F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.40 (03-Oct-1993)

F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.40 (03-Oct-1993)
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| A newsletter of the | |
| FidoNet BBS community | Published by: |
| _ | |
| / \ | "FidoNews" BBS |
| /|oo \ | +1-519-570-4176 1:1/23 |
| (_| /_) | |
| _`@/_ \ _ | Editors: |
| | | \ \\ | Sylvia Maxwell 1:221/194 |
| | (*) | \ )) | Donald Tees 1:221/192 |
| |__U__| / \// | Tim Pozar 1:125/555 |
| _//|| _\ / | |
| (_/(_|(____/ | |
| (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. |
| | -- JOSEPH PULITZER |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Submission address: editors 1:1/23 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Internet addresses: |
| |
| Sylvia -- [email protected] |
| Donald -- [email protected] |
| Tim -- [email protected] |
| Both Don & Sylvia (submission address) |
| [email protected] |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For information, copyrights, article submissions, |
| obtaining copies and other boring but important details, |
| please refer to the end of this file. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
========================================================================
Table of Contents
========================================================================

1. Editorial..................................................... 2
2. Articles...................................................... 2
IT'S A FUNNY OLD WORLD...................................... 2
The issue of Privacy, thoughts of a US Citizen.............. 3
OUR HUMBLE ROOTS............................................ 5
Rebuttal to "Content Cops" in FNEWS 39...................... 6
A Reply to "Content Cops: Opening the door to censorship"... 10
Windows (and DV) background tossing......................... 11
FIDOnet encryption (or lack thereof)........................ 13
3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 16
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 2 03 Oct 1993

========================================================================
Editorial
========================================================================
A short message came in from England yesterday: Mini Mansell,
at 2:258/36 is a juggler, and would like to know if there is a
circus arts echo of any kind in Zone one. If so, then Mini
would like to import it to the UK. While that goes the rounds,
we are also still looking for fine arts echos.

The censorship issue has been wrung out but is still all wet.
There appears to be a great deal of missinformation about the
entire thing ... the last article in this issue makes some
very interesting points regarding legality. There are also
several statements that are rather jarring to my ear. For
example, one writer solemnly assumes that anyone against
censorship cannot be raising children.

Well, I have raised two children, currently ages 16 and 22.
I have always found that kids too young to read something are
too young to read it; they are not interested. Once they are,
it astounds me that someone can think they will develope a
balanced, informed opinion by having their reading material
censored by anyone other than themselves.

But then, if I do not want something on my board, I simply
do not carry it. I cut more echos because they are boring than
for any other reason. One that got me annoyed might be worth
carrying...

========================================================================
Articles
========================================================================
IT'S A FUNNY OLD WORLD
By: Denise Altoff
3:670/213.1

In the past few weeks I have read the Snooze with much interest,
for the most part its been your usual normal fido-orientated stuff,
which though might be interesting is not the sort of thing that
produces massive belly laughs, however the last 3 Issues have been
chocka full of not only stuff guaranteed to produce a mild giggle but
your full ROFLASTC stuff.

I refer to firstly, the Church of Elvis, the whole concept boggles
the mind, and I must admit I was tempted to send my $5 and pick a
title, I was going to be a Mother Superior, which would have fitted
in nicely with my own cult, "The SisterHood Of The Suspect Denise" of
which I am the leading light and Mother Superior, this in turn would
have connected quite nicely up with "The Church Of The Almighty
Aardvaark" of which "The SisterHood" shares fund raising ideas and
military arms. However saner heads prevailed and I was talked out of
buying a title (mores the pity), people feeling that too much POWER
would have gone to my head and I would have been marrying and
ordaining people, left, right and centre. Me, Power MAD, never...
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 3 03 Oct 1993

I'm the sanest person I know.

The second thing that caused much giggling and ROFLing in my humble
abode was the war of words bewteen the two learned gentlemen over the
origins and content of the Bible echos... Dear oh dear, not much
christian charity being shown there at all. I bet old beezlebub was
having a great old cackle as he warmed his hands in front of the fire
8-).

Thirdly, and the thing that really prompted me to write this article
in the first place, was the little effort by our friend from Germany,
on his hypothetical ZC, which in his feeble attempts to make more
~Politically Correct~ he made a woman, very smart move, as we all
know, no MAN would ever behave like he describes this female ZC as
behaving. Then he throws in his hoary old chestnut about "all women
being bossy" one can only wonder at what his dear old mum would think
about this. I am far from being bossy, I moderate 2 echos in Fido,
and the users of my echos, who are on the whole, a great bunch, and
mainly MALE, would say that most times I am too lenient. But enough
about that, or else I will start in on about the latent sexism
present in the whole Fido structure.

I look forward to the next edition of the Snooze with bated breath,
what will it be next time, another breathless dissertation about the
merits of what archiver to use?? (we use LHA for the nodelist in Oz,
and we managed to do this via a VOTE), another salvo in the long
running saga about the Holey Bible (intentional mistake) echo, or
perhaps we will see another "hypothetical", or maybe the Church of
Elvis will annouce the second coming of the MAN himself, keep 'em
coming guys, I need something to laugh at.

Denise Altoff (aka Teddy)

P.S anyone who wishes to join the Sisterhood, just send me a netmail,
I'm multi denominational and quite irreligious. 8-)

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

The issue of Privacy, thoughts of a US Citizen.
By GK Pace @ 1:374/26

Technology is advancing at a mind boggling rate, expanding in all
directions. The advancements promise wonderous benefits, services,
and tools to mankind, for which we wait in anticipatory delight. Just
as all new technology has potential for benefit, the potential for
harm, or abuse of the technology to produce harmful results exists.
The most serious potential threats are those which threaten privacy.
Today the threats to this fundamental human right are far greater than
at any time in the history of mankind. The revolutions of time past
which fought to define the rights of privacy, as well as those
societies founded upon such rights are today threatened by an arsenal
most mankind cannot even concieve of much less fight against.
Unfortunately much of the population living in such societies cannot
even concieve of the threats to this basic right, and live in
complacent ignorance of the battles which have already begun.
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 4 03 Oct 1993

One would hope that the Governments of such societies would be the
leaders in defending the rights to privacy, but such is not the case,
the Governments are in fact often the chief advisary. It should be
understood that more often than not, the attacks upon privacy are done
not with the intent of interfering with this right, but for other
noble reasons such as the war against crime.

The intent is not the significant issue, the result is. Is winning
the war against crime by destroying basic human rights to personal
privacy and other freedoms, winning? Is winning a war by destroying
the world, winning?

The United States Government, for noble reasons is concerned with
National Security. This concern has resulted in the Government being
active in observing the activities of citizens of other countries for
potential threats to the United States. No US citizen would argue
against this practice in principal. However, more recently, such
activities have been directed more and more towards US citizens, as
the Government wages the war against crime. As technology produces
more sophisticated tools for monitoring communications, and the
activities of people, the ability to do so, as well as the amount of
information one can obtain when doing so becomes greater. The current
level of technology does not leave much of a persons ability live or
conduct daily activities in private intact, and those areas of privacy
remaining are under active attack from both the advances of
technology, and the Governments emplementation of it.

Most people simply do not believe that the Government can (and does)
monitor communications, has the ability to monitor and store the
information displayed on a video terminal from a distance without any
direct connection to it, or that they consider the use of encryption
technology not issued and controlled by the Government to be a
criminal activity. An unfortunate state of affairs, since all of this
is true today, and has been for quite some time. The actual extent of
the Governments ability to monitor the activites of a private citizen
are of course a carefully guarded secret, but even the obvious and
known is beyond the belief of the average US citizen.

The Government is made up of individuals. Where individuals have the
power to invade privacy, the potential for it happening is great. The
greater the potential and ability, the incidence of abuse, as well as
the severity of such abuse, increase.

The past few years, Government agencies have been actively expanding
their abilities to monitor, collect, and process information on an
individual. The best resources are put to this use, and the abilities
have indeed expanded greatly. This is not all, they have been
actively ingaged in changing laws and regulations to inhance their
legal right to employ such abilities on private citizens. The best
most powerful (and expensive) computers in the world are employed by
the Government for the purposes of monitoring communications (voice,
data, FAX, radio, satellite, money transactions, etc.) of citizens,
organizations, and companies. The amount of information gathered and
processed for use is astronomical, and exceeds that employed or
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 5 03 Oct 1993

processed by NASA for its astronomical operations.

The Government has attempted on several occasions to pass laws which
would legitimize wiretapping. Currently, federal agencies conduct
wiretapping and related monitoring activities to gather evidence, most
of which cannot be introduced in a court of law. The changes they
seek in our laws would allow them to introduce such evidence in a
court of law.

The Government has also attempted to place the Justice Department in
control of the communications industry, with the specific ability to
control the specification of all such devices (telephones,
televisions, radios, etc.) equipment, and networks involved with it,
such that they enhance the Governments ability to monitor
communications in an undetected fashion. This is no joke, and the
intent was clearly spelled out as such in several proposed bills for
Congress to act upon. The thought that the telephones, radios,
televisions, and such devices in your home might be broadcasting
information (even when not in use) to a Government employee, recorder,
or computer about what you are doing, who you talk to, and even what
you do in your bedroom, sounds far fetched... but the technology
exists today, and the Government has been active in trying to put it
to use in every house, business, and organization in the United
States.

In summary, your rights to privacy have seriously eroded, and are as
we speak being reduced even further. This may seem like an alarmist
view but it is infact a very brief, honest appraisal of the situation.
Nothing less than a widespread awakening of the Public to the
situation, and appropiate responses to such attempts, can hope to
maintain this basic freedom for ourselves, and our children. Think
about it, and let your opinions be known to your various
representatives. Complacency on this matter will most assuredly lose
this freedom for us all.

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

OUR HUMBLE ROOTS
OR WHERE DID WE COME FROM?
by Marge Robbins 1:283/120

Time out! Time out! Would everyone please put down your cannons for a
few seconds and let me ask you a couple of questions? How many of you
had node numbers 1 year ago? 5 years ago? 9 years ago? How many of you
know who is the Father of FidoNet? Ok, Ok, that's an easy one. Everyone
knows that Tom Jennings is responsible for this mess. How about this?
WHY did Mr. Jennings do what he did? .... Give up? Because he wanted
to see if he could get two Fidos to talk to each other. Now, who knows
what a Fido is? I didn't until I had been in the net for several
years. Ask your NC. Lets see how good HIS memory is.

One final question, when did Fido 1 talk to Fido 2 for the first time?
Spring 1984, late May or early June. That means, fellow SysOps, that
in June 1994 FidoNet will be ten years old.

FidoNews 10-40 Page: 6 03 Oct 1993

So why am I rambling about some unimportant events that happened long
ago, and have no relivance to anything occuring today? <or do they?>
To make a long story short, I have undertaken to compile a history of
Fidonet. With the Net's 10th anniversery coming up, I think this is an
ideal time to take a look back at where we have been, and a good look
at where we are going.

So folks, I am going to need some help. Reading the back issues of
Fidonet and talking to a few folks has given me the skeleton of a
timeline, but it has many black holes in it. Please assist me in
filling them in.

If you have any historical documents that you are willing to share, or
would be interested in sharing with me what you know about the history
of your Net, Region, or Zone please contact me at 283/120 or if you are
HIST only route to John Johnson at 283/657 and he will see that I get
your submissions.

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

Rebuttal to "Content Cops" in FNEWS 39
Rob Butler 1:124/3000, 3109, 3110

Quick note : I wish to state up front, that I have no personal
knowledge of Mr. Dampier, and that any and all
suggestions of character within are purely my own
speculation from his writings.

In the article "Content Cops: Opening the Door to Censorship" by
Phillip M. Dampier in FNEWS 39, he made a few rather outlandish
suggestions about personal expression and censorship. I wholeheartedly
disagree with Mr. Dampier, and from reading the annoucement by Dan
Buda that Mr. Dampier posted, I find no reason to dispute it.
I believe the gist of Mr. Dampier's article was that each and every
person has the right of individual expression, and opinion. While I
agree with this, I also believe that Mr. Dampier has missed the point
of Mr. Buda's annoucement; that expression is allowed, but that there
are more proper forums in which to do so.

To quote from Mr. Buda's announcement :

"A word about dropping echos. There are several echos which
are candidates for being dropped due to the content of the
echo. This is not an easy decision, and not one which the
ZEC enters into lightly. It is not our desire nor will it
ever be our practice to censor the contents of an echo. But
when the contents of an echo are of such a character that
they are more suitable for distribution on a network that
is "adult" (if you know what I mean!) in nature it may be
that we take a second look at the echo. Being that FidoNet
typically exercises no control over whom may obtain an echo,
whether they be 10 years old or 21 years old, many feel it
is not in our best interest to be carriers of material which
could be source of embarassment should a minor be found to
be carrying such an echo. Where a moderator is actively"
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 7 03 Oct 1993

[...]

I can only guess at Mr. Dampier's background; I have no knowledge of
him personally, but I would expect that he does not have any children
and is not trying to raise any children in a proper nuturing environ-
ment. One of the responsibilities of a parent is to attempt to shield
their children from the more harmful sides of humanity until they are
mature enough to deal with them.
By disputing Mr. Buda's statement about preventing access to adult
material to minors, Mr. Dampier is effectively declaring that a minor
should be allowed access to any form of adult material. Would *you*
allow your children to view pornography?

An ever increasing number of BBS's carry adult material online.
The majority of these systems properly require proof of age and
identification before allowing access to the adult material they have
available. Why do they do this?
In every city, state and county that I am aware of, there are a list
of local laws that govern which material is considered to be of an
adult nature. These laws almost always state that an individual must
be of at least 18 years of age in order for the viewing or possesion
of said material to not be considered being done by a minor. These
BBS systems are attempting to cover themselves from any possible legal
action against them, by allowing only persons considered legal adults
access.

Take a look at the opposite corner; a theoretical system carries no
adult files, and does not profess to have "adult" material of any kind
online. However, this system *does* carry certain freely-available
Fidonet areas, among them being possibly the BITCH echo that Mr. Dampier
is fond of, and a few other choice ones. If a minor gains access to
these areas, several things could possibly happen : legal action against
the offending system for allowing "adult" material to be viewed by a
minor, and a large amount of negative press (yet again) about the
horrible secret-underground of computer bulletin board systems that
contain everything from nuclear bomb building instructions to
pornography.
I'm sure many overly concerned parents would ask "but how did my
child find out about xxxxxxxx?", leading to the inevitable reply from
authorities about the freely-available conferences full of adult
material that are distributed by a adult-oriented network of thousands
of computer systems called Fidonet; more bad press.

To quote from Mr. Dampiers article :

>I am completely opposed to an arbitrary content enforcement policy
>for backboned Fidonet conferences. It opens the door to an unelected
>handful of individuals being able to pressure the Zone Echomail
>Coordinator into forcing their personal moral values on us or force
>the ZEC to remove a conference for its content, and sexual issues are
>obviously not the only criteria at work here.

Please read that last sentence very closely, and then re-read the
quoted portion of Mr. Budas announcement. I find no evidence anywhere
in Mr. Buda's announcement for any form of "censorship" other than the
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 8 03 Oct 1993

removal of adult material from vulnerable systems. Mr. Dampier is
more than willing to enlighten us on his own adgenda futher in his
article however.

>While Mr. Buda may be benevolent, there are absolutely no assurances
>that the precedent that is about to be set will not be used by a
>future ZEC from cracking down based on his own personal religious or
>moral beliefs.

I saw no mention of religion, either the preference of one or the
disparagement of another in Mr. Buda's announcement. A precedent would
only be set on the distribution of adult-oriented material, NOT for any
other type of material.

>The ZEC then receives a handful of selected messages, generally
>without any backround of the conference and its audience, and then
>decides to state that either the moderator steps in and stops the
>icky four letter words and sexual insults or else he will remove
>it from the backbone.

This is entirely possible; however, I think Mr. Dampier does not
give proper credit to either the coordinators, or the moderator of
the conference in question. Arbitrary decisions of the magnitude of
removing an entire conference from the backbone are not done without
proper consent and consideration from the involved systems.

>No matter that 50-100 nodes or more pick and up and carry the
>conference without complaint. A small handful are appalled and
>simply won't turn off what offends them.

In such a situation, the conference in question would not be a part
of Fidonet, and would be better off being carried by another network
so that the costs of distribution are lessened. Exactly what Mr.
Buda is suggesting be done in his announcement.

>We should be using the same approach we use with offensive TV
>programs: if you don't like what you see, turn the channel.

And if your TeleVision receives nothing but smut and violence, do
you sell your T.V., or do you send a complaint to the offending
stations asking them to shape up?
Please, Mr. Dampier, explain why cable TeleVision has such a large
following. It is an alternate "network" that carries a different
selection of programs that are not related to broadcast TeleVision in
the slightest. Channels such as Discovery, The Learning Channel, NASA,
Nickelodion, TBS, and many others refuse to assume their audience is
mindless and dumb.

>Another possibility: The current or future ZEC has religious or
>personal problems with the carriage of echos that pertain to gay
>and lesbian issues.

Again, I fail to see how Mr. Dampier can bring this up, as no
mention of such topics are made (or implyed) by Mr. Buda.

FidoNews 10-40 Page: 9 03 Oct 1993

>Despite the fact the conferences are focused on political efforts
>and general socializing, a handful of religious zealots or others
>make the determination in their own mind that these conferences
>are "adult" in nature and that echos like GAYTEEN are an
>abomination.

Again, Mr. Dampier is twisting words around trying to make them
fit his argument. I fail to see how he can claim that "political
efforts" are maintained in such environments as the BITCH and other
related echos provide. And yet again, Mr. Dampier brings up religion,
even though no mention of it was given by Mr. Buda.
I saw no mention of the GAYTEEN echo in Mr. Buda's announcement.

>They move for these echos to be removed, despite the fact they are
>not packed with sex stories, because anything that talks about
>"gay or lesbian" is automatically adult in nature.

To a mature individual, conversations about or between gay or
lesbian persons do not need to be focused strictly on sexual
interaction. Does Tom Jennings, the originator of Fidonet, speak
only of sex, or does he have other interests?

>The same could happen to any echo dealing with a minority group,
>even to religious minorities. Whatever a small group of people
>is offended by is at risk.

Mr. Dampier this time brings in an arguement about segregation,
which was never mentioned in Mr. Buda's article. And it apparently
was too difficult for him to leave out that last plug about religion,
which again was never mentioned by Mr. Buda.

>Until individual nodes have the right to directly elect those
>people who want to play content cop with our echomail, these
>appointed people should not be given the right to slash echos
>that they or a few others can't seem to deal with.

Since there are so "few" other people in the world with a conscience
that are trying to raise their children in a supporting environment, I
thought I would bring up a couple of ideas for Mr. Dampier.

Democratic election is not a reality for all areas in the "real"
world. In many places, it is literally impossible to hold an actual
election because of the infighting and turmoil as one faction attacks
against another. Until such time as there is the luxury for everyone
in the world to sit back and wait for an election to be held, there
must be individuals who are willing to step forward and sacrifice
their personal time and freedoms so that the greater good can profit.

Since Mr. Dampier seems so fond of religion, and since this article
is supposed to be about the protection of minors from adult material,
how does he feel about the large number of priests that have been/and
will be accused of sexual molestation? From his additude of "if you
don't like it, change the channel", one gets the idea that he doesn't
see a problem with it. If you are not part of the solution, you are
part of the problem.
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 10 03 Oct 1993

Rob Butler
Fido 1:124/3000, 3109, 3110

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

A Reply to "Content Cops: Opening the door to censorship"
By: Justin Shirk
Fido 1:270/425

First, let's see what Mr. Dampier <the author> said:

>Once again, coordinators in Fidonet are overstepping appropriate
>boundaries in determining what is and is not appropriate. Last time,
>it was the Registration Police and now we're going to have a
>Conference Morals Police in order to "protect us."

>I am completely opposed to an arbitrary content enforcement policy
>for backboned Fidonet conferences. It opens the door to an unelected
>handful of individuals being able to pressure the Zone Echomail
>Coordinator into forcing their personal moral values on us or force
>the ZEC to remove a conference for its content, and sexual issues are
>obviously not the only criteria at work here.

Obviously Mr. Dampier has no concept of the recent raids and such
conducted against people who run very reputable adult systems. You see,
even if the kid lied, you can STILL get busted. It is unfortunate that
the government now feels the need to regulate every facit of our private
lives. Granted, I am opposed to adult meterial persay, but its
distribution is legal among consenting adults <over the age 21, mind
you>. Therefor, because of the recent twists in the law, I think the ZEC
was right to discontinue the distribution of those echos. I don't think
it was morally motivated at all, really. More like covering your self
from legal problems later on when some 15 year old sysop might get ahold
of an echo.

>I can understand the concerns that people have about access to adult
>information by minors, but this should be policed by individual
>SysOps/nodes and conference moderators, not by a small handful of
>content cops.

I also agree with you here. It should be policed by the SysOps AS WELL.
But say one smart little sysop just felt like carrying all the echos
and pleaded "no knowledge of said language on said conferences." Then
the echo coord and all others involved in the distribution of such
meterial could be held accountable. It raises alot of legal problems.

>Despite the fact the conferences are focused on political efforts
>and general socializing, a handful of religious zealots or others
>make the determination in their own mind that these conferences
>are "adult" in nature and that echos like GAYTEEN are an
>abomination.

>They move for these echos to be removed, despite the fact they are
>not packed with sex stories, because anything that talks about
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 11 03 Oct 1993

>"gay or lesbian" is automatically adult in nature.

I'm not so sure that kind of meterial is suitable for the public in any
case. And that could raise alot of problems with parents saying "oh my
kid _LEARNED_ how to be gay by listening to that GAYTEEN conf on
Fidonet."

And yes, gay or lesbian talk is AUTOMATICALLY adult in nature. Why?
Because, IMHO, teens shouldn't be practicing homosexuality! What kind of
precedent does that set for our youth? That it's alright to CHOOSE your
sexual nature?

>The same could happen to any echo dealing with a minority group,
>even to religious minorities. Whatever a small group of people
>is offended by is at risk.

Yes this is also true. Why? Because of our lobby system in this country.
Every little group has their own little lobby, for various purposes.
Nothing really gets done in Washington anymore because of it. Including
the gay rights movement. We could have focused our attention on the
real problems in this country <like health care> instead of wasting our
time on gay rights those first few months.

I know I touched alot of subjects in this article. Sorry it was semi-
long.

|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Justin Shirk - SysOp, Cybernetics BBS * Fido 1:270/425 |
| (717)738-1976 Supra 14.4k v.42bis * ITC 85:863/207 |
| InterNET e-mail/UseNET newsgroups * InterNET rhutch!cyberb.uucp |
| 680+ megs online * 6400+ files * 140+ newsgroups |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

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

Windows (and DV) background tossing
By Arthur Ward
1:106/321

In FidoNews 10-39, an article from Dave Hunter on using DVCRON
for tossing mail in background turned on a light for me. First,
before I blatantly advertise my own Windows program, I'll put in
a few cents for alternative methods for DesqView that Dave didn't
cover:

Two fine products I've found for the DV deparment are Spawn and
Sleep.

1. Spawn will start another task running whatever you tell it;
you could use this and reload FrontDoor 2.20 (FD 2.02ers like me
have no choice but to reload). I would personally recommend this
if you can't create a flagfile without exiting your mailer.

2. Sleep will do a variety of "sleeping" activities including
watching the clock and FILES. It also has built in time releases
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 12 03 Oct 1993

for DV, so a looping batch file using Sleep will do the job
nicely.

:top
sleep +TOSS.NOW
..toss mail...
goto top

3. For those who don't want to take up so much memory all the
time, combine the two.

:top
sleep +TOSS.NOW
spawn toss.dvp
goto top

Advanced note: Using a little creativity, you can get a second
flagfile in there also that will do a clean shutdown of the
tossing task. Cool, huh?

Windows 3.1 solutions:

1. To date, I have not found any way to spawn another task from a
DOS window. :-(

2. Use Sleep in a looping batch file (like I referred to for DV)

Finally, I've written a little dojigger called Dameon Central.
Basically, it's a Windows program that does the combined task of
Sleep & Spawn, and takes almost no speed penalty on the
processor.

Features:
- Somewhat informative status box when opened up [flagfile set,
tossing/idle/Windows error]
- When minimized, icon shows state of tossing program
- Configurable flag checking speed (look for flag once every
XXX milliseconds)
- Configurable flags, program to run, etc.
- FREEWARE!
- Small; uses very little memory (less than 30k)

I intend to do a total rewrite of DC sometime in the next few
months to allow much more flexibility.

For a look, file request the magic name DCENTRAL from me
(1:106/321) at 2400bps. The archive is under 30k! (it won't hurt
that much! :-)

I'm looking forward to (hopefully!) seeing some comments on it
trickle back my way. Have fun!

Dameon Central - by yours truly
Sleep - by John Souvesture (sp?) - I have v4.0
Spawn - I don't remember or have it anymore
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 13 03 Oct 1993

- Arthur

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

FIDOnet encryption (or lack thereof)
Mike Godwin <[email protected]>

Does routine FIDOnet email INVASION by operators VIOLATE the U.S.
Electronic Communications Privacy Act? EFF's lawyer M. Godwin speaks
with FIDOnet operator Al Billings <[email protected]> on the
cypherpunks mailing list. Resident list crank Perry Metzger offers
his own whitehot flame.

this forward brought to you by

cypherpunks
Cyberspatial Reality Advancement Movement (CRAM)
Information Liberation Front (ILF)
Blacknet

Al Billings writes:

>On Thu, 30 Sep 1993, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>> My question is this: how does he know that the mail is encrypted if he's
>> not examining the mail that passes through his system? If he *is*
>> examining the mail that passes through his system, it seems likely that he
>> is violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
>
> Only if he has stated that he allows private mail. Most sysops have
>specifically worded policy statements for their systems that say that the
>sysop can read any and all messages on the system and may do so at any
>time.

That's all very nice, but it doesn't enable a FIDO sysop to intercept
messages from people who are not users of his or her particular system.
Those people did not waive their rights to privacy under the ECPA.

> Bulletin boards do not normally offer truely private mail because of
> some of the legal implications.

This is a common myth. First of all, there are many BBSs that do
offer truly private mail, or whose sysops, as a matter of policy, do not
read others' private mail. Secondly, there's no legal liability associated
with allowing e-mail privacy. Third, federal law (the ECPA) bars
sysops from examining mail except under some very precisely defined
circumstances.

I suggest that you inform sysops who tell you otherwise that they can
contact me at the Legal Services Department of EFF. You've got my e-mail
address already--my phone number is 202-347-5400.

From: Mike Godwin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: FIDOnet encrypted mail issues
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 14 03 Oct 1993

Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 17:16:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: [email protected]

[email protected] writes:
> Now, the point most internet people forget is that FIDOnet hosts are
> hobbyists with 100% privately-owned machines and generally pay for the
> entire participation of their userbase out of their own pockets,
> excepting a few who get some dollars here and there from their generous
> callers.

I have never forgotten this. But their commitment and efforts do not
amount to an amendment to federal law.

> As a completely justified consequence, they can decide if they
> allow encrypted traffic _on their individual BBSs_.

Under what legal theory do they get an ECPA exemption as a "completely
justified consequence"?

> In that there is
> considerable fear of the consequences of illegal activity being
> conducted on their BBSs via encrypted mail, many sysops (such as the one
> you mention, leaving aside, for now, that he apparently confused a PGP
> key with an encrypted message) do not wish to take the risk and forbid
> encrypted traffic.

What they don't realize is that, rather than reducing the risk of legal
liability, they are increasing it.

> They also monitor e-mail, if only incidentally
> during the course of routine system maintenance, and notices to this
> effect are generally contained in log-on screens and new-user info
> files.

Any monitoring that results *directly* as a function of system maintenance
is okay--it's sanctioned by ECPA.

> In that these sysops are extremely, _personally_ vulnerable, they are
> generally more cautious than those internet folks who can hide behind
> institutions and businesses.

If they were really cautious, they'd talk to a lawyer before setting
policy based on some guess as to what their legal liabilities may be.

-Mike

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: PGP in FIDO
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1993 16:11:04 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email protected]>

[email protected] says:
> Anyway, the ECPA is basically irrelevant in the BBS world, as 1] almost
> every BBS states at log-on that there is no such thing as truly
> "private" e-mail on the system as the sysop can, will and does see
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 15 03 Oct 1993

> messages in all areas, and 2] he is personally _liable_ for any illegal
> activity on his BBS, so he can reasonably be expected to keep an eye on
> e-mail for anything that will put his ass in a sling.

You haven't been listening at all to Mr. Godwin, have you?

1) The ECPA *DOES* apply to the BBSes whether they want it to or not.
All the hoping in the world doesn't make a statute go away. Merely
declaring that the ECPA doesn't apply to you doesn't work -- try
declaring the tax laws don't apply to you some time and see if that
works.
2) The BBS operators are NOT liable UNLESS they censor the mail. If
they censor the mail, they are liable for anything they fail to
censor. If they do not censor, they are common carriers, and have
no liability.

In other words, jackasses pretending they understand the law have both
broken the law and made themselves more, not less, liable for anthing
left on their machines.

> There has been a very heated war in FIDOland over PGP and other
> encryption. Considering the risk that sysops take on by permitting
> secure (?) communication on their BBSs,

They take NO risk. They are common carriers if they stop censoring
their mail. People don't seem to understand that the law on this is
very clear.

By the idiotic logic the FIDO operators are using, the phone company
could be siezed if two people have a conversation about a crime over
the phone. The notion is, of course, absurd, and so is the stupid
half-assed amateur lawyering the people who wrote the FIDO policies
used.

> Personally, _I_ would never stick my neck out like that, though I
> convinced many FIDOnet BBSs to do so for my own political and purely
> selfish reasons.

Actually, as I've just noted, you have not protected yourself. You
have opened yourself up for massive legal liability where you had none
before.

The depths of human folly never cease to amaze me. This case is as if
a group of bankers, deciding that they were scared that they might be
held liable if one of their clients were a drug dealer (which they
aren't) decides to embezzle all the client accounts instead to "keep
themselves safe".

Perry

To find out more about the anon service, send mail to [email protected].
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to [email protected].
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 16 03 Oct 1993

========================================================================
Fidonews Information
========================================================================

------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ----------------

Editors: Sylvia Maxwell, Donald Tees, Tim Pozar
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello,
Tom Jennings

IMPORTANT NOTE: The FidoNet address of the FidoNews BBS has been
changed!!! Please make a note of this.

"FidoNews" BBS
FidoNet 1:1/23
BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14400/V.32bis/HST(DS)
Internet addresses:
Don & Sylvia (submission address)
[email protected]

Sylvia -- [email protected]
Donald -- [email protected]
Tim -- [email protected]

(Postal Service mailing address) (have extreme patience)
FidoNews
172 Duke St. E.
Kitchener, Ontario
Canada
N2H 1A7

Published weekly by and for the members of the FidoNet international
amateur electronic mail system. It is a compilation of individual
articles contributed by their authors or their authorized agents. The
contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the
rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these articles are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of FidoNews.

Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise FidoNews is
copyright 1993 Sylvia Maxwell. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or
distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in
other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or FidoNews
(we're easy).

OBTAINING COPIES: The-most-recent-issue-ONLY of FidoNews in electronic
form may be obtained from the FidoNews BBS via manual download or
Wazoo FileRequest, or from various sites in the FidoNet and Internet.
PRINTED COPIES may be obtained from Fido Software for $10.00US each
PostPaid First Class within North America, or $13.00US elsewhere,
mailed Air Mail. (US funds drawn upon a US bank only.)

INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.fidonet.org, in
directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews. If you have questions regarding
FidoNews 10-40 Page: 17 03 Oct 1993

FidoNet, please direct them to [email protected], not the
FidoNews BBS. (Be kind and patient; David Deitch is generously
volunteering to handle FidoNet/Internet questions.)

SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file
ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable
from 1:1/23 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC". Please read it.

"Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered
trademarks of Tom Jennings, and are used with permission.

Asked what he thought of Western civilization,
M.K. Gandhi said, "I think it would be an excellent idea".
-- END
----------------------------------------------------------------------