len@lsicom2.UU.NET (Len Rose) (10/03/90)
This article was pointed out to me by a friend and came from the newsgroup alt.sex.pictures.d ... Can anyone verify this? BEGINNING OF ARTICLE -------------------- >From article <1990Sep29.181306.11316@rodan.acs.syr.edu>, by jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ace Stewart): > > If anyone knows, what is the userid of the person/people who maintain > the archives over at MARS? I wanted to send them so email about the > GIFS and some other questions, but ROOT and OPERATOR don't work. Does > anyone happen to know who should I mail to? > Can't help you how here but this is a message that a friend of mine got off of there BBS ============================================================================== = copy of message = ============================================================================== Posted By: lush (Ed Luke) Date: Sat Sep 29 21:54:03 1990 Title: The story about the GIF files. Ok, since everyone has been asking about the gif files, here's the story of what happened with the gifs... It seems that the secret service under direction of Pres. Bush is on a campaign against computer crime. You've read about some of this probably. It's called Operation Sun Devil. Some of the older users will remember when this bbs was called the Pirates Resource BBS and was on athena.ee.mssate.edu. Well we eventually got shut down in a fashion similar to that of the victims of operation sun devil. However, in our case, since we were such an allegedly large center for computer criminal activity, the Secret Service, along with the National Computing Defence Council decided to conduct an ongoing investiation. If you want to catch mice, you don't just plug their holes. You lay traps. Well they allowed us to set up again at mars on the strict requirement that we would do strict accounting. We have been keeping records of every (timestamped) upload and download that's been made to this board. In addition, in hopes of cooperating with the Feds for obvious reasons, I instituted the monitoring system software on mars. When anyone did an ftp it logged the date, did a finger on the system that was connecting and snarfed up the userid via ftp protocol and made a complete record of all files downloaded and uploaded. Also, users that download files from the bbs had the machine name they were connecting to, and any other evidence collected in a similar manner. After enough information was collected, we gave them the reams of data files and removed the gifs, giving yall the bogus NSF story. So there it is. The GIFS and GL's aren't the biggest part of the story, but they are illegal in some states and the FCC has been interested in cracking down on computer obscenity for a long time. I can't say I like it, but that we have to live with it. Later, Ed Luke ============================================================================== any comments? michael packer -- Michael A. Packer DARPA Initiative in Concurrent Engineering PHONE: 304 293-7226 INTERNET : pac@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu -------------- END OF ARTICLE
6600kntp@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Kent Perrier) (10/04/90)
Can you say "Censorship"? I knew you could. Gee, the FCC sounds just like Hitlers SS. How do they define obsene(sp?)? What I look at on my computer is of no concern of theirs. So what if the computer that I downloaded the GIFs off of was a public system. The minute you allow one kind of censorship you have just opened the door for any(and all) kinds of censorship. Kent Perrier 6600kntp@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) (10/04/90)
In article <6432@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600kntp@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Kent Perrier) writes: >Can you say "Censorship"? I knew you could. > >Gee, the FCC sounds just like Hitlers SS. How do they define obsene(sp?)? >What I look at on my computer is of no concern of theirs. So what if the >computer that I downloaded the GIFs off of was a public system. The minute >you allow one kind of censorship you have just opened the door for any(and all) >kinds of censorship. > >Kent Perrier >6600kntp@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu This is the slippery slope arguement (yes, I know all of you know this, but hell, IO had to open with something! :-). Of course, you can say the same about anything: once we keep guns from some peoples hands, we'll keep 'em from everyone's. If we make this illegal, then what's to stop "them" from making this, this, and this illegal? The point is, with any restrictions we must draw limits. For example, censorship _does_ occur. Take your local public school library - do you think they have a good selection of erotica on the shelves? What about the American Heritage Dictionary (defines "fuck", among other slang terms). While schools restrict their library collections, they are limited by 'the standards of the community'. A book that is banned in one town can be accepted in another. I'll let someone else flesh this out - I'm too lazy. Closer to the point of BBS's, I believe there is a law that prohibits obscene traffic over phone lines. Now (assuming I'm right about this law existing), the problem is, who defines obscene? We do. No, you say? The Government does? Who elected them? --Pat -- This .sig space for rent.
howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct04.001804.18056@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>, zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: |> This is the slippery slope arguement (yes, I know all of you know |> this, but hell, IO had to open with something! :-). Of course, you |> can say the same about anything: |> |> once we keep guns from some peoples hands, we'll |> keep 'em from everyone's. |> |> If we make this illegal, then what's to stop "them" |> from making this, this, and this illegal? |> |> The point is, with any restrictions we must draw limits. For example, |> censorship _does_ occur. Take your local public school library - do Just because restrictions do occur, that doesn't mean people agree on where to draw the line. I lean toward libertarian sympathies myself, and I find it more helpful to think in terms of "keeping the fight on the enemy's territory" than the slippery slope. It is much better to be fighting for rights you don't really care about, than to be in real danger of losing rights that really matter. For instance, I haven't the slightest desire to own a fully automatic weapon or armor-piercing bullets. I would much rather see the political battles be fought over these items, though, than over my right to own a target pistol. Therefore it makes sense for me to oppose controls on weapons I don't want to own myself. Censorship works the same way. I don't really care whether or not I can get pornography over the net. I've got better things to do with my time. But I oppose attempts by anyone to censor network traffic, even pornography, since that helps keep the battle away from the material that does matter to me. If you say to yourself, "It's not my fight", then next year it might very well BE your fight. If that happens, you would want as many allies as possible, no? -- Louis Howell "A few sums!" retorted Martens, with a trace of his old spirit. "A major navigational change, like the one needed to break us away from the comet and put us on an orbit to Earth, involves about a hundred thousand separate calculations. Even the computer needs several minutes for the job."
jimp@sequent.UUCP (James Pilcher) (10/05/90)
In article <1084@lsicom2.UU.NET> len@lsicom2.UU.NET (Len Rose) writes: > >This article was pointed out to me by a friend and came from the >newsgroup alt.sex.pictures.d ... Can anyone verify this? > >BEGINNING OF ARTICLE >-------------------- >>From article <1990Sep29.181306.11316@rodan.acs.syr.edu>, by jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ace Stewart): >> >> If anyone knows, what is the userid of the person/people who maintain >> the archives over at MARS? I wanted to send them so email about the >> GIFS and some other questions, but ROOT and OPERATOR don't work. Does >> anyone happen to know who should I mail to? >> > > Can't help you how here but this is a message that a friend >of mine got off of there BBS > >============================================================================== >= copy of message = >============================================================================== >Posted By: lush (Ed Luke) >Date: Sat Sep 29 21:54:03 1990 >Title: The story about the GIF files. > >Ok, since everyone has been asking about the gif files, here's the story of >what happened with the gifs... It seems that the secret service under >direction of Pres. Bush is on a campaign against computer crime. You've read >about some of this probably. It's called Operation Sun Devil. Some of the >older users will remember when this bbs was called the Pirates Resource BBS >and was on athena.ee.mssate.edu. Well we eventually got shut down in a >fashion similar to that of the victims of operation sun devil. However, in >our case, since we were such an allegedly large center for computer criminal >activity, the Secret Service, along with the National Computing Defence >Council decided to conduct an ongoing investiation. If you want to catch >mice, you don't just plug their holes. You lay traps. Well they allowed us >to set up again at mars on the strict requirement that we would do strict >accounting. We have been keeping records of every (timestamped) upload and >download that's been made to this board. In addition, in hopes of cooperating >with the Feds for obvious reasons, I instituted the monitoring system software >on mars. When anyone did an ftp it logged the date, did a finger on the >system that was connecting and snarfed up the userid via ftp protocol and made >a complete record of all files downloaded and uploaded. Also, users that >download files from the bbs had the machine name they were connecting to, and >any other evidence collected in a similar manner. After enough information >was collected, we gave them the reams of data files and removed the gifs, >giving yall the bogus NSF story. So there it is. The GIFS and GL's aren't >the biggest part of the story, but they are illegal in some states and the FCC >has been interested in cracking down on computer obscenity for a long time. >I can't say I like it, but that we have to live with it. > > > > >Later, >Ed Luke >============================================================================== > >any comments? > > At some point in human history, someone is going to realize that obscenity and pretty pictures (sexually oriented) are not synonyms. Trust the prudes in the government to take a swipe in passing at anyone having a little fun.
nanook@rwing.UUCP (Robert Dinse) (10/06/90)
In article <1990Oct04.001804.18056@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>, zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: > If we make this illegal, then what's to stop "them" > from making this, this, and this illegal? Obviously nothing. The consitution has been for all intents and purposes dismanteled and rejected. At least all of the values that went into the making of the consitution, individual liberty and freedom, seem to have been lost. I'm sure the only reason the net hasn't been outlawed, or more rigorously controlled, YET, is that the authorities aren't convinced anyone posting gets taken seriously anyway.
sigma@pawl.rpi.edu (Kevin J Martin) (10/06/90)
zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: >Now (assuming I'm right about this >law existing), the problem is, who defines obscene? >We do. >No, you say? The Government does? Who elected them? That's funny. I don't recall voting for any of the dozens of Secret Service agents conducting their mindless raids last summer. And I don't recall voting for their superiors, or any of the people who appointed them. In fact, the people who I could have voted for were so far removed from the people actually responsible for what's going on, and both groups are so far removed from the reality of what they're sticking their noses into, I don't think my vote could've made the least difference under any conditions. Nor could ten thousand votes. It's hard enough to find a candidate you can tolerate, much less actively support. The whole thing is a disgusting travesty of justice. -- Kevin Martin sigma@rpi.edu, or USERGKJ1@mts.rpi.edu
lains@world.std.com (Layne L Ainsworth) (10/21/90)
In article <1990Oct04.001804.18056@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: >In article <6432@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600kntp@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Kent Perrier) writes: >>Gee, the FCC sounds just like Hitlers SS. How do they define obsene(sp?)? >While schools restrict their library collections, they >are limited by 'the standards of the community'. A book that is >banned in one town can be accepted in another. > >Closer to the point of BBS's, I believe there is a law that prohibits >obscene traffic over phone lines. Now (assuming I'm right about this >law existing), the problem is, who defines obscene? > >We do. > >No, you say? The Government does? Who elected them? > >--Pat Well, there is a problem with this 'community standards' thing. The constitution was written (more precisely, the bill of rights), to protect people *from* the government, knowing that even a freely elected govern- ment would be prone to the same problems as any other. Especially when the majority of people would vote for repression of a small group. The supremacy of the rights of the individual of those of the state was thought to be of utmost importance. That's why they were so careful to insulate as much as possible the supreme court (and thus the constitution) from the political process. It is very dangerous to allow a locality to decide issues that are best answered by the constitution and the supreme court. In short, an answer to the question, 'Who elected them?': We did, and that is what I am worried about. -- Layne Ainsworth | lains@world.std.com <or> ...!{xylogics,uunet}!world!lains What I believe (Part I): Shake well before use.
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (10/22/90)
Yes, and the supreme court is now not at all separate from the political
process. The constitution is SO great. I have only two amendments I would
like to make:
The Supreme Court is only 12 people. That is TO MUCH POWER in the hands
of twelve people. It should be increased to 50 or a like number.
The first ten amendments should only be amended to with a 90%
vote in both houses and a 70% ratification within two years.
--
Sameer Parekh zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM "Our liberty depends upon the freedom of
the press, being limited, it is lost."
--- Thomas Jefferson (Paraphrased)cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan) (10/23/90)
In article <1990Oct21.201454.11513@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > >Yes, and the supreme court is now not at all separate from the political >process. The constitution is SO great. I have only two amendments I would >like to make: > The Supreme Court is only 12 people. That is TO MUCH POWER in the hands >of twelve people. It should be increased to 50 or a like number. Open mouth, insert foot, close mouth. 1) The size of the Supreme Court has been 9 for many years. It has never been an even number. 2) The size of the Court is decided by Congress, not by the Constitution. 3) >Fifty??!< How can 50 people decide >anything<? -- cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan) e'osai ko sarji la lojban
faustus@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Kurt Ackermann) (10/24/90)
In <1990Oct20.224407.23367@world.std.com> lains@world.std.com (Layne L Ainsworth) writes: >In article <1990Oct04.001804.18056@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: >>In article <6432@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600kntp@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Kent Perrier) writes: >>>Gee, the FCC sounds just like Hitlers SS. How do they define obsene(sp?)? >>While schools restrict their library collections, they >>are limited by 'the standards of the community'. A book that is >>banned in one town can be accepted in another. >> >>Closer to the point of BBS's, I believe there is a law that prohibits >>obscene traffic over phone lines. Now (assuming I'm right about this >>law existing), the problem is, who defines obscene? >> >>We do. >> >>No, you say? The Government does? Who elected them? >> >>--Pat >Well, there is a problem with this 'community standards' thing. The >constitution was written (more precisely, the bill of rights), to protect >people *from* the government, knowing that even a freely elected govern- >ment would be prone to the same problems as any other. Especially when >the majority of people would vote for repression of a small group. Especially when that "majority" is actually a minority of the eligible voting population of the United States. A highly motivated and well- organized minority (say, about 20% of the _eligible_ voters) could elect nearly anyone ON THEIR OWN, not to mention their ability to swing the balance of power from one candidate to another (for which an even smaller number is required). >The >supremacy of the rights of the individual of [over?] those of the state was >thought to be of utmost importance. That's why they were so careful to insulate >as much as possible the supreme court (and thus the constitution) from >the political process. It is very dangerous to allow a locality to decide >issues that are best answered by the constitution and the supreme court. Agreed. "Mobocracy" leads to lynchings and laws that change with the whims of public opinion rather than with the changes in the beliefs and values of the populace (a much deeper, substantial, and slower change). The Constitution also insulates us from ourselves (and each other), in forcing us to take time (which might promote careful, rational thought about an issue) to make such changes in our laws. While 'community standards' are an important aspect of our society, they need not become a part of the legal system. There are other ways to bring about change in the system (imagine if 2 Live Crew held a concert and nobody went??), and local customs, beliefs, traditions and values have a place in our society, but we need not make them into laws. >In short, an answer to the question, 'Who elected them?': We did, and that >is what I am worried about. Until we can get a more significant proportion of our citizens to vote in the elections, we will continue to suffer from time to time under the will of a highly-motivated minority of citizens who constitute a majority of the voters in an election. >-- > Layne Ainsworth Kurt Ackermann (as an afterthought: Imagine if ALL ELIGIBLE NET-FOLK voted in the next election for a presidential candidate who had a proven track record of support for computer networks [i.e, he/she is a highly desirable candidate in our collective opinion]. My understanding is that almost 15 million people use the Net in the US, of whom I would guess some 70% might be eligible voters. 10 million voices, in light of the current apathy among the rest of the voting public, would certainly cause politicos to stand up and take notice...) ------------------------------------------------------------ Kurt Ackermann "Grey, dear friend, are all your theories; --Mephisto. in
mccoy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy) (10/30/90)
In article <faustus.656783393@tartarus.uchicago.edu>, faustus@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Kurt Ackermann) writes: |> In <1990Oct20.224407.23367@world.std.com> lains@world.std.com (Layne L Ainsworth) writes: |> |> >In article <1990Oct04.001804.18056@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: |> |> [comments regarding constitution and "community standards"] Especially when |> >the majority of people would vote for repression of a small group. |> Especially when that "majority" is actually a minority of the eligible |> voting population of the United States. A highly motivated and well- |> organized minority (say, about 20% of the _eligible_ voters) could elect |> nearly anyone ON THEIR OWN, not to mention their ability to swing |> the balance of power from one candidate to another (for which an even |> smaller number is required). It gets worse. Some rough calculations seem to indicate that it would only take 10% of the US population to pass a constitutional amendment. This is because the amendment clause in the Constitution is still geared towards a strong state system. To change the Constitution requires passage of the amendment in 3/4 of the state legislatures. (I will skip the part about COngressional approval, because enough money can get just about anything passed there...) First, we start out with the 38 smallest states. From these states we take 51% of the state legislature districts, from here we take the number of registered voters (50-60% of the population, and I am being generous here). And from that group we take 51%. The number of people needed to pass an amendment is so small that it scares the hell out of me. [As an interesting diversion, Article V (amendments to the constitution) prevents an amendment from being passed that limits a states voting power in the Senate, but nothing prevents an amendment from being passed that eliminates a state's representation in the House. Imagine the smaller 38 states taking the larger states out of the House! (The inner thoughts of an Iowa native who spends too much time reading obscure passages of government documents :) ] |> |> |> (as an afterthought: |> |> Imagine if ALL ELIGIBLE NET-FOLK voted in the next election for a |> presidential candidate who had a proven track record of support for |> computer networks [i.e, he/she is a highly desirable candidate in our |> collective opinion]. My understanding is that almost 15 million people |> use the Net in the US, of whom I would guess some 70% might be eligible |> voters. 10 million voices, in light of the current apathy among the rest |> of the voting public, would certainly cause politicos to stand up and |> take notice...) |> Possible, but I do not think that it could be done. It is hard to get a group like the net together with any sort of cohesive group-identity. We are an interest group that spans the country, but our concerns seem to be more oriented towards positions that are elected within small regions (president is about the only one we could all vote for, and I don't think that there would be a chance to get everyone voting based just upon support for computer networks. jim ------------------------------< Jim McCoy >------------------------------------ mccoy@acns.nwu.edu | "Those whom the gods would destroy, mccoy@ils.nwu.edu | they first make mad... #include <disclaimer.h> | -Sophocles -----------------------<"To thine own self be true">--------------------------