Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!afit-ab!wbralick
From: wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: USSR International Computer Club (was: Information on the ICC)
Message-ID: <832@afit-ab.arpa>
Date: 20 Jan 89 18:12:12 GMT
References: <10127@well.UUCP> <1315@orion.cf.uci.edu> <810@afit-ab.arpa> <10870@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> <824@afit-ab.arpa> <1560@cps3xx.UUCP> <825@afit-ab.arpa> <1568@cps3xx.UUCP>
Reply-To: wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick)
Distribution: na
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology; WPAFB, OH
Lines: 111

In article <1568@cps3xx.UUCP> rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) writes:
>In article <825@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes:
>
>>In article <1560@cps3xx.UUCP> rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) writes:
>>>In article <824@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes:
>>>  [trying to trim some of this stuff out ...]
>> Which one?
>
>  "Anything that can be done ... is a good thing."  And please note
>that just because I disagree with that doesn't mean I don't abide by
>the U.S. laws which govern it.  There are legal ways of working to
>change U.S.  policies (writing to congressmen, for example).

Resources not expended on procuring software will be spent on procuring
tanks, helicopters, conventional and nuclear ammunition, etc.  The more
resources they have to spend to acquire non-lethal, but necessary 
impedimentia, the fewer resources they will have to spend on the lethal
stuff, or they will have to extract the additional resources from their
civilian standard of living.  This should increase civilian unease, 
lowering productivity, and having the same net result.  US defense 
spending is based on the perceived (lethal) threat of hostile
foreign military forces.  To the extent that Soviet defense spending
is subsidized by cost-free acquisition of defense-related technology,
the subsidy is granted by the American taxpayer.

>
> [again trimming...]
>
>
>  I didn't say "not the individual", I said "not the net".  If the net
>is viewed as a collection of posters, your point makes sense--I was
>probably unclear on this.  But if it's viewed as a collection of
>sites, which may post messages and/or provide services such as message
>forwarding, I stand by my contention that it isn't the net's job.

Yes, I was viewing the net as a collection of individuals.  Viewed
as a collection of sites, then, the more secure system is one which is
not directly connected to Warsaw Pact sites.

>
> [trimming again ...]
>
>  No, I don't.  What I'm trying to say (and not doing very well, I
>guess) is that there are two responsibilities:
>
>  1.  An individual U.S. citizen has the responsibility to abide by
>      U.S. law, including not exporting sensitive data.

Agreed.

>
>  2.  The government has the responsibility to enforce its laws.
>

Agreed.  In particular, the government is responsible to (all) its
*citizens* to not only enforce the laws, but to keep the nation safe
from foreign agressors.  The government is also responsible to spend 
its revenue (taxes) wisely.  If all taxpayers have to pay more for
defense or receive less in services to fund increased defense spending
so that a few "well-connected" individuals can enjoy direct contact
with the Soviet Union, then the issue is political and not restricted
to the net.

>  If an individual deliberately breaks the law, it's the government's
>problem to enforce it (and/or punish the individual responsible).
>
> [trimming]
>
>  We have agreements to prevent transfers of sensitive data; do we
>also have ones which cover public information channels?  (I don't
>know, I'm by no means an expert in this kind of thing.)
>

I am rather out of my area of expertise, also.  It seems to me that
whether you broadcast sensitive data (or in this case actually broadcast
the technology itself) or deliver it, you are still on rather shaky
ground.  I am no lawyer, though.

>> [trimming ...]
>
>  I don't think it would be possible for the government to veto the
>whole notion.  They could deny federal funding to sites which carry
>the group; this would be a little heavy-handed, though (in my
>opinion).

I do think that the government could veto the whole thing.  At least
any direct connection to the Soviet Union from U.S. territory.  Try
to buy a commercial airline ticket to Cuba from the U.S., I don't 
think this is possible, you have to travel through some other nation 
first (yes, even the Soviet Union).  This is not to say that a direct
electronic connection is the same as buying airplane tickets, just
that the government has the authority to restrict direct electronic
connections.


>  Maybe the solution is to create two new USENET nodes: 'east' and
>'west', say, with 'West' being a U.S. government site and 'East' being
>a U.S.S.R. government site.  That way the only link could be between
>the 'east' and 'west' machines, and both sides could impose their
>censorship/monitoring on it openly (obviously if a connection is ever
>created it will be monitored closely by both sides).

It is clear that the 'east' side is going to be strictly a USSR gov't
(or at least CPSU) site anyway.  It wouldn't be evident to the net.  
Actually, there is such a connection, it is called the hot line,
and every four years we get to pick the individual who gets to use
it.  Seriously, though, until the US and USSR move away from their
mutually adversarial roles, we have much more to lose than gain by
this type of connection.

Regards,