Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) October 13, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 32 [Week ending October 13, 1991 The first five notes are about grade and high school connected to the net. In the first two notes Houston Chronicle reporter Joe Abernathy asks how we can keep sexual material out of such schools. He says the library model won't work. He refers to a case in Peoria, Kansas. (There is no Peoria, Kansas. He may be thinking of an (unlitigated?) satellite-TV obscenity case in Florida or Alabama.) <9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com><199110090244.AA14553@eff.org> The next note says that net access and use should be supervised by an instructor.<199110090401.AA17108@eff.org> The fourth notes defends the library model. It says that "[j]ust as a grade or high school does not subscribe to all magazines, it will not subscribe to all newsgroups".<1991Oct8.210210.4733@eff.org> The fifth note says that schools do not need direct access to the Internet to get many of its benefits. The note advocates a more controllable Fidonet-type system.<199110091909.AA12324@eff.org> The next four notes cover a variety of topics. The first note is a comment on the Cleveland Freenet's policy of giving minors access to the so-called adult sections of the BBS only after getting parental permission. The note says the the American Library Association suggests that the default be access to library material, but that parents be allowed to restrict access.<1991Oct9.150014.4570@eff.org> The next note is a report of banned computer material at Penn State<1991Oct9.031615.16024@eff.org>. The third note explains that disclaimer on Netnews notes helps make clear that an individual is speaking for his or herself.<1991Oct7.150934.15231@ms.uky.edu> The fourth note is a revised critique of Ohio State's accusations against Steven Brack. Among the accusations: "You allegedly posted an obscene message on a bulletin board and copied it to several other networks" (i.e. he wrote "Fuck You" in a newsgroup note.). (After the deadline for this issue of CAF-News, Steven Brack reported that he has been suspended for one year from Ohio State University.)<1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org> The last two notes grew out of a discussion about the NSFnet's acceptable use policy. The first note reports that the purpose of a interlibrary loan system (which might be considered analogous to NSFnet) is to obtain library materials for "research and serious study".<1991Oct7.115649.39@sdg.dra.com> The last note says that just as all books are protected by academic freedom, so all newsgroups are protected. That does mean, however, that a university must acquire all books and newsgroups.<1991Oct7.164246.7991@eff.org> - Carl] In this issue: Joe Abernathy 57 So what is the answer? Joe Abernathy 20 > halcyon!ralphs 32 > Carl M. Kadie 33 > Dave Hughes 340 (none) Carl M. Kadie 146 >The Cleveland Free-Net's approach to "adult" materials Carl M. Kadie 21 >Banned Computer Material 1991 Wes Morgan 34 >disclaimers? Carl M. Kadie 197 >The rules that Ohio State<>es that Steven Brack violated sean@sdg.dra.com 35 >Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) Carl M. Kadie 41 >Government restriction of net information Computers and Academic Freedom News Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) Circulation: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org) Publication: Helen C. O'Boyle (helen@eff.org) To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email. For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index". Disclaimer: This CAF-news was compiled by me, Carl M. Kadie. It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial decisions I make are my own. The addresses for the list are: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list or caf-talk@eff.org listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions (send email with the line "help" for details.) caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy) Subject: So what is the answer? Message-ID: <9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com> Sender: edtjda@magic322.chron.com Date: 8 Oct 91 18:29:55 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org Let me pose a question for you. The Texas Education Agency recently granted Internet access to everyone in Texas affiliated with education -- classrooms, teachers, administrators, parents, etc. It took about two days for them to have a "major porno incident" that ended with them shutting down the news feed; and for now, students will not be allowed their own accounts. Obviously, shutting down usenet doesn't bar access to the lively material. In the two years since I started looking, I still haven't found an answer that addresses everyone's concerns on this topic. How does one introduce Internet to children in a socially acceptable, responsible fashion? What's the answer? Free speech is a powerful argument, but please conside the reality that you're preparing an argument for a school board. School boards don't care a whit for free speech if they think it might be a defense for something that has a potentially negative effect on young people. And the oft-touted comparison of Internet to a library also has problems when held up against daylight. No matter what one argues, libraries outside of San Francisco usually do not carry material as explicit as that found in alt.sex.bondage or Modern Primitives, for instance. In test after court test, it has been decided that media which circulate in Peoria, Kansas, have to meet the community standards of Peoria. Or wherever. Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I'm inquiring for the purpose of publication; please specifically state if you do not wish to be quoted. Pornography is not the focus of the article(s); one is a discussion of computer networking in K-12; another is a survey of resources available on Internet for amateur and young scientists. The editor of that magazine had an interesting statement when I called to query the article: "Yes, I'm quite interested in the net, but isn't it full of trash? Sure wouldn't want my kids on there." Please feel free to redistribute this posting. Best Regards, Joe Abernathy edtjda@chron.com Special Projects P.O. Box 4260 The Houston Chronicle Houston, Texas 77210 (800) 735-3820 (713) 526-9711 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the Message-ID: <199110090244.AA14553@eff.org> Sender: kadie Date: 8 Oct 91 18:44:34 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy) Subject: Re: So what is the answer? Message-ID: <9110090045.AA14512@magic322.chron.com> Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com Distribution: eff Date: 9 Oct 91 00:45:56 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org Stev Knowles writes: > We always get back to the pornography, don't we? So solve it for me, Stev. Believe me -- b e l i e v e me -- nobody is more tired of the issue than am I. And please remember that this is nothing more than a sidelight to an article about networking in the public schools. But the issue's not going away. That business of "so don't take those newsgroups" sounds good, if it worked. Of course, it doesn't. I can think of no less than four alternate methods to get to controversial material in the absence of a usenet feed. Shut 'em all down and you've got no net left. Joe From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: FYI: Re: So what is the Message-ID: <199110090401.AA17108@eff.org> Sender: kadie Date: 8 Oct 91 20:01:54 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org From: halcyon!ralphs@sumax.seattleu.edu Subject: Re: So what is the answer? Message-ID: Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com Distribution: eff Date: 9 Oct 91 03:13:54 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org sumax!magic322.chron.com!edtjda (Joe Abernathy) writes: > That business of "so don't take those newsgroups" sounds good, > if it worked. Of course, it doesn't. I can think of no less > than four alternate methods to get to controversial material > in the absence of a usenet feed. Shut 'em all down and you've > got no net left. But in the case of a K-12 environment, the folks who administer the system have the ability (or should) to control what flows in an out of their monitors and keyboards. In this setting, an introduction the myriad of Internet services is quite a treasure in itself, what with White Pages, WAIS, talk, phone, etc., and keeping those resources from the community that might best benefit from them would appear not to be in the best interests of all concerned. The same argument exists for the youth, who in the comfort of the family home, discovers 'questionable' materials on the net. Should not the supervision of this individual be left to the parents, and not to the net in question? Should not, then,the supervision of the school youth using the Internet best be left to the instructor? Perhaps we're attempting to educate the wrong people. I'm sure you are aware that the alt groups are not 'mainstream' Usenet and, in fact, are not carried by the majority of Usenet sites and not even by all of the 'roadways' of the Internet. The analogy of killing the messenger for delivering the message might be drawn, when writing your articles; as you become more aware of what the Internet and all its ramifications is about, the more you should be one of its activists instead of one of its doomsayers. Unfortunately, your reputation has preceeded you, but we are still hopeful... From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: So what is the answer? Message-ID: <1991Oct8.210210.4733@eff.org> References: <9110081829.AA13951@magic322.chron.com> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1991 21:02:10 GMT edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy) writes: >And the oft-touted comparison of Internet to a library >also has problems when held up against daylight. No >matter what one argues, libraries outside of San >Francisco usually do not carry material as explicit >as that found in alt.sex.bondage or Modern Primitives, >for instance. Just as a grade or high school does not subscribe to all magazines, it will not subscribe to all newsgroups. The important question then, is how should a school decide which newsgroups to subscribe to? I believe that newsgroups should be selected using the policy that is used to select library material. The American Library Association's _Workbook for Selection Policy Writing_ says this about selection criteria: "In terms of the subject matter covered, your policy will include criteria, and the application of criteria, relevant to your objectives, excellence (artistic, literary, etc.), appropriateness to level of user, superiority in treatment of controversial issues, and ability to stimulate further intellectual and social development. Consider authenticity, appropriateness, interest, content, and circumstances of use." The Workbook is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org as file pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala. - Carl Kadie -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: FYI: (none) Message-ID: <199110091909.AA12324@eff.org> Sender: kadie Date: 9 Oct 91 11:09:29 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org From: daveh@csn.org (Dave Hughes) Subject: (none) Message-ID: <199110091857.AA27507@teal.csn.org> Sender: com-priv8-forw@psi.com Distribution: eff Date: 9 Oct 91 06:57:46 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org While many on this mail list are spending their time attacking everything about Abernathy from the political-computer-correctness of his knowledge to the way he blinks his cursor, I prefer to address the issue he raises - that of how to cope with juvenile behavior on the Internet. It is a wholly legitimate question and one which I have given more than a few minutes thought to, for a number of years, and in far broader terms than just user 'behavior.' For I can't for the life of me figure out why there is this unquestioned assumption that seems to permeate all the discussions about "K-12 and the Internet" that the only way to serve the K-12 world is to put all the kids directly 'on' the net, as distinct from getting them most all the benefits of use 'through' the net. There is a huge difference. Thus I can partly agree with Tom Grunder's approach to the problem in his suggesting that some classes of users of the Internet be able to get to it only 'through' an interconnected system such as his Cleveland Free Net, which itself can be set up to enable only that which the local supervisors want enabled. But I don't think Tom has gone nearly far enough. For he too is talking about only the case where all users have to be able to rlogin and telnet if the supervisors permit it - i.e. that they are still 'on' the net in a TCP/IP sense. I go much further. I think the only sensible answer