody more
money since the articles are now transiting multiple times and even
on a per user basis with xrn: once to read and once to get it to save it!
Allright so what are we going to do about it? I already have a user
here who suggested getting a newsfeed from CHUUG and dropping SWITCH
forever! It seems like the price for a connection isn't that high
for Universities with CHUUG.
We could just ask for a feed for those newsgroups from CHUUG. And
then we could
distribute them between us (Swiss Universities) without going
through the news server at Switch.
Could Switch be facist enough to prevent the Universities from
talking to each other? That would be a neat feat since Switch was established
for just that purpose in mind: enabling communications between Universities!
Another solution would be to get a nntp feed from outside Switzerland
directly. Of course we would be using the Switch network, but I assume
they wouldn't go as far outside their charter as to cut all IP traffic
between us and the rest of the world.
Even if they block the nntp port, hell I could just pick another one until
I find one which isn't blocked. Since I don't use the port for telnetd
on my machine, I could just put the nntpd on that slot!
And if they succeed in cutting all nntp traffic, we could always go
back to getting news via mail from a friendly site.
My point is that Switch CAN'T block those newsgroups! The only
thing they can do is put the world on notice that they are taking
responsibility for what goes over the wire... Talk about asking
for work and for putting your head in the noose!
In case nobody at Switch knew this, Switch is asked to provide
network connections between the Universities in the same way the
PTT is asked to carry letters and packages and phone conversations.
Nobody expects the PTT to take responsability for the pornographic
magazines or mail-bomb letters! The same can be said of Switch.
However since they had the stupid idea of taking responsability
for what goes on on the wire, anything goes include censorship as
we can see. The only solution I can see is either to fire the
management of Switch, or abolish it and hope that the next carrier
(CHUUG?) will act in a more intelligent manner.
Of course I could be wrong and Switch might wake up and start
listening to the users, I would love to be proven wrong on this
point!
--
Alain Brossard, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne,
SIC/SII, EL-Ecublens, CH-1015 Lausanne, Suisse, +41 21 693-2211
brossard@sic.epfl.ch
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: newsham@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Timothy Newsham)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.210054.262@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 21:00:54 GMT
In article jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>In article barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>MA could decide not to accept NY licenses as valid licenses to drive in MA
>>(unless there's some federal law that requires states to honor each others'
>>drivers licenses). This is like the suggestion that sites who are worried
>>about Terminus add it to their packet filters.
>
>No, MA could not do this; the constitution requires each state to honor what the
>other states do. Here's the clause (article 4, section 1):
>
>Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
> Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
>And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
>Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
>
>If this weren't true, imagine the chaos that would result -- you might find
>that some states considered you married, others not; some bankrupt, others
>liable for debts, etc.
>
>--
>Joe Buck jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
that wasnt the point!!! geeze!!
An anology was made to "what if ny made a liscence...... and MA didnt
have to accept it"
The point being that other can perform some sort of validation, but
you dont have to trust theirs!! there is no law in the case of
internet validation. In a way terminus is like a liscense that can
be forged easily, anyone having the number for the terminus dialin
is considered to be a valid user in a way, but you are free to filter
their packets..... lets not get off on silly arguments about the laws
of the 50 states.
.....
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.213954.11255@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 21:39:54 GMT
In article <4218@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>If you are inferring that MIT is being paid to supply open access to
>Internet, that's possibly a violation of their regional net's acceptable
>use policy, and that of NSFNet.
NEARNET (the regional net) allows commercial use and is run in part by
MIT. I don't think there is a problem.
--
John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.nren] Re: access to and acceptable use of NREN networks
Message-ID: <199202202251.AA07653@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 12:51:14 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: eff.mail.nren
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: access to and acceptable use of NREN networks
Message-ID: <9202202020.AA03903@d.ecc.engr.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 20:20:27 GMT
>>it would be *much* better if we would view this more like the post office or
>>the highway system, and assume that all of it is just open and available.
>
>Excellent point!
>
>It seems silly and dangerous to attempt to regulate network usage behavior.
>It is a potential breach of privacy and it undermines many possibilities of
>network development and expansion.
While we should not regulate specific behavior (i.e., what a particular
user does with his electronic mail), we do have certain responsibility
to regulate the gross characteristics of access (i.e., regulating the
access to specific services).
I certainly don't want to filter email; I don't think that anyone
advocates that level of control. However, I believe that we should
regulate the ability of remote users to access NREN systems.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: ch.general,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotism come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.224653.6176@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 22:46:53 GMT
Iowa State University recently instituted censorship using the same
if-an-article-*might*-violate-some-law-then-ban-the-newsgroup
standard. Note, the standard is not is-likely-to-violate-the-law, but
rather might-violate-the-law. The judgment about whether something
might-violate-some-law is made behind closed doors by people with no
legal training. Decisions are not justified with, for example,
reference to specific case law. There is no formal mechanism for
appeal.
As you might imagine, the might-violate-the-law standard can be used
to censor almost anything.
Students (and others?) at Iowa State have organized and are working to
stop the censorship. Such efforts have been successful in the past;
Stanford and the U. of Waterloo have successfully replaced censorship
polices with policies that respect intellectual freedom.
I'm enclosing a FAQ from the Computers and Academic Freedom
archive.
- Carl
=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading ===============
q: Should my university remove Netnews newsgroups because some
people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the resources
to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
a: In 1989, Stanford University banned rec.humor.funny. The ban was
lifted after a university committee recommended that newsgroups be
selected according to library policy. In other words, removing a
newsgroup is equivalent to banning a magazine from an academic
library.
The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries can (and
should, in my opinion) be applied to the administration of information
material on computers. These principles are explained in such American
Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the
Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement.
With the permission of the American Library Association, these
documents and others are available on-line. Many of these documents
deal with controversial material and material selection policy. For
example, article 2 of the Library Bill of Rights says: "Materials
should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval". The ALA Statement on Diversity talks about the
importance of "materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues." The ALA Workbook for Selection
Policy Writing tells how to create a formal policy. It also tells
exactly how to respond to challenges to controversial material.
- Carl M. Kadie
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
stanford.statements
=================
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
jmcabstract
=================
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he traveled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" and "alt.sex" was banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (In May 1991, an advisory committee said the
ban should be lifted. In October 1991, the ban was lifted.)
(Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.
=================
library/bill-of-rights.ala
=================
The Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.
=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
"Diversity in Collection Development"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/selection-workbook.ala
=================
The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy
Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in
grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup
selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy
and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection
policy.
=================
library/int-freedom.ala
=================
"Intellectual Freedom Statement"
An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"
=================
library/README
=================
Library Policy Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It
includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement
and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made
available by permission of the American Library Association.)
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send library-policies
where is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
=================
banned.1991
=================
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
=================
To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):
send acad-freedom stanford.statements
send acad-freedom jmcabstract
send acad-freedom caf-statement
send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala
send library-policies diversity.ala
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
send library-policies int-freedom.ala
send library-policies README
send caf-faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom banned.1991
The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.3) as file(s):
pub/academic/stanford.statements
pub/academic/jmcabstract
pub/academic/caf-statement
pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala
pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala
pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala
pub/academic/library/README
pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
pub/academic/banned.1991
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.181926.9371@ms.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 23:19:26 GMT
In article root@bogus.UUCP (David Grant) writes:
>
>IRC is on port 6667
>
>The MUDs are on various ports, 2000, 2200, etc etc... Again, trivial...
>
>Ham Radio Callbook for example, it is on port 3000 (I think) of some host
>
>There are a few others out there like that too...
>
All of these are available from a shell account on an authenticating host.
There is no need for anonymous access to these services.
I have never denied that there are many nifty and valid services out there
in netland; heck, I use quite a few of them! I have always said that, since
these facilities are available through authenticated access, anonymous access
to them is unnecessary.
>I think part of the reason MIT has left terminus open, is so that their
>guest users (The do give guest accounts via mail, still I think), are not
>using system resources on their other machines.
What service would a visitor/guest require, other then the capability to
reach a login prompt on their home system?
>If you don't want connections from TERMINUS.LCS.MIT.EDU, add it to the
>hosts.deny file. ;-) Simple fix.
I can always protect *my* site (or try to); I'm concerned about the hundreds,
if not thousands, of sites which haven't had the opportunity to read this dis-
cussion.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.181354.6558@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 92 23:13:54 GMT
msf@rotary.Central.Sun.COM (Mike Fischbein) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>
>>The only *standard* service needed by legitimate remote users DOES provide
>>a means of authentication; it looks like this:
>>
>> login:
>>
>>No anonymous user has a legitimate need to use any other standard TCP/IP
>>port. If anyone can prove such a legitimate need, I'd love to see the
>>proof; no one has been able to do so in this discussion.
>
>How about ftp and tftp?
>
>One could probably make a case for mail also.
Ah, but the user doesn't interact directly with those ports; clients do
the legwork for the user. That's my whole point; any user can log in to
a given system (authenticating himself in the process), and use the normal
clients to access those services.
I don't know of anyone who performs ftp transfers with "telnet foo.bar.edu 21",
do you? Does anyone pick up their mail manually with "telnet foo.bar.edu 25"?
No; they have client software to perform these tasks for them!
I maintain that no anonymous user has any legitimate need to access these
"other" ports directly.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: blenko-tom@CS.YALE.EDU (Tom Blenko)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines,bit.general,uk.misc
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.231327.18169@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 92 23:13:27 GMT
This is all such a non-mystery, that the real question is why it merits
so much discussion. Cost puts a floor on the possible prices
(usually). Prices are set to (more or less) maximize profit. If
someone can get more money for the product in England or anywhere else,
they should be raising the price. Whether it's 20% or 100% is a matter
of the market and the shrewdness of the seller.
If you want more extreme examples, take a look at what companies like
IBM and AT&T charge for equipment in the third world. They sell old
equipment that no one here will buy anymore for more than they are
charging their customers at home for the latest and greatest. Why? Not
enough competition.
If you want lower prices in Great Britain, create some competition.
Tom
From caf-talk Caf Feb 20 00:00:00 1992
From: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <4231@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 21 Feb 92 01:17:56 GMT
In article <1992Feb20.205452.28330@news.Hawaii.Edu> newsham@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Timothy Newsham) writes:
|In article <4216@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
|>In article <1992Feb19.155034.6@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
|>|In article <4213@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
|>|> And I wouldn't expect MIT to do anything to increase the threat to other
|>|> systems, either.
|>|
|......
|>|
|>|One justification is it is cheap (ok, low-overhead), which is about as
|>|good a justification as those people who won't get good software have.
|>
|>Actually, this still isn't a justification for the existence of an open
|>terminal server. However, let me rephrase the question. What is the
|>justification for having TERMINUS, as an open terminal server, connect to
|>any machine outside of the mit.edu domain?
|>
|>|Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
|>
|>Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
|
|what justification? How about because its their terminal server
|and they want it that way?
If TERMINUS did not negatively impact other systems on the net, this would
be ample justification. However, it has, and probably will again.
I am reminded of a quote (paraphrasing here): "Your right to swing your fist,
ends at the edge of my face."
MIT would certainly appear to be within their rights for having TERMINUS
as an open terminal server, but it is unclear that their actions in this
regard are totally ethical (of course ethical discussions on Usenet/Altnet
have a tendency to be reduced to flame wars :-) ).
As another aside, as an MIT alumnus, who is frequently requested to donate
money (some of which may be even be supporting the operation of TERMINUS),
I believe I do have the right to ask for justification into what, at least
on the surface, appears to me to be inappropriate behavior on the part of my
alma mater.
However, let me broaden my question yet again: What legitimate Internet
access requirements are there that require the use of an open terminal
server with unrestricted Internet access, that cannot be satisfied by other
means (such as guest accounts)? In this question, I am no longer being
specific to TERMINUS, but extend the question to any open terminal server.
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.084805.18717@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 08:48:05 GMT
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>Indeed, here's the appropriate analogy:
Is there ever really such a thing? Aren't they just excuses for not looking
at the real issue?
>coating. I imagine they were trivial to forge. If I were to drive in
>Massachusetts with a fake NY license, and use that to escape prosecution in
>MA, could MA have sued NY because they didn't make their licenses harder to
>forge?
A license is not a guaranteee that you know how to drive, or that you are
a safe driver. You may THINK it is...but I've seen New York drivers before.
They are anything BUT safe. 8)
A license is also not a guarantee that it represents that you are who it
says you are. It's relatively easy to forge licenses...and if MA's license
are easily forgeable (which they are) the suit would have a wonderful
counter...
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh
"It is a dragon, destroyer of all," cried the ants.
Then a cat caught the lizard.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.085637.18806@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 08:56:37 GMT
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
>quickly as usual and start abusing it. When victims complain, MIT
>responds that since none of the good people using it legitimately have
>complained or asked that it be taken away from them, there must not be a
>problem!
And to MIT, this is good. Why do you think MIT should adopt your views?
>My own view is that the TERMINUS server should be password protected,
>and the password should be available to sysadmins at the price of a
>phone call. Any legitimate visiting researcher ought to be able to ask
>his home admin how to access the server. The server interface should
>also be changed to terminate the phone conversation after N login
>attempts, so that nobody can sit there and bang away all night.
And do you volunteer to do this?
>There may be a better technical solution, but anything's better than
>hearing either (a) that everyone should be free to crack the net, or (b)
>that responsibility for net safety rests exclusively with the many
>beleaguered target sites, and not with the single egregiously attractive
>nuisance being used to attack them.
If b) were observed more rigourusly, a) wouldn't be so damn easy. Until
we've heard the last from any machine broken into via the "+" sign left in
the hosts.equiv file, I really don't think anyone has a right to complain
about TERMINUS.
The way I've always known to work in dealing with a nuisance is to ignore
it.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh
Wisdom (n.) - 1. Something you can learn without knowing it.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.085924.18903@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 08:59:24 GMT
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>This question started out as an honest query as to why TERMINUS should have
>open Internet access. I'm still waiting for a some reasonable justification
>for why this is an appropriate avenue for MIT (or another school) to take.
I don't think that is anybody's business but MIT's or the other schools.
--
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.090414.19031@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 09:04:14 GMT
faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>I hope the fact that we haven't heard anything from the Terminus
>defenders about this issue is because they are busy fixing their telnet
>program to disallow non-telnet-port connections.
Or busy fixing their machines so that terminus can't access them.
I'd like to go on the record as against Terminus in principle. What I
have kept saying is that it is a worse crime to enter into some other
organization's policy structure and tell them what to do and when to
do it. Thus, I wouldn't do diddly about terminus except fix my own machines
to refuse connections from that place, and any others I find like it.
Others wish to get a lynch mob and go hang 'em high. I find that behavior
quite aberrant, myself.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh
You need not wonder whether you should have a reliable person as a friend.
An unreliable person is nobody's friend.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.091111.19140@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 09:11:11 GMT
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>I can always protect *my* site (or try to); I'm concerned about the hundreds,
>if not thousands, of sites which haven't had the opportunity to read this dis-
>cussion.
Let them learn by experience.
It seems harsh, but believe me it works better then trying to educate them.
And it makes the crackers work FOR us and not against us.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh
People oppose things because they are ignorant of them.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.091722.19230@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 09:17:22 GMT
schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>As another aside, as an MIT alumnus, who is frequently requested to donate
>money (some of which may be even be supporting the operation of TERMINUS),
>I believe I do have the right to ask for justification into what, at least
>on the surface, appears to me to be inappropriate behavior on the part of my
>alma mater.
For what? If you gave them money, in the spirit of a donation, it would
seem to me that your right to use the money ended with your cancelled
check.
I know if you donated money to me with no prior stipulation, and then
turned around and put requirements and control on me...well I'd tell you
exactly where you could go. (In a *nice* way, of course. 8) )
It would seem to me that you have the right to stop donating money, with
or without an explanation. Period.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh
Merely doing good to the evil may be just like doing evil to the good.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Date: 21 Feb 1992 16:29:17 GMT
Message-ID:
In article faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>I hope the fact that we haven't heard anything from the Terminus
>defenders about this issue is because they are busy fixing their telnet
>program to disallow non-telnet-port connections.
Seems unlikely. One of the earlier posts in this thread said that Terminus
is a cisco Terminal Server, so it's not MIT's telnet program to fix.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: treeves@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Terry N Reeves)
Subject: newsgroup access question
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.173843.15938@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 17:38:43 GMT
maybe I reallly should be asking this on a technical group, but on this group,
during the last year, I have seen statements to the effect that it's
possible to access groups not carried by your local machine.
Questions - can this be done legitimately - i.e. I would not want to
advise anyone to do anything that would get them in trouble.
If there is a nice above board access route - what is it? SHort
of your own private news feed what would a person need?
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Public opinion survey on controversial materials in libraries
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.181246.22440@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 18:12:46 GMT
[This is a repost of a newspaper article from _Inside Illinois_, the
staff newspaper at the U. of Illinois-UC. It is posted with permission
of _Inside Illinois_, which retains copyright. The article appeared on
Feb 6, 1992 (Vol 11, No. 10), page 1. You can contact _Inside
Illinois_ via email as inside-illinois@uiuc.edu. - Carl Kadie]
=====================================
Poll: Public wants a say in what materials libraries offer
By Andrea Lynn
Americans want libraries to promote reading, but they also want to
have a say in the kind of reading libraries promote, according to a
new national public opinion survey on public libraries.
The survey found that while 93 percent of the 1,181 people interviewed
believe public libraries should provide literacy programs for adults,
close to 70 percent said that certain kinds of reading material --
including "Playboy" and "Penthouse," and books on how to commit
suicide -- should be kept out of the library altogether. Almost half
(44 percent) believe that records and tapes with sexually explicit
language should not be available in public library collections.
When asked about who should have a say in controversies over the kinds
of materials libraries provide, 31 percent of the respondents favor
giving parent groups a great deal of say; less than 10 percent favor
giving government officials and religious leaders that right; and 41
percent reject giving special interest groups, such as political
parties and unions, any say.
Conducted by the UI Library Research Center, the National Opinion Poll
on Library Issues "gives us a national snapshot of public opinion
about services, collections and governance of libraries, against which
individual librarians can check the opinions of their community," said
Leigh Estabrook, survey director and dean of the UI Graduate School of
Library and Information Science.
According to Estabrook, the survey "highlights the tensions" between
librarians and the public on several issues, including the controversy
over what to do about so-called latchkey children and the kinds of
materials libraries should provide. She thinks that the difference of
opinion over materials is "a legitimate problem and represents an
ongoing debate in American democracy."
"Public libraries historically have supported wide access to diverse
materials," Estabrook said, "and most librarians uphold the American
Library Association's Bill of Rights, which states that it's not the
librarian's responsibility to determine what children can or cannot
read in the library."
Even though librarians feel strongly that it is not their
responsibility to act in loco parentis, "they have worked with parent
groups to assure that parents who wish to, have a mechanism to
restrict their children's access to certain materials." Estabrook also
noted that the "growing conservatism" about reading material in this
country "is not a reason that librarians should become more
conservative."
"Librarians continue to feel that while they should be sensitive to
the needs of their community, it is important that they don't define
their community by what the majority wants. They prefer to give
people the opportunity to read, to learn and to obtain information
from all kinds of sources."
Nevertheless, she conceded, "Public libraries, which were created in
the 19th century to educate immigrants and new industrial workers, are
still viewed by the public as places to solve contemporary social
problems."
Other findings:
* In contrast to its views on sexually explicit material, the public
is less likely to favor restrictions on materials related to public
health. A large majority (85 percent) believe that books and
materials that give information about how to prevent AIDS should be
made available to anyone; only one in 10 adults polled believe that
children should obtain parental permission to check information about
AIDS out of their public library.
In addition, more than half (56 percent) of those interviewed say
birth-control information should be available to anyone, while one
third (31 percent) feel it should be available to children with
parental permission.
* Regarding the controversy over latchkey children, some of whom hang
out in libraries unattended, well over one third (39 percent) of the
respondents said that libraries should provide a safe place for
children to stay after school.
* On the issue of funding, the public is divided. If public libraries
needed more funds to operate, 44 percent of the respondents would
recommend increasing taxes, while 41 percent would advocate charging
patrons for library services. Respondents with higher incomes are
more likely to support increasing taxes to help finance libraries than
those with family incomes under $25,000 (49 percent versus 36
percent).
* With regard to control of America's libraries, most respondents feel
that librarians and library staff should remain responsible. Nearly
twice as many favored that group (41 percent) over other forms of
governance, such as independent citizens (26 percent) or local
government (23 percent).
* Most people surveyed (87 percent) feel that libraries should provide
educational videotapes, but only 25 percent think videotapes of recent
motion pictures should be included in all public libraries. The
Library Research Center also has polled members of the Public Library
Association on the same questions and soon will compare those results
with results from this study. "We believe there will be some
significant differences," Estabrook said.
The survey was conducted between Oct. 26 and Dec. 27, 1991. It has a
margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. D. Charles Whitney, a
professor in the UI Institute of Communications Research, and Seymour
Sudman, a UI professor of marketing, served as consultants on the
survey.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Date: 21 Feb 1992 18:41:45 GMT
Message-ID:
In article barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>> I hope the fact that we haven't heard anything from the Terminus
>> defenders about this issue is because they are busy fixing their telnet
>> program to disallow non-telnet-port connections.
>
> Seems unlikely. One of the earlier posts in this thread said that Terminus
> is a cisco Terminal Server, so it's not MIT's telnet program to fix.
Then I guess we should be complaing to Cisco for not providing a
telnet-only option. I have a feeling, though, that if the Terminus
managers wanted to make this change, it wouldn't take too long. (No
source? Use adb to patch the binary. A real hacker wouldn't have any
problems here.)
Let's hear from Terminus about this. Mr. Hannum?
Wayne
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <50076102@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 21 Feb 92 08:57:09 GMT
In one or another of his morning flurry of 9 articles in this thread, dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
>>quickly as usual and start abusing it. When victims complain, MIT
>>responds that since none of the good people using it legitimately have
>>complained or asked that it be taken away from them, there must not be a
>>problem!
>
>And to MIT, this is good. Why do you think MIT should adopt your views?
Because the profferred reasoning is so transparently evasive as to
insult the issue. If you ask only the innocent beneficiaries of a
resource whether they would like it taken away from them -- or better
yet, if you sit back and wait for them to VOLUNTEER the wish that it be
taken away -- you are fishing for a foregone conclusion. The fact that
illegimate people (whom you cannot reach to ask anything) are also using
the resource to harass third party bystanders (whose opinions you deem
unworthy of asking, since they are not USING your service, only trying
to survive on the same net with it) doesn't enter into the analysis.
This is a shortsighted position which diminishes the spirit of network
cooperation. MIT should adopt my views because they are closer to the
standard of behavior that ought to be expected from a large and powerful
institution with the Internet's best long term interests (and its own)
at heart.
>>My own view is that the TERMINUS server should be password protected...
>
>And do you volunteer to do this?
It would cost MIT more to empower me to get in there and tinker with an
unfamiliar system than it would to do it themselves. I am reasonably
sure they know how to do it already. All in the world we are arguing is
whether they have the willingness to spend a day and do it. The issue
is one of principle, not engineering.
>The way I've always known to work in dealing with a nuisance is to ignore
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it.
Yes, but the issue under discussion is not how individual target sites
should "deal with" TERMINUS-based incursions -- that is pretty much
known. The issue is whether MIT ought to continue providing the toys
wherewith more and more sites can be made to have to "deal with" the
nuisance.
In another posting in the flurry, Dave says that he opposes Terminus "in
principle," but then castigates those who would "interfere" with MIT's
"internal policies." This formulation would do Li Peng proud, but it
doesn't make sense here. I am unaware of any mechanism by which Netnews
postings are automatically transformed into MIT administrative orders.
All that ANY of us are doing in the alt.security discussion is opposing
Terminus "in principle." ***OF COURSE*** they have the legal right to
do what they want; always have; always will; everyone knows it. Same
thing applies to 90% of everything people discuss in Netnews. So what?
It's a red herring. When someone posts here saying "What MIT is doing
is WRONG and they should stop it," they are attempting to PERSUADE, not
interfere or coerce.
Insistent reminders that persuasion lacks coercion's force can be an
easy recourse for those who have forgotten how to persuade.
--
Knowing when to optimize is ==>/ Tom Neff
as important as knowing how. /<== tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.misc, et al.] Re: Swiss Censorship
Message-ID: <9202211933.AA09199@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 07:33:56 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,uk.misc,news.admin,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Swiss Censorship
Message-ID:
Date: 21 Feb 92 12:28:42 GMT
In <1992Feb20.180752@sic.epfl.ch> brossard@sic.epfl.ch (Alain Brossard
EPFL-SIC/SII) writes:
> For those who thought that Switzerland is a democratic and open
> country, read on to see the subversive groups we are not allowed
> to read (like talk.politics.guns for example). I used the
> adjective bigot because of the obvious anti-homosexual feelings
> of Switch (see the list of banned newsgroups for yourself).
[...]
[ The excuse being used is that the groups are illegal under Swiss Law ]
> ---> CATEGORY 3: PROHIBITED NEWSGROUPS
> --->
> ---> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
> ---> alt.drugs
> ---> alt.fax.bondage
> ---> alt.personals.bondage
> ---> alt.politics.homosexuality
> ---> alt.psychoactives
> ---> alt.satanism
> ---> alt.sex.* (6 groups)
> ---> alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
> ---> alt.tasteless
> ---> bit.listserv.gaynet
> ---> de.talk.sex
> ---> clari.news.group.gays
> ---> clari.news.law.crime.sex
> ---> clari.news.law.crime.violent
> ---> clari.news.law.drugs
> ---> clari.news.sex
> ---> clari.news.terrorism
> ---> rec.arts.erotica
> ---> soc.bi
> ---> soc.motss
> ---> sub.sex
> ---> talk.abortion
> ---> talk.bizarre
Talk.bizarre ILLEGAL UNDER SWISS LAW?!?!
> ---> talk.politics.drugs
> ---> talk.politics.guns
Talk.politics.guns? Wait a minute, aren't the Swiss allowed to own and
carry guns?
> ---> talk.rape
You have our sympathy. SWITCH seem to have come up with an even stupider
list of banned newsgroups than UKnet.
> The situation is such that I have users who use news servers in the
> US (Hawai!) and Germany (over slow and saturated links!) and who
> knows where else to read the
> newsgroups they want. So a local decision is costing everybody more
> money since the articles are now transiting multiple times and even
> on a per user basis with xrn: once to read and once to get it to save it!
Quite. UKnet's censorship hasn't stopped people getting the banned newsgroups.
I know of at least three feeds coming into the UK. So rather than UKnet
passing on one copy of alt.tasteless, they have to pass three, four, maybe
as much as ten identical feeds by mail. That's ignoring individual users who
subscribe to the banned groups by mailing list.
Then they have the gall to charge us for bandwidth, when they themselves
are doing their best to make sure it is wasted.
> My point is that Switch CAN'T block those newsgroups! The only
> thing they can do is put the world on notice that they are taking
> responsibility for what goes over the wire... Talk about asking
> for work and for putting your head in the noose!
It's like what UKnet are doing. It has little or no real effect; anyone
who wants the newsgroups can get them if he's prepared to ask around enough.
It's purely posturing.
> In case nobody at Switch knew this, Switch is asked to provide
> network connections between the Universities in the same way the
> PTT is asked to carry letters and packages and phone conversations.
> Nobody expects the PTT to take responsability for the pornographic
> magazines or mail-bomb letters! The same can be said of Switch.
Quite. Is UKnet responsible for the material which goes over the network
or not? If they are, then they'll have to start censoring electronic mail.
If they aren't, there's no reason for them to try and censor news.
mathew
--
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,talk.abortion,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: The Irish Abortion Information Question
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.190534.14534@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: 21 Feb 92 19:05:34 GMT
Hmm. Interesting times are here in Ireland at the moment, and an issue has
come up which may well pose a question for those interested in the issues
of censorship, and especially where in concerns the Net.
As you may know, abortion is illegal in Ireland. The Eighth Amendment to
the constitution in 1983 made it even more so, and also led the way to
making the distribution of abortion information illegal. The Student Union
of this college, Trinity, was brought to court by the Society for the
Protection of the Unborn Child and was prevented from distributing such
information from its welfare section to women.
Recently, a 14 year old girl was raped and became pregnant as a result.
Unwittingly her parents told the police that they intended to bring her to
England for an abortion. Said police felt they had no option but to follow
up on this information, and as a result the Attorney General got an
injunction preventing the girl from leaving country.
The case hasn't left the headlines in the past week, and has become a rallying
call for pro-choice campaigners and those concerned at the fact that this
strident interpretation of the Eighth Amendment sees Ireland on the path to
a totalitarian state. (A pointed cartoon in the _Irish Times_ depicted an
Ireland surrounded by barbed wire, in the middle of which a little girl sits.
The caption - "February 1992. Internment - for women".)
Of course, people who called for and supported the amendment in '83 are now
saying the whole thing is a set-up by liberals, that they didn't forsee this
happening (despite repeated warnings at the time) and that "sure the mother
should have known she shouldn't have told the police" . In effect, most of
them are now suggesting that people should break the law that they passed,
which seems to me the worst kind of hypocrisy.
That's the abortion issue. I'd love to hear comments on any aspect.
The computer/censorship issue related to the fact that only crosspostings
to the group _talk.abortion_ (which I hope this posting is getting through
to) appear here. The relevant people are concerned that we could be breaking
the law by allowing such postings to be read here, as they may have information
in them on how to procure an abortion, e.g. a telephone number for an abortion
clinic in England.
My question is - are they leaving themselves open to prosecution? It seems to
me that they cannot be seen to be "distributing" such information _per_ _se_;
any more than libraries are by having English telephone directories, containing
the numbers of clinics.
Anyway, I'll leave the floor open.
P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.205513.3332@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 20:55:13 GMT
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
>In one or another of his morning flurry of 9 articles in this thread, dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
Hmmm...I *did* have a lot to say didn't I?
>>And to MIT, this is good. Why do you think MIT should adopt your views?
>Because the profferred reasoning is so transparently evasive as to
>insult the issue.
So?
Isn't the issue THEIR service?
What you seem to be saying is that by an organization attaching to the
network, you now have the right to come in and tell them how they can
and cannot do business.
>known. The issue is whether MIT ought to continue providing the toys
>wherewith more and more sites can be made to have to "deal with" the
>nuisance.
And again I say that this is MIT's decision and NO one elses.
>In another posting in the flurry, Dave says that he opposes Terminus "in
>principle," but then castigates those who would "interfere" with MIT's
>"internal policies."
Thank you for that acknoledgement.
>It's a red herring. When someone posts here saying "What MIT is doing
>is WRONG and they should stop it," they are attempting to PERSUADE, not
>interfere or coerce.
That's apparently not the case with some of the postings I had seen
previously. One person was moving in on the fact that they are an
MIT alumnus and that their donation of money allows them access to
their policies...I believe there was a thread about the "Anti-TERMINUS
alliance" that reminded me of the salem witch hunt mentality...
And, to be consistent, you guys can do what you want. I can only persuade.
>Insistent reminders that persuasion lacks coercion's force can be an
>easy recourse for those who have forgotten how to persuade.
The best persuasion is experience. Let MIT lose lots of data to a cracker
from TERMINUS.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh
"When you are in it up to your ears, keep your mouth shut."
From caf-talk Caf Feb 21 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,talk.abortion,soc.culture.celtic
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The Irish Abortion Information Question
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.213556.25687@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 21:35:56 GMT
pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
[...]
>That's the abortion issue. I'd love to hear comments on any aspect.
>The computer/censorship issue related to the fact that only crosspostings
>to the group _talk.abortion_ (which I hope this posting is getting through
>to) appear here. The relevant people are concerned that we could be breaking
>the law by allowing such postings to be read here, as they may have information
>in them on how to procure an abortion, e.g. a telephone number for an abortion
>clinic in England.
>My question is - are they leaving themselves open to prosecution? It seems to
>me that they cannot be seen to be "distributing" such information _per_ _se_;
>any more than libraries are by having English telephone directories, containing
>the numbers of clinics.
[...]
A woman was arrested in the U.S. territory of Guam for reading from
the Honolulu, Hawaii phonebook. She is likely to eventually win
because in the U.S. and its territories, it is generally legal to talk
about illegal activities.
- 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 caf-talk Caf Feb 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <920222141759.2020f279@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 14:17:59 GMT
The following quotes are from "Text to Screen Revisited: Copyright in the
Electronic Age" in _Online_ March 1991 pp22-24 by John R. Garrett.
"The existing system for creating and disseminating text-based information
is exceedingly complex, and has evolved with the expansion of publishing
since World War II. Copyright provides the glue that ensures compensation
for creators and rightsholders, and a predictable, orderly flow of published
information to consumers, at prices determined in the market place.
What is this glue? Stripped of legal abfuscation, copyright is conceived in the
constitution is an economic system for ensuring the creation of new knowledge
by rewarding creators and their agents. At the core of this economic system
is the assurance that the creator can determine if, how, where, when, and in
what form his or her creation can be used. The protections embodied in this
system have helped generate the continuing expansion of scientific, technical,
literary, and other information, and are central to any dialogue about electron-
ic issues.
From a copyright perspective, there are real advantages to information dissemin-
ation via books and journals
[...]
...when this article is published, it will be clear what I did and didn't say,
and relatively easy to discern the difference between my creation and any copy-
and-modify, cut-and-paste version that may appear.
[...]
For example, in an electronic environment, text is easily and transparently
modified; the ownership and even the existence of a work that resides only in
electronic pulses can be endlessly debated; the chain of modification, reuse,
remodification, re-reuse, is difficult to trace."
My aim in quoting this is to spur discussion on the possible ways of
combatting these difficulties (whether under existing concepts of copyright
law or otherwise).
From caf-talk Caf Feb 22 00:00:00 1992
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <23042.Feb2206.30.3192@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
Date: 22 Feb 92 06:30:31 GMT
In article <1992Feb21.205513.3332@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
> What you seem to be saying is that by an organization attaching to the
> network, you now have the right to come in and tell them how they can
> and cannot do business.
In this vain attempt to save your position you seem to be claiming that
(1) the network service provider cannot dictate how its network is used;
(2) the target of harassing communication has no right to complain about
the harassment. I don't think so, Dave. I can't tell MIT how to run its
business, but their freedom ends at the network interface.
You may or may not have noticed that there's a very big organization,
the United States government, which spends a lot of its time and a lot
of your money deciding how freely Bill can exercise his rights before he
interferes with Ted's rights. Rights which affect other people are never
absolute.
> One person was moving in on the fact that they are an
> MIT alumnus and that their donation of money allows them access to
> their policies...
An MIT alumnus has the perfect right to tell MIT that he'll donate money
only if they justify their policies. If they don't, he has the perfect
right to follow through on his threat. Why does this bother you?
---Dan
From caf-talk Caf Feb 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Computer Pubs. & the 1st Amend.
Message-ID: <920222185441.2020dd65@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 18:54:41 GMT
Computer Publication and The First Amendment
Copyright Brian J. Peretti
Computers and the Law
Ronald Palenski
Since their introduction, personal computers have had a
tremendous impact on society. Computer, printers and their
software have replaced accountants, secretaries and even
typewriters in many offices across the United States. With the
advent of this new way to gather, process and distribute
information, new problems, many that could never have been
perceived by the Framers of the Constitution, have developed.
The Constitution is the basis of law in the United States.
Although created in 1787, it still governs the manner in which
legal decisions are made with very few changes. It, along with
the Bill of Rights and other amendments, has established what may
or may not be done to a person, group, organization or business
without infringing on its rights.
The broad language was created so that the Constitution
would be able to change and expand with the times. Although the
founding fathers did have an idea of what the press was in their
day, it has been expanded to cover television and radio. This
coverage should be expanded to encompass the new media of
computer publications. By deciding that computer publications
will have the same rights under the first amendment as
newspapers, information will be dispersed throughout the nation
in a more efficient manner so that the goal of the first
amendment will become reality.
I. What is a computer publication
Computer publications can take many forms. It has been
argued that bulletin boards should be considered computer
publications. The reason is that since the people who are in
contact with the bulletin boards must communicate with the boards
through the written word, that these communications should thus
be considered publications.
This paper is concerned with publications that are created
exclusively on a computer or computer system. There have been
only a few such computer publications.1
There has not been a definition defining what is a computer
publication. However, there are many similarities between the
various newsletters that will give us a definition of what one
is. First, all of the material which makes up the publication
must have been created on a computer. This is to say, that
although the information may have been written on paper as rough
drafts or may have been gleaned from printed books or newspaper,
the articles that compose the publication must have been written
in final form on the computer. The articles should not be
printed in hard copy after they were input to the computer.
The production of the newsletter must also occur exclusively
on the computer. This includes the editing, the check for
spelling and formatting errors and the actual production of what
the newsletter will look like, including the letterhead of the
publication, if there is to be one.
The transportation of the material that is to be contained
in the newsletter must occur via a computer network2 or by an
exchange of magnetic disk3, magnetic tape4, electrical impulses
or other non-print media. This includes not only the gathering
of the stories, but also the distribution of the newsletter to
its subscribers.
The computer magazines or newsletters that have existed in
the past also had a common denominator in that they almost
exclusively were published by computer users, for computer users
and concerned computer topics. Although this could be a
criteria, it would be to restrictive. It is very likely, with
the continued proliferation of computers in our society, that
publications with a much different orientations will emerge. If
computer publications are to be protected, the topic of their
publication should not be determinative of whether they fall
under the definition of a computer publication.
There are other publications that address the same issues
that have been published in "Phrack". An example is 2600 on Long
Island, New York which publishes material in printed form
concerning generally the same information.5 However, it is the
form in which "Phrack" was published and not the content of the
magazine that is the issue of this paper.
II. Phrack6
Craig Neidorf is a student at the University of Missouri.
At sixteen, he and a friend started to publish Phrack7. The
way in which he went about creating his newsletter was to accept
articles written by persons throughout the country. These
articles would be left in his mailbox at the university or to
retrieve articles written on computer bulletin boards. After he
logged on to the system, he would then mail the articles from the
mainframe computer to his person computer at his residence. If
these articles would need to be edited, he would then do any
necessary editing. Once he complied a large enough group of
articles, he would then send the articles to the mainframe
computer along with a heading and send it to his 250 subscribers.
There was no charge for the newsletter.8
III. The Historic Rights of the Press
In order to discover whether or not the protections afforded
to the press in the first amendment should be extended to this
new form of information distribution, a look to the past is
essential. Originally, control of the press by government was
total. However, as time passed, both the monarch of Great
Britain and their rulers in the American Colonies allowed greater
freedom to publish.
A. The English Experience.
At first, England was an absolute monarchy, in which the
king could do as he pleased. In 1215, the Magna Carta was
signed, whereby the lords of England put restrictions on the
King, which he pledged not to violate.9 The document, although
not seen as an admission of the King that there were civil right,
he did acknowledge that there were some basic human rights.10
In 1275, the De Scandalis Magnatum was enacted which
punished anyone who disseminated untrue information or "tales"
that could disrupt the atmosphere between the king and his
people.11 Over time this statute was gradually expanded. In
1378, it was broadened to cover "peers, prelates, justices and
various other officials and in the 1388 reenactment, offenders
could be punished "by the advice of said council."12
The first printing presses were established in Great Britain
toward the end of the 15th century. When the De Scandalis
Magnatum was reenacted in 1554 and 1559, "seditious words" were
included as words that could bring punishment.13 This law,
enforced by the Court of the Star Chamber, was a criminal statute
to punish political scandal.14
Regulations placed upon printers soon followed. In 1585,
the Star Chamber required that in order to print a book, the
publisher would have to get a license.15 A monopoly was created
in the Stationers' Company, which had 97 London stationers, that
could seize the publications of all outsiders.16 A 1637 ordnance
limited the number of printers, presses and apprentices.17
Punishment, at the time, was not limited to just printing, but
also to "epigram[s] or rhyme[s] in writing sung and repeated in
the presence of others . . . [or] an ignominious or shameful
painting or sign."18
Although the Star Chamber had been abolished in 1641, the
licensing system remained through the orders of 1642 and 1643.19
The Licensing Act of 1662 was a temporary statute which kept the
licensing provisions until 1679, when it expired.20 During the
reign of James II, licensing was renewed only to expire and not
be reenacted in 1695.21
Having realized that licensing was not the answer, Queen
Anne in 1711 enacted a Stamp Act, by which a duty was imposed on
all newspapers and advertisements.22 The purpose was to both
restrain the press and destroy all but the larger newspapers.23
Blackstone summed up the state of the law Great Britain
concerning the press in his Commentaries by writing:
The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the
nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no
previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom
from censure for criminal matter when published. Every
freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he
pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy
the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is
improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the
consequences of his own temerity.24
B. The Colonial Experience
The first presses arrived at Harvard University in 1638 and
were used to disseminate church information.25 Aside from this
purpose the colonial governments, when still under the power of
Great Britain did not look favorably upon the press. However,
with power in the colony moving toward the people, the press
gained more freedom from the strict control imposed by the
government.
Each colony treated the press differently, although each did
restrict the press. In 1671, Governor Berkeley of Virginia wrote
"But I thank God, there are no free schools nor printing, and I
hope we shall not have these hundred years; for learning has
brought disobedience, and heresy, and sects into the world, and
printing has divulged them, and libels against the best
government. God keep us from both!"26 In New York, until 1719,
all governors "had been instructed to permit no press, book,
pamphlets or other printed matter `without your especial leave &
license first obtained.'"27
Gradually, state controls of the press gradually
diminished.28 The Trial of John Peter Zenger, 17 Howell's St. Tr.
675 (1735) illustrates how much the colonists were opposed to
restrictions on the press. Zenger had printed material in his
New York Weekly Journal a satiric article critical of New York
Governor William Cosby. The governor had Zenger charged with
seditious liable by the Attorney General after neither a Grand
Jury would indict nor the General Assembly take action.29
Although all the jury had to do was find him guilty was to
declare that he published the paper, Zenger's attorney, Andrew
Hamilton of Philadelphia argued a much larger issue. He put
before the jury the argument that truth is a defense to liable,
although the court rejected it.30 He was able to win an
acquittal of Zenger by requesting that the jury give a general
verdict of not guilty instead of a special verdict, which the
court requested, and which the jury did.31
C. The Adoption of the First Amendment
"The struggle for the freedom of the press was primarily
directed against the power of the licensor. . . . And the liberty
of the press became initially a right to publish `without a
license what formerly could be published only with one.' While
this freedom from previous restraint upon publication cannot be
regarded as exhausting the guaranty of liberty, the prevention of
that restraint was a leading purpose in the adoption of the
constitutional provision."32 The purpose of the first amendment
is "to prevent all such previous restraints upon publication as
had been practiced by other government."33
The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."34 It was
originally proposed as part of twelve amendments to the United
States Constitution during the first session of Congress in 1789.
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights, minus the first two
amendments, became part of the Constitution.
What the first amendment means as applied to the press has
never been completely set forth. The only statement in Congress
as to what the press and speech clause was to stand for was
express by James Madison: "The right of freedom of speech is
secured; the liberty of the press is expressly declared to be
beyond the reach of this government."35 This, however, will be
of little help for us when considering whether computer
publications should receive first amendment protections.
IV. Does Computer Publications fall within the meaning of
Press as stated in the first Amendment.
Since the legislative history of the First Amendment will
not lead to a discovery concerning what is covered under it, we
must look to how it has been interpreted by the courts. An
examination must be undertook to determine what the courts have
decided concerning both the purpose of the amendment and whether
any physical manifestation guidelines on what fall within the
definition of the "press".
By examining what the drafters of the first amendment
thought that press was during their time, the only media which
would receive first amendment protections the printed press,
which would include newspapers, handbills and leaflets.
However, the court has not held the clause so narrowly.
The United States Supreme Court has taken a broad view in
considering what is the "press".36 "The liberty of the press is
not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily
embraces pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its
historical connotation comprehends every sort of publication
which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."37 Thus, the
Court has ruled that motion pictures38 also deserve such
protection. Lower courts have held that the protection applies
to doctor directories,39 college newspapers40 and computer
bulletin boards.41
Computer publications satisfy the definition that the Court
has given to what is to be covered by the first amendment. By
their very nature, computer publications are a vehicle by which
information can be disseminated. In Phrack's first issue, the
purpose was to gather "philes [which] may include articles on
telcom (phreaking/hacking), anarchy (guns and death &
destruction) or kracking. Other (sic) topics will be allowed
also to a certain extent."42 These articles were to be
distributed to members of the community who wished to obtain
information on the topics in the "newsletter-type project".43
Since this publication passes the Lovell test,44 because of it
allows information to be distributed, these publication deserve
the protection given to the media by the first amendment.45
VI. Freedom of Newspapers and Broadcasting Media46
Currently there can be called two separate first amendment
doctrines. The first applies to newspapers. Newspapers can have
only a few restrictions placed on them. The second applies to
radio and television, which can have many types of controls
placed upon them. Computer publications, because of their
similarity to the former, should have the least amount of
restriction necessary placed upon them.
As stated, supra, the first amendment had no legislative
history that came along with it. Courts have had to interpret
how it should be applied to the "press" since they had no
guidance from the Congress. Although not to be applied in an
absolute sense, Breard v. City of Alexandria, La.,47 the Supreme
Court has only set forth three exceptions where prior restraint
of the newspapers are allowed. These restrictions, as stated in
dictum in Near v. Minnesota48 are 1) when it is necessary in
order that "a government might prevent actual obstruction to its
recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of
transports or the number and location of troops", 2) the
requirements of decency to prevent publication of obscene
materials, and 3) "[t]he security of the community life may be
protected against incitement to acts of violence and the
overthrow of force of orderly government." These exceptions,
although not having the force of law when stated, have been the
only exceptions allowed.
In the electronic realm, the Supreme Court has allowed
greater restraints to be placed on radio and television.
Licenses, although never allowed on newspapers,49 possibly as a
result of the English experience,50 have been allowed on
broadcast communication.51 Broadcaster must be fair to all sides
of an issue,52 whereas newspapers may be bias.53 Broadcaster are
required to meet the need of their community.54 However no court
has held that this may be applied to a newspaper.55
The main difference between these two groups is that
"[u]nlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is not
available to all. That is its unique characteristic, and that is
why, unlike other modes of expression, it is subject to
government regulation."56 This reasoning has been followed by
the court on many occasions.57
In the case concerning computer publishers, the less
restrictive newspaper limitations should be used. A computer
publisher does not send his information over a limited band or
airwaves. Any individual or group can become a computer publish
by obtaining a computer or access to a computer and a modem an
information to publish. The amount of these newsletters are not
limited by technology.
Because of the large number of publications that can appear,
there is no need to require that these publications be responsive
to the public. The dissemination of the information can be
terminated if the reader wants to by asking for his name to be
removed from the subscription list, similar to that of a magazine
or newspaper.58
V. Conclusion
Computer based publications are a new development in the
traditional way in which information is disseminated. The
history of the United States and the first amendment has been
against placing restrictions on the press. These new types of
publications, because of their similarity to other types of
media, should be granted first amendment protection.
The rational for placing restrictions on radio and
television should not apply to computer publications. Anyone who
has access to this technology, which is becoming more prevalent
in society, can publish in this manner. The least amount of
restrictions on their publication, similar to those placed on
newspapers, should be applied to this new media.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Freedom of Speech and Press in America, Edward G. Hudon (Public
Affairs Press, Washington, D.C. 1963)
MacMillian Dictionary of Personal Computing & Communications
Dennis Longley and Michael Shain, eds. (MacMillian Press Ltd,
London 1986)
Shaping the First Amendment: The Development of Free Expression,
John D. Stevens (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1982)
Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History: Legacy of
Suppression, Leonard W. Levy (Harvard Press, Cambridge 1960)
American Broadcasting and the First Amendment, Lucas A. Powe, Jr.
(University of California Press, Berkeley 1987)
Printers and Press Freedom: The Ideology of Early American
Journalism, Jeffery A. Smith (Oxford University Press, New York
1988).
Seven Dirty Words and Six Other Stories: Controlling the Content
of Print and Broadcast, Matthew L. Spitzer (Yale University
Press, New Haven 1986).
Emergence of a Free Press, Leonard W. Levy (Oxford University
Press, New York 1985).
Computer Underground Digest, volume 2, Issue #2.12, file 1
(November 17, 1990).
Endnotes
1. Phrack, see infra, CCCAN, a Canadian publication, The
Legion of Doom Technical Journal and Computer Underground Digest
form the majority of these types of newsletters. Of the four, on
Computer Underground Digest still publishes. Phrack is gearing
up to resume publication, however with a different publisher.
2. MacMillan Dictionary of Personal Computing &
Communication (1986 ed) defines it as: "A network of computer
systems that allow the fast and easy flow of data between the
systems and users of the system." Id. at 68.
3. "[A] flat disk with a magnetizable surface layer on
which data can be stored by magnetic recording." Id. at 215
4. "A plastic tape having a magnetic surface for storing
data in a code of magnetized spots." Webster's NewWorld
Dictionary of Computer Terms (1988 3 ed.) at 223.
5. Frenzy over Phrack; First Amendment concerns raised in
computer hacker case, Communications Daily, June 29, 1990, at 6.
6. Information from this section was gathered in part from
Dorothy Denning's paper The United States vs. Craig Neidorf: A
Viewpoint on Electronic Publishing, Constitutional Rights, and
Hacking." [hereinafter Denning] and Interview with Craig Neidorf,
editor of Phrack (Oct. 16, 1990).
7. The name of the publication was derived from two words,
phrack (telecommunication systems) and hack (from computer
hacking). Denning. Hacking has been defined as "one who gains
unauthorized, use non-fraudulent access to another's computer
system." Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary (1984)
at 557. For other definitions, see United States v. Riggs, 739
F. Supp. 414, 423-24 (N.D. Ill. 1990).
8. Mr. Neidorf was indicted after he published a Bell South
E911 document which was downloaded from the Bell South computer
system in Atlanta, Georgia. Determing if Mr. Neidorf should be
punished for publishing such information is beyond the scope of
this paper.
