HUMAN-NETS Digest V8 #29

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Charles McGrew, The Moderator

unread,
Sep 11, 1985, 12:42:00 PM9/11/85
to

HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 11 Sep 1985 Volume 8 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:

Computers and the Law - Freedom in communications (2 msgs) &
Preserving rights to Email messages &
press conferences,
Computers and People - Crackers vs. Crashers vs. ... (2 msgs),
Information - Communications Seminars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 85 04:40:31 EDT
From: Paul R. Grupp <GR...@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Loss of fredom in communications!
To: tel...@MIT-XX.ARPA, info...@SIMTEL20.ARPA

[Ed. Note: Last issue I referred to an article that was not posted
to Human-nets concerning a Supreme court decision. Well, this is the
article (it arrived the next day...)]

I thought this would be of interest to all...
-----forwarded message starts here-----
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 85 20:52:54 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL at MIT-MC.ARPA>
To: Security at RUTGERS.ARPA
Re: Watching TV

I don't know if anyone noticed, but a few weeks ago the Supreme
Court threw away a right that Americans have had since day one.
It has always been the case that everyone had the right to receive
any signal being transmitted on any frequency using any kind of
receiver. You didn't always have the right to do whatever you wanted
with these signals, such as tell anyone about them, but you could
always listen to them (or watch them) alone in the privacy of your
home.
But now the court has ruled that people are breaking the law if they
watch sattelite TV that is intended to be charged for, even if it not
scrambled.
Comments?
...Keith
-----end of forwarded message-----
I was struck with horror and disbelief after reading this message.
The implications of this ruling set the way for making it a crime to
monitor radio signals unless the sender gives express permission to do
so. I suppose this could lead to making it a crime to even own
certain receiving equipment! I've seen this in other countries but
NEVER thought it would happin here in FREE AMERICA!

-Paul

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 85 17:28:37 MDT
From: b-d...@utah-cs.arpa (Brad Davis)
Subject: Re: Loss of freedom in communications

In the past few month someone heard a conversation on their AM radio
that had been broadcast by a wireless telephone. The conversation was
about a drug deal. The person reported it to the local police and the
police started listening in. They put together a case, much of the
evidence was from recordings made from the telephone conversations
that they had taped over the air. The court upheld the legality of
the recordings ruling that the phone wasn't tapped and since the phone
broadcast the conversation anyone could listen in for any purpose.

This would seem to conflict with the new ruling and the new ruling
would seem to prohibit any law enforcement agency from using radio
conversations as evidence without a court order, as with tapping phone
lines or bugging houses.

Brad Davis
{ihnp4, decvax, seismo}!utah-cs!b-davis
b-d...@utah-cs.ARPA

------------------------------

Subject: preserving rights to Email messages.
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 85 11:08:31 EDT
From: Larry Hunter <Hun...@YALE.ARPA>

Copyright-by: Larry Hunter, 1985

After consulting with several lawyer friends, the conclusion I
reach is that anything you send out over the nets is public
property -- ie, anyone can reproduce it verbatim, for profit
and the author has no right to control its use. There is,
however, a very simple way to preserve the author's rights to
control the use his messages are put to. The courts have
held that practically any clear attempt of an author to
preserve his/her rights to a written work are sufficient
to actually preserve them. No need to add the 'circled c'
to ASCII, just add a 'Copyright-by:' line to the header of your
local mailer and voila! your rights are preserved.

Larry

PS. I am not a lawyer and this is only my opinion - if you have
a vital interest in some related matter, talk to a real lawyer!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 09:23:08 PDT
From: vortex!lau...@rand-unix.ARPA (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: press conferences

Obviously there are diplomatic and undiplomatic ways of handling
access to press conferences. There are all kinds of people out there.
But the original question someone asked was, "Can anybody successfully
demand entry to any press conference they choose, even if they're not
accredited members of the press?" The answer, as I said before, I
believe to be no.

Obviously if someone is going to be turned away from a press
conference it would help if it were done politely. I was only
attempting to address the question someone asked about access itself,
not regarding the light or heavyhanded manner in which they might have
been turned away.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

From: crash!kev...@SDCSVAX.ARPA
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 85 19:41:01 PDT
To: info-cpm@AMSAA
Subject: Crackers vs. Crashers vs Worms vs ?

There has been quite a discussion on info-cpm as of this date
regarding a standardization of a cliche' term for computer criminals,
with the above three being suggested as appropriate so far. I feel
this would be a good idea, so as to combat the media phrase "hackers",
which is not only inappropriate but deragatory to the amateur and
professional computing field as a whole. Could we get together on
this? I would like to suggest a poll, taken by a responsible
system/person from netland as a whole, with the results accepted by
all. I am aware that this may be an off-the-beaten-path suggestion,
but I feel with the rising tide of discovered computer crime, it is
now an appropriate time to get together and have an appropriate
nickname for these dastardly fellows, so that "hacking" as a
expression may be restored to it's former glory(?). Comments, ladies
and gentlemen? I, unfortunately, cannot do this myself, as our system
cannot handle that kind of load. Any volunteers?

Thanks,
Kevin J. Belles

Kevin J. Belles - UUCP {ihnp4,cbosgd,sdcsvax,noscvax}crash!kevinb
~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ - ARPA crash!kevinb@{ucsd,nosc}.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Fri 30 Aug 85 15:52:59-MDT
From: Jon Albers <JAL...@SIMTEL20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Crashers vs Worms vs Crackers vs ?

I agree whole-heartedly with the idea of a poll. The only way
we MIGHT be able to make the media, and therefor the public, aware of
our feelings would be to show them some numbers.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Aug 85 09:53 EDT
From: Ka...@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: seminar poster

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Communications Forum

Satellite Television, Signal Encryption,
and the Future of Broadband Distribution
September 19, 1985
Technology Session -- 2:00
Allen Ecker, Scientific Atlanta
Jerrold Heller, M/A Com Linkabit
Policy Session -- 4:00
John Sie, Tele-Communications, Inc.
Roy Neel, Legislative Director for Senator Albert Gore Taylor
Howard, Chaparral Communications/SPACE/Stanford University

Until recently, direct satellite broadcasting (DBS) was commonly
envisioned as small packages of encrypted programming services
delivered via high-powered Ku-band satellites. However, "C-Band
Direct," widely known as "satellite television," has emerged as the
established form of DBS: over a million homes with large dish antennas
that receive upwards of 50 C-Band signals intended for distribution by
cable television operators. Since these viewers generally pay nothing
for programming, they and the hardware industry they support have been
criticized much as broadcasters criticized the early cable industry.
Satellite television antennas are now appearing inside cable franchise
areas, prompting increasing demands for signal scrambling that would
force satellite television viewers to pay for programming.
Encryption -- especially the millions of decoders required --
will be very costly. Who will pay for it? Who will retail the
programming to homes? At what price? Will basic services be
available unbundled? Can antitrust and standards problems be avoided?
The choice of scrambling technology will affect other technological
innovations, such as enhanced NTSC and digital television. And, over
the long run, the development of satellite television and the response
of the cable industry will profoundly affect the economics, design,
and implementation of switched broadband networks.

The Wireless Office
September 26, 1985
Michael Marcus, FCC
Payne Freret, Consultant
Kaveh Pahlavan, Infinet

Wireless office communication using radio, infrared, and optical
frequencies offers interesting advantages over conventional office
communication. Although it has been studied for some time, few
commercial products have appeared. However, recent FCC filings have
requested allocation of radio frequencies for office communication,
and the FCC has decided to allow the use of spread spectrum
modulation.
This seminar will examine the technologies that have been
proposed, why many have not been successful, the impact of recent
FCC decisions, and the economics of wireless systems.


What's the Matter with 3-D?
October 10, 1985
Stephen Benton, MIT/Polaroid
Rene Paul Barilleaux, Museum of Holography
William Paul, MIT

The most notable success of 3-D has been as a kind of fairground
attraction, but new technologies have extended the range of
applications. This seminar will consider the limited success of 3-D
by looking at traditional 3-D photography, holography, and computer
graphic holography. Past, present, and future uses will be explored,
ranging from entertainment to to non-imaging uses of holography.


The Political Impact of the New Communications Media
October 17, 1985
Jeffrey Abramson, Brandeis University
Christopher Arterton, Yale University
Gary Orren, Harvard University

The role of electronic media in American politics has been widely
discussed and analyzed for more than three decades. However, most
studies have examined the effects of broadcast television, and little
attention has been paid to newer media, such as cable television. The
participants in this seminar will present findings from their
forthcoming book on the effects of new media technologies on citizen
participation, electoral outcomes, and effective governance.


A New Research Organization
for a Disintegrated Telecommunications System
October 24, 1985
Alan G. Chynoweth, Bell Communications Research

The breakup of the Bell System led, among many other things, to
the formation of a major new research and development organization to
serve the seven regional companies. Bell Communications Research
('Bellcore') is learning how to serve and interact with the
restructured telecommunications industry and to interface with the
world of relevant science and technology. This talk will describe
this new type of R/D organization which focuses on service in the
Information Age rather than on manufacturing in the Industrial Age.
The focus will be on research activities, with an account of many of
the problems and challenges, both organizational and technical, that
have been addressed in establishing this new role within the evolving
telecommunications scene.


Bartos Theater

The Wiesner Center for Arts and Media Technology
(Building E-15, 20 Ames St.)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Thursday, 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.
(excepted as noted)

For further information please call (617) 253-3144.

------------------------------

End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages