These are abstracts to the Computers and Academic Freedom News
(CAF-news) in reverse chronological order. Referenced issues of
CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org in directory
"pub/academic/news". They are also available via email. For example,
to get volume 1, number 39, send email to archiver-server@eff.org.
Include the line:
send caf-news cafv01n39
Where practical, the abstracts reference alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
message id's (for example, <9104281641.AA00199@eff.org>).
====MONTHLIES====
cafv02n65
[Best of December, 1992
============================= KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the article, NOT
AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily our opinions. The selection
and paraphrases are based on earlier abstracts by Aaron, Henry, Karl,
and me.
==================================================================
Note 1 deals with a continuation of some of the issues surrounding
alleged child pornography posted by a Cornell student to the Usenet.
1. "You may have inside information, but the only public statment was
that a.b.p.e was cut simply because a single article in it was being
investigated." Now it's true that "Cornell is not obliged to respect
academic freedom. [...] But if the university desires to follow
academic freedom then it must refrain from removing resources at the
merest hint of questionable legality. Cornell is not obligated to
subscribe to Playboy. But if they do have a subscription, and there is
a protest against it, academic freedom forbids them to cancel the
subscription."
<1992Dec2.160210.5928@news.columbia.edu>
Note 2-3 discusses when and if it is appropriate for a sysadmin or
superuser to cancel someone else's articles.
2. "By screening articles and newsgroups the University may *increase* its
liability. (Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's
only goal.)"
3. Perhaps these are valid exceptions, but really, "the question of
canceling other people's articles boils down to a question of
ownership and authority. By the time something has propagated it is
outside of the sphere of authority of anyone but the individual admins
of the systems the article is stored on. [... In] almost all other
cases I would consider someone canceling articles as a violation of
*my* domain of authority: my newsspool. If you cancel an article that
you consider illegal, for example, it makes me want to say: 'Hey, what
are you doing? Do you have a warrant? Who gave you the authority to
mess with data stored on my disks?' I mean, how would you feel if you
had some pirated software on your PC, and your neighbor were to just
walk into your home and start erasing it? I believe that in the the
USA at least that's even more illegal than software piracy."
Note 4 reviews the status of the Mark Lehrer/Akron BBS case:
4. "You may already know about the BBS 'sting' six months ago in Munroe
Falls, OH for "disseminating matter harmful to juveniles." Those charges were
dropped for lack of evidence. Now a trial date of 1/4/93 has been set after
new felony charges were filed, although the pretrial hearing revealed no
proof that *any* illegal content ever went out over the BBS, nor was *any*
found on it." (A summary of the Akron BBS case follows.)
<921202164908_71756.2116_DHG64-1@CompuServe.COM>
Notes 5-7 deal with an advisory from the Computer Emergency
Response Team (CERT), which dealt with the legality of
"keystroke monitoring" under US law.
5. I'm enclosing "information from the United States Department of
Justice, General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, Criminal
Division, regarding keystroke monitoring by computer systems
administrators, as a method of protecting computer systems from
unauthorized access." 18 U.S.C. 2510 (1986). It states that such
surveillance "may be defensible" but "the statute does not expressly
authorize such monitoring." It recommends that if system
administrators plan to engage in such monitoring, that the system
include a banner at login that warns that users may be monitored.
<1992Dec8.041023.4125@eff.org>
6. An NSI Security Manager discusses the relationship between CERT
"...one of many teams who provide security information and incident
handling services to a particular constituency" and its umbrella
organization, FIRST (the Forum of Incident Response and Security
Teams)"...which comprises response teams from many different companies,
government agencies (both US and non-US),universities, vendors, etc."
In regard to CERT's authority to recommend policy and/or procedures in the
legal arena, it was stated that [CERT] "merely reported to their
constituency the result of their discussions with the US DoJ. The crux of
the message is that if you ever hope to use keystroke logs against someone
who cracks your machine, you better warn the sucker they're being
recorded..."
<14DEC199215163611@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>
7. "CERT is recommending unilateral announcement of 'all users may be
monitored all the time, with no negotiation and no negotiated policy of
watching/monitoring only on 'probable cause'". As Net Citizens, we should
not cooperate with CERT, and we should "see if something can be done to
get some of the CERT's functions implemented in a way that respects
freedom and people's rights..."
<1992Dec18.100254.4122@nntp.hut.fi>
Notes 8-9 deal with a "joke" chain letter disseminated at the University
of Nebraska at Omaha;is it indeed a "chain letter"; and what should be the
appropriate response, if any, to such letters?
8. A wave of chain letter mania is sweeping the University of
Nebraska at Omaha. A new login message has been instituted which warns
that sending a chain letter on may result in "loss of account
privileges." The text of the joke chain letter is included. "The new
policy seems to skate dangerously close to censorship and
prior-restraint (what exactly *is* a 'chain- letter?')."
9. [Sys admin involved in the 'joke chain letter' controversy] "I
believe strongly in rights to academic freedom; to that end, I've put
considerable time and effort into making the resources of the Internet
available to as many people here as possible. That belief is one of
the reasons we maintain a full news feed under pressure to limit what
we carry (the type of pressure to which Universities in our system
have caved in)." However, the joke chain letter is an issue of
"resource abuse" rather than censorship.
Notes 10-11 are about the recent Appeals court decision which declared the
child pornography law unconstitutional.
10. The Wall Street Journal reported that "the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled, in US vs X-Citement Video Inc., (CA No. 89-50556), that the
sections of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of
1977 that deal with distribution, transportation, and receipt of sexually
explicit materials are invalid on First Amendment grounds. The court let
stand the prohibition on the production of child pornography." "This
ruling...may help to remove sysop worries about someone posting such
material on their system without their knowledge, or about network nodes
being liable for material passing through them."
<1992Dec17.232618.19727@netcom.com>
11. [A member of the California bar]: "This is likely to be good news for
sysops and site admins, since (as with video distribution or rental/sales)
there is no reason to charge site admins with actual knowledge of the
contents of any given article that passes through (or is stored on) a
site... for BBS and Usenet sites that simply carry a large number of
newsgroups,including the erotica images groups, there is no implication
that the site is engaged in active distribution of child pornography if a
small number of articles are later learned to contain material unlawful
under the Act."
<921217.37008063@robbe-grillet.postmodern.com>
Note 12 is about a Secret Service Raid at at Texas Tech Univ., where the
SS alleged that the seized computers from the dorm room were used to steal
software over the Internet.
12. The Secret Service seized computers from a dorm room at Texas Tech
University, alleging the equipment was used to steal software over the
Internet. The three men involved were not arrested, but they are
expected to be charged with computer crime, interstate transport of
stolen property, and copyright infringement. Texas Tech computer
operators contacted the Secret Service after noting credit information
in the software that was filling their data storage devices. Although
the USSS normally doesn't pursue software piracy, they do pursue using
"using electronic access devices such as passwords in the commission
of a crime". The current investigation falls under a revision of
copyright laws which allow felony charges to be brought against anyone
who pirates more than 10 copies of copyrighted software.
-Leslie Regan Shade]
cafv02n60
[Best of November, 1992
============================= KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily our opinions.
==================================================================
Notes 1-3 review the big story of the month, an FBI raid on a student
dorm that led to removal of the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
newsgroup on systems at Cornell University.
1. "Federal officials said they were investigating whether the
student used an electronic scanner to transmit child pornography onto
a computer file and send the pictures through an international
computer bulletin board."
<9211201816.AA21284@dahlia.cit.cornell.edu>
2. So were Cornell officials justified in shutting down the
"bulletin board" (the a.b.p.e. newsgroup) so quickly? "I do think
their rapid action demonstrates their ignorance as to the actual
nature of a.p.b.e." By contrast, Cornell folks are very familiar with
local newsgroup cu.general, and would certainly not shut *it* down
under similar circumstances: "If someone were to start posting
binaries, in particular child pornograpy there, I think they would be
much more likely to deal with the person individually." Also bear in
mind Cornell wanted to demonstrate "cooperation with the FBI in the
matter," and didn't feel obliged to preserve a.b.p.e. "simply by
virtue of having *some* protected speech content in [it.]"
<9211202036.AA12053@crocus.cit.cornell.edu>
3. A student was arrested and his dorm searched by the FBI in
connection with possible illegal materials he had been posting to
a.b.p.e. "According to the Cornell Daily Sun report I read, his
neighbours were altogether unsurprised that he was caught for this
particular crime. I have found Stuart Lynn to not be an overly zealous
system administrator. His reaction to the virus (where again students
were arrested) and to this incidence (which involves the Feds) was
exactly what was warranted."
<1992Nov24.125748.19653@shaman.com>
Notes 4-5 review the case of Steven Brack, a student at Ohio State
University whose behavior on OSU systems led to his expulsion.
4. Carl Kadie: "Talking with him via the Net and on the phone, I
was astounded at how sloppy OSU was with due process. For example,
they didn't even tell him what he was charged with until he asked.
Then they listed things he was accused of doing and (vague) rules that
we was accused of breaking but would not say which action(s) they
thought violated which rule(s). Finally, when he was expelled, they
listed only the rules they had determined he had violated but included
no 'finding of fact' as to which actions they had determined he had
actually done."
5. Steven Brack: "There was never a formal decision issued by the
[disciplinary] panel, only a finding that I violated said provisions
of OSU's rules. [...] I was not allowed to call witnesses from ACS
[Acad. Comp. Services], nor to compel any witnesses to testify, no
matter what their relation to the case. (Prof. John Bridge, who
brought the complaint about my posting the word 'fuck' to a newsgroup,
for example.) I was not allowed to put questions to the witnesses,
but rather could only suggest questions to the panel. I was not
allowed to introduce documentary evidence that would have shown that
ACS gave me permission to do everything I did. Matters of ACS
procedures, including the lack of published rules, were likewise off
limits. Despite this, the hearing lasted over 5 hours, one of the
longest they could remember, with my closing argument taking over 30
minutes, including interruptions by the chair, when he thought I was
saying things that weren't 'at issue.'"
<9211081708.AA22877@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Notes 6-7 discuss the revoking of system privileges from Robert McElwaine,
a student at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.
6. McElwaine is apparently guilty of posting "canned
prefabricated materials" to numerous newsgroups and mailing lists,
generating so many complaints that the school's director of computing
services has now decreed: "If, after being requested [by a mailing
list or newsgroup's 'owner'] to stop, he [McElwaine] continues to send
his materials The University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire will take steps
revoke his Internet privileges."
<1992Nov6.065819.22603@gnosys.svle.ma.us>
7. Carl Kadie: "I worry, since explusion from a communications
medium is not a typical university sanction. (Typical sanctions
include things like informal warnings, formal warnings, university
suspensions.) I note that labeling Internet access a "privilege" does
not remove due process requirements."
<1992Nov16.161114.15845@eff.org>
Notes 8-9 discuss sexual harassment policy generally, and how it relates
to sysadmin policy specifically.
8. "The point that we as system administrators and managers must
address is the following: is our task in this arena to do everything
possible to avoid a lawsuit against the company or university no
matter how ludicrous, but technically possible, the scenario; or is
our task to manage the system in a reasonable way, doing our best to
balance the rights and resposibilities of all the users in accordance
with company or university policies?"
9. And so, tempting though it may be for a sysadmin to step in
and arbitrate "complaints of unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature
(some user displaying sexually oriented images on their screen in a
public lab, for example), I think your options are much more limited
if you wish to reduce the possibility that the university, and perhaps
you personally, will be named in a sexual harassment lawsuit." In
fact, your *only* option in this situation is "Refer the matter to my
supervisors."
Notes 10-11 give two schools' very different approaches to net access.
10. "Basically the situation is this: We have a department on
campus called 'Academic Computer Center' which is in charge of the
universities Vax. This Vax is the gateway on campus to BitNet and the
Internet. However, student accounts on the machine cannot access
networks. Ie, 'ftp', 'telnet', 'rlogin 'rsh', and Internet email are
denied to these accounts. [...] The reason I had heard for ACC not
giving networking access was that it would put too much strain on the
Vax, despite the fact that all the other departmen with machines (like
mine) are using the vax for the network gateway." Right. Making a
Vax a *gateway* would kill it.
<4so4TB5w164w@cellar.org>
11. From another Ball State employee: "I, and many others, have
benefited greatly as a result - the use of EMail results in a terrific
amount of idea exchange, etc. The net result of this is that there is
more computer literacy on this campus than any other campus I have
ever seen." And interestingly, "in 99% of the complaints I have
heard, the user wants special privileges ABOVE AND BEYOND the normal
privs granted." Which is not to say that the legislature doesn't have
a "valid point," since "they DO grant the funding."
<3205@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Note 12 provides a model academic systems policy (in the editor's opinion).
12. This is a very long and thorough policy on computing at the
University of North Texas which establishes a committee, three titles,
and an ombudsman's position for computing, defines the roles of
everybody in the academic community w.r.t. computing, establishes
sanctions for faculty, staff, and students who don't comply, and even
offers official definitions of terms such as "workstation" and
"computer installation."
<9211292125.AA01321@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Aaron Barnhart]
cafv02n54
[Best of October 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-6 feature Carl Kadie's 1992 "Banned Computer Materials" list and the
subsequent calm, reasoned discussion that followed its posting.
1. "Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer
material banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State
University has the dubious distinction of being listed most often
(three times). The list proper starts after a list of the academic
institutions where bans or challenges have occurred. The list proper
is followed by instructions on how to get more information about
specific incidents and then by instructions on how to get general
information about computers and academic freedom."
<1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>
2. "More power to Iowa State University! The mere existence of
this list implies that there is something improper about electronic
censorship. The truth of the matter is that it is probably MORE
important than print censorship. Enough Americans feel that there
should be some limit to what can be depicted and described that we
have obscenity laws in this country. Why should we ridicule
universities and other organizations that choose to enforce the law of
the land?" (Etc.)
<199210072113.AA22128@eff.org>
3. "Iowa State U. is not enforcing the law. Virtually all the
material restricted is constitutionally protected. Morever, in Iowa,
universities are excepted from the state obscenity law. [see ref.] The
material apparently restricted not because it was illegal, but because
someone finds discussion of sex offensive." (Etc.)
<199210090359.AA22655@eff.org>
4. A UMass-Boston sysadmin: "I feel we are a site which is deeply
and fundamentally supportive of open access and free speech. It hurts
to see us listed on the same list as folks who are denying newsgroup
access, shutting off users, and other serious measures." To which
EFF's Mike Godwin replies: "[Then] how can you justify a system policy
that seems to be grounded in your personal opposition to seeing
offensive stuff appear on your screen when you run finger?"
(Especially as "you seem to define 'obscene' far more broadly than any
government body is allowed to do under the U.S. Constitution.")
<1992Oct2.011244.13372@eff.org>
5. The sysadmin replies: "We are a community, not a legal board.
We are engaged in teaching. Perhaps one of the things we are teaching
is working together in a group. When someone is very disruptive, or
offensive, by our community standards, we ask them to change. [...]
Students we've asked have changed with NO threats, NO hidden
consequences, NO nasty undertones. We've never taken an account away
so I don't think there are any hidden fears. Students seem to feel
free to debate policy, so I don't think there is hidden authoritarian
crackdowns."
6. "Carl, the thing that I really don't understand is that you
published a 'List' without contacting the named institutions IN
ADVANCE. [...] Handled improperly (as I feel was done in this case),
such a list creates an atmosphere of suspicion toward the named
entities. I hate to use the term, 'McCarthyism' but that's what this
whole affair smacks of."
<7863@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Notes 7-8 feature two of Carl's nominations for "Best Of" Usenet.
7. Best policy concerning prohibitions: the Electronic Frontier
Foundation. "Electronic mail on this system is as private as we can
make it. Attempts to read another person's electronic mail or other
protected files will be treated with the utmost seriousness. The
system administrators will not read mail or non-world-readable files
unless absolutely necessary in the course of their duties, and will
treat the contents of those files as private information at all
times." (Post includes full policy statement.)
<1992Oct29.200346.5545@eff.org>
8. Best policy concerning netnews: University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee. "Resolved: That full recognition and support be
given to the valuable resource provided by the network news system.
Rationale: Electronic transmission of information is playing an
increasingly vital role in higher education. This new technology
provides a unique vehicle for the participation of the university
community in the world-wide exchange of ideas." (Post includes full
policy statement.)
<1992Oct29.200825.5648@eff.org>
Note 9 addresses an important consideration for academic computing policy.
9. "I think it WRONG WRONG WRONG to blame every
intrusion/security risk/breach to students in the first place. This
attitude towards students is responsible for a rather un-academic
climate in many, if not most academic installations. From your posting
I see no evidence that you have a PROOF that the person responsible is
a student, unless you have caught him already (and in this case you
should know how to deal with the broken machine too). Then you should
not publicly put the blame upon 'a student'. [...] It could as well
have been one of your staff people."
<1992Oct15.142915.293@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Notes 10-12 discuss the implications of displaying nude GIFs in public places.
10. "Your university almost certainly has a written policy on
sexual harassment, that policy almost certainly details the sexual
harassment enforcment procedure. It is very unlikely that an ordinary
university department or staff person is authoritized by the school to
enforced the sexual harassment policy (by, for example, expelling
students from the computer system or by searching for *.gif files)."
<1992Oct9.010021.18858@eff.org>
11. One academic dept. decided on *this* policy statement: "We do
not dictate what students may or may not display on their computer
screens. We do, however, feel free to exercise our own rights to free
speech and tell students precisely what we think of their actions."
12. "The basic problem that tears at most admins is we want to
make all these decisions ourselves and have very liberal policies. I
personally would like to have $20,000 allocated to buy a dedicated
news machine that would carry all the newsgroups. Unfortunately at
some point lawyers and managers and accountants poke their noses in if
you request things like that and deep-six the whole idea. So most of
them shoe-string news onto existing machinery, with less disk space
than needed to carry even half the flow. [...] The more conscientious
admin's are the ones who try to balance what is allowable with what
their bosses and users want. [...] Safe to say though that admins were
once users and haven't forgotten that. But from down here in the
sewer-works, the view is different."
<71625@hydra.gatech.EDU>
- Aaron Barnhart]
cafv02n43
[Best of August 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. The selections are based on earlier abstracts
by Elizabeth and me.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-6 review issues related to decisions by certain Canadian
universities to ban newsgroups on grounds they contain pornography.
1. "Following some unfavourable publicity, the University of Manitoba banned
all newsgroups dealing with sex. This kind of heavy-handed reaction is
deplorable. [...] An enlightened policy would treat electronic media in the
same way that libraries treat written material. Library acquisition policies
have a strong history of ensuring access to all materials legally obtainable,
and of not unjustly excluding material on the grounds that it might be
offensive to some people. The ultimate choice of what to read can and should
rest with the readers themselves."
<1992Aug24.205712.7453@zooid.guild.org>
2. "Here is some of the history of government [U.S., U.K., Canada]
suppression of sexual materials. I think history shows
that such suppression is relatively new and that it exists in spite
of, not because of, scientific evidence." (Includes references.)
<1992Aug7.151318.9822@eff.org>
3. And to supplement the items in the previous note: "Here is a
repost listing many studies that tested the [U.S.] Meese [Commission
on Pornography's] conclusions scientifically. (Many of the studies
were done in Canada.)" (Very long bibliography follows.)
<1992Aug7.151709.9915@eff.org>
4. Carl Kadie wants to know: "Has textual material been found to
be obscene in Canada or the U.S. since _Ulysses_?" A reader replies,
"Yes," and offers numerous examples. (Includes references.)
5. A Simon Fraser University student's response to newsgroup
cancellations at her university: "The question of censorship is a
tricky one, however, because censors after all, exist to censor, and
they don't usually act in the interests of women when they doit - they
act as representatives of the state, and this is problematic to say
the least. [...] I'm not so sure the discussion groups should have
been cancelled, since these were often a legitimate forum for
discourse, and do not intrude on people wandering through a given lab
in the way that an unencoded .gif file has a way of doing."
<1992Aug15.213252.22415@sfu.ca>
6. "I read recently in UBC Reports that the [University of British
Columbia] President has 'asked all UBC units to ensure that university
property is not being used to gain access to, create, or store (such)
pornographic material on university computing equipment'. I am
disturbed by the possibilities in this. [...] Given operator
privileges, it would be easy to write programs that would scan users
files and mailboxes for keywords, according to some particular scheme
of sexual or political censorship."
<21AUG199215492898@reg.triumf.ca>
Notes 7-8 offer points of view from two sysadmins weighing issues of
community responsibility versus issues of academic freedom.
7. A UMass-Boston sysadmin: "We alow folks to have ANYTHING THEY WANT in
their private files and to make ANYTHING THEY WANT publicly readable. They
may create any mailing list they want, and post to usenet within the standard
guidelines distributed in Comp.news.newusers etc. ALL we are limiting is what
may be displayed in certain public, unsolicited areas... mainly finger (which
is considered a systems tool) and publicly visible X-terminal screens. If
someone wanted to post the lyrics to cop killer, we would NOT ban it from the
system, we would just ask them to replace the message with a pointer to a
publicly readable file. [...] I think it's analagous to making users check
out a library book, or take the book from an open stack, as opposed to
posting the contents of the book on the walls. If we limited access in any
way, or made users go through any paperwork to get acess, I think that would
be censorship."
8. A Mount Holyoke sysadmin: "I have decided that for the time being I will
continue my current policy of carrying everything, and if I am challenged on
it by my superiors, will strongly recommend AGAINST restricting the flow of
News through our system in any way." Among the reasons why: "It seems likely
that the legal responsibility for distributing copyrighted material rests
with the poster. [... And:] If (when) this issue does result in law-suits, it
is unlikely to be here at my small institution, and more likely will involve
an organization such as UUNET which is already prepared for this eventuality
and has formalized it's policy on the issue."
Notes 9-10 profile two system-snooping programs that recently made the
news.
9. "Questions have been raised about a program used by Computing
Services to find profane file names. [...] Hart Bezner, Director of
Computing Services [at Wilfrid Laurier University], said the program
operated routinely during the mid-eighties, 'but it [the language]
cleaned up so we quit looking.' [...] Bezner, however, was not
explicit as to what was done with the results from the program. A
former Laurier student [...] said that when he contacted Computing
Service, he was told he would have to get a new [password]: "They said
that the computer went through and deleted nasty words".
<1992Aug13.182157.5688@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
10. Then there's Crack, the password-cracking program. What should
sysadmins' position be toward users found to possess it? "I've been a
sysadmin for 4 years, and I've used Unix for 11 years. However, many
sites' admins are inexperienced; indeed, many of them become sysadmins
by default. [...] Many of those novice sysadmins depend on the
assistance of their more experienced colleagues. In some ways, we
*are* our 'brother's keeper'. I believe that I, as a sysadmin, have a
certain obligation to the other systems using our common network(s).
Why should I allow my system to be used as a 'forward base' from which
to attack other systems? Should I adopt an attitude such as 'well,
he's not cracking MY password file, so I don't care'? [...] shouldn't
I prevent it in the first place, if such a goal is (relatively)
attaniable?"
<1992Aug27.115813.28741@ms.uky.edu>
Note 11 reviews an Electronic Frontier Foundation forum regarding the
future of NSFNet, the Internet's backbone.
11. "Two major themes emerged from the nearly six hours of discussion
[...] First, there has been substantial lack of shared understanding
about some of the draft's key elements," namely many unexplained
technical terms and concepts of the new NSFNet. Second, regarding the
bidding process to determine the vendor that will support NSFNet for
the next few years, "the draft has no guidelines to suggest how bids
will be evaluated," nor is there one word about NSFNet's relationship
to the next-generation federal National Research and Education
Network, which is eventually expected to displace it. "The draft also
fails to illuminate how the NSF determines when a technology is no
longer 'experimental' and can be provided commercially without further
government funding."
<1992Aug19.150341.18832@eff.org>
Note 12 is a statement by the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
(CPSR) regarding the future of communications privacy.
12. "We anticipate that there will be three different types of privacy
problems as the NREN" -- which eventually will succeed NSFNet as the backbone
of the Internet -- "continues to evolve. First, as commercial organizations
become users of the network, they will gather personal data, and wish to sell
lists. The address files for list servers could be sold, and users may find
themselves 'subscribed' to lists they have no interest in. [...] Second,
efforts to promote competitiveness in the delivery of network services may
also lead to the disclosure of network data which will compromise user
privacy. [...] The disclosure of Customer Proprietary Network Information
(CPNI) has already surprised many telephone customers who now receive calls
from companies with whom they have no prior relationship. These companies
are able to describe the customer's telephone calling habits in great
detail. Users of NREN services are also likely to object to the disclosure
of network information. The third problem is that law enforcement agencies
are likely to make 'greater demands' on communication service providers to
turn over records of electronic communications to the government and to
provide assistance in the execution of warrants." (Includes CPSR
recommendations.)
<1992Aug30.202432.22763@eff.org>
- Aaron]
cafv02n38
[Best of July 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. The selection and paraphrases are based on earlier abstracts
by Elizabeth, Mark, Adam, and John.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Articles 1-5 are about sexual material on academic computers in Canada.
1. This is a transcript of a portion of a CITY-TV broadcast from 6
July. A reporter and a student (?) explore the alt.sex newsgroup. A
system administrator (?) states the University is not taking the
position of censor, and does not control the information an individual
may seek out. One female states that this material is harmful to
women, and a different female says that, although offensive, nothing
should be done to restrict the information.
<1992Jul7.150830.27316@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
2. These are articles by Peter Moon of The Globe and Mail, Toronto.
The first is "Network Sex: Is increasingly explicit material on some
computer bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity." The second is
"Network lets users say what they think." Reprinted with permission.
<1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
3. This article, which seeks to correct the view of the Internet as a
public medium for the dissemination of "sleazy" material, has been
sent to the editor of the _Globe & Mail_.
4. "There are three main questions here:... (1) Is there erotic
material that, if it were readily available, would make some people
more prone to commit acts of rape and child sexual abuse?... (2) Is
the risk (in terms of infringement of general human rights) of
censoring such material so high that we should allow it to be
available anyway?... [and] (3) Where do you draw the line?"
<1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca>
5. A Canadian user argues that alt.sex is permissible by Canadian law.
"Under the Charter this expression is protected, and has as much
right to access to the medium as discussions of neutrino emmision or
neural networks..."
Note 6 is a reaction to the suggestion people outside Canada should
restrict their netnews articles to that which is unobjectionable in
Canada.
6. A user objects to the idea that what should be permissible should be
determined by recognizing guidelines imposed by countries other than the
US. "Using this formula, the limits of what can be posted to USENET
would be the limits imposed by the strictest country who participates in
the net."
<1992Jul13.142103.15845@spdcc.com>
Notes 7-8 are about .plan files that might offend.
7. "I recently put the lyrics to "Cop Killer" by Ice-T in my .plan file so
that it shows up when someone else does "finger jbw@cs.bu.edu".
Two people have complained to my department's chair... .He asked
me informally to remove it. I told him I would not do so voluntarily."
8. As long as nobody is forced to see the material in question, the
student should not be punished. Material in public access information
areas should be "PG-13." Other users should be able to "finger" anyone
"without getting any sort of shock."
Note 9 is about user-selected publicly-accessible software.
9. The policy of the University of Kentucky's Engineering Computing
Center will be that "The installation of recreational network
resources, such as MUD, Netrek, or IRC clients/servers, are explicitly
prohibited UNLESS these programs include use restrictions based on
time of day and number of users. The installation of these resources
may only be performed by ECC staff."
<1992Jul30.94721.2490@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 10-12 are about hostility toward women in Usenet and academia.
10. "In the US, people are trying to stamp out speech they find
offensive. So they label it "harassment", claim that it
"discriminates", and ban it from the workplace, schools, housing,
etc." A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses this
problem, and is here reprinted with the permission of the WSJ.
<1992Jul3.221144.20089@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
11. "Since virtually every place where people associate is a workplace
for someone, even if it's just the people who maintain the
establishment, prohibiting "offensive work environments" requires
suppressing free speech in almost any place people could gather to
discuss issues."
<1992Jul3.232416.23672@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
12. "...I think most [men] do not understand the climate of fear in which
women live in this country. And that fear restricts their freedom of
expression." Men feel free to post notes requesting rides, for
example, while women do not. "I'm not saying we have to delete the
alt.sex groups from Usenet, but I would like to make men aware of how
I feel ... when attending lecture[s where] gratuitous references [to]
alt.sex.pictures [are made]."
- Carl]
cafv02n33
[Best of June 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. The selection and paraphrases are based on earlier abstracts
by Elizabeth, Paul, Mark, and guest editor Lorrie Ackerman.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-4 are about new computer polices covering everything from
email privacy to the content of newsgroups.
1. This is the text of the "interim e-mail advisory" from University
of Illinois, effectively a new computer privacy policy. "Over the
past year, the campus administration has received a number of
inquiries about access to files maintained on electronic media.
Essentially, the questions focused on the privacy of such
communications and the conditions under which someone may look at
another person's files."
<1992Jun2.011050.15719@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
2. "I have extensively revised and expanded many of the computing
policies that apply to the largest educational network at Rice,
Owlnet." Includes notes on Rice's University Computing Policy,
Owlnet Policies, Owlnet Policies Enforcement Guidelines, Owlnet
Student Advisory Committee Charter, System Administrator Statement
of Ethics, and Owlnet Application Agreement. Also includes access
information for these documents.
<1992Jun27.181753.21585@eff.org>
3. (A system administrator:) The list of newsgroups we cannot carry
[on the United Kingdom's UKnet Backbone] includes alt.sex*,
alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and rec.arts.erotica.
<1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
4. As reported in the University of Toronto _Bulletin_, that
university is not planning to intercept or censor any of the files
available on the Internet that may contain violent pornographic
material.
<1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Notes 5 and 6 are about the law.
5. "A federal judge declared unconstitutional Tuesday the decency
clause the National Endowment for the Arts used in determining who
receives grant money, saying it was too vague and overbroad in
restricting artists' freedom of speech."
<1992Jun10.040756.10831@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
6. "All but one of the six leading candidates for California's 14th
Congressional District have formally committed to protect
traditional constitutional liberties against technological
threats." Several have signed a formal statement to this effect
(names and copy of statement included). This may "be the first time
that major-party congressional candidates have ever committed to
explicit action to protect technology-related civil liberties."
Notes 7-10 are about offensive, harassing, and anonymous computer
communications.
7. The "Standard Manager's Reply" (Revision A), to be sent to users
complaining about the content of the e-mail or newsgroup posting of
a subscriber to the manager's system, espouses the delights of
freedom of expression, clear thinking, and kill files.
<6980@public.BTR.COM>
8. Comments on and criticisms of the "Standard Manager's Reply".
9. Harassment is intentional, unwanted person-to-person communication
by any channel. Explicitly tell the harasser to stop communicating
with you. Save copies of all communications. If the harassment
continues, contact a system administrator, university official or
the courts.
<1992Jun11.180712.21660@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
10. Many students are afraid to ask questions for fear of looking
foolish, either in the eyes of their peers or their instructors.
Some means of posting anonymously is a good thing, but completely
anonymous accounts are not. Anonymous mail is hard to reply to, but
anonymous postings to a news group can work. With Plato/NOVANET,
the University of Illinois has had long experience with large scale
newsgroups, and has sound policies on anonymity that we could learn
from.
<12951@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
- Carl]
cafv02n30
[Best of May 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. Many of the paraphrases are based on earlier paraphrases by
Elizabeth, Paul, Andrew, and by guest editor A. Andrew Brennan.
===============================================================
Note 1 discusses some of the privacy risks of Florida State's new
ID/ATM/Calling card.
1. Florida State's new Seminole ACCESS system (for Fall '92) will
combine an ID card, ATM card, MCI calling card and a credit card all
in one. While touting convenience and ease of use, it also permits
ACCESS offices to track an alarming number of an individual's
activities - it's all in the database!
<9205121714.AA18456@systems.cc.fsu.edu>
Notes 2-3 discuss the events at Iowa State University in which the
Usenet group rec.arts.erotica was banned and in which a student's
computer access was revoked after he redistributed articles from that
group - there is, however, a happy ending to the story.
2. "When Iowa State University restricted alt.sex it violated the
principles of academic freedom. When it punished a student for
exercising his Constitutional right to free expression in a University
forum and imposed that punishment summarily in violation of that
student's Constitutional right to due process, it violated the law."
<1992May6.033143.16713@eff.org>
3. From the student who had his account closed: "I have my account
back."
<1992May8.064304.8364@news.iastate.edu>
Note 4-5 discuss Iowa State University's and the University of Nebraska
at Lincoln's rationalizations for censorship.
4. In reply to a previous assertion that "Iowa State and U. of
Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention as reason to
censor newsgroups. Neither institutions are citing any other
university, state, or federal regulations for their actions." ISU
admins have cited Chapter 728, [Iowa's Obscenity Law] though it
exempts libraries and educational institutions.
<1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
5. UNL has said that had they continued to supply the "pornographic"
alt. hierarchy and someone had complained to the federal government,
UNL would have been required to prove that the groups met the criteria
of the NSFNET backbone service's acceptable use policy, or risk losing
NSFNET access. This is based on a misunderstanding of the NSFNET's
powers and of their policies.
<1992May5.005813.281@eff.org>
Note 6 discusses the distribution of "alt" groups in the UK.
6. Usenet relies on the goodwill of those operating the servers which
distribute the news. "In the UK, the great majority of these systems
are operated by academic institutions, who seem to have decided not to
forward the 'alt.*' hierarchy, in particular, and a number of other
groups which are either judged to be 'unsuitable', or clearly only
relevant to, say, the US."
<1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>
Notes 7-8 discuss censorship of the alt.sex.bondage newsgroup in the
light of recent events in Canada.
7. "The following is a transcription of a report broadcast on CBC
Radio's news program "The World at Six," aired 27 May 92 and monitored
on 9755 KHz at 2300 UTC. All spelling and punctuation has been added,
and may be incorrect."
8. In a letter to the administrators at the University of Manitoba I
said, among other things, that "there are those who feel very strongly
that a University should never tell its people what they can't read."
<1992May31.080939.25516@clarinet.com>
Notes 9-10 discuss trying to appeasing Canadian censors.
9. If we are to ensure that alt.sex.bondage is safe from the censors -
in Canada or elsewhere - we must make an effort to exclude depictions
of non-consensual sex from the newsgroup.
<1992May29.174945.20946@cs.sfu.ca>
10. If we encourage self-censorship of alt.sex.bondage, and advocate
creating `alt.sex.nonconsensual' as both a forum for that genre of
writing and as a target for the Canadian censors, then we allow them a
foot in the door. We must stand by our right to write about what we
choose.
<15492@autodesk.COM>
Notes 11-12 are about the how Usenet fits in with the university ideal
and the meaning of peer pressure in the context of Usenet.
11. "Usenet is *most positively* an invaluable resource. If anything
represents the free flow of information and expression of ideas that
our institutions of higher learning purport to value, this is it."
<1992May10.093635.27536@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
12. 'Peer pressure' is the Usenet community telling the jerk that he is
a jerk. 'Administrative sanction' is the sysadmins telling/forcing
the user to become normal - often by removing his 'voice.'
Administrative sanctions should be based on policies previously set
forth for the user community. Usenet's 'peer pressure' becomes
necessary when it is realized how few administrative sanctions there
actually are and that even these are based on the individual
institution's policies - there is no network-wide police force.
- Carl]
cafv02n23
[Best of April 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. Many of the paraphrases are based on earlier paraphrases by
Adam, Elizabeth, Mark, Paul, me, and by guest editor Fred Nixon.
===============================================================
Notes 1-3 are about Netnews removals at the University of
Nebraska, Lincoln and in Germany.
1. [A UNL user:] On March 2nd, the alt groups were eliminated by UNL's
Computing Resource Center (CRC). Although the reason given was lack
of resources, the content of the groups played a major part. The
chairman of the UNL Academic Senate Computational Services and
Facilities Committee felt in hindsight that the committee did not have
all the facts when they recommended a limited set of news feeds. On
April 6th the UNL Academic Senate Executive Committee voted to request
restoration of the majority of the alt.* groups.
2. [_The Daily Nebraskan_:] "Pornography was a factor in the UNL
Computing Resource Center's decision to stop supplying and entire
hierarchy of USENET news groups to UNL computers, the CRC director
said Thursday."
<9205040334.AA04565@cse.unl.edu>
3. A story in the German paper "EMMA" resulted in the banning of the
"sex" news groups at several universities. Among the groups banned was
"alt.sexual.abuse.recovery."
<199204201927.AA07124@eff.org>
Notes 4-5 are about computer policy at the University of Illinois
and at Iowa State University.
4. [Editor's note: This policy was recently changed -cmk] The NCSA
email policy permits searches and punishment of facility users who
criticize the NCSA or University in email. The policy was created to
justify (after the fact) a search of the computer files of a student
employee. In reaction to the criticism, the NCSA asked a campus wide
committee to review the policy. The committee recommended a policy
closer to the University's general privacy policy. The campus legal
counsel apparently objected to the new policy, since it might increase
the University's liability. It appears counsel is waiting for the
courts to establish law in this area.
<1992Apr26.204032.20854@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
5. "The due process protection of the policy is good. The privacy
protection is unclear. Free expression protection is poor. (The policy
imposes speech restrictions on email and other computer media.
Specifically, it prohibits rude expression and any expression of a
political nature. In my opinion, these speech restrictions violate
academic freedom and the law.)"
<1992Apr2.174625.23219@eff.org>
Note 6 is the Nebraska University Students for Electronic Freedom.
6. This is the Statement of Purpose from the Nebraska University
Students for Electronic Freedom. The group promotes academic freedom,
works to protect privacy, acts as "watch dog" group for university
administration, educates the user community, and strives to broaden
access to electronic communication systems.
<1992Apr1.192701.28737@eff.org>
Note 7 is about fighting words, the "right" not to listen, and the
"right" not to be offended.
7. The Supreme Court says that there is no right not to be offended
except when privacy is 'invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.
Any broader view ... would effectively empower a majority to silence
dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.'
<1992Apr27.143505.9602@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about cracking program and email privacy policy.
8. "I have a problem with outlawing cracking programs: ... Would it be
illegal to possess a paper on access security that contained the
source code for a cracking program? Where do they draw the line
between intellectual discourse and intent to break into someones
account?"
<1992Apr30.164835.1816@opac.osl.or.gov>
9. This is a summary of opinions on email privacy, gleaned from a
questionnaire distributed to comp.admin.policy, comp.risks, and
comp.society.
Notes 10-12 are about logging user activity.
