Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: net.general Subject: Censorship: A Case History (part 5, 6 Mar 84 to 2 Apr 84) Message-ID: <7190@unc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-May-84 22:37:36 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.7190 Posted: Mon May 7 22:37:36 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 9-May-84 01:24:25 EDT Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 387 From tim Tue Mar 6 11:58:53 1984 To: brooks Subject: Compromise proposal Just a reminder that my compromise proposal is awaiting action at your earliest convenience. Tim Maroney From brooks Mon Mar 12 11:37:50 1984 Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA22823; Mon, 12 Mar 84 11:37:36 est Date: Mon, 12 Mar 84 11:37:36 est From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. Message-Id: <8403121637.AA22823@unc> To: tim Subject: Re: compromise proposal Status: RO Well, I'm now back and at work on the backlog. I was gone last week. From tim Fri Mar 16 17:23:39 1984 To: brooks Subject: reminder Status: R My compromise proposal is still awaiting action. When I originally sent it, you said that you would respond after returning from California. If I recall correctly, that was some weeks ago. I must insist on a response no later than next Wednesday, the 21st of March. The end of the semester is approaching. Tim Maroney From brooks Sat Mar 17 17:41:36 1984 Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA11791; Sat, 17 Mar 84 17:41:30 est Date: Sat, 17 Mar 84 17:41:30 est From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. Message-Id: <8403172241.AA11791@unc> To: tim Subject: Re: reminder Status: R I refuse to have you schedule my work or set my priorities. Your proposesal needs to be discussed by our faculty, which had more pressing business at its meeting on Friday, and which did not meet over the break. Since you insist on a response by Wednesday next, a response you shall have: No. From tim Sat Mar 17 18:26:52 1984 To: brooks Subject: compromise proposal I did not perceive it as an unreasonable request. I put a good deal of work into the compromise proposal; I am disappointed that you did not appreciate that effort. It was a gesture of good faith that I went to the trouble of writing it on my own time. Please try to put yourself in my place. I have been denied a privilege permitted to all other staff members, and I have had to go to a great deal of trouble to find the reasons why, or even the exact nature of the restriction. Perhaps I should have trusted that something was being done; but if I had acted on that basis from the start, I would not now know any of the reasons for the restriction, and no action whatsoever would have been taken. My apprehension when no action appeared to be being taken is, I think, readily understandable given the history of the affair. I apologize for trying to impose a deadline on you; I realize that you are a busy man. I hope that you will not allow this small slip to terminate consideration of this matter. I would feel much more comfortable if there were some date by which I could expect consideration to be given my proposal. Tim Maroney From howell Sun Mar 18 17:07:42 1984 Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA16730; Sun, 18 Mar 84 17:03:54 est Date: Sun, 18 Mar 84 17:03:54 est From: William Howell Message-Id: <8403182203.AA16730@unc> To: mason Subject: FYI Status: RO This was on the network today, I don't know what the final agreement was with Tim but this does not appear to be directly related to his work... ---- Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Improving C Message-ID: <6931@unc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Mar-84 14:29:39 EST Article-I.D.: unc.6931 Posted: Sat Mar 17 14:29:39 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Mar-84 14:29:39 EST References: <44@utastro.UUCP> Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 14 I disagree that it is a mistake to remove array bounds checking and such after debugging is complete. If you have run a program on general test data (including anomalous data) and never gotten the error, then you may fairly safely assume that the error will not happen on any input data. It would be a mistake to sacrifice run-time efficiency for a check on an impossible (or at least VERY improbable) error. Of course, you'd better make sure that your test data really is "general". -- Tim Maroney, The Censored Hacker mcnc!