dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) (01/16/89)
ICC stands for the International Computer Club which was recently (Dec. 1988) founded in Moscow, USSR. Recently a poor translation of the "charter" of this new club was posted (10127@well.UUCP) to comp.misc by John Draper (crunch@well.UUCP). It was called: "Agreement on the Establishment of the International Computer Club" and is about 7 pages long. Both organizations and individuals may join this club. This club purports to be an "international non-government organization" but the charter needs to be revised in order to really make it such. The only ones who can vote in the club are the organizations (founders) who join prior to 1991. Most of the signatories of the ICC agreement (charter or actually a partial charter) are Soviet organizations although there is some representation from the U.S., Britain, and France. Thus it is likely that unless the charter is modified, Soviet members will have a majority of votes and this is not what a truly international organization should be like. Another serious flaw in this agreement is that it can only be altered by unanimous decision of "all Contracting Parties and organizations ...". This is absurd. It would seems that a 2/3 majority of those voting should be enough for charter revision. What should be done is to widely circulate a proposed charter for comment on the net (and also on Soviet networks etc.) and elsewhere and then try to base the final document on what the general consensus of world opinion seems to be. I believe that one of its purposes should be promoting the creation, archiving and distribution of free software including machine translation of source codes from one natural language to another (e.g. Russian to English). While over a whole page of purposes are listed, this was not one of them. When will the charter itself (mistranslated as "statute") be available? The charter is supposed to be an "integral part of the present Agreement". Does this mean that a subset of the Agreement constitutes the charter? Also needed in the charter is a reference to the code of procedure to be used at meetings: Robert's Rules of Order, Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, etc., suitably modified for "electronic meetings" via the networks. Does such a procedural code exist? Needless to say, the ICC should become a newsgroup on the net: comp.icc. If ISO 8859-5 ([International Standards Organization] Eight-bit single-byte graphic character sets; Latin/Cyrillic Alphabet) is to be used for this group, the net needs to be upgraded to handle 8 bit (binary) transmissions. We will then need terminals which can handle this Latin/Cyrillic font so that we can read postings in both Russian, English, and other languages. The talk.politics.soviet group might also utilize this font.
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (01/17/89)
In article <1315@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) writes: >ICC stands for the International Computer Club which was recently >(Dec. 1988) founded in Moscow, USSR. > > [conserving bandwidth ... ] > Unfortunately, we lost our news feed for a month (!) and I haven't been able to follow the discussion on this, however ... >I believe that one of its purposes should be promoting the creation, >archiving and distribution of free software including machine >translation of source codes from one natural language to another (e.g. >Russian to English). This is going to be rather a sticky wicket, since software and such is subject to export controls when dealing with the Soviet Union. That is no doubt why you didn't see such objectives listed for the group, since that is the most certain way to drive a stake through the heart of the entire proposal (which is a good idea, by the way). > [again conserving ... ] > >Needless to say, the ICC should become a newsgroup on the net: >comp.icc. Needless to say it should _not_ become a newsgroup on the net. I think there are transcendent issues here even if it could get voted into existence, for example: (1) Who is going to pay for processing all the reports of contacts with foreign (hostile) nationals for those netters who have security clearances? Especially since the other side is guarenteed to be chock-full of KGB and GRU folks. Why, I bet that all those refuseniks will hardly be able to log into the system due to all the intelligence people sucking up bandwidth. (2) Who is going to pay for the net surveillance to ensure export-restricted binaries aren't uuencoded and posted to this group? (I guess the F.B.I. should moderate the group since they have the responsibility for counter-espionage in the U.S.) (3) Will the newsgroup survive if _all_ corporations with defense contracts (yes, both of them), and _all_ universities who receive DoD research money, are required to drop the newsgroup, what if the institutions are required to isolate their systems to the arpanet _solely_? These are just a few off the top of my head, but I am sure I can think of many more without straining ... (Oh, by the way, the answer to the first two questions is the U.S. taxpayer. The same person who gets to pay for Toshiba's indiscretion in selling advanced milling equipment to the Soviets.) > [and again ... ] > If people hunger for contact with the Soviet Union, Radio Moscow can be heard nightly. People can also subscribe to _Soviet Life_ magazine. After all, if glasnost is all its cracked up to be, then these should be informative and straightforward sources of information ;-). Have a very nice day! -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
haque@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Samudra E. Haque) (01/19/89)
In article <810@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >In article <1315@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) writes: >> >>Needless to say, the ICC should become a newsgroup on the net: >>comp.icc. >Needless to say it should _not_ become a newsgroup on the net. I think >there are transcendent issues here even if it could get voted into >existence, for example: > (1) Who is going to pay for processing all the reports of > (2) Who is going to pay for the net surveillance to ensure > (3) Will the newsgroup survive if _all_ corporations with defense why not put it to an alt.??? newsgroup.. These news groups are only carried if the host wishes to accept them.. alt.icc, alt.soviet.prgrmrs.. Actually come to think of it, IEEE now has comp.org.ieee, and do you see anybody needing to monitor that group for security concerns? comp.org.icc ?? If the "other" side wants intelligence about project "Z", why would they use such a low signal/noise ratio media such as USENET ? Wouldn't they rather prefer to just turn to say the New York Times or the Air Force Magazine.. may be they even have a subscription to them ? Look at how many articles come out every year in technical trade journals. Look at how many magazines have library/corporate subscribers. THEN look at what the addresses of those 'libraries' turn out to be. Some of them most surely end up at some suitable company/private org/embassy. Hell, we even get all the U.S. military rags in full blown color in Bangladesh courtesy of the U.S. Embassy... of course the magazine is probably worthless to them information wise, but you'd be surprised just how much detail you can pick up about weapons guidance/ nav systems. Given a smart programmer you can take a picture in 2-d and after a while spit out a 3-d extrapolated version of it. All this while you think that your product is safe and sound locked behind steel doors. Didn't the U.S. screw up recently with the B-2 that they didn't want to be seen from the side or the tail end .. so they prevented reporters from walking around ? And didn't some reporter just go up in the air with a light plane over the plant and take photographs of said region ? I mean the invitation card said "do not walk around the craft", but it didn't say anything about walking OVER the craft, right ? :-) As we say over there, caveat emptor - or u r SOL. regards.. -- Samudra E. Haque Computer Science Laboratories, Computer Science Department University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. (1)-(612)-625-0876 || haque@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu || haque@umn-cs.UUCP
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (01/19/89)
In article <10870@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> haque@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Samudra E. Haque) writes: >In article <810@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >>In article <1315@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) writes: )>> ) )>>Needless to say, the ICC should become a newsgroup on the net: )>>comp.icc. ) )>Needless to say it should _not_ become a newsgroup on the net. I think )>there are transcendent issues here even if it could get voted into )>existence, for example: ) )> (1) Who is going to pay for processing all the reports of )> (2) Who is going to pay for the net surveillance to ensure )> (3) Will the newsgroup survive if _all_ corporations with defense ) ) )why not put it to an alt.??? newsgroup.. ) )These news groups are only carried if the host wishes to accept them.. ) Once again, how do you prevent object and source code from being exported to the Soviet Union? This is export-controlled technology. Anything that can be done to raise the Soviet's cost of acquiring said technology is a good thing. The only exception is that if the government decides that the Soviet Union should have certain technology, or free access to technology in general, then the formation of a group can be done in accordance with USENET rules. What I am trying to say is that this is not an issue for the USENET community to decide ... this is a foreign policy issue which is made by the federal government. What is the federal policy? I argue that it is embodied in the export restrictions and until these are changed, the USENET community does not have the right to vote to include such a group. Check the constitution - the federal government has the authority and responsibility to create foreign policy, and those powers not reserved to the federal government remain with the states and the people. That means the USENET doesn't get to decide what gets exported to the Soviet Union. )alt.icc, alt.soviet.prgrmrs.. ) )Actually come to think of it, IEEE now has comp.org.ieee, and )do you see anybody needing to monitor that group for security concerns? ) If it is electronically available to people in countries designated as export-restricted, then, yes, that is probably a good idea. It was my understanding that currently there is no direct connection to such countries. )comp.org.icc ?? ) ) )If the "other" side wants intelligence about project "Z", why would they )use such a low signal/noise ratio media such as USENET ? Wouldn't they rather )prefer to just turn to say the New York Times or the Air Force Magazine.. )may be they even have a subscription to them ? This is not really a valid argument. Which behaviors are proscribed is a legal (i.e. political) issue and individuals (or groups of them) do not have the legal authority to violate these proscriptions. If KGB or GRU agents sit in the States, get access to the system, and download everything to which they can get access, then that is the price we pay for a free society (or press for that matter). If you think it is a ridiculous distinction, the place to raise that issue is with your congressional representative -- not the USENET community. We don't have the authority to make that decision. ) Look at how many )articles come out every year in technical trade journals. Look at how )many magazines have library/corporate subscribers. THEN look at what the )addresses of those 'libraries' turn out to be. Some of them most surely end )up at some suitable company/private org/embassy. ) )Hell, we even get all the U.S. military rags in full blown color in Bangladesh )courtesy of the U.S. Embassy... of course the magazine is probably worthless )to them information wise, but you'd be surprised just how much detail )you can pick up about weapons guidance/ nav systems. Given a smart programmer )you can take a picture in 2-d and after a while spit out a 3-d extrapolated )version of it. Of course if they have to spend their resources to write the program that will spit out a 3-d extrapolation instead of just downloading a freeware program that does it, then it raises their cost. None of this is germane, though. See my points above. ) ) [B-2 stuff deleted] ) )As we say over there, caveat emptor - or u r SOL. ) As *they* say over there, "you will sell us the rope that we will hang you with." Instead some folks think we should just give it to them, or lend them the money to buy it with... I am not of this opinion. Regards, -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) (01/19/89)
In article <824@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: >Once again, how do you prevent object and source code from being exported >to the Soviet Union? This is export-controlled technology. Anything >that can be done to raise the Soviet's cost of acquiring said technology >is a good thing. The only exception is that if the government decides >that the Soviet Union should have certain technology, or free access to >technology in general, then the formation of a group can be done in >accordance with USENET rules. First, I'd like to say that I disagree with one of the premises in the above statement. That out of the way...the problem of controlling technology transfer belongs to the government, not the net. If I mail a package to the U.S.S.R., the government will presumably check that it doesn't have anything which is sensitive in it. If I give it to a friend in, say, Nicaragua, the U.S. government wouldn't see it. But that's a government problem--I'm not prevented from mailing packages to the U.S.S.R. just because they *might* contain sensitive data. >What I am trying to say is that this is not an issue for the USENET >community to decide ... this is a foreign policy issue which is made >by the federal government. What is the federal policy? I argue that >it is embodied in the export restrictions and until these are changed, >the USENET community does not have the right to vote to include such a >group. Umm, last I checked USENET was not a United States-only system. If somebody in, say, England wants to set up a connection to the U.S.S.R., is the US going to stop them? How? (Heck, somebody may have a USENET connection over there right now--do *you* know where every computer on USENET is?) If the government is worried about this, they could monitor overseas links. Or maybe a solution would be to have a single system hung off the backbone which will serve *only* as a gateway to a single machine in the U.S.S.R. It could even be run by the government. (Creating a newsgroup called comp.icc, incidentally, isn't the issue here--the issue is connecting USENET to the U.S.S.R., no matter how the connection is made). Anton +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | "UNIX: Just Say No!" | "Do worry...be SAD!" | | Michigan State University | rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu | | +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (01/19/89)
In article <1560@cps3xx.UUCP> rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) writes: >In article <824@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: > )>Once again, how do you prevent object and source code from being exported )>to the Soviet Union? This is export-controlled technology. Anything )>that can be done to raise the Soviet's cost of acquiring said technology )>is a good thing. The only exception is that if the government decides )>that the Soviet Union should have certain technology, or free access to )>technology in general, then the formation of a group can be done in )>accordance with USENET rules. ) ) First, I'd like to say that I disagree with one of the premises in )the above statement. Which one? )That out of the way...the problem of controlling )technology transfer belongs to the government, not the net. Let us say that the government makes it illegal for an American to supply high technology products (e.g. M68020 processors, Ada compilers, whatever) to the Soviet Union. It is now incumbent on American citizens to avoid transferring high technology to the USSR. If one chooses to supply such technology to the Soviets, then one can be prosecuted for violating the export control restrictions. The bottom line is that the problem of controlling one's own behavior (in compliance with applicable laws) rests with the individual. )If I mail )a package to the U.S.S.R., the government will presumably check that )it doesn't have anything which is sensitive in it. If I give it to a )friend in, say, Nicaragua, the U.S. government wouldn't see it. But )that's a government problem Let's say an individual mails a package to the USSR, and the government fails to recognize the book in the package as a copy of, say, detailed design documentation for a US "spy" satellite, and lets the package through. You contend that the individual has done nothing wrong, or that the government's failure to catch the individual exonerates him. Actually, it's your problem. If you give a package to someone in Nicaragua for transshipment to the USSR, and it contains export- controlled technology, then upon your arrival back in the States you are subject to criminal sanctions. Violation of the export-control laws, possibly conspiracy, possibly espionage (if the technology is of that nature). )--I'm not prevented from mailing packages )to the U.S.S.R. just because they *might* contain sensitive data. ) But you should prevent yourself from mailing any packages to the USSR that *do* contain sensitive data. Our federal government makes foreign policy -- it is not the job of American citizens to unmake or remake it unless elected or appointed (and confirmed) to such a position. ) ) Umm, last I checked USENET was not a United States-only system. If )somebody in, say, England wants to set up a connection to the )U.S.S.R., is the US going to stop them? How? No. That would be Mrs. Thatcher's responsibility. I believe that we have agreements with the relevant governments to prevent these transfers, that's why there was a problem with Toshiba selling advanced milling machines and some European company (whose name escapes me) selling the control equipment to the USSR. )(Heck, somebody may )have a USENET connection over there right now--do *you* know where )every computer on USENET is?) I don't *think* that there are any connections to Iron Curtain countries at this time. ) If the government is worried about this, they could monitor overseas )links. Or maybe a solution would be to have a single system hung off )the backbone which will serve *only* as a gateway to a single machine )in the U.S.S.R. It could even be run by the government. My point is that the federal government (or as you correctly point out several governments) have a role here. And that means a veto over the whole notion. Which agency to contact is the next question. )(Creating a )newsgroup called comp.icc, incidentally, isn't the issue here--the )issue is connecting USENET to the U.S.S.R., no matter how the )connection is made). This is, of course, correct. I thought that the whole point of having a "comp.icc" was to directly connect with the USSR, but the issue *is* whether to connect with the Soviet Union. BTW, if it ever does happen, comp.icc is too cryptic anyway; new netters may have little idea just who they are talking to. How about comp.gulag, or comp.totalitarian? I guess that a comp.icc group that talked *about* the Soviet net would be fine as long as the Soviets were not connected. I just say no. Regards, -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (01/20/89)
In article <825@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >In article <1560@cps3xx.UUCP> rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) writes: >>In article <824@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: >> >)>Once again, how do you prevent object and source code from being exported >)>to the Soviet Union? This is export-controlled technology. If it is on the net, it is public-domain. In fact, if it is on the net it has been PUBLISHED (horror of horrors) and any applicable export control laws have been violated even if it never leaves the shores of the USA. Don't worry about it, if your actions would be illegal after a Soviet hookup, they are already illegal now. >>> Anything >)>that can be done to raise the Soviet's cost of acquiring said technology >)>is a good thing. Opinion. Irrelevant in the current discussion. Note that the net already has a similar problem, but I don't hear much about it. I can type in chapters from _Spycatcher_ or some other work that has been censored in Britain under the Official Secrets Act, and send it to a newsgroup with world-wide distribution. Any British organization that helped "publish" the article would be in violation of that same Official Secrets Act (or so I believe). That's a lot worse than "violating export control laws by publishing" in a country with guaranteed freedom of the press. Peter Desnoyers
smv@apollo.COM (Steve Valentine) (01/20/89)
In article <825@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: > >Once again, how do you prevent object and source code from being exported >to the Soviet Union? This is export-controlled technology. Anything >that can be done to raise the Soviet's cost of acquiring said technology >is a good thing. The only exception is that if the government decides >that the Soviet Union should have certain technology, or free access to >technology in general, then the formation of a group can be done in >accordance with USENET rules. The answer is we prevent code from being exported by making sure that everyone is aware of what can not be exported, and prosecute violators of the law. If the technical means exist to connect with the USSR via USENET, then surely the same means could be used to create private channels for the express purpose of passing secrets or regulated technology. Thus, preventing an open dialogue would not prevent violations of the laws that you're so concened with, it would simply prevent an open dialogue. That's pretty un-American by my way of thinking, and is exactly what the flag wavers accuse the Soviets of doing. > It is now incumbent on American >citizens to avoid transferring high technology to the USSR. If one >chooses to supply such technology to the Soviets, then one can be >prosecuted for violating the export control restrictions. True. It wouldn't hurt to post this as part of the newgroup first message. On the other hand, it is not incumbant on the Government of the People, by the People for the People to prevent an open dialogue with forigners. >But you should prevent yourself from mailing any packages to the >USSR that *do* contain sensitive data. Our federal government >makes foreign policy -- it is not the job of American citizens >to unmake or remake it unless elected or appointed (and confirmed) >to such a position. Agreed, but it is also not for the Govenrnment to enforce laws that have yet to be written, passed by the Legislature and signed into law. Especially when they infringe on our 1st amendment rights. Please, no speaches about how luck I am to have those rights in the first place. I'm well aware of how lucky I am; but having them doesn't do me much good if I can't excersise them, now does it? >I don't *think* that there are any connections to Iron Curtain >countries at this time. There are registered USENET sites in Yugoslavia. > Which agency to contact is the next question. No agency need be contacted unless an actual violation of actual laws is taking place! This isn't the Evil Empire where Big Brother has to be kept up on everything! > How about comp.gulag, or comp.totalitarian? So, we've been reading the McCarthy Hearing transcripts after our bedtime again have we. >I just say no. Premptive interdiction, just say no! >Regards, >Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | I'm from the Government >Air Force Institute of Technology, | and I'm here to help you. -- Steve Valentine - smv@apollo.com Apollo Computer, Inc. 330 Billerica Rd., Chelmsford, MA 01824 Hermits have no peer pressure -Steven Wright
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (01/20/89)
In article <40f75b60.7229@apollo.COM> smv@apollo.COM (Steve Valentine) writes: >In article <825@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >> >>I don't *think* that there are any connections to Iron Curtain >>countries at this time. > >There are registered USENET sites in Yugoslavia. > Yugoslavia is neither a part of COMECON nor a part of the Warsaw Pact. Check your facts. >> How about comp.gulag, or comp.totalitarian? > >So, we've been reading the McCarthy Hearing transcripts after our bedtime >again have we. > I don't think you are saying that you believe that the USSR is not a totalitarian state. I also don't think that you are so ill-informed that you believe that there is no (or was no) gulag. So I must look elsewhere for your motives in engaging in this ad hominem attack. I wrote about five different things in response to your childish flame, but it wasn't conducive to informed debate -- so I left them out. >>Regards, >>Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | I'm from the Government >>Air Force Institute of Technology, | and I'm here to help you. Now, this is interesting. You have purposely misquoted my .signature. Whereas the previous insult was merely childish, this is slanderous. You dishonor yourself with this sort of lie. >-- >Steve Valentine - smv@apollo.com >Apollo Computer, Inc. 330 Billerica Rd., Chelmsford, MA 01824 >Hermits have no peer pressure -Steven Wright Have a very nice day, Mr. Valentine. Regards, -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) (01/20/89)
In article <825@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: >In article <1560@cps3xx.UUCP> rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) writes: >>In article <824@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: >> >)>Once again, how do you prevent object and source code from being exported >)>to the Soviet Union? This is export-controlled technology. Anything >)>that can be done to raise the Soviet's cost of acquiring said technology >)>is a good thing. [ ... ] >) >) First, I'd like to say that I disagree with one of the premises in >)the above statement. > Which one? "Anything that can be done ... is a good thing." And please note that just because I disagree with that doesn't mean I don't abide by the U.S. laws which govern it. There are legal ways of working to change U.S. policies (writing to congressmen, for example). > )That out of the way...the problem of controlling >)technology transfer belongs to the government, not the net. > Let us say that the government makes it illegal for an American to >supply high technology products (e.g. M68020 processors, Ada compilers, >whatever) to the Soviet Union. [ ... ] > The bottom line is that the problem of controlling one's own behavior >(in compliance with applicable laws) rests with the individual. I didn't say "not the individual", I said "not the net". If the net is viewed as a collection of posters, your point makes sense--I was probably unclear on this. But if it's viewed as a collection of sites, which may post messages and/or provide services such as message forwarding, I stand by my contention that it isn't the net's job. >)If I mail >)a package to the U.S.S.R., the government will presumably check that >)it doesn't have anything which is sensitive in it. If I give it to a >)friend in, say, Nicaragua, the U.S. government wouldn't see it. But >)that's a government problem > Let's say an individual mails a package to the USSR, and the >government fails to recognize the book in the package as a copy of, >say, detailed design documentation for a US "spy" satellite, and lets >the package through. You contend that the individual has done nothing >wrong, or that the government's failure to catch the individual >exonerates him. No, I don't. What I'm trying to say (and not doing very well, I guess) is that there are two responsibilities: 1. An individual U.S. citizen has the responsibility to abide by U.S. law, including not exporting sensitive data. 2. The government has the responsibility to enforce its laws. If an individual deliberately breaks the law, it's the government's problem to enforce it (and/or punish the individual responsible). > [...] > )--I'm not prevented from mailing packages >)to the U.S.S.R. just because they *might* contain sensitive data. >) > But you should prevent yourself from mailing any packages to the >USSR that *do* contain sensitive data. [...] I agree; that comes under #1 above. My point is that just because something *might* be used to break the law doesn't mean it should be illegal. For instance, I *could* drive while drunk--but that doesn't (necessarily) mean that all driving should be illegal. >) Umm, last I checked USENET was not a United States-only system. If >)somebody in, say, England wants to set up a connection to the >)U.S.S.R., is the US going to stop them? How? > No. That would be Mrs. Thatcher's responsibility. I believe that >we have agreements with the relevant governments to prevent these >transfers [...] We have agreements to prevent transfers of sensitive data; do we also have ones which cover public information channels? (I don't know, I'm by no means an expert in this kind of thing.) > [...] >) If the government is worried about this, they could monitor overseas >)links. Or maybe a solution would be to have a single system hung off >)the backbone which will serve *only* as a gateway to a single machine >)in the U.S.S.R. It could even be run by the government. > My point is that the federal government (or as you correctly point out >several governments) have a role here. And that means a veto over the >whole notion. Which agency to contact is the next question. I don't think it would be possible for the government to veto the whole notion. They could deny federal funding to sites which carry the group; this would be a little heavy-handed, though (in my opinion). Maybe the solution is to create two new USENET nodes: 'east' and 'west', say, with 'West' being a U.S. government site and 'East' being a U.S.S.R. government site. That way the only link could be between the 'east' and 'west' machines, and both sides could impose their censorship/monitoring on it openly (obviously if a connection is ever created it will be monitored closely by both sides). > [ ... ] > I just say no. I'm not so sure. I think it's worth a try, at least.... > Regards, >-- >Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, >Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to > | his powers of resistance. >with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | "UNIX: Just Say No!" | "Do worry...be SAD!" | | Michigan State University | rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu | | +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (01/20/89)
In article <824@afit-ab.arpa>, wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: > What I am trying to say is that this is not an issue for the USENET > community to decide ... this is a foreign policy issue which is made > by the federal government. What is the federal policy? I argue that > it is embodied in the export restrictions and until these are changed, > the USENET community does not have the right to vote to include such a > group. Check the constitution - the federal government has the authority > and responsibility to create foreign policy, and those powers not reserved > to the federal government remain with the states and the people. That > means the USENET doesn't get to decide what gets exported to the Soviet > Union. > Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, > Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to > | his powers of resistance. > with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz Will I seem to remember you stating that you have been off the net for a few months. Well this argument is getting stale. All this has been gone over before. As someone else stated in an earlier message, Our Federal Government Can't Stop The Soviets from getting USENET. Remember, USENET is worldwide. what's to stopr someone in Australia, Japan, or Germany from giving a Soviet machine a Newsfeed? Nothing. It is also Illegal to post anything to the net that has any security implications to it, so for the most part the net is not indangering the security of the United states. If someone wanted to give classified Information to the Soviets, He surely could find something a little more secure and private than Usenet! And The Soviets (Hi Ivan!) are more than likely reading this right now. I mean just think about how many 'spies' must be here in the united states at this moment. jeez. all they would have to do is take classes at a university,sign up for an account on killer, the well , portal and get full access to the net. then just beam the info back to the motherland by whatever means they send back their other info. Usenet is not that big a deal. Do you worry about the Japanese or German's getting our secret information from Usenet? Also someone also said (Sorry to keep repeating what OTHER people say, It's just that I am trying to catch you up on the arguments so far) Just look at Usenet. total Anarchy. People saying what they want when they want... Can you imagine the impact this would have if the Russians got to read all this? It would make Radio America look sick! Talk about propoganda! We would be showing the communists what freedom of the press really is! The ones to stop usenet should be the Russians not the free world . all of the above is paraphrased , intermixed with my own opinions and is just to represent some of the arguements that have previously been stated. _______________________________________________________________________________ John Sparks // Amiga | corpane : sparks@corpane a.k.a \X/ UUCP | blitter : john@blitter (preferred; path below) RedHawk ~~~~~~~~~~~~| {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!disk!blitter!john D.R.A.G.O.N.| >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru -5406 << Ye Quote: Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement. _______________________________________________________________________________
desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (01/21/89)
Mr. Will Brady of the Air Force Institute of whatever seems to think that the export control laws require a strict partitioning between what is sent to the East and what is not. He seems to forget that (as I pointed out in another posting, but not as bluntly) that IT DOESN'T MATTER if news is posted to the Soviet Union or not. If you publish something freely to the public (i.e. in a journal, newspaper, or USENET) that is export-controlled, you are in violation of the law. Period. (unless it is a classified journal.) Therefore, any activities that will be illegal on USENET under export control laws after Soviet sites are connected are already illegal. Does Mr. Brady have any other arguments against connecting Soviet sites? Besides his personal dislike of the Soviet system? Peter Desnoyers
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (01/21/89)
In article <1568@cps3xx.UUCP> rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) writes: >In article <825@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: > >>In article <1560@cps3xx.UUCP> rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) writes: >>>In article <824@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: >>> [trying to trim some of this stuff out ...] >> Which one? > > "Anything that can be done ... is a good thing." And please note >that just because I disagree with that doesn't mean I don't abide by >the U.S. laws which govern it. There are legal ways of working to >change U.S. policies (writing to congressmen, for example). Resources not expended on procuring software will be spent on procuring tanks, helicopters, conventional and nuclear ammunition, etc. The more resources they have to spend to acquire non-lethal, but necessary impedimentia, the fewer resources they will have to spend on the lethal stuff, or they will have to extract the additional resources from their civilian standard of living. This should increase civilian unease, lowering productivity, and having the same net result. US defense spending is based on the perceived (lethal) threat of hostile foreign military forces. To the extent that Soviet defense spending is subsidized by cost-free acquisition of defense-related technology, the subsidy is granted by the American taxpayer. > > [again trimming...] > > > I didn't say "not the individual", I said "not the net". If the net >is viewed as a collection of posters, your point makes sense--I was >probably unclear on this. But if it's viewed as a collection of >sites, which may post messages and/or provide services such as message >forwarding, I stand by my contention that it isn't the net's job. Yes, I was viewing the net as a collection of individuals. Viewed as a collection of sites, then, the more secure system is one which is not directly connected to Warsaw Pact sites. > > [trimming again ...] > > No, I don't. What I'm trying to say (and not doing very well, I >guess) is that there are two responsibilities: > > 1. An individual U.S. citizen has the responsibility to abide by > U.S. law, including not exporting sensitive data. Agreed. > > 2. The government has the responsibility to enforce its laws. > Agreed. In particular, the government is responsible to (all) its *citizens* to not only enforce the laws, but to keep the nation safe from foreign agressors. The government is also responsible to spend its revenue (taxes) wisely. If all taxpayers have to pay more for defense or receive less in services to fund increased defense spending so that a few "well-connected" individuals can enjoy direct contact with the Soviet Union, then the issue is political and not restricted to the net. > If an individual deliberately breaks the law, it's the government's >problem to enforce it (and/or punish the individual responsible). > > [trimming] > > We have agreements to prevent transfers of sensitive data; do we >also have ones which cover public information channels? (I don't >know, I'm by no means an expert in this kind of thing.) > I am rather out of my area of expertise, also. It seems to me that whether you broadcast sensitive data (or in this case actually broadcast the technology itself) or deliver it, you are still on rather shaky ground. I am no lawyer, though. >> [trimming ...] > > I don't think it would be possible for the government to veto the >whole notion. They could deny federal funding to sites which carry >the group; this would be a little heavy-handed, though (in my >opinion). I do think that the government could veto the whole thing. At least any direct connection to the Soviet Union from U.S. territory. Try to buy a commercial airline ticket to Cuba from the U.S., I don't think this is possible, you have to travel through some other nation first (yes, even the Soviet Union). This is not to say that a direct electronic connection is the same as buying airplane tickets, just that the government has the authority to restrict direct electronic connections. > Maybe the solution is to create two new USENET nodes: 'east' and >'west', say, with 'West' being a U.S. government site and 'East' being >a U.S.S.R. government site. That way the only link could be between >the 'east' and 'west' machines, and both sides could impose their >censorship/monitoring on it openly (obviously if a connection is ever >created it will be monitored closely by both sides). It is clear that the 'east' side is going to be strictly a USSR gov't (or at least CPSU) site anyway. It wouldn't be evident to the net. Actually, there is such a connection, it is called the hot line, and every four years we get to pick the individual who gets to use it. Seriously, though, until the US and USSR move away from their mutually adversarial roles, we have much more to lose than gain by this type of connection. Regards,
dlm@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Dennis L. Mumaugh) (01/21/89)
The newsgroup comp.misc has been discusing the possibility extending the USENET to the Soviet Union (USSR). And In article <24302@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes: >Note that the net already has a similar problem, but I don't hear much >about it. I can type in chapters from _Spycatcher_ or some other work >that has been censored in Britain under the Official Secrets Act, and >send it to a newsgroup with world-wide distribution. Any British >organization that helped "publish" the article would be in violation >of that same Official Secrets Act (or so I believe). That's a lot >worse than "violating export control laws by publishing" in a country >with guaranteed freedom of the press. > > Peter Desnoyers The tone of some people's posting on the subject is that there is no problem with the use of USENET and that posting of various material can pose no legal problems. This attitude is most dangerous. In fact should this sort of activity continue, it is possible the we have an incident that could can serious harm to USENET and computer communications. One of the unstated ground rules of USENET is that most of the people that count are not truly aware of what USENET really is. ATT recently had a situation where Senior Executives suddenly became aware of the "true nature" of USENET. After a flurry of meetings and a policy statement and such the only hazards were alt.sex and talk.flame. Should a serious connection of USENET to the countries listed in the US export control act be made and this come to the attention of either the State Department OR the Department of Justice the flap could be serious enough to cause all major supporter of USENET to flinch. The actions of NSA with respect to crypt provided a chilling effect on DES and crypt and that was without any network. Should the wrong people become aware of the possibility of comp.source.* and comp.binaries.* leaving the US of A one might find a set of letters being sent to the various company CEO with discussions about "criminal prosecution", etc. The comment about Spycatcher brings up some serious worries about legal problems: what is legal in the US of A is not legal in other coutries and vice versa. Examples are child pornography, seditious statements, release of software, etc. We need to be especially careful after the recent awareness of the non-technical public of things like the Internet Worm, the Brad Templeton affair, etc. It take only one major mistake and the wrong goverment official deciding to make a Federal case to destory what we have. True there is no USENET administration, and nobody responsible. But would the CEO of the average company not get a little nervous if s/he were told that their machine was being used, for example to conduct a dialog on child porn? [Not that it is true but much of alt.sex is illegal and considered obscene by several states.] The point is that comp.misc is not the place to discuss the ramifications on allowing USENET access to the Soviet Union. Nor to creating a set of news groups for this purpose. While there is nothing that can be done on this anarchic net to prevent people from doing things that are illegal or destructive to the future of the net, please realize that your actions and words can in fact do major damage. Yes, I am aware of freedom of speech, and all the other arguments that have circulated endlessly on this subject. Just please be aware that despite your own personal beliefs on what the net should be like, the final disposition is up to non-technical people with lots of nasty things that they can do. Moral: one doesn't make nerve gas and terrorist equipment on the front porch and publicize it in the New York Times. -- =Dennis L. Mumaugh Lisle, IL ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm OR cuuxb!dlm@arpa.att.com
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (01/21/89)
In article <24426@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes: > > [conserving bandwidth...] > >IT DOESN'T >MATTER if news is posted to the Soviet Union or not. If you publish >something freely to the public (i.e. in a journal, newspaper, or >USENET) that is export-controlled, you are in violation of the law. >Period. (unless it is a classified journal.) I am not a lawyer, but I do know the difference between classified information (and hardware) and softw/hardware that is export-controlled. For example, the design documentation for a "spy" satellite is classified. It is not only illegal to sell it to a Soviet citizen, but it is also illegal to sell it to an American citizen -- the American (or some foreign nationals for some classes of information) can have it if he (1) has the appropriate clearance, and (2) has a need to know. On the other hand this same American citizen (or British citizen, for example) can purchase a Vax 8650 (tm) with a DEC Ada compiler -- no problem. The Soviet cannot have the design diocumentation, the Vax 8650, nor the Ada compiler. The American (or other) can have the Vax, the Ada compiler, and in some cases the design documentation. I am not sure about broadcasting (not publishing) the export-controlled information. As I said, I am not a lawyer. I merely suggest that this is an issue that affects more than just "well-connected" individuals, and thus is a matter for elected representatives to address. > >Therefore, any activities that will be illegal on USENET under export >control laws after Soviet sites are connected are already illegal. This is not clear. It looks like an opinion. Does anybody have an informed legal opinion on this matter? >Does Mr. Brady have any other arguments against connecting Soviet >sites? Besides his personal dislike of the Soviet system? Yes. They are in a previous posting. Trivializing my position does not negate the fact that the Soviet Union (unlike other nations whose "systems" are repugnant) has openly declared and never retracted the goal of world domination. Until and unless they do, I vote no direct connection with the USSR. Regards, -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (01/21/89)
In article <829@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >In article <40f75b60.7229@apollo.COM> smv@apollo.COM (Steve Valentine) writes: >>In article <825@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: .. A mild flame war deleted .. >>>Regards, >>>Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | I'm from the Government >>>Air Force Institute of Technology, | and I'm here to help you. > >Now, this is interesting. You have purposely misquoted my .signature. >Whereas the previous insult was merely childish, this is slanderous. >You dishonor yourself with this sort of lie. > >>-- >>Steve Valentine - smv@apollo.com >>Apollo Computer, Inc. 330 Billerica Rd., Chelmsford, MA 01824 >>Hermits have no peer pressure -Steven Wright > Just what does net.etiquette say about this? I've always thought in poor taste to include the previous signature *at all* in a followup news article. I would assume that modifying it is even more distasteful. Perhaps we should get some direction from the net.deities on what the proper etiquette is or should be. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) (01/21/89)
In article <825@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >> >)>Once again, how do you prevent object and source code from being exported >)>to the Soviet Union? This is export-controlled technology. Anything >)>that can be done to raise the Soviet's cost of acquiring said technology >)>is a good thing. The only exception is that if the government decides >)>that the Soviet Union should have certain technology, or free access to >)>technology in general, then the formation of a group can be done in >)>accordance with USENET rules. I just checked the laws regarding export of software to the USSR et. al. It's covered in the "Code of Federal Regulations" vol. 15: "Commerce and Foreign Trade" in Part 379 "Technical Data". "Technical Data" includes software. Everyone who posts software on the net is exporting software. According to Part 379.1: "export" includes "any release of technical data ... with the knowledge ... that the data will be ... transmitted from the United States to a foreign country." Every such posting requires a license per 379.2. But such a license has been already granted per 379.3. It is known as a General License and it has been "hereby" granted for exports resulting from net postings since they are "data that have been made generally available to the public in any form ..." Thus since the net already has a General License to export software to all destinations (including ones on which even more restrictions have been placed such as Cuba) there is no illegality of connecting sites in the USSR to the net or of posting software to the net which will go to the USSR (provided that the posting of the software is otherwise legal). The relations between the US and and USSR are rapidly improving and I think that the US government would encourage East-West exchanges via computer networks including exchanging software. Exchanges of software is a two (or multi) way street and we should expect the Soviets to post their fair share of contributions of software to the net.
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (01/21/89)
In article <1346@orion.cf.uci.edu> dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu.UUCP (David Lawyer) writes: > )I just checked the laws regarding export of software to the USSR et. al. )It's covered in the "Code of Federal Regulations" vol. 15: "Commerce and )Foreign Trade" in Part 379 "Technical Data". "Technical Data" includes )software. ) Thanks for the info. The rest of your posting implied (unless I was completely misunderstanding it) that, in particular, posting software to the Soviet Union (and vice versa) was O.K. so long as the posting itself was legal (i.e. violating no copyrights, etc.) This should give the physical security guys nightmares. I won't even mention the notion of remotely triggerable viruses, etc. I wonder how long defense contractors (not to mention the rest of the arpa side of the house) will stay connected once the Soviet Union gets on... Regards, -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/21/89)
In article <1568@cps3xx.UUCP>, rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) writes: > We have agreements to prevent transfers of sensitive data; do we > also have ones which cover public information channels? (I don't > know, I'm by no means an expert in this kind of thing.) According to the book "The Spycatcher Trial", there are not only no agreements in place to protect published (in the terminology of the book, "Public Domain" information), but there is precedent in place ("Spycatcher", by Peter Wright) that published information is not so protected. Ironic that Peter Wright is even more staunch an anti-communist than Mrs. Thatcher. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (01/22/89)
In article <2393@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: >The newsgroup comp.misc has been discusing the possibility extending >the USENET to the Soviet Union (USSR). And > >In article <24302@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes: >>Note that the net already has a similar problem, but I don't hear much >>about it. I can type in chapters from _Spycatcher_ or some other work .. and then goes on to describe how this could be potentially illegal. >The tone of some people's posting on the subject is that there is >no problem with the use of USENET and that posting of various >material can pose no legal problems. > >This attitude is most dangerous. In fact should this sort of >activity continue, it is possible the we have an incident that >could can serious harm to USENET and computer communications. > .. and then goes into intimate detail on how dangerous these and other associated activities are. .. and predicts the imminent demise of the net. I sure hope that the history of the net gets published soon AND is required reading. We'll need sub-chapters on imminent collaspe due to volume; imminent demise due to illegal activities; imminent collaspe due to over cross-posting; imminent demise due to boredom of net.deities; imminent collaspe because a net.deity has been insulted; imminent demise when the bean counters find out; ........ I'm not saying that it couldn't happen just that it's exceedingly unlikely. And there are *many* counter-examples from the past few years showing why not. For example one predicted problem was "what would happen if the people who run companies actually knew what UseNet is?". Well there are an awful lot of small but powerful sites on the net now that are simply a 386 box in someones basement. There isn't a CEO around here to tell me to turn this system off (well except for my wife ;-). -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
geoff@sunfs3.camex.uucp (Geoffrey Knauth) (01/22/89)
I don't know what to make of William Bralick's hard nosed attitude toward adding the Soviets to Usenet. I'd like to see the discussion de-politicized. I can think of reasons both for and against having the Soviets on the net. PRO: Communicating with the occasional ordinary Soviet on the net might give him a window on the West, reducing tensions. It might also loosen up the KGB-types who will always be on the net. The important thing is for Americans to control themselves and not give away the store. In the end, no matter what the medium of technology, do we or do we not have to trust and watch over ourselves, if we are Americans? Are we that uneducated? (Perhaps!) Not communicating is a form of isolationism. I believe isolation is not a good thing for the security or spirit of the United States. If we are to lead the world, we have to watch that a united Europe and Japan do not end up investing in and rebuilding the Soviet Union at the expense of United States capital. CON: Most Russians I know (here and there) have a deep distrust or fear of the Soviet government. I profoundly respect their feelings and opinions, which are based on life experiences. For example, I am friends with a poet who spent 10 years in Siberia for writing a poem (under Stalin). Yet he just returned to the USSR for the first time for an extended visit. I can't realistically think of what the Soviets would give us to make adding them to the net worthwhile. I'd really like to see them ante up. -- Geoffrey S. Knauth ARPA: geoff%lloyd@hcsfvax.harvard.edu Camex, Inc. UUCP: geoff@lloyd.uucp or hcsfvax!lloyd!geoff 75 Kneeland St., Boston, MA 02111 Tel: (617)426-3577 Fax: 426-9285 I do not speak for Camex.
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (01/22/89)
In article <166@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: ) )Will I seem to remember you stating that you have been off the net for a )few months. Well this argument is getting stale. All this has been gone over )before. ) ) [summary deleted] ) )Usenet is not that big a deal. Do you worry about the Japanese or German's )getting our secret information from Usenet? Last time I checked, the Japanese and Germans were our allies :-) ) ) [more summary deleted] ) Thanks for the summary. I guess the call for discussion/votes will take place in news.groups anyway. See you there. Regards, -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/22/89)
> This should give the physical security guys nightmares. I won't even > mention the notion of remotely triggerable viruses, etc. I wonder how > long defense contractors (not to mention the rest of the arpa side > of the house) will stay connected once the Soviet Union gets on... As far as anyone can tell, they could be on right now. They could certainly afford a uunet account, and there's no way that uunet could tell that a site with an innocuous name wasn't really a soviet operation. If any security guys are disturbed by an official soviet connection, then they're suffering from a critical failure of imagination. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/23/89)
In article <2157@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: >In article <829@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >>In article <40f75b60.7229@apollo.COM> smv@apollo.COM (Steve Valentine) writes: >>>In article <825@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: > >.. A mild flame war deleted .. > >>>>Regards, >>>>Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | I'm from the Government >>>>Air Force Institute of Technology, | and I'm here to help you. >> >>Now, this is interesting. You have purposely misquoted my .signature. >>Whereas the previous insult was merely childish, this is slanderous. >>You dishonor yourself with this sort of lie. >> >>>-- >>>Steve Valentine - smv@apollo.com >>>Apollo Computer, Inc. 330 Billerica Rd., Chelmsford, MA 01824 >>>Hermits have no peer pressure -Steven Wright >> > >Just what does net.etiquette say about this? It's a BAD THING alright. >I've always thought in poor taste to include the previous signature *at all* >in a followup news article. Yes, thats a VERY BAD THING indeed. >I would assume that modifying it is even more distasteful. Perhaps we should >get some direction from the net.deities on what the proper etiquette is or >should be. Proper nettiquette dictates that an F-14 Tomcat be flown into the offerders computer, for modifying somebodys signature file is an EXTREMELEY BAD THING. -- ``We're here from the government, and we're here to fuck you senseless'' richard@gryphon.COM {...}!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (01/23/89)
In article <837@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: > >I guess the call for discussion/votes will take >place in news.groups anyway. See you there. Sez who? Since when has any site needed to ask permission of ANYONE else on the net, to add a feed? The Soviets could well be getting a news/mail feed right now and you have no way of knowing. A site desiring anonymity can easily hide under a subdomain. (You may know from the maps which site is 'bar.com', but you have no way of knowing the whereabouts of foo.bar.com unless that site wants you to know.) As I recall, you hinted that if the Soviets were publicly known to be on Usenet, most defence contractors would drop their feeds. That's their loss. The net will survive without them. >Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, >Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to > | his powers of resistance. >with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz -- _____________________________________________________________________________ Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan "And, in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (01/24/89)
In article <2393@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes:
)The tone of some people's posting on the subject is that there is
)no problem with the use of USENET and that posting of various
)material can pose no legal problems.
Correct, and the limits of liability of System Admins and
corporations owning the machines in question is still *very* much
in the air. And with the current stats from UUNET showing traffic
of nearly 55meg this last two *weeks* the question of screening
the material continues to recede from the realm of practicality.
Some of you have seen my paper on liability for libel on
the net, now probably very out of date. Things were scary then,
and I havn't seen anything to make me feel that they are better now.
And the question of how to cope with the problem is even thornier,
to the point where, short of a (literal) act of congress there *is*
no solution.
)This attitude is most dangerous. In fact should this sort of
)activity continue, it is possible the we have an incident that
)could can serious harm to USENET and computer communications.
You said a mouthful. One person, with a reasonably
hot flame in hand and more money than sense, could do a terrible
amount of damage to the net as it exists today. I know *I* would
hate to see that happen, there is a huge potential here for a
benefit to society. But I also know that there are people out there
who disagree...
)[Not that it is true but much of alt.sex is illegal and considered
)obscene by several states.]