10. [An administrator:] I have been logging "anonymous" ftp's for
months. It was done in response to people abusing privileges by
uploading files to bypass local quotas, or to share with friends.
After discussion in the picture discussion groups, I decided to post a
notice about the logging and upload restrictions at login. Others
argued that "anonymous" implied that no logging would be done. Login
as anonymous now gives a message warning that that is not so. A sample
warning is provided.
11. "One should consider the overall chilling effect of [telnet]
monitoring. What effect will it have on the users--and the
institution--as a whole?"
<1992Apr16.035456.6200@ms.uky.edu>
12. I have never encountered a library system which retains the
patron/book association after the book is returned. "Most libraries
will vehemently protect the privacy of their patrons."
- Carl]
cafv02n22
[Best of March 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. Many of the paraphrases are based on earlier paraphrases by
Adam, me, and by guest editors Terry Rooker and David Swanlund.
===============================================================
Notes 1-3 are about the U. of Nebraska at Lincoln's ban of
all alt.* newsgroups.
1. For anyone who has been following the alt.* controversy at UNL,
the following article appeared on page one of _The Daily Nebraskan_,
the student newspaper of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, on
Tuesday, March 7, 1992. _UNL loses `alt' computer files_ by Mike
Lewis staff reporter. Used with permission of the Daily Nebraskan.
<9203212232.AA24018@cse.unl.edu>
2. [A UNL alum:] "The reasons given for the decision are so
transparent as to be internationally embarrassing to the University."
"There may be newsgroups that you wish not to take. If that is the
case, be honest about it." "If you are in need of additional
resources, they should be requested [...]"
<1992Mar26.214421.26447@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
Note 3 is about Switzerland's SWITCH (an academic networking
consortium).
3. "In addition to banning some usenet newsgroups, SWITCH is also blocking
packets to the local eunet chapter (chuug). We have to route most
packets from Zurich to Geneva and back to Zurich. Others go as far as
Amsterdam, and, yes, still others go to the USA and come back (hee
hee). SWITCH is blocking nntp, telnet and ftp to local sites connected
to eunet."
<1992Mar2.135005.14877@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Note 4 is about student and sys admin reaction to actions such as the
U of Cincinnati's move to terminate accounts of users who telnet to
"game" and IRC hosts.
4. "Yes, the users have to become responsible with the use of the
resources and get involved in policy-making. But the administrators
should help in this process by asking for input, opening policy
meetings, and by acting less arbitrarily upon the users they are
trying to serve."
<1992Mar1.230835.9357@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 5-6 are critiques of computer policies.
5. "This is a critique/review of the U. of Delaware computer policy
proposal." The policy is *very* polished. "I do have some concern
about punishment before 'conviction'" and "[t]he policy could be
improved by saying that nondisruptive, noncommercial "personal use" of
the computer [is] permitted and encouraged subject to whatever
limitations local sites may impose."
<1992Mar26.220927.5131@eff.org>
6. The _Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources_ is a detailed
list of infractions and penalties at the U. of Illinois at Chicago.
This article is a critique of this policy. The infraction descriptions
are vague, and the penalties are severe. In general, the stated policy
would allow system administration to enforce any arbitrary policy and
still be in accordance with this policy.
<1992Mar18.191830.5134@eff.org>
Notes 7-9 are about email and "anonymous" ftp privacy.
7. Here are the results of an informal poll of sys admins about email
privacy. One respondent says that searches for technical reasons are
not the same as searches to investigate wrong doing. One says that he
or she was once asked to search a users files, but flatly refused.
<1992Mar23.184747.13631@eff.org>
8. Enclosed is a sample account request form from the U. of
New Mexico. It specifies under what conditions the user can and cannot
expect privacy for their email.
9. Anonymous ftp does not necessarily mean that the process is
anonymous. ftp.uu.net is one such system that requires a domain style
email address for a password. All file transfers are logged, but the
initial login message informs the user of this.
<1992Mar12.213307.11252@uunet.uu.net>
Notes 10-12 are about what harassment is and how email filtering can
sometimes stop it.
10. [A professor who studies sexual harassment:] "It sounds generally
right" that merely making offensive-to-some information available has
never been found to create an illegal hostile environment. "The
availability of all kinds of materials in libraries is completely
protected....now, that's a TRUE First Amendment issue!"
<1992Mar25.180208.4528@eff.org>
11. A technique for email filtering using elm is explained.
<1992Mar5.164036.26921@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>
12. Another technique for email filtering, using HM, is explained.
<1992Mar6.021936.5715@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Carl]
cafv02n11
[Best of February 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
Many of the paraphrases are based on earlier paraphrases by Paul,
Elizabeth, and Adam.
===============================================================
Notes 1-4 discuss newsgroup removals rationalized by creative
interpretations of law. Sites around the world have found this an
effective way to ban almost any topic, for example, war, drugs, gay
rights, crime, rape, abortion, and sex (including recovery from sexual
abuse and United Press International stories mentioning sex).
1. SWITCH, the federal institution which provides the network
connections between Swiss universities, has decided to refuse to carry
certain Usenet newsgroups on the grounds that they *might* be illegal
under Swiss law. Newsgroups banned include alt.drugs,
alt.politics.homosexuality, clari.news.terrorism.
<1992Feb20.180752@sic.epfl.ch>
2. (A person in Ireland:) "The computer/censorship issue related to
the fact that only crosspostings to the group _talk.abortion_ appear
here." If a posting to such a group had information on how to procure
an abortion, are we any more liable than a library with an English
telephone directory which has the phone number of an abortion clinic?
<1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>
3. This is a parody of the Iowa State University policy that bans
discussions of sex (and previously drugs). It shows what the policy
might say if it were honest. It starts "We, a handful of individuals
in the Iowa State University Computation Center, have imposed a policy
on the distribution of Usenet newsgroups. ... The purpose of this
statement is to provide an after-the-fact justification of a decision
that we made without looking at the academic freedom issues."
<1992Feb23.201324.12799@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
4. Carnegie Mellon University promotes self-censorship by its threats
to investigate of Eric Jefferson on charges of sexual harassment
unless he stops writing public articles that some find offensive.
<46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org>
Notes 5-7 are about privacy.
5. A user on this system was apparently running a password cracking
program. An administer searched my files and found I had a copy of
the newest version of Crack. I have legitimate reasons for having
this program. I have received mail from the Chairman of the
Department "inviting" me to discuss my account privileges. "It really
bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably anyway)
just for the mere possession of a program."
<9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
6. [From Brewster Kahle, the operator of the directory of servers in
the WAIS system:] The new breed of "digital librarians" must consider
the ethical obligations which follow from their privileged position
with regard to the users whom they serve.
7. Under what circumstances can the university disclose personal
information about a student computer user, say, through 'finger'?
Enclosed excerpts from the Family Education and Privacy Rights of Act
provide a partial answer.
<1992Feb6.233159.24859@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 8 concerns a system administrator's policy of acting quickly in
case of rules violations. Often a student's account is restricted for
days.
8. (A student:) On a Friday afternoon I discovered all my accounts at
the University Of Aston in Birmingham, England had been disabled. I
was told that something I was running was congesting the network. To
sort things out I needed to meet with the head of the department, by
appointment, on the following Tuesday.
<1992Feb26.192151.6435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Note 9 discusses the issue of TERMINUS, a terminal server at MIT
which allows users to connect to any port of any Internet connected
machine and which has been seen as a security threat by the NSFnet.
9. The NSF cannot be expected to cut off MIT or TERMINUS any more than
the phone company could be expected to disconnect MIT's phones just
because someone used their phone lines to break into a system. If
anything will shut down TERMINUS it will be the privatization of the
network which will no longer allow them to put the onus of security
onto other sites.
<1992Feb18.215827.4@sdg.dra.com>
Note 10 discusses the history of altnet, the set of "alt" groups.
10. Contrary to the 'history' given in the Iowa State University
policy, the alt groups were not created by a 'collective group of
Usenet "news administrators"' as a place for dangerous topics. In
fact, the alt groups were created to fight the suppression of the
collective group.
<3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
- Carl]
cafv02n08
[Best of January 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[Many of these paraphrases are based weekly paraphrases by
Elizabeth, Paul, and me. - Carl]
Notes 1-3 regard a recent controversy at Carnegie Mellon
University involving issues of sexual harassment and freedom of
speech.
1. As described in the Carnegie Mellon student newspaper 'The Tartan',
student Eric Jefferson has had sexual harassment charges filed
against him because of his postings to a CMU bulletin board for
the Women's Center.
<1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org>
2. Here is a ruling on sexual harassment from the university of
Wisconsin which quite clearly indicates that Jefferson's postings did
not and cannot constitute harassment.
<1992Jan29.221441.18673@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
3. Jefferson's chastisement does not constitute a threat to freedom
of speech - indeed, constitutional protections are irrelevant in a
privately owned university. However, the more important issue is
whether the university is more committed to the ideal of freedom of
speech or to the ideal of the free exchange of ideas. The two are not
the same, and the free expression of hatred can create an atmosphere
in which ideas cannot be freely shared.
<8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu>
Notes 4-5 discuss academic freedom and the right of sites to limit
access to netnews.
4. At Iowa State University, by default, a machine does not receive
the newsgroups alt.sex.*, alt.drugs, alt.psychoactives. The head of
the department where the machines are located can request that the
machines have access to the omitted groups. Students and staff are
attempting to change the policy.
<1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu>
5. "If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of
arbitrary censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of
arbitrary censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an
electronic library of ideas."
<1992Jan26.045844.10853@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Notes 6-7 concern the UC's court-ordered search of computer files.
6. Dean Pentcheff (dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu): This is a summary of
the events surrounding "UC's court-ordered search of files on two of
its Unix mainframe computers... [This summary is] based on my own
understanding of what's going on. These are not "official" summaries,
either from the University of California, or from the plaintiff in the
case. I am not involved with the case in any capacity except as an
interested observer."
7. There are some grave inconsistencies inherent in defining a user's
files as 'university records'. For example, such a definition means
that a user who reads *her or his own email* might violate of federal law.
<1992Jan14.032659.8519@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 describes the outcome of the recent Cubby vs. Compuserve case.
8. The effect of the Compuserve decisions has been to show that the
more a computer-mediated forum is monitored, the greater the liability
of the moderators/owners for what is said in that forum. If there is no
censorship then liability rests entirely with the authors of
individual posts.
9. Mike Godwin, Staff Lawyer for the EFF: By granting CompuServe's
request for a summary judgment (finding CompuServe not liable), the
court has strengthened first amendment protection for online services.
The judge's decision holds that CompuServe was a distributor, not a
publisher. Like a bookstore owner, CompuServe is not required to
review everything it carries prior to providing it to its customers.
<1992Jan6.204341.5096@eff.org>
Notes 10-11 discuss the recent removal of software from users'
accounts, computer suspendions before hearings, and searches
of user files at the University of Wyoming,
10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon
receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the
users had to remove all IRC software from their accounts and agree not
to use IRC on the computer. "After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster)
account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be
searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be
disusered without hope for reinstatement."
<3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200@mrgate.uwyo.edu>
11. Even if the university was within its legal rights, did it have the
moral right to take this action? Specifically, should the
administrator have suspended the accounts before establishing that the
user had done something wrong? (No.) And should he have searched user files
without authorization? (No.)
<199201101800.AA13167@eff.org>
Note 12 is about Freedom of (impolite) Speech.
12. The ACLU handbook on teachers' legal rights and Robert J. Wagmam's
_The First Amendment Book_ indicate that "The Freedom of Speech
guaranteed by the Constitution *does not* require that speakers be
polite."
<1992Jan5.025518.11163@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n45
[Month of December, 1991
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
(Some of these paraphrases are based earlier paraphrases and
summaries written by Bob Solon and me.)
Note 1 is a summary of many 1991 cases.
1. Enclosed is an end-of-year update of the Banned Computer Material
list. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U., the U. of
Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of Waterloo,
U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U., Pennsylvania State
U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U., U. of Wisconsin,
and others.
<1991Dec18.181508.10501@eff.org>
Notes 2-4 are about Iowa State University's restrictions on who can
see newsgroups such as alt.sex.
2. [Mike Godwin, staff counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation:]
Although the policy's stated purpose is to avoid violations of law, in
fact, all (or almost all) of the material restricted is legal and
Constitutionally protected.
<1991Dec19.175822.21404@eff.org>
3. "The Iowa State University policy should, in my opinion, be changed
to better respect intellectual freedom by more accurately reflecting
library policy (and the law)." It violates the principles of at least
three American Library Association policy statements. (These are
enclosed.)
<1991Dec16.191620.21567@eff.org>
4. The policy was imposed by the Computation Center without the
approval of the Computer Center Newsgroup committee or University
Computation Center Advisory Sub-Committee.
<1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu>
Note 5 is about a pornography-on-usenet article that appeared in the
German feminist publication EMMA.
5. Contrary to what the EMMA article says, Usenet is not used mainly
for transmission of pornographic material. Less that 7% of Usenet
traffic is even related to sex.
Notes 6-7 try to answer frequently asked questions.
6. Enclosed are answers (with references) to the questions "Should my
university remove Netnews newsgroups because some people find them
offensive?" (No.) and "If it doesn't have the resources to carry all
newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?" (Like it selects books
and magazines.)
<1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org>
7. "q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the
University may *increase* its liability."
<1991Dec20.045445.4243@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about punishment of inflammatory speech
at a private religious university and prohibition of
rude speech at a public state university.
8. Enclosed is a note in which the sys admin of Marquette University
reports that a student has been expelled from the computing facilities
as a result of posting an inflammatory message. I think that
inflammatory speech "should be out competed, not outlawed." Also,
students should not be punished without due process.
<1991Dec18.215846.17384@eff.org>
9. An Iowa State University policy says "[s]ending rude ... material
via any electronic mail or bulletin board facility is strictly
forbidden." The courts have said that "[i]t is not the job of the
government to enforce concepts of courtesy, cooperation, and common
sense with respect to expression."
<1991Dec3.045840.18238@eff.org>
Articles 10-11 discuss issues of user privacy vis-a-vis computers.
10. [A sysadmin] The Unix "ps" command has many positive uses. Also, "... if you don't have anything to hide, you have
no reason for privacy" in the context of computer systems. I
advocate educational "cross-pollination" and productivity from
relatively open systems, especially in an educational environment.
<1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu>
11. "[T]he contents of an academic computer, other than
directory information and any publicly posted material, are private
unless their owners or creators choose to make them public."
Such a policy should also pertain to students and staff,
as well as faculty.
<199112050610.AA19751@eff.org>
Note 12 is about the resource use of the MUDs, a type of recreational
programs.
12. I've measured network traffic at my site. During hours when MUDs
are prohibited, they are 6% of network traffic. During hours when they
are allowed they are 30% of traffic. "[W]hile MUD playing here isn't a
problem for our T1 connection, it could be troublesome to a site with
a 56KB connection."
- Carl]
cafv01n42
(listed incorrectly as cafv01n44)
[Month of November, 1991
[The guest editor this week is Lorrie Ackerman. I really need
more guest editors for the New Year (I'll be away till Jan 6th).
If you are intersted, please send me email (kadie@eff.org).
For information on being a guest editor, send email to
archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line: send acad-freedom call-for-guest-editors
- Carl Kadie]
[These paraphrases are excerpted from weekly editions of CAF-news edited
by Carl M. Kadie and Benjamin Gross.]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 are critiques of university computer policies.
1. The policy of Ohio State University's Academic Computer Services is
too vague. "It seems to claim that the ACS staff does not need to
follow due process procedures to expel a user from the ACS computers."
<1991Nov9.152336.10203@eff.org>
2. The policy of the University of Texas Computer Science department
is too broad. It does not detail the process leading to a computer
expulsion. It offers little privacy protection. It prohibits some
constitutionally-protected speech.
<1991Nov5.023409.6759@eff.org>
Notes 3-4 are about system administration.
3. (A user:) "If the users software interferes with the running of
the lab, he/she is warned about it, & continues to do it, then your
solution [ordering the user to stop and temporarily turning off the
user's account] seems the only one available."
<9111152223.AA19536@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
4. Instead of a list of Acceptable Uses, we should have a list of
Unacceptable uses. I am appalled by the idea that I must beg permission
for anything not on the list of Acceptable Uses.
<9111162029.AA27328@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 5-6 are about Steven Brack and Ohio State University.
5. A student should be given the findings of fact upon which the
formal hearing board bases its decision. In the Brack case, no
findings of fact were given. This is unfair and likely illegal.
(Legal references are enclosed.)
<1991Nov19.192831.1996@eff.org>
6. (Steven Brack:) "The only action I ever performed that had any
impact on the system was the fixman command." I ran it because its
manual page led me to think that it would improve the display time of
my manual pages. My action was noticed because fixman acts globally,
not locally, and because it kept running (for hours) after I thought
that I had killed it.
<9111190335.AA14297@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Note 7 is about an access suspension incident.
7. (A student:) Mohawk Valley Community College suspended my computer
access (without any hearing) for 1) setting the (correct) time on the
PCs in the lab where I worked and 2) sharing simple utility programs
with other users. Administrative appeals were futile. I failed my
English class when the sys admin refused to give me copies of my
files. I eventually transferred to another school.
<1991Nov15.152856.25079@pool.info.sunyit.edu>
Note 8 is about system administration goals.
8. (A sys admin:) The goal of limiting the user-admin ratio is
worthy, but difficult. The goal of communicating with and educating
users is practical and productive.
<1991Nov18.150215.11121@ms.uky.edu>
Note 9 is about the Alt.sex flap at U of Iowa.
9. "Today's Daily Iowan, Monday Nov. 25, 1991, has joined the fray. On
the top of page 3A, on the left, is the headline 'UI Computer Files Contain
Pornography', followed by the same kind of incisive reporting of the alt.sex
newsgroups that we have been used to from the print media. The article does
mention that the "pornography" is carried by USENET, but no mention is made
of other material on USENET. The article indicates that the U of I computers
contain "over 70,000 pages" of pornography, which is nonsense -- this
is roughly the total number of postings that have been delivered to Iowa's
machines over USENET, but nobody at the DI seems to have noticed that things
get deleted on a regular basis."
<9300@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Note 10 is about the different kinds of recreational computer uses.
10. (A student:) There should be a distinction made between the different
kinds of recreational computer uses, "those that have an arguable nexus
to the communication of ideas and those that do not (by which I refer
principally to computer games)." This especially applies to general
use computers and sites.
<199111252159.AA14818@eff.org>
Note 11 is about rules that may effectively outlaw library catalog searches.
11. Rules that outlaw offensive computer expression also effectively outlaw
on-line searches of library catalogs because many catalogs contain
offensive titles.
<1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
Notes 12 and 13 are about ps and other system accounting measures.
12. (Carl M. Kadie, in response to Steven Brack who says it is not
one user's place to decide what process other users can execute:)
Users should have access to ps because "if I see that you have what
looks like a run away process, I can send you and/or the sys admin
email. Why should I be the one doing this? Because, I'm the one who
wants the cycles. The sys admin isn't logged into the computer, or
isn't paying close attention. You may have logged off or started work
on another task, not realizing that your job is still running."
<1991Nov25.213447.14114@eff.org>
13. (Wes Morgan:) ps and other accounting measures are not an invasion
of privacy because the computer is a publicly available resource. Since the
computer account is provided by the university and "your use of a given
computer system affects all other users of that system....then the need
for this information becomes apparent." The users' real information, at
minimum the users' real names, must be available so they can be contacted,
otherwise the users loose the benefits of effective electronic communication.
<1991Nov26.232012.2924@ms.uky.edu>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=GUEST EDITOR-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Lorrie Ackerman -- Washington U. engineering and policy grad student
6639 University Dr. Apt 1-W, St. Louis, MO 63130 (314)727-4910
(Student Life newspaper office #: 935-5441--call me there any time)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- lfa1@cec1.wustl.edu -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
]
cafv01n36
[Special issue: Best of October
The words after the numbers are a short paraphrase of the article, not
necessarily my opinion.
Note 1 is a CAF Statement.
1. Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom -- This is an
attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to academic
computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion about
computers and academic freedom.
<1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org>
Notes 2-6 are about incidents and policy at specific universities.
2. The University of Waterloo has lifted its ban on newsgroups "from
alt.sex.bondage to rec.humor.funny". Enclosed is the story of the ban.
<1991Oct03.060346.5082@looking.on.ca>
3. (Student at WWU:) Alt.sex was removed on the order of one person,
the Vice Provost for "information and communication".
<1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
4. Many of Ohio State's so-called charges against Steven Brack are
trivial (for example, using two Macs at once). Mr. Brack is also
charged with a Constitutionally-protected activity (posting a
vulgarity). The vagueness of the so-called charges (alleged activities
are never matched to the University rules they violate) makes it
impossible for Mr. Brack to defend himself.
<1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org>
5. UCLA's Computer Use Policy could be improved with better privacy
protection and the elimination of procedures that allow users to be
punished for rule infractions before it is determined that infractions
have actually occurred.
<199110261528.AA24204@eff.org>
6. (Addressed to the U. of Illinois at Chicago sys admin:) "[Y]ou
overstepped the bounds of your authority when you punished the student
for his expression." The speech in the note, although offensive, was
Constitutionally protected. "Statements in a free-speech forum such as
soc.women [cannot] constitute sexual harassment." Moreover, you are
not authorized by your university to decide sexual harassment cases.
<1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org>
Notes 7-9 are about newsgroup policy.
7. "I think that unmoderated Netnews newsgroups facilities offered by
most universities are free-speech forums. ... I offer three
justifications for this opinion."
8. University sys admins should enforce newsgroup charters even
charters that discriminate based on sex or viewpoint.
<1991Oct29.150556.5266@eff.org>
9. Postings to the net, like other expressive actions, should only be
punished if they cause substantial interference with the rights of
others. A few off-topic posts do not constitute substantial
interference. Enclosed are the general rules my school has against
disruptive and coercive action.
<1991Oct24.014633.28623@eff.org>
Notes 10-12 are about the application of library policy to newsgroups.
10. (Computer administrator at Iowa State:) Having a selection policy
based on Library policy is the proverbial ounce of prevention.
<1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu>
11. The National Science Foundation's network rules are unclear. The
rules should recognize that the NSF has created an on-line electronic
library system. Enclosed is a copy of the American Library
Association's Diversity Statement (a statement that discusses both
sexual and sexist material).
<1991Oct2.225512.3857@eff.org>
12. A judge as ruled that CompuServe (a commercial on-line information
provider) isn't liable for some of the contents of its network. The
judge compared CompuServe to a public library or a bookstore that
can't feasibly examine every publication it carries.
<1991Nov1.195246.13037@eff.org>
Note 13 is about K-12 net access.
13. Net access and use by grade and high schoolers should be
supervised by an instructor.
- Carl]
cafv01n30
[Best of the month of September, 1991
The first and second notes are a critique of the policy of Computing
Services at Central Michigan University. In the policy, Computing
Services asserts ownership on all "user" files on its system. The
critique calls this assertion an attempt of theft, pointing out that
University ownership would mean that the University could sell user
files to outsiders. The critique calls a new policy, created with user
participation.<1991Sep2.192241.1731@eff.org>
<1991Sep4.003030.2331@eff.org> The third note agrees that user
participation is desirable, but observes that users are often
apathetic and uninterested in policy.
<202C75A18080B52F@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
The next two notes concern the application of library policy to
computers. The first note reports that the American Library
Association (ALA) says that access restrictions can be censorship. The
note includes the ALA's definitions of censorship and related terms.
<1991Sep23.151518.18589@eff.org> The next note tries to clarify the
analogy between a traditional library and a computer. The note says
that Netnews should compared to a library, rather it should be
compared to the set of publications from which a library selects. The
note also includes the Hypothetical Netnews Bill of Rights, a
modification of the ALA's Library Bill of Rights.
<1991Sep18.152828.6297@eff.org>
In the next note, Mike Godwin, legal staff for the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) says that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA) could be reasonably construed to protect university email.
<1991Sep23.190848.24422@eff.org>
The next note says that allowing some personal and recreational use of
computers that are mostly for instructional use, works fine in
practice.<1991Sep26.041948.27809@visix.com>
The next note concedes that an owner can do most anything he, she, or
it wishes with his, her, or its computer. When that owner is an
organization, however, it must act within the bounds of its charter.
Thus, the U.S. Government must act within the bounds of its charter,
the Constitution.<1991Sep18.200431.12028@eff.org>
The next two notes are about magazine/newsgroup selection. The first
note says that contrary to what they may say, many librarians avoid
the selection of material that offends them.
<6665D4606E821004@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The second note highlights the
ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing. The Workbook covers
everything from developing a selection policy to handling challenges
to controversial materials.<1991Sep21.215316.833@eff.org> The full
Workbook is available on-line; just send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
Recently, someone at the University of Illinois posted a note that
some found offensive. Some of the offended said that the poster could
be punished by the University. The penultimate note is an explanation
of why a state university such as the University of Illinois cannot
legally punish a student for being offensive.
<1991Sep17.195000.9335@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
The last note is a discussion of rules that balance an individual
user's rights with the need to keep the computer system running
smoothly. The note includes six real-life problems, possible rules
might cover the problems, and a report about how the problems were
really solved.<1991Sep5.205747.17426@mp.cs.niu.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n25
[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of August
August 5, 1991 to September 1, 1991
The first five notes discuss freedom of expression on the net. In the
first note, a sys admin at the University to Kentucky says that one
reason that his site dropped Netnews was because his Dean received
mail complaining about the postings of several users. (He also says
that when they upgrade their hardware they may support Netnews but may
not carry the alt.sex newsgroup because minors might be able to access
it.)<1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu> In the second note a student
argues that Netnews is much like other small student publications he
has worked on (and so should be treated like other student
publications).
The third note describes the likely legal status of Netnews at public
universities. It quotes a court decision that explains and applies the
Supreme Court' Public-Forum Doctrine. Under this doctrine, Netnews and
email (but not necessarily the computer as a whole) seem to be
"limited-public forums" in which "viewpoint discrimination" is
prohibited.<1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org> The fourth note, quoting a
law book, expands on this. It says that a public university's
ownership of a student publication does not given it unfettered
control of content and that "... school authorities cannot [legally]
withdraw support from a student publication simply because of
displeasure with the content."<1991Aug29.162832.11923@eff.org> The
fifth note tries to answer the question of how public schools should
address their concerns about libel and obscenity in student
publications. Quoting a law book, the note says that prior restraints
are generally forbidden, but "[s]tudents can be punished and
publications confiscated if the material distributed ... is libelous
or obscene ..."<1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>
The next three notes concern the freedom to read Netnews. The first
note explains why a sys admin may not want to carry a controversial
newsgroup such as alt.sex. The reasons include fear of criticism (and
lawsuits) and fear of obscenity and pantering
laws.<1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu> The second note points out
that under the Limited-Forum Doctrine, sys admins legally *can* select
which Netnews newsgroups their site will
acquire.<1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu> The third note suggests
that sys admins should select newsgroup the way that librarians select
books and periodicals. It includes references to American Library
Association (ALA) policy documents. The note reports that the ALA
fights official access restrictions based on
age.<1991Aug26.165422.18472@eff.org>
The next note explains that although private universities do not have
Constitutional obligations to their students, they often have
legally-binding contractual obligations to provide, for example,
provide due process.<1991Aug12.145434.3380@eff.org>
The last four notes are about policy making and due process. The first
note is excerpts from a 100 page on-line document. The document
advises on site security and also makes some good suggestions about
policy making.<1991Aug7.163131.23490@eff.org> The next note, argues
that that like academic, library, and parking policy, university
computer policy should be in the main student
handbook.<1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>
The third note, quoting a book on school law, reports that due process
requirements have not "turned classrooms and schools into courtrooms".
It also explains that some due process is legally required unless the
matter is trivial (or there is an
emergency).<1991Aug26.192951.21811@eff.org> Finally, at some schools,
a student will be suspended from the computer anytime the computer
administration wants the student to meet with them. In the last note,
a sys admin says such suspensions should not be used until reasonable
attempts to set up a meeting have failed. The note also gives examples
of when a sys admin needs more flexibility than a formal policy might
allow.<1991Aug31.162538.22121@mp.cs.niu.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n20
[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of July
The first notes discuss cases. Ohio State University and Steven Brack
are back in the news. Recall that Mr. Brack was permanently expelled
(without the chance for a formal hearing or appeal) from OSU's
Academic Computer Services (ACS) computers. Now a Judicial Committee
hearing will decide if Mr. Brack be should punished some more
(apparently for the same alleged offenses). Mr. Brack is charged with,
among other things, obscenity (i.e. typing "fuck you" in newsgroup
note.) The third note about the Ohio State case is a reminder that
only Mr. Brack's side of this case has been presented in this forum.
In addition to the Ohio State case, there is a report of student of
the University of Georgia being suspended for knowingly aiding
crackers by supplying them with an encrypted password file. (The
student seems to have received due processes.) There are also reports
of due-process procedures being ignored at Virginia Commonwealth
University and at Wayne State University.
The next three notes are about searches of computer files. The first
quotes the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students on
(noncomputer) searches. The next describes proposed federal rules
on computer searches by the police. The third argues that a probable
cause rule is enforceable.
There are three notes about policy. In the first, I critique Ohio
State ACS computer policy because it seems to allow expulsion from
their computers without the opportunity for a formal hearing or an
appeal. The next note outlines the topics that a model policy should
cover. The last lists a proposed U.S. constitutional amendment. It
would guarantee Constitutional protection (like freedom of
expression) of computer users.
The last two notes outline the contractual and constitutional
constraints on sys admin (and University) authority. They explain that
universities are under a contractual obligation to treat students
fairly. Every administrator and student should read these notes.
<1991Jul11.130240.8071@eff.org>
<1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>
<9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu>
<1991Jul30.013420.19111@eff.org>
<17042@life.ai.mit.edu>
<1991Jul22.160227.12830@tygra.Michigan.COM>
<1991Jul25.152614.11476@eff.org>
<9107262014.AA00439@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9107310026.AA02625@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
<1991Jul26.153810.5953@eff.org>
<9107200443.AA08721@eff.org>
<1991Jul30.202126.7529@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n15
[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of June
This issues starts with reports of user abuse at Ohio State and in
industry and a report from the University of Kentucky on the pressures
faced by sys admins (caused in part by users). The next note shows
what can happen when users are denied due process; they may take
matters into their own hands causing much more serious problems. A
note by William Murray attributes most user/sys admin conflict to
honest differences in how each perceive computer systems.
Two notes discuss graphics files of naked people. The notes argue that
University's can not prohibit such files without violating the rights
of their student. Library policy with regard to pictures of naked
people and the issue of sexual harassment are considered.
The final six notes tell how to make things run smoothly. Users and
sys admins should give each other the benefit of the doubt; "ALL
problems of abuse etc. come about due to lack of communications
between the Systems staff and the users." An experienced sys admin
reports that it is almost never necessary to suspend users. Another
reports that user participation in policy making really works. Both
of these observations are supported by the Joint Statement on the
Rights and Freedoms of Students.
<677391652@macbeth.cs.duke.edu>
<1991Jun18.214726.15504@ms.uky.edu>
<1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>
<85910629160058/0003158580NB2EM@mcimail.com>
<1991Jun8.025146.16881@eff.org>
<1991Jun11.002331.13159@eff.org>
<1991Jun18.225345.5510@eff.org>
<2E8DFD2EDC217F86@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<2EAE2FFB1C217F86@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<1991Jun3.161630.10523@eff.org>
<9106142225.AA03883@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n10
[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of May
This is a compilation of the best notes from May. It includes several
notes detailing how academic freedom might be applied to computers.
Issues considered include privacy, participation, quota enforcement,
freedom to read, and personal use. Several notes tell how academic
freedom is (or is not) being applied at particular universities
including the University of Illinois and Boston University. From
Berkeley comes a description of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility
(OCF), an organization that *democratically* manages computer
resources for thousands of users. Also, the compilation includes a
case study that tells how a general student policy has evolved
since 1904. After reading the case study you will be able to say "hey,
this computer policy looks like something from the 1930's." Finally,
there is a note that tells how to get back issues from the CAF archive.
<9105011453.AA22372@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU>
<9104301615.AA18715@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
<9105080246.AA08144@eff.org>
<9105122258.AA20974@eff.org>
<9105130011.AA21448@eff.org>
<9105180533.AA15472@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9105120010.AA11281@eff.org>
<9105160259.AA03505@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
<1991May25.064142.6947@eff.org>
<9105282218.AA05613@eff.org>
<1991May31.222422.28508@agate.berkeley.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n08
[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of April
This is a compilation of the best notes from April. It includes the
original announcement for the CAF archive and copies of general policy
statements from the American Library Association, the Canadian Library
Association, and the American Association of University Professors.
It also includes reports of a victory for freedom of expression at
Denver University, newsgroup censorship at Purdue and Case Western,
and one-sided e-mail policy at the University of Illinois.
<9104230942.AA06697@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9104241937.AA28098@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Carl]
====FULL LIST====
cafv03n17
[Week ending April 11, 1993
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[This week's guest editor is Robert Novak, rnovak@nyx.cs.du.edu. We
need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send email to
kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-6 are about IRC and issues of public forums and free speech
1. "Is an IRC channel a public forum or a private meeting? A fictional
example: A channel named the pro-choice channel is created and an
anti-abortionist makes it unusable by generating so much traffic and hate
talk that all the participants leave. Did the anti-abortionist disrupt a
private meeting or exercise free speech? Since a channel can be
controlled, you could make the case that this intrudee was not an invited
guest."
2. "The IRC is a public medium, and most admins will argue that there is
no such thing as 'channel ownership' on the IRC network.... Channels are
pretty well protected against the average bozo trying to disrupt things.
But even with all these safeguards against casual abuse, IRC is still not
considered a private medium."
<1psutjINN732@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
3. "An IRC channel can be designed as a private forum [by setting it
invite-only]. If some other joins without being invited, he explots a
software bug or abuses IRC operator status and can therefore be judged as
disrupting. I think that [non-invite-only, etc...] channels (who haven't
chosen to run private) are public places."
<1prtdm$qbo@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
4. "I guess the real problem arose because the people who were trying to
hold the meeting were prevented from doing it by a person (actually two)
who were irc bombing the channel. Then the operator kicked the people out
of the channel and they tried to mailbomb him personally."
5. "The U. of Illinois has rules against disruptive and coercive action.
The standard is substantial interference with the rights of others.
University agents may act in the performance of their duties to end
'disorder'. Penalties can be imposed after a disciplinary process."
[includes relevant parts of the U of Illinois Code on Campus Affairs]
Notes 6-9 are about Internet institutions handling offending Usenet posts
and their posters.
6. "The freedom of speech of a person is ONLY violated if he/sh is
prevented from expressing his/her opinion BY THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore
one's freedom of speech is NOT violated even if his/her account is
disabled because of the unfavourable opinion he/she expresses through the
account. I think it is inappropriate for the Director of the University
Computing Services to cite 'freedom of speech' as the reason of not taking
any action unless it is the University's own policy to let anyone use its
facilities to express any opinion."
7. "It is not a good idea to terminate a student's access to university
facilities merely because he/she has said something unpopular. Personally
I think Jammer's posting was childish and offensive. While he is free to
speak, I am free not to listen."
8. "What I was saying is that the concept of 'freedom of speech' is not
applicable in here, since no one's freedom of speech is violated whether
Jammer's account is disabled or not. And that the U of Washington has
every right to EITHER continue to give access OR disable it."
9. "The University of Washington is a state university. In the U.S. that
means that it *is* the government, bound by the 14th Amendment not to
violate its students 1st Amendment rights. Most universities in the U.S.
promise that students will be free of institutional censorship. It *is*
the policy of most universities to allow students to use facilities to
express any opinion they want." [includes brief excerpts from "Joint
Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students"]
Notes 10-12 are about anonymous connections to Internet and forged anon
posts from such connections.
10. "On the Net level, there is no such thing as a User ID. Every user
can define hir own From: lines. The only means to stop this would be to
cut off IP access from those machines."
<1ppamd$9oh@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
11. "Machines which don't perform any for of user authorization should
not be permitted to post news articles. Forcing users to login to a Unix
machine to post a message won't eliminate the opportunity to forge
messages, but it would make it more difficult..."
12. "A simple solution: Disable news posting from those systems that do
not require user ID's, and put up a mail-to-news gateway at your site."
- Robert Novak]
cafv03n16 - in press
cafv03n15 - in press
cafv03n14
[Week ending March 28, 1993
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not
necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[We desperatly need new guest (or regular) editors, for information
send email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-6 are about "women-only" mailing lists.
1. (A member of Systers, a women-only list): There are no legal
problems with maintaining a private mailing list. There may be
ethical or philosophical problems, but the lists serve an
important purpose in that they permit women to interact with one
another alone. Two reasons to exclude men are, first, that it is
already easy for women to get input from men and, second, that
women sometimes feel more comfortable communicating only with one
another.
<1993Mar23.203716.16200@wuecl.wustl.edu>
2. "How is a 'women only' group any different in principal from a
country club that excludes Jews ? How is this 'gender
verification' issue any different in principle from the NAZIs
insistance that Germans be able to prove their bloodline was
'pure' of semetic 'corruption' ?"
<1993Mar23.225959.2261@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
3. The motivation for women-only lists is not that men are evil,
but, rather, to discuss "experiences, etc. that have a
particularly strong resonance for women. The restriction of such
groups is an attempt to filter out those who would belittle these
experiences." Other parts of the Net are self-policing; why
should not these lists be so as well?
<01GW6OBHBTN68Y53OE@carleton.edu>
4. (The author of note 1, replying to note 2): "Systers is not a
country club." So, the analogy asserted does not hold. "I have
a right to choose my own friends by whatever criteria I prefer.
As long as you have a right to correspond with your friends over
the Internet, so do I."
<1993Mar25.205412.13054@wuecl.wustl.edu>
5. (The author of note 2): "There is some point where a group of
'friends' becomes an 'organization'. Size and/or purpose of the
group are fuzzy criteria. It might be fair, under your defs, to
allow the KKK a private and exclusive internet nook if the
participants merely claimed they were nothing but a group of
'friends' socializing." Public monies should not support such
activities, they must be entirely privately funded and
maintained.
<1993Mar25.191822.2268@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
6. "As I recall, it is not illegal to be a member of the KKK." I
establish mailing lists for my users. A "publicly-owned system
should be allowed to pro-vide such services, AS LONG AS they can
provide them equitably to all who request them. (This is roughly
akin to the common carrier law's requirement that the business
accept all proper customers.)"
Notes 7-9 concern academic computing services policies.
7. (Carl Kadie): A "critique of the U. of Massachusetts, University
Computing Services compter use policy." "The policy address[es]
privacy, freedom of expression, and due proces. In each of these
areas, it could, I believe, be improved." References.
<1993Mar24.233258.8404@eff.org>
8. Suggests a friendly amendment to Carl Kadie's critique on the
topic of cracking programs. Notes an important disanalogy
between programs to crack and books on picking locks: "the books
won't do it for you; a computer program will."
9. "[C]omputer & network usage rules of the University of
Helsinki." In English and Finnish.
<1993Mar25.200348.3481@eff.org>
Notes 10-12 are on assorted topics.
10. Raises an analogy between the use of anonymity in public
debate on the net and wearing a mask at a public meeting or
forum. Although anonymous posting "to share explicitly personal
experiences in a protective environment" seems "desirable," "why
should anonymous postings to newsgroups of a general, public
nature be allowed or encouraged?"
11. (Carl Kadie, on the posting of an anti-Muslim article): "In
the U.S., the First Amendment generally *does* extend to
advocating wholesale slaughter, murder etc., even explicitly.
Speech may not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to
produce 'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce
such action."' Excerpts from relevant sources and annotated
references.
<1993Mar24.190446.1303@eff.org>
12. Discusses "Kiddy Porn," copyright, and the status and
maintenance of newsgroups.
<6608@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
- Bruce Umbaugh]
cafv03n13 - in press
cafv03n12 - in press
cafv03n11 - in press
cafv03n10 - in press
cafv03n09
[Week ending Febuary 28, 1993
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
=============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-4 are about whether or not restrictions should be placed on using
Gopher for computer gaming.
1. "Unless MUDing is causing some serious resource drain... getting
an account pulled is a bit harsh." [If students are MUDing] "and refuse
to leave when someone else needs to work, I'd have no problem with
changing their password & killing all their processes then & there."
<1993Feb23.001141.1981@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
2. "'Gaming via Gopher' is still game playing. It's a question of locality;
you can't enforce your local policies on some remote site. If you don't
want your gopher clients to spawn telnet sessions... you can always modify
the client code."
3. "I do not see this as a 'free society' issue.... [but rather] the
responsible consumption of resources that are anything *but* free...Do you
mean to advocate that your organization should not hold every member of
its community accountable for the responsible consumption of its
resources, that your organization should have no policy on the acceptable
uses of its resources?"
4. Responding to the above comment: "My use of 'free' referred to
liberty and to basic rights that confer and allow the preservation of
liberty... users should be held accountable for their use of public
resources,though what they do with their own resources is, of course,
nobody's concern but their own... An 'acceptable use' policy is a very
good thing to have. Dissemination of information doesn't violate any
policy on acceptable use that I ever heard of, except when such
dissemination would violate some contract associated with the data, e.g.
proprietary software."
<1993Feb28.040208.17730@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Notes 5-7 are about how systems administrators should handle users who
continually crosspost lengthy, irrelevant and potentially inflammatory
material on the net.
5. "... [taking] a little personal interest in the human that's
responsible always helps...Sending them mail from a local mail-box doesn't
always help. They sometimes think they're faceless, untouchable and
anonymous. Going up to them and dropping a big printout of complaints on
their lap and asking them which part of Emily Postnews they didn't
understand is another."
<1m7dugINNqfr@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>
6. "...being an academic institution in a divided society, the question of
censorship raises its ugly head. Are we advocates of free speech (no
matter how unpleasant) or of some sort of political correctness? Once you
stamp on a particular user for posting stuff that certain individuals find
objectionable, where do you draw the line? Can you ever again defend your
site against the accusation that you're restricting what your users can say?"
<1993Feb21.204625.23784@hippo.ru.ac.za>
7. (Carl Kadie): You can't just deny users network access: "...for how
long? What if the user wants a hearing...and wants to appeal? Who holds
the hearing or appeal? Who judges if the material is 'inflammatory' and
'irrelevant' and if inflamatoriness and irrelevantness is grounds for a
network expulsion? Who makes the final decision to expel from the network?
Based on a written policy or just personal opinion?". Annotated references
follow.
Notes 8-10 refer to the legal implications of minors accessing sexual
material on newsgroups via university computing facilities.
8. "But the nightmare I see is 16 year old Johnnie Jones logging into
Healthline, using Veronica to search for appropriate materials, and
downloading files to his hearts content. Then mom comes along and says
'Where did you get those!!!????' And the University ends up with a nice
costly lawsuit."
<1993Feb24.004803.13686@selway.umt.edu>
9. (Carl Kadie): "Sued on what grounds? Most sexual material is
constitutionally protected. 'Harmful to minor laws' only apply to legally
obscene material. Moreover, most such laws explicitly exempt libraries and
universities. Finally, since the university was acting like a bookstore or
library and not a publisher, it seems unlikely that it would be held
liable for access even to obscene material." Annotated references follow.
10. "If you carry pictures groups, you are in legal danger, not from Moral
Majority types but from the magazines this material has been ripped off
from...real BBS operators are being sued and are losing...Why should a BBS
be able to sell access to GIFs of, say, Cindy Crawford without Cindy
getting any money for it?"
<1mgaqa$lua@agate.berkeley.edu>
Note 11 continues the discussion on CERT and the Dept. of Justice on
Keystroke Monitoring.
11. (Mike Godwin): "Users who have seen the warning would have no
'reasonable expectation of privacy' at all--ergo, capturing their
communications or reading their files would not violate either ECPA or the
Fourth Amendment."
<1993Feb26.211034.26616@eff.org>
- Leslie Regan Shade]
cafv03n08
[Week ending February 21, 1993
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-4 continue the debate arising out of a Memphis State
University student's use of anonymous ftp at AI.SRI.COM.
1. (A sysadmin:) Although most everyone involved in the
incident overreacted, "I don't think it is unreasonable for a
company to notify another site when the passwd file is snarfed,
even a "dummy" passwd file. We send a similar notice ourself (I
think the notice in question is a "canned" one that comes with
one of the security packages.)" It is okay to talk to people
about these concerns; that is not threatening them. The student
"*accidentally mimicked a cracker*" and the site admin responded
appropriately to that. Issues about the configuration and use of
the anonymous ftp site are distinct from those about how to
respond. [Anthologized with permission.]
2. (Carl Kadie's effort to write a form letter more appropriate
to such circumstances than the one used in this incident.)
<1993Feb15.162757.27742@eff.org>
3. (An AI.SRI.COM manager): "Disclaimer: this is strictly a
personal statement." AI.SRI.COM anonymous ftp has been turned
off. Assumptions and conjectures have been treated as fact in
this newsgroup. "The facts are that the student retrieved
precisely two files: first the README stating that this was not a
public archive and then the (dummy) passwd file." This is
inconsistent with his having had innocent intent. [Furnishes log
and discusses logging procedures.] "I find it instructive about
the attitudes and biases of members of this newsgroup that the
student's account of events was so readily accepted, and that no
one attempted to contact us before rushing to judgement." We
merely reported information and our interpretation to the
university. None of us knows whether the student has any prior
record of questionable behavior. The README file was poorly
written, but tending to Anonymous FTP had not been a high
priority. Our aim in banning anonymous file transfers was to
"stop people from blindly snarfing up everything available at our
site." The site did not have a "sophisticated anonymous FTP
configuration" because it is small, with support shared by
researchers; many of our FTP users were inexperienced; guest
accounts are impractical; and we must trade off service to our
users and accessibility to the net. The discussion of this on
the net has been counterproductive. "Our site was one of the
earliest members of the ARPAnet." A week ago, "if you had asked
me whether I anticipated my site imposing any noticeable
restrictions on access from the net, I would have confidently
answered that I did not. Today, I think the question is not
"whether" but "how soon". If and when this happens, remember
that we did not go willingly -- some members of this
newsgroup played a significant role by pushing us onto the
slippery slope."
4. The log's evidence is not inconsistent with the student's
having had innocent intent. The README file "asked [the student]
not to look in pub/ and, not knowing what these directories mean,
[the student] proceeds out of there to etc/ assuming that a site
that lets him in anonymously must keep the public stuff
*somewhere*." The student was logged into a VMS system at his
end, and denies familiarity with Unix conventions. "I still see
nothing presented by you to question his word." "I think you
[i.e., those at AI.SRI.COM] were the ones who jumped to
conclusions." Despite their protestations, "pub" means "public."
Notes 5-8 concern an incident of alleged computer tampering or
computer-assisted abuse at American University.
5. "Work was disrupted for approximately 45 students in Anderson
Computer Lab Feb 8. when an anonymous user from within the campus
broadcasted profane messages to each of the terminals." The
Network Administrator compared a list of LAN users with the list
of on-line users. A particular room was identified and a student
accused. It is "silly to bring a student up on charges for using
a program who's use isn't prohibited by regulation."
<1993Feb16.200522.26409@eff.org>
6. (An AU student:) "I have interviewed the student involved in
this incident." Formal charges "will probably be based on the
computer policy students must agree to when activating their
mainframe accounts." [Quotes a portion of the policy.] "This is
the policy for mainframe accounts, however in this case no
mainframe account was involved." The student has denied carrying
out the acts, in any case.
<93049.000815JSONDER@auvm.american.edu>
7. "These policies apply to use of computers at The American
University and of computers and networks elsewhere if you use a
network at The American University to gain access to those
computers or networks." [Policy excerpts follow.]
<93049.003329JSONDER@auvm.american.edu>
8. "The person sending the messages had logged onto the Novell
LAN server as a LAN Administrator and was using a Novell
administrator privileged function to send messages to people
logged onto the Novell server." Unauthorized use of an account
is a violation. "We have no problem with someone using a program
such as Unix talk or CMS TELL from their own account."
<93049.124231JIM@auvm.american.edu>
Note 9 concerns who should administer and manage computing
resources.
9. "[O]verall I'd rather take my chances with the librarians
figuring out how to manage the technical side of things . . .
than take my chances with your typical academic computing center
administrator figuring out how to manage a campus resource and
ever recognize that there are people behind those account names.
"I think you'd find that admins in commercial sites are much more
liberal about policies than anything that would be tolerated in
academia (other than hard lines about information leakage.) One
reason is because the people using their systems actually have
jobs to do and can't be crippled with stupid policies that just
raise the comfort level."
Note 10 is on a public library's attempt to restrict access to
singer Madonna's book, _Sex_.
10. According to an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, a state's
attorney wrote Downers Grove public library saying that providing
minors access to _Sex_ could be criminal. The library board
voted to limit access, although the Illinois Harmful Materials
Act, to which the state's attorney referred, concerns only
legally obscene material, not that which is merely graphic. [A
later note pointed out that libraries are specifically excluded
from the provisions of the law.] The editorial notes that such a
law makes citizens uncertain what materials are permitted and
which prohibited.
- Bruce Umbaugh]
cafv03n07
[Week ending February 14, 1993
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-5 concern SPA raids.
1. In response to the comment that universities have the right to
search computer disk drives at their discretion, I do not think
universities gain ownership of something just because it is related to
university duties.
<1993Feb8.051859.5933@eff.org>
2. However, if the university is liable for what is found, shouldn't
the university have search rights, in order to limit liability?
3. But if the university maintains a policy against piracy, notifies
users of the policy, and takes appropriate action, I doubt SPA raids
have any legal basis. The burden falls on the SPA to show an
institution knowingly encouraged or tolerated piracy.
<1993Feb8.163241.13161@eff.org>
4. Perhaps there should be varying levels of searching and inspection,
such as one requiring definite suspicion and high-level authorization
such as a warrant, and another requiring no suspicion and no
authorization.
<1993Feb10.190417.2962@eff.org>
5. At the University of Illinois, a student's private work space cannot
be searched, since neither the University nor the Dean have the
authority to give permission for such a search.
<1993Feb12.162500.2374@eff.org>
Notes 6-9 concern revoking privileges.
6. Academic institutions are not the government, and thus it is
perfectly acceptable for them to suspend or restrict computer access
or privileges until a hearing may be scheduled.
<980@ulogic.UUCP>
7. But what about a student who is accused of rules violations, and is
unable to complete coursework because computer privileges have been
suspended?
<1993Feb9.172000.4139@news.columbia.edu>
8. Universities are centers of teaching, and thus must not restrict
the access of its users to network services.
<1993Feb11.154331.21489@dcc.uchile.cl>
9. Student computer access need not be revoked while a hearing is
scheduled in a timely manner. Just restrict access to services.
<1013@ulogic.UUCP>
Notes 10-11 concern censorship of newsgroups.
10. A student at the University of Maine reports that the university
is censoring certain newsgroups.
<93040.063300IO92570@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
11. Property of public institutions are held by the institution in
trust for the people. Therefore, such institutions may not remove
accounts or newsgroups without satisfying due process.
<1993Feb10.152023.1670@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Note 12 concerns computer use policy.
12. The Syracuse computer use policy gives examples of improper use:
unnecessary network traffic, harassment, destroying material,
spreading viruses, sending chain letters, obscene file names. The
policy includes regulations protecting free expression, consistent
with the legal definition.
<1993Jan30.001838.29157@newstand.syr.edu>
- Karl]
cafv03n06
cafv03n05
cafv03n04
[Week of January 31, 1993
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-4 review Cornell's new sysadmin policy in light of last year's
widely-publicized arrest of a student charged with disseminating pornography
over the Usenet.
1. Cornell University announced that it will "disconnect from its networks
those computers (whether or not owned by the University) used to transmit
material in violation of university policies or codes, or state or federal
laws." A Cornell _Daily Sun_ report adds that while "the code aims to protect
the civil rights of members of the Cornell community," it also calls for value
judgements on the part of information technologies officials.
<9301281414.AA18924@rose.cit.cornell.edu>
2. "As I understand it, an essential part of the definition of
obscenity is 'community standards'. Resources such as email, Usenet,
FTP, Gopher, and WAIS (to name just a few) span hundreds of thousands
of communities in the United States alone [...] If we include the
global particpants, we are confronted with a dizzying array of
cultural and societal taboos. Attempting to control global resources
with local law/policy is a *serious* mistake."
3. "The Cornell policy seems to define harassment as access to material that
would offend someone. Such a definition, of course, could be used to justify
almost any censorship. Here is a FAQ on censorship and harassment." (With
references.)
<1993Jan28.230150.10298@eff.org>
4. "Cornell saw an increase in reported cases of sexual harassment over the
past year" that could very well explain the school's desire to regulate its
networks. In particular: "High-tech harassment increased, with four reports of
harassment via computer in the form of offensive electronic mail messages,
screen savers, computer graphics and sexual sounds being sent to terminals."
<1993Jan29.024154.13975@eff.org>
Notes 5-9 discuss a seemingly insignificant action by the UC-Berkeley registrar
denying an electronic copy of the upcoming class schedule to a student.
5. "Last semester, I wondered why the UC Berkeley Schedule of Classes
was not available on the Internet. I knew that it was kept at
jasper.berkeley.edu, which is already on the net. I asked the Office
of the Registrar if they could mail me a copy so I could put it up for
ftp. [...] They finally gave the reason that if they mailed it to me,
it would not be updated, but people would assume that it was, so they
would be misled." To Wes Morgan, this is a "darned good" reason to
deny the request (as he then explains from a similar incident
involving himself).
6. Carl Kadie: "It doesn't matter that UC Berkeley thought publishing
an unupdateable schedule on-line was a bad idea. As a unit of
government, they are obligated [...] to release such information. Even
worse, after failing in their duty to release the information, they
tried to punish the student for exercising his *right* to publish it."
<1993Jan25.181530.2273@eff.org>
7. "I think the partisans of both sides of this discussion are making
too much of it, and staking out overbroad positions. For example, I
think Carl's view about 'public information' is too simple. If the
information in question were the telephone directory, for example --"
<1k1qcj$bs9@agate.berkeley.edu>
8. Whoa just right there. "Phone book information and other student
directory information is special. Among other things, its
dissemination is regulated by the Family Education Rights and Privacy
Act." (With annotated references.)
<1993Jan26.012900.10083@eff.org>
9. And don't forget "the U.S. Supreme Court in the Feist case, [ruled
that] the information in a phone book is not copyrightable--only its particular
arrangement is."
<1993Jan26.190021.23744@eff.org>
10. So while it may be true that "FTP sites are a hodpodge of various
states of accuracy and timeliness [...] the belief that 'the man in
the street' may be misled by out-of-date electronic information
doesn't justify the government refusing to release the information
just because the information is in electronic form."
<1993Jan28.150656.80@cobra.dra.com>
Notes 11-12 discuss a recent Software Publishers Association action against
the University of Oregon.
11. "Nicknamed the software police, this industry group [the SPA] has
filed more than 100 lawsuits since 1989, forcing the collection of
penalties as high as $350,000. Federal armed marshals bearing court
orders have surprised more than one corporate official." The SPA
"also was responsible for a $130,000 settlement against the University
of Oregon, the first copyright infringement suit brought against a
public college, according to the association."
<1993Jan29.023258.13875@eff.org>
12. "The U of O denied wrong-doing, and the suit was settled
according to U of O officials because it was cheaper than litigating.
Settling did not imply wrong-doing, although some SPA documents
suggest otherwise." (Includes plug for future issue of Computer
Underground Digest that will report in detail on the SPA-Oregon
action.)
<1993Jan29.033735.30819@mp.cs.niu.edu>
- Aaron Barnhart]
cafv03n03
[Week ending January 24, 1993
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 are about professor at the State University of New York
gathering evidence of student cheating by seaching the students' email
archives.
1. Whether SUNY's action violates the Electronic Communications
Protection Act may not matter. "[J]ust the threat of legal action
may be sufficient to have the disciplinary action dropped." A
column in The Chronicle of Higher Education last year related a
professor's experience being made to back away from a charge of
academic dishonesty by the administration in the face of legal
action. "[H]igh-level college administrators have a strong
tendency to be real weenies that are scared of their own shadows.
Often times expedience rather than principle will guide their actions."
<1993Jan19.000048.10530@eff.org>
2. Although students might have signed away rights to the privacy of
email when applying for accounts, "a contract made under duress is not
binding. Could not the students claim that they signed up for the
account under duress, because otherwise they could not do their work?"
<1993Jan19.160731.22314@linus.mitre.org>
Notes 3-5 are about restricting UseNet feeds to grade and high schools.
3. Do I censor when I choose to tune in a children's show rather than
MTV while I play with my 16-month old daughter? Should I show her
every channel first, then give her the remote control? I think I have
an "OBLIGATION, to monitor/censor what she is exposed to each day."
Children can be educated without being shown everything. "Children
need guidance." Who will provide it?
<1993Jan18.084558.845@ualr.edu>
4. Moderation of USENET differs from censorship by being "established
by *consensus* of the people involved" that the material is
"inappropriate". USENET moderation is democratic and permissible;
censorship is a violation of civil liberties. With a 16-month old,
more guidance is needed, and this is monitoring, but by 16 years, she
will need less guidance. No posts have recommended exposing children to
everything.
<1jh4rbINN1u4@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
5. Elementary school administrators should not be trusted with deciding
what Usenet materials children see. Distinctions should be made between
elementary and high school students. But most schools have too few
computer resources to establish a second feed. So, distribution must be
controlled at the feed site--until networking permits parental involvement
at home.
<1993Jan19.132749.6573@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 6-8 are on the consequences of restricting feeds by Newsgroups
headers (by, for example, removing all articles posted *or
crossposted* to newsgroups such as alt.sex.).
6. (Gives the "regular expressions which are applied to the Newsgroups:
header" to restrict the feed.) This is an educational network in Kentucky,
sending partial feeds mostly to grade schools and high schools. In this
region, providing an unrestricted feed would be politically unacceptable,
and would kill the project.
<1993Jan18.130842.26221@ms.uky.edu>
7. Restricting by keyword or by hierarchy results in eliminating
alt.sexual.abuse.recovery.
8. The method of restricting the feed on the Kentucky network excludes
rec.nude but permits soc.singles, talk.rape and others. "Does anyone
out there actually *read* the groups before making these cockamaimie
decisions?"
<1993Jan20.052540.1259@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Note 9 is on the virtue of carrying a controversial group.
9. "Many people derive a great deal of emotional life support from
communities which exist only within cyberspace." Allowing bisexu-l in a
feed could "keep someone alive long enough to grow up and zoom out of
podunk in search of the land of the free and the home of the brave."
<199301201419.AA04496@eff.org>
Notes 10-12 are on an allegation of computer abuse at UC Berkeley.
10. (A student:) Although the computer with the UC Berkeley Schedule
of Classes is on net, the schedule is not available. "I acquired the
Schedule of Classes through one of the Infocal terminals in Sproul Hall.
I unplugged the terminal and plugged in my PowerBook. . . . . Two hours
later, I had the [Schedule] on my PowerBook's hard disk." The University
charged me with violating the Code of Student Conduct. A Student Conduct
Officer gave me a warning and "made me state that I did not intend to
unplug terminals or 'misuse' computer equipment again." "I believe that
. . . . [u]sing a computer to give me [access to information] can never
be misuse." [Amended in another post to "access to all 'public'
information."]
<1jnh89$phg@agate.berkeley.edu>
11. The student merely took "information available one class at a time
. . . to get the schedule as a whole."
12. The Associate Registrar and Student Conduct Officer in the case seem
"computer illiterate." The University has given authority to people who are
ignorant of its subject. This was "neither damage nor interruption of service
. . . I would not regard [what the student did] as abuse."
<1jr1tg$c5d@agate.berkeley.edu>
- Bruce Umbaugh]
cafv03n02 - in press
cafv03n01
[Week ending January 10, 1993
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 4 address a recent Computer Emergency Response Team
statement advising that a warning notice be posted on systems where
keystroke monitoring may take place.
1. CERT is "recommending unilateral announcement that `all users may be
monitored all the time', with no negotation and no negotiated policy
of watching/monitring only on `probable cause'... they recommend the
taking away of a reasonable expectation of privacy and thus all means
to fight intrusions of privacy."
<1993Jan4.212439.4278@nntp.hut.fi>
2. Our company lawyer's opinion is that contrary to the CERT advisory,
warning notices are unnecessary. "CERT was recommending that *if* you
have a policy where you might monitor input, that you should put this
warning in a login banner. They were not advising for or against the
monitoring policy itself, nor specifying a particular justification
for monitoring any given conversation. They were simply acknowledging
that such monitoring takes place, and advising how to reduce legal
liability in such cases."
<1ib0grINNhq3@early-bird.think.com>
3. Both state and federal law must be taken into account when
determining the legality of a wiretap. In many cases state law is
more restrictive.
<1993Jan5.045608.13381@eff.org>
4. To recommend that all systems should carry a warning about
potential monitoring is to set a trend toward viewing such monitoring
as acceptable and routine. I think such a trend should be fought
against.
<1993Jan6.005425.3318@nntp.hut.fi>
Notes 5 and 6 regard a hypothetical case of sexual harassment over a
computer network.
5. What recourse would a woman have if a hostile adult distributed a
GIF file which depicted a clearly identified look-alike image of her
in a highly pornographic pose?
<199301050613.AA14182@eff.org>
6. Such a case "might be actionable as a reputational tort (slander,
libel) or as a privacy tort (presentation in a false light)." It may
also violate internal regulations of the university computer center
regarding prohibited uses of the system, but the incident probably
does not fit "the commonly used, formal definition of sexual
harassment, however offensive the woman in question may happen to find
it."
<199301051752.AA13842@eff.org>
Notes 7 to 9 concern a recent incident at the Iowa State University
in which a user posted an article to a very large selection of
newsgroups.
7. A user "apparently automated his posting process and is posting his
article to a large selection of newsgroups (including ALL local and
regional ones) from a variety of systems on our campus. This matter
has been turned over to the ISU Computation Center administrator in
charge of handling perceived abuse of computer or network facilities
at Iowa State University."
<1icf6mINN8r7@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
8. The Iowa State University Code of Computer Ethics states that
"users of any electronic communication facilities, such as electronic
mail, networks, bulletin boards and newsgroups, are obligated to
comply with the restrictions and acceptable practices established for
those specific facilities. Certain types of communications are
expressly forbidden. This includes the random mailing of messages;
the sending of obscene, harassing, or threatening material; or the use
of the facilities for commercial or political purposes."
<1993Jan7.211206.27268@eff.org>
9. ISU has decided to follow a policy of requiring user registration
prior to Usenet access. Users will be given full responsibility for
anything they may post and a disclaimer to that effect will be
presented to prospective readers.
Notes 10 and 11 are on miscellaneous subjects.
10. To attempt reprisals against the writer of an article which the
reader finds personally offensive is directly contrary to the the
United States Bill of Rights' promise of Freedom of Expression.
<1993Jan7.123230.46188@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
11. For your entertainment, this last article gives a short analysis
of those psychological characteristics associated with hackers.
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n65
[Best of December, 1992
============================= KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the article, NOT
AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily our opinions. The selection
and paraphrases are based on earlier abstracts by Aaron, Henry, Karl,
and me.
==================================================================
Note 1 deals with a continuation of some of the issues surrounding
alleged child pornography posted by a Cornell student to the Usenet.
1. "You may have inside information, but the only public statment was
that a.b.p.e was cut simply because a single article in it was being
investigated." Now it's true that "Cornell is not obliged to respect
academic freedom. [...] But if the university desires to follow
academic freedom then it must refrain from removing resources at the
merest hint of questionable legality. Cornell is not obligated to
subscribe to Playboy. But if they do have a subscription, and there is
a protest against it, academic freedom forbids them to cancel the
subscription."
<1992Dec2.160210.5928@news.columbia.edu>
Note 2-3 discusses when and if it is appropriate for a sysadmin or
superuser to cancel someone else's articles.
2. "By screening articles and newsgroups the University may *increase* its
liability. (Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's
only goal.)"
3. Perhaps these are valid exceptions, but really, "the question