to the 'behavior' *and* a host of other problems which 'access to the Internet/NREN' will create is to develop - by progressive hooking-up - a vast 'net of nets' using - or at the very least starting with - the same distributed computing/conferencing model that Usenet has represented - but extended right down through LANS, or Fido-type MSDOS or Mac systems with one or more lines, to the last networked Apple II 'Fredmail' system - or even end-user Point software connections running on a field HP laptop with packet radio. While I am, and will remain the most vigerous, outspoken, and unapologetically activist champion of the proposition that access to any national, publically funded, regulated, or backed, data network be made available at reasonable cost to all citizens of the US, from my pre-school granddaughters to the President of the United States, I am not so open minded or ignorant about the practical problems this will pose that my brains have fallen out. The other problems besides dealing with behavior while anonomyous ftp'ing pornographic GIF files during study hall, using the library computer are (1) the daunting logistical problem of extending true TCP/IP nodes all the way down to every local-dial-code area with a school in it in the US, and (2) the number of dial-in, as well as directly-connected ports that would be required in every school 'community' to support direct student-user connection where the brain I/O rate of the user will not be any 9,600 baud, and thus (3)the practical economics involved in serving 16,000 school *districts* with 40 million students with access to NREN/Internet in a reasonable time frame. My answer has been for a long time 'distributed' conferencing, e-mail, file transfer, which in the work I have done in Montana with Big Sky Telegraph, is proving pretty satisfactory. For of equal importance to solving these problems by technical fixes or vague references to relying on 'personal responsibility' the 'distributed' model is not a static concept, but an ever-changing progressive model - where power (and responsibility) is increased to the users and small system operators progressively as they both learn how to use more powerful features, how to behave while using them, and for administrators, teachers, and network operators how to supervise online social behavior, the same way they had to learn (and not overnight either) how to handle grafitti in the lavatories and the use of school xeroxes to copy porno comic books. And the systems themselves can and will 'progress' from simple dial up systems to complex NSF net powerhouses possible on even the smallest 486 today. Thus when I set up Frank Odasz first Big Sky Telegraph Unix system 5 years ago with both dial in and terminal access, it became connected to 'the nets' first through my system (1,000 miles away, where the cost of calls is cheaper than the 60 miles away to the university city) and Usenet, then through my Old Colo City system to the Internet (Colorado SuperNet) and finally - this year - directly to the Internet. And it *may* go further to be SLIP connected to the Internet. But only as everybody involved - supervisors, sysops, educators, and the 1,500 direct users of the system are ready for it - having had to learn a whole range of technical skills, cultural norms, and behavior patterns from terminal or modem control, CR/LF mapping, through e-mail, file transfer computer-conferencing, mail addressing, *distributed* (new group) conferencing, and mail-listing. And if they use SLIP there will be plenty more to learn before serious use of ftp, rlogin, or telnet can begin. Yet messages, conferences, mail, and files flow in and out of the Internet from Big Sky and its users, and have been for 3 years. That progressive network and 'online community' development pattern took care of the 1,500 direct login users of BST. And beleive you me they are still learning! But those not local to Western Montana College (only maybe 25 users) were either direct long distance dial or 800 number. There was still a major economic problem, which Tom's big-urban area Cleveland model does not address. What about Butte, Montana, with its high school, 60 miles from Dillon where Big Sky Telegraph is, and about the same from Helena, where the closest direct connection to the Internet would be? A T-1 line to Butte? Or even a 9.6 line? The $800 server Tom refers to is only a tiny piece of the cost - the data link to the nearest gateway could cost every two months as much as that server, not to speak of the labor costs of administering it. Prohibitively expensive. (How many K-12 schools in the US are a local-no-toll call to an Internet server?) The answer was setting up a Fidonet, with V32 9,600 baud modem in the Butte High School - which is local to both the school and town, and linking it only once a night with compressed files by Fido protocol, talking to 'Tiny Sky' Fido, across the room from 'Big Sky' and linked to *it* by Ufgate <--> UUCP as often as needed to handle mail, files, and conference/echo/newgroup comments. This was used far less for 'behavior control' reasons that the fundamental economic realities which will face every school not right next to an Internet institution or with a server on their premises. The cost of dial up access. When Dr. Johnston of MIT taught the first 'Chaos Math' course through this net, the cost of the 5 Butte student access to Big Sky Telegraph by direct dial was over $600 a month, but the minute the Fidonet got going, it dropped to under $50. Instead of 5 students dialing into Big Sky Telegraph staying online for 20-30 minutes apiece several times weekly at $22 an hour long distance, they logged into their local machine, which called up nightly at compressed 9,600 baud and transferred their work and accepted the incoming messages in 5 minutes or less at $11 an hour. Of equal importance, the school computer coordinator was able to handle the technical challenge of running an MSDOS Fido system on a school computer - itself hardly trivial for people just getting into this telecom game - where I would have been reluctant to tell him he had to run a TCP/IP server, or unix box for his first network outing. Now that model has worked so well (6 distributed Fidos were emplaced within 6 months) that (1) the State of Montana is equipping over time, all 800 K-12 schools in the state with 9,600 baud V32 modems and (2) the Office of Public Instruction level (dept of ed) is deploying 17 more 