Can you provide evidence to back this up, both parts? I just
recently looked into alt.sex for the first time since its creation,
and havn't seen anything that would be either (though the obscene
part is admittedly *very* much open to debate.) But I haven't seen
anything that could be construed as illegal per se...
)=Dennis L. Mumaugh
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
"Self-discipline implies some unpleasant things to me, including staying away from chocolate ..." Oleg Kiselevdesnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (01/24/89)
In article <833@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >In article <24426@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes: >> >> [conserving bandwidth...] >> >>IT DOESN'T >>MATTER if news is posted to the Soviet Union or not. If you publish >>something freely to the public (i.e. in a journal, newspaper, or >>USENET) that is export-controlled, you are in violation of the law. >>Period. (unless it is a classified journal.) > >I am not a lawyer, but I do know the difference between classified >information (and hardware) and [software/hardware that is >export-controlled.] <- may be misquoted - line noise ate the original. I did not intend to confuse the two. I'm sorry if I was not clear. > On the other hand this ... (or >British citizen, for example) can purchase a Vax 8650 (tm) with a >DEC Ada compiler -- no problem. Yes, you do have to worry about export control laws when selling to Britain. The only difference between selling to the U.K. and the S.U. that I know of is that the forms come back stamped "approved". If you consider the effort involved to be "no problem", I beg to differ. [Note - I have not personally dealt with export control laws - just listened to colleagues bitch.] >I am not sure about broadcasting (not publishing) the export-controlled >information. I am sure that it is illegal to publish export-controlled information. This information comes from the IEEE Institute, where they have for a while been chronicling their efforts to prevent censorship in the guise of export control. It is debatable whether USENET is the equivalent of publishing or broadcasting, but for these purposes I am sure the distinction is moot. >> >>Therefore, any activities that will be illegal on USENET under export >>control laws after Soviet sites are connected are already illegal. > >This is not clear. It looks like an opinion. Does anybody have an >informed legal opinion on this matter? > It seems pretty clear to me. If it is illegal to publish export-controlled information (it is) then it would be an odd loophole if you could post it to USENET. Of course, we could always ask Mr. Bralick to post it for us, as he is evidently ignorant of these laws. (perhaps it would make things clearer if I pointed out that these are export-control laws, not export-to-Soviet-Union-control laws. If you wanna export it, you gotta get it approved. If (1) you don't get approval and you export it anyway, or (2) you don't apply for approval in the first place, you are in violation of the law.) Peter Desnoyers
simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) (01/24/89)
From: balboa.eng.uci.edu!dlawyer 16-JAN-1989 01:02 >ICC stands for the International Computer Club which was recently >(Dec. 1988) founded in Moscow, USSR. >...... >I believe that one of its purposes should be promoting the creation, >archiving and distribution of free software including machine >translation of source codes from one natural language to another (e.g. >Russian to English). >...... >Needless to say, the ICC should become a newsgroup on the net: >comp.icc. It may sound all too well, but are you aware that the ordinary Soviet citizens may not own computer printers. It is illegal and punishable by law to a few years in prison. Do you still want to promote computer contacts with the Soviet Union? Leo Simon
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (01/25/89)
Sorry to jump into this old discussion, but I couldn't resist this... In article <832@afit-ab.arpa>, wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: > US defense spending is based on the perceived (lethal) threat of hostile > foreign military forces. Sorry, but it seems to me that Soviet defense spending--and everybody else's defense spending--is based on the very same thing. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
storm@reign.UUCP (storm development account) (01/25/89)
All this talk about whether to let the Sov's have access to USENET seems silly to me. If they wanted it, they could get it at any time and if they wanted it the probably already have it. All they would have to do is get an account on UUNET (under a personal name, perhaps), and copy the feeds they want to a secure Sov controlled communications line. As far as I know, the US does not indict the phone lines going to the Consulates, Embassies, and residences. If UUNET would not give then a feed, there are sufficient public access systems in DC, SF, and NYC that they probably wouldn't even have to make a long distance call. Basically, if I can get a feed, they can get one. While I may not like the situation, it appears to me that the only way of keeping them off is to shut it down. Storm--
aem@ibiza.Miami.Edu (a.e.mossberg) (01/25/89)
In <481@telly.UUCP>, <evan@telly.UUCP> wrote: >As I recall, you hinted that if the Soviets were publicly known to be on >Usenet, most defence contractors would drop their feeds. That's their loss. >The net will survive without them. Gosh, *I* sure would be upset if contractors dropped off! Not to mention various military institutes. aem a.e.mossberg aem@mthvax.miami.edu MIAVAX::AEM (Span) aem@umiami.BITNET (soon) All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. - Noam Chomsky
dlm@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Dennis L. Mumaugh) (01/26/89)
In article <5735@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: > In article <2393@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: > )[Not that it is true but much of alt.sex is illegal and considered > )obscene by several states.] > > Can you provide evidence to back this up, both parts? I just > recently looked into alt.sex for the first time since its creation, > and havn't seen anything that would be either (though the obscene > part is admittedly *very* much open to debate.) But I haven't seen > anything that could be construed as illegal per se... > My comment was in reference to several things. It is illegal to allow persons under 18 access to "pornography". Hence, per se, alt.sex is "illegal" if a person under 18 has access. Datum: how many University undergraduates are under 18? How many university machines that support the undergraduate comp sci 1A have alt.sex? The US of A has laws prohibiting "pornography" involving "children" under 18. This has been construed [in one case] to include a father taking the picture of his 18 month old child in the nude. Hence, if an article on alt.sex talks about two teenagers boinking that can be construed to be illegal per se. Also, some states consider various explicit descriptions "illegal". Also, Canada has some rather harsh laws regarding importation of "obscene material". In this sense alt.sex could be so considered. Then of course, there is the S&M digest. {It IS rot13 but that's a minor point}. Some countries have laws that prohibit encyphered communications. Technically rot13 is a cipher. Of course, none of the above has ever met a recent court challenge and "Free Speech" considerations are very much involved. The point is that only one crusading States Attorney or southren[sic] High Sheriff[sic] is all that is required to make a stink. -- =Dennis L. Mumaugh Lisle, IL ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm OR cuuxb!dlm@arpa.att.com
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (01/26/89)
In article <5314@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: )Sorry to jump into this old discussion, but I couldn't resist this... ) )In article <832@afit-ab.arpa>, wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: ) )> US defense spending is based on the perceived (lethal) threat of hostile )> foreign military forces. ) )Sorry, but it seems to me that Soviet defense spending--and )everybody else's defense spending--is based on the very same thing. As you point out force structure does have to be taken into account. If one's force structure is defensive in nature, and your doctrine is based on defending territority, then you are only a hostile lethal threat to those who would seek to acquire your territory by force. If you have a force structure that is offensive in nature, and your doctrine is based on conquering territory, then you are a hostile lethal threat to everyone around you. Therefore, defense spending is not based on the _same_ thing. Regards, -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
pss@unh.UUCP (Paul S. Sawyer) (01/26/89)
In article <2844@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > As far as anyone can tell, they could be on right now. They could certainly > afford a uunet account, and there's no way that uunet could tell that a site > with an innocuous name wasn't really a soviet operation. If any security guys > are disturbed by an official soviet connection, then they're suffering from > a critical failure of imagination. > -- Of course. And what is there on the net that WE can see/read/use, that would not be obtainable by THEM in another manner anyway? rec.music? Emacs? Future net application: "...and are you, or anyone you are interconnected with, now, or have you ever been, interconnected with anyone interconnected with the Soviet Union?..." What about leading by example? What about the possibility that an enemy does not have to remain an enemy forever? Though I have not thoroughly convinced myself that that applies to the USSR, I would rather "trust but verify" and maybe learn something from their presence on the net. What on the net might BENEFIT them or HARM us more than vice versa if they are "officially" connected? Why are we acting like we say they act, when they are starting to SAY they want to act like we said we wanted them to...? -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: 603-862-3262 FAX: 603-862-2030
pss@unh.UUCP (Paul S. Sawyer) (01/26/89)
In article <8901241514.AA04102@decwrl.dec.com>, simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: > > It may sound all too well, but are you aware that the ordinary Soviet > citizens may not own computer printers. It is illegal and punishable by > law to a few years in prison. Do you still want to promote computer > contacts with the Soviet Union? And will discouraging those contacts GET THEM THOSE PRINTERS? By encouraging the contacts, SOME information MIGHT spill over to their "ordinary citizens" eventually, but WITHOUT such contacts it would seem that it could not. -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: 603-862-3262 FAX: 603-862-2030
daveb@gonzo.UUCP (Dave Brower) (01/27/89)
In <162@reign.UUCP> storm@reign.UUCP (storm development account) writes: > As far as I know, the US does not indict the phone lines going >to the Consulates, Embassies, and residences... Then you would be a "caught spy" very quickly. Several have been caught in the US recently because they phoned the embassy. What do you think the NSA is for? -dB PS, I think you mean "intercept" instead of "indict". -- If life was like the movies, the music would match the picture. {sun,mtxinu,hoptoad}!rtech!gonzo!daveb daveb@gonzo.uucp
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (01/27/89)
In article <8901241514.AA04102@decwrl.dec.com> simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: >It may sound all too well, but are you aware that the ordinary Soviet >citizens may not own computer printers. It is illegal and punishable by >law to a few years in prison. Do you still want to promote computer >contacts with the Soviet Union? Are you aware that computer disks have some advantages over printed matter? They store more information per pound, they can be easily concealed, and they can be easily transported. People in samizdat used to have to copy manuscripts laboriously on typewriters. Computers can certainly be misused by totalitarian regimes. In the end, however, they may signal the death knell of totalitarianism, because they make it virtually impossible to control the flow of information. I strongly support computer contacts with the Soviet Union. I don't believe that it will appreciably increase security risks. (The KGB seems to have done a pretty good job of penetrating our security already.) I don't fear exposure of Americans to Soviet propaganda. Our society accepts (or ought to accept) the view that public exposure is the best way of sorting out ideas. If anything, the Soviets have more to fear from this contact than we do. After all, our side has the more compelling arguments. Right? -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (01/27/89)
In article <2421@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: >My comment was in reference to several things. It is illegal to >allow persons under 18 access to "pornography". Hence, per se, >alt.sex is "illegal" if a person under 18 has access. Datum: how >many University undergraduates are under 18? How many university >machines that support the undergraduate comp sci 1A have alt.sex? There is a missing assumption which you're making, but not stating, to make your argument consistent. That is, you must also assert that alt.sex is "pornography" -- this has a much more restrictive definition than "obscenity". >The US of A has laws prohibiting "pornography" involving >"children" under 18. This has been construed [in one case] to >include a father taking the picture of his 18 month old child in >the nude. Hence, if an article on alt.sex talks about two >teenagers boinking that can be construed to be illegal per se. Another "undistributed middle". The first point discusses an action (taking a picture) though the decision in question was bogus. The second point refers to speech. What's this "hence" business. What do your first two sentences have to do with the third? >Also, some states consider various explicit descriptions >"illegal". Also, Canada has some rather harsh laws regarding >importation of "obscene material". In this sense alt.sex could >be so considered. Well, maybe. That's why it's an alt group. Sites are expected to choose, individually, which alt groups they will accept and pass. If alt.sex is a problem in country X, it is up to news sites in country X not to import it. >Some countries have laws that prohibit encyphered communications. >Technically rot13 is a cipher. Oh, foo. The prohibitions refer to attempts to prevent the government spooks from reading messages if they wish. Rot13 messages essentially come with documentation about how to read the messages. They aren't in violation of rules like this, except in the sense that ASCII text is a violation (guess what: ASCII is a code. rot13 is a code in the exact same sense -- it just gives the characters different names). >Of course, none of the above has ever met a recent court >challenge and "Free Speech" considerations are very much >involved. The point is that only one crusading States Attorney >or southren[sic] High Sheriff[sic] is all that is required to >make a stink. So we should censor ourselves lest we be censored? What's the point? If you don't want a newsgroup on your machine, request that your news feed not send it to you. In practice, Usenet as a whole is in legal limbo. We don't know if it's a broadcaster or a common carrier, we don't know if it's like speaking or publishing, we don't know what the rules really are. (Anyone who thinks they do know: please refer me to the court decison where it's been declared officially). -- - Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, or uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck, or jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net for old Arpa sites We must guard against the blind urge to snatch at a quick answer in the form of a formula. - Martin Heidigger, "What Is Called Thinking"
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (01/28/89)
In article <2421@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: > Also, Canada has some rather harsh laws regarding >importation of "obscene material". In this sense alt.sex could >be so considered. Probably no harsher than yours - even Hustler gets in nowadays with nary a blink. -- Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada {uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!gate!eci386!ferret-request (or lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis or lsuc!clewis)
simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) (01/29/89)
From: bcsaic!rwojcik 26-JAN-1989 18:05 <In article <8901241514.AA04102@decwrl.dec.com> simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: >>It may sound all too well, but are you aware that the ordinary Soviet >>citizens may not own computer printers. It is illegal and punishable by >>law to a few years in prison. Do you still want to promote computer >>contacts with the Soviet Union? >Are you aware that computer disks have some advantages over printed matter? >They store more information per pound, they can be easily concealed, and they >can be easily transported. People in samizdat used to have to copy >manuscripts laboriously on typewriters. Computers can certainly be misused by >totalitarian regimes. In the end, however, they may signal the death knell of >totalitarianism, because they make it virtually impossible to control the flow >of information. Rick, I am afraid you are missing the point. There too few computers in the country. An IBM-PC compatible machine cost between 25K to 50K Rubles, 10 to 20 times average yearly salary. You can guess who can own them. If one got a disk, s/he still needs a computer to read it. The only way to distribute information there has been and is in print. There are no modems, etc. You got the idea. One shoud keep in mind that computer contacts with the USSR are not with ordinary people like you and me. These contacts are only with the government approved organizations at best or with the governmental agencies at worst. I am not advocating "computer silence", just suggesting to excercise caution. Leo Simon
wtr@moss.ATT.COM (01/29/89)
In article <1322@umbio.MIAMI.EDU> aem@Mthvax.Miami.Edu (a.e.mossberg) writes: >In <481@telly.UUCP>, <evan@telly.UUCP> wrote: >>As I recall, you hinted that if the Soviets were publicly known to be on >>Usenet, most defence contractors would drop their feeds. That's their loss. >>The net will survive without them. >Gosh, *I* sure would be upset if contractors dropped off! Not to mention >various military institutes. consider, if you will, the number of large companies that support major net-sites, and also do some sort of DOD work. Most do. The loss in readership, postings, etc... would be rather large, should part of all DOD contracts became abstanance from usenet. I am not going to comment on the probability of this, nor the intelligence behind that decision, let's just say it's a possibility. the net would 'survive', but would definitely *not* be the same. later, ===================================================================== Bill Rankin Bell Labs, Whippany NJ (201) 386-4154 (cornet 232) email address: ...!att!moss!wtr
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (01/30/89)
In article <853@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: # In article <5314@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: # )Sorry to jump into this old discussion, but I couldn't resist this... # ) # )In article <832@afit-ab.arpa>, wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: # ) # )> US defense spending is based on the perceived (lethal) threat of hostile # )> foreign military forces. # ) # )Sorry, but it seems to me that Soviet defense spending--and # )everybody else's defense spending--is based on the very same thing. # # As you point out force structure does have to be taken into account. # If one's force structure is defensive in nature, and your doctrine is # based on defending territority, then you are only a hostile lethal threat # to those who would seek to acquire your territory by force. If you have # a force structure that is offensive in nature, and your doctrine is # based on conquering territory, then you are a hostile lethal threat # to everyone around you. # # Therefore, defense spending is not based on the _same_ thing. Say what? Sounds like a bunch of babble to me. And like many US Air Farce Publications it presents a bunch of data, then presents a conclusion. The conclusion may have nothing to do with either the original question, or the data, but by presenting question, data, and conclusion in order, the Air Force succeeds in implying that the conclusion reached is based on the data, and that the conclusion answers the question. Read the Air Force Blue Book with an open mind sometime if you don't believe the Air Force uses this technique. Oh fudge, I got distracted. The original message described our defense strategy, based on percieved external threat. The second message said that everyone's defense strategy (budget) including the Russians' was based on percieved external threat. Then Mr. Air Force responded by describing force structure basis (defense, offense). Even though all the preceeding discussion was about defense spending the conclusive statement was: "Therefore, defense spending is not based on the _same_ thing." Same thing as what? I know, the implication attempted in the red herring about force structure and doctrine was that the Soviets are offensive based and the US is defensive based. Reality, however, is that both the US and the Soviets spend significant amounts on offensive capability. Our doctrine? I don't know what it really is. I don't even know who decides what it is. Who? Richard Nixon or Henry Kissinger; Ronnie Reagan, George Schultz, or Oliver North; George Bush or ??. Gorbachov, or ??. Mr. Air Force says: "If one's force structure is defensive in nature, and your doctrine is based on defending territority, then you are only a hostile lethal threat to those who would seek to acquire your territory by force." Ignoring that those who fear you may not believe your doctrine is based on defending territory. And having spent 4 years in the Air Defense Command (ADC), and observed the relative status of the budget for the ADC versus both the Strategic Air Command and the Tactical Air Command, I'm not sure I blame them. I believe in keeping a strong military. I believe the Soviets are our greatest *current* *threat*. But note the words I highlighted above: current: i.e. time changes all threat: i.e. not synonymous with enemy Our greatest enemy is probably Khaddafi, or Khomani, or maybe someone we don't know *hates* the US. Remember the Liberty! US ship, flying the US flag, in international waters, and fired upon repeatedly by our strong ally, Isreal. Why? It fit their interests. Isreal is allowed on USENET. jim -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim domain: jim@eda.com
sbelcas@hvrunix.UUCP (Sarah Belcastro) (01/31/89)
In reference to the question as to how many universities received alt.sex, i volunteer that Haverford gets no alt. groups. I wish we did. --sarah marie belcastro. Bitnet: (PLEASE!!) s_belcastro@hvrford
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (01/31/89)
In article <834@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >This should give the physical security guys nightmares. I won't even >mention the notion of remotely triggerable viruses, etc. I wonder how >long defense contractors (not to mention the rest of the arpa side >of the house) will stay connected once the Soviet Union gets on... Your concern is well-taken. But you should bear in mind that plenty of Soviet spies live in the US and other countries with Usenet access. The danger already exists. And what about the Soviets? Don't they have something to fear, too? After all, we don't have as much access to their society as they do to ours. We could probably do far more damage to their computer technology than they could to us. They certainly have more to fear from contact with our ideas. You do agree with me on this point, don't you? -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (02/01/89)
In article <8901290523.AA10179@decwrl.dec.com> simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: >Rick, I am afraid you are missing the point. There too few computers >in the country. An IBM-PC compatible machine cost between 25K to 50K >Rubles, 10 to 20 times average yearly salary. You can guess who can own >them. If one got a disk, s/he still needs a computer to read it. The >only way to distribute information there has been and is in print. >There are no modems, etc. You got the idea. I am not missing the point. The price of computers will go down. Soviet schools are being supplied with computers and printers. The Soviets have no choice but to open their society to the evils of computer technology. (Sometimes I think that it is the inevitability of computers that forced the CPSU into accepting glasnost.) I seem to recall that the Soviets had a little run-in with VCRs once. Who won that battle--the state or the people? Your assumption that everything will stay the way it is now is simply wrong. Soviet society is changing, and the Party can't stop it. We should encourage the changes, not act like a bunch of silly babushkas. >One shoud keep in mind that computer contacts with the USSR are not with >ordinary people like you and me. These contacts are only with the >government approved organizations at best or with the governmental >agencies at worst. I think that you are correct on this point. I don't believe that the ICC is anything but a government front. So we don't get contact with the 'ordinary' people. How is this going to harm us? Our side gathers intelligence too, you know. What can the Soviets learn that they can't through other means? On the other hand, we in the US have far fewer windows into their world. Let's bring them in and talk to them about ways of expanding glasnost and international friendship. It should be fun. Maybe, eventually, we'll even get to meet those 'ordinary' people that you want to contact. >I am not advocating "computer silence", just suggesting to excercise >caution. I think that you are less naive than most Americans about whom we are dealing with. But I still think that the risks are greater for the Soviets. What is it, specifically, that you fear will happen? -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (02/01/89)
In article <853@afit-ab.arpa>, wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes: > If one's force structure is defensive in nature, and your doctrine is > based on defending territority, then you are only a hostile lethal threat > to those who would seek to acquire your territory by force. If you have > a force structure that is offensive in nature, and your doctrine is > based on conquering territory, then you are a hostile lethal threat > to everyone around you. > > Therefore, defense spending is not based on the _same_ thing. I'm having a hard time understanding how US defense spending is based on defending territory and USSR defense spending is based on conquering territory. Admittedly, the military methods of the USSR are far more offensive than the USA's, but that is a military doctrine--not a political one. I'll also concede the example of Central Europe, where a conventional war would probably see Warsaw Pact forces on the offensive and NATO forces on the defensive. But I can't see how you can state that the US territorial doctrine is fundamentally different from that of the USSR. The USA has no problem invading places "in the national interest," just as the USSR. Witness Grenada, Beirut Phase II, mining Nicaraguan harbors, Indochina, Central America for the last century, etc. I'm sure the Soviet point of view allows no distinction between US troops in South Korea and Soviet troops in Afghanistan. If the same things were happening in Mexico as were happening in Afghanistan in 1979, the USA would have invaded Mexico. Both sides fear attack and invasion from the other, and both sides will take whatever steps are deemed necessary to prevent and discourage that attack. Methods used to keep the other guys off balance may range from CIA removal of legitimately elected governments to Soviet armed occupation. Undoubtedly the members of the Kollegiya of the Soviet Ministry of Defense make exactly the same arguments as you do, William. Just reverse 'USA' and 'USSR' and you get the idea. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/01/89)
In article <9778@bcsaic.UUCP., rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: . In article <8901241514.AA04102@decwrl.dec.com. simon@hpstek.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: . .It may sound all too well, but are you aware that the ordinary Soviet . .citizens may not own computer printers. It is illegal and punishable by . .law to a few years in prison. Do you still want to promote computer . .contacts with the Soviet Union? . . Are you aware that computer disks have some advantages over printed matter? . They store more information per pound, they can be easily concealed, and they . can be easily transported. People in samizdat used to have to copy And the contents can be encrypted, allowing "subversive" materials to be circulated, and the key passed on mouth-to-mouth, making it more difficult to determine if the contents are pornographic or something REALLY subversive, like free market economics. . manuscripts laboriously on typewriters. Computers can certainly be misused by . totalitarian regimes. In the end, however, they may signal the death knell of . totalitarianism, because they make it virtually impossible to control the flow . of information. . . I strongly support computer contacts with the Soviet Union. I don't believe . that it will appreciably increase security risks. (The KGB seems to have done . a pretty good job of penetrating our security already.) I don't fear exposure . of Americans to Soviet propaganda. Our society accepts (or ought to accept) Not when we have American news media already. . the view that public exposure is the best way of sorting out ideas. If . anything, the Soviets have more to fear from this contact than we do. After . all, our side has the more compelling arguments. Right? . . Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com Personal computing and rock-and-roll are going to be the most important factors in the death of Marxism. -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (02/01/89)
In article <2825@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes:
)In practice, Usenet as a whole is in legal limbo. We don't know if it's
)a broadcaster or a common carrier, we don't know if it's like speaking or
)publishing, we don't know what the rules really are. (Anyone who thinks
)they do know: please refer me to the court decison where it's been
)declared officially).
)- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, or uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck,
Usenet is in legal limbo, particularly with regards to braodcaster
or common carrier. It *is* fairly clear that it is more like publishing
than speaking (in the sence that it would be a libel case rather than
a slander case.) If you really wish I can dig up references to that
point in that direction (though I'll admit that the courts could ignore
the presidents and go the other way. I just think that it is *extremely*
unlikely.)
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
Love is wanting to make N (N>1) people happy.jmdoyle@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jennifer Mary Doyle) (02/01/89)
In article <504@hvrunix.UUCP> sbelcas@hvrunix.UUCP (Sarah Belcastro) writes: >In reference to the question as to how many universities received >alt.sex, i volunteer that Haverford gets no alt. groups. I wish we did. > --sarah marie belcastro. > Bitnet: (PLEASE!!) s_belcastro@hvrford At Princeton, we get all the alt. groups. A few of them are even worth having. :-) Jen p.s. Hi Sarah! Visiting from misc.kids? -- It`s nice to know that when the whole world seems crazy, you have friends who make it seem sane in comparison. -Me Jen Princeton `92 jmdoyle@phoenix.princeton.EDU Disclaimer: I am a student, I represent the future.
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (02/03/89)
In article <6007@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: > (though I'll admit that the courts could ignore >the presidents and go the other way. Of course they could ignore the presidents, they're a completely separate branch of the government :-) :-) Jonathan Kamens MIT Project Athena
pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (02/06/89)
I was just told that this newsgroup was conversing about the
ICC. Unfortunatly, the articles have expired on this
machine. Can someone send me email on what went on here?
Or, if some one has the articles archived could they pass
them on??
Thanks,
Tim
--
...sun!hoptoad!\ Tim Pozar
>fidogate!pozar Fido: 1:125/406
...lll-winken!/ PaBell: (415) 788-3904
USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108spencer@cs.wmich.edu (Josh Spencer) (02/11/89)
Discussing our defensive/offensive policies is a lot of fun. Something we should all consider is this. We are appraching the era, IF WE HAVE NOT DONE SO ALREADY...of what can best be described as "Selective destruction." Our technology is so damned advanced right now, and I am refering to that of the Western Alliance (U.S., NATO and Japan), it literally scares the shit out of the Soviets. This of course, is only ONE reason Gorbachev has Glasnost and Perestroika these days. He is the first Russian leader to REALLY realize his country can't afford to compete any longer with the West...in anything. Back in the days of yore, we had the sword. Nice, bloody, but quite selective in who a warrior wished to slay. Then, we invented gunpowder. "God made all Men, but Colonel Colt made them all Equal." Next, naval vessels which can lob a 16-inch, one ton shell twenty miles with relative (for their day) accuracy. Then we had to race, and beat, Hitler from blowing up the rest of the world. We know how bloody, and MESSY, nuclear weapons can be. Then France invented, with its "force de frappe" attitude, the neutron bomb...kills people but leaves the goods. Now, we have lasers, particle beam weapons, kinetic kill projectiles, SDI,...it certainly seems to me that things are coming full circle once again. This is what we must keep in mind. Another thing...Russian's been invaded so damn many times...besides Hitler and Napoleon...their "we're gonna fight and beat the shit out of those who invade us until they get the hell out of our country" attitude is essen- tially ingrained into their consciousness. THAT will take an awfully long time to convince not necessarily the people of Russia, but their government as well, that this won't happen anymore, at least from us. Maybe Mr. Gorbachev may realize this already too. Thanks, all...I felt I had to put my two kopecks (is that a Russian monetary unit?) in...or at least two rubles. J0SH W. SPENCER