informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0443.txt

767 lines
36 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

Computer underground Digest Sun Sep 13, 1992 Volume 4 : Issue 43
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow-Archivist: Dan Carosone
Copy Editor: Etaion Shrdlu, Srr.
CONTENTS, #4.43 (Sep 13, 1992)
File 1--Moderators' Corner (More FAQs)
File 2--Re: Piracy/Social Context (#4.42)
File 3--Re: Piracy/Social Context (#4.42)
File 4--PD-related IFAC symposium, 9/23, Madison
File 5--Cliff Figallo Online (From EFFector Online, # 3.04)
File 6--Bill Clinton on Electronic Technology (From EFFector 3.04)
File 7--Call for Cu-Related Papers for MSS Conference
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The editors may be
contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at:
Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115.
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM; on Genie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under
"computing newsletters;" on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and by
anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) and ftp.ee.mu.oz.au
For bitnet users, back issues may be obtained from the mail server at
mailserv@batpad.lgb.ca.us
European distributor: ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893.
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted as long as the source
is cited. Some authors do copyright their material, and they should
be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal
mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified.
Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to
computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short
responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely
necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 11:21:01 CDT
From: Moderators <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu>
Subject: File 1--Moderators' Corner (More FAQs)
Some more Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), incuding some not exactly
asked but thought we'd respond anyway:
1. WHY DOES CuD REPRINT STUFF THAT'S ALREADY APPEARED ON USENET OR
FROM EFFector WHEN MANY READERS HAVE PROBABLY ALREADY SEEN THESE
POSTS?
We estimate that about one-third of our readers do not have
conventional net access and read CuD from BBSs, public access systems
without net-connections, or from other sources where they wouldn't see
valuable information (such as the EFF posting below). Therefore, we
try to provide a variety of material that would interest an incredibly
diverse readership.
2. WHY DO THE MODERATORS SAY SOMETHING IS COMING OUT IN ISSUE #4.xx
AND IT DOESN'T APPEAR UNTIL SEVERAL ISSUES LATER?
Sometimes our own personal schedules prevent us from writing up our
own material or following up on items. Usually, however, it's because
of practical concerns, such as keeping issues to about 40 K (which
means that two 20K posts intended for a single issue must be split if
we have several 5-10K posts to include) or trying to keep thematic
issues in sequence (such as the SPA issue which will most likely be
two or three sequential issues), or--as is the case this week--because
of a long post that comprises most of an issue, which moves everything
forward. Hence, #4.44 will be The Cuckoo's Egg issue, and the
following two will be SPA issues.
WHEN DO YOU KEEP REMINDING PEOPLE THAT CuD WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE
AS AN ALT GROUP ON USENET?
Because we are still receiving occasional posts inquiring why the
comp.society.cu-digest version is not available on a given site. We
are trying to be politely subtle in reminding sysads TO SWITCH OVER
because the ALT version is about to disappear!
NOBODY ASKED, BUT WHEN RESPONDING TO PREVIOUS ARTICLES:
*PLEASE TRY* to keep cited material to a minimum. Generally, it is far
better to summarize a post and make sure your own response is
sufficiently clear that it addresses that post in a way that allows
others to understand what the issues are. Good writing need not
depend on long cites unless, of course, those cites are critical to
the response.
WHY DON'T THE MODERATORS ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ARTICLES?
We try to acknowledge *all* of them. Our system has no auto-reply, and
everything is read by humanpholk. Sometimes things slip through the
cracks. We'd like to think this is rare. We do our best.
HOW DO I KNOW IF SOMETHING I'VE WRITTEN IS APPROPRIATE FOR CuD?
If it addresses some issue of cyberculture, raises issues, provides
new information, or generally says something people might find
interesting, send it over. If it's not relevant, we'll let you know.
NOBODY ASKED, BUT WHEN SENDING CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENTS:
It helps to send stuff *prior* to the conference rather than a day or
before it's to occur. Two-three weeks or more should be the minimum.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15:16:56 JST
From: "Robert J. Woodhead" <trebor@FORETUNE.CO.JP>
Subject: File 2--Re: Piracy/Social Context (#4.42)
With regards the following article, I have some comments.
>Date--Tue, 1 Sep 1992 10:22:44 -0700
>From--James I. Davis <jdav@WELL.SF.CA.US>
>Subject--Software Piracy--The Social Context
In CUD 4.42, James I. Davis argues that property rights in information
are a bad idea. I would like to argue the opposite.
First of all, I believe we can take it as a given that information has
value. Ask any stockbroker, bookie or 5-star General if you don't
believe me. Whenever commodities of value exist, so does the
possibility of trade; buying and selling. In a free-market economy,
prices are set based on supply and demand, with sellers attempting to
maximize the equation of (# of copies sold)*(profit per copy).
The fundamental difference between the sale of information and the
sale of breakfast cereal (or any other physical commodity) is that
when information is sold, nothing physical is transferred. Once you
have a bit of information, you can sell it zillions of times, and
what's more, anyone you sell it to can do likewise, if they were so
inclined.
Wherein lies the problem - if everyone can sell every bit of
information they buy from another, the value of information, and thus
the incentive to create it, plummets. Which is why it is only very
rarely that information is actually sold - what you buy is the right
to USE the information for your own benefit.
Information industries have always been with us - book publication for
example. There have been many analogies made between book and
soft-ware publishers, but there is a fundamental difference; whereas
it costs more to Xerox a book than to buy an original, the digital
nature of software reverses the relationship. Why buy an original
when you can get an identical copy much cheaper?
My answer to the above is that when you make a copy, you are stealing
from two groups of people : the people who create and distribute the
software, and the people who legitimately buy it. In the first case,
you are showing a lack of respect for the creative efforts of other
people; in the second, you are forcing the legitimate customers to
shoulder a larger share of the development expenses than they would
otherwise have to. Mr. Davis totally misunderstands this
relation-ship, as he demonstrates in his final paragraphs where he
attempts to show that even with "24 billion" in piracy the software
industry is still profitable. Most of that 24 billion came out of the
pockets of legitimate users.
Mr. Davis also misunderstands the meaning of the "Fair Use Doctrine,"
which applies to how information that has legally been acquired may be
redisseminated. FUD has little or nothing to do with the concept of
software piracy. What FUD does say is what the purchaser or recipient
of information (eg: a computer game or a TV program) can do with the
information - for example, it says you can make as many backup copies
as you want, but not give them away.
He then goes on to state that the enforcement of property rights in
information would require a police state. Nonsense. What it requires
is the proper application of contract law, something we have hundreds
of years experience with. When you buy the right to use some
infor-mation, you agree to abide by the restrictions placed upon you
by the seller. If you don't like the restrictions, don't buy. If you
decide to say "Screw You!" to the seller and steal it, expect to get
censured it.
He further argues that enforcing property rights impedes the proper
dissemination of the storehouse of knowledge. I would argue the
opposite. By placing value on particular types of information, such
property rights guide the employment of human ingenuity in the
direction of providing the most valuable and needed information, and
the rewards given to those who create, or who have the wisdom to cause
to be created, the most valuable information, encourage others. He
bemoans the problems of schools and software, yet in fact the major
reason why tons of wonderful software isn't available cheaply is due
to the fact that schools are notorious for buying 1 copy for the
entire school system (I speak from personal experience here). Very
few companies specialize in educational software for schools for this
reason. And his textbook example (sorry) is specious because it has
nothing to do with software and everything to do with the cost of
printing books.
Lastly, Mr. Davis, after arguing that property rights = police state,
advocates that we entrust to the government the duty of deciding who
is to be paid for creating what information. Anyone who has actually
seen how much time and money is wasted due to infighting about grants
from the NSF would never make such a suggestion. He also brings up
the red herring of "it isn't the creators who get the money, but the
entrepreneurs." Hell, they risked the money to pay the creators, they
deserve the rewards. Having been on all sides of the equation, I can
tell you, in general everyone gets what they deserve. If a creator is
truly that, and not just a hack programmer who can code a module, he
can negotiate a % of the profits - just like in the movies. (except
computer firms usually aren't as sneaky accounting-wise)
Finally, he argues that property rights aren't needed to ensure
software production. My answer is, yes and no. While many people
create for the heck of it (me included), the fact is, there needs to
be a way for people to protect the fruits of their labors if they
choose to protect them. If the GNU approach is better than
Micro-softs, then the marketplace will decide. The fundamental
difference between myself and Mr. Davis (and the GNU folks) is that
they feel that the government should make everyone do things the way
they want, and I think that contract law and private agreements are
all that are needed.
I'll quote his last paragraph:
>(4) But but but, how will software get written, who will finance it?
>Knowledge is a _social_ treasury, and should be funded socially.
>Public competitions, grants, a social fund supported by users,
>whatever. We >have som>e models already: the university and federal
>research model; the arts funding model; the GNU experiment; the
>freeware and public domain experience. We're a creative and energetic
>group -- we can figure it out.
Welfare for Hackers. What a wonderful idea. (heavy sarcasm) Any
hacker worthy of the name would spurn it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 09:14:49 EDT
From: morgan@ENGR.UKY.EDU(Wes Morgan)
Subject: File 3--Re: Piracy/Social Context (#4.42)
>From-- James I. Davis <jdav@WELL.SF.CA.US>
>Subject-- Software Piracy--The Social Context
>
>Anne Branscomb, a strong advocate of property rights in information --
>admits that there is nothing "natural" about property rights (see her
>essay "Property Rights in Information"). Property rights are social
>conventions that are struggled over. And we shouldn't give up that
>fight to the SPA.
I disagree with several arguments used against said rights.
>Re: software "piracy" in schools, perhaps we should see an extension
>of "Fair Use Doctrine" to software use in schools. A bit of recent
>history -- broadcast TV shows were not intended to be copied and
>viewed at leisure at home. But to have stuck to that point, the courts
>would have criminalized a substantial number of adults who were
>time-shifting with their VCRs to watch soaps or football games or
>whatever.
Whoa! That wasn't the deciding factor at ALL! The decision was based
on the notion of "personal use". As I understand it, the courts decided
that individuals could record programs for later viewing. The court af-
firmed the copyright of the broadcasters when they disallowed rescreening
and/or rebroadcasting for profit. Even though you can tape "Days of Our Lives"
for yourself, you CANNOT charge people to view, nor can you rebroadcast the
program on your local Public Access channel.
What's the difference between taping/rebroadcasting a TV show and
copying/redistributing software? In each case, the initial step
(taping or copying, respectively) is legal FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY;
the second step (rebroadcasting/redistributing) is a violation of
copyright.
You'll notice that most software licenses allow you to make a backup
copy FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY.
>So "fair use", originally intended to allow book reviewers
>to quote from works, was de jure extended to a de facto reality --
>people "stole" TV shows, and enjoyed them. I understand that fair use
>extends to school use as well.
Here's a relevant quote:
"Section 107 of the Copyright Act establishes four basic factors to be
examined in determining whether a use constitutes a "fair use" under
the copyright law. These factors are:
a) The purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational use;
b) The nature of the copyrighted work;
c) The amount and substantiality of the portion of the work used
in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
d) The effect of the use in question upon the potential market for
or value of the copyrighted work.
No one factor is determinative of a person's right to use a copyrighted
work without permission. (EDUCATIONAL USE ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
MAKE A USE IN QUESTION A FAIR ONE.)"
[Source: "Questions and Answers on Copyright for the Campus Community", the
Association of American Publishers and the National Association of College
Stores, Inc., 1991]
We may agree that copying software meets criterion (a); the others are
more difficult to justify. The crux of this particular problem lies in
criterion (d). Copying software DEFINITELY affects the "potential market"
for that software; if I can copy it, I don't have to buy it!
>Why don't people just see that loaning disks, copying programs, etc.
>is wrong? Because it's not obvious, and it certainly isn't "naturally"
>wrong.
I disagree. I find it painfully obvious that I should not take someone
else's property and redistribute it injudiciously.
>The SPA has to cultivate a mindset that isn't there.
Most of the license agreements I've read are explicit "right to use" licenses,
as opposed to a "transfer of ownership". If you purchase a copy of the
software, you agree to abide by the terms of the agreement. You can argue
the propriety of that agreement until you're blue in the face, but you still
have a legal obligation to abide by its terms.
The same notion applies to the terms of an apartment lease, a car rental con-
tract, or the deed to one's home. Each of these contract contains several
clauses which bind the parties to certain limitations.
>You give
>me knowledge, you still have use of it; now I can use it too.
Computer software is not "knowledge".
I can certainly share knowledge with you; I can teach you everything there
is to know about Quattro Pro, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Windows. However,
"sharing knowledge" does not include giving you something (the software it-
self) for which I do not possess redistribution rights.
>It's not like I stole your silverware or pinched your car. A
>rather noble attribute, sharing, is turned into a crime!
Sharing, while noble, only applies to those things which are yours.
As I mentioned earlier, the computer software you purchase is not
usually your property.
Would you make a copy of Webster's Dictionary and give it to a friend?
I don't believe that you would; most people would intuitively classify
such copying as "wrong". The 'intangible' nature of computer software
(some say "It's just bits on a floppy disk") does not negate this "common
sense" approach.
>And we are
>all to be enlisted in this SPA scheme for policing property rights of
>software companies. No thanks.
Gee, why don't you just Xerox (tm) your entire printed library for me?
I guess that would be just fine, right?
>Property rights and information just don't go together:
If we accept this notion, why do we have patents? After all, patented works
are just a tangible expression of a particular piece of knowledge. Copy-
righted works are a tangible expression of another kind; why should they be
treated differently?
>(1) The enforcement of property rights in information requires a
>police state. The SPA encourages people to squeal on each other by
>calling an 800 number.
So? Most major companies have a "graft and corruption" number.
Many government agencies (IRS, BATF) have similar facilities. Even
local governments get into the act; do you have "CrimeStoppers" broad-
casts on your local TV stations?
>If the laws were enforced, I would bet that
>_most_ computer users would be guilty.
So? This is starting to sound like "everybody does it, so it must be
allowed"......and that's a load of poppycock.
>Hence, the population is
>criminalized, and subject to police and court control.
It has been estimated that over 70% of US taxpayers attempt to mislead
the IRS on their yearly tax returns. [Source: US News and World Report]
The IRS cannot audit every return, but they usually detect (and punish)
the worst offenders. Does that "incomplete enforcement" somehow justify
the illegal actions of the unpunished offenders? Hardly.
The SPA (or the Copyright Office, or whoever) will never have the resources
to police *everyone*. I suspect that the 'software police' will eventually
follow the same principle as the IRS -- get the worst offenders. In fact,
SPA's current actions reflect this trend. They (the SPA) aren't going after
Joe Shmo and his Commodore 64; they're targeting the big corporations and
universities.
>Just because
>the laws aren't enforced in totality doesn't mean that they can't be
>used.
Are you trying to create a distinction between "a bootleg copy of Turbo C
on my son's PC" and "copying Turbo C for everyone in my office"? I don't
believe that you can make this work; in each case, the action is improper.
The fact that "my office" is more likely to be caught/punished than my son
is irrelevant; both cases are improper.
>(2) Enforcing property rights in information prevents the "storehouse
>of knowledge" from being used optimally.
I do not accept the equivalence of computer software and information,
but I'll address a few of these points anyway.......
>Hence society and civilization is held back.
With the growing number of "public access" computing sites, this may very
well become a moot point. Many high school computer facilities have "public
hours" for their community(ies); many public libraries are establishing com-
puter facilities for their patrons. I fail to see how "I can't get a free
copy of Lotus" impedes the progress of civilization.
>The lost productivity due to conflicting
>standards and interfaces required because of proprietary interfaces
>etc. is one example.
