human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (11/13/84)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 12 Nov 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 75
Today's Topics:
Computers and the Law - Copyrights &
Hackers and the Law,
Computers and People - DOD Funding
USIA Satellite Broadcasting (4 msgs)
Computer Networks - Cancelling E-Mail (2 msgs)
Labor - Unions for the Underprivileged
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 84 11:23:42 pst
From: unisoft!pertec!bytebug@Berkeley
To: TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM
Subject: Re: more copyright
I'd like to predict what would probably take place if LockSmith were
outlawed:
Right now, there are probably only a handful of different LockSmith
type programs. If I buy a piece of software that is copy protected,
then it seems reasonable to me to also spend the money to buy a
LockSmith clone to make a backup copy with. It would be unreasonable
for me to spend the time to figure out how to make a backup copy,
since my time in investigating this is worth more to me than the cost
of the backup program.
However, if I were *not* able to purchase LockSmith "legally", then I
would have the choice of buying an illegal copy, or inventing a way to
copy the copy-protected software myself, as I view it as my right to
do anything with a piece of software in the privacy of my own
computer, as long as I do nothing to infringe the rights of others.
(You might say that I infringe on the rights of the software publisher
to provide me with backup copies, but I view that as a service that he
may choose to provide, but not one that he can require me to use.) I
don't think my own definition here is much different than a lot of
other people, so we would find instead of a handful of LockSmith type
programs, an explosion of hundreds of them! After all, though I would
find giving a copy of XYZ program to a friend unethical, I would feel
it absolutely no problem to give someone my XYZ copier, and if he gave
my XYZ copier to someone else, that would be fine, too.
Now if my friend used my XYZ copier to make a copy of XYZ to give to a
friend, that's his problem, right? Here's where things begin to break
down. If I'm the owner of a pawn shop which sells a gun to someone
who goes out and uses it to kill someone, that person (hopefully) goes
to prison, but not me. If I throw a party at which I serve drinks,
and one of my guests gets drunk and goes out and kills someone in his
car, then I'm guilty as well, right?
So, my reaction to the options given would be to choose:
> (2) leave it up to the courts to decide if Locksmith is legal under
> present law
If the court would decide to outlaw LockSmith because it can be used
to break the law (i.e. make illegal copies), I would urge to judge to
also outlaw guns and cars. --
roger long
pertec computer corp
{ucbvax!unisoft | scgvaxd | trwrb | felix}!pertec!bytebug
------------------------------
From: Jerry Leichter <Leichter@YALE.ARPA>
Date: 9 NOV 1984 10:10:53
Subject: Computers, hackers, and the law
For some of the more intelligent comments on this subject I've seen of
late, see Jack Reeves' letter to the ACM Forum in the November CACM
(pages 1085- 1086). I will not attempt to summarize his points here
beyond saying that he makes an attempt to assign responsibility where
it belongs, rather than going along with what are really attempts to
load all the blame on the party with the least political clout.
-- Jerry
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 84 18:31:56 est
From: estrin@mit-comet (Deborah L. Estrin)
Subject: DOD Funding
The Spring 1984 newsletter of Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility (CPSR) includes a very thoughtful article by Terry
Winograd (Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford University) entitled
"Some Thoughts on Military Funding".
I will be happy to send a photocopy of the article to anyone who is
interested. Please don't forget to send me your US MAil Address, I do
NOT have a copy of the article online.
Deborah Estrin (estrin@mit-comet or estrin@mit-xx)
------------------------------
Date: 9 November 1984 02:58-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Effects of USIA satellite broadcasting
To: ASP @ MIT-OZ
"and the idiot who praises, with ingratiating tone, every century but
this and every country but his own..." Alas, 'tis not a new
phenomenon; and your views, although sensible, are not likely to be
highly thought of among the intellectoids.
------------------------------
Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 22:36:10-PST
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: USIA
Anybody who believes that the USIA isn't in the business of
propaganda has never read, heard, or seen any of their stuff. The
Voice of America (VOA) is pretty bad; as a moderately patriotic
American I am ashamed of it. They are in the same league as Radio
Moscow (which has better music) and Radio Beijing (which has better
cultural programs). Fortunately, many people who can listen to VOA
understand some English and tune into US Armed Forces Radio, which
is *much* closer to American mainstream (it's for the consumption of
US GI's overseas) than VOA. USAFR also has better news.
VOA glosses over unpleasant details of American life, and
basically tries to leave the impression that every place outside the
USA is a total slimehole and that streets in the USA are paved with
gold, etc. Disgusting.
At one time VOA was good. The slide started during Vietnam. It
has gotten worse under the present administration.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Nov 1984 22:55:13 PST
Subject: Direct broadcast: Who's holy and who's not.
From: Dave Dyer <DDYER@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
The USIA and others promoting direct broadcast would sound
more convincing if their sponsoring governments practiced what
they are preaching. Imagine the furor if the Russians started
broadcasting on channel 29!