9. John Stevens, Shaping the First Amendment: The
Development of Free Expression at 27 (1982). [hereinafter
Stevens]
10. Id.
11. Edward Hudon, Freedom of Speech and Press in America,
8-9 (1963).
12. Id. at 9.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 10.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Id. at 11.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. Leonard Levy, Freedom of Speech and Press in Early
American History: Legacy of Suppression, 14 (1963) [hereinafter
Levy] citing Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of
England 2:112-113 (1936).
25. Stevens, at 29.
26. Levy, at 21-22, quoting William Waller Hening, The
Statutes at Large Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia
(1619-1792) (Richmond, 1809-1823), 2:517. [emphasis in original]
27. Levy, at 24, quoting "Instructions to Governor Dongan,"
1686, in E.B. O'Callaghan and B. Fernow, eds., Documents Relative
to the Colonial History of the State of New York 3:375 (Albany,
1856-1887).
28. By 1721, Massachusetts effectively ended censorship by
licensing. Levy, at 36.
29. Edward Hudson, Freedom of Speech and Press in America
(1963) 19.
30. John D. Stevens, Shaping the First Amendment: The
Development of Free Expression (1982), 31.
31. Hudson, at 19.
32. Lovell v. City of Griffen, Ga., 303 U.S. 444, 451-52
(1938) [footnotes omitted].
33. Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907),
quoting Commonwealth v. Blanding, 3 Pick. [Mass.] 304, 313-14.
[emphasis in original]
34. U.S. Const. amend. I.
35. Leonard W. Levy, Freedom of Speech and Press in Early
American History: Legacy of Suppression (1960), quoting The
Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States
(Washington, 1834 ff.) I:766, 1st Cong., 1st Sess.
36. "The Protection of the First Amendment, mirrored in the
Fourteenth, is not limited to the Blackstonian idea that freedom
of the press means only freedom from restraint prior to
publication." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 572, n.3,
(1941) citing Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
37. Lovell v. City of Griffin, Ga. 303 U.S. 444, 452
(1938).
38. "We have no doubt that moving pictures, like newspapers
and radio, are included in the press whose freedom is guaranteed
by the First Amendment." 334 U.S. 131, 166 (1948). "Expression
by means of motion pictures in included within the free speech
and speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments." Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 502
(1952).
39. "The propose directory [of physicians] contains
information of interest to people who need physicians. The
directory, therefore, is embraced by the term "press" as used in
the first amendment." Health Systems Agency of Northern Virginia
v. Virginia State Board of Medicine, 424 F. Supp. 267, 272 (E.D.
Va. 1976).
40. "A campus newspaper is part of the "press" for the
purpose of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States." Arrington v. Taylor, 380 F.Supp. 1348, 1365 (M.D.N.C.
1974).
41. Legi-Tech v. Keiper, 766 F.2d 728, 734-35 (2d Cir.
1985).
42. Phrack, volume 1, issue 1, phile 1, reprinted in
Computer Underground Digest, volume 2, Issue #2.12, file 1
(November 17, 1990).
43. Id.
44. See, infra, note 35 and text.
45. This is not to say that publication of information in
furtherance of a crime or criminal activity should receive the
protection of the first amendment.
46. This section has been completed with the help of
Spitzer, Seven Dirty Words and Six Other Stories (1986).
47. 341 U.S. 622, 642 (1951), "The First and Fourteenth
Amendments have never been treated as absolutes."
48. 283 U.S. 697, 716.
49. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), New York Times
Co. v. Sullivan, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), Minneapolis Star and
Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983).
50. See, supra, notes 9 through 24 and text.
51. Communications Act of 1934. 47 U.S.C. 301 et. seq.
(1988) (Requiring that radio stations and television stations
obtain licenses).
52. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., 395 U.S. 367
(1969).
53. See, e.g., Evans v. American Federation of Television
and Radio Artists, 354 F.Supp 823, 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), rev'd on
other grounds, 496 F.2d 305 (2nd Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419
U.S. 1093. ("In editorial comment, the New York Times and the
Washington Post may be unreservedly liberal, while the
Indianapolis News or the Manchester Union Leader may be
unremittingly conservative.")
54. 47 U.S.C. 309(a). Trinty Methodist Church v. Federal
Radio Commission, 62 F.2d 850, (D.C. Cir. 1932), cert. denied,
288 U.S. 599 (1933). (holding that if radio broadcasts were not
in the public interest, a license could be revoked and not
violate the first amendment.)
55. Of course, if a newspaper is not responsive to its
readers, it may lose subscribers and either be forced to change
or go out of business. However, since in that hypothetical there
would be no state action, there would be no first amendment
issue.
56. National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S.
190, 226 (1943). The dissenting opinion also followed similar
reasoning. "Owing to its physical characteristics radio, unlike
the other methods of conveying information, must be regulated and
rationed by the government." Id. at 319.
57. Red Lion Broadcasting v. Federal Communication
Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), and Federal Communication
Commission v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364 (1984).
58. For the same reason, the fairness doctrine should not
be applied to these types of publications.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 22 00:00:00 1992
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.conspiracy,comp.misc,misc.consumers,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Pricing of Software & Hardware in U.K compared to U.S.A
Message-ID: <32961@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Date: 22 Feb 92 02:15:33 GMT
In article <18252@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
}In article <1992Feb19.150725.987@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
}--
}--On the other hand, a lot of the British complainants are neglecting the
}--fact that UK software prices include the 17.5% VAT (roughly akin to US
}--sales tax) where US price listings normally don't include sales tax.
}
}This is not really relevant to mail order prices, since out-of-state
}purchasers don't pay the sales tax either.
In fact, they're supposed to. It's just not considered worth the trouble
of persuing by most states. Also, if the mail order company exists or has
an office in the customer's state, they must, and will, charge sales tax
on the order form.
Note however that even the highest U.S. sales taxes are nowhere near
17.5% and are only charged to the final purchaser, not every time the
product changes hands (i.e.: When "value" is added).
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@soldev.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (310) 450-9111, x2483 No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
From caf-talk Caf Feb 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin, et al.] Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9202221557.AA14119@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 03:57:23 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 22 00:00:00 1992
From: weave@bach.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.irc
Subject: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <18399@bach.udel.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 92 16:12:39 GMT
First, I do not want a discussion on the merits of IRC or why it should
be banned from existance. I am more concerned about what to do about it
and my users who don't have a life that take it too seriously!
I consider myself a fairly open minded sys admin. I don't limit user's
time on, I try and allow them to hog disk, if I have it available, and
I don't get bent out of shape if they actually have *fun* on the system.
Therefore, I spent a day porting an IRC client to our system. It was an
immediate hit. Too much of a hit, so much it has caused me headaches.
1) Usage has gone way up. Before we had an ample supply of modem dialups,
now we often reach capacity. This prevents some legitimate students from
dialling in and doing their work.
To remidy this, I tried first to ask users to volunteer to restrict
irc usage during off-peak times. I got flamed all over for being a
dictator, etc, and that so-and-so in another country is only on at
this time, and they can't just not talk to him, etc, etc...
I then tried to use cron to disable IRC during those times, but they
soon found they could telnet to several sites that offered annon. IRC.
I really don't feel like constantly looking for abusers and kill'ing
them...
2) I am now playing a mother role. Whenever some user here "wrongs"
another user here, I get mail asking me to straighten them out, like "Suzy
told Joe on IRC that I am really a slut, could you delete her account." and
crap like that. I get this quite a lot. Comments that "I don't care"
don't do any good. The latest incident was that one of my users
gave himself a /nick of nigger and caused all kind of hell. My attempts
to control him get rebuted by claims I am suppresing his first ammendment
rights (like IRC is now a right, I guess...)
3) Faculty notice that many students with poor grades are those that spend
their entire life in IRC. The faculty complain, then took their complaints
to the Dean. The Dean asked me if I could remove it. I say I could, but
they'd just telnet to another site to run it, and that loads the network
and the system more than just running the client. She didn't care, but
I did finally win this one by saying that the students obviously have
a problem managing their time and are irresponsible, and if IRC didn't
consume their time, then something else would...
However, I don't like being dragged to an office to explain what in hell
was I thinking of when I put this "program without a useful purpose"
on the system.
Oh, and one solution suggested in the midst of all of this was maybe we
should just yank our internet connection, that would solve this problem...
So, as you can tell, I hate IRC now, and I am out of ideas what to do about
it. I can't remove it, there are ways around it. Hell, someone even
got a client for emacs, should I remove emacs as well?
So I am stuck with "how do I live with it, and manage my users." Any
suggestions would be appreciated. (Please lets not let this degrade to
a discussion about how IRC is the root of all evil in the world or
IRC saved the world from communism!)
Thanks!
(Followups to comp.unix.admin, since I am interested in how to manage
this hassle as a system administrator ... so I hope the group is appropriate)
--
>>>---> Ken Weaverling >>>----> weave@brahms.udel.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 22 00:00:00 1992
From: bh@anarres.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: (none)
Message-ID:
Date: 22 Feb 92 15:38:37 GMT
NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory Univ) writes:
>The following quotes are from "Text to Screen Revisited: Copyright in the
>Electronic Age" in _Online_ March 1991 pp22-24 by John R. Garrett.
>
>|Copyright provides the glue that ensures compensation
>|for creators and rightsholders, and a predictable, orderly flow of published
>|information to consumers, at prices determined in the market place.
>| [...]
>|From a copyright perspective, there are real advantages to information
>|dissemination via books and journals [compared to via computers]
> [...]
>My aim in quoting this is to spur discussion on the possible ways of
>combatting these difficulties (whether under existing concepts of copyright
>law or otherwise).
You are accepting Garrett's premises without examination, if your aim is
to spur discussion about tactics. I'd suggest that a necessary prior
discussion is about preconceptions, such as the continued relevance of
intellectual property privileges. (There is no absolute intellectual
property right; as Garrett recognizes, copyright law is instituted for the
benefit of society, not for the benefit of the copyright holder.)
