From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:2249 comp.software-eng:1355 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:6719 comp.protocols.misc:543 comp.protocols.nfs:151 comp.dcom.lans:2651
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!husc6!purdue!rjh
From: rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.software-eng,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.misc,comp.protocols.nfs,comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Subliminal
Keywords: RFC 1097
Message-ID: <6462@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 8 Apr 89 03:14:47 GMT
Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU
Followup-To: comp.lang.ada
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


[This is a comment on RFC 1097, which provides a standard for sending 
and receiving subliminal messages across the internet.  Since newsgroups
are a potential victim of subliminal messages, I'm cross-posting this
article.]

I sincerely hope RFC 1097 is a joke, subliminal suggestion is a devious and
underhanded way to influence people into taking actions or adopt ideas
without their consent.  People should be afraid to look at terminals if
there is a possibility subliminal messages are being sent.  Why isn't this
practice illegal?  I vote for a complete banning of subliminal messages from
any electronic medium and propose for now a banning of subliminal messages
across the Internet.  Subliminal messages are a dangerous threat to our
security and the integrity of the Internet.

>From rfc 1097:
>
>4.  Motivation for the option
>
>   Frequently the use of "Message of the day" banners and newsletters is
>   insufficient to convince stubborn users to upgrade to the latest
>   version of telnet.  Some users will use the same outdated version for
>   years.  I ran across this problem trying to convince people to use
>   the REMOTE-FLOW-CONTROL Telnet option.  These users need to be gently
>   "persuaded".
>

Persuading users without their consent?  Do we really want system 
administrators and programmers to secretly influence us to use their 
latest fad software or worse?  This is absurd.

>   1.  Server suggests and client agrees to use SUBLIMINAL-MESSAGE.
>
>      (Server sends) IAC DO SUBLIMINAL-MESSAGE
>      (Client sends) IAC WILL SUBLIMINAL-MESSAGE
>      (Server sends) IAC SB SUBLIMINAL-MESSAGE 0 5 0 20 "Use VMS" IAC SE
>
>         [The server is "suggesting that the user employ a stable
>         operating system, not an unreasonable request...]

VMS is a proprietary operating system, this tactic should not be used.  Any
software producer could subliminally suggest we use their software.  This 
is an unconscionable and underhanded means of influencing people and
selling products.

In my opinion, subliminal messages are a direct, unconscionable, and
flagrant violation of our civil rights and should be banned immediately.

So, 
	1. I am preparing another RFC to ban subliminal messages 
	   from passage across the Internet.  I wouldn't give 
	   subliminal messages the respectability of an RFC,
	   and think we should replace the existing RFC 1097 by
	   a new RFC banning the practice, not just obsolete RFC 1097.
	   I believe this is necessary to maintain the respectability of
	   the Internet.

	2. How did this RFC ever get adopted?  If this adoption practice 
	   is carried out in private, I vote RFC's should be posted for 
	   public discussion first, perhaps in comp.protocols.tcp-ip.

Bob Hathaway
rjh@purdue.edu

Seen in a .signature recently:

	The price of freedom is eternal digilence.