Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!oliveb!pyramid!octopus!pete
From: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Malicious posting worries (was re: A counter-example...)
Summary: This is turning into a rehash of long-debated issues
Message-ID: <274@octopus.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jul 88 05:26:44 GMT
References: <266@octopus.UUCP> <3331@s.cc.purdue.edu> <272@octopus.UUCP> <3333@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann)
Organization: Octopus Enterprises, Cupertino CA
Lines: 65

In article <3333@s.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>I wrote:
>>There is always a functionality/risk tradeoff.
>Actually, I have understood this all along, since the days when I first
>started using Usenet in 1980.

Good. Then you'll understand that when I see great value in a binary posting,
and am willing to risk trying it out... well, that is my decision to make!

>>Functionality/risk tradeoffs are in the eyes of the beholder. Please put
>>yourself in the other guy's sandals before assuming that the functionality/
>>risk tradeoffs he lives with are intolerable.
>What possible reason could you have for assuming that I would not do so?

By tradition, we of the net attempt to go along with the overall anarchy,
only applying our personal biases to the system(s) under our own control.
Obviously, we espouse our point of view with other admins on the net as
well. You've been forcefully arguing for removal of binaries from the net,
mostly because the functionality/risk tradeoff doesn't look so hot to you.
In all honesty, I believe you can only say that because you have never been
in a position to see all the positive benefits of binary availability on
the net. That is why it appears to me that you haven't looked at the other
point of view in depth.

>I suggest, incidentally, that many of those using the program resources
>of the network, *especially* those using binary programs, are not in a
>position to know whether the risk tradeoffs are intolerable for themselves
>or not, simply because they are not aware of them.

Which is to say, there are many naive net-readers, and it is easier for a
naive person to use a binary than to use source. I agree with this.

>Further, in my most
>recent article, I spoke primarily of the risk to institutions and system
>administrators; this issue has not been addressed in your response.

This issue has been hashed out many times in the past. The net continues to
be at theoretical legal risk for all kinds of real or imagined offenses.
If anyone actually attempts legal recourse for solving any of these problems,
it is likely that a major portion of the net would die. Practically speaking,
most other net-offenses are much more likely to be the cause of such legal
action. Why? Because malicious postings/programs are extremely rare. Even
(or especially!) on this net so full of expert flame-throwers :-)! I've
now been reminded of April Fool's jokes that might be considered malicious,
although they were what I would call pranks, since their effects were
easily undone. None were things that any reasonable person would even 
*consider* filing a lawsuit over. None resulted in even a hint at legal
action. Yet every week it seems we see a threat of legal action because
of some libel/slander/etc due to arguments getting overheated.

It is my opinion [as owner of a half-million dollar company, and S/A to
boot, not that it matters a bit, mind you, especially since I'd hardly
call my operation 'major' :-)] that the risk/benefit factor for binary
postings on the net is far more favorable than for the political/social/
talk/etc groups. They generate much more ill-will between net-readers than
the binary postings ever will. 

I hope I've addressed the issue more directly now!

Pete
-- 
  OOO   __| ___      Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises
 OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
  OOOOO \___/        UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete
___| \_____          Phone: 408/996-7746