Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@athos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Usenet access: this "fascism" nonsense Message-ID: Date: 18 Mar 88 03:00:32 GMT References: <1288@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> <511@fig.bbn.com> Distribution: na Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 60 In article <511@fig.bbn.com>, rsalz@bbn.com.UUCP writes: > [ I took misc.headlines and talk.politics.misc out of the newsgroups line. ] As you like, but it is unclear that news admins have any better understanding (or interest) of the nature of human rights than do the people in those groups. > Max Hauser writes: > = Have computer hackers so lost touch with reality that, not content to > = stipulate Usenet access as a job precondition (!), they now regard it > = as a "right," and its denial as "censorship" or as impairment of "free > = speech"? > > And, in an effort to prove that he is either unaware of the fundamental > documents of the US,* or to prove that Max is write, Bob Webber writes: > >There is no more or less a ``right to Usenet Access'' than there is a > >right to ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' I will admit that I have lost touch with Max's reality -- it is not a connection I miss much. Computer technology in general has caused many people to have to re-evaluate the way they view things. In addition to the problems raw technology raises, there is also the problem caused by the fact that Usenet is essentially a ``cooperative venture'' with no defining document nor central controls. As a service from Star Wars (oops, I meant Star Gate), it starts to take on aspects of a classic commercial venture which most people in industry have established models for dealing with. However, as it is, with its roots in bygone days of academia, it requires a rather large amount of original thinking to come up with any position on how things such as ``access rights'' should be interpreted and it is not at all surprising that the number of opinions is the square of the number of people (i.e., not only does X have a different opinion when talking with Y than when talking with Z, but X has a different opinion when Y is talking with X than with X is talking with Y), which is rather large even if you don't believe the arbitron stats. > >I can't see why. So far, your postings have indicated no potential for > >value that would merit access to a Sun 4. I can offer an account on > >an Apple IIc, though if you would like. ... > It is apparently OK if Webber decides who is worthy of using his > resources, but not other sysadmins. The hypocrisy bothers me. Well, your selective quoting bothers me. Recall I also mentioned that he already had disk space on the local machines by virtue of having posted a news message. Needless to say, the same action also consumed cpu time, so for all practical purposes he also has an account. In any event, the arguement rests not so much on whether or not a person should be allowed access to a system as to whether or not a person who is allowed access to a system that connects to Usenet should be given access to Usenet as part of the ``payment'' of that system for what it gets from access to Usenet. > However, Webber does close out his screed with a very trenchant > observation, and proves that he can occasionally turn a nice phrase. It > is unrelated to main topic, but I feel it bears repeating: > > >... but now that discussion > >among humans is being drowned out by micro-computer binaries, one > >wonders how long it will last. Glad you liked it. ------ BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)