Moammar has a twin
John Woods, Software
>
> I think that Burt Convey and Moammar Khaddafy are the same person.
> I mean...Have you ever seen the two together? Just a coincedence?
>
> My roommate thinks that Richard Pryor and Moammar Khaddafy are
> the same person. He is basing his reasoning on a picture in
> the SF Chronicle (1/29/86)...anyone else see it?
>
> Any comments? Do you know of anyone who is leading a double life??
>
I am! NO I'M NOT!!!! Am too! NO!!!
Have you ever noticed that Frank Purdue and Mayor Ed Koch are
indistinguishable?
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit...@MIT-XX.ARPA
This space dedicated to Challenger and her crew,
Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith Resnik,
Ronand E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, and Crista McAuliffe.
"...and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."
Bart Massey
See "The David Doyle / Tom Bosley Letters" (ref. Late Night with Dave,
The Book) -- "Returning incorrectly adressed mail blossomed into a
correspondence that lasted a decade!" . There is, of course, a much
more reasonable explanation for their similar appearance, style, and
address...
Bart Massey
"Rumormonger of the Stars"
..tektronix!reed!bart
P.S. -- *I* didn't buy it, my girlfriend did. So it doesn't have any
captions in some of the pages...
Matthew P. Wiener
>> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR RUMOR ***
>>
>> I think that Burt Convey and Moammar Khaddafy are the same person.
>> I mean...Have you ever seen the two together? Just a coincedence?
>>
>> My roommate thinks that Richard Pryor and Moammar Khaddafy are
>> the same person. He is basing his reasoning on a picture in
>> the SF Chronicle (1/29/86)...anyone else see it?
>>
>> Any comments? Do you know of anyone who is leading a double life??
>>
>I am! NO I'M NOT!!!! Am too! NO!!!
>
>Have you ever noticed that Frank Purdue and Mayor Ed Koch are
>indistinguishable?
Did you know that James Watt and M Gorbachev were Siamese twins
separated at birth? Ever notice how JW always tilts his head
a bit left and MG tilts his head a bit right? Makes you think.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ro...@gypsy.uucp
> >
> > I think that Burt Convey and Moammar Khaddafy are the same person.
> > I mean...Have you ever seen the two together? Just a coincedence?
> >
> > My roommate thinks that Richard Pryor and Moammar Khaddafy are
> > the same person. He is basing his reasoning on a picture in
> > the SF Chronicle (1/29/86)...anyone else see it?
> >
> > Any comments? Do you know of anyone who is leading a double life??
> >
> I am! NO I'M NOT!!!! Am too! NO!!!
>
> Have you ever noticed that Frank Purdue and Mayor Ed Koch are
> indistinguishable?
>
I suspect that Dr. Ruth Westheimer (sp?) is actual Robert Blake (aka Baretta)
in drag.
S. Rosen
Siemens RTL
Princeton, NJ
Thomas Napolitano
>
A few years ago the Lampoon pointed out that Bo Derek and Stevie
Wonder were one and the same. Ever notice Bo's hair style?
Also, a local radio station played Bruce Springsteen's 'I'm on
fire' LP at 45 rpm. Sounds a lot like Dolly Parton. Try it.
Tom
!ihnp4!mb2c!tfn
313-223-0797
CIS:70215,1130
vc253ah
>> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR RUMOR ***
>
>Have you ever noticed that Frank Purdue and Mayor Ed Koch are
>indistinguishable?
>
Violets are blue,
I'm schitzpohrenic,
And so am I.....
RCR (vc253ah)
haddock@ti-csl
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, writes:
> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR RUMOR ***
>Have you ever noticed that Frank Purdue and Mayor Ed Koch are
>indistinguishable?
Sorry John but good ol' Frank looks too much like one of his own
chickens to be compared to a human even if it's New Yoooooorker, Ed
Koch. As an aside, I pity the poor kid that looked similar (?) to
him in one of the "chicken dog" commericals a few years back.
You ask, "How would you know? You're clear over there in Texas."
I reply, "Hey, I come from Maryland's Eastern Shore, where Frank
comes from as well!"
-Rusty-
================================================================
*hardcopy* *electr{onic, ic}*
Rusty Haddock ARPA: Haddock%TI-CSL@CSNET-RELAY or Rusty@Maryland
POB 226015 M/S 238 CSNET: Haddock@TI-CSL
Texas Instruments Inc. USENET: {ut-sally,convex!smu,texsun,rice}!ti-csl!haddock
Dallas, Texas VOICE: (214) 995-0330
75266
Ken Rossen
>> > I think that Burt Convey and Moammar Khaddafy are the same person.
>> > My roommate thinks that Richard Pryor and Moammar Khaddafy are
>> Have you ever noticed that Frank Purdue and Mayor Ed Koch are
>I suspect that Dr. Ruth Westheimer (sp?) is actual Robert Blake (aka Baretta)
... plus the "Bosley/Doyle Tapes" (cf. Letterman).
Personally I think it's just gone too far to ignore. It's damn clear
to me (and anyone else who's seen video of her recently) that Joni Mitchell
and Jeane Kirkpatrick are ONE and THE SAME.
--
Ken Rossen ...!{ihnp4,harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!krossen
____or____ kro...@bbnccp.arpa
Colin Kelley
is actually Larry Bud Melman???
-Colin Kelley ..!{psuvax1,pyrnj}!vu-vlsi!colin
Meehan
In article <> jo...@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) writes:
>> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR RUMOR ***
>> I think that Burt Convey and Moammar Khaddafy are the same person.
>> Any comments? Do you know of anyone who is leading a double life??
>I am! NO I'M NOT!!!! Am too! NO!!!
>
>Have you ever noticed that Frank Purdue and Mayor Ed Koch are
>indistinguishable?
>
of Mad magazine are indistinguishable?
Oberlander
Have you ever noticed that Jimmy Carter and Howdy Doody are
indistinguishable?
pa...@decuac.uucp
> Anyone noticed that Richard Simmons' mom (appears on a CitiCard commercial)
> is actually Larry Bud Melman???
Please, let's not turn this newsgrouop into another net.bizzare. Please
stick to posting rumors.
--
Paul H. Mauritz @ Digital Equipment Corporation
UUCP: {decvax,seismo,cbosgd}!decuac!paul ENET: decuac::paul
ARPA: pa...@decuac.DEC.COM AT&T: (301) 731-4100 x4162
USPS: 8300 Professional Place, Landover MD USA EARTH 20785, MS-DCO/913
goud...@dg_rtp.uucp
>Anyone noticed that Richard Simmons' mom (appears on a CitiCard commercial)
>is actually Larry Bud Melman???
Actually, I've heard that it's Larry Bud's "Evil Twin".
Bob Goudreau
jxs...@ritcv.uucp
>is actually Larry Bud Melman???
If poor old Larry actually was Richard Simmons' mom on the commercial,
then they would not be twins.
jxs "In sunny downtown Rochester"(or something like that)
vc253ah
>>
>> In article <> jo...@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) writes:
>> >> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR RUMOR ***
>> >> I think that Burt Convey and Moammar Khaddafy are the same person.
>> >
>> >indistinguishable?
>> >
>> Have you ever noticed that Ted Koppel of Nightline and Alfred E. Neuman
>> of Mad magazine are indistinguishable?
>
>indistinguishable?
Have you ever noticed that Doug Alan and Kate Bush are
indistinguishable?
RCR.
Carl Greenberg
>Please, let's not turn this newsgrouop into another net.bizzare. Please
>stick to posting rumors.
>
>
>--
>Paul H. Mauritz @ Digital Equipment Corporation
>
>UUCP: {decvax,seismo,cbosgd}!decuac!paul ENET: decuac::paul
>ARPA: pa...@decuac.DEC.COM AT&T: (301) 731-4100 x4162
>USPS: 8300 Professional Place, Landover MD USA EARTH 20785, MS-DCO/913
immensely and would enjoy its return. Yes, I believe Gene Spafford
was out of his mind. Net.bizarre existed to prevent this from happening
to any other newsgroup. So if you'll kindly bring it back, we'll stop
troubling the rumourmongers.
Carl Greenberg
Jamie Gold
>
>See "The David Doyle / Tom Bosley Letters" (ref. Late Night with Dave,
>The Book) -- "Returning incorrectly adressed mail blossomed into a
>correspondence that lasted a decade!" . There is, of course, a much
>more reasonable explanation for their similar appearance, style, and
>address...
I always suspected David Doyle and Tom Bosley of being the same
person. How about Susan Sarandon and Leslie Ann Warren?
Montalban and Lamas? David Wayne and Burgess Meredith?
Michael Beck and Jan Michael Vincent? Peter Graves and the Man
from Glad?
mce...@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu
> No! LET'S TURN THIS INTO ANOTHER NET.BIZARRE! I enjoyed net.bizarre
> immensely and would enjoy its return. Yes, I believe Gene Spafford
> was out of his mind. Net.bizarre existed to prevent this from happening
> to any other newsgroup. So if you'll kindly bring it back, we'll stop
> troubling the rumourmongers.
A bizarre mailing list exists to prevent this from happening to innocent
newsgroups. Get the address from the "Publicly Accessible Mailing Lists"
message in net.announce.newusers.
Scott McEwan
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
"I'm sorry, sir. According to your identification you're not even born
yet. Come back in 500 years."
Michael Browne
>> No! LET'S TURN THIS INTO ANOTHER NET.BIZARRE! I enjoyed net.bizarre
>> immensely and would enjoy its return. Yes, I believe Gene Spafford
>> was out of his mind. Net.bizarre existed to prevent this from happening
>> to any other newsgroup. So if you'll kindly bring it back, we'll stop
>> troubling the rumourmongers.
>
>A bizarre mailing list exists to prevent this from happening to innocent
>newsgroups. Get the address from the "Publicly Accessible Mailing Lists"
>message in net.announce.newusers.
>
> Scott McEwan
> {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
If everyone thinks that the purpose of mail.bizarre is to protect "innocent"
newsgroups, I hereby disolve mail.bizarre. On with the invasion of
net.rumor! Bizarroids of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but
your chains. You have a newsgroup to win.
--
UUCP: ..!seismo!k.cs.cmu.edu!mcb ARPA: m...@k.cs.cmu.edu
"It came time to move, so I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two
blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch..."
Carl Greenberg
>> No! LET'S TURN THIS INTO ANOTHER NET.BIZARRE! I enjoyed net.bizarre
>> immensely and would enjoy its return. Yes, I believe Gene Spafford
>> was out of his mind. Net.bizarre existed to prevent this from happening
>> to any other newsgroup. So if you'll kindly bring it back, we'll stop
>> troubling the rumourmongers.
>A bizarre mailing list exists to prevent this from happening to innocent
>newsgroups. Get the address from the "Publicly Accessible Mailing Lists"
>message in net.announce.newusers.
> Scott McEwan
> {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
The "ug.bizarre" I *am* subscribed to, the only problem is that it is much
slower than when you have a newsgroup. Compare a few articles a week to 16
or so a day in net.rumour when the weirdos come out. I don't know about
you, but I'm enjoying this.
Carl Greenberg
Adrian Kent
NSF-744-196843-FG
STella Calvert
>If everyone thinks that the purpose of mail.bizarre is to protect "innocent"
>newsgroups, I hereby disolve mail.bizarre. On with the invasion of
>net.rumor! Bizarroids of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but
>your chains. You have a newsgroup to win.
Problem with this is that it's more likely that the net.stuffies will
attempt to get rid of net.rumor. Spread out! There's lots of
newsgroups to demonstrate a volume of postings in -- why limit it to
one rmable group?
But hey, let's keep the amusement value up at the same time!
How many site administrators does it take to change a lightbulb?
Another vote for net.bizarre.again!
STella Calvert
Do what thou wilt -- not just a good idea,
it's the law!
Guest on Account: ...!mit-eddie!frog!wjr
Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!<LongStrangeTrip>!Taxachusetts
Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)
mce...@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu
>> If everyone thinks that the purpose of mail.bizarre is to protect "innocent"
>> newsgroups, I hereby disolve mail.bizarre. On with the invasion of
>> net.rumor! Bizarroids of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but
>> your chains. You have a newsgroup to win.
>
> Problem with this is that it's more likely that the net.stuffies will
> attempt to get rid of net.rumor. Spread out! There's lots of
> newsgroups to demonstrate a volume of postings in -- why limit it to
> one rmable group?
Keeping with the original intent of this newsgroup, I have a rumor I'd
like to present: I understand that mail.bizarre is filled with immature
assholes who, despite having a mailing list to provide them with an outlet
for their inane comments, want to inundate otherwise interesting newsgroups
with crap. The rumor is that they think that anyone who doesn't like
what THEY think is fun are "stuffies", who deserve to have net.bizarre
shoved down their throats.
Scott McEwan
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
Green s/m watchlizard seeks s/f/wl - object: companionship. Reply
Box 23, Cynosure.
Ronald O. Christian
should be of interest to system administrators:
>It seems that most of the anti-weirdos are weird themselves.
>Examine Gene Spafford's comments on the "net takeover". Is THAT the guy
>who removed net.bizarre? And why does Andy Beals, KNOWN to be one of the
>less respected people for his habit of voraciously reading any hunk of
>data going through lll-crg, happen to sign off with "I'm proud to be a
>CARBON-BASED lifeform!"?
>So it seems that people will critcise others' faults without looking at
>themselves first.. Of course "fight fire with fire" could turn into "fight
>weirdness with weirdness", but that's just what the pyromaniacs/bizarroids
>want, right?
> Carl Greenberg
***
No, wait a minute. Reading other people's mail doesn't make you
anti-bizarre, it makes you slime. I'm S/A at my second site now,
and I'm really concerned about what's happening to Usenet. I've
sent off letters suggesting that the poster was in error on many
occasions, so I guess that makes me a net.fascist. But read other
people's mail? That's not net.policeman, that's net.abuse.of.root.
Don't confuse the issue of privacy with the issue of following Usenet
rules or being bizarre. I contributed to net.bizarre when it was going,
but it rapidly degenerated into a low quality high volume newsgroup.
I was sorry to see it go, but the reasons were sound. If the money
to transmit all that stuff came out of your own pocket, you might feel
differently. However, simply because net.bizarre is gone, doesn't
mean that one can not be bizarre on occasion. (Great article, Gene.)
BTW, I don't think "on occasion" means "it's OK to flood the net".
How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your
rights to open other people's mail?
Ron
--
--
Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc -or- seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility:
"If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
Ed Nather
> How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your
> rights to open other people's mail?
I think the last word above should be E-mail, and I think it matters. We use
the term "mail" and derive from that word a lot of connotations, some of which
may be incorrect. I would be very angry if you opened a sealed envelope
I mailed to a friend and read the contents, because our past tradiations and
laws say that is illegal. E-mail is a different proposition, and we should
use a different word to describe it -- at least then we'll recognize there *is*
a difference and not count on connotation carry-over.
I am not a system administrator but have, in the past, had root priviledges.
In my opinion the system administrator does not *own* the system, any more than
an appointed or elected official owns the system he/she administers, but power
corrupts and a system administrator has a lot of power. I assume in time we
will evolve a code of ethics for this new situation, and I hope it will follow
the pattern of our past: "Thou shalt not read other people's E-mail, either."
--
Ed Nather
Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
nat...@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
John Gilmore
> How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your
> rights to open other people's mail?
In article <46...@ut-sally.UUCP>, nat...@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
> In my opinion the system administrator does not *own* the system, any more than
> an appointed or elected official owns the system he/she administers, but power
> corrupts and a system administrator has a lot of power. I assume in time we
> will evolve a code of ethics for this new situation, and I hope it will follow
> the pattern of our past: "Thou shalt not read other people's E-mail, either."
I posted something earlier that said basically "if you ask me to relay mail
at my expense, don't expect privacy". I got three or four responses,
none of which understood my position. Let me try again.
If you send mail through other peoples' machines, *don't expect* it to be
private.
For example, if you are Sun Microsystems, don't send your conversations
with Motorola through AMD. If you are DEC, don't send your marketing plans
for new machines through AT&T. If you are a movie star, don't send your
innermost secrets through the National Enquirer. Etc.
There *is* a difference between abusing your root privilege and reading
mail in transit. When I had root privileges at Sun, I didn't use them
to read other peoples' mail; they were fellow employees and presumed to
be trustworthy, as I was presumed to be trustworthy. On the other hand,
not everyone on the uucp net is trustworthy, and checking at least
who is sending to who through my system has sometimes saved me *and them*
some hassles, expenses, etc. Furthermore, if I am in business and my
competition is dumb enough to pass sensitive data through my machine,
at my expense, why should I ignore this? I don't ignore their other
mistakes that give me information or market share... (I can see the
scramble as companies implement mail-checkers to look for info in their
uucp traffic. Maybe that's why AT&T is sponsoring ihnp4...)
I could try to make a case that innocently reading mail in transit is like
amateur computer hacking: it keeps people honest so they don't get burned
by *serious* spying, hacking, etc. But I won't; I don't need to. If
you want to be absolutely *sure* I won't read your email, don't send it
through hoptoad. (PS: Besides being sysadmin, I *do* own hoptoad. I
don't see that it changes things much one way or the other, though, since
a sysadmin's job is to watch over usage of the machine, including usage
by third parties via uucp.)
PS: Mail policy at Sun was twofold:
(1) Anyone caught snooping through anyone else's personal mail would be fired.
(2) Don't send very private stuff through email because it fails, gets
misrouted, bounced, etc and could be disclosed even without anyone's
malicious intent.
I think it's a good policy.
--
John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgil...@lll-crg.arpa
Post no bills.
da...@ur-helheim.uucp
>In article <1...@fai.UUCP>, ro...@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes:
>> How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your
>> rights to open other people's mail?
>
>In article <46...@ut-sally.UUCP>, nat...@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
>> the pattern of our past: "Thou shalt not read other people's E-mail, either."
>
>
>I think it's a good policy.
>--
>John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgil...@lll-crg.arpa
> Post no bills.
I guess the solution is for mail partners to pass a crypt key in USmail that
will be used for all further "secure" purposes. My bet is your sites don't
want to know about others private mail enough to tackle a random crypt key
ecryption/decryption. Personally, I find reading other persons mail for
whatever personal or corporate gain you envision repugnant. Your arguments
of your legal responsibility for thru transit are specious and often repeated
on this forum (stargate related). I refuse to believe culpability for thru-
traffic can be held to the site adm. If the service you provide as a thru-
site is totally blind -- as in the case of the phone company -- you are less
likely to be held liable. (Perhaps negligent though, eh??!!) The case
cited here is illegal activity involving interstate transmission of telegraphs.
But telegraphs are not phones and are not guaranteed private or secure.
blind service.
--
"The Faster I Go the Behinder I Get"
--Lewis Carroll
Dave Carlson
{allegra,seismo,decvax}!rochester!ur-valhalla!dave
Andrew S. Gerber
the sheer volume of material that must be perused. If a sysadmin (or
superuser) has a vendetta against one person, they can make that
person's life unbearable. Otherwise, to find really good,
incriminating stuff on a network of large computers is like searching
for a needle in a haystack.
-andy
G A Moffett
(ie, readable only by the owner) files. Nonetheless, for purely
technical as well as illicit reasons, it happens anyway. Right
or wrong, it *does* happen anyway, and for your own protection
you should assume that.
One of my private files is a phone book of personal (non-business)
numbers. I put the following comments at the top of the file:
# The information contained herein is confidential. If you are
# reading this without my permission you are in violation of
# ethical law. -- gam
#
# "Ha! What makes you think someone's going to stop reading this
# because of a violation of ethical law?"
#
# Oh...
#
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gam
Everything you know is wrong.
--
[ This does not represent Amdahl Corporation ]
Kenn Barry
>I posted something earlier that said basically "if you ask me to relay mail
>at my expense, don't expect privacy". I got three or four responses,
>none of which understood my position. Let me try again.
>
> If you send mail through other peoples' machines, *don't expect* it to be
> private.
No argument. I see a lot of difference between this
statement, though, and the earlier article. There's a world of
difference between a simple *caveat emptor*, and saying "if
you're that dumb, I have a right to exploit it." More below.
> Furthermore, if I am in business and my
>competition is dumb enough to pass sensitive data through my machine,
>at my expense, why should I ignore this?
Sense of fair play? Or is that obsolete? Here's an
example for you: it's well known that con men depend on the greed
and stupidity of their victims, and some of them are quite
vociferous in defending their own morality on that basis. What's
your opinion?
I once had a burglar who'd ripped off my apartment the
previous day call me in the middle of the night to inform me it
was my fault I was hit. He told me that the lock on my door
was a joke (probably true), and I had no right to expect anything
else. What's your opinion?
I know these aren't perfect analogies; con games and burglaries
are illegal, reading others' email is not. But it's not a legal point
I'm trying to make, it's one of ethics and simple good taste. Even as
a matter of law, though, I would suggest that you not mention it publicly
if you gain some benefit from reading competitors' email. Computer privacy
law is mostly untested, and you can never be sure what precedents some
judge might decide were relevant if you were taken to court. Perhaps
a lawyer could comment on this point.
>I could try to make a case that innocently reading mail in transit is like
>amateur computer hacking: it keeps people honest so they don't get burned
>by *serious* spying, hacking, etc. But I won't; I don't need to. If
>you want to be absolutely *sure* I won't read your email, don't send it
>through hoptoad.
I won't. But wouldn't it be simpler, since you seem to be
a small site, to just be a leaf node? As you yourself point out,
forwarding mail that's neither from nor to your site gains you
nothing but phone bills. I may be wrong, but I'd be surprised if
your feeds would demand more of you when your resources are
limited. I also can't see what service you provide the rest of us
by forwarding mail if you're going to pick and choose what mail
is worthy to forward. Why bother? My statement that I won't send
mail through hoptoad is not temper, it's practicality. I get no
benefit from having my mail swallowed up without trace, and I
have no desire to burden a minor node with my mail if they can't
afford to forward it.
>PS: Mail policy at Sun was twofold:
>
>(1) Anyone caught snooping through anyone else's personal mail would be fired.
>(2) Don't send very private stuff through email because it fails, gets
>misrouted, bounced, etc and could be disclosed even without anyone's
>malicious intent.
>
>I think it's a good policy.
Me, too. But, how does this square with your stated
willingness to check out the mail of any competitor dumb enough
to route sensitive information through your site?
I know there can be an honest difference of opinion about
what the proper tradeoffs are between system costs/security, and
the cooperation and courtesy we have a right to expect from any
site that voluntarily participates in the net. But I honestly
can't think of a worse way to handle this problem than what you
appear to be suggesting: that every site, really every SA, decide
on a case-by-case basis what they will forward, and what they
won't. As a responsible SA, I hope you will seriously consider
what the likely end result would be if every site took an "I'll
think about it" policy to the forwarding of mail. And as for
privacy, you said it yourself: no one can keep you from reading
others' mail; the corollary is that no one can *make* you read
it, either. If you seriously assert the right to take advantage
of someone else's carelessness by reading private mail in pursuit
of business success, I hope you're prepared to accept that others
will judge you *personally* for it. "Everybody does it" cuts no
ice with me, and has the nasty ability to become a
self-fulfilling prophecy when it's asserted publicly.
If I am still misinterpreting your position, my apologies.
Your article doesn't state you'd ever refuse to pass on anyone's
mail, but it's certainly implied that one of your reasons for
watching mail through your site is to decide if you want to let it
pass. Further clarification will be welcome if this is not the case.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
Richard Currier
>
>How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your
>rights to open other people's mail?
>
--
richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego
{ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec
Gary J. Murakami
>mistakes that give me information or market share... (I can see the
>scramble as companies implement mail-checkers to look for info in their
>uucp traffic. Maybe that's why AT&T is sponsoring ihnp4...)
I set up ihnp4 to support electronic mail for AT&T and friends since
there is a lot of communication between AT&T and other companies,
universities, consultants, suppliers, clients, and friends. There is
also a significant amount of traffic that ihnp4 forwards which is
totally unrelated to AT&T. However I consider this to be some of the
best PR that AT&T could ever support (I'm not sure how much longer it
will last).
Back on the subject: years ago before HDB UUCP, I used to try to read
the dead mail in the UUCP spool in often futile attempts to return the
failures to the sender with suggestions for retrying (silly me for
trying to be too nice). Needless to say, that was a long time ago.
Automated tools and finally HDB UUCP :-) took over this tedious task to
provide friendly and nice service to the general public.
He who looketh for the needle in the haystack will find the straw that
broke the camel's back.
-Gary
Phil Ngai
>rights to open other people's mail?
I'm supposed to keep the system running without looking at the files?
You probably expect gynnecologists to keep their eyes closed too.
--
A woman who would rather have beauty than brains because men supposedly
can see better than they can think had better settle for beauty because
she clearly doesn't have much in the way of brains.
Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!ph...@decwrl.dec.com
Jim Clarke
> ... years ago before HDB UUCP, I used to try to read
>the dead mail in the UUCP spool in often futile attempts to return the
>failures to the sender with suggestions for retrying (silly me for
>trying to be too nice). Needless to say, that was a long time ago.
>Automated tools and finally HDB UUCP :-) took over this tedious task to
>provide friendly and nice service to the general public.
I myself was recently the "victim" of a (presumably overworked) system
administrator who returned to me a message I'd sent through his machine,
attaching to it the explanation that his machine didn't talk to the next
one on the route I'd used. Actually, I knew that and had made a mistake,
but had also thought the correct route might fail too, so his action saved
me at least a couple of days in getting a mildly important message through.
Although he may very well have read only the header and not the body of
the message, and although he presumably wouldn't have read any of it if
it hadn't been trying a nonexistent routing, still this is an example of
a benefit received from administrative snooping. (Thanks, Henry!)
People can write some very nice messages for mail-answering programs to
use automatically. This may have happened in my case. But as I looked
at it from various angles*, it *seemed* human. Even if it was automatic,
one might claim that it violated my privacy. You won't get a complaint
from me, though.
* Of course, I'd never heard of "HDB UUCP" until I read gjm's message.
--
Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
(416) 978-4058
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke
j...@dcl-cs.uucp
>In article <1...@fai.UUCP> ro...@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes:
>>How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your
>>rights to open other people's mail?
>
>I'm supposed to keep the system running without looking at the files?
I've been following this discussion (none too closely, I admit) and
I think some people are making a fundamental equation which just
doesn't hold up;
e-mail == ordinary paper mail (or snail mail!)
Perhaps a better equation would be
e-mail == telephone communication
Now, hey, I'm pretty paranoid but I'm not talking about telephone tapping etc.
There may well be good reasons for the operator/telephone engineer to
overhear (part of) a telephone conversation (although I can't think of
one now!). They may have to listen in to ensure the correct functioning of
the telephone system (no?). I think SAs find themselves in much the same
situation.
Maybe the rule should be "we can't talk about this on the phone"
(substitute e-mail). Why not use encryption (oops -- that *could* be
illegal, I guess!).
Basically, I think the "e-mail == paper mail" concept is *all* wrong!
This issue has further ramifications : unfriendly users reading your own
files etc.
--
"You see me now a veteran of a thousand psychic wars...."
UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!jam
DARPA: jam%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster,
JANET: j...@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing,
Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4467 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK.
Henry Spencer
> Although he may very well have read only the header and not the body of
> the message, and although he presumably wouldn't have read any of it if
> it hadn't been trying a nonexistent routing, still this is an example of
> a benefit received from administrative snooping. (Thanks, Henry!)
(You're welcome, Jim.) Policy here is that mail is private, and is not
read by non-addressees without good cause, system administrators or not.
Apart from uncommon occurrences, like well-founded suspicion of serious
wrongdoing justifying official investigation, exercising sysadmin powers
to read private mail is appropriate only when the alternative is loss of
the mail. In the absence of a standard flag specifying whether privacy
or delivery is more important, we assume that opening a letter is better
than throwing it in the garbage.
Since utzoo runs old and dumb mail software, the software isn't up to
doing automatic bouncing of undeliverable mail: such mail gets dumped
in the sysadmin's lap. [Why the old and dumb software? Partly because
doing the right thing automatically appears to be an unsolved AI problem,
what with stupid gateways and brain-damaged "smart" mailers making horrid
messes of what used to be a simple, standard postmark scheme. A good
fraction of the dead-letter volume is messages that "smart" mailers have
bounced in stupid and incorrect ways!] I read as much of the letter as
necessary to infer addressee and/or originator; which one I need depends
on the nature of the problem. Usually I only need to read the header, but
sometimes the whole text of the message isn't enough. If a judgement call
is needed on whether to forward or bounce, I will often take a look at the
body to determine whether it appears to be important and time-critical.
In any case, the contents are officially forgotten as soon as the letter
leaves my hands.
> People can write some very nice messages for mail-answering programs to
> use automatically. This may have happened in my case. But as I looked
> at it from various angles*, it *seemed* human.
Half and half, in this case, actually. Certain situations happen often
enough that I have stock replies on hand to save time. Although I don't
remember the particular message, you probably got one of them.
--
Support the International
League For The Derision Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Of User-Friendliness! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
t...@ism780c.uucp
>>
>> Furthermore, if I am in business and my
>>competition is dumb enough to pass sensitive data through my machine,
>>at my expense, why should I ignore this?
>
> Sense of fair play? Or is that obsolete? Here's an
>example for you: it's well known that con men depend on the greed
>and stupidity of their victims, and some of them are quite
>vociferous in defending their own morality on that basis. What's
>your opinion?
I don't think the con men analogy is correct. It would be correct if
I called up a machine at my competitors, noticed that they had no root
password, logged in as root, and read secret files. They _are_ being
stupid for doing this, but I would not feel right about reading their
stuff.
But the E-mail case is different. They are the ones putting their
stuff on my machine. It seems to me that they are the ones taking
advantage of me! They are using my machine to compete with me. If
they are dumb enough not to encrypt their data, then I see nothing
wrong with reading it.
--
Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
Sebastian Snoopy Schmitz
Expires:
References: <7...@frog.UUCP> <12400018@uiucdcs> <24...@jhunix.UUCP> <1...@proper.UUCP> <1...@fai.UUCP> <11...@amdcad.UUCP> <comp.117>
Sender:
Reply-To: sno...@ecrcvax.UUCP (Sebastian Snoopy Schmitz)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: European Computer-Industry Research Centre, Munchen, W. Germany
Keywords:
In article <comp.117> j...@comp.lancs.ac.uk (John A. Mariani) writes:
>I think some people are making a fundamental equation which just
>doesn't hold up;
>
>e-mail == ordinary paper mail (or snail mail!)
>
>Perhaps a better equation would be
>
>e-mail == telephone communication
Both equations are the same really !
I have to disagree on a legal point. Here in Germany (the
Germans have a law for just about every aspect of life - this
may be good or bad depending on your pov). As soon as something
is transmitted via a post office controlled carier (post,
telephone, packet switched networks etc. are all controlled by
the Post Office Ministry here, i.e. part of the state)
it is immediately subject to the Postal Secrecy Law.
This means that no one is allowed to look at the message, open
the envelope, tap the telephone etc. Most Usenet mail gets
transmitted over telephone lines and therefore underlies this
restriction. The agreement postal administrations have amongst
each other is that they ensure that they will ensure this
integrity for international mail (i.e. the German post will
rely that the American post will not oipen my letter, before it
reaches its destination).
This may mean that different rules apply for mail items
originating in deifferent countries.
Let me ask for some restraint in this matter. (I don't want to
sound like Gene Spafford, but...)
There are two opinions.
One says "Snarl, Snarl", if you're so dumb to send mail through
my machine, I will read it. This is an intentional breach of
other peoples privacy (there are several users out there who
don't know that you do this). I am sometimes really bewildered
about some of the startling naivite' displayed by some of our
American fellows. Just because you are libving in a "free"
country, does not mean that you can take the freedom to mess
around in his/her personal life. The attitude: "This machine's
mine and I can do with it whatever I want" is insanely selfish
and reflects little concern for the privacy requirements.
The other opinion is to say "Snarl, snarl", the guy who reads
mail is an a**hole ( I am inclined to agree ) and should not do
this.
Both points are extreme. I believe that there should be a
workable compromise. If you forward mail, then don't read it - you
may get legal hassles. Would you like AT&T to sue you, for
compromising their phones into comitting a security breach for
which the US govt may sue them for breach of postal
regulations.
If mail bounces back and you want to help it along, then do so,
but don't look at the contents.
This can be done, you know. Headers these days fill about a
screen and so you get little other information.
One cannot trust a computer
system (due to bugs etc.) but the administrators should be
trustworthy. I point out to every user that I can read his
mail, but that I do not do so, because I respect his/her
privacy. I do tell them that mails may fail and that I
sometimes cannot help seeing it. We have several people here,
who transmit mail to their lovers/wives/husbands on other
machines. I'll be damned if I ever look at any intimate mail of
theirs. I have no business with that. I want my users to feel
safe and at home on my system.
I tend to trust USENet a lot - I install most software from the
Net without ever really looking at it. I think that most SA's
do. Look at the uproar caused by the guy with the nasty shar.
The fact that the shar did something nasty probably wasn't what
upset everyone. I think it was the principle that someone had
basically compromised the spirit of free & easy cooperation and
implicit trust of the Net, that got people annoyed. I think
that this is a very good reason to be annoyed. Once the trust
is gone, the net will die slowly - to due a malignant node.
My modus operandi is as follows: I think carefully, before I
"do" something, "What would I feel like if someone did this to
me or my mail ?". That settles most of my questions.
Sorry about the length. I hope I have contributed a useful
point of view.
Love,
Seb
BTW Is there a feature of rn that will keep a copy of my
outgoing messages into the net for me ? (like the mail "record"
facility ?)
--
There are three types of people:
- those who make things happen
- those who watch things happening
- and those who wonder what happened
...\!mcvax\!unido\!ecrcvax\!snoopy /* N.B. valid csh address */
Norman M Yarvin
> >In article <1...@fai.UUCP> ro...@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes:
> >>How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your
> >>rights to open other people's mail?
> >
> >I'm supposed to keep the system running without looking at the files?
>
> I've been following this discussion (none too closely, I admit) and
> doesn't hold up;
>
> e-mail == ordinary paper mail (or snail mail!)
>
> Perhaps a better equation would be
>
> e-mail == telephone communication
An even better one would be
e-mail(on Usenet) = a piece of paper that you give to one friend to hand to
another
---
Norman Yarvin
(seismo!umcp-cs | ihnp4!whuxcc | allegra!hopkins) !jhunix!ins_anmy
"We all know what UNIX is. It's an operating system with no dick,
so it can't screw you."
MKR
>In article <1...@fai.UUCP>, ro...@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes:
>> How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your
>> rights to open other people's mail?
>
>I think the last word above should be E-mail, and I think it matters. We use
>the term "mail" and derive from that word a lot of connotations, some of which
>may be incorrect. I would be very angry if you opened a sealed envelope
You are right that there is a difference between "mail" and "E-mail",
but I don't think it changes the ethics of the situation. E-mail is probably
somewhere between mail and telephone conversations as far as eavesdroppability
(how's that for a word?) is concerned. It is considered unethical to "open"
other people's telephone conversations, too.
The sysop who originally spurred this conversation argued that he
wanted to know what his phone bills were paying for, and used that as a
justification for "opening" others' mail. By the same token, should he
be able to eavesdrop on phone conversations? I think the same set of
arguments apply. If he wants to know what he's paying for when he pays
his phone bills, I'll tell him - PRIVATE MESSAGES. And that's all he has
a right to know.
--MKR
"There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden"
MKR
>> How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your
>> rights to open other people's mail?
>
>
>at my expense, don't expect privacy". I got three or four responses,
>none of which understood my position. Let me try again.
>
> If you send mail through other peoples' machines, *don't expect* it to be
> private.
I understood your position perfectly. Of course you can't *expect*
it to be private, at least not with assholes like you around. Your position
is basically that you can behave unethically because you own the machine.
Yes, you physically *can* behave unethically, but that doesn't make it
right. What you're saying is analogous to: "The US Government has a right
(even a duty by your standards) to open mail and read it because it's
passing through their facilities." In fact the US postal service does not
have that right, and neither do you. The only reason it's not illegal
now (and it may very well be... I just don't know if a test case has
come up yet) is that the technology and widespread use is too new to be
covered by existing law. When the law catches up, you can bet your
ass that what you're doing will be illegal. At the present it is at the
very least unethical and you are a jerk for doing it.
>
>For example, if you are Sun Microsystems, don't send your conversations
>with Motorola through AMD. If you are DEC, don't send your marketing plans
>for new machines through AT&T. If you are a movie star, don't send your
>innermost secrets through the National Enquirer. Etc.
Only because there are assholes like you around who will behave
unethically.
>
>some hassles, expenses, etc. Furthermore, if I am in business and my
>competition is dumb enough to pass sensitive data through my machine,
>at my expense, why should I ignore this? I don't ignore their other
What you're saying is that if an action profits you, even if
damaging someone else, that it's okay for you to do it. BS!!!
>
>I could try to make a case that innocently reading mail in transit is like
>amateur computer hacking: it keeps people honest so they don't get burned
>by *serious* spying, hacking, etc. But I won't; I don't need to. If
Amateur computer cracking (I think this is what you mean
by your misuseof the term "hacking") is wrong, too.
You say that at Sun the policy was:
>(1) Anyone caught snooping through anyone else's personal mail would be fired.
Why do you think that was? BECAUSE IT IS UNETHICAL!!!!
>I think it's a good policy.
Then use it and fire yourself, you jerk!
>--
>John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgil...@lll-crg.arpa
> Post no bills.
It seems you have the Nixon syndrome (the other day he said that
the only thing he learned from Watergate was: "Destroy all the tapes").
GET SOME ETHICS!!!!!!!!!!!
--MKR
"There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot."
-"Dirty" Harry Callahan
Jim Houston
> I've been following this discussion (none too closely, I admit) and
> I think some people are making a fundamental equation which just
> doesn't hold up;
>
> e-mail == ordinary paper mail (or snail mail!)
>
> Perhaps a better equation would be
>
> e-mail == telephone communication
>
Even better
e-mail == citizens band radio
Even though people know others could be listening on their radios, amazing
things are still said. I have to agree with the person who said if you really
want your mail to be private, encrypt it. Otherwise, think of e-mail more like
a broadcast medium. You have NO control over where the mail could wind up.
( In fact, this message itself could wind up on some backup tape somewhere, only
to be rediscovered and re-read in the distant future. :-) )
Barry Margolin
>But the E-mail case is different. They are the ones putting their
>stuff on my machine. It seems to me that they are the ones taking
>advantage of me! They are using my machine to compete with me. If
>they are dumb enough not to encrypt their data, then I see nothing
>wrong with reading it.
By that reasoning, it would be OK for a mail order company to use the
credit card number I conveniently provided them in order to make
purchases from my account. Whether or not it is wise of me to make such
purchases using a credit card rather than a check, the fact remains that
it is wrong of them to take advantage of it.
If you advertise your willingness to pass on mail, I think it would not
be unreasonable of me to expect you to act in good faith. However, I
agree with the opinion that it would be stupid to make such an
assumption if you were a competitor of mine. Corporate spying may
sometimes be unethical, but it takes place nonetheless.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
Tim Kehres
>I have to agree with the person who said if you really
>want your mail to be private, encrypt it. Otherwise, think of e-mail more like
>a broadcast medium. You have NO control over where the mail could wind up.
>to be rediscovered and re-read in the distant future. :-) )
This is probably a practical way of looking at e-mail, however it should not
be used as an excuse for immoral or possible illegal reading of other's mail.
Encryption (which I am very much in favor of) should be considered another
tool to make the unauthorized reading of mail much more difficult. Since
just the message portion need to be encrypted, this should not make much of
an impact on SA'a attempting to re-route stuck mail.
Tim Kehres
Control Data Corporaton / Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
----------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: {idi,ihnp4!lll-lcc}!styx!kehres
ARPA: keh...@lll-tis-b.ARPA
AT&T: (415) 423-6252
Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer
>Yes, you physically *can* behave unethically, but that doesn't make it
>right. What you're saying is analogous to: "The US Government has a right
>(even a duty by your standards) to open mail and read it because it's
>passing through their facilities." In fact the US postal service does not
>have that right, and neither do you.
Uh, might I point out one minor difference between the US postal service and
John Gilmores sun? The Post Offal is paid for by money taken from the
public, and is a government organization. John Gilmores Sun, on the other
hand, is paid for out of John Gilmores pocket, and belongs to him. The
analogy is bogus. For example, the Post Awful HAS to deliver all mail, as
long as the aren't breaking federal laws in the process. John doesn't have
to - he could silently quit forwarding mail from off-site, or just mail from
obnoxious name-calling nitwits.
Likewise, the PO makes a habit of keeping copies of all e-mail that goes
through their system (they may have changed that by now - I hope so). I
doubt that any mail system not funded by the infinite pockets of the US
taxpayer could afford to do that. I also suspect that you (among others)
would scream bloody murder if some mail admin claimed to be doing that.
>The only reason it's not illegal now (and it may very well be... I just
>don't know if a test case has come up yet) is that the technology and
>widespread use is too new to be covered by existing law.
Great - you don't like the way somebody runs their system, so you get the
government to threaten to jail the mail admin. Of course, at the same time,
people are working on making it illegal *NOT* to read the mail going through
your system, by holding you liable if the law is broken with mail passed
over your system (yeah, I know it's a silly idea - but the stupidity of the
US govt is never to be underestimated. The post offal, being a government
organization, would be exempt from that law, of course).
Of course, this may all be moot - the post office has publicly stated that
e-mail is *MAIL*, and belongs to the post office by law. Any other agents
delivering mail should be shut down. Therefore, there won't be any problem
with mail admins reading forwarded mail - nobody but the PO will be
forwarding mail (and keeping a copy, probably).
Yes, reading other peoples mail is unethical. But if I were in Johns shoes,
and found my phone bill doubling, I'd start collecting stats (by looking in
my uucp logs, *NOT* at the mail) about where the mail is going to. If it
turns out that the bulk of it was going to one person, I'd probably open it
to find out what the devil they were up to, as the alternative of refusing
to forward mail to that person is even worse. Fortunately, I don't have to
worry about the phone bill or bounced mail, so I never look at other peoples
mail.
By the same token of course, I don't go wading around in other peoples files,
even though I could. It's still private material, and reading it is
unethical. How many other system admins do the same? Anyone want to make
looking at files on a system illegal, along with mail?
<mike
Jim Reid
>
>I've been following this discussion (none too closely, I admit) and
>I think some people are making a fundamental equation which just
>doesn't hold up;
>
>e-mail == ordinary paper mail (or snail mail!)
>
>Perhaps a better equation would be
>
>e-mail == telephone communication
>
>There may well be good reasons for the operator/telephone engineer to
>overhear (part of) a telephone conversation (although I can't think of
>one now!). They may have to listen in to ensure the correct functioning of
>the telephone system (no?). I think SAs find themselves in much the same
>situation.
>
>Maybe the rule should be "we can't talk about this on the phone"
>(substitute e-mail). Why not use encryption (oops -- that *could* be
>illegal, I guess!).
>
>Basically, I think the "e-mail == paper mail" concept is *all* wrong!
Got it in one! The best analogy I heard for e-mail is it's equivalent to
a postcard. Anybody handling the mail (eg postmaster, uucp for email -
post office workers for postcards) has the capability to read and alter it.
In practice this doesn't happen much because of the volume of mail getting
shipped. This doesn't mean it can't happen, but then who would send a
confidential document on the back of a postcard?
On a wider security front, the telecomms networks are easily monitored by
government eavesdroppers like NSA in the US and GCHQ in the UK. Even if all
the mail relays and their mail administrators didn't read your mail, what's
to stop these spooks? With these people, even encryption is no guarantee of
keeping data secure.
In short, anybody who uses the net *must* appreciate it is a public forum
and anything he/she sends to someone else cannot reasonably be expected to
be a purely private communication in the way that a snail mail message would.
If something is secret, don't say it!
Jim
Robert L Thurlow
>
>wanted to know what his phone bills were paying for, and used that as a
>justification for "opening" others' mail. By the same token, should he
>be able to eavesdrop on phone conversations? I think the same set of
>arguments apply. If he wants to know what he's paying for when he pays
>his phone bills, I'll tell him - PRIVATE MESSAGES. And that's all he has
>a right to know.
>
If I use my employer's telephone for *MY* private use, I can't expect
that he will always be happy with it, especially if it interferes with
other uses of the phone or of my time, or if it causes other problems.
I also do not expect to have my privacy guaranteed or to have total
freedom of behaviour when someone else is paying the bills. It is the
same as using any other resource : using the printer may be okay if I
want a cheap calendar, but printing resumes is not a great survival
habit. I expect my employer to be reasonable, but there are no
guarantees.
# UUCP : ...!ubc_vision!molihp!robt Robert Thurlow #
# My thoughts are my own, and are void where prohibited by law. #
# "There was something fishy aboout the butler. I think he was a #
# Pisces, probably working for scale." -Nick Danger, 3rd Eye #
j...@alice.uucp
1) net.news.adm is NOT the proper place to call John Gilmore an
asshole. You may feel that way, but net.news.adm is NOT the place
to say so. In fact, netnews of any sort isn't the place to say so.
Netnews isn't the place to suggest anything of the sort, like sending
someone lots of nasty mail, either. <John? You there?, That still
annoys me when I think about it, that being the first attempt on
the still fledgling nutnoise to censor someone and all.>
2) All of the flamage about "reading others' mail"
is silly. UUCP links are NOT, repeat *N*O*T*, repeat *B*L*O*O*D*Y*
*W*E*L*L* *N*O*T* private links put up for Unix (Tm AT&T) mail
users. UUCP links are put up and supported strictly for whatever the
machine's owners want them supported for. No more, no less. If they
tell you that they will examine mail, or put quotas on mail, or whatever
they say, you are BOUND to accept it, because they OWN the machine, they
PAY for the machine, they have made NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION whatsoever
to deliver or maintain the security of mail <except in the case of the
few public systems that have specifically agreed to such, and to whom
you PAY MONEY for the SERVICE that is not FREE>, and they have
no reason to accept you as a freeloader. None!
Certainly computer mail is generally considered "sacred", but
that's only, simply, and strictly a matter of policy of the
machine's owner and operator, who can set any standard they like.
If you, the freeloader, don't like it, freeload somewhere else.
Naturally, if you're paying, then you can expect whatever contractual
obligations you have negotiated and paid for to be honored, on
those machines/owners who made the contractual obligations, and no others.
I don't own, operate, or adminiister any machines, so don't bother
sending my your harrassing, ill-considered, poorly thought out,
and pseudo-morally based garbage.
Stop calling people "assholes" on this public service while you're
at it. Stop using administration groups for garbage postings,
try using the "junk" nesgroup if you MUST try to waste our time
and money.
--
TEDDY BEARS UNITE! HUG A SHY PERSON TODAY!
"I wish I was home again, back home in my heart again, ..."
(ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
Stephen Hutchison
>>
>>
>>Now, hey, I'm pretty paranoid but I'm not talking about telephone tapping etc.
>>There may well be good reasons for the operator/telephone engineer to
>>overhear (part of) a telephone conversation (although I can't think of
>>one now!). They may have to listen in to ensure the correct functioning of
>>the telephone system (no?). I think SAs find themselves in much the same
>>situation.
About six years ago I worked for a company in California called
"Badger Meter Electronics Division" which, among other remote control
machinery, built/builds telephone test equipment.
The test consoles which were once widely used by telco operators who
were running tests on the integrity of the phone lines, all incorporated
a randomizing filter which reduced speech to a pattern of buzzing and
clicking. It was recognizable as speech if you knew what it sounded like
but wasn't understandable at all. The phone companies required that this
filter be added because of some government regs about phone-tapping.
Supervisors and some operators could cut in on phone calls in emergencies
but even long-distance calls from payphones were supposed to be sacred.
Naturally since I cannot point to the specific legal requirements this all
constitutes hearsay and is thus a rumor.
Hutch
Mark Anderson
>The test consoles which were once widely used by telco operators who
>were running tests on the integrity of the phone lines, all incorporated
>a randomizing filter which reduced speech to a pattern of buzzing and
>clicking. It was recognizable as speech if you knew what it sounded like
>but wasn't understandable at all. The phone companies required that this
>filter be added because of some government regs about phone-tapping.
I heard that this filter is now required on all phones. I know it is
in my phone for sure.
manderso!sdcsvax
Larry Lippman
>>
>> There may well be good reasons for the operator/telephone engineer to
>> overhear (part of) a telephone conversation (although I can't think of
>> one now!). They may have to listen in to ensure the correct functioning of
>> the telephone system (no?).
>
> "Badger Meter Electronics Division" which, among other remote control
> machinery, built/builds telephone test equipment.
>
> The test consoles which were once widely used by telco operators who
> were running tests on the integrity of the phone lines, all incorporated
> a randomizing filter which reduced speech to a pattern of buzzing and
> clicking. It was recognizable as speech if you knew what it sounded like
> but wasn't understandable at all. The phone companies required that this
> filter be added because of some government regs about phone-tapping.
Actually, an operating telephone company or communication common
carrier has a legal right to listen to conversations for certain purposes,
such as: (1) placement and "supervision" of an operator-assisted telephone
call; (2) during repair and maintenance functions on communication circuits;
and (3) for "service observing" purposes, which is a quality-control function.
It is, however, UNLAWFUL for an employee of a telephone company or
communication common carier to disclose the nature of such intercepted
communications to a third party.
Under New York State law, it has been held that the above types of
interception result from "normal operation" of a telephone company, and are
therefore exempt from violating the eavesdropping statues under Article 250
of the NY Penal Law.
Implicit permission for interception of conversations for the above
purposes by a telephone company or communication common carrier is in fact
conveyed by federal law. I quote from the United States Code, Title 18,
Section 2511:
(2) (a) (i) "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an
operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of any
communication common carrier, whose facilities are used in the
transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use
that communication in the normal course of his employment while
engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the
rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or
property of the carrier of such communication: PROVIDED, That said
communication carriers shall not utilize service observing or random
monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks."
There is no legal requirement that speech be "encoded" so that a
telephone company operator cannot understand the conversation. However, such
a feature is desired by management of telephone companies to preclude any
liability incurred by employees "misusing" verification and test facilities.
One of the most deeply guarded secrets of the larger telephone
companies (like the BOC's) is the extent to which service observing is carried
out. There are legitimate reasons why service observing is required, such as:
(1) transmission quality appraisal; (2) human factors analysis (i.e., dialing
time, ringing time, etc.); (3) traffic analysis; etc.
It is my understanding that telephone companies do take some steps to
conceal the subscriber line identity from the service observing personnel.
However, the point to remember is that ANY direct-dialed telephone call CAN be
LEGALLY monitored by a telephone company or communication common carrier.
My personal opinion - in case anyone cares - is that the above type
of monitoring as conducted by a telephone company or communication common
carrier is a normal fact of life. No one should get bent out of shape over
it, since there is NO WAY to enforce absolute privacy in a telephone call -
unless someone wishes to employ digital speech encoding.
==> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
==> UUCP {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
==> VOICE 716/688-1231 {rice|shell}!baylor!/
==> FAX 716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes} seismo!/
==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/