Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!agate!bionet!apple!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!aero!elroy!jato!mahendo!wlbr!hacgate!gsgpyr!devnet4!jrich
From: jrich@devnet4.hac.com (john richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: I'm pro Russian
Summary: It seems to depend on your view of Soviet intentions
Keywords: Soviet, UUCP network
Message-ID: <115@gsgpyr.hac.com>
Date: 8 Dec 88 15:47:25 GMT
References: <192@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> <2326@cbnews.ATT.COM> <7961@dasys1.UUCP> <2338@cbnews.ATT.COM> <758@quintus.UUCP>
Sender: news@gsgpyr.hac.com
Reply-To: jrich@devnet4.UUCP (john richardson)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Company, Group Systems Group, Fullerton, Ca.
Lines: 54
Followup-To:<758@quintus.UUCP> <7961@dasys1.UUCP>


In article <7961@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:

> Hah!  As fragile as this link is likely to be, if you think some CS prof
> in Kiev is going to jeopardize his access by getting into political
> arguments with decadent Westerners you have another think coming.
> In fact, just to keep temptation at a minimum, I would hope that
> Ambassador Crunch would not gateway t.p.s or similar powderkeg groups.

I don't think any kind of censorship on our side,
whatever the intentions, would be a good idea.
For those that are worried about the disruptive influence
of these "powderkeg groups", I'm sure the KGB would be
capable of restricting access to them.
For those that hope USENET might become
a disruptive influence, you are probably going to be disappointed.

> What about the possibility of information flowing the other way?
> I think it would be useful to have some of the sci.* groups coming
> from the SU.  And would the CIA obtain no benefit from knowing the
> names of individuals who are that interested in the West?

I'm sure all access to USENET would be controlled by the KGB anyway,
and probably limited to approved individuals,
and screened for appropriate content.
I discount the possibility of a massive disinformation
blitz, but it does exist.

In article <222@taniwha.UUCP>, michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes:

> Could you bring yourself to believe that they might have changed in the
> last twenty years?

I suspect some people said the same thing
in the sixties, vis a vis the 1930's.
Once bitten, twice shy.
We would want to recognize a true change, but
it will take time to accept that all the current noise
is not some Potemkin-type PR campaign.

In article <2355@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:

> When the Soviet Union allows free immigration to all citizens then I will
> believe they have *fundamentally* changed.  Until then, it is a prison,
> and only a prison.

A good criteria for recognizing a true change,
as this would indeed require a fundamental change in Soviet attitudes.
Congress, however, would probably respond by limiting Soviet emigration.

John Richardson
jrich@devnet4.hac.com
All opinions are certainly my own,
and are expressed entirely as an individual.