This is true; however, are you going to force each and every
company/school/person to adhere to some particular "nonproprietary"
interface? If so, how do you hope to accomplish it?
>The lost educational opportunities resulting from
>schools not getting the software they need in the quantities they need
>is another.
I agree that this is a real problem. However, many software companies
are now discounting bulk licenses for schools. Inexpensive "student
versions" are available for many popular software packages, such as
WordPerfect, Maple, and MATLAB.
>The lost time of researchers who must duplicate research
>because they are prevented from sharing information because of trade
>secrecy or international competition is another.
Please explain how "globally free" software would affect this situation.
>The unavailability of
>textbooks in poor countries because they cost as much as a month's
>wages (or software that costs as much as a year's wages) is another .
Several publishing houses in the Third World pirate textbooks; since
their countries are not signatories to the Berne Convention, the original
publishers cannot recover their losses.
>(3) Property rights in information aren't needed to ensure software
>production, creativity, advancement of society, etc. The freeware and
>public domain library testify to this. People create for many reasons,
>of which financial gain is only one, and I would argue, not the most
>important.
People may create for many reasons, but *companies* create for financial gain.
>Finally, is the software
>industry profitable today? Yes.
It is profitable AT THIS TIME. Will it continue to be profitable in
a society where piracy is allowed on any scale? I doubt it.
>Even with the $24 billion in "piracy".
>How can this be so? Because what the software companies "lose" is
>revenue with no associated cost (the "pirate" has done the labor, and
>presumably provided the equipment and disk). This is the difference
>between stealing cars and duplicating software.
That's incorrect.
If I steal your car, you (or your insurance company) will have to pur-
chase a new one. Honda (or GM, or whoever) has now given out TWO cars,
but they have recognized a profit on each one.
If I steal a copy of Lotus 1-2-3 (remember, you DO NOT OWN your copy;
you merely have a license to use it), I do not have to pay Lotus. You
don't have to pay for another copy; you still have your original. Lotus
has now (effectively) given out TWO copies, but they have only recognized
the profit from one copy.
That sounds like a loss to me........
>(4) But but but, how will software get written, who will finance it?
>Knowledge is a _social_ treasury, and should be funded socially.
>Public competitions, grants, a social fund supported by users,
>whatever. We have some models already: the university and federal
>research model; the arts funding model; the GNU experiment; the
>freeware and public domain experience. We're a creative and energetic
>group -- we can figure it out.
There's one topic which hasn't been addressed in this article; I rarely
see it addressed in any article on this particular subject.
The whole concept of copyrights (and patents) is based on the notion that
the creator of a commercial product is entitled to some compensation for
their effort. With patents, this compensation is realized through an
exclusive production license for a certain number of years; with copy-
rights, this compensation is realized through a similar exclusive license.
(I believe that a personal copyright extends through the life of the owner,
plus a certain extension after the owner's death.)
By your arguments, I would not realize any significant compensation at all
for the software I develop. In your society, I would just toss my product i
into the population, and we'd all live happily ever after. That doesn't work,
and it isn't right! If I pour 4 years of my life into the development of
SnarkleFlex, I DESERVE to profit from it (assuming that people want to
purchase/use it).
We could certainly argue that software should be PATENTED. If software
were patented (instead of copyrighted), both sides could be served equally:
- The creator (or creating firm) would receive an exclusive
license for the initial production of the product (software).
This would ensure that the creator(s) received compensation
for their efforts.
- After a certain period of time (10 years? 20?), the product
would lapse into the public domain; it could then be redis-
tributed freely.
As an alternative, previous versions of a particular package could lapse
into the public domain upon the release of a newer version. For instance,
SnarkleFlex 1.0 would become PD upon the release of SnarkleFlex 2.0. If
I've done a good job on SnarkleFlex 2.0, people will prefer it to version
1.0; they'll buy the new version, I'll realize my profit, and other people
can treat version 1.0 as PD. In fact, casting SnarkleFlex 1.0 into the
public domain may actually CREATE new customers for version 2.0; after
using the old version, they may decide to buy the new version!
(Of course, I could also save money by dropping support for any versions
that pass into PD status. Many companies drop support for older versions
on a regular basis; for example, I don't think you can get support for
SuperCalc 3 at this time)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:00:00 EDT
From: Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@HPLJAJ.HPL.HP.COM>
Subject: File 4--PD-related IFAC symposium, 9/23, Madison
-+++++- Forwarded Message
Date--Fri, 28 Feb 92 15:00:51 PST
From--mad@mambo.Stanford.EDU (Marcia A. Derr)
Subject--PD-related IFAC symposium
The International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC) is holding
symposium on Automated Systems Based on Human Skill (and
Intelligence), September 23-25, 1992 in Madison, Wisconsin. According
to the symposium announcement, %%the objective of the symposium is to
bring together engineers, system designers, and end users, to bring
about a closer integration between users, who often possess specific
skills and designers who often seek designs to replace rather than
enhance skills.''
The symposium will address such topics as
- aspects of skill-based manufacturing,
- human work design criteria,
- design of better systems,
- valuation of alternative work structures and organizations, and
- participation of people involved.
For more information, contact
Prof. Frank Emspak
School for Workers
UWEX
610 Langdon Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
USA
Phone: 608-262-2111
FAX: 608-265-2391
------- End of Forwarded Message
(Contributor Note:: There is a file on the CPSR archive server called
IFAC CALL4PAP which can be retrieved by submitting the command GET
IFAC CALL4PAP to the address LISTSERV@GWUVM.GWU.EDU, in the text of
electronic mail. -peh)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 13:47:52 EDT
From: Rita Marie Rouvalis <rita@EFF.ORG>
Subject: File 5--Cliff Figallo Online (From EFFector Online, # 3.04)
FIGALLO ONLINE AT EFF.ORG
Cliff Figallo became the new director of EFF-Cambridge at the
beginning of the month. Former director of The Whole Earth 'Lectronic
Link (the EFF's birthplace), Fig is charged with developing and
coordinating the Cambridge office's outreach activities, increasing
active EFF membership, and expanding overall awareness of the EFF's
programs in the computer-conferencing community and the world at
large.
Commenting on his new task, Figallo said, "EFF came upon the online
scene a couple years ago with a big splash. I'd like for us to
continue splashing. EFF is uniquely engaged in many useful and
important activities in the areas of online civil liberties, sane
lawmaking and advocacy of improved electronic highways for the future.
I want news of these activities to get out to the people for whom we
are making a difference. I also want us to develop better channels
for these same people to communicate their wants and needs to those of
us with access to the legal, informational and technical resources.
Our purpose is to serve those wants and needs for the betterment of
the world.
"More specifically, I will encourage people to become members of
EFF by demonstrating to them the value of a membership. One should
expect noticeable benefits from paying membership dues and I intend to
make it plain that those benefits exist and will only increase as more
people become involved in telecommunications. I will also be working
with regional groups who may be interested in forming local EFF
chapters so that we can learn together how such affiliations can
enhance our mutual effectiveness.
"I'm excited about working here. I believe in what EFF is all
about."
Cliff can be reached as fig@eff.org.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 13:47:52 EDT
From: Rita Marie Rouvalis <rita@EFF.ORG>
Subject: File 6--Bill Clinton on Electronic Technology (From EFFector 3.04)
STATEMENT OF BILL CLINTON FOR THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL
AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERS (IEEE)
Bill Clinton for President Committee * 1317 F Street, NW, Suite 902 *
Washington DC 20004 Telephone 202-393-3323 FAX 202-393-3329
e-mail correspondence@dc.Clinton-Gore.org
"We face a fundamental economic challenge today: to create a
high-wage, high-growth national economy that will carry America into
the 21st century. We need a long-term national strategy to meet this
challenge and win.
"Our productivity and income have been growing so slowly because
we've stopped investing in the economic infrastructure that binds our
markets and businesses together, in the education and training
necessary to give our workers world-class skills, and in the research
and development that can restore America to the cutting edge of the
world economy. As a nation, we're spending more on the present and
the past and building less for the future. We need a President who
will turn the country around and refocus on the long view. As
President, I will divide the budget into three parts, creating a
separate 'future budget' for the federal government to make
investments that will enrich our country over the long term. Today
the federal government spends only 9 per cent of the budget on
investments for the future; a Clinton Administration will double that.
We will pay for it by diverting resources no longer needed for
defense, but we will ensure that every dollar we take out of military
R&D goes into R&D for civilian technologies until civilian R&D can
match and eventually surpass our Cold War military R&D commitment.
"As President, I will create an investment tax credit and a new
enterprise tax cut that rewards those who invest in new businesses
that create new jobs. I will also make the research and development
tax credit permanent.
"My administration will create a civilian research and development
agency to support research in the technologies that scientists have
already identified as the basis for launching new growth industries
and revitalizing traditional ones over the next two decades. This
civilian DARPA will coordinate R&D to help companies develop
innovative technologies and bring new products to market. And without
inhibiting the competition that drives innovation, we will encourage
and promote collaborative efforts among firms and with research
institutes for commercial development just as we have done with
defense technologies for 40 years.
"A Clinton Administration will create a high-speed rail network
between out nation's major cities. And in the new economy,
infrastructure means information as well as transportation. More than
half the U.S. workforce is employed in information-intensive
industries, yet we have no national strategy to create a national
information network. Just as the interstate highway system in the
1950s spurred two decades of economic growth, we need a door-to-door
fiber optics system by the year 2015; a link to every home, lab,
classroom and business in America.
"For small defense manufacturers hit by cuts in defense spending,
the Small Business Administration will provide small conversion loans
to help finance their transition, and launch a Technology Assistance
Service -- modeled on the Agricultural Extension Service -- to provide
easy access to the technical expertise it takes to convert to
commercial production.
"To enjoy the full benefit of these investments, we must do
everything possible to open up markets now closed to American
products. My administration will provide the leadership for Japan and
the European countries to join us in coordinating our macroeconomic
policies and in reaching multilateral trade negotiations. But we will
also provide the muscle to open up Japan's markets to competitive U.S.
products using a stronger and more carefully targeted "Super 301"
approach. We favor a free and open trading system, but if our
competitors won't play by those rules, we will play by theirs.
"All the investments in the world won't mean much if our workers
don't have the education or the skills to take advantage of the
opportunities they create. My administration will fully fund Head
Start, increase funding for Chapter 1, and provide seed money for
innovative education projects. However, we will also raise standards
by establishing a national testing system in elementary and secondary
schools and instituting report cards for ever state, school district,
and school in the nation, to measure their progress. We will also
create a nationwide apprenticeship program for those young people who
choose not to go to college, and a national trust fund for college
loans for those who do. These loans will be repaid either as a small
percentage of income over time or with a couple of years of national
service.
"With the strategy I have outlined, we can restore the American
Dream by enabling every citizen and every business to become more
productive, and in so doing, restore our nation to the front lines of
high technology.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 18:59:51 CDT
From: Jim Thomas <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu>
Subject: File 7--Call for Cu-Related Papers for MSS
Jim Thomas is organizing a session at the Midwest Sociological
Meetings (April 7-10, '93) on "NEW INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES AND
CRIME."
The topic is broad, and includes computer deviance (hacking, viruses,
computer crime, copyright, etc....); Methodological, ethical, legal,
and other issues related to researching the topic; Law enforcement
uses of new technology; New definitions and types of crime shaped by
the "techno-revolution" in computers and telecommunications; and uses
of technology to commit crimes or avoid detection.
Empirical papers from a qualitative perspective are preferred.
The deadine for paper titles and short (50-150 word abstract) is
OCTOBER 15, 1992
Send them to: Jim Thomas
Sociology
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL (60115
(voice: 815-756-3839 ; fax: 815-753-6302)
Or: tk0jut1@niu.bitnet / tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu /jthomas@well.sf.ca.us
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #4.43
************************************

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink