rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway) (04/08/89)
[This is a comment on RFC 1097, which provides a standard for sending and receiving subliminal messages across the internet. Since newsgroups are a potential victim of subliminal messages, I'm cross-posting this article.] I sincerely hope RFC 1097 is a joke, subliminal suggestion is a devious and underhanded way to influence people into taking actions or adopt ideas without their consent. People should be afraid to look at terminals if there is a possibility subliminal messages are being sent. Why isn't this practice illegal? I vote for a complete banning of subliminal messages from any electronic medium and propose for now a banning of subliminal messages across the Internet. Subliminal messages are a dangerous threat to our security and the integrity of the Internet. From rfc 1097: > >4. Motivation for the option > > Frequently the use of "Message of the day" banners and newsletters is > insufficient to convince stubborn users to upgrade to the latest > version of telnet. Some users will use the same outdated version for > years. I ran across this problem trying to convince people to use > the REMOTE-FLOW-CONTROL Telnet option. These users need to be gently > "persuaded". > Persuading users without their consent? Do we really want system administrators and programmers to secretly influence us to use their latest fad software or worse? This is absurd. > 1. Server suggests and client agrees to use SUBLIMINAL-MESSAGE. > > (Server sends) IAC DO SUBLIMINAL-MESSAGE > (Client sends) IAC WILL SUBLIMINAL-MESSAGE > (Server sends) IAC SB SUBLIMINAL-MESSAGE 0 5 0 20 "Use VMS" IAC SE > > [The server is "suggesting that the user employ a stable > operating system, not an unreasonable request...] VMS is a proprietary operating system, this tactic should not be used. Any software producer could subliminally suggest we use their software. This is an unconscionable and underhanded means of influencing people and selling products. In my opinion, subliminal messages are a direct, unconscionable, and flagrant violation of our civil rights and should be banned immediately. So, 1. I am preparing another RFC to ban subliminal messages from passage across the Internet. I wouldn't give subliminal messages the respectability of an RFC, and think we should replace the existing RFC 1097 by a new RFC banning the practice, not just obsolete RFC 1097. I believe this is necessary to maintain the respectability of the Internet. 2. How did this RFC ever get adopted? If this adoption practice is carried out in private, I vote RFC's should be posted for public discussion first, perhaps in comp.protocols.tcp-ip. Bob Hathaway rjh@purdue.edu Seen in a .signature recently: The price of freedom is eternal digilence.
kaufman@polya.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) (04/09/89)
In article <6462@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway) writes:
-[This is a comment on RFC 1097, which provides a standard for sending
-and receiving subliminal messages across the internet. Since newsgroups
-are a potential victim of subliminal messages, I'm cross-posting this
-article.]
- ...People should be afraid to look at terminals if
-there is a possibility subliminal messages are being sent. Why isn't this
-practice illegal? I vote for a complete banning of subliminal messages from
-any electronic medium and propose for now a banning of subliminal messages
-across the Internet. Subliminal messages are a dangerous threat to our
-security and the integrity of the Internet.
- The price of freedom is eternal digilence.
and the price of eternal digilence [sic] is eternal gullibilitybob@oz.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (04/10/89)
(In the voice of Foghorn Leghorn:) "That's a joke, son!"