tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) (08/21/86)
(What is a line eater?)
Due to the overwhelming response, I have posted the complete text of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in net.sources. Although
there have been some changes 12 August 1986, I think everyone should
try to wade through it (until someone posts a good summary) since it
could affect ALL of us. Be careful, because just reading it you might
think "Wow, this is good for us". You'll have to read it again more
carefully to see that the text EXPLICITLY makes it illegal to receive
scrambled or encrypted signals, or signals carried on a subcarrier, EVEN
IF it is otherwise readily accessible to the general public --- eg.
VideoText or closed captioning!!!!!!
-- Glenn Tenney
UUCP: {hplabs,glacier,lll-crg,ihnp4!ptsfa}!well!tenney
ARPA: well!tenney@LLL-CRG.ARPA Delphi and MCI Mail: TENNEY
As Alphonso Bodoya would say... (tnx boulton)
Disclaimers? DISCLAIMERS!? I don' gotta show you no stinking DISCLAIMERS!bogstad@brl-smoke.ARPA (William Bogstad ) (08/26/86)
In article <1661@well.UUCP> tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) writes: >(What is a line eater?) > >Due to the overwhelming response, I have posted the complete text of >the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in net.sources. Although >there have been some changes 12 August 1986, I think everyone should >try to wade through it (until someone posts a good summary) since it >could affect ALL of us. Be careful, because just reading it you might >think "Wow, this is good for us". You'll have to read it again more >carefully to see that the text EXPLICITLY makes it illegal to receive >scrambled or encrypted signals, or signals carried on a subcarrier, EVEN >IF it is otherwise readily accessible to the general public --- eg. >VideoText or closed captioning!!!!!! First, I would like to thank Glenn for keying in the original Senate Bill 2575. I recently received a copy of the changes made on August 12th and have merged them into the original posted by Glenn. The uuencoded, compressed, context difference file of these changes have been posted to net.sources. The only major changes have to do with video and satellite transmissions. It looks like HBO, Showtime, etc. have gotten involved in lobbying on this legislation. Also, Captain Midnight? would be in real trouble if he interferred with HBO's signal again. (Grep for video and also look at the very end.) Bill Bogstad bogstad@hopkins-eecs-bravo.arpa bogstad@brl-smoke.arpa
jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) (08/28/86)
In article <3313@brl-smoke.ARPA> bogstad@brl.arpa (William Bogstad (JHU|mike) <bogstad>) writes: > First, I would like to thank Glenn for keying in the original >Senate Bill 2575. I recently received a copy of the changes made >on August 12th and have merged them into the original posted by Glenn. >The uuencoded, compressed, context difference file of these changes >have been posted to net.sources. It seems appropriate that I read this announcement in net.crypt. Pardon the volume, but PLEASE DO NOT POST COMPRESSED AND UUENCODED TEXT. First, doing uuencode causes a 4/3 expansion, so you've already thrown away most of the advantage of compress. Second, most sites already compress all news before sending it over a phone line. Compressing text twice often leads to EXPANSION. Third, many sites on the net don't have uuencode/decode, though public-domain versions are available. These people will all post articles to net.sources (the wrong group) asking for uuencode. Fourth, it prevents people from using their favorite news interface to read the text. Fifth, a lot of new users will write and post asking "what's this gibberish? what's uuencode? what's compress?" Several already have. uuencode should only be used for binary files. I don't intend to flame anyone because the intention was good. But it increases, rather than decreases, phone costs. If on the other hand, you read this and still do it, I hope you have an asbestos suit. Followups have been directed to net.sources.d. Sorry for the wide distribution, but I was afraid I'd miss someone who'd do the same thing again when the bill is revised. -- - Joe Buck {ihnp4!pesnta,oliveb,nsc!csi}!epimass!jbuck Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California
tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) (08/29/86)
There is a lot of discussion going on in net.mail on this subject.