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA) All opinions expressed herein are completely my own, so don't go assuming that anyone else at UNC feels the same way. From tat Mon Mar 19 13:48:56 1984 Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA20836; Mon, 19 Mar 84 13:48:39 est Date: Mon, 19 Mar 84 13:48:39 est From: Teresa Thomas Message-Id: <8403191848.AA20836@unc> To: mason Subject: Tim Maroney Cc: stanat Status: RO The following is a news article that appeared on the net. I seriously doubt bch's implication that the material by Maroney came to bch as a private communication which Tim wrote for bch. It seems that this material was written by Tim for the network, and that bch agreed to submit it under the thinly veiled guise of "private correspondence from Tim Maroney, used with his permission." I believe this is an ethical violation of the restriction placed on him as part of his participation in the department as an RA. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: unc!bch From: bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) Newsgroups: net.general,net.news,net.legal Subject: Theft of Copyrighted Material Message-ID: <6915@unc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Mar-84 20:44:46 EST Article-I.D.: unc.6915 Posted: Wed Mar 14 20:44:46 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Mar-84 20:44:46 EST Organization: University of North Carolina Comp. Center Lines: 49 The following is personal correspondence posted, with permission, to the net. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another net participant has committed the crime of illegal reproduction of copyrighted material, in this case a set of lyrics to a satirical popular song. By doing so, he made himself and his site liable to severe penalties, both criminal and civil, and showed a complete lack of respect for the owner of the copyright. We have been over this many times before, but these thieves continue to operate. They are seemingly unaware that copyrighted material is property, and that the owner of the copyright makes his or her living from restricted reproduction of the copyrighted material. Thus, the real irony of the situation: although one would expect that the offending poster would have respect for the person owning the work that the offender decided to "share" (one assumes that the offender liked the work), he is stealing from the owner. It is as if one liked a painting hanging in a museum so much that he removed it without permission and showed it to all and sundry while praising the museum. It is perfectly legal to reproduce short extracts of a copyrighted work for critical purposes, but reproduction in whole is strictly and explicitly forbidden. Otherwise, there would be no way for the artist to make money, and there would thus be less motive for people to go to the trouble of making their art available at all. The crime of theft is as serious in this context as any other, even though you may not have to pick locks, mask your face, or conceal merchandise. I suggest that this warning be placed in the USENET etiquette article. Tim Maroney, The Censored Hacker ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As one who is in the business of writing potentially saleable software I concur completely with Tim and perhaps feel more strongly about it than he. I dare say that if I found software I had written for profit being distributed for free to the world at large, I would have the offending parties in court in a heartbeat. -- "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill ({decvax,akgua}!mcnc!unc!bch) From brooks Fri Mar 23 18:16:18 1984 Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA10771; Fri, 23 Mar 84 18:00:10 est Date: Fri, 23 Mar 84 18:00:10 est From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. Message-Id: <8403232300.AA10771@unc> To: tim Subject: Re: compromise proposal Cc: fpb Status: R We considered your proposal today. As a matter of fact, I was just ready to say "yes", this afternoon, when I heard (unproved) allegations that 1. You had violated the ban outright. and 2. You were using Byron Howes as a front to send your net views out, via "private correspondence" which he then quotes. I read that for myself. If it were not in fact a front, it would not be signed as it was, for you were certainly not censored with respect to private correspondence to Byron. This seems to me to be flagrant disobedience. Is the first allegation true? Have you anything to be said to the second? [[Note from Tim -- I really cannot let this one go by -- please check the actual dates that he was informed, in the letters above... I hope you all are paying attention, because I have not gone out of my way to point out all the lies and distortions in this correspondence. 7 May 84]] From tim Sat Mar 24 16:43:29 1984 To: brooks Subject: Re: compromise proposal Status: R Re point 1: That is not correct. I have posted articles to technical groups (net.unix and net.lang.c) on matters of interest to me as a C and UNIX programmer; it was my understanding that such postings were allowed. If this is incorrect, I apologize. None of the articles were even remotely abusive, by the way. I suggest that your report comes from someone who thought the ban was absolute, not on non-job-related postings only. Re point 2: I was in the habit from before the ban of signing my mail with a fixed signature file. Usually I do not sign local mail at all, but sometimes I do. Since I used the editor for the letter to Byron, I probably did it automatically and without thinking, via my emacs function "sign-it" which interpolates the signature file. Tim Maroney From brooks Fri Mar 23 20:31:24 1984 Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA16098; Fri, 23 Mar 84 20:31:12 est Date: Fri, 23 Mar 84 20:31:12 est From: Frederick P. Brooks Jr. Message-Id: <8403240131.AA16098@unc> To: bch Subject: Guest privileges on Unix Cc: howell, mason Status: RO As I recall, you have been given a Unix log in as neither student nor staff, but guest. I today saw a net submission by you on behalf of tim. The text proved that the item was not a communication intended for you by tim, but one intended for posting. The signature, your censored friend, confirmed that. You conspired with tim to evade my direct order to him as a staff member to do no more network postings. This is a gross abuse of your guest privileges. You have until Monday midnight, March 26, to copy off any files you want preserved. Mr. Howell, please remove Mr. Howes's login and all of his files on Tuesday, March 27. From tim Mon Mar 26 16:50:40 1984 To: brooks howell Subject: news cutback Cc: menges tas Status: R I am curious as to the reasons for cutting the non-technical news groups. I am not implying that there are no reasons; I am just curious as to what they are. I found with two simple commands today that news groups with the "net." prefix use only 9219K of 29631K available on /usr/spool, and that /usr/spool is less than 50% full in any case. In other words, disk space does not seem to be a problem with respect to news. I am also curious about the motivation for cutting games. Only 1393K is used by games programs, and games are rigged so that it is impossible to play them when the system load is high. Thus, their cost is nearly nil, as Dr. Brooks explained to me when we met to discuss my USENET restrictions. Tim Maroney From tim Mon Mar 26 20:30:21 1984 To: brooks Subject: Consideration of compromise I am curious as to the antecedent of "we" in your latest letter. From your letter before that, I had assumed that you meant "the faculty", but I now have found out that the matter was not discussed by the faculty. Would you mind telling me who "We considered your proposal" refers to? Thank you. Tim Maroney From smb@ulysses Fri Mar 30 15:54:28 1984 Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA10510; Fri, 30 Mar 84 15:54:11 est Received: by ulysses.UUCP (4.12/4.7) id AA18352; Fri, 30 Mar 84 15:42:39 est Date: Fri, 30 Mar 84 15:42:39 est From: smb@ulysses (Steven Bellovin) Message-Id: <8403302042.AA18352@ulysses.UUCP> To: ecsvax!bch@mcnc, bts@unc, tim@unc Subject: another one bites the dust... Status: R Do you think it's contagious? ----------- Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site iwlc6.UUCP Path: ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo From: amigo@iwlc6.UUCP (John Hobson) Newsgroups: net.net-people Subject: Hobson withdrawing from the net Message-ID: <115@iwlc6.UUCP> Date: Thu, 29-Mar-84 12:02:05 EST Article-I.D.: iwlc6.115 Posted: Thu Mar 29 12:02:05 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Mar-84 12:46:04 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 5 This is to inform you all that I have been to9ld by my supervision that all of my netnews priviledges are henceforth removed. This is the last article I will be submitting. Good by. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL From bts Mon Apr 2 17:17:34 1984 Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA23272; Mon, 2 Apr 84 17:17:07 est Date: Mon, 2 Apr 84 17:17:07 est From: Bruce Smith Message-Id: <8404022217.AA23272@unc> To: bch@ecsvax, smb@ulysses, tim Subject: Hobson Status: R From ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo@mcnc Mon Apr 2 14:12:24 1984 Received: by unc (4.12/4.7) id AA16126; Mon, 2 Apr 84 14:12:09 est Date: 2 Apr 84 08:41:12 CST (Mon) Message-Id: <8404021441.AA04455@ihnp4.ATT.UUCP> Received: by ihnp4.ATT.UUCP; id AA04455; 2 Apr 84 08:41:12 CST (Mon) To: houxa!dman@houxm, decvax!bbncca!sdyer@ihnp4, decvax!mcnc!unc!bts@ihnp4 From: iwlc6!hobs@ihnp4 Status: RO First of all, I must say that I am slightly overwhelmed (and gratified) by all the people who expressed sorrow or consternation at my leaving the net. Secondly, it was something strictly between my immediate supervisor and me. There is no Bell Labs censorship or anything like that. I was letting the net get in the way of my work (spending several hours of working time daily reading it and writing to it) and I had gotten behind in my work assignments. Thirdly, when I get caught up, I will start contributing again, although on a considerably reduced scale. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo P.S. I will be sending this out to the net (in net.net-people).