ZDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD? IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM; ZDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD?
 3   Founded By:    3 :  Network Information Access   : 3 Other World BBS  3
 3 Guardian Of Time CD6            09OCT90            :D4 Txt Files Only!  3
 3   Judge Dredd    3 :         Guardian Of Time      : 3 See EOF If Any ? 3
 @DDDDDDDDBDDDDDDDDDY :            File 57            : @DDDDDDDDDBDDDDDDDDY
          3           HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<           3
          3              IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM;            3
          @DDDDDDDDDDDDDD6The Network Thought Machine:DDDDDDDDDDDDY
                         HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<

These past few months have been interesting with everything dealing from our
own deficit down to the meeting of NIA's Creators.  Well during this great
time, I've been collecting some files.  I had planned on making a series,
but I figured that I better get something out, since it has been sometime.

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                      "Ethical Standards By Louis Howell"

The lack of a consensus on ethical standards among computer users is
serious, but even if one existed I'm not sure how much effect it would
have on law enforcement, the media, and the public in general, who
wouldn't know what we were talking about.  The destructive hackers would
continue to get all the attention and thus color people's opinions of
the whole community.  All the agreement in the world won't help if the
regulations are being written by outsiders who don't know what they are
doing.

For example, our society still has not come up with any consistent way
to put a value on information.  Copyright and patent laws have been
tailored to the corporate arena, where typical infractions are large
enough to merit serious penalties, the legal costs are minor compared
to the other sums involved, and no lives are ruined in the process.
Attempts to apply this legal system to individuals and small software
sweatshops appears to be the moral equivalent of correcting a wayward
child by swatting him over the head with a 2-by-4.

In the recent Bell South fiasco, the company apparently put a value on
the stolen 911 document roughly equivalent to the entire cost of
producing it.  This strikes me as completely absurd, since only a copy
was made---Bell South did not lose the use of the document or suffer
any other financial loss as a result of the incident.  If you go by
some kind of "fair market value" criterion, the value would be closer
to that of a paperback book.  Even if trade secrets were involved, as
was originally thought, it still seems unfair to charge a thief with
the cost of the entire development project.  Some kind of lost revenue
standard seems more reasonable, but computing it could be a legal
nightmare.

For an item that is on the market, even valuing the information at
market value may not be appropriate.  To be specific, suppose some
software company spends about $100,000 to write a great C compiler.
They put it on the market for $1000, and it sells.  Now suppose some
high school hacker manages to snarf a copy of this compiler for his
own personal use.  He gets caught, and is charged with stealing it.
What now is the value of the object he has stolen (which can make a
big difference in court)?  To say $100,000 is absurd, since the
company still has the compiler.  Even $1000 may be too high, though.
The company has not lost $1000 in revenue because there is no way
the kid could have afforded to buy the program.  If he couldn't
steal it, he still wouldn't have bought it, so the effect on the
company is the same as if he had done nothing at all!  If the company
loses nothing, is it not better that the kid have the use of the
best tools for his work?

This argument won't work for any tangible object.  If a crook steals
a diamond ring, it is silly to argue that he would not have otherwise
bought it, since there is still a real diamond ring missing.  With
information theft, though, it's hard to say that anyone really loses.

I'm not seriously suggesting that this type of software theft should
be legal, since then there would be no way for the company to recoup
its investment.  There is no practical way to implement a socialist
"welfare distribution" system, since even those who could pay would
find it easy to obtain free copies of anything.  The trouble is in
trying to couple an economy of tangible goods that are expensive to
reproduce with one of intangible goods that can be reproduced for
almost nothing.  It's a tough problem, and I don't claim to have a
pat answer.

On the other hand, in my example the fact does remain that no one was
hurt.  The offense strikes me as more comparable to a minor case of
shoplifting than to the theft of a tangible $1000 object.  I certainly
wouldn't call it a felony, and seriously damaging the career of such
a talented kid would probably be a net harm to society.  I propose that
the appropriate penalty be just enough to "teach the kid a lesson",
but no more.

Any thoughts?  Just how much SHOULD information be worth?
--
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."

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                      "BBS's And The Law By John McCarthy

In my opinion, electronic bulletin boards will be classed as
publications entitled to First Amendment protection.  I think
the courts will do it even if Congress and states make laws
to the contrary.  However, it won't be really effective until
there is a major court case.  I hope CPSR will use their
grant to mount such a case as soon as a suitable case can
be found.

I base this opinion on the Stanford University case of rec.humor.funny.
Early in 1989, Robert Street, Vice-President for Information and
Professor of Civil Engineering, decided to delete r.h.f from
the computers under his jurisdiction.  He had his underlings
take responsibility.  The story is long and perhaps interesting,
but I'll condense.  There were petitions, and the President, Donald
Kennedy, referred the matter to the Academic Senate which
referred it to its Steering Committee to come up with a
recommendation.

Now here's the point relevant to my opinion in the first paragraph.
When I visited President Kennedy, he supposed the Senate Steering
Committee would refer the matter to the Committee on Research, and
said he didn't accept my "metaphor" of the newsgroup files as a
library.  I think most of the world's officials are in the same state
Kennedy was.  Electronic bulletin boards and newsgroups are vague
hitech things rather than publications.

This caused me to think, and I decided to make the point that
"library" wasn't a metaphor but a fact.  The Steering Committee
accepted that idea and referred the issue to the Committee on
Libraries. At that point the battle was essentially won.

The Committee on Libraries opined that the same principles
applied to electronic libraries as to paper libraries -
universality tempered only by budget.  The Steering Committee
accepted the recommendation and asked the Vice-President for
Information whether preferred to back down or have a Senate
discussion.  He backed down, and we haven't had trouble since.

Note that the whole matter was fought out in the absence of
specific complaints about jokes in r.h.f and ignoring the
fact that there are plenty of newsgroups with material far
more likely to offend than anything Brad Templeton lets by.

In short before you can get a good decision, you have to get
them to pay attention, and "them" is the courts, and a lawsuit
is required.

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                                "Best Evidence"

As far as I can see, no-one actually answered Gene Spafford's question
about whether the law sees a difference between the New York Times
and a basement produced sheet.  I have never heard of such a difference
being argued in a censorship case.  The legal movement has been in
the direction off erasing differences.  For example, advertisements
have been granted First Amendment protection to some extent.

Concerning "best evidence".  There obviously needs to be some
compromise here between keeping evidence and letting someone
get on with his work.  There are several possibilities.

1. A person's disk could be printed and he could stipulate via
his lawyer that the printout was correct.  Then he could have
his disk back.  When facts are stipulated by the prosecution
and defense, judges permit reneging on the stipulation only
in exceptional cases.

2. He could have a right to a copy of the confiscated files.

3. If his computer was an IBM PC XT, this could be stipulated,
and he could get his computer back.  Any PC XT or the documentation
of the PC XT would be acceptable evidence if he should destroy
the one he got back.

I believe courts would support such compromises on the grounds
that refusal by prosecutors to make them would constitute
"unreasonable search and seizure".

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                       "Laws And Possible Ideas By Mike"

>
>Mike, how can the contents of a hard disk be printed in a way that meets
>this definition?  I'm not thinking of ASCII files, which obviously
>present no problem.  I suppose dBASE files and spreadsheet commands can
>be printed using their internal print commands.  But what about .EXE
>files and similar binary stuff?

Well, let me note first of all that in most of the seizures I know
about, it's been the text files that have been of primary interest to
law-enforcement folks.

But let's say they want to prove software piracy. Since the rules
of evidence allow some kinds of duplicates to be considered, in
effect, originals, and other kinds of duplicates to be just as
admissible as originals, the logical thing to do, it seems to me,
would be to have the government witness download binary files from
the system in question, then run it on her own system or on the
government's. That should be testimony sufficient to persuade a
jury that software theft was going on.

The problem is, neither the issues nor the procedures have been
hammered out yet. There may be cases we haven't anticipated, and
the procedures err on the side of inclusiveness precisely because
the law-enforcement establishment is so hazy on what the legal
and social issues are.

>Does this definition include ordinary photocopies as duplicates?

Yes.

>I understand handwritten copies are not "duplicates" as defined above,
>but are they completely invalid or valid only when nothing better is
>available?

The latter.

>>     Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates.
>>     [This is the rule Spafford hasn't heard of.]
>>     A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless
>>     (1) a genuine question is raised
>
>Presumably as opposed to a frivolous question, just to delay things?

Right. Judges know when the challenge is frivolous.

>>                                      as to the authenticity of the original
>                                                                     ^^^^^^^^
>Shouldn't that be duplicate?

No. This clause applies, I think, to cases in which it is not the document's
contents but the document's authenticity that is in question. (E.g., the
Howard Hughes will that left money to Melvin Dummar.)

>>     or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate
>>     in lieu of the original.
>
>I'm curious--couldd you give an example of (2)?

Not offhand. It may be that the drafters had no particular example in mind,
but wanted to leave an out in the event that an obvious unfairness came
along.

>> It is also believed that any pressure brought to bear on the defendant
>> provides additional motivation for plea bargains.
>
>Seems like one of the many unfair parts of RICO, that it
>institutionalizes seizure onm indictment.  And the seizure itself may
>work irretrievable harm, even if the defendant is found innocent and the
>property ultimately restored.

You'll find no disagreement here on that score.

-Mike

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

         GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE SUPPORTS ELECTRONIC FREEDOM & PRIVACY

  Folks, we have a good chance of having a **State Governor** who
(a) understands and favors technology, and -- more important --
(b) has signed and released the following statement (he just faxUed
 a signed copy to me; IUll fax it to anyone who requests it).
-- Jim Warren, 9/16/90  [jwarren@well.sf.ca.us,   or   415-851-7075/voice]

          STATEMENT BY JIM GALLAWAY, CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR OF NEVADA

  I am the Republican candidate for Governor of the State of
Nevada.  I have been in the private telecomm industry for most of
20 years, and have been a principal in several telecomm and
computer start-ups.  I understand, support, and have practiced
technological innovation.
  My wife and I have known Jim Warren for well over a decade.  He
has outlined some of the current issues about which owners and
users of systems for e-mail, BBS, teleconferencing, electronic
publishing and personal computing are deeply concerned.

  These are my positions, relative to some of the recent law
enforcement practices by some government agents:
  1.  Government responses to alleged misdemeanors and crimes must
be no more than comparable to the seriousness of the wrong-doings.
  2.  Simple electronic trespass without harm must be treated as
any other simple trespass.  It does not justify armed raids on teenagers,
forced entry of private homes, nor seizure of telephone
handsets, answering machines, computer printers, published
documentation, audio tapes and the like.
  3.  The notion that equipment can be RarrestedS and held
inaccessible to its owner, without promptly charging the owner with
a crime, is absolutely unacceptable.  The practice of holding
seized equipment and data for months or years is a serious penalty
that must be imposed only by a court of law and only after a fair
and public hearing and judicial finding of guilt.
  4.  Teleconferencing and BBS systems must have the same
protections against suppression, prior restraint, search or seizure
as do newspapers, printing presses and public meeting places.
  5.  The contents of electronic-mail and of confidential or
closed teleconferencing exchanges must have the same protections
against surveillance or seizure as does First Class Mail in a U.S.
Post Office, and private discussions among a group in a home or boardroom.

  As Governor of the State of Nevada I will vigorously support all
of these positions -- both statewide and nationally.
  /s/ Jim Gallaway, candidate for the Governor of Nevada

[Please post & circulate]

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                "Nelson's Canons: A Bill Of Information Rights"


Amelia's news system is totally trashed for a while.  Back to eos.
You might notice that rule #6 is missing.  I went back to the copy of
Computer Lib/Dream Machines and that rule is missing there.  [Obvious
references to the Monty-Python philosophers sketech, noted.]  Here is
Nelson's Canon as promise to the net and Ted himself.
--enm
-----

1. EASY AND ARBITRARY FRONT ENDS.
2. SMOOTH AND RAPID DATA ACCESS.
3. RICH DATA FACILITIES.
4. RICH DATA SERVICES BASED ON THESE STRUCTURES.
5. "FREEDOM FROM SPYING AND SABOTAGE"
7. COPYRIGHT.

1. EASY AND ARBITRARY FRONT ENDS.
   THE TEN-MINUTE RULE
   TEXT MUST MOVE.

2. SMOOTH AND RAPID DATA ACCESS.
   FREEDOM OF ROVING.

3. RICH DATA FACILITIES.
4. RICH DATA SERVICES BASED ON THESE STRUCTURES.
   A. ANTHOLOGICAL FREEDOM.
   B. STEP-OUT WINDOWING.
   C. DISANTHOLOGIAL FREEDOM.

5. "FREEDOM FROM SPYING AND SABOTAGE."
   FREEDOM FROM BEING MONITORED.
   FIDUCIAL SYSTEM FOR TELLING WHICH VERSION IS AUTHENTIC.

7. COPYRIGHT.

It is essential to state these firmly and publically, because you are
going to see a lot of systems in the near future that proport to be
the last-word cat's-pajama systems to bring you "all the information
you need any time, anywhere."  Unless you thought about it you may be
snowed by systems which are inherently and deeply limiting.  Here are
some of the things which I think we all want. (The salesman for the
other system will say they are impossible, or "We don't know how to do
that yet." the standard put down.  But these things are possible, if we
design them in from the bottom up, and there are many different valid
approaches which could bring these thing into being.)

These are rules, derived from common sense and uncommon concern, about
what people can and should have in general screen systems, systems to
read from.

1. EASY AND ARBITRARY FRONT ENDS.

The "front-end" of a system -- that is, the program that creates the
presentations for the user and interacts with him -- must be clear and
simple to use and understand.

   THE TEN-MINUTE RULE. Any system which cannot be well taught to a
laymen in ten minutes, by a tutor in their presence of a responding
setup, is too complicated.  This may sound far too stringent; I think
not.  Rich and powerful systems maybe given front ends which are
nonetheless ridiculously clear; this is a design problem of the
foremost importance.

   TEXT MUST MOVE, that is, slide on the screen when the user moves
forward or backward within the text he is reading.  The alternative,
to clear the screen and lay out a new presentation, is baffling to the
eye and thoroughly disorienting, even with practice.

Many computer people do not yet understand the necessity of this.  The
problem is that if the screen is cleared, and something new then
appears on it, there is no visual way to tell when their new thing
came from: sequence and structure become baffling.  Having it slide
on the screen allows you to understand where you've been and where you
are going; a feeling you also get from turning pages of a book.  (Some
close substitutes may be possible on some types of screen.

On front ends supplied to normal users, there must be no explicit
computer languages requiring input control strings, no visible
esoteric symbols.  Graphical control structures having clarity and
safety, or very clear task oriented keyboards, are among the prime
alternatives.

All operations must be fail-safe.

Arbitrary front ends must be attachable: since we are talking about
from text, or text-and-picture complexes, stores on a large data
system, the presentation front end must be separatable from the data
services provided further down in the system, so the user may attach
his own front-end system, his own styles of operation and his own
private conveniences for roving, editing and other forms of work or
play at the screen.

2. SMOOTH AND RAPID DATA ACCESS.

The system must be built to make possible fast and arbitrary access to
a potentially huge data base, allowing extremely large files (at least
into the billions of characters).  However, the system should be
contrived to allow you to read forward, back, or across links without
substantial hesitation.  Such access must be implicit, not requiring
knowledge of where things are physically stored or what the interest
file names may happen to be.  File divisions must be invisible to the
user in all his roving operations (FREEDOM OF ROVING): boundaries must
be invisible in the final presentations, and the user must not need to
know about them.

3. RICH DATA FACILITIES.

Arbitrary linkages must be possible between portions of text, or text
and pictures; annotation of anything must be provided for;
collateration should be a standard facility, between any pair of
well-defined objects: PLACEMARK facilities must be allowed to drop
anchor at, or in anything.  These features imply private annotations
to publicity-accessible materials as a standard automatic service
mode.

4. RICH DATA SERVICES BASED ON THESE STRUCTURES.

The user must be allowed multiple rovers (movable placemarks at
points of current activity); making possible, especially, multiple
windows (to the location of each rover) with displays of collateral
links.

The system should also have provision for high-level mooting and the
automatic keeping of historical trails.

Then, a complex of certain very necessary and very powerful facilities
based on these things, viz.:

   A. ANTHOLOGICAL FREEDOM: the user must be able to combine easily
anything he finds into an "anthology," a rovable collection of these
materials having the structure he wants.  The linkage information for
such anthologies must be separately transportable and passable between
users.

   B. STEP-OUT WINDOWING: from a place in such an anthology, the user
must be able to step out of the anthology and into the previous
context of the material.  For instance, if he has just read a
quotation, he should be able to have the present anthological context
dissolve around the quotation (while it stays on the screen), and the
original context reappear around it.  The need for this in a
scholarship should be obvious.

   C. DISANTHOLOGIAL FREEDOM: the user must be able to step out of an
anthology in such a way and not return if he chooses.  (This has
important implications for what must also really be happening in the
file structure.)

Earlier versions of public documents must be retained, as users will
have linked to them.

However, where possible, linkages must also be able to survive
revisions of one or both objects.

5. "FREEDOM FROM SPYING AND SABOTAGE."
The assumption must be made at the outset of a wicked and malevolent
governmental authority .  If such a situation does not develop, well
and good; if it does, the system will have a few minimal safeguards
built in.

FREEDOM FROM BEING MONITORED.  The use of pseudonyms and dummy
accounts by individuals, as well as the omission of certain
record-keeping by the system program, are necessary here.  File
retention under dummy accounts is also required.

Because of the danger of file sabotage, and the private at-home
retention by individuals of files that also exist on public systems,
it is necessary to have FIDUCIAL SYSTEM FOR TELLING WHICH VERSION IS
AUTHENTIC.  The doctoring of on-line documents, the rewriting of
history--cf. both Winston Smith's continuous revision of the
encyclopedia in Nineteen Eighty-Four and "The White House"-- is a
constant danger.  Thus our systems must have a number of complex
provisions for verification of falsification, especially the creation
of multilevel fiducials (parity systems), and their storage must be
localizible and separate to small parts of files.

7. COPYRIGHT.

Copyright must of course be retained, but a universal flexible rule
has to be worked out, permitting material to be transmitted and copied
under specific circumstances for the payment of a royality fee,
surcharges on top of your other expenses in using the system.

For any individual section of material, such a royality should have a
maximum: i.e., " by now you've bought it."

Varying royalty rates, however, should be the arbitrary choice of the
copyright holder: except that royalities should not varying sharply
locally within a tissue of material.  On public screens, moving
between areas of different royalties cost must be sharply marked.

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                           "Sex And Networks By Jef"

>Remember the Abernathy article in the Houston Chronicle?
>
>I think the after-effects have hit home!  I just received notice that
>all non-academic news-feeds (that's me) can no longer receive
>alt.sex.anything.  In order to "justify" this policy, the facilities
>director decided to cut ALL alt.whatever from outside users of usenet
>here at IU.
>
>reason than to buy time before their local thought police overstep
>their bounds!
>

Well at PSUVM they also cut all alt.sex.*. Thier justifcation was as I
understand it 'Interstate transportation of pornographic material.'

  - Jef

'Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant...Death is irrelevant."
                                                  - The Borg

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                         "Secret Service By John Moore"

]I've been informed that there's some text missing from this story;
]the following is a corrected version.

I have a number of reactions to Len Rose's story.

The first is that the SS is really over-reacting to this situation.
Len was treated just as badly as a mugger or rapist, and yet was
at most (if he is to be believed) guilty of bad judgement and
some property ownership violations best settled with civil
law. It's a shame that the lords of the 1st amendment (the
mass media) are collaborators in this brutal assault on the
first amendment rights of computer users.

The second is if you have proprietary source code, you cannot complain
if you get hassled in some way (although the SS police state tactics
were way out of line). It is just not smart, in this day of computer
"crime" hysteria, to have anything you shouldn't have. On the other hand,
when I was young (and enough years ago - 20 - that the statute of limitations
has LONG past), a group of us did some university hacking and ourselves
had proprietary source of an OS (now defunct), so I understand the
urge. In fact, at the time it was the only way of learning about OS
construction. That is no longer true.

The third is that Len was really naive about how to act when accosted
by the law. Even if one is COMPLETELY innocent, the best thing to do is
to shut up and say nothing until your attorney is present. Len really blew
it by trying to be cooperative. The people behind this jihad are just
going to take advantage of such cooperation.

The fourth is that we are going to have to get some sanity into this whole
issue. If someone vandalizes a computer, they should be treated like
vandals, not murderers (and I hope they go to jail for that vandalism!).
If they trespass in a computer, they should be treated like trespassers.
If data is "stolen," its owners shouldn't claim that the "thief"
took away from them whatever it cost to make the data. After all, the
owners still have it, and unless the data is used competitively against
them, they really suffered no dollar cost at all. I hold AT&T to blame
for some of this mess! Their allegations, in various cases, of huge
thefts just serve to inflame the situation. I would be ashamed to
work for AT&T as a software engineer! Yes - one shouldn't steal AT&T
source code or marketing documents. But, a computer hacker who grabbed
a source of Unix for his own use didn't steal $20,000,000,000 as was
alleged in one case - he stole $1000 or so (unless he distributes that
source code). It is more akin to theft of service (a 'la cable TV fame)
than theft of property.
--
John Moore

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                      "Secret Service By Dr. Roger Rabbit"

In article <3108@mindlink.UUCP> a80@mindlink.UUCP (Greg Goss) writes:
‡> rabbit@hyprion.ddmi.com writes:
‡>
‡> In article <11608@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene You know - I
‡> wonder why the SS just doesn't get a computer expert to
‡> come with them to the site of the raid and duplicate the hard drive
‡> contents? Why do they need to take someone's machine?? ... And, I DON'T
‡>
‡
‡There are too many "tricks" to hide information.
‡
‡You mentioned Poland.  One of the solidarity tricks was to circulate a floppy
‡with some report on tractor production or something boring on it.  Then you
‡take Norton and unerase a file with some innocuous name and read the
‡newsletter.  Then you erase it again and pass it on.
‡
[Other tricks mentioned]

Thats why I said that they should send someone in to look at the machine.
Give the owner of the machine a choice: "Either you let this expert take
as much time looking at your machine as he deems neccessary, or we take
it away." That would seem to me to be the more reasonable approach to take
in an "innocent until proven guilty" system.

I personaly beleive that the SS confiscations are an attempt to bypass
Due Process in order to punish those that they think are guilty. Perhaps
they don't have enough evidence for an indictment, perhaps they don't want
to spend the $$$ for a trial - whatever. In any event, the government is
pissing on The Constitution and I don't like it a bit. (Yes - I have
already written lengthy letters to my US Reps and Senators about this.)

By the way - could someone E-MAIL me the address of the EFF so that I
can get more involved in their organization. We had better take back our
rights before it becomes neccessary to use guns to do so.

--
>>> BAN: Nuclear Power, US Intervention in South America, Toxic Waste
>>> (Including dip) Trash Incinerators, Nuclear Weapons, Poverty,
>>> Racism, Sexism, Specieism, etc... Write to: Toons for a Better World,
>>> 2001 Yatza St., Toontown, CA 90128 E-MAIL: rabbit@hyprion.ddmi.com

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                              "SS And YOU By Mike"

Brian Yamauchi writes:

>Perhaps some net.legal.expert can answer a question -- can Steve Jackson
>(and other victims) sue the SS (and other agencies) for his losses?  If
>he does, what are his chances (assuming he and his employees are not
>charged/convicted)?

Based on what we currently know about the warrant, the chances are
not very good. In general, the Federal Tort Claims Act bars actions
against law-enforcement agents and agencies that cause harm to individuals
while executing a lawful warrant. For a cause of action to accrue
against, say, the Secret Service, it would have to be shown that the
SS went beyond the authorization of the search warrant when they sought
and seized all that property and paper and Steve Jackson Games.

Now, the warrant was sealed, which means that few people have had
access to the warrant itself and therefore few  can say whether the
language of the warrant has been overstepped. But since very broad
search warrants have been held to be lawful in the past, I think the
odds are fairly poor that Steve Jackson Games will recover in tort
against the federal government.

It's still possible, however, that we may all be surprised on that
issue.

--Mike

Mike Godwin, UT Law School  |"If the doors of perception were cleansed
mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | every thing would appear to man as it is,
(512) 346-4190              | infinite."
                            |                 --Blake

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                           "TO TRACE OR NOT TO TRACE"

Take apart the phone and look for any devices that might be home-made or
contain their own batteries etc etc,
Contact the CuD and ask for plans for an Icon box, make it yourself
Call the phone company and tell them to stop tracing your line.
Check the back of Radio Electronics magazine, look for small adds from
FBN companies, there is usually something there.

If none of these work, then you are probably better off not knowing if
your line is being traced or not.

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                  "To Trace Or Not To Trace II By Tim Maroney"

>Take apart the phone and look for any devices that might be home-made or
>contain their own batteries etc etc,

More likely is that anything like a universal bug would be attached to
the wall near the home phone switching board, probably in a separate
plastic box labelled "phone company property -- do not open" or
something similar.  A universal bug is a particularly nasty little toy
that allows the phone microphone to be used as a general-purpose sonic
bug when the phone is on hook.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com

FROM THE FOOL FILE:
"Yet another piece of evidence that it's a Communist society which is being
 presented as good, but which we probably would not want to live in."
        -- Ken Arromdee on rec.arts.startrek, on the Federation's Red Menace

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                  "Drug Of The Government By Dr. Roger Rabbit"

‡
‡        If the (relatively few) criminals manage to create
‡        an atmosphere of fear and cause basic rights and our
‡        ability to do business to be under attack THEN THE
‡        CRIMINALS HAVE ALSO WON!
‡

RIGHT!

‡
‡In the former case, we can take care and learn how to protect
‡ourselves from, what we hope remains, a small minority of
‡irresponsible or malicious people, random chance.
‡

Like I've always said - government is a drug which people use as a
(perceived) easy way out of some predicament. Some criminals start
harming people and we immediatly cry to the government to solve the
problem instead of taking care of the matter ourselves (ie: tightening
up our system security, etc).

Just like drugs, government never really solves any problems but (at
best) provides some temporary solution or the *ILLUSION* of a solution
(ie: the rhetoric that the SS is putting out about "taking a substantial
bite out of computer crime).

One day the "drug" addict wakes up and finds that he has more problems
than he can handle. His life is totally out of control and he can do
nothing for himself. He is addicted to the "drug" of government.

What price is he paying? 1> He now lacks any will or ability to solve
problems for himself. 2> He has signed away all of his Constitutional
Rights to the government.

This is one of the basic problems that I see in society today - the
lack of community initiative in solving problems at the grass roots
level. In the "olden days" (ie: before FDR), people solved problems
on their own in communities - they did not ask for a hulking, inhumane
bureaucracy to do it for them. They picked up valuable skills which
made them better people. This is what is wrong with today's society-
people are too lazy or scared to take the initiative and the government
is all too eager to "help" out, while in the process, slowly dismatling
the Constitution.

‡In the latter case, we are all under attack and the govt is acting as
‡a pervasive agent in all our lives, we can't defend against that by
‡putting "bars on the windows" etc., when the govt knocks to take our
‡systems we have to let them in the front door.
‡

Thats why I said in one of my previous postings that I would rather
deal with the threat of some hacker busting into my system  than to
feel "safe" with the government "protecting" me.

‡
‡Even being exonerated in the end would be an almost useless outcome,
‡swell, they destroyed my business and my career but I should be
‡thankful they didn't send me to jail?
‡
‡        THE CURRENT ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR MUST BE STOPPED!!!
‡
Yes - but the problem is that there are very few people who 1> Are
smart/interested enough to really care and 2> would be willing to
risk their neck in the fight. I really don't see a solution to this
"constitution-bashing", although I won't give up.

‡Consider this a cry of anguish, pain and anxiety from a fellow
‡citizen.
‡

Add my voice to that cry of anguish and pain. I really wonder what this
country will be like in, say the year 2020. I don't want to think about
it.

Dr. Rabbit says "THINK - JUST DO IT"

--
>>> BAN: Nuclear Power, US Intervention in South America, Toxic Waste
>>> (Including dip) Trash Incinerators, Nuclear Weapons, Poverty,
>>> Racism, Sexism, Specieism, etc... Write to: Toons for a Better World,
>>> 2001 Yatza St., Toontown, CA 90128 E-MAIL: rabbit@hyprion.ddmi.com

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                    "Screaming First Or Sundevil? By ICEMAN"

  Perhaps someone can help clarify to me what the SS hopes to
achieve with Operation "Screaming Fist" (oops, that was Gibson;
I guess I mean "SunDevil", or maybe :-) "Poorly lubricated Fist")

a)  The secret service must surely know that the main threat of computer
    crime does not come from the 18-year-olds but from the professional
    crackers who get paid loads of money to raid corporate information
    systems, just like the majority of "normal" crime is not the 12-year
    olds who do doorbell-ditching.

b)  However, I have not yet heard of a case where a professional cracker
    (ie, someone who is directly making money from cracking) has been
    convicted or even accussed of doing so.  (If anyone knows of any,
    please correct me.)

  Given these two things, it seems that the SS is either trying to "clear
the field" of the petty offenders (by making the punishments so extreme
that no one dare crack casually) so as to better pursue the professionals;
and/or is trying stop the amateur hackers before they get a chance to go
pro.  Now, I am not going to argue legality or constitutionality, since
I know little about either, but it would seem that the SS is destined
to fail for strictly practical reasons.

  First off, if they do intend to go after the professional crackers
at some point, it would seem they are ill-equipped to do so.  We have
already witnessed the stunning ability of their experts.  If I were
a professional, I wouldn't be too scared.  Even if they do get people
who can actually insert a floppy right-side-up, I do not think they
will ever get people of the same caliber of professional crackers.
And even if they did, information space is not like physical space,
where you will always leave behind evidence.  Even the most perfect
robbery can be noticed by the fact that SOMETHING IS GONE.  An excellent
cracker could get into a system, rob it blind, and leave no clues.
Any evidence of his visit is only electronic, and can thus be
manipulated or erased.  Note that I am not arguing that computer
information theft is inevitable; I am merely arguing that typical police
procedures work at finding a criminal after a crime, and in computer
crime that is not always possible.  Thus, the crime MUST be stopped by
making systems more secure, something which the SysOp, and not the
SS, must do.

  Secondly, if the SS is trying to discourage casual crackers, it is
doing a *REALLY* lousy job of it.  By choosing to pursue the associates
of the crackers instead of the crackers themselves, they are only going
to make the crackers less likely to expose themselves to non-crackers.
I would think this would result in crackers more quickly becoming
professionals (ie, only cracking when it is worth their while).

  I welcome comments.

 -ice

=============
"Those who understand are master to those who use, but do not undertand."
          - a noted 1st century Roman historian
=============

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                            "Cybertoon By CAT-TALK"

In article <26353@cs.yale.edu> evans-ron@cs.yale.edu (Ron Warren Evans) writes:
‡What is "CyberToon"?  Does it exist, or is this just a put-on?
‡It sounds very interesting.

Cybertoon" is a book about a group of scientist who formed a consortium
back in the 1850's to carry our experiments in genetic engineering. They
hid their research from the rest of the world because 1> People would
probably hurt them for messing with "nature" and 2> Mankind would probably
take the results of their research and use it for no good (as usual).

They ended up engineering about 3 dozen species. The common features of
these beings were that they were quite resiliant to adverse environmental
events (their super immune system prevented almost all deseases from
affecting them and causing death and they could take a lot of physical
abuse without much adverse affects [Ie: having anvils and piano's dropped
on their heads without injury]). These beings were also immortal.

Some of the species engineered were quasi-bipedal cats, rabbits, mice,
dogs and ducks. These beings were called "toons".

Basically, this book gives a history of how "toons" came into being. No -
they aren't animated figures, they are real beings.

This book is not published by any big publisher and is only available
from the author. About 1500 copies have been distributed so far. One
of the problems is that the book is 149 chapters (about 4100 pages)
separated into five volumes.

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----

                       "TO THE TROOPS IN THE MIDDLE EAST"

        A MESSAGE FROM VETERANS TO THE TROOPS AT FORT SAUDI ARABIA
        ----------------------------------------------------------

        The US government is dressing you up in poison gas suits to
play rambo for them in the Persian Gulf. You are sitting out in the
middle of the desert with your ass on the line, wondering what's going
to happen next. We suspect you are a decoy to draw the gas attack which
would be used as an excuse for a US invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

        We know what you are going through, because we spent some time
in the shooting gallery too. As veterans we want to say straight up:
you have no more interest in fighting in the war the US is preparing for
today, than we did in the war they were waging in the 60's. Vietnam era
GIs were told that we were bringing Asian people democracy. We wound
up killing 2.5 million of those people in a war of genocide. You are
in the Middle East supposedly to protect "our" oil. You could wind up
killing hundreds of thousands. AND FOR WHAT? So that the pentagon can
finally establish Fort Saudi Arabia, like they have been wanting to for
so long? So that the US can control the oil resources of that region that
don't belong to us in the first place? So they, by extension, can control
their main economic competitors like Japan and in Europe who depend on that
oil? The bottom line seems to be expanding the US empire as the motive and
hair trigger politics and massive troop deployments as the method.

        The situation is volatile. When the orders come to Rambo out, your
response will profoundly impact the lives of millions of people in the
Middle East and have unknown effects on world history. The politicians
stuck you in a situation where you can't now see the end result of your
actions. But you, like us, will have to live with those results forever.

        The brass want you to obey, we want you to think. We feel that our
experience may have an effect on your decisions. Those of us who sat in the
jungles of Vietnam learned that we could see no bravery in "Search and
Destroy" missions in which we directed massive firepower to slaughter
anything that moved. We could find no glory in destroying the village to
save it. Similarly, many Beirut vets speak of the rude awakening when they
realized that the people they were sent to "protect" hated them and that every
US GI was a sitting duck. (Remember the Marine barracks?) Those of us who
are vets of the US invasion of Panama ask where is the honor in house-to-house
terror, or in pushing back the Panamanian families who had come to mass grave
sites seeking to identify and reclaim their loved ones. You undoubtedly will
have many of the same experiences we did. Ghosts march through our dreams
every night. Your nightmares have yet to begin.

CHECK OUT THESE FACTS:

* Its one thing to kill,die or get maimed for a worthy cause. But once the
smoke clears and the shooting is over, as history has shown time and again,
we shouldn't have been in there.

* When you are choking in a poisoned atmosphere, remember that you are facing
chemical and other weapons sold to Iraq by Western powers only too happy to
make a buck off the deal.

And ask any veteran who suffers from Agent Orange exposure what help you
cant expect if you survive. Remember that the US is still operating massive
defoliation programs in Central and South America under the phony excuse of
the war on drugs.

* Remember too, that for 8 years the US government cheered on Iraq while it
gassed Iran and its own Kurdish people.

* Bush says you are there to stop naked aggression. That hypocrite has no right
to speak on this question, having just finished invading Panama.

* Saddam Hussein is a reactionary ruler who invaded Kuwait in his own
interests. But while the US media calls him a fascist madman, the US
government is busily trying to keep you from being able to but unapproved
record albums. In the US, racism and police attacks are on the rise. There
are major efforts to stifle political protests, and women are fighting their
own government to protect their reproductive rights.

        Meanwhile you sweat it out on a lie and a humbug. Sure, there are those
Rambozoids who can hardly wait for the order to charge. Well, let those who
proudly wear the "KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT" shirts pay the price.
But to those of you who question blindly going along with the program, we have
something to say.

        You should know that while you are carrying out your orders there are
veterans from previous wars and military actions leading demonstrations agaisnt
your presence in the Middle East. We will welcome you back to join our ranks.
Like you, we were ordered to do our duty. Take Vietnam (which some of us tried
to do). Fooled at first, we began to question the lies and the hypocrisy that
put us there. Many of us were sickened by what we were ordered to do. Others
were inspired by the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese. We began to resist.
Thousands of us in Vietnam (and in the U.S.) refused to carry out orders.
Whole companies and naval units mutinied and refused to fight. A half million
US troops deserted. GI resistance took every form, from the fragging of
officers, to a number of troops that actually joined and fought for the other
side. Out of all that we learned to question what the hell is going on. All
the government learned was to tell bigger lies. Welcome to Fort Saudi Arabia.

        As veterans we came to understand that our duty was to the people of
the world and to the future, not to the Empire. We resisted and rebelled.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?


                US TROOPS OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!!!

        Vietnam Veterns Agaisnt the War Anti-Imperialist
                        4710 University Way NE #1612
                                Seattle, WA 98105
                                 (206) 292-1624

                        ----NIA----NIA----NIA----NIA----


                                Guardian Of Time
                                  Judge Dredd
                          Ignorance, Theres No Excuse.
                      For questions or comments write to:
                       Internet: elisem@nuchat.sccsi.com
                             ..!uunet!nuchat!elisem
                              Fidonet: 1:106/69.0
                                       or
                                  NIA FeedBack
                              Post Office Box 299
                            Santa Fe, Tx 77517-0299
[OTHER WORLD BBS]