Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ogccse!blake!mcglk
From: mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Soviet Access to Usenet
Summary: *Excuse* me?
Keywords: Espionage arpanet
Message-ID: <252@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 88 23:38:03 GMT
References: <8081@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <2672@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <3990@charon.unm.edu>
Reply-To: mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen)
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Lines: 44

In article <3990@charon.unm.edu> cs4571ao@ariel.unm.edu.UUCP writes:
+----------
| I do _not_ think Soviet access to Usenet is needed or justifiable.  As
| someone else here pointed out, we do not need any more KGB access to 
| this or any other net.  It simply makes their intelligence gathering
| that much easier.  While it is true that classified systems are not
| connected to any network, the system is cross connected to Arpanet, and
| access to this net is effectively access to Arpanet.  Not good.
+----------

Oh, this *is* rich.  What in the universe makes you think that Soviet
intelligence agencies don't already have access to USENET, *or* the
ARPANET?  Good grief--planting agents in the US is ridiculously easy,
me boyo.  Even better:  plant an agent, and send him to a university--
boom, all the network access one could want.

Opening up direct links to the Soviet Union is *not* going to increase
this danger.  Take my word for it.

+----------
| BTW to the original poster--the reason modems are a precious commodity
| in the USSR is that the government considers many forms of information
| to be secrets to be carefully guarded from the general public.  
| Modems transmit information too quickly to be managed or tracked, and
| they are entrusted only to those who are deemed trustworthy.
+----------

Well, this is only slightly more realistic.  Almost all international
phone calls to and from the Soviet Union are screened (I understand),
and there's no reason why the screening can't include tapes of modem
transmissions for later decoding.

This kind of paranoia is unwarranted.  We are in far less danger from
a scientific consortium in the Soviet Union than we are with an unknown
number of agents in sensitive positions in the armed services.

Besides, we might even get a decent exchange of ideas going back and
forth.  You never know--it could lead to a greater sense of peace.

Of course, on the other hand, it might create massive ideological wars
in certain groups.  Ick.

				--Ken McGlothlen
				  mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu