Soviet Access to Usenet
John Draper
Hi,
I recently returned from the Soviet Union, Met a LOT of programmers,
Educators, and their people of Technology. There is a LOT of amazing
changes goiong on over there right now. It's not the usual rhetoric of
Glasnost and Peristroika, it's more than that.
I was so inpired as the results the trip, that I'm just about to
publish my experiences while in the USSR. It was nothing short of
Amazing, and contains very useful information on setting up Joint
Ventures or study groups. It dissolves a LOT of myth about the
Soviet Union, and covers all the trivia with a Hackers eyes view of
the Soviet Union, and Soviet Hackers Lifestyles, which are very MUCH
similar to ours. Be looking for it HERE in "comp.misc" as soon as I finish
it.
Contrary to popular belief, Modems are NOT illegal in the USSR, instead
they are very much prized posessions. Anyone can own one, IF they can
get them.
Geeee!!! Lets start a Modem Drive...!!! Just kidding... But really!!
But can we DO this on Usenet. Hmmm Probably not. :-|
There are UNIX sites that exist in the Soviet Union, but only a FEW
are using UUCP. I have connections that can give me more information on
UNIX sites in the USSR, I just need to know what questions to ask.
I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network
but have heard nothing but VAPORWARE. Does anyone out there in Net land
WANT to add Soviet sites?? I can think of a hundred reasons why!!
not to mention what it would do towards World Peace.
Imagine day-to-day communication with Soviet programmers, hackers
(I have met MANY), and Educators. They ALSO have virus problems,
software piracy (Mostly OURS), and most of all, Equipment Shortages.
They get payed MUCH less than we do, and have the Social status of
a clerk or secretary. But their style of programming is totally
amazing. Perhaps later, I can give you some examples. For instance,
when they got infected by the IBM-PC virus, they probably said...
Hmmmm!! Whats going on here?? Go into Debug, chase through the IBM-DOS
or operating system code, located it, and remove it. It's surprising
how MANY Soviet people who have PC's know how to do this. They think
NOTHING about going into the Machine code and patching commercial products.
Naturally, they have to be educated about the importance of Intellectual
property, and they would ALWAYS pay for American software if they were
ALLOWED to pay in Rubles. Unfurtunately, Soviets cannot pay for foreign
goods with Rubles, at least not Legally. Eventually, this will change,
as I was assured with my recent visit to the Soviet Union. Earlier, there
had been some publications mentioning that the Russians were stealing our
software. But each Soviet computer user I came in contact with,
expressed to me that they would Gladly pay for software licenses and support
if they were ALLOWED to pay in Rubles.
One IMPORTANT consideration and policy I'm adapting, is that if I see
an article worthey of sending to the Soviet Union, I will contact the origional
author FIRST and obtain permission. This would usually be for long and
informative articles and papers. However, I might NOT do this if I send
over "Idle chit chat" discussing important issues. Another equally important
consideration are the trade restrictions regulating the importation of certain
kinds of computer data to the Eastern block nations. I have ordered a copy
of the regs, and if anyone is interested, I'll summerize them. These were
enacted by the Expost Administration Act of 1979. Surly you all must remember
the Reagan Over-reaction, because the Russkies were obtaining Western
Technology. I leaned that the Soviets STILL get high tech parts from OTHER
countries. But WE should be careful, and take the responsibility to abide
by rules. I have so informed the Soviets, and will be getting copies of
THEIR rules and controls.
The current topics of discussion over this link should be:
a) Tips on setting up Joint Projects or ventures with the Soviets, such
as a list of American institutions wanting to work with Soviets, and
vice versa.
b) Soviet techniques for virus prevention and removal. They apply a
very **direct** solution to the problem.
c) New ideas for development tools from the Soviets, they are
Exceptionally good in this department. They are especially strong
in Natural Language development, AI, Object Oriented Programming,
and writing their OWN commercial quality programs. We have a LOT
to learn from them. I know I certainly did.
d) The Soviets are weak in free enterprise, and have NO experience,
largely because until just recently, were NOT Allowed to. They
ALSO want to start selling software, both within the Soviet Union,
and to Americans.
e) Soviets are also into Robotics, and factory automation. But MOST
importantly, regular Soviet citizens are snapping up PC's as soon
as they become available. Especially modems.
f) Soviets want to PAY for American software products, but currently
NO mechanism exists to allow this to happen easily. Comments and
suggestions for solving this problem are always welcome.
g) Reports on Soviet Trade shows to Americans.
h) Reports on American Trade shows to Soviets.
They have a 2 hr TV program in the morning that educates the public
about computers, and even have programming classes in 8086 assembly language,
Pascal and Basic. When I watched it, they were explaining how to patch
the BIOS so a Bulgarian printer will work with a PC. I don't completly
know Russian, but enough information was in English for me to get an
idea. It's amazing that material like this is broadcast over nation-wide
TV. Another show "120 minutes", also broadcast in the morning, constantly
informes the Soviet citizen about the importance of computers, and how they
help produce hight quality goods in their stores.
Their Cyrillic fonts of ascii characters above 0x80 are activated from
the keyboard by shift lock. The video driver is available from the
Academy of sciences for the asking.
In about 3 weeks, my SF/Moscow Data Teleport service will be firmly
established, enabling me to send and recieve Email from Moscow instantly.
This service is so inexpensive that I'm trying it for 6 months or so.
If anyone wants details, call (415) 931-8500 and ask for details. The
prices are $15/hr connect time (About the same as BIX I think), and $25/month
for BASIC service, and $75/month for Extended service, such as follow-up
for un-answered messages by phone calls, stimulation of timely responses
from your Soviet counterparts, technical training on the Soviet side, as
well as Email access FROM the Soviet Union TO the USA if you plan on traveling
there.
I have established an amazing list of contacts who ALSO will be getting
the teleport service on the Soviet side, dedicating towards setting up and
using a UUCP network, then I will have direct communication with them. I
also got the Extended service that provides me with phone call followup
messages to Soviets NOT connected to the system. This will enable them to
drop down to the local Teleport office and Email me a message. Or having
my Soviet contact call them on the phone to dictate a message to me.
If anyone here in NetLand wants to closly work with me, to establish
this UUCP network, please Email me, and let me know what YOU can do to
help facilitate the UUCP link. What we need is: A Unix site interested
in maintaining DIRECT connection to the Teleport, enabling Soviet users to
dial a LOCAL Moscow number, connecting DIRECTLY to your site. The
American site must make arrangements or provide a joint venture so that the
Soviet side maintains an office, accepts applicants for users, and sets
them up with an account.
So, what do you want to know about the Soviet Union, Please make your
resuests now, and flood my mail box. I'll gather up your requests and
Email them to my friend at the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and lets see
what the Ruskies have to say. They are eagerly awaiting your questions.
Email me at: uunet!acad!well!crunch - Personal
or uunet!acad!crunch - If related to AutoDesk Business
Till later....
Crunch
Alexander J Denner
> I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network
>but have heard nothing but VAPORWARE. Does anyone out there in Net land
>WANT to add Soviet sites?? I can think of a hundred reasons why!!
>not to mention what it would do towards World Peace.
I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets
do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am
saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as
they can.) Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets
are NOT our friends. The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering
network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into
western scientific thought? Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the
changes are only superficial. I do not think that he can trust the Soviet
government at all. (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really
sincere and wants to destroy all weapons on the Earth, it is very possible
that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil return to the "old"
way.) I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs
by copying our Shuttle, why let them get so much information so easily?
Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to
spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. Also, what if a virus
from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J. Denner ajde...@athena.mit.edu
234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner
Cambridge, MA 02139 ajdenner%ath...@mitmva.mit.edu
Greg Lee
" ...
" I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets
" do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am
" saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as
" they can.)
" ... make it much easier for them to ...
If they already have access, then it couldn't be easier for them to have
access, unless it's a question of degree or immediacy. If their access
is on the record, it would be bad public relations for them to cause
problems. If a network connection is ever permitted, the price would
probably be extra security precautions, in which case the net effect
(pun intended) would be more protection for sensitive information.
cs45...@ariel.unm.edu
someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to
this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering
that much easier. While it is true that classified systems are not
connected to any network, the system is cross connected to Arpanet, and
access to this net is effectively access to Arpanet. Not good.
BTW to the original poster--the reason modems are a precious commodity
in the USSR is that the government considers many forms of information
to be secrets to be carefully guarded from the general public.
Modems transmit information too quickly to be managed or tracked, and
they are entrusted only to those who are deemed trustworthy.
Alexander J Denner
>From article <80...@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, by ajde...@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner):
>" ...
>" I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets
>" do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am
>" saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as
>" they can.)
>" ... why make it easier for them to ...
>If they already have access, then it couldn't be easier for them to have
>access, unless it's a question of degree or immediacy. If their access
>is on the record, it would be bad public relations for them to cause
>problems. If a network connection is ever permitted, the price would
>probably be extra security precautions, in which case the net effect
>(pun intended) would be more protection for sensitive information.
The only time that the government would willing cause problems
is a time when public relations would be their least concern.
I agree that one good effect is that security would be
tightned for sensitive information, but there is a problem. UUCP does
not carry classified information, so that is not my major concern. The
Soviets send a great deal of money in the United States having people
sort through the immense amount of information that they get. The limit
on their acquisition of information is logistic. With a link, they can
peruse the info faster, more easily, and much more throughly.
Also, the KGB can devote the displaced people in this country to other
espionage activities. (They only have a limited number of people in
this country.)
Bill Kennedy
>From article by ajde...@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner): "
OK, I'm a little paranoid, I saw the remarks about what we or "they"
might do in the event of a misstep like the ARPA fiasco, but I'm
wondering. I think that the usenet community has been significantly
enriched by our international neighbors. Further, we have all benefitted
from contributions from usenet sites outside of geographical areas that
are "friendly" to the Western bloc.
We, unfortunately perhaps, conduct these discussions in English, so it
might be difficult for a Soviet colleague to be as effusive as they might
if we had linguacode or esparanto (sp?). I, for one, would be interested
in seeing/hearing/following some discussion with the Eastern bloc. Let's
set the military/intelligence junk aside. I'm convinced that "our side"
and "their side" have already combed out everything "they"/"we" want, I'd
like to have access to the thoughts/problems of folks that we seem to think
still live in the age of the kerosene computer.
The HAM radio operators have done it for years. The facility to expand on that
is soon to be upon us, would anyone else like to pick up some pointers or
offer some with a colleague in the same racket? Might we not be able to
tear down some perceived or synthetic barriers? I don't know, that's why I
posted...
--
Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,rutgers,sun!daver,uunet!bigtex}!ssbn!bill
internet bi...@ssbn.WLK.COM
Ken Seefried iii
> I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets
>do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am
>saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as
>they can.)
You are so sure, are you? You REALLY underestimate the Soviet intellegence
gathering machine if you don't think they have clear access to a nation
spanning, unsecure network linking the ccountries universities, companies and
research institute. Wake up, the Soviets are not stupid. If nothing else,
they probably have Portal accounts.
> Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets
>are NOT our friends.
Yea....we wouldn't want those godless commies to be reading soc.singles and
learning the latest in American going-to-a-bar-and-getting-laid technology, or
fining out all our closely guarded, national security secrets dicussed on
talk.bizzare...1\2 ;')
> The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering
>network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into
>western scientific thought?
Who the hell are you trying to kid? All any KGB agent has to do to tune into
the latest western scientific thought is walk down to the library and pick
up a copy of, say, IBM Technical Journal, The New England Journal of Medicine,
ACM Transactions in Computer Science, etc., etc. Americas scientific thought
is discussed, evangelised and paraded before the world every day in a thousand
different journals, newspapers, lectures and TV programmes.
Anything that is not suitable for those mediums is certainly NOT suitable for
the Internet. In case you have forgotten, it is ILLEGAL for sensitive
information to be availible on the Internet....
> Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the
>changes are only superficial.
Umm....last I heard, Sakarov was talking about how sencere Gorbachev was...
> I do not think that he can trust the Soviet
>government at all. (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really
>sincere and wants to destroy all weapons on the Earth, it is very possible
>that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil return to the "old"
>way.)
This kind of rabid xenophobia is sad...I bet you lose sleep wondering how long
its going to be before the Soviets invade us....
> I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs
>by copying our Shuttle, why let them get so much information so easily?
One hundred percent, grade A+ bullshit. The news has paraded rocket scientist
after rocket scientist across the tube and every one of them have said the
same thign: "there are only so many ways to build a space plane, and that is
one of the best..." The Soviets didn't copy our shuttle...thats just the way
one is built....
>
> Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to
>spread a malicious virus in a time of friction.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHA........absolutely ludicrous...you are again operating
under the assumption that the Evil Empire dosent already have connections to
the Internet. There are a few hundred students here with Internet accounts.
I bet the commie pinkos have recruted at least one of them...;'};'}
> Also, what if a virus
>from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
>Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.
FINALLY! A marginally valid point! Probably would make noone very happy, but
it isnt exactly the thing nuclear wars are made of...
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Alexander J. Denner ajde...@athena.mit.edu
>234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner
>Cambridge, MA 02139 ajdenner%ath...@mitmva.mit.edu
Lets have a little sanity check here...the way i read it, the Russians would
have a lousy mail and news feed. You know, rec.humor, soc.culture.soviet,
soc.mtoss (KGB would LOVE that!), heavy technical stuff like
comp.unix.questions (;'}), a few electronic pen pals. I didn't here anyone
mention accounts on 'sri.com' or 'brl.gov'.
Now I'm as patriotic and anti-communist as the next guy, probably more so.
And I'm not about to advocate jumping in bed with the Soviets just cause
Gorbie is a helluva guy, but christ, there simply is NOTHING wrong with a
little friendly communication and a little exposure to another culture. This
little 'Electronic Exchange Programme' sure isn't giving the KGB any
oportunities that it didn't already have, and it might give
Joe-(Boris)-Average-Russian-Computer-Jock a chance to say, "hey, these guys
aren't so bad for a bunch of imperialistic money-grubbing opressors of the
working class..." Maybe that will go both ways...
And remeber kids: Joe McCarthy died 20+ years ago...lets keep it that way.
ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs,
k...@gatech.edu masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax,
cca...@gitvm1.bitnet ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken
``The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them
before you, to rob them of their wealth and to see those dear to
them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and to clasp to your
bosom their wives and daughters.''
-- Ghengis Kahn
Rob Raisch
-
- In article <80...@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajde...@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:
- This kind of rabid xenophobia is sad...I bet you lose sleep wondering how long
- its going to be before the Soviets invade us....
- ..... and it might give
- Joe-(Boris)-Average-Russian-Computer-Jock a chance to say, "hey, these guys
- aren't so bad for a bunch of imperialistic money-grubbing opressors of the
- working class..." Maybe that will go both ways...
- And remeber kids: Joe McCarthy died 20+ years ago...lets keep it that way.
HERE HERE!!!!! (Slamming his shoe on the table in great excitement!)
Paul Campbell
>l...@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >
>>From article by ajde...@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner): "
>" ...
>" I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets
>" do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am
>" saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as
>" they can.)
>" ... why make it easier for them to ...
>" ... make it much easier for them to ...
>
>might be difficult for a Soviet colleague to be as effusive as they might
>if we had linguacode or esparanto (sp?). I, for one, would be interested
etc etc
Usenet is an anarchy! If someone in europe wants to give the Soviets a newsfeed
how are you (or the US government) going to stop them .... send in the Marines?
(Actually this is a traditional US remedy - usually causes more trouble than it
solves). Besides the feeds to/from Europe/Austrailia/South America are
carried over the normal international phone system, do you really think that
anyone actually bothers to encrypt it?
I think that with something as large as Usenet it is important to take a world
view, remember that not everyone gets all the news groups, NOT EVEN HERE IN THE
US, the foreign language ones from Europe are not sent here for the same reason
the *.flame is not sent there - economics, no one is willing to pay for them.
I also think that far more Russians on the net would speak/write English than
English speakers - how many of you had the option to learn Russian as a second
language in high school?
I think that all in all it is much more important to talk one on one, just think
if everyone in the US had a friend in the USSR and vice versa would we be as
ready to drop the big one? No of course not, as soon as you stop looking at
people as objects everything becomes much less black and white.
By the way there is already a group of people in Berkeley who arrange a
computer based discussion group with a group in Moscow .. can anyone provide
more details?
Paul
--
Paul Campbell ..!{unisoft|mtxinu}!taniwha!paul (415)420-8179
Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA
"Where was George?" - Who cares - news at eleven.
Kurt L. Reisler
FidoNet. As of the last nodelist, there are two (2) FidoNet nodes
listed in Warsaw, Poland (2:480/1 and 2:480/2). From what I understand,
these are operated by a Polish Computer Club, and are "gatewayed"
through a node in Holland. I also understand that some sysops who have
sent mail to these nodes have never received any responses back.
Anyway, since links exist between usenet and fidonet, the link between
usenet and the Soviet Bloc (although a bit flakey on the FidoNet side),
does exist. Whether anyone is actually using it is a valid quesiton,
but the fact of the existance of the Polish FidoNet nodes is there.
Kurt Reisler (703) 359-6100
============================================================================
UNISIG Chairman, DECUS US Chapter | Hadron, Inc.
..{uunet|sundc|rlgvax|netxcom|decuac}!hadron!klr | 9990 Lee Highway
Sysop, Fido 109/74 The Bear's Den (703) 671-0598 | Suite 481
Sysop, Fido 109/483 The Pot of Gold (703) 359-6549 | Fairfax, VA 22030
============================================================================
Mike Trout
> I do not think this <adding Soviet sites to the UUCP network> would be
> a very good idea. [...]
> Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets are NOT our
> friends.
Would you like to change that situation, or would you prefer to remain
non-friends? If you seek change, how would you achieve it? Politico-economic
pressure? Nuke the bastards? Invade them? Diplomacy? Bribery?
Carrot-and-stick? If you prefer to remain non-friends, prepare to spend
an increasing percentage of our national resources on maintaining this
adversarial relationship. Not an easy choice, in any event. Perhaps we need
to re-think many of our most ingrained attitudes--such as our (and the
Soviets') perverse need for a convenient enemy that we can blame our own
mistakes on.
> The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering network in this country,
> why make it easier for them to tune into western scientific thought?
Sorry, but we live in a democracy, and that's one of the prices we must pay.
The Soviets won't have any trouble obtaining what they want, whether they use
the net or not. I would wager a guess that the amount of truly useful
information that passes over public networks is extremely minuscule. Most
information classified is done so for the purpose of keeping it from the
American people, not the from the Soviets. You may rest assured that the
Soviets have had for years all the information they need about the Stealth
Bomber, for example. The only people who don't know Stealth details are the
American people, and that's to keep us from knowing the true amount of money
that's disappeared down that rat hole. Bear in mind the truly awesome
accomplishments of the Soviet intelligence services in World War 2,
accomplishments achieved against the rather un-democratic Third Reich. I'm
glad we had those folks on OUR side, thank you.
> Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the changes are only superficial.
So we are to take the word of just one person (albeit a very prestigious one)?
While I would agree that too much is being made of changes in the USSR, those
changes give the world a golden opportunity to pour oil on some long-troubled
waters.
> I do not think that he [sic?] can trust the Soviet government at all.
I don't think we can trust ANY government at all, including that of the USA.
Who says we have to trust the USSR, anyway? Speak softly and carry a big
stick.
> (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really sincere and wants to destroy
> all weapons on the Earth,
I'm sure he knows that is unrealistic. What he knows is that his nation's
economy is in danger of total collapse, and if something isn't done to divert
resorces away from the Soviet military-industrial complex their massive war
machine will rot from within anyway. And don't forget that with over 21
million Soviets killed in World War 2, they are the most anti-war people on
this planet. But they will also behave like a cornered rat if we nudge them
into that particular mind-set.
> it is very possible that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil
> return to the "old" way.)
Good point, but this will NOT happen if Gorbachev's policies WORK. Currently
things don't look good. I think it's in the world's best interest for us to
help the guy out. Let's start feeding him some of our western-style free
flow of information and see if we can shake things up even more. Hook up the
net! The more Soviet sites the better! Let the Soviet people have an
ever-increasing dose of Western thought!
> I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs by copying
> our Shuttle,
It is NOT a copy. It looks similar (would you care to show me a hypothetical
shuttle design that doesn't?), but there are substantial internal
differences--such as the fact that the Soviet orbiter does not have main rocket
engines of its own, but it does have booster jets to assist with landing. But
it is true that the Soviets do copy our stuff from time to time, such as with
the An-124 being a copy of the C-5. It works both ways, though--our F-5 was
basically a feeble copy of the MiG-21, and our F-16 is (or, rather, was) an
attempt to duplicate the light-weight, low-cost, super-maneuverable aspects of
MiG designs such as the MiG-17 and -21. Believe me, even as we speak US
designers are frantically trying to duplicate (within some kind of economic
reality) the successes of such Soviet missiles as the AA-9, AA-10, SA-10, and
SA-12.
> why let them get so much information so easily?
See above. I wasn't aware that critical information about such things as
shuttles was being transmitted over the net. If they want such information,
they can get it easily without bothering with the net.
Two superpowers capable of reducing each other to radioactive slag have two
options: push the button or try to develop a better understanding of each
other's viewpoints. The more information that flows back and forth the better
off we'll both be. Public access networks could be the most powerful anti-war
weapons the USA has. Let's use them.
--
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
Walker Mangum
> In article <80...@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajde...@athena.mit.edu
> (Alexander J Denner) writes:
> > Also, what if a virus
> >from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
> >Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.
>
> FINALLY! A marginally valid point! Probably would make noone very happy,
> but it isnt exactly the thing nuclear wars are made of...
>
#define SARCASM What I'm about to say
A VERY VALID POINT! In fact, since the RTM fiasco came from Yankee-land, it
has certainly caused grievous harm to North/South relations! And in a time
when things seemed to be improving. No telling what kind of retaliation the
new Texan in the White House is likely to take. We down South knew that when
we connected that we would have to watch out for the evil tricks of those
carpetbaggers, and, see there, we were right (as always).
So let's not UUCP with the Russkies - after all, Yankees on the net are
enough of a risk for us down heah!
#undefine SARCASM
Gimme a break! This isn't even a marginally valid point. If they (or
anyone) want to start in infestation, they *already* have the necessary
connections.
The arguments against connecting do reek of Joe McCarthy!
> Now I'm as patriotic and anti-communist as the next guy, probably more so.
> And I'm not about to advocate jumping in bed with the Soviets just cause
> Gorbie is a helluva guy, but christ, there simply is NOTHING wrong with a
> little friendly communication and a little exposure to another culture. This
> little 'Electronic Exchange Programme' sure isn't giving the KGB any
> oportunities that it didn't already have, and it might give
> Joe-(Boris)-Average-Russian-Computer-Jock a chance to say, "hey, these guys
> aren't so bad for a bunch of imperialistic money-grubbing opressors of the
> working class..." Maybe that will go both ways...
>
> And remeber kids: Joe McCarthy died 20+ years ago...lets keep it that way.
>
Same here.
Besides, c'mon guys, we're all wearing condoms now, aren't we?
--
Walker Mangum | Adytum, Incorporated
phone: (713) 333-1509 | 1100 NASA Road One
UUCP: uunet!ficc!walker (wal...@ficc.uu.net) | Houston, TX 77058
Disclaimer: $#!+ HAPPENS
Tom Neff
rebutting Alan Denner. It's sheerest self aggrandizement to suppose
that anything we talk about in Usenet news would be a threat in Soviet
hands. (I doubt even the KGB waste their time with it, and if they do,
I have a quick cost cutting measure to suggest to Gorby. :-) As for
the supposed danger of the Arpanet link - I have no more right to see
what Arpa talks about than Roald Sagdeyev does, but no one suggests
curtailing my net access because of it. Sensitive info has no business
on the public net - and it's Arpa's job to keep it off, not ours. We
are already happily exchanging news with UK, Netherlands, Oz and
elsewhere with no problems. Even Israel, and this after Pollard. So
don't waste bandwidth arguing it's an unacceptable security risk.
We should concentrate on the stimulus value of the technical and
cultural exchange a USSR/Usenet link would offer. From Draper's
enjoyable "Hacker's View" article it appears there are some real
hotshot programmers over there, folks not unlike ourselves who,
however, don't have any inkling of how great the electronic community
is. If the benefits of including them really don't outweigh the risks,
someone will have to come up with some more convincing risks. :-)
Besides which, if it's to be disallowed I'm sure the State Dept. will
eagerly do the hatchet work... why do it for them.
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
"None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF
will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
Ken McGlothlen
+----------
| I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable. As
| someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to
| this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering
| that much easier. While it is true that classified systems are not
| connected to any network, the system is cross connected to Arpanet, and
| access to this net is effectively access to Arpanet. Not good.
Oh, this *is* rich. What in the universe makes you think that Soviet
intelligence agencies don't already have access to USENET, *or* the
ARPANET? Good grief--planting agents in the US is ridiculously easy,
me boyo. Even better: plant an agent, and send him to a university--
boom, all the network access one could want.
Opening up direct links to the Soviet Union is *not* going to increase
this danger. Take my word for it.
+----------
| BTW to the original poster--the reason modems are a precious commodity
| in the USSR is that the government considers many forms of information
| to be secrets to be carefully guarded from the general public.
| Modems transmit information too quickly to be managed or tracked, and
| they are entrusted only to those who are deemed trustworthy.
+----------
Well, this is only slightly more realistic. Almost all international
phone calls to and from the Soviet Union are screened (I understand),
and there's no reason why the screening can't include tapes of modem
transmissions for later decoding.
This kind of paranoia is unwarranted. We are in far less danger from
a scientific consortium in the Soviet Union than we are with an unknown
number of agents in sensitive positions in the armed services.
Besides, we might even get a decent exchange of ideas going back and
forth. You never know--it could lead to a greater sense of peace.
Of course, on the other hand, it might create massive ideological wars
in certain groups. Ick.
--Ken McGlothlen
mc...@blake.acs.washington.edu
Stephen J. Friedl
> If nothing else, they probably have Portal accounts.
Anybody care to guess what's wrong with these two statements?
Steve
P.S. - OK, OK, :-)
--
Steve Friedl V-Systems, Inc. +1 714 545 6442 3B2-kind-of-guy
fri...@vsi.com {backbones}!vsi.com!friedl attmail!vsi!friedl
------------Nancy Reagan on the worm: "Just say OH NO!"------------
Alexander J Denner
>In article <80...@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ajde...@athena.mit.edu (Alexander J Denner) writes:
>> I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets
>>do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am
>>saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as
>>they can.)
>
>You are so sure, are you? You REALLY underestimate the Soviet intellegence
>gathering machine if you don't think they have clear access to a nation
>spanning, unsecure network linking the ccountries universities, companies and
>research institute. Wake up, the Soviets are not stupid. If nothing else,
>they probably have Portal accounts.
"Now" should have been "Not," I am sorry about this typo. I know that
they have access (if Mr. Seefried actually read before critizing he would
know that). I do not think that we should help the KGB by faciliting
connections with Western computer networks.
I am quite well informed as to their ability to intercept data and
voice communication (microwave interception is easiest, but there are many
other methods).
I understand and respect the positions of Mr. Draper and Mr. Kennedy,
however I found the rest of Mr. Seefried's article incoherent and rude.
I would appreciate intelligent disagreements, not raving slander.
To clarify:
I think that it is great that Mr. Draper is sending bits of news
to his Russian friends. Such an act is good. What I think would be bad
is the Soviets becoming a large network connected with the West. As I have
said many times already, this allows the KGB to eliminate information sorting/
acquistion operations in the US.
Alex Denner
Per Ejeklint /EFS
>> I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network
>>but have heard nothing but VAPORWARE. Does anyone out there in Net land
>>WANT to add Soviet sites?? I can think of a hundred reasons why!!
>>not to mention what it would do towards World Peace.
>
> I do not think this would be a very good idea.
>are NOT our friends.
Have you ever been in Soviet? Have you ever heard of the massive interest
that the Soviet people shows about USA? No, they don't listen on the
American radio broadcasted to the Soviet (they are already fed up with
propaganda), but they read all the magasines and newspapers they can get.
A surprisingly big part of the younger people speeks english, and takes
every opportunity to practise. The younger generation is very tired of the
old peoples demagogic speeches of old times, and they regard western countries
as something very exciting and as a source of new thinking.
You can quite comfortable regard the people of the Soviet union as your
friends. I won't say though that all of the leaders in Soviet are your best
friends, but that doesn't differ from USA, does it?
>The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering
>network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into...
So what? The US has equal amount of information gathering devices and units
beamed towards USSR. If you really believe that Soviet is superior in
gathering information, then you are wrong.
> Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to
>spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. Also, what if a virus
>from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
>Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.
I hoped this kind of McCarthyistic rubbish was a rare thing these days!
Your view of the world is obviosly based on old cold war propaganda. What
causes "problems and bad feelings" is most of all when we don't trust
people of the very same flesh and blood, and when we are suspicious instead
of encouraging.
The best thing that we computing people can do to encourage Glasnost and
Perestroika is to welcome the people of the Soviet union into the net.
The more information channels that exists, the more difficult to control
the feelings expressed.
Per Ejeklint p...@kps.UUCP
Stockholm, Sweden
MOBY
>I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable. As
>someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to
>this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering
>that much easier.
Some of us feel the same way about the CIA...
Dirk Husemann
>
> ... [ talk about Soviets and net ]
>
> I do not think this would be a very good idea. Now that the Soviets
> do not already have access to American networks (ARPANET, etc.). (I am
What are you trying to say here? That access to internet information
can only be done via ARPANET access (I wish this'd be the case: We'd be
able to do anonymous ftp even from West Germany [No - we're not belonging
to the Eastern bloc, that's East Germany, we're "partners" in the NATO ...],
which - at present - we can't!)?
> saying that I am sure the KGB intercepts as much internet information as
> they can.) Although I have nothing against the Russin people, the Soviets
> are NOT our friends. The Soviet KGB has an immense information gathering
> network in this country, why make it easier for them to tune into
> western scientific thought? Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How about letting western scientist tune into western scientific
thought - I think that as long as West European sites are not admitted to
the ARPANET where a lot of stuff (articles, papers, sw) is available that
cannot be accessed otherwise, it is - in my view - ridiculous to use the
phrase "western scientific thought" - unless the western world consists of
the USA alone (a concept I found among a lot of US citizens ...)
> changes are only superficial. I do not think that he can trust the Soviet
> government at all. (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really
> sincere and wants to destroy all weapons on the Earth, it is very possible
> that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil return to the "old"
> way.) I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs
> by copying our Shuttle, why let them get so much information so easily?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
True, the outer appearance is nearly the same, yet there are some
differences concerning technical details: The Soviet shuttle is able to lift
more than three times as much as the US shuttle. Also, there seems to be no
connection between shuttle and carrier rocket (the (hopefully former) weak
point of the US shuttle).
>
> Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to
> spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. Also, what if a virus
> from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
> Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.
The virus wasn't even observed over here in West Germany, yet, we
do get news and stuff like that ...
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Alexander J. Denner ajde...@athena.mit.edu
> 234 Baker House, 362 Memorial Drive mit-eddie!mit-athena!ajdenner
> Cambridge, MA 02139 ajdenner%ath...@mitmva.mit.edu
Dirk Husemann
------------------ Smile, tomorrow will be worse! --------------
Email: dkhu...@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Or: {pyramid,unido}!fauern!faui44!dkhusema
Mail: Dirk Husemann, Aufsess-Str. 19, D-8520 Erlangen,
(Home) West Germany
(Busi- University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Computer Science Dep.,
ness) IMMD IV, Martensstr. 1, D-8520 Erlangen, West Germany
Phone: (Home) +49 9131 302036, (Business) +49 9131 857908
-- Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here! --
--------------- My opinions are mine, mine, mine ---------------
Stephen J. Friedl
> I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable. As
> someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to
> this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering
> that much easier. While it is true that classified systems are not
> connected to any network, the system is cross connected to Arpanet, and
> access to this net is effectively access to Arpanet. Not good.
How does anybody know that the Soviets aren't polling (say) my
machine? There are so many machines in the world, with so many
who read and never post, that it would be a very simply matter
for them to see anything they want. I suspect you don't find
the NSA in the maps, but they could probably get a feed on the
sly if they wanted (one way or another).
If the Soviets want to get on the net, they will. We may
or may not like this, but our time is better spent thinking
about how we will deal with this rather than how much we don't
like it.
Steve
P.S. - Hi Gorby!
--
Steve Friedl V-Systems, Inc. +1 714 545 6442 3B2-kind-of-guy
fri...@vsi.com {backbones}!vsi.com!friedl attmail!vsi!friedl
------------Nancy Reagan on the worm: "Just say OH NO!"------------
:wq!
Greg Lee
" In article <17...@gatech.edu>, k...@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
" > Wake up, the Soviets are not stupid.
" > If nothing else, they probably have Portal accounts.
"
" Anybody care to guess what's wrong with these two statements?
((((( you think he might be kgb? )))))
dave_lawrence
>
>Sorry, but we live in a democracy, and that's one of the prices we must pay.
on the American political system. The rest of your point (in the
paragraph which followed that opener) was basically valid, however
the introductory remark needs some work.
Dave
--
g l o r i o u sex i s t e n c e
EMAIL: ta...@rpitsmts.bitnet, tale%m...@rpitsgw.rpi.edu, ta...@pawl.rpi.edu
Geoffrey Knauth
>spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. Also, what if a virus
>from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
>Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.
I agree that a normal, or unrestricted UUCP site sounds risky. On the
other hand, I think the offering the Soviets regulated access, in
exchange for some access to their networks (if any), could have some
benefits for the United States, e.g., if the Soviets open up.
The risks are big enough, though, for me to wish some arm of the U.S.
Government would step in and supervise US-USSR technical bridges,
especially since these exchanges are neither unregulated nor benign on
the Soviet side.
--
Geoffrey S. Knauth ARPA: geoff%ll...@husc6.harvard.edu
Camex, Inc. UUCP: ge...@lloyd.uucp or husc6!lloyd!geoff
75 Kneeland St., Boston, MA 02111
Tel: (617)426-3577 Fax: 426-9285 I do not speak for Camex.
Geoffrey Knauth
>espionage activities. (They only have a limited number of people in
>this country.)
I once read the number of full-time Soviet spies in the U.S. is around
400. I have no idea about the geographic distribution.
William E. Davidsen Jr
| To clarify:
| I think that it is great that Mr. Draper is sending bits of news
| to his Russian friends. Such an act is good. What I think would be bad
| is the Soviets becoming a large network connected with the West. As I have
| said many times already, this allows the KGB to eliminate information sorting/
| acquistion operations in the US.
I seriously doubt that any world power would have trouble getting
usenet news. They could just go buy a machine, operating system, and
news software, and there are many machines who would feed them (or
anyone else). How many sites check on security levels before giving a
feed. My impression is that a number of sites will feed almost anyone,
and the questions are more like "you pay the phone bill, right?" than
"are you a spy?"
I think that getting some dialog going between the UUSR and the rest
of the world is really desirable. Many people think that Russia is one
big country, and only with the recent happenings in Estonia (sp?) etc,
have they realized that the parts of the USSR have more differences than
just a southern drawl vs. a yankee twang.
I have lots of things I'd like to know about them... are they using
tools like spreadsheets, word processing, pop-ups? Can the average
professional hope to have a PC, and if so would it be a model 100, a
C64, or an AT type machine. Do they have a BBS in the USSR? Are there
any decent ales over there?
I really hope this takes place.
--
bill davidsen (we...@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
Jan Morales
>[On opening the net to the Soviet Union...]
>Of course, on the other hand, it might create massive ideological wars
>in certain groups. Ick.
Massive ideological wars? On our peaceful little net? No sir. We'll
have none of that nonsense going on here. Ban the Russians. :-)
Jan
--
uunet!pyrdc!eliot!janm
George Papadopoulos CMP RA
I love communism; I want to be a "computer spy" for the russians. Once a month
I copy all USENET news to a tape and send it to the soviet embassy. They put it
in the diplomatic bag and within the next 24 hours it has arrived at Drezinsky
square (excuse the spelling).
What's all this nonsense about keeping the russians out of USENET??
--
George A. Papadopoulos, RA, ! Tel: +44-603-56161, Ext. 2692
SYS, UEA, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK ! e-mail: g...@sys.uea.ac.uk
Disclaimer: "Reality is determined either by majority vote or government grant, with the latter holding veto power over the former" L. Ron Hubbard, Mission Earth
Kent Borg
...
> To clarify:
> I think that it is great that Mr. Draper is sending bits of news
>to his Russian friends. Such an act is good. What I think would be bad
>is the Soviets becoming a large network connected with the West. As I have
>said many times already, this allows the KGB to eliminate information sorting/
>acquistion operations in the US.
There seems to be agreement that the Soviets would not gain anything
new if they had a USENET feed, only that it might save them time and
money.
Saving time: So what. I don't see things on the net that are that
time-critical. If I want to get real up-to-date news (even on the
internet worm) I listen to National Public Radio (plug, plug) or read
the New York Times. The KGB can do that too.
Saving money: Why are we so posessed with the notion that it is in our
interest to try to get the Soviets to waste their money? Why are we
bent on this notion that economic warfare is good?
I think that we are better off with a Soviet Union that is fat and
happy with the status quo than we would be with a threatened Soviet
Union that feels backed in a corner, that it has nothing to loose.
Whether you think the Soviets are people or just gruff bears, you
still don't want to corner them and give them nothing to loose.
Before they they push the button, let them first contemplate the
serious prospect of USENET withdrawl.
Pointer: If you _really_ want to undermine the Soviet system,
introduce something as uncontrollable and anarchic as USENET. We
shouldn't be fighting to _prevent_ a USENET feed, we should be
fighting to _install_ one (unless we are afraid the Soviets might get
suspicious and prevent it themselves, in which case some of use should
argue against it to make it more acceptable to them--Mr. Denner: Glad
to know you are on my side, keep up the good work).
Kent Borg
ke...@lloyd.uucp
or
hscfvax!lloyd!kent
Doug Salot
Hear! Hear! Comrade, the correct americanski expression is Hear! Hear!
I buy your shoes, OK?
--
Doug Salot || do...@feedme.UUCP || ...{zardoz,dhw68k}!feedme!doug
"vox populi, vox canis"
Per Ejeklint /EFS
>>someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to
>>this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering
>>that much easier.
>
>Some of us feel the same way about the CIA...
Hey, You forgot MI5!
Hans H. Huebner
> The limit on their [the
>KGB's] acquisition of information is logistic. With a link, they can
>peruse the info faster, more easily, and much more throughly.
>Also, the KGB can devote the displaced people in this country to other
>espionage activities. (They only have a limited number of people in
>this country.)
networks, it's just easy to get one without problems. For example, I live
in Berlin, and I can see the the eastern block right with my eyes when I
look out of the window. I assume that here are many companies whose owners
or employees have "good" contacts to eastern block secret services, and as
such a link would be absolutely no problem.
I think, the idea of proclaming the official linkup to the UseNet ist
great. It would do something to get the inter-block relations on a more
rational base. After all, on both sides there are just humans, and the
best way to become friends or at least accept each other is by direct
communication. The secret services have their own way playing the game,
but that's not our business.
-Hans
--
Hans H. Huebner, netmbx | PSIMail: PSI%026245300043100::PENGO
Woerther Str. 36 | DOMAIN: pe...@tmpmbx.UUCP
D-1000 Berlin 20, W.Germany | Bang: ..!{pyramid,unido}!tmpmbx!pengo
Phone: (+49 30) 882 54 29 | BITNET: huebner@db0tui6
Bruce Wright
> To clarify:
> I think that it is great that Mr. Draper is sending bits of news
> to his Russian friends. Such an act is good. What I think would be bad
> is the Soviets becoming a large network connected with the West. As I have
> said many times already, this allows the KGB to eliminate information sorting/
> acquistion operations in the US.
Yes, a network feed to the Soviet Union would allow them to acquire high-
quality information like that posted every day to this newsgroup! :-)
Bruce C. Wright
Patt Haring
>
>> I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable. As
>> someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to
>> this or any other net. It simply makes their intelligence gathering
>
>machine? There are so many machines in the world, with so many
then I just have to wonder why George Bush and Oliver North
didn't think of selling modems to the Ayatollah instead of
arms *sigh*
My grandparents left the Kiev and Minsk because ...
they wanted to travel the world ;-)
Patt Haring {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!patth
-or- uunet!dasys1!patth
-or- pa...@ccnysci.BITNET
Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator
New contest forming: What to do with leftover turkey....
Lawrence V. Cipriani
Also, it is the GRU, the Soviet Military Intelligence, not the KGB,
that primarily spies on the West. The KGB primarily spies on citizens
of the Soviet Empire.
So who exactly is going to be reading USENET in the Soviet Union. Joe
Dissident? Or a member in good standing of the Communist Party? Who
do you think is allowed to have a ham radio in the Soviet Union? Only
someone who is ideologically correct, that's who.
Still, the exchange from a USENET feed to the SU would be an interesting
experiment. I'm sure they would like to participate in discussions with
immigrants (i.e. escapees) from the SU in talk.politics.soviet.
Why make it easier for Soviets to have access to technical information
or assistance? How will a USENET connection enhance freedom in the SU?
I'm not being facecious, these questions deserve some attention.
--
Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH,
Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: l...@cbnews.ATT.COM
T. William Wells
: but I'm anti Soviet!
That makes at least two of us!
: So who exactly is going to be reading USENET in the Soviet Union. Joe
: Dissident? Or a member in good standing of the Communist Party? Who
: do you think is allowed to have a ham radio in the Soviet Union? Only
: someone who is ideologically correct, that's who.
A minor problem with this: member of the party doesn't necessarily
mean ideologically correct. It only means someone who hasn't been
caught out at being not ideologically correct.
And ideologically correct doesn't mean hopelessly corrupt, either.
Not, mind you, that I am defending party liners, just noting that
even they may be capable of independent thought.
: Still, the exchange from a USENET feed to the SU would be an interesting
: experiment. I'm sure they would like to participate in discussions with
: immigrants (i.e. escapees) from the SU in talk.politics.soviet.
:
: Why make it easier for Soviets to have access to technical information
: or assistance? How will a USENET connection enhance freedom in the SU?
: I'm not being facecious, these questions deserve some attention.
Well, here's my reasoning. Consider that if the USSR wants to connect
to USENET, it is a small matter for them to set up an agent and a
machine. So, if USENET is of any importance to them, they have
already set up such a machine.
In any case, the savings they would obtain through this is certainly
small. It is the difference between setting up an agent and a machine
outside the USSR and inside the USSR. Certainly not a lot of money.
This is balanced against the fact that *any* information sent into
the USSR is destabilizing. One of the things holding the empire
together is its tight control of information.
Consider the effect on some Soviet scientist of say, my casual
discussion of the '386 machine *that I own and have complete freedom
to use*. I can sense the drools already. :-)
Consider the comparison that any intelligent mind will make between
the censorship that is routine in the USSR vs. the anarchic nature of
the USENET.
Consider having repeatedly rubbed in one's face the fact that one's
country, through its own folly, is somewhere between five and ten
years behind, technologically.
Consider the possible countering of Soviet propaganda.
---
All of this depends on the USSR's not censoring the USENET feed.
Might I suggest that the feed ought to be made contingent on the lack
of censorship?
---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill
Peter da Silva
Country Internal External
(spycatchers) (spys)
USA FBI CIA
USSR KGB GRU
UK MI5 MI6
I think that's correct. The Brits seem to have the most logical naming scheme,
don't they? Anny corrections and/or additions?
--
Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation
"Have you hugged U your wolf today?" uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter
Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn business. pe...@ficc.uu.net
Lawrence V. Cipriani
>Saving time: So what. I don't see things on the net that are that
>time-critical. If I want to get real up-to-date news (even on the
>internet worm) I listen to National Public Radio (plug, plug) or read
>the New York Times. The KGB can do that too.
This is not the complete picture. Suppose someone asks "Where can I
find such and such", or "How does one get this program to work". The
time spent in searching for information can be reduced quite a lot
when one uses USENET. Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet
Union? I will not knowingly offer help to someone from the Soviet Union.
>Saving money: Why are we so posessed with the notion that it is in our
>interest to try to get the Soviets to waste their money? Why are we
>bent on this notion that economic warfare is good?
The best (peaceful) way to get the Soviets to change their ways is economic.
If they waste their resources on the military then their consumer economy will
suffer. Over time, Soviet citizens will demand reform; this seems to be
happening now. To what extent the changes being made are real and will result
in a more freedom in the SU remains to be seen.
>I think that we are better off with a Soviet Union that is fat and
>happy with the status quo than we would be with a threatened Soviet
>Union that feels backed in a corner, that it has nothing to loose.
A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to
me to be more likely to engage in military adventures. Dealing with the
Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they
respect military strength.
>Whether you think the Soviets are people or just gruff bears, you
>still don't want to corner them and give them nothing to loose.
Agreed.
>Before they they push the button, let them first contemplate the
>serious prospect of USENET withdrawl.
Yeah right, get real. I'm certain a USENET withdrawl would be at the
bottom of their list of concerns.
>Pointer: If you _really_ want to undermine the Soviet system,
>introduce something as uncontrollable and anarchic as USENET.
USENET is uncontrollable and anarchic in the free world, I believe
it could be controlled in the SU. Every international phone call that
connects to the SU is recorded, the same can be done with USENET. Persons
that post an illegal message would get a visit from a "moderator" and
be educated on the proper use of USENET.
Miles Bader
> find such and such", or "How does one get this program to work". The
> time spent in searching for information can be reduced quite a lot
> when one uses USENET. Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet
> Union?
Yes
> I will not knowingly offer help to someone from the Soviet Union.
God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the
superiority of objectivist cisc cpus...
> A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to
> me to be more likely to engage in military adventures. Dealing with the
> Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they
> respect military strength.
Time to gear up those bomb factories!
Tom Neff
>So who exactly is going to be reading USENET in the Soviet Union. Joe
>Dissident? Or a member in good standing of the Communist Party? Who
>do you think is allowed to have a ham radio in the Soviet Union? Only
>someone who is ideologically correct, that's who.
Who do you think reads USENET in the US - Dennis Banks of AIM and the
political prisoners of the Lexington Women's Unit? No, it's computing
community types by and large. Sorry, that's just the nature of the
net. Bridging it to the USSR would not be for the purpose of bringing
rec.sport.auto to the Gulag, it would be for exchanging insights on
computing with folks just like us (modulo differing cultural parameters)
over there.
>Still, the exchange from a USENET feed to the SU would be an interesting
>experiment. I'm sure they would like to participate in discussions with
>immigrants (i.e. escapees) from the SU in talk.politics.soviet.
Hah! As fragile as this link is likely to be, if you think some CS prof
in Kiev is going to jeopardize his access by getting into political
arguments with decadent Westerners you have another think coming.
In fact, just to keep temptation at a minimum, I would hope that
Ambassador Crunch would not gateway t.p.s or similar powderkeg groups.
>Why make it easier for Soviets to have access to technical information
>or assistance?
The answer lies in which Soviets we're talking about. Look -- someone
in the computing arm of the GRU who wants to know about the latest
expert system from Stanford, or how to debug an 8250 UART, probably has
all the technical resources he needs to find out. He doesn't need
Usenet, and though I'm sure digests are available to Soviet
intelligence (courtesy our European gateways if nothing else -- flip
those mattresses back over, folks!), it doesn't strike me as likely
they pay all that much attention except for amusement. (Secure areas
of Arpanet are another matter, and I offer no opinion in that regard.)
But now consider another kind of Soviet - a senior at a technical
school in Leningrad, say, who has been hacking away at his own PC or
his school's for several years, has some astonishing neat little
programs he's passed around locally, and is dying to know about what
the rest of the world is up to. When he has a question, he doesn't
have the nice GRU Library to browse through. He only knows what he
can figure out himself, plus whatever six month old popular press
magazines have been brought into the country and handed around. To
him, Usenet would be an unbelievable godsend. And to us, having him
on the net would be an unparallelled source of edification and amusement.
This is the Soviet we want to give access to technical information,
not his well-endowed counterparts in the government who don't need it
anyway.
> How will a USENET connection enhance freedom in the SU?
>I'm not being facecious, these questions deserve some attention.
--->t
That it enhance freedom per se in the USSR ought not to be a
requirement for the bridge to be established; there are benefits to
both sides even if freedom is left at present levels as a result.
Nevertheless, if one particularly wishes to enhance Soviet freedom, I
believe this will contribute in a small way. Information itself is
freedom, and empowerment. We need only establish that access is indeed
being extended to that tech school senior in my example above, and the
boost to Soviet freedom will be assured.
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
"None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF
will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
Jean-Pierre Radley
>> HERE HERE!!!!! (Slamming his shoe on the table in great excitement!)
>Hear! Hear! Comrade, the correct americanski expression is Hear! Hear!
>I buy your shoes, OK?
Sorry about that, Doug old boy, but "Hear! Hear!" is hardly an
"amerikanski" expression. Seems to me it emanates from Parliament
(any Parliament in the now-or-former Commonwealth).
More substantively: if you think the Soviets should not have access to the
net, you might then have to cut them off from telex, telephone, radio,
print, movie, and other communication media; that isn't going to happen.
They should be welcomed here, and encouraged to learn and teach, as we all
do. If you know a secret, it's _your_ (sometimes moral, sometimes legal)
obligation to protect it.
--
Jean-Pierre Radley Honi soit j...@dasys1.UUCP
New York, New York qui mal ...!hombre!jpradley!jpr
CIS: 76120,1341 y pense ...!hombre!trigere!jpr
vandenberg
Many people have questioned the availability of sensitive info,
while many others have countered that hush-hush material is
not to be sent on the net. Let's not look at it from just an
intelligence point of view. There are many people, old and young
alike, who have either a misunderstanding or a cloudy view of
the Soviet people. The better the communication between our
two countries the better we both are in the long run. Fact is
that people(in general) are more afraid to hurt those they know.
I think that Soviet net sites would be great in bettering this
communication gap. Who knows they my even go for portals.
Within the next president or so there may be someone in the White
House who is computer or even net literate.
Remember, ideals give us something to hope for.
UUCP:{..uunet..uwvax!uwmcsd1..}!marque!studsys!vanden
ARPANET: {..uwvax..arpa..}!studsys.mu.edu!vanden
INTERNET: vanden%stu...@marque.UUCP
ICBMNET: 43 4 58 N / 87 55 52 W
Disclaimer - No one knows what I do, not even me.
T. William Wells
: interest to try to get the Soviets to waste their money? Why are we
: bent on this notion that economic warfare is good?
Mostly because many people believe, on the strength of the Soviet's
own pronouncements of their intentions, that if they had the
resources, they'd use those resources to make *real* war on us.
Denying them a little money (specifically, foreign exchange, which
they can spend on acquiring our, more effective, resources) means
denying them a little of those resources and thus lessens the
likelyhood of their making *real* war on us.
: I think that we are better off with a Soviet Union that is fat and
: happy with the status quo than we would be with a threatened Soviet
: Union that feels backed in a corner, that it has nothing to loose.
: Whether you think the Soviets are people or just gruff bears, you
: still don't want to corner them and give them nothing to loose.
This is an old argument, which doesn't hold much water when one
considers that the Soviets have chosen their paths because they want
to run the world. (Their stated intention.) Can you say Afghanistan?
And do you have the vaguest idea why they are pulling out? Try
economics.
: Before they they push the button, let them first contemplate the
: serious prospect of USENET withdrawl.
This, and its brethren, would be meaningful if the Party thought that
the West is essential to their well-being. But they don't. (I don't
think. Perhaps they are wising up, in the light of the relative
performance of their economy?)
: Pointer: If you _really_ want to undermine the Soviet system,
: introduce something as uncontrollable and anarchic as USENET. We
: shouldn't be fighting to _prevent_ a USENET feed, we should be
: fighting to _install_ one
Now here, I agree wholeheartedly. A Usenet feed can only undermine
their political system, while only saving them a trivial amount of
money.
T. William Wells
: l...@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
: >
: God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the
: superiority of objectivist cisc cpus...
Can you say "ad hominem"? Good. Now, can you offer your objections
without descending to ad hominems? Wonderful!
Anyway, as I understand it, Mr. Cipriani is not an Objectivist.
However, I am.
As it happens, I disagree with him, believing that the potential
disruption caused by Usenet in the USSR more than balances the
possible savings they might obtain from not having to intercept it
outside their empire.
This opinion, obtained from uncertain evidence, is one that can be
legitimately argued, so I won't fault him, or anyone else, for
holding the other view. We just don't know.
Lawrence V. Cipriani
>> Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet Union?
>
>Yes
Is the word traitor in your vocabulary?
>> I will not knowingly offer help to someone from the Soviet Union.
>
>God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the
>superiority of objectivist cisc cpus...
I am not an Objectivist, but a Libertarian that is very realistic and
afraid of the Soviets. I don't pretend to have the secrets of the
universe, but there is no way I'm going to knowingly help the Soviets.
>> A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to
>> me to be more likely to engage in military adventures. Dealing with the
>> Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they
>> respect military strength.
>
>Time to gear up those bomb factories!
What is this, some kind of intelligent response? Learn some history and
don't put words in the mouths of your opponents.
Disgusted,
Miles Bader
> In article <sXXmKHy00...@andrew.cmu.edu> bad...@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
> : l...@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
> : God forbid the russians get a hold of the latest proof of the
> : superiority of objectivist cisc cpus...
>
> Can you say "ad hominem"? Good. Now, can you offer your objections
> without descending to ad hominems? Wonderful!
>
> Anyway, as I understand it, Mr. Cipriani is not an Objectivist.
> However, I am.
I have no idea what his political views are. I was just trying to be
insulting.
-Miles
Lawrence V. Cipriani
I'm not. I can see the value in corrupting the Soviet system with a USENET
feed, and yes it would be interesting to have the technical exchange with
our counterparts in the Soviet Union. However, I remain unconviced that
help to someone I don't know in the Soviet Union is in my long term self
interest or national interest.
I really do like helping people with technical problems. But how can
I be certain that the help I give will not be used against me someday?
In general one can't, and when it involves a nation that has missiles
pointed at me I'll not get involved thank you. I'd like to make friends
of people in the Soviet Union, but how do I know who I can trust? The
university student I help just may end up in the GRU or KGB someday. No
thanks.
I once heard that the best Iron Curtain hackers were dissidents. Now I
really would like to help them out! This may be enough of a reason for
me to get involved in an exchange.
In article <79...@dasys1.UUCP>, tn...@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> Who do you think reads USENET in the US - Dennis Banks of AIM and the
> political prisoners of the Lexington Women's Unit?
Of course not silly; being a bit rude aren't you?
> No, it's computing community types by and large. Sorry, that's just the
> nature of the net.
I know, and don't lecture someone that's been reading USENET since its
beginning how its used.
I wrote:
>>Why make it easier for Soviets to have access to technical information
>>or assistance?
>
> The answer lies in which Soviets we're talking about...
I'm unconviced that I can make a distinction about who to help and who
not to help.
And me again:
>> How will a USENET connection enhance freedom in the SU?
>>I'm not being facecious, these questions deserve some attention.
> That it enhance freedom per se in the USSR ought not to be a
> requirement for the bridge to be established; there are benefits to
> both sides even if freedom is left at present levels as a result.
The benefits to both sides in such relations with the Soviet Union are
usually that they benefit more than we do. A USENET feed doesn't seem
to be any different.
> Nevertheless, if one particularly wishes to enhance Soviet freedom, I
> believe this will contribute in a small way. Information itself is
> freedom, and empowerment.
I agree, however, how much that increase in freedom will be offset by
a more efficient coercive Soviet system is unknown. I tend to believe
it will be more than offset by it, a lot of people tend to believe the
opposite, or don't have an opinion. You just can't be certain.
> We need only establish that access is indeed being extended to that tech
> school senior in my example above, and the boost to Soviet freedom will
> be assured.
Maybe so, but I need more evidence before I change my mind.
Miles Bader
> bad...@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
> >l...@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
> >> Would you offer help to someone from the Soviet Union?
> >
> >Yes
>
> Is the word traitor in your vocabulary?
Am I a traitor if I tell a soviet how to get the latest version of
workmangler running on his pc? If I send him pointers on fast
bitblts? Who knows, even sending them tips on making good coffee
probably advances the power of Godless Communism... Will I get the
electric chair?
> >> ...
> >> Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very clear, they
> >> respect military strength.
> >
> >Time to gear up those bomb factories!
>
> What is this, some kind of intelligent response?
No
> Disgusted,
Exactly!
-Miles
Geoffrey Knauth
>
>Saving money: Why are we so posessed with the notion that it is in our
>interest to try to get the Soviets to waste their money? Why are we
>bent on this notion that economic warfare is good?
Saving time and money are central to the debate. There are a lot of
people who are upset that the Soviets may have copied significant
portions of the U.S. Space Shuttle, for example.
Greg Lee
" ... However, I remain unconviced that
" help to someone I don't know in the Soviet Union is in my long term self
" interest or national interest.
So don't be convinced. Is anyone who has a different opinion really a
traitor?
Greg, l...@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Michael Hamel
>Mostly because many people believe, on the strength of the Soviet's
>own pronouncements of their intentions, that if they had the
>resources, they'd use those resources to make *real* war on us.
and...
>This is an old argument, which doesn't hold much water when one
>considers that the Soviets have chosen their paths because they want
>to run the world. (Their stated intention.)
Uh huh. Could you possibly cite something where the Russians have made
these "intentions" clear in some recent statement? I thought that sort
rhetoric went out in the 1960's. I suppose that you could argue
that those communist fiends are thinking this all the time but won't
be silly enough to say it. I don't think thats a terribly convincing
view. There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice
in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well. Could you bring
yourself to believe that they might have changed in the last twenty
years? I'm afraid that citing what "many people believe" doesn't do
your argument much good...
--
"In challenging a kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient.
You scream and you leap."
Michael Hamel.
Richard A. O'Keefe
>I be certain that the help I give will not be used against me someday?
>In general one can't, and when it involves a nation that has missiles
>pointed at me I'll not get involved thank you.
When I was in the UK, I several times saw in the press the comment
that the USA has missiles pointed at the UK. There are reasons why this
is credible, though I reserve judgement. Did this stop people in the UK
who believed it posting helpfully to Usenet? Nope. By this criterion,
we should refuse all assistance to anyone working for our own governments
(people raving about guns in misc.legal evidently believe it likely that
the USA government will become oppressive and need to be resisted by force).
>I'd like to make friends of people in the Soviet Union, but how do I know
>who I can trust? The university student I help just may end up in the GRU
>or KGB someday. No thanks.
I'm reminded of a USAn author on programming methods who described having
been at a conference where someone came up to him and gushed about how
enormously helpful the author's books had been to him in his work. The
author lapped this up for a while, and then said "by the way, what do you
do?" "Oh, I work on ICBMs." The author told his readers that he had never
been more depressed. The university student you help *here* may do just
such work some day. Should we drop Usenet *here* for that reason? If you
don't think that working on nuclear weapons is so bad, how about the people
providing computer support for the South African police?
Who to trust? The point has been well made that for low-grade technical
information such as Usenet provides, the KGB, GRU, and the rest *already*
have access if they want it. Consider comp.arch, for example. There is
nothing discussed there which is not publicly available, in manuals,
letters patent, &c. If you consider comp.unix.{questions,wizards}, there's
nothing there that couldn't be answered by reading the sources, and I am
absolutely certain that the Soviets have V7 sources, and would wager a
large sum that they either have the V.3 sources or don't want them. And
so it goes.
What about the possibility of information flowing the other way?
I think it would be useful to have some of the sci.* groups coming
from the SU. And would the CIA obtain no benefit from knowing the
names of individuals who are that interested in the West?
Anders Thulin
Soviet Union it might be of interest.
---
The Swedish company Scandinavian Information Systems has entered a
joint venture agreement with a Soviet company to manufacture PC clones
in Moscow. The first clones are planned to be delivered in March 1989.
Initially the company will only put the components together, but they
hope to be able to do their own chips next autumn (of course, this
does not include the processor chips).
Their goal is to make 10 000 computers the first year. About half of
these are intended for the Scandinavian market - the other half for
the Soviet market.
The article also says that other Swedish companies are planning to
enter similar agreements with software products.
More interesting, this deal seems to have the blessings of the US gov.
The article indicates that the hi tech embargo of hi tech products is
not going to be applied.
---
--
Anders Thulin INET : a...@prosys.se
ProgramSystem AB UUCP : ...!{uunet,mcvax}!enea!prosys!ath
Teknikringen 2A PHONE: +46 (0)13 21 40 40
S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden FAX :
Colin Plumb
it can very easily get it. For what it's worth, I've talked to people who
know first-hand that NSA personnel do, indeed, read Usenet.
However, this isn't the sort of connection that is at all interesting.
I'd like to get a connection to the students at Moscow University.
These people don't have the resources to get a Usenet connection, and
may not even know what to ask for, but it would be most enlightening
to talk to them.
So... who knows of a group of Soviet citizens who have the machines
to run Usenet software and would be interested in talking? That's the
first step. Then come the technical hurdles of making a reliable
communications link.
Tangent: In my parents' office, there's a guy working who's a Soviet
Citizen. His passport is stamped "Permanently residing in Canada".
It freaks out immigration people both sides of the Iron Curtain.
Other point: "There's nothing difficult about getting an emigration visa,
it just takes time. I applied once. Turned down. Applied again.
Denied again. Applied a third time. Granted. The Jews aren't treated any
worse than anyone else, they just bitch louder." (I do not vouch for the
accuracy of this statement.)
--
-Colin (microsof!w-co...@sun.com)
Lawrence V. Cipriani
> I have no idea what his (talking about me) political views are. I was just
> trying to be insulting.
>
> -Miles
You only succeeded in being stupid.
Michael Greim
< Let's get these intelligence organisations straight:
<
< Country Internal External
< (spycatchers) (spys)
<
< USA FBI CIA
< USSR KGB GRU
< UK MI5 MI6
<
< I think that's correct. The Brits seem to have the most logical naming scheme,
< don't they? Anny corrections and/or additions?
MAD : Militaerischer Abschirmdienst "military shielding service'
BND : Bundesnachrichtendienst "Federal News Service"
But this list in no way complete :-)
-mg
--
email : gr...@sbsvax.informatik.uni-saarland.dbp.de
(some mailers might not like this. Then use gr...@sbsvax.uucp)
or : ...!uunet!unido!sbsvax!greim
# include <disclaimers/std.h>
Anna Kochanowska
department to send my copies of the magazine to my new address.
I wrote them few letters, one recommended, I phoned them,
I even wrote to the main _Byte_ office with no result.
Any ideas what I could do else?
Thanks, Anna.
--
The views expressed are those of the writer, and not of
Visual Edge, or of the Usenet.
A.M.Kochanowska
Lawrence V. Cipriani
> l...@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
> > Is the word traitor in your vocabulary?
>
> Am I a traitor if I tell a soviet how to get the latest version of
> workmangler running on his pc? If I send him pointers on fast
> bitblts?
> Who knows, even sending them tips on making good coffee
> probably advances the power of Godless Communism...
Wrong again. The one true God of Communism is named Lenin.
> Will I get the electric chair?
You won't "get the chair" from me, I don't believe in capital punishment;
aren't you lucky. Maybe you should get Teslas vibrating electric chair
instead.
Just remember, you will be helping someone that has missiles pointed at you!
Lawrence V. Cipriani
No. I think someone that actually *helps or trades* the Soviet Union is a
traitor to anyone that has tried to escape it, and to anyone that has fought
for the free world, and against me personally.
Lawrence V. Cipriani
> There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice
> in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well.
Please tell us what the correct number of victims is.
> Could you bring yourself to believe that they might have changed in the
> last twenty years?
No way, Gorbachev has no power, he is only a figure head. Power in the
Soviet Union hasn't been in the hands of one man since Stalin. Power
is shared; they have a system of checks and balances (much different in
character than our system) to prevent any one power base from eating the
others. What has changed recently is that the Soviets have much better
public relations than in the past. That's all there is to it.
When the Soviet Union allows free immigration to all citizens then I will
believe they have *fundamentally* changed. Until then, it is a prison,
and only a prison.
Sarah Belcastro
> I really do like helping people with technical problems. But how can
> I be certain that the help I give will not be used against me someday?
>
> usually that they benefit more than we do. A USENET feed doesn't seem
> to be any different.
My quarrel with you is this: Does it matter that they receive more benefit
from the link than we? We are all human and we should help each other out.
You seem to be really fearful of people whom i doubt would be in a position
to use anything against you, unless you plan on travelling to the Soviet
Union. And, in my opinion, it shouldn't really matter whether there is a
possibility of "THEM" using the fact that you helped someone against you.
If people always refused to help others at the threat of personal harm,
where would we be today?
I firmly believe that humans are meant to help each other and make each
other's lives better, thereby making the world a happier place. It's not
as if it would be particularly inconvenient to answer a question on a
network to which one ordinarily posts.
--sarah marie belcastro.
Bitnet: s_belcastro@hvrford
(our mail seems to be bouncing at Drexel.)
Gail Zacharias
>Other point: "There's nothing difficult about getting an emigration visa,
>it just takes time. I applied once. Turned down. Applied again.
>Denied again. Applied a third time. Granted. The Jews aren't treated any
>worse than anyone else, they just bitch louder." (I do not vouch for the
>accuracy of this statement.)
I can vouch for the inaccuracy of that statement. It might be true that Jews
are no more likely to be denied a visa. But one difference, even leaving
aside differences in treatment before applying for visas, is that I bet your
friend still had a job after being turned down the first time.
--
g...@entity.com ...!mit-eddie!spt!gz
Randal L. Schwartz @ Stonehenge
| However, I remain unconviced that
| help to someone I don't know in the Soviet Union is in my long term self
| interest or national interest.
|
| I really do like helping people with technical problems. But how can
| I be certain that the help I give will not be used against me someday?
Replace the "someone I don't know in the Soviet Union" with "someone I
don't know at {DEC,HP,Intel,Tandem,IBM...}". Same argument applies.
Don't tell me that economic freedom is any different than political
freedom... there are millions of people right here in the good-old
U.S. of A. that are prisoners of economic circumstances, and living a
life comparable or worse than the average Soviet citizen. (Heck, even
as a successful small business owner, I'm beginning to wonder about
the American system...)
Maybe I'm an optimist, but someone once told me that you can't hate
anyone you truely know. I've found lots of evidence for that. People
that state otherwise must not have tested the waters.
And, how come this is in comp.misc, and not talk.political.whatever?
Oh well.
Actually, I vote for *not* sending them USENET. The resulting death
of productivity (from time spent reading USENET) at such a crucial
stage in Soviet technological development would be sufficient
motiviation to launch a first strike. :-) :-) :-)
--
Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
on contract to BiiN Technical Information Services (for now :-),
in a former Intel building in Hillsboro, Oregon, USA.
<mer...@intelob.biin.com> or ...!tektronix!inteloa[!intelob]!merlyn
SOME MAILERS REQUIRE <mer...@intelob.intel.com> GRRRRR!
Standard disclaimer: I *am* my employer!
T. William Wells
Not only have you failed to contribute anything useful to the
discussion, but you haven't even managed to insult your intended
target.
Well then, in the spirit which you intended: Fuck Off, Fool!
T. William Wells
: I'm not. I can see the value in corrupting the Soviet system with a USENET
: feed, and yes it would be interesting to have the technical exchange with
: our counterparts in the Soviet Union. However, I remain unconviced that
: help to someone I don't know in the Soviet Union is in my long term self
: interest or national interest.
Here is what I've said about a Soviet newsfeed:
1) The Soviets can already get any information they want from the
USENET. It is very easy for *anyone* to get on the net.
2) Therefore, the only thing that a feed directly to them can effect
is the cost of the information. It can't affect *what* information
they get from the net.
3) It is an arguable proposition that lesser expense of a non-
clandestine feed to the Soviet empire is outweighed by its
possible destabilizing effects.
I happen to believe that the destabilizing effect is the more
important. However, that's just an opinion; we don't have the facts.
: I really do like helping people with technical problems. But how can
: I be certain that the help I give will not be used against me someday?
However, there is one benefit that a known Soviet feed gives you: you
can refrain from answering Soviet questions. There are two
possibilities: if they maintain their clandestine feeds, they now
have an additional cost, the cost of the known feed. This eliminates
the cost argument against the feed. If they don't maintain their
clandestine feed, then you *know* when you might be contributing to
the Soviet empire's welfare.
There is another benefit to us and our intelligence agencies: the
nature of the questions coming over the feed is information about the
state of the Soviet empire.
Paul Campbell
>If they waste their resources on the military then their consumer economy will
>suffer. Over time, Soviet citizens will demand reform; this seems to be
>happening now.
"The best (peaceful) way to get the U.S.A. to change its ways is economic.
If it wastes its resources on the military then its consumer economy will
suffer. Over time, U.S. citizens will demand reform; this seems to be
happening now."
I changed the names and faces ... isn't this amazingly relavent at the moment
where the country is facing a massive deficit which may be about to cause
a recession - it's being caused by rising military spending coupled with
a lowered tax base. Even now there are lots of rumbling from DC about cutting
the defense budget. Of course the U.S government tends to be much more
responsive to the 'consumer economy' than the Soviet one ... for the obvious
reasons.
>USENET is uncontrollable and anarchic in the free world, I believe
>it could be controlled in the SU. Every international phone call that
>connects to the SU is recorded, the same can be done with USENET. Persons
>that post an illegal message would get a visit from a "moderator" and
>be educated on the proper use of USENET.
What makes you think that Usenet isn't recorded by someone at the NSA and
run through keyword searches for words like CIA, NSA, Soviet etc ....
of course all of us in this discussion have our names and net addresses in
a database somewhere :-) (someone somewhere in Virginia is probably smiling
now ... :-)
Paul
--
Paul Campbell ..!{unisoft|mtxinu}!taniwha!paul (415)420-8179
Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA
So which did we get, George or Skippy?
Mike Trout
> The best (peaceful) way to get the Soviets to change their ways is economic.
> If they waste their resources on the military then their consumer economy will
> suffer. Over time, Soviet citizens will demand reform; this seems to be
> happening now.
There is a major problem with this argument. Soviet over-spending on their
military has traditionally been matched by USA over-spending on its military.
All the statements Lawrence makes above can just as easily be applied to the
USA. And a "who started it first" argument is nothing more than a chicken/egg
discussion.
> A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to
> me to be more likely to engage in military adventures.
Sorry, but you have this backwards. All nations engage in military adventures
only when they feel threatened. The USSR is the world's leading expert at
paranoia, its land mass having been invaded 101 times and its currrent
boundaries surrounded by enemies. Any internal problems cause them to lash out
at whatever they perceive to be a threat, even if their logic is often faulty.
When things are comfy you don't feel threatened and don't feel a need to send
out the troops to protect your interests.
> Dealing with the Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very
> clear, they respect military strength.
I'm not sure what you mean by this old cold war statement. In what way do the
Soviets respect military strength more than other nations? I fail to note any
historical data to substantiate this.
--
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
Lawrence V. Cipriani
have to be rude too).
So what will be accomplished with a USENET connection to Moscow University?
I agree that it will mainly transfer some low grade technical information
into the USSR. I agree that it won't make any difference to the KGB or
GRU. What I want is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone living
there so they want to leave or demand real reforms. I'm opposed to anything
that makes the USSR a better place to live. If you don't share this opinion
fine, just be sure to tell it to at least one escapee from the USSR.
Any information that flows out of the USSR is no doubt carefully screened
and low grade. A lot of the technical journals from the USSR contain a
lot of junk. You really have to sift thought a lot to find something good,
sort of like USENET.
My earlier statement about the roles of the KGB and GRU is not accurate.
The KGB, I'm sure, has a very big role in the US. However, it is
fundamentally different than that of the GRU.
US missiles pointed at the UK? Nah, they're pointed at France :-(
The people that I'm most concerned with in western gov't aren't the
technical types; it's the policy making, power hungry bureaucrats that
scare me. However I'm more nervous about helping someone, no matter who
they are, from the USSR than just about anywhere else in the world. I
can't worry about *everything* that I do and how it may harm me someday.
I've got better things to do.
Like I said before, once the USSR permits free immigration to all their
citizens I'll believe they are civilized.
Der Tynan
Here's my 0.02 ruples worth :-)
In the first place, anyone with a security clearance can forget sending
electronic mail to a 'designated country'. Talking to citizens of these
countries requires extensive briefing and debriefing. It could be argued
that someone with a clearance, who posts news with 'world' distribution
has in fact, violated the above, if the USSR is connected. Personally,
I think it is a good idea to open up links with communist countries. I
think we could all learn something. I'd like to see a day, when *every*
country on this planet was connected to USENET (or some variant). The
problem, as I see it, is not whether it is a good idea, but whether it
is legally possible. Now don't tell me that USENET is an anarchy, that
doesn't come into it. I dislike Government of any sort, be it in the USA
or USSR. So, I allow a Soviet site to poll my machine (or vice versa),
then one day, some unnamed US agency decides that this is a *major* problem.
So, they dispatch half-a-dozen agents, who confiscate every piece of
computing gear I own, and revoke my permanent residency status. That's
nice. I don't think it's that far-fetched, either. There are a *lot*
of paranoid security services on this planet, and in this country. If
this is to happen, it needs the sanction of the US Government (unfortunately)
unless some European site wants to implement the actual connection.
- Der
--
dty...@zorba.Tynan.COM (Dermot Tynan @ Tynan Computers)
{apple,mips,pyramid,uunet}!Tynan.COM!dtynan
--- If the Law is for the People, then why do we need Lawyers? ---
Baron Fujimoto
>From article <23...@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by l...@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani):
^" help to someone I don't know in the Soviet Union is in my long term self
^" interest or national interest.
^
^So don't be convinced. Is anyone who has a different opinion really a
^traitor?
^ Greg, l...@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Hear! Hear! (killing two birds with one stone... :-)
Baron, ba...@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
--
INTERNET: ba...@uuccux.uucc.hawaii.edu |
BITNET: ba...@uhccux.bitnet | "Make beans into peas!"
ICBM: 21 19 N 157 52 W |
Daryl McLaurine
~ Country Internal External
~ (spycatchers) (spys)
~ USSR KGB GRU
~--
~Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation
~"Have you hugged U your wolf today?" uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter
~Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn business. pe...@ficc.uu.net
I thought that it was the other way around...
^
<{[-]}>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
V Daryl McLaurine, Programmer/Analyst (Consultant)
| Contact:
| Home: 1-312-955-2803 (Voice M-F 7pm/1am)
| Office: Omegan Consultants (Use Home Number 9am-4pm)
| -or-
| University of Chicago Mathematics Dept.
| daryl@{zaphod or neuro}.UChicago.EDU
==\*/=========================================================================
Nici Schraudolph
The upshot of all this seems to be that everyone agrees that the proposed
usenet hook-up to the S.U. would help Soviet users - the disagreement is
mostly about whether you want to help them at all!
Get real guys! No one is going to obtain any sensitive information through
the public net - and if you don't want to help a perfectly ordinary Soviet
citizen with everyday problems go see the shrink about your paranoia! You
don't even realise that you are just as much a victim of OUR propaganda
machine as they are of theirs - in fact the Russians are in my experience
the better educated and politically open-minded people!
You heard right, yes, our propaganda machine: we do have it, it is only
better concealed in the private media. Basic computing theory should even
tell you that ours (decentralised control, highly parallel) is likely to
be much more powerful than theirs (central control, highly sequential).
The proof is right here in the enormous volume of preconceived, biased,
even naive views of life in the Soviet Union that that have been voiced
in this discussion.
I admit I am not immune to infiltration by the media - there is an antidote,
however, that I like to use: frequent exposure to other cultures - travel!
The more places I've been to, the more I realise that people are people,
politicians are mostly corrupt, and military should be dumped in outer space
wherever you find them, including both in the U.S. and the S.U.!
All you have to do is travel to Europe, and the distinction between OUR
rockets and THEIR rockets is meaningless: my West German hometown, for
example, would in case of nuclear warfare be destroyed by a FRENCH warhead
- does that mean that I should consider France an enemy? I have friends in
places aimed at by French, British, American, Russian, Chinese missiles.
Have you ever thought about how YOU (sorry about the generalisation) could
benefit from this link? Like, getting some better idea about how life in
the S.U. really is (as opposed to the picture Hollywood has installed in
your brains)? Omigosh, you might even learn something from their scientists!
Did you know that the Russians are world leading in mathematics, laser eye
surgery, therapy for autistic children, to name but a few? I bet you were
surprised that they got ATs over there (all smuggled in from the U.S. by
KGB [sic] spies, of course :-)
Sorry about the length and semi-flame nature of this, but I have silently
endured the glorious ignorance the majority of Americans exhibit when it
comes to international affairs for half a year now: ever since I moved
here. I just had to get this off my chest now.
--
"Language is a Virus from Outer Space" - William S. Burroughs
#####################################################################
# Nici Schraudolph nschra...@ucsd.edu #
# University of California, San Diego ...!ucsd!nschraudolph #
#####################################################################
Disclaimer: U.C. Regents and me share no common opinions whatsoever.
Peter da Silva
> in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well.
There's a big difference between Leninist and Marxist theory, too. There's
nothing in Marx to justify Soviet imperialism. Marx is just a figurehead...
one they silence rather effectively by the simple expedient of censorship.
--
Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation
"Have you hugged U your wolf today?" uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter
Miles Bader
> I agree that it will mainly transfer some low grade technical information
> into the USSR. I agree that it won't make any difference to the KGB or
> GRU. What I want is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone living
> there so they want to leave or demand real reforms. I'm opposed to anything
> that makes the USSR a better place to live. If you don't share this opinion
> fine, just be sure to tell it to at least one escapee from the USSR.
God forbid that a political system you don't agree with should make
it's citizens happy! Aren't you being a bit arrogant, deciding what
other people should want? Maybe (just maybe) they have different
priorities than you...
-Miles
Kieth Dickinson
>
> In article <23...@cbnews.ATT.COM>, l...@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
>> A Soviet Union that is fat and happy with the status quo would seem to
>> me to be more likely to engage in military adventures.
>
> Sorry, but you have this backwards. All nations engage in military adventures
> only when they feel threatened.
I'm sure that the Germans were feeling REAL threatend back during World War II
when all of those nasty countries like Poland (with it's horseback cavalry) and
the such were threatening to take over the country!
> The USSR is the world's leading expert at
> paranoia, its land mass having been invaded 101 times and its currrent
> boundaries surrounded by enemies. Any internal problems cause them to lash out
> at whatever they perceive to be a threat, even if their logic is often faulty.
> When things are comfy you don't feel threatened and don't feel a need to send
> out the troops to protect your interests.
>
Ahhhh... This is quite true. It also confirms what the other poster said. If
everything is going nicely and the economy of the Russian people is improved
(maybe by backing of a _little_ on defense production) then maybe they wouldn't
always be in such a twit over every little problem. Most of the problems would
go away if their economy got back on it's feet!
>> Dealing with the Soviets is a very tricky business, but one fact is very
>> clear, they respect military strength.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this old cold war statement. In what way do the
> Soviets respect military strength more than other nations? I fail to note any
> historical data to substantiate this.
>
Don't looke at me for answers to that line... I'm not too sure about what was
being said either....
Keith Dickinson
--------------
_ /| | Fidonet : 369/2 [(305) 421-8593] Brave Mew World South
\'o.O' | Internet : nan...@muadib.FIDONET.ORG
=(___)= | UUCP : (novavax,hoptoad!ankh)!muadib!nanook | nanook@novavax
U | USNail : 433 SE 13th CT. J-202, Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33441
Ack! | Disclamer: This message was created by a faulty AI program.
Don't blame me...I voted for Bill'n'Opus in '88
Peter Desnoyers
>
>In the first place, anyone with a security clearance can forget sending
>electronic mail to a 'designated country'. Talking to citizens of these
>countries requires extensive briefing and debriefing.
This should not be an argument for limiting access to Usenet. It is
the responsibility of the person with a clearance to monitor their
actions. For them to expect us to is irresponsible.
> [supports soviet usenet access, but is dubious of legality]
>So, I allow a Soviet site to poll my machine (or vice versa),
>then one day, some unnamed US agency decides that this is a *major* problem.
>So, they dispatch half-a-dozen agents, who confiscate every piece of
>computing gear I own, and revoke my permanent residency status.
I would suggest that the gateway be operated by someone residing in
the U.S. who is an American-born citizen. It should also be someone
who doesn't use drugs, cheat on their taxes, associate with any groups
left of the John Birch society... 1/2 :-)
[note - that unnamed US agency would be the CIA. The NSA just listens,
and the FBI is restricted by law and constitution. CIA operations in
this country are illegal to begin with, so they are really not
restricted in any way, as far as I know.]
Peter Desnoyers
Michael Hamel
>In article <2...@taniwha.UUCP>, mic...@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes:
>
>> There is a big gap between Leninist/Marxist theory and practice
>> in the USSR, and I believe they know that very well.
>
>Please tell us what the correct number of victims is.
>
was that the USSR has a formal ideology that requires them to say
certain things publicly that they may not believe in - for the very
good reason that the predictions that Marxist/Leninist doctrine made
about the future have turned out not to be true. For a good example of
this I recommend you take a look at the program of the CPSU that was
being promoted in the 1960's. It states as an accomplished fact that the
USSR would equal the U.S in industrial production in the 1970's, and that
by the 1980's would be the envy of all nations, with a 35-hour working
week and the most advanced technology and economy on earth. When you
consider that Gorbachev and the current generation of Kremlin leaders were
in their mid-thirties and probably believed at least some of this, you do
start to wonder what they think today.
>No way, Gorbachev has no power, he is only a figure head.
Funny the way he keeps dismissing and appointing people, then. How do you
propose to falsify your theory that he is a figurehead?
> What has changed recently is that the Soviets have much better
>public relations than in the past. That's all there is to it.
But the better public relations is *inside* the USSR as well as outside -
and that means change. You can't tell me that having the government own up
publicly to what happened under Stalin and to what has been happening to
their economy in the last twenty years isn't going to change the way things
happen at the lower levels. It has become possible to criticise the State,
and thats the first step toward a different society. Look at the unrest in
the Baltic States and Armenia. Thats what "better public relations" has done
and the response will have to be different from what it would have been 20
years ago because the rest of the USSR is watching on the TV news every night..
>When the Soviet Union allows free immigration to all citizens then I will
>believe they have *fundamentally* changed. Until then, it is a prison,
>and only a prison.
I think you are judging the Soviets on one very narrow criteria. I wouldn't
believe they had fundamentally changed even if they did allow free
immigration - but this is semantic anyway. Describing the USSR as a prison
is a cheap shot: it is a country and a homeland with a long and troubled
history, and in no way comparable. The notion of "imprisoning" umpteen
million people is absurd. They are there because it is their country, for
better or worse.
--
"In challenging a kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient.
You scream and you leap."
Michael Hamel.
Kent Borg
>In article <23...@ficc.uu.net> pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>~ Country Internal External
>~ (spycatchers) (spys)
>~ USSR KGB GRU
>
I thought: KGB handles most internal security, KGB and GRU both
adventure externally, the difference being who controls them. GRU is
military intelligence (sic) and more ruthless.
[Legend (heard it on NPR once) has it that an orientation film for new
GRU recrewts shows captured GRU defectors being burned alive for their
sins. Just because I am for a USENET feed to the USSR don't assume I
think the Soviets all sweetness and light .]
Seems one of the underlying arguments in this whole debate is that if
we in the West read postings and mail from the Soviet Union we might
begin to think of the Soviet Union as being populated by people. This
prospect frightens some of us mightily, just think, if this happened a
few more of us might not blindly support the continuation of the Cold
War.
Face it folks, the Cold War is almost over. Gorby is getting much
better international press than Ronny or George/Skippy, we are going
to have to call it off pretty soon. That doesn't mean we start
selling arms to the USSR or giving them the plans to the Shuttle (I
wonder if their's blows up?). It simply means that it is time to look
for ways to gradually lessen tensions, not try to squeeze, prod,
insult, and threaten.
A new USENET feed will either be open to individuals in the USSR,
people with whom we have no quarrel, or it will be confined to
`officials', people who actually have a little power, people who will
be corrupted by the talk of 25 MHz '386 machines.
Either way tensions are lowered, both sides win more than either side
looses. That upsets people.
Kent Borg
ke...@lloyd.uupc
or
hscfvax!lloyd!kent
P.S. It is a bit disturbing to know that I now am listed in the files
of the NSA. That this exercising of my right to free speach might
very well be held against me if ever I need a security clearance. I'm
sure a lot of you are glad the USA is being protected from people like
me.
Michael Levin
>
>This is balanced against the fact that *any* information sent into
>the USSR is destabilizing. One of the things holding the empire
>together is its tight control of information.
>
That's their problem, not ours.
>Consider the effect on some Soviet scientist of say, my casual
>discussion of the '386 machine *that I own and have complete freedom
>to use*. I can sense the drools already. :-)
>
That's how I used to feel when I was 13, and my (older) friends
talked about their cars. Again, that's their problem, not ours.
>Consider the comparison that any intelligent mind will make between
>the censorship that is routine in the USSR vs. the anarchic nature of
>the USENET.
>
That's their problem, not ours.
>Consider having repeatedly rubbed in one's face the fact that one's
>country, through its own folly, is somewhere between five and ten
>years behind, technologically.
>
>Consider the possible countering of Soviet propaganda.
>
Yeah.
>All of this depends on the USSR's not censoring the USENET feed.
>Might I suggest that the feed ought to be made contingent on the lack
>of censorship?
>
Isn't that a form of censorship? I'll show you mine, but only if...
That isn't the right spirit. Our decision as to whether or not to allow
our 'comrades' in the USSR to participate should be purely motivated on our
own selfish (or altruistic, if you prefer) reasons. Why do you want to even
occupy your mind thinking about all the things that their government is
doing wrong, right, or whatever?? The Soviets are people, as are the French,
the Americans, the Italians, or whatever. I don't see the issue!! If some-
one over there can set up a UUCP connection, or whatever, then let them. If
a site that connects to the rest of the net is willing to give someone a
feed, so be it. Just like that. The way *WE* (anarchistically) like to do
things. After all, anything on USENET isn't exactly a *secret*. Somebody
once said, if three people know something it isn't a secret anymore. I
happen to agree. If 100,000 people have access to something, you may as
well put it on the 6:00 news, or the front page of the paper. Or on the
Soviet hookup to USENET.
Enough said,
Mike Levin
--
+----+ P L E A S E R E S P O N D T O: +------+-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
| Mike Levin, Silent Radio HeadQuarters, Los Angeles (srhqla) | No room for a *
| Path:{aeras|csun|pacbell|pyramid|telebit}!srhqla!levin |'snappy remark'*
+-------------------------------------------------------------+-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Mike Trout
> [...] ...if they [the USSR] had the
> resources, they'd use those resources to make *real* war on us.
> Denying them a little money (specifically, foreign exchange, which
> they can spend on acquiring our, more effective, resources) means
> denying them a little of those resources and thus lessens the
> likelyhood of their making *real* war on us.
Actually, the more resources they have, the less unstable and paranoid they
are, and the likelihood of a war DEcreases. This also applies, in greater or
lesser intensity, to all the world's sovereign nations. Nearly all wars are
launched under circumstances in which one or more groups perceive (correctly or
incorrectly) that their interests are in grave danger, rather than simply
because they're big and powerful and want to become bigger and more powerful.
> : Whether you think the Soviets are people or just gruff bears, you
> : still don't want to corner them and give them nothing to loose.
> This is an old argument, which doesn't hold much water when one
> considers that the Soviets have chosen their paths because they want
> to run the world. (Their stated intention.)
Yeah, right. Read any foreign policy speech by any US president in the last 40
years and from a non-USA point of view it will seem like the USA's stated
intention is the run the world. And we DID essentially run it from about 1945
until the late 1960s. The Soviets simply want to prevent that from happening
again; their intention the "run the world" is simply an attempt to prevent the
USA from "running the world." Of course their perception is grossly
incorrect, but that's their point of view and we're not about to change it.
Note that the USA has a higher percentage of its war machine stationed in
foreign countires than the USSR does, and US troops are located in more foreign
countries than Soviet troops are. From THEIR point of view, it's the USA
that's in danger of taking over much of the earth's surface. The Soviets are
not concerned with the fundamental differences between US troops in South
Korea and Soviet troops in, say, East Germany.
> Can you say Afghanistan? And do you have the vaguest idea why they are
> pulling out? Try economics.
I love simplistic, one-word answers to complex problems. There's a lot more to
the Soviet pullout than economics. For one thing, the Defense Ministry has
been pleading for a pullout for years, citing the heavy losses to men and
equipment, not to mention the fact that the Afghanistan War has accelerated the
long-expected internal problems in the Soviet Armed Forces with regard to
Russian commanders and non-Russian troops. There are many other reasons for
the Soviet pullout as well.
And you have completely misinterpreted the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Suppose a bloody civil war broke out in Mexico, and after years of devastation,
anti-US forces started getting the upper hand. Suppose the US embassy in
Mexico City was burned to the ground and US diplomatic personnel butchered and
their heads paraded around the city on poles. Suppose the CIA began announcing
that much of the success of the anti-US forces was due to heavy covert Soviet
involvement. Suppose the anti-US forces began making statements about taking
their fight across the border into Texas. You may safely assume that US policy
makers would argue strongly, and probably successfully, for a US invasion of
Mexico.
a.e.mossberg
>So what will be accomplished with a USENET connection to Moscow University?
>I agree that it will mainly transfer some low grade technical information
>into the USSR. I agree that it won't make any difference to the KGB or
>GRU. What I want is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone living
>there so they want to leave or demand real reforms. I'm opposed to anything
>that makes the USSR a better place to live. If you don't share this opinion
>fine, just be sure to tell it to at least one escapee from the USSR.
We have several professors here from the Soviet Union with whom I've discussed both
recent Soviet reforms and elctronic information exchange. These are not visiting,
they are naturalized citizens of the US. *All* of them applaud the changes under
Misha and feel that better communication between the peoples of the super-powers
can only benefit everybody.
>Like I said before, once the USSR permits free immigration to all their
>citizens I'll believe they are civilized.
You mean "emigration". I agree that there should be free emigration allowed.
The Soviet Union is not alone in restricting emigration. Israel is also guilty
of this.
aem
a.e.mossberg - a...@mthvax.miami.edu - a...@mthvax.span (3.91)
Labor creates all wealth.
Maarten Litmaath
\...
\What makes you think that Usenet isn't recorded by someone at the NSA and
\run through keyword searches for words like CIA, NSA, Soviet etc ....
\of course all of us in this discussion have our names and net addresses in
\a database somewhere :-) (someone somewhere in Virginia is probably smiling
\now ... :-)
Yes, and you'll all have `accidents', just like the witnesses of the murder of
John F. Kennedy. Be prepared to die.
--
fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, FNDELAY): |Maarten Litmaath @ VU Amsterdam:
let's go weepin' in the corner! |ma...@cs.vu.nl, mcvax!botter!maart
Der Tynan
>
> No. I think someone that actually *helps or trades* the Soviet Union is a
> traitor to anyone that has tried to escape it, and to anyone that has fought
> for the free world, and against me personally.
>
Ronald Reagan *refuses* to impose strict sanctions against the South African
Government. What does that make him?
As for your point about helping people with bombs pointed toward you. Well,
I'm from Ireland, and you can bet the farm that Shannon Airport (the most
westerly airfield in Europe) is an American target. I'm currently under
contract to a defense company. Does that make a difference? I think not.
Overall, I think your stance reeks of McCarthyism. The only way to improve
relations with 'your adversaries', is by better communication, and under-
standing. Unless, of course, you'd like to keep your notions of the SU as
the great oppressor. Good versus Evil, etc. The ony way to make this planet
a better place, is by trying to remove the hatred and fear between different
groups. That can only be done by realizing that the opposite group is made
up of people like ourselves, and by seeing things from the other persons
point of view.
As a further point of discussion, I think we should amend the discussion as
to whether or not to swap news with the USSR, but whether or not to swap
"ussr.all" with the USSR. That way, people posting to those groups know
where it is going, and people worried about 'sensitive data' can keep it
away from ussr.sources. Comments?
Mike Wexler
access to USENET without having anyone in the United States devoted
to reading or copying it. All they have to do is set up an account
on Portal or UUNET and dial it from Moscow. They can setup a billing
address in the US without much difficulty.
Mike Wexler(wyse!mikew or mi...@wyse.com) Phone: (408)433-1000 x1330
Moderator of comp.sources.x
Marcel Samek
>Here are my 2c as a European who has been following this discussion:
More specifically you are a Western European. I am an American who
originally comes from Eastern Europe, and with all due respect I think
that your posting illustrates that simply being from Europe, as you
are, does not spare you from exhibiting the same 'glorious ignorance'
which you accuse Americans of having a monopoly on.
> [miscellaneous ramblings on 'propaganda machines' deleted]
>The proof is right here in the enormous volume of preconceived, biased,
>even naive views of life in the Soviet Union that that have been voiced
>in this discussion.
Yes, I agree with you perfectly. Many (if not most) Americans have
frustratingly naive notions of what life behind the iron curtain is really
like. Their ideas, however, are not naive because they have biased and
negative preconceptions; their ideas are naive because they are clueless as
to how opressive and dehumanizing life behind the iron curtain really is.
In this resepect, as a 'European' who considers himself as liberated
from the ignorance which blinds Americans, I find that you a lot more naive
and blind than those you complain about.
>
>I admit I am not immune to infiltration by the media - there is an antidote,
>however, that I like to use: frequent exposure to other cultures - travel!
>The more places I've been to, the more I realise that people are people,
>politicians are mostly corrupt, and military should be dumped in outer space
>wherever you find them, including both in the U.S. and the S.U.!
I think that maybe you ought to try living in Czechoslovakia, for example,
for a while. If, after that, you still judge politicians on both sides of
the iron curtain by the same scale then I think that your naivete springs
not from ignorance but rather an insitence on seeing the world the way
you want to see it.
>
>All you have to do is travel to Europe, and the distinction between OUR
>rockets and THEIR rockets is meaningless: my West German hometown, for
Yes, and during WWII, as far as any soldier caught in a crossfire was
concerned, the difference between German bullets and American bullets was
also meaningless; he would get killed by either. The situation then,
however, was more important than can be judged by which bullet took one
soldiers life, and the situation now is more complicated than whose bomb
destroys your hometown, or all of Germany for that matter. If you really
believe what you write here, then your arrogance and ignorance is a poor
reflection on the intellectual and moral attitudes of those 'Europeans'
who consider themselves untarnished by American naivete.
>Have you ever thought about how YOU (sorry about the generalisation) could
>benefit from this link? Like, getting some better idea about how life in
Yes I am sure that many Westerners would benefit by direct contact with
those behind the iron curtain. I am also sure that many individuals behind
the iron curtain would benefit by direct contacts with Westerners. I have
no quarrel with either. I do, however, vehemently oppose the
legitimization of tyrannical regimes by continued normal relations. The
Soviets and their puppet states wish desperately to be recognized as
legitimate players in western life; the tearing down of communication
barriers by the free world is an indication of such acceptance. Whether it
benefits 'us', or 'them', until the totalitarian regimes in the Eastern
block grant some basic human rights to the citizens of those countries, I
consider it very naive and short sighted to pretend that 'they' are just
like 'us'.
>
>Sorry about the length and semi-flame nature of this, but I have silently
>endured the glorious ignorance the majority of Americans exhibit when it
>comes to international affairs for half a year now: ever since I moved
>here. I just had to get this off my chest now.
I honestly sympathize with you since I feel the same frustration as you do,
just from a different viewpoint. At the risk of being accused of
generalizing as grossly as you did, I will conclude with this blatant
flame. My frustration at the general ignorance of Americans when it comes
to international affairs is only exceeded by my frustration at the
arrogance which Western Europeans exhibit when it comes to the same topic.
My general impression is that many do not care what kind of squalor or
oppression the rest of the world lives in as long as they themselves are
not threatened in any manner. It is sad to see such pervasive self
centerdness and short sightedness in countries which I feel close ties to
and feel very fond of.
--
Marcel A. Samek | Media Logic Incorporated
| 2501 Colorado Blvd. Suite 350
ARPA: mlogic!mar...@unisys.sm.com | Santa Monica, CA 90404
UUCP: ...sdcrdcf!mlogic!marcel | (213) 453-7744
Steven P. Donegan
Information, reasonably uncensored, and widely disseminated, tends to weaken
the propaganda that any country forces on it's people.
I assume that the USSR is already getting a feed. If makeing it legitimate is
something that the USSR wants so what?
--
Steven P. Donegan These opinions are given on MY time, not
Sr. Telecommunications Analyst Western Digital's
Western Digital Corp.
stanton!donegan || don...@stanton.TCC.COM || donegan%sta...@tcc.com
Per Ejeklint /EFS
>
>Just remember, you will be helping someone that has missiles pointed at you!
>
Am I to understand that I must sign off from the net immediately? USA has
missiles pointed to very near me. And what about the rest of the
western world that actually has access to the *international* net? They
will also suffer from US (and Soviet) attacks... Or maybe we should keep
both superpowers out of the net.
--
"The choir sang a capella, which means singing without music."
------------
Per Ejeklint Phone: + 8 799 03 18 UUCP: !mcvax!enea!kps!per
Kuwait Petroleum Svenska AB KPSNET: per@kps
Per Ejeklint /EFS
>traitor to anyone that has tried to escape it, and to anyone that has fought
>for the free world, and against me personally.
AARGH! And you say you don't believe in capital punishment? You won't put
a traitor in the electric chair, but you will refuse to give help that
could, maybe, help the process of liberation for 200 million people!
Per Ejeklint /EFS
>What has changed recently is that the Soviets have much better
>public relations than in the past. That's all there is to it.
secured his position in a very impressive way. I do not doubt to call him
the most powerful man in the world. Remember, his senate, or congress
support his his descisions to 100%. I think the situation is rather
different in USA.
Public relations? I suggest that you take a trip to USSR on your next
vacation. I'm not shure wether they would let you in, though...
Jim Budler
|
| Country Internal External
| (spycatchers) (spys)
|
| USA FBI CIA
| USSR KGB GRU
| UK MI5 MI6
|
| I think that's correct. The Brits seem to have the most logical naming scheme
Say what? MI5 and 6 most logical?
From the Glossary in Spy Catcher, by Peter Wright, former Assistant Director
of MI5:
"British Security Service (Formerly Section 5 of Military Intelligence)
.
.
.
British Secret Intelligence Service (Formerly Section 6 of Military
Intelligence) A civilian organization..."
They are both still known by MI5 and MI6, but for historical, not *logical*
reasons.
Ever wonder what happened to MI 1,2,3 & 4?
Mrs. Thatcher isn't very happy with Peter Wright. Publishing memoirs
about dirty deads inside MI5 and MI6 is a no-no. The book's banned
in Britain.
--
Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: j...@eda.com
#define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer"
#define truth "I speak for myself"
#define result "variable"
Richard A. O'Keefe
>in article <50...@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, mi...@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) says:
>> Sorry, but you have this backwards. All nations engage in military adventures
>> only when they feel threatened.
>
>I'm sure that the Germans were feeling REAL threatend back during World War II
>when all of those nasty countries like Poland (with it's horseback cavalry) and
>the such were threatening to take over the country!
They _weren't_ threatened, but they *FELT* threatened.
They were also in economic trouble, which is worth bearing in mind
when people suggest bringing the USSR to its knees economically.
Those were far from the only factors, but they were factors.
Stephen Crane
writes:
>My last posting on this worn out topic (unless somebody gets rude and I
>have to be rude too).
>What I want is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone living
>there so they want to leave or demand real reforms. I'm opposed to anything
>that makes the USSR a better place to live.
These two statements are contradictorary, in the first you say that you want
to make life as difficult as possible...to demand real reforms, in the second
you say that you are opposed to making the SU a better place to live. My
deduction from this statement is that either you should refrain from making
life as difficult as possible (for otherwise it might become a better place
to live due to the ``real reforms'') or you should think before you post.
>If you don't share this opinion
>fine, just be sure to tell it to at least one escapee from the USSR.
This statement is incomprehensible to me. Perhaps you could rephrase it.
>The people that I'm most concerned with in western gov't aren't the
>technical types; it's the policy making, power hungry bureaucrats that
>scare me.
I agree whole-heartedly!
>However I'm more nervous about helping someone, no matter who
>they are, from the USSR than just about anywhere else in the world.
Why is this exactly? This is the eighties, man, not the fifties!
>Like I said before, once the USSR permits free immigration to all their
^^^^^^^^^^^
Surely you mean emigration?
>citizens I'll believe they are civilized.
>--
>Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH,
>Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: l...@cbnews.ATT.COM
Stephen Crane, Department of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin 2.
``Sheltering under the west's nuclear umbrella, without paying a penny''
---Michael Heseltine
Greg Lee
"... The Soviets simply want to prevent that from happening
"again; their intention the "run the world" is simply an attempt to prevent the
"USA from "running the world."
That's as may be. It doesn't affect the logic of the argument that it
is in the USA's interest to deny the Soviet Union resources that would
help them to carry through that intention, however conceived. The
actual value of a network connection as such a resource has been
questioned in this discussion, but I suppose it has some value.
There are forces in the USA that tend to prevent the USA from carrying
out any intention it might have of running the world -- military
adventurism is unpopular because citizens get killed and because the
costs make a cut in social security more likely, for instance. It
is in the interest of the USA to foster any change in the Soviet
system that would make such forces felt more in the Soviet Union.
That a network connection would have such an effect, indirectly,
in the long term, seems to me to be the principle argument on the
other side of this issue.
Green Eric Lee
>In article <76...@well.UUCP> cru...@well.UUCP (John Draper) writes:
>> I have heard a LOT of talk about adding Soviet Sites to the UUCP network
>>but have heard nothing but VAPORWARE. Does anyone out there in Net land
>>WANT to add Soviet sites??
> Andrei Sakahrov has just said that the
>changes are only superficial. I do not think that he can trust the Soviet
>government at all. (Even if one believes that Gorbachev is really
>sincere and wants to destroy all weapons on the Earth, it is very possible
>that he will be overthrown by conservatives who wil return to the "old"
>way.) I think that we have seen how the Soviets have cut research costs
>by copying our Shuttle, why let them get so much information so easily?
Fact: While the Soviets obviously took advantage of the aerodynamics
work done on our shuttle, and copied superficial details such as,
e.g., the heat shield material, their shuttle is fundamentally
different from ours. For one thing, ours has engines -- theirs doesn't
(it piggybacks on their Energia rocket, which is a tad larger than our
old Saturn V was). For another thing, theirs has MUCH better
electronics (i.e., late '70s technology, instead of early '70s
technology), which is why they can do neat things such as have it take
off and land with no pilot on-board.
Let's face it, the U.S. space shuttle was no paragon of innovation...
it was basically obsolete the first time it flew, due to the rampant
underfunding of the U.S. space program (took 10 years to develop,
because of miserly R&D budgets and, also, because of the retirement of
all the Apollo rocket scientists). The Russians obviously looked at
ours, but just as obviously, they haven't limited themselves to
copying our mistakes.
> Having a UUCP site would make it much easier for them to
>spread a malicious virus in a time of friction. Also, what if a virus
>from the US leaks into Russia (or a virus from the USSR gets into the US)?
>Such a situation would cause many problems and bad feelings.
Sounds like paranoia to me. Do we even ship the sources groups
overseas?
In any event, the problem with the Russian system is NOT innovation --
they have bright people, too (surely we've learned that Americans have
no monoploy on brains?). Their main problem is PRODUCTION, as you'd
expect from a Communist system that gives little reward for
productivity. E.g. they may know how 1Mb DRAMS are made, but it's
damndably hard to coordinate various government monopolies to, e.g.,
get those fantastically expensive stepper motors needed at the chip
processing stage.
--
Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509
{ames,mit-eddie,osu-cis,...}!killer!elg, killer!usl!elg, etc.
Anna Kochanowska
>Who do you think reads USENET in the US - Dennis Banks of AIM and the
>political prisoners of the Lexington Women's Unit? No, it's computing
>community types by and large. Sorry, that's just the nature of the
>net. Bridging it to the USSR would not be for the purpose of bringing
>rec.sport.auto to the Gulag, it would be for exchanging insights on
>computing with folks just like us (modulo differing cultural parameters)
>over there.
Have you ever read _Homo Sovieticus_ of Zinowiew ?
--
The views expressed are those of the writer, and not of
Visual Edge, or of the Usenet.
A.M.Kochanowska
Richard Kennaway CMP RA
> What I want is to make life as difficult as possible for anyone living
> there so they want to leave or demand real reforms.
If *you* harass them, they will blame *you*. "Ah", you say, "get rid
of your government and I'll stop".
When people make this argument with bombs, we call them terrorists. Denying
USENET access wont kill anyone, but there is no other moral difference.
> I'm opposed to anything that makes the USSR a better place to live.
Duh... You mean that if the Soviet Government instituted freedom of speech,
movement, and religion, tomorrow, you would be opposed? Or were you half
asleep when you penned that sentence?
--
Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
uucp: ...mcvax!ukc!uea-sys!jrk Janet: kenn...@uk.ac.uea.sys
Mike Trout
> in article <50...@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, mi...@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) says:
> > All nations engage in military adventures only when they feel threatened.
> I'm sure that the Germans were feeling REAL threatend back during World War II
You bet your ass they were. I'm sure you're familiar with Nazi racial and
political policy that blamed Germany's hellish economic problems of the 1930s
on non-Aryans, Jews, international bankers, and the like. When the war began,
Germany had only just recovered from devastating economic disaster. In fact,
conditions in Germany were still not very comfortable when Hitler launched the
war. The German people wanted to eliminate the outside threats they felt,
which centered on the non-Aryan internationalists that Hitler claimed were in
control of such nations as France, Poland, and the USSR. It was felt that the
horrible economics of the 1930s could appear at any moment unless the outsiders
were eliminated. It's also important to remember that before the war began,
the German armed forces were VASTLY outnumbered by the hostile armed forces of
the nations surrounding them that were perceived as the home of the
internationalists who were bent on the destruction of Germany. Hitler worked
the German people up into a frenzy with these fears, and they lauched a global
war our of fear for their own survival. The German people were NOT comfortable
and did NOT feel secure. They felt their only choice was to destroy or be
destroyed. If they sat back and did nothing, the Germans felt that it would
only be a few years before invading hordes of Jews, communists, and
internationalists from the other parts of Europe obliterated the German people.
The Nazi empire didn't mass-execute 11 million innocents because it was
comfortable and powerful; it did so because it was AFRAID of those 11 million
people.
> when all of those nasty countries like Poland (with it's horseback cavalry)
> and the such were threatening to take over the country!
See above. You have also completely misread the Germany/Poland military
situation of 1939. Your attitude is unfortunately almost universal among
Americans, probably due to faulty history teaching in our schools and
stereotyped nonsense in movies and other mass media. In 1939, both Poland and
France were regarded by Europeans (and Americans as well) as nations that were
more powerful and "dynamic" than Germany was. Most of the world (including the
Germans) expected Poland and/or France to make short work of Germany in any
war. Only the new innovative German commanders felt that they had a new type
of warfare that would give their forces a chance. In reality, the German
Army invading Poland had MORE horse cavalry than the Polish Army did.
Criticizing Poland for having horse cavalry in 1939 is pretty silly, since ALL
nations (including the USA!) had substantial horse cavalry formations at that
time. Most of those nations continued the use of horse cavalry throughout the
war, including Germany, which by the end of the war had positively HUGE forces
of horse cavalry. Also, the Polish Army of 1939 was almost as large as the
German Army, and was in some ways better equipped and trained. Contrary to
popular American opinion, there were NO recorded instances of Polish cavalry
charging German tanks, while the German cavalry DID charge Polish tanks on more
than one occasion. The famous Polish Lancers, incidentally, used submachine
guns in combat, just like most WW2 cavalry (the lances were for ceremonial
purposes only.) The Polish forces fought bravely and well, and at the
Battle of the Bzura the tide almost turned. Only the extreme mobility and
flexibility of the German Panzer forces managed to save the trapped German
forces from certain annihilation. Among other things, German aircraft losses
during the Polish campaign were just as heavy as they were during most of the
other WW2 campaigns that are better publicized. Unfortunately, Poland was the
FIRST nation to face Blitzkrieg tactics, and nobody--not the USA, not the
USSR, not the UK--NOBODY had any idea of how to stand up to Blitzkrieg until
about 1942. If the Germans had somehow invaded the USA in September of 1939,
we would have fallen just as easily as did the Poles. Thank God for the
Atlantic Ocean. All the above discussion of Poland applies doubly to France,
which had armed forces LARGER than Germany's, with substantial superiority in
such areas as numbers and quality of tanks. But again, that was 1940, and in
those days nobody could withstand a German Blitzkrieg.
Tom Betz
an...@vedge.UUCP (Anna Kochanowska), in Article <20...@vedge.UUCP> you said:
|For 7 moths I am trying to persuade the _Byte_ subscription
|department to send my copies of the magazine to my new address.
|I wrote them few letters, one recommended, I phoned them,
|I even wrote to the main _Byte_ office with no result.
|Any ideas what I could do else?
|Thanks, Anna.
|
Anna, I had problems with them too. I used an 800 number, and received prompt
service. I don't have the number handy, so I suggest you do what I did.
1) call the HQ, ask for the Circulation Department
2) they will ask if you are a subscriber. Tell them you are. They will
give you an 800 number to call.
3) before you call the 800 number HAVE AN ADDRESS LABEL FROM A RECENT ISSUE
ON HAND. There is a number above your name on the label they will need.
4) tell them what you want. It took one call for me.
Good luck!
--
"I learned to play guitar just to get | Tom Betz EAA#48267
the girls, and anyone who says they didn't | "How did I forget eyedrops?
is just lyin'!" - Willie Nelson | I'm such a dope!" - Mr. Mambo
UUCP: tb...@dasys1.UUCP or ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tbetz
Lawrence V. Cipriani
>[Legend (heard it on NPR once) has it that an orientation film for new
>their sins ...
Since this came up I want to mention that this is documented in a book by
former GRU agent Viktor Suvorov. The title is something like "The Aquarium -
My life in Soviet Military Intelligence". After I read the intro to the
book, where this cremation is described, I was literally shaking. The film
is shown to recruits before they join so they are aware that the only way
out of the GRU is through a chimney. Suvorov (a pseudonym really) managed
to escape; he supposedly has been sentenced to death for doing so.
Reading all of Suvorovs books changed my opinion of the USSR from what
most people seem to have to what my opinion is now. Changing it back to
something less extreme will require some fundamental changes in the USSR.
Also, I don't think the US gov't is so great, but at least I could leave
if I wanted to.
Jason Gross
> In article <23...@ficc.uu.net>, pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> < Let's get these intelligence organisations straight:
> <
> < Country Internal External
> < (spycatchers) (spys)
> <
> < USA FBI CIA
> < USSR KGB GRU
> < UK MI5 MI6
>
> <
> < I think that's correct. The Brits seem to have the most logical naming scheme,
> < don't they? Anny corrections and/or additions?
Why does it look like Brits have the most logical naming scheme? MI5 and MI6
sound, to most people, totally cryptic. Oh, I see, that's what you mean. :-)
--
Jason Gross Comp Sci Ugrad University of Miami Class of '91 (?)
===========================================================================
"Women. You can't live | Mail your invigorating replies to: | For
with them, and you can't | GTWW2Z9Z%Gable...@Umigw.Miami.Edu | Sale:
shoot them, either." | (What a lovely address, isn't it now?) | $.05
======================================================== IBM Sucks Silicon!
Jason Gross
> pa...@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes:
> \...
> \What makes you think that Usenet isn't recorded by someone at the NSA and
> \run through keyword searches for words like CIA, NSA, Soviet etc ....
> \of course all of us in this discussion have our names and net addresses in
> \a database somewhere :-) (someone somewhere in Virginia is probably smiling
> \now ... :-)
>
> Yes, and you'll all have `accidents', just like the witnesses of the murder of
> John F. Kennedy. Be prepared to die.
Y'all wanna clarify that remark. Last time I checked, we don't go around
killing witnesses to crimes. Just a few days ago, we had a big TV special
on JFK's murder and it was chock full of witnesses.