'Fidos' themselves across the state by their own staff AFTER we installed a 4 line Remote Access Fido on one of their IBM Model 70s and they learned step by step how to do it. They knew their main frames and minis and I would not have hesitated to put a TCP/IP server at that level. But for all their professional computer background they were no more knowledgable about how to set up and run (culturally as well as technically) a Fido net than the elementary schools were able to set up and run a Unix system. They could just learn faster (though I always have my doubts about such professional-level DP shops being able to handle the BBS 'culture' any better than BBS users use the Internet/Bitnet culture right off.) We also introduced them to 'point' software which permits end-user machines (PC, Mac or about any other flavor) to link to the net (either to Fidos or Usenet/Internet servers) by fast modems without even setting up a BBS. All this has been done not only to tolerate the costs of 'network access' in rural, small town, or metered-call places where the FIRST cost is reaching the server, whatever the NREN/Internet cost is going to be for someone, but ALSO to deal with the unmentioned problem of the number of ports, terminals, modems (and therefore phone lines) required to be ON the server if everyone has direct access to it. Example right here in Colorado Springs, where Colorado SuperNet has a Internet server with both direct connections (such as Cray computer company, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs) and dial up, including SLIP, connections. With at least 75 K-12 schools, 40,000 students and probably 3,000 teacher/adminstrators (not to speak of the 10 or so higher-educational AND community/technical college level institutions AND 'independent researchers, self-learning students NOT in formal educational institutions - a genre which will grow in number immensly in the future) in the local dial area, I have a hard time thinking that the best solution is to have 500 ports on the local server, or even a singular 'community' Cleveland FreeNet. Scale. Scale. Scale. But if you go 'distributed' - and certainly including MSDOS/Mac TCP/IP software right on the end machine - ala that 'ftp' company's products, OR, intermittent SLIP access - both to permit full use of Internet features, and not just UUCP-Fido-Frednet-Point type exchanges, I think you deal with the other end of the economic problem too. For as I watch big institutions with big computers complain about their operating costs per message, and compare it with the $$$ costs of running a multi-port desk top Unix system, multi or single-port networked BBS, I have a hunch there are NOT economies of scale at the 'number of direct ports' and 'number of login users on one machine' level of computing. There certainly are economies of scale in network traffic, but at the point where numbers of 'people' log in to a system? Finally there is the whole question of 'user interface' which keeps being debated in terms that seem to me to imply that the only solution is for some big grant to create some one centralized way of users interfacing with the Internet/NREN, with some singular master point-click, look and feel by all connected systems. I vehemently disagree with that. I believe that decentralized distributed systems, so long as the critical behind-the-crt technical interconnect standards are paid attention to (and I know that the differences between Fidonet and Usenet and Bitnet and Internet, not to speak of Frednet can give plenty of gas pains) that the end user interfaces can and should be just as decentralized. For that also permits, say a teacher in an overcrowded school full of uncontrollable teen agers to enable, disable, functions according to the social norms of that computer classroom, while the one in a Jesuit private school with 6 students schools can be quite different. Not to speak of 'second language' and 'appropriate language' interfaces. I know plenty of teachers of younger children who object to the use of the term 'kill' on a menu, and the double-entendre of 'finger' on a unix machine. The LAST group of people I would turn over the task of writing an interface to the Internet, would be system programmers of TCP/IP. Technical 'functions' may have to be standarized, but let the end users, teachers, sysops, and server-adminstrators select the interface for their local users. One of the reasons Phil Becker's TBBS multi-user MSDOS program is so highly regarded and profitable for e-soft, is that the sysop can put any ascii language, functions, permissions on the screen one wants -without have to code or recompile the code. I was the first BBS outside Aurora to run that software, circa 1982 - and my own system became rather famous partly because I was able to carry out an 'Old Colorado City Main Street - Rogers Bar' consistent metaphor, in ascii text only (before the Mac point click desktop visual metaphor was around). Nobody ever got lost on my system when they saw 'Go ack to Main Street' four menus deep in the system. It was my 'mental picture' of a small town approach to user-unfriendliness of functional computer terms. It is also why we selected the Remote Access version of Fido-capable software (one of 11 versions). Because WE, and then later those whose systems we set up, not the original programmer in hard-code, could create within very wide limits - the 'look and feel' of the interface. (Including dual NAPLPS graphic-Ascii sub-interfaces). Linguists, poets, video-producers and artists know more about human information interfaces than programmers) Jack Rickard of Boardwatch Magazine has long contended that one great future role of 'BBSs' will be to be the 'front ends' of the Internet/NREN. I think he makes a very important point, even though if you think about it, that is nothing more than saying that the individual tailoring which the owner of a personal computer can do, ought to be extended to networks. We better think much more clearly about what has to be 'standardized' and what should be left to the user or lowest-level system administrator. Give them the tools to fashion their own interface, not the already-carved electronic Totem Pole. So when, say 8 high school students simultaneosly use a school BBS, even a 8 port TBBS or Fido, or SCO/Interactive $5,000 Unix system with one Digiboard, or connected to a classroom LAN - and 10 such high schools are doing the same thing across a city or county - and then the sum of all their work, or the selected-newsgroup feed, passes through the local Internet/NREN server at 19.2 baud at intermittent times sequentially, not simultaneously (thank goodness for auto-redial) through 1 or 2 ports on the central 'community' server, it has always struck me as more sensible, economic, and socially controllable than adding 80 ports to that server to handle the same level of traffic. That does not replace Tom Grunders Cleveland Free Net 'front end' model, but simply extends it by other means and protocols to the ends of the earth. When in Cleveland (or other large cities where a powerful full-time administered, or institutional-affiliated, Internetted machine can be supported) do as the Clevelanders do; when in Wisdom, Montana, use the local Apple II running Fredmail, as very small town Montana'ns can and have to ($$$) do. In Montana - the model I have described is going to (and already has, through Big Sky Telegraph's system itself) get a far percentage of schools, teachers, and students on the international Internet line faster and cheaper than anything the University of Montana is going to do starting at the other end with their campus mainframe. Its already got them - while the state wide 'higher education' network that can interconnect to the Internet and Bitnet is still in the talking and under-utilized T-1 line stage. My own 13 years experience online 5 hours a day on systems from early Source, Compuserve, one line, and multi-line BBSs, as well as designing, running, adminstering hobby, educational non-profit, as well as commercial such networks has told me that it is far easier to deal with actual social misbehavior on many small systems than a few big ones. In one three year period I had 50,000 logins by 8,600 different users who left 26,000 messages on my TBBS BBS and it only cost me 30 minutes a day, and 1-2 hours a weekend, less than $10 a month phone cost, to 'administer' the system and be active myself on it - as a wide open, self-registering, unlimited use, and serious-purpose system. I experienced virtually NO serious juvenile-behavior problems I couldn't handle by more than the same observation-of-behavior I have as a parent, or would as a teacher, or school computer coordinator. The smaller the 'community' online or off, the easier it is to deal with a-social behavior. I was able, and did, read all posted messages. (The Electronic Privacy Act of 1986 insured that *my* behavior as a Sysop with such access would be kept within social bounds). Not possible on large systems. Not even my Unix AKCS conferencing/some-news-group system. All of which factors considered - user behavior, costs at all points, progressive learning curve by all which will be required (technical, economic, and online-cultural) - tells me that rather than this willy-nilly movement toward directly connecting all K-12 kids to the Internet, that a far broader, decentralized, distributed, protocol, not 'rule' connected model is indicated and ought to be the focus of discussion and planning. Is it because so many of those debating this issue know *only* the Internet that they can think only in its terms? (I have observed similar thought-encapsulation among those who 'only' know BBSs, or MacIntoshes, or Bitnet, or Dec Terminals, or LANS) So come January we expect to have another 16 week formal course in Chaos Math and Physics taught/learned online where Dr. Johnston of MIT, directly on the Internet through the Plasma Fusion Center Vax will be 'communicating' with 20-30 high and junior high school students in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana, each of them on one of perhaps 8 different local systems, some Internet, some Usenet, some Fidonet, maybe one Frednet, and Point net, where teachers will be able to observe,participate, and where necessary intervene when social problems involving their kids arise. And it will not be limited to ascii, but in graphical (such as fractal images) and non-ascii symbol (calculus) form. And during it the students may run, for one part of the course, a supercomputer. (which, unless I don't know the limits as well as capabilities of such utilities as remote executable functions of TCP/IP and Unix - could also be done by sending command-messages and not just by being logged directly into a TCP/IP machine - by long distance call to Colorado from Wyoming/Montana). So we certainly intend to have K-12 students 'use' the Internet, and because of the decentralized and distributed method of access, don't really worry excessively about rancher's kids running X-rated data streams during parent's night at the Cody High School. Anything really wrong with this model of ever-upgrading (people, machines, and institutions) 'net of appropriate nets' approach to massive future K-12 national networking? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Hughes Old Colorado City Communications "Its better to light one pixel than cursor the darkness" daveh@csn.org dave%oldcolo@csn.org Fidonet 1/128/67 or Point 67.1 719-636-2040 voice From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: The Cleveland Free-Net's approach to "adult" materials Message-ID: <1991Oct9.150014.4570@eff.org> Keywords: public computing adult material control measures References: <1991Oct9.131801.16198@ms.uky.edu> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 15:00:14 GMT morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: >In light of the long discussion about "adult" netnews material, I thought >it informative to let you know how the Cleveland Freenet (at Case Western >Reserve University) is handling the situation. The following is the new >policy for access to "adult" discussion groups. [...] >>In order to access the adult areas of Free-Net, a user will be required >>to certify that they are 18 years of age or older or have a parent/guardian >>certify that they have permission to access these areas. [...] The American Library Association suggests that the default be access to material, but that parents be allowed to restrict access. The policy is explained in the enclosed ALA Interpretation. All the interpretations and statements mentioned are available on-line via anonymous ftp from directory ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library. The material is also available via email. For information on email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index". ----- ACCESS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE TO VIDEOTAPES AND OTHER NONPRINT FORMATS An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS Library collections of videotapes, motion pictures, and other nonprint formats raise a number of intellectual freedom issues, especially regarding minors. The interests of young people, like those of adults, are not limited by subject, theme, or level of sophistication. Librarians have a responsibility to ensure young people have access to materials and services that reflect diversity sufficient to meet their needs. To guide librarians and others in resolving these issues, the American Library Association provides the following guidelines. Article V of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS says, "A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views." ALA's FREE ACCESS TO LIBRARIES FOR MINORS: An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS states: The "right to use a library" includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, educational level, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V. . . .[P]arents - and only parents - have the right and the responsibility to restrict the access of their children - and only their children - to library resources. Parents or legal guardians who do not want their children to have access to certain library services, materials or facilities, should so advise their children. Librarians and governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies have a public and professional obligation to provide equal access to all library resources for all library users. Policies which set minimum age limits for access to videotapes and/or other audiovisual materials and equipment, with or without parental permission, abridge library use for minors. Further, age limits based on the cost of the materials are unacceptable. Unless directly and specifically prohibited by law from circulating certain motion pictures and video productions to minors, librarians should apply the same standards to circulation of these materials as are applied to books and other materials. Recognizing that libraries cannot act in loco parentis, ALA acknowledges and supports the exercise by parents of their responsibility to guide their won children's reading and viewing. Published reviews of films and videotapes and/or reference works which provide information about the content, subject matter, and recommended audiences can be made available in conjunction with nonprint collections to assist parents in guiding their children without implicating the library in censorship. This material may include information provided by video producers and distributors, promotional material on videotape packaging, and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings if they are included on the tape or in the packaging by the original publisher and/or if they appear in review sources or reference works included in the library's collection. Marking out or removing ratings information from videotape packages constitutes expurgation or censorship. MPAA and other rating services are private advisory codes and have no legal standing*. For the library to add such ratings to the materials if they are not already there, to post a list of such ratings with a collection, or to attempt to enforce such ratings through circulation policies or other procedures constitutes labeling, "an attempt to prejudice attitudes" about the material, and is unacceptable. The application of locally generated ratings schemes intended to provide content warnings to library users is also inconsistent with the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS. *For information on case law, please contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom. See also: STATEMENT ON LABELING and EXPURGATION OF LIBRARY MATERIALS, Interpretations of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS. Adopted June 28, 1989, by the ALA Council; the quotation from FREE ACCESS TO LIBRARIES FOR MINORS was changed after Council adopted the July 3, 1991, revision of that Interpretation. [Made available by permission of the American Library Association.] -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. >From kadie Wed Oct 9 18:32:03 1991 To: cafb-mail ~Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) Status: R Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) Wed Oct 9 18:30:16 EDT 1991 In this issue: c90matgu@odalix.id : Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.28 pwh@bradley.bradle : Re: It doesn't play in Peoria stevens@Csa1.LBL.G : Re: So what is the kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: ECPA and University Email J.Hayward@utexas.e : Re: So what is the kadie@eff.org (Car : CAF-abstracts: New version of mailing list ebrandt@jarthur.Cl : Re: (Ll)ibertarians and public libraries kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: (none) kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the (fwd) edtjda@magic322.ch : Re: The answer kadie@eff.org (Car : FYI: Re: So what is the The addresses for the list are now: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list or caf-talk@eff.org listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions (send email with the line "help" for details.) caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1157 alt.censorship:1829 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1991 Message-ID: <1991Oct9.031615.16024@eff.org> References: <1991Oct7.040646.16775@eff.org> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 03:16:15 GMT kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >As part of Banned Book Week (and only a week late), here is: > Banned Computer Material 1991 (and earlier) [...] Here is an addendum: The alt.sex* newsgroup and the alt.flame newsgroups are proscribed on all Penn State machines administered by the Center for Academic Computing on all of their machines. [I got this information via email. Can anyone confirm it? What is their selection policy? - Carl] - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Subject: Re: disclaimers? Message-ID: <1991Oct7.150934.15231@ms.uky.edu> Date: 7 Oct 91 15:09:34 GMT Article-I.D.: ms.1991Oct7.150934.15231 References: <9110071420.AA09435@mace.cc.purdue.edu> ooi@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Jim Porter) writes: >I find the disclaimers that many of you attach to your postings >very interesting. (Statements such as "the above opinion is >my own," "my organization is not responsible for the views expressed >here," etc.) > >I am wondering, are such disclaimers simply your own way of >identifying the authority for your remarks--or are some institutions >and organizations mandating or advising their use? What legal >authority do such statements have? (No legal authority, I would >suspect--though maybe a good idea for other reasons.) To my knowledge, none of the systems through which I have participated in forums such as Usenet have required the use of disclaimers. However, the implicit link between an individual and his site is very strong. For instance, how many people associate Steven Brack with Ohio State, despite the fact that he has no official status with the University (other than that of a student)? In a similar vein, many people associate me with the University of Kentucky. While I am a staff member at UK (namely a Unix systems administrator), I do NOT speak in an official capacity. Therefore, I feel it prudent to place an explicit "not speaking for" statement in my postings. I'm sure that we've all seen the famous Usenet "I think you're a jerk, so I'm going to send mail to your admin" ploy at work. I think that disclaimers are just a preemptive move against the effect of such postings. It's nothing more than an attempt to separate our private opinions from our official positions as employees. -- morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: The rules that Ohio State U. alleges that Steven Brack violated Message-ID: <1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org> References: <1991Oct13.140940.14103@eff.org> Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1991 15:06:13 GMT (This is my critique of the OSU charges against Steven Brack. A version of this note was posted on July 15th. I've revised it in light of the letters Steven Brack released.) One of most important lessons I have learned from our discussions on the Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list is that good communications between users and sys admins is critical. As Sanjay Kapur, a sys admin at SUNY Stony Brook, wrote on June 20th: "My experience has taught me that ALL problems of abuse etc. come about due to lack of communications between the Systems staff and the users. Direct access to the systems staff who actually manage the system in addition to access to a front office (e.g. an accounts office, a user support office, Student assistants) has to be a central element of any policy." The Ohio State affair could be a case study in what happens when communications breaks down and all actions are ascribed to malice. Remember how this all started. Mr. Brack reformatted the system manual pages on an HP workstation. Academic Computer Services's (ACS) viewpoint: Mr. Brack vandalized the system. Brack's viewpoint: It was an accident; I assumed it would only reformat only my personal manual pages. If reformatting is such a terrible thing to do, why are the file permissions set so that anyone can do it? In the next event, Mr. Brack got into a heated argument in alt.flame. He replied to someone else's note with the message "fuck you". (This is exactly the kind of message for which alt.flame was designed.) The note that Mr. Brack replied was set so that by default all replies would go to not only alt.flame but also rec.aquaria. Thus, Mr. Brack posted the message "fuck you" to the aquarium newsgroup. ACS's viewpoint: Mr. Brack "posted an obscene message." Brack's viewpoint: I was tricked into posting to rec.aquaria. I didn't even know that replies could be directed to other groups. So how can ACS and Mr. Brack view the same events so differently? William Murray's note of June 29 addresses this question: "The student knows that systems are robust. 'Pac-Man' never broke. 'King's Quest' never broke. You could push as hard as you wanted to; it never broke. You could not get out of the 'land.' It did not break. Yet. Push! Problems are related to hardware and software, not users. The rules of the game are implicit in the game. If you can do it, it is legitimate. The way you 'win the game' is to explore the land to its outermost boundaries." "The system administrator knows that systems are fragile. Most have come about by elaboration of earlier systems. They were not designed of a piece. Even when we do a major upgrade, we often include function from earlier systems, usually as an accommodation to users. This functionality often includes gratuitous generality and flexibility. The systems have often been extended to support user populations which are much larger and less orderly than the ones for which the systems were conceived. The result is systems which are not as robust as might be indicated or expected for their current use and user populations. The system administrator knows this." Here are my comments on the specifics of the Ohio State affair. [I'm quoting from my previous note.] Recall that the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says that "[t]he burden of proof should rest upon the officials bringing the charge." "1. While on the HPUXA computer, you attempted to send a command that would shut the system off. Your account was suspended. You met with Collins and Miller and signed a "Ethical Standards of Conduct" form and agreed to abide by the policies of the [sic] Academic Computing Services (ACS)." He is not accused of actually executing this command; as an ordinary user it would be impossible for him to execute this command. "2. You allegedly posted an obscene message on a bulletin board and copied it to several other networks. The contents of the message was [sic] in conflict with established standards of practice for most of the additional networks." (i.e. posting the phrase "fuck you" to national the alt.flame and rec.aquaria newsgroups.) The phrase "fuck you" is rude, but protected speech. It is not obscene. The posting to rec.aquaria was accidental. The posting to alt.flame was consistent with the purpose of that newsgroup. "3. Collins and Miller met with you again and suspended your account indicating that you would no longer have access to HPUXA or any other network at the University." This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part. If ACS expelled Mr. Brack without due process, they have committed an offense. Moreover, ACS has no authority to restict Mr. Brack from, for example, the Library's network. "4. Allegedly you continued the same practices using an account provided to you through the College of Engineering. They issued you a restricted account that was to be used for academically- related [sic] work only. You were specifically advised not to use the computer system to access national bulletin boards." Without more specific information this is not an offense. "5. Your social security number showed up on the account of another person during sessions which used national networks." The other student charged a *free* print job to Mr. Brack's social security number with Mr. Brack's permission. They did this because the file that contained the other student's SSN was corrupted. "6. It was confirmed that you used another student's account to access a computer system at the University of Denver [sic]. This was in direct opposition to your instructions not to use the University's system to access national networks." The other student accessed Mr. Brack's account at the University of Denver. This violates no Ohio State rules (or rules of the University of Denver system). "7. Additionally, allegedly you were keeping a number of non-academic files on a microcomputer system in the Central [sic] Biology system [sic]. You were advised against abusing your privileges on this system and excess files were removed. ..." This violated no Ohio State rules. (Rather than ask Mr. Brack to remove his files; all his files were deleted.) ... "Several times you were allegedly warned to use only one computer at a time (apparently you may have been using more than one). This practice continued despite this warning." This is a petty accusation. Using multiple Macs when the lab is nearly empty violated no Ohio State rules. When asked to move to one Mac (because a class was expected), Mr Brack did. "8. Apparently you copied 24 copies [sic] of a mathematics program [sic] to the hard disk of the Central [sic] Biology Computer lab computer [sic]. This used up a considerable amount of the hard disk space. This was allegedly done in retaliation against the administrators of that system." This is false. Mr. Brack used 24 meg of disk space, but did not store 24 copies of any programs. This violated no Ohio State rules. When asked to free up disk space, Mr. Brack did. "9. Toward the end of May, after being banned from all ACS computers, you used the MAGNUS system to connect with the University of Denver [sic] computer." Same as #6. In sum, you may not like Mr. Brack. You may have found his "fuck you" note offense and his subsequent defense of himself whinny. But whether you like him or not, the pettiness and weakness of the so-called charges against Mr. Brack (he is not accused of causing any actual damage), support the conclusion that this whole affair has more to do with poor communications than with computer vandalism. I say "so-called charges" because these are not really even charges. A charge is an alleged action paired with the rule(s) that it violates. Mr. Brack was sent a list of vague rules like the Other Rule: "(K) Violation of other published University regulations, policies, or rules, or any other violation of state or federal law committed on University premises." In a separate letter, and only after it requested it, he was send information about his alleged actions. The actions were NEVER paired with the rules to form charges. How, for example, can he defend himself against the Other Rule if he doesn't know which alleged actions violate it? The letters suggest that such unfairness might be OK for an informal inquiry. Note, however, that the purpose of the inquiry is to "to determine if the alleged violation of Rules 3335-25-01 (E), (F), (G), (J), and (K) did, indeed, occur." I would hope that Ohio State actually bothers to try to write up the charges against Mr. Brack and that the charges are then dropped and that his computer expulsion is ended. In the future, I hope that ACS will handle problems less hysterically and more professionally by: 1) working with the user community to create and implement a good written policy 2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem 3) respecting their user's freedom of expression 4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when necessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: sean@sdg.dra.com Subject: Re: Acceptable Use Policies (Was Re: Bill's... ) Message-ID: <1991Oct7.115649.39@sdg.dra.com> Date: 7 Oct 91 11:56:49 CDT References: <1991Oct03.204416.24141@eng.umd.edu> <1991Oct7.135752.3433@eff.org> In article <1991Oct7.135752.3433@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > I confess, I haven't read the American Library Association's or the > International Federation for Information Processing's interlibrary > loan manuals. (What are the titles of the manuals? Maybe I can get > copies of them via interlibrary loan). I think you need a :-) on that last statement. I goofed on those initials, should be IFLA, not IFIP, but regardless your interlibrary loan department should still have a copy of the them. For more information consult Boucher, Virginia. Interlibrary loan practices handbook. Chicago : American Library Association, c1984. excerpts from the National Interlibrary Loan Code (1980), a copy of which is found in an appendix in the book above. II. Purpose The purpose of interlibrary loan as defined in this code is to obtain, for research and serious study, library material not available through local, state, or regional libraries. IV. Responsibilities of Borrowing Libraries F. The borrowing library should carefully screen all requests for loans and reject any that do not conform to this code. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100 Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1123 comp.org.eff.talk:4327 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Government restriction of net information Message-ID: <1991Oct7.164246.7991@eff.org> References: <1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> <1991Oct4.180007.277@ms.uky.edu> <1991Oct4.195317.6535@eff.org> <1991Oct7.143951.10183@ms.uky.edu> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 16:42:46 GMT morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: [...] >We must also realize that we cannot paint all of Usenet with the brush of >academic freedom. I think that many parts of Usenet have nothing to do with >academics; we may have to define our vehicle more clearly. Let me ask you >this -- do you think that all of Usenet deserves the protection of "academic >freedom"? If not, which parts of Usenet *do* deserve that protection? [...] Let my try an analogy: