🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Apr3.110707.14167@sizone.pci.on.ca>,
Steak? <root@sizone.pci.on.ca> wrote:
>: no, i think that netnews systems should be classed as common carriers.
>
>YAHOO! Please push this heavily, cause its going to be decided very soon. I
>run a public site on my own machine and cant afford to lose it cause I have
>to be responsible for all 6-10 megs that come onto it every day in the
>form of news. (I have a small feed, and still dont have enough time in my
>day to read the groups _I_ want, never mind the govt wants me to read.)
>
>Why am I allowed to own a tv? Actually, thats not a good example, since
>there are only some 60 odd channels. Sattelite dishes should be banned
>tho, if they were being consistent.

actually, i think a better analogy is CB radio.  anyone can get a set and start
spouting forth.

in some ways i hope the 'net will go the same way as CB radio.

starts out as a useful tool for a small cross-section of the population.
(truckers/computer people)

the public becomes aware of it, it gets real popular.
(Smokey and the Bandit/the current media hype on the info super highway)

the airwaves become crowded, and the government makes more space.
(23 channels -> 40 channels/NREN && CANARIE)

the airwaves become loaded with crackpots and zealots, the original audience
moves to alternate bandwidth)
(truckers -> side-bands/USENET -> private mailing lists)

eventually, the public gets bored, the airwaves settle down.

i can't wait until the internet becomes so commonplace that the zealots
get bored.  maybe when VR becomes more commercially viable, the zealots can
fight their battles there.

>: what i'm beefing about is that people are intentionally posting holmonka
>: stuff
>
>Question thats kinda trite and off topic: Do you cut n paste "holmonka" from
>some file everytime you have to type it? Its "Homolka" with or without the
>capital "H".

1st answer: i don't really pay attention to the media hype, so i'm just
spelling it the way it sounded to me.

2nd answer: i'm misspelling it to get around people's kill files.  8^)

>: to canadian groups and mailing lists with the express purpose of pissing off
>: the management types.
>
>I think they're just testing the net. Good thing fax machines were tested
>before Tiannamen(sp) Square. I think its good. Good thing its now before
>something REALLY important happens and we need the net.

actually, the testing is still going on.  it is called junk fax.

the net has historically proven itself to be useful for getting information
into/out of the earthquake-prone southwest US.

>: some of them are childish "nah nah, you can't stop me"
>
>Nah nah, excercising my constitutional rights.

flaunting is more like it.

>: some of them are idealist "information should be free, so i'm going to
>: forcefeed it until management/government bends to my ideals"
>
>Cool idea. I'd love to have the time and money running around creating
>test cases of the law to find out what I can and cant do and what needs
>to be changed in my eyes.

yeah, and since you don't have the money, you figure you can force someone
else to spend theirs?

find a system that is willing to put up with a police intrusion and post the
stuff there.

otherwise, don't expose _me_ just because _you_ can't afford it.

>Why do you think fundamentalists band
>together with large lobbying powers and money to push the US Govt
>around?

so pass the hat, and take the government to court in order to establish
internet/USENET as a common carrier in Canada.

don't force my system to pay those costs for you.

>: the net result is that netnews is being shutdown or censored.
>
>WOOHOO! I think there'd be riots in the streets. Well, at least on the
>existing and _NOW ILLEGAL_ UUCP nets.

i somehow doubt it.  the 'net is not nearly the size or influence that you
think it is.  to most government/big business, it is still a loose network
of amateur BBS's and universities passing kiddie porn around electronically.

>Its pretty tough now, what with no one corporation
>or govt agency owning/watching it with any sort of special jurisdiction,

and you think that government reaction to the massive electronic
"ban breaking" is going to have a good effect?

i think not.  i would not be suprised if along with Gomm(??), the government
charges a number of BBS's and maybe even a university or two.

do you think they are going to spring the legal costs to fight it?

i doubt it.

will the Canadian EFF (if it exists) spring in to protect "our" rights?

doubtful.

>Hell, the original net was intended to help communications after a
>NUCLEAR WAR! What do you expect? 

the original internet, maybe.  the current internet could be taken out with
a few strategically placed dynamite bombs, or even a few pipes cut with
torches. (it would be out for a while, not indefinitely)

hell, our links to the backbone go out all the time (hint, hint, nudge, nudge
to some of our providers).  8^)

>However, the power of the net is too gigantic for the commercial sector to
>leave it in the hands of hobbyists, activists and tek-heads. They'd want
>a piece of it, and they'd push the govt in that direction. And concessions
>would be made, and they WILL be made. I say the net will remain free, but
>i want to see it happen NOW, not after a series of avoidable disasters.

nah, the net is going to become a consumer good.  i'd say it is getting
pretty damn close as it is.  for what USENET news is worth, it may as well
be done on IRC.

>: sysadmins are being forced to do things they don't want to do, or face
>: possible reprecussions.
>
>Oh no. This never happens in any other kind of work. Never. If the disclaimer
>"my opinions have nothing to do with my employer's" then they can voice
>their protest on the net (even away from their employer's eyes, via
>anonymous servers, or care in posting...)

even with the disclaimer, people should still think of what they are posting.
i believe that a microsoft employee was fired after posting something not
liked by management.  there was a net.uproar, but i don't think it really
helped the poor fellow.

and besides, if i were microsoft, i wouldn't be happy having my own employees
make disparaging remarks either.  hell, why don't you get get an account on
one of the many public access sites?  you are not to use company equipment,
company connectivity and/or company time to make a negative impact on our
revenues. (mind you, was consitutes "disparaging" is very fuzzy ground)

>: commercial operators are forced to censor, or risk being closed down
>: by a government seizure.
>
>Good stuff. Like I said, if everything went down, it would only look down
>to the govt. Everyone else would find it soon enough. Someone might go to
>jail. I think they'd get alot of support tho. And, again, the net will
>eventually reflect the wants of the people. Sure seems like everyone wants
>the gory Homolka details.

since you would have nothing to loose if my system got confiscated, i can
understand your point.

however, i wouldn't want my system confiscated.  would you?

>: users are losing access to groups that have nothing to do with holmonka,
>: except that some childish idealist had to screw it up for them.
>
>Oh no. No more Jays n Leafs. Who cares. They do. GOOD! Let them rally with
>us again the idea that carrying newsgroups constitutes publication.

that's right, force everyone to your cause.  and if they won't align with you,
burn them.  sounds like the Crusades to me.

>: the people ordering the shutdowns probably don't use the systems, so for them
>: it is no big deal.
>
>AHA! EXACTLY! So, tho its no big deal for a couple dozen administrators and
>management types at as many Canadian universities, can you imagine 20,000
>usenet using/reading undergrads at those universities and another 10,000
>(???) commercial users in Ontario alone screaming at the govt and getting
>coverage in the papers that the usenet was shut down?

nah, the media wouldn't cover it.  and even then they would note that it is
no big loss, since these are the same "billboards" that were carrying that
kiddie smut a few months ago.

>Actually, what would probably happen is this: a rumour that the usenet might
>get shutdown for this unrealistic ban surfaces, and things gety very
>sticky regarding the net and the ban for the AG. They waffle over it and
>make concessions and dont shut down the entire usenet, but publish some
>official stance on the alt.fan.k-h and alt.pub-ban groups. This makes sure
>they dont have to make any laws they'll regret, such as either "the usenet
>is illegal" (unrealistic, since they'd last 1 day with that in place) or
>"carrying usenet newsgroups does not constitute publishing" which would be
>great, but they'd hate themselves forever for it. (Can you see the RCMP
>agreeing with the latter? Ha!)

the holmonka 8^) stuff is not a new issue.  there have been many cases in the
past which would have had the same possibilities as a test case.

porn and ethnic jokes have resulted in net.closures before, with little or
no legal precident set (at least in the way of common carrier).

>: users are being fucked over, not always by sysadmins, but by self-righteous
>: pinheads out to cause havoc.
>
>Wait til _YOU_ think its important. Imagine you went on and on about strong
>crypto being a right and all I wanted to talk about was the damn Leafs.
>Say its illegal to publish PGP on newsgroups but you do it and then you
>lose the Leafs discussion in ont.general. Now _I_'m pissed off at you
>for getting the group banned, but its not really your fault, its the
>govt's fault for classifying carrying groups as publication.

if i was fighting for PGP, i'd be putting it up for FTP, on systems where i
knew the sysadmins wouldn't flip.

maybe i'd sneak it into some official government computer (like CSIS or the
RCMP) for effect, but stuffing it onto university or commercial systems is
like blowing up a mail box.  it gets media coverage, but who is really hurt?
the post office, or the people who's mail just got toasted?

i'd have crypto discussions on closed mailing lists (like teale tales), so
as not to cause other systems to suffer for my fight.

guerilla warefare that injures innocent bystanders gets bad press.

>(I hope you think that strong crpto should be a right, otherwise you're
>a twit (insert disclaimer here) and my example is shot.)

compare the Organization line of this post with the credits of PGP. 

>: all shutdowns have been voluntarily, in fear of government action.
>
>_I_ would have to. I should, tho a.f.k-h is a crossposting haven anyway
>that i'd have to lose ont.general, etc. I have warned my users to remove
>banned info from their files tho, pending account removal. I HATE that
>shit, but I have to. I cant afford to go to court and I rather like my
>email (more so than my news, by a large factor) and dont want to lose
>my machine.

ah, well this is my point.  widespread posting of the FAQ and other goodies
are forcing other sites to deal with this.

how dare you force your users to cower under to the threat of the police?

>However, I'd like to see these so-called bastions of free-speech (universities)
>stand up and fight with all my taxpaying money for this since no one else is.

i just love it when people think they have the right to demand how their tax
money is spent.  taxes are put into general funds so the government can
piss it away any way they like.

you have no more right to ask the universities to spend money to break the
ban, than you have the right ask for a ride home in the premier's limo.

>(Who can I call? Does my MP care? Is this an issue yet?)

sounds like a fine issue to bring up with your government representative.

>: also, as far as i know, the government as not actually charged anyone with
>: breaking the ban.  they have confiscated materials from various people
>: who were intending to distribute info, but i don't think anyone has been
>: charged.
>
>Gordon Domm has been charged.

happened shortly after my post.  (an omen?)

>I wish someone like a university department would be. That would be
>great. Suddenly, alot of money would come out of nowhere and this would
>be settled.

nope, as with previous issues where the 'net could have been argued to be
a common carrier, the universities bowed out.

as far as a university legally fighting the ban, well, i think the rapid
change of face done at the UofT illustrates what will happen.

one day someone poises the UofT as a bastion of free flow of information.
the next day an edict from up high puts egg all over the face of the person
who gave the interview.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416 506-0654 ]
[   "... or you can become a road-kill on the information superhighway."      ]
[                                   -- Colin Mcgregor                         ]