News, on the other hand, is only feared by dictators.
Only governments that are afraid of letting their people
know the truth are afraid of genuine news programs.
To bring reality into this discussion, even the "best"
of governments (I mean ours) get paranoid about "foreigners"
talking to "their" people. The U.S., under Reagan at least,
is using McCarthy era laws to exclude foreign nationals from
speaking engagements in this country. Among those denied
visas are Nobel lauriates and a former NATO general. Read
the current ACLU publication "Free Trade in Ideas"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 84 12:38:49 cst
From: riddle@ut-sally.ARPA (Prentiss Riddle)
Subject: Re: cultural domination by TV (FLAME)
I know nothing about the organization and have yet to receive any of
their literature, but the other day I saw a small ad in an obscure
magazine for a group called:
Society for the Eradication of Television (S.E.T.)
Box 1124
Albuquerque, NM 87103
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
--- riddle@ut-sally.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 84 10:47:34 pst
From: dual!paul@Berkeley
Subject: Re: Cancelling E-Mail - HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #73
Date: Wednesday, 7 Nov 1984 10:12-PST
Reply-to: imagen!geof@shasta
Subject: Re: Cancelling E-Mail
From: imagen!geof@su-shasta.arpa
It would be really great if mail sending could be as simple and
reliable as, say TELEX, before decisions are made about whether it is
desirable to try and cancel messages in mid-air. At the moment
assistance is normally required from the local "electronic postmaster"
before anything can be sent.
Paul Wilcox-Baker.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Nov 84 16:55:25 EST
From: TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA
Subject: Cancelling e-mail
All this talk of cancelling e-mail has, in my opinion, missed the
mark. Although there has been talk about the desire to cancel e-mail
after it has been sent to the user, no one has proposed what I do now.
Has anyone thought of setting up some type of software mailbox that
the user sends his outgoing mail to? This could help the problem
greatly, but along with this proposal, there are some points that need
to be clarified-
1) This type of setup would emulate a normal US mailbox. The e-mail
you put in your mailbox would be picked up by the system at
predesignated times, and would permit message cancellation until that
time.
2) Mail generated this way is de facto not urgent, so another type of
mail can be used- the standard mailer in use right now should suffice.
I personally am against cancelling e-mail, although there were several
times when I wish I could have cancelled mine. In my opinion,
allowing someone to cancel a message after the person has recieved it
can lead to irresponsibility on the part of the sender, ie. hotheads
blowing off steam, people who don't check their facts, etc., but there
should be some way to recall those messages sent by people who see
their errors.
So, what do you think? Many details must be ironed out before such a
system is implemented, though. Of course, the code has to be designed
and tested. Also, some type of standard pickup time is needed (ie-
one hour after message creation, 3:00, etc). Finally, each user will
have to determine which type of mail he or she is sending- urgent or
standard correspondence - disgression is the key here. Some sort of
cancellation should be possible, but not complete message.
This is in no way a final solution, but it's a start.
Trudel@ru-blue
"there's nothing more useless than a lock with a voiceprint."- The
Doctor, when president of Gallifrey........
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 84 17:20:44 -0200
From: eyal%wisdom.BITNET@Berkeley (Eyal mozes)
Subject: Re: unions for the underprivileged
> It is true that unions were formed to give choices (or at least
> better fixed conditions) to people who had no choices about where
> and how to work.
Wrong! If you study the history of business in the USA, you will see
that before the rise of labor unions, anyone willing to work as hard
as he can had a choice about "where and how to work". Enterpreneurs
always had more and more jobs to offer, and since they couldn't coerce
anyone to work for them, they had to compete for the workers by
offering better pay and working conditions. (My own country, Israel,
never went through this stage - it had unions from the very start, and
the state of her economy shows it).
> more people being forced to GIVE UP
> CHOICES about how and where to work, because those choices threaten
> the union's control over workers. Funny, these unions are starting
> to act just like the companies whose practices they were originally
> formed to fight.
What practices exactly do you mean? The worst any company can do to a
worker is fire him - and leave him free to take any job another
company offers him. In what possible way can a union "give choices" to
a worker - except by barring other workers from a job in order to
offer it to him? THIS is the only purpose and function of unions, and
the only one they ever had - to limit the choices of some workers (and
of the employers) in order to make life more secure for an elite few
(i.e., the union members).
The solution? Very simple! We certainly shouldn't break up unions - if
workers WANT to unionize, its their right. But union's power to limit
people's choices doesn't come from their mere existence - it comes
from all the laws giving them special powers, allowing them to force
unwilling employers to deal with them, coerce unwilling workers to
join them, and use violence without fear of the police. So the
solution is - repeal these laws.
Eyal Mozes
eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA (CSNET)
eyal@wisdom.bitnet (ARPA)
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************