In traditional publishing, the dissemination cost (typesetting, printing,
shipping, warehousing, sales, etc) is so high that the author typically
gets only about 10% of what the purchaser pays for the book. To an
author who is writing for a living, these costs may be a necessary evil.
But to an author who writes for the sake of the ideas, cheap worldwide
distribution is a good thing, not a bad thing. To worry about keeping
track of who owns what idea in an electronic dialog, as Garrett does, is
the tail (copyright law) wagging the dog (free communication).
Copyright law has been getting more and more in the way lately. Read
Richard Stallman's recent article on misc.activism.progressive about
record-company-imposed restrictions on DAT technology for one example,
or get in touch with the League for Programming Freedom
(league@prep.ai.mit.edu) about the chilling effect of look-and-feel
copyright, as well as broad algorithm patents, in the software business.
A third example is the recent crackdown on Xeroxed course readers in
the wake of the Kinko's decision. (Even after a publisher allows a book
to go out of print, they are still legally allowed to prevent other people
from making the ideas available.)
Seems to me that the obvious solution to the so-called "problem" of
electronic communication getting in the way of copyright is to repeal
the copyright laws.
From caf-talk Caf Feb 22 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ch.general, et al.] Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <9202221621.AA25310@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1992 04:21:38 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 22 00:00:00 1992
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del Vecchio)
Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage,alt.drugs,alt.sex.movies
Subject: Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland
Message-ID: <1992Feb22.014241.16915@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: 22 Feb 92 01:42:41 GMT
They won't transmit talk.politics.guns because they think
to carry the group would be illegal? That is insane.
The same can be said for many of the other groups in
the prohibited list.
Jim Del Vecchio
From caf-talk Caf Feb 22 00:00:00 1992
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID: <1992Feb22.163515.23941@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Date: 22 Feb 92 16:35:15 GMT
In article <23042.Feb2206.30.3192@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu
(Dan Bernstein) lobs in reply to dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov:
> An MIT alumnus has the perfect right to tell MIT that he'll donate money
> only if they justify their policies. If they don't, he has the perfect
> right to follow through on his threat. Why does this bother you?
It doesn't bother Dave at all, as he *explicitly* said in the posting you
were replying to.
All you are proving with postings like this, Dan, is that you are not paying
attention to a single word said by the opponents of your little crusade.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling as loud as you can is not the
way to win a debate, IMHO.
--
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,talk.abortion,soc.culture.celtic
From: albion@bnr.ca (Alan Buchanan)
Subject: Re: The Irish Abortion Information Question
Message-ID: <1992Feb23.174121.15832@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 17:41:21 GMT
In article <1992Feb21.190534.14534@maths.tcd.ie> pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>Hmm. Interesting times are here in Ireland at the moment, and an issue has
>come up which may well pose a question for those interested in the issues
>of censorship, and especially where in concerns the Net.
>
This hit the Canadian news last Tuesday evening. There was an interview
with a woman who was a representative for the pro-amendment lobby.
I think that she was well known but I cannot remember her name.
After my disgust at the actual case subsided, I listened to the interview
as dispassionately as I could. What struck me was the effort that the woman
made to avoid compromising her position. If conviction was its own
justification, this woman was good. She accepted the worst aspects of
the case with only one outrageous distortion of statistics.
In Canada, an unwillingness to compromise has led to the complete removal
of abortion from criminal law.
>
>That's the abortion issue. I'd love to hear comments on any aspect.
>
>The computer/censorship issue related to the fact that only crosspostings
>to the group _talk.abortion_ (which I hope this posting is getting through
>to) appear here. The relevant people are concerned that we could be breaking
>the law by allowing such postings to be read here, as they may have information
>in them on how to procure an abortion, e.g. a telephone number for an abortion
>clinic in England.
>
>My question is - are they leaving themselves open to prosecution? It seems to
>me that they cannot be seen to be "distributing" such information _per_ _se_;
>any more than libraries are by having English telephone directories, containing
>the numbers of clinics.
>
As usual, information is an early target of authoritarian
opinion. Immediate history shows that it is virtually impossible to
take on communications media in that fashion.
It appears to me that the government has already run afoul of the
various EC agreements. It would be better that a group such as students
took up the challenge rather than waiting for another innocent to become
victim to this situation. The extra-territorial aspect of the network
would provide for a strong defense.
As a matter or interest, what is the situation for a non-Irish group
using the regular mail to send information to Irish citizens?
Alan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Buchanan Bell-Northern Research, Ltd Ph.: (613) 763-2750
Silicon Design P.O. Box 3511, Station C Fax: (613) 763-3970
Methods Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7
alanbu@bnr.ca
Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.
- William Butler Yeats
From caf-talk Caf Feb 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: What if the Iowa State U. Usenet policy was honest?
Message-ID: <1992Feb23.201324.12799@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 20:13:24 GMT
[This is a parody of the ISU policy. - Carl]
=================================
Draft Honest Usenet News Policy
Iowa State University Computation Center
February 23, 1992
Introduction
We, a handful of individuals in the Iowa State University Computation
Center, have imposed a policy on the distribution of Usenet
newsgroups. The policy was created without user participation and
imposed over the objections of the Computer Advisor Committee. This
policy, included later in this document, addresses our fear of outside
criticism. While many Usenet newsgroups provide a wealth of technical,
research-based, and collateral material, a few groups may contain
material that someone, somewhere might object to if they learned that
someone else, somewhere else was reading it.
The purpose of this statement is to provide an after-the-fact
justification of a decision that we made without looking at the
academic freedom issues.
Overview of Usenet News
[...]
Most newsgroups are unmoderated, meaning that contributors post
anything they want without any review. In general, the only form of
judgment on content is by peer pressure from other group participants.
Newsgroups are, thus, an embodiment of the free marketplace of ideas
that is central to a university and a democracy. We are very
frightened by this, and so, seek to shut it down.
[...]
Fun Trivia: Like the University library, a significant share of the
support structure for distributing Usenet News is derived from public
funding.
Challenges Which Accompany This Technology
[...]
"Some university sites in other locations have already come under
internal and external criticism for the use of state and federal funds
to store and distribute items which are alleged either to be illegal
or objectionable." [quote from the real policy -cmk]
[...]
Development of the Usenet News Policy
Many aspects of Usenet News were considered in creating this
after-the-fact policy justification. Several of them are discussed
here to lend insight into the policy itself.
In a perfect world, we would censor articles individually; but "the
volume of material that arrives at campus every day precludes
individual review of articles or even of selected newsgroups." [quoted
part from real policy]
We don't like "academic freedom" as currently defined, so we redefined
it. By our definition, a "Hallmark" of academic freedom is "the use of
material in manners which respect other in the campus community." [the
quote is from the real policy]. In other words, to us, academic
freedom means that you shouldn't read something that might offend
someone else. To promote this kind of academic freedom, we are banning
some newsgroups. This saves you the effort of determining if someone
else might be offended by what you read.
Although we are not trained in the law, have not looked at the case
law, have not received competent legal advise, we are confident that
there should be a law that justifies our actions. For example,
although two recent federal district court decisions (_Doe v. U. of
Michigan_ and _UWM Post v. U. of Wisconsin_) have said that sexual
harassment rules cannot justify censorship at state university, we
think that sexual haarssment rules can justify censorship at this
state university. Also, although the courts have said that discussions
of sex in grade and high school are not generally obscene and may, in
fact, be constitutionally protected, we think that discussions of sex
in a university are obscene and illegal.
Usenet News Policy
The Computation Center maintains a news server offering Usenet
newsgroups for the Iowa State University community. This offering of
service must comply with our interpretations of federal, state, and
local laws (except the Constitution) and of the policies of the Iowa
Board of Regents and Iowa State University (except for the
prohibitions against censorship).
Three variations of Usenet newsgroups are offered. These are called
the Way Censored List, the Censored List, and the Pervert List.
The purpose of the Way Censored List is to provide an alternative to
those who want their computer to only access newsgroups which appear
to be focused on academic information. Although the University is full
of academics, we, as computer administrators, feel that we are the
best qualified to decide what is, and is not, academic information.
"The purpose of the [Censored List] is to provide access to the
newsgroups which are less likely to evoke questions regarding access,
use, or distribution of the material. Hence, the [Censored List]
offering will explicitly exclude some newsgroups." [quote from real
policy.] The Censored List offering will be the default for most
students on campus. The excluded groups are those which we fear might
offend. A list of the excluded newsgroups will be posted monthly to
the newsgroup isu.newsgroups with the subject heading Monthly
Posting--Banned Newsgroup List.
The purpose of the Pervert List is to offer full access to all
newsgroups to those in the Iowa State community who own a networked
computer and who will file a piece of paper with the University and
the FBI in which they confess they are depraved perverts but they we
are not responsible. We hope that this will appease the faculty (we
think we can ignore the students).
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From caf-talk Caf Feb 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 01.43
Message-ID: <1992Feb23.225136.13098@eff.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 22:51:36 GMT
This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News followings the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via email. Send email
to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n43
--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending Dec 15, 1991
Sorry, this is so late. Editing help on future issues of CAF-News (as
a guest or associate editor) would be greatly appreciated. For more
info, send me email (kadie@eff.org).
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-5 are about Iowa State University's restrictions on who can
see newsgroups such as alt.sex.
1. [Student at Iowa State U.:] "[T]he university just recently
unveiled a policy designed to censor the following groups from
virtually every student and most faculty."
<1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU>
2. [Student at Iowa State U.:] The Computation Center justifies its
ban of certain topics by saying that it is protecting itself legally.
Yet the University Library has books (apparently legally) on exactly
the same topics. Enclosed is a list of such books including _The sex
atlas : a new illustrated guide_.
<1991Dec14.060314.21529@news.iastate.edu>
3. [Iowa State U. student] The policy is bad because it assumes that
readers are irresponsible, it effects students more than faculty, and
it invades the privacy of readers by requiring them to go on record as
wanting to read 'dirty' newsgroups.
<1991Dec14.230519@IASTATE.EDU>
4. [Member of the ISU Computation Advisory Committee] The Director of
the Computation Center told me that the purpose of the policy is to
transfer all responsibility to the reader. With some extra effort
(getting an account on Wylbur and signing the release form), students
can still access all the newsgroups.
5. The policy was imposed by the Computation Center over the
objections of the Computer Center Newsgroup committee and University
Computation Center Advisory Sub-Committee.
<1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu>
Notes 6-7 are a pornography-on-usenet article that appeared in the
German publication EMMA.
6. Contrary to what the EMMA article says, Usenet is not used mainly
for transmission of pornographic material. Less that 7% of Usenet
traffic is even related to sex.
7. In the aftermath of the EMMA article the University of Stuttgart
has banned newsgroups alt.sex and sci.military on the grounds that
they are offensive.
<1991Dec11.011316.7019@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>
Articles 8-10 are about managing the resource use of recreational
programs like IRC and MUDs.
8. Recreational computer use can be managed if there is mutual respect
between user and sys admin and reasonable priorities are set.
<1991Dec8.155639.5510@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
9. I've measured network traffic at my site. During hours when MUDs
are prohibited, they are 6% of network traffic. During hours when they
are allowed they are 30% of traffic. "[W]hile MUD playing here isn't a
problem for our T1 connection, it could be troublesome to a site with
a 56KB connection."
10. If university computers charged uses at cost, priority system and
restrictions on game-playing would be unnecessary.
<1991Dec10.144304.2037@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Note 11 is about directory information.
11. Different people consider different information private.
Information should only be released with the consent of the person it
is about.
<1991Dec10.125232.28052@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
- Carl]
--- end abstract ---
CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.
CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line
send acad-freedom caf
Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines
send acad-freedom README
help
index
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, or Carl M. Kadie). It
is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial
decisions he or she makes are his or her own.
--
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 caf-talk Caf Feb 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin] Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <9202232256.AA01409@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 10:56:35 GMT
From caf-talk Caf Feb 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
From: warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu (John Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Why I hate IRC
Message-ID: <1992Feb23.210226.11496@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 21:02:26 GMT
In article <49785@hydra.gatech.EDU> glenns@eas.gatech.edu writes:
--> I just had a thought... if you can't configure your main router yourself,
--> and you have something that resembles BSD (most boxes that can do IRC
--> are at least vaguely BSDish), you can go snarf the source to telnet and
--> hack it to disable the port argument.
Heh. That may work some places, but in most cases it's a user intelligence
test. There are many things that can be done to avoid it:
a) Snarf a copy of telnet before the fact and use it
b) Write something that will replace telnet, or as much as you need
c) Find a client that someone else has already written
d) Ask net buddies to poke around and get an un-hacked version offsite
IRC, in this specific example, doesn't use telnet. It has it's own client
that, as far as I know, makes it very desirable to not use telnet instead.
--> The diehard solution may well be "Okay, we can be nice about this, or
--> I can get real nasty real fast." The original poster may well want to
--> mention to the users that it was suggested that the entire internet link
--> could be pulled. And remind them that if things do get pulled, and they
--> do decide to fight about it, that they stay down until the fight is
--> resolved... which could take months or even years.
I don't think they'll pull their internet connection. If they're not addicted
to it now, they will be as soon as everyone starts catching on. IMHO, it's an
unfortunate fact that some people are unable to police themselves and are
potentially deluded into thinking they have certain rights. In many cases, what
"rights" people have is only based on convenience and the fact that it doesn't
totally interfere with whatever the equipment/resources is really allocated for
and, as such, aren't really "rights" at all. This is not a "rights" discussion,
however.
I'd rather see IRC get crushed and reestricted a bit elsewhere rather than
seeing alternatives like network access denied to everyone, IRC users or not.
If anyone is thinking about going so far as getting rid of all network access,
I'd heavily recommend they look into doing something as simple as only routing
packets off-site to ports less than 1024. That should leave all that standard
internet services intact while nipping many things in the bud. Given the
special associations these ports have for the "official" services, it could
also be written into many policy statements for various goals.
All in all, I'd much rather see the users get a grip on themselves. Life
without politics always seems so much cleaner.
--
John Kennedy/KC6RCK/warlock@ecst.csuchico.edu "IBM, You BM, We All BM for IBM!"
From caf-talk Caf Feb 23 00:00:00 1992
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.security
Subject: Re: NSFnet rules of use and terminus
Message-ID:
Date: 23 Feb 92 23:16:58 GMT
faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>> Then I guess we should be complaing to Cisco for not providing a
>> telnet-only option.
Um, Wayne, Cisco routers can do packet filtering in a variety of ways,
including ways that effectively limit you to telnet. The February
issue of Unix World has an article (by someone and John Quarterman)
called something like "How To Build An Internet Firewall"
describing how to use the packet-filtering features -- and based on
my brief scan of it, it seemed easy enough to use it to do what you
want, either from your end or the Terminus end. The terminus folks
could allow or disallow any combination of services desired -- people
could be permitted to telnet, run IRC, and play MUDs, but be prevented
from talking to nntp servers, sendmail, ftp, tftp, r[sh,login,who] etc
if this were desirable.
--
Joe Buck jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
From caf-talk Caf Feb 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: C491153@UMCVMB.missouri.edu (John Schultz)
Subject: IRC
Message-ID: <199202240054.AA10533@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 00:42:42 GMT
The thing that really intrigues me about MUD and IRC users are there
"I have a right to use it" attitude. On the mainframe, I use a program
called 'nopeak' that will send a short message to anyone I happen to
catch using IRC or MUDs between 8 am - 5 pm, Monday through Friday.
The message simply states that it is a drain on the mainframe, plus
the fact that it adds to Internet congestion. BTW, I'm a student and
not an admin. I do this mainly to keep the mainframe load-free and
also to educate some of the users. Some of the users will respond
asking who I am and why I'm doing this. Most students are fairly calm
and rational about this, but some think it is their God-given net.right
to tie up the net. And I've heard some great excuses to validate MUDs
and IRCs. One person told me he was doing research when I caught him
on #playboy. Another said he was researching an engineering company -
on a MUD in Finland. I don't have anything against people using MUDs
or IRC (I use IRC myself every once in a while), I just ask them to
keep it during non-peak hours.
BTW, I keep a list of users who I have 'nopeak'ed. In a few days the
university will purge all student accounts whose owners are not
enrolled anymore. I'll be curious to know how many of these people
(mainly freshmen) will have dropped out due to IRC/MUDs.
John Schultz (caffeine abuser) ! ABC killed Laura Palmer
c491153@umcvmb.bitnet ! Macintosh-free and proud of it!
c491153@umcvmb.missouri.edu ! Subscriber to the hacker ethic
From caf-talk Caf Feb 23 00:00:00 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.misc
Subject: Re: History of "alt" groups
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.004705.10339@mtholyoke.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 92 00:47:05 GMT
In article <1992Feb22.214243.14848@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>The Iowa State University Netnews policy asserts this bit of history:
>
>'The use of Usenet to discuss a wide variety of issues has grown over
>the years. While the "purely technical" newsgroups still exist,
>Usenet also includes general discussion on almost anything, including
>such topics as aspects of sexual lifestyles, illegal drugs, and racist
>humor. The collective group of Usenet "news administrators" early on
>decided to address this area by creating an "alt" group division for
>"alternate" selections. This group can be handled as each site
>chooses.'
>
>Was this really the original motivation of the "alt" groups? If so, is
>this history relevent to today's use of "alt" groups (alt.censorship,
>alt.civil-liberty, etc.)?
Not exactly as I understand it. The alt hierarchy was created by a couple
of users in response to 'censorship' by the now forgotten 'backbone cabal'.
I'm new to USENET myself, but there are some histories around... you might
want to browse through news.answers for them. Apparently there was a time
where practically all news passed through a few large academic sites, which
were considered the 'backbone'. The administrators of these backbone sites
thus had the power to control news flow almost entirely, and legend goes
that it came to a show-down where they (or some of them) refused to
propagate certain groups (I forget which) despite the fact that they had
passed accepted USENET group creation guidelines. At that point some
people took the matter in their own hands and created the alt hierarchy,
which then was not only an alternate hierarchy, but was also propagated
via alternate uucp links, bypassing the backbone sites. Later the wide
use of NNTP and the increasing influence of UUNET caused the 'backbone'
to fade into history, and while today UUNET _could_ be considered a kind
of backbone all by itself, if it suddenly went away they USENET would very
quickly be able to reconfigure and carry on without it (excepting those
sites for whom a feed from UUNET is the only option for whatever reason).
Alternate propagation to circumvent a backbone is no longer an issue, but
the alt hierarchy also makes for much simpler group creation and makes it
possible to pilot groups before creating them within the big seven, so it's
here to stay.
--
Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
From caf-talk Caf Feb 23 00:00:00 1992
From: stafford@msus1.msus.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: re: Iowa State usenet-news-policy NAMES?
Message-ID: <1992Feb23.193521.219@msus1.msus.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 92 01:35:21 GMT
re: Iowa State usenet-news-policy
I just read it. Typical, political crap. Note there are no names
on the document. Can we get some details regarding the persons who
developed and support this censorship? We need NAMES, TITLES,
WORK ADDRESS and (dare we hope) Internet addresses.
We have work to do. How do we go about it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
J Stafford WSU ACS Systems Manager/Internetwork Manager
From caf-talk Caf Feb 23 00:00:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Iowa State usenet-news-policy NAMES?
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.034655.22485@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 03:46:55 GMT
stafford@msus1.msus.edu writes:
}re: Iowa State usenet-news-policy
} I just read it. Typical, political crap. Note there are no names
} on the document. Can we get some details regarding the persons who
} developed and support this censorship? We need NAMES, TITLES,
} WORK ADDRESS and (dare we hope) Internet addresses.
} We have work to do. How do we go about it?
Dr. Richard Seagrave
Acting Director, 291 Durham Ctr, Iowa State Univ, Ames IA 50011
n1.rcs@isumvs.iastate.edu
George Covert
Associate Director, 291 Durham Ctr, Iowa State Univ, Ames IA 50011
gr.gfc@isumvs.iastate.edu
Dr. George Strawn (included here mostly for completeness)
Director, on leave to NSFnet, somewhere is Washington DC
gostrawn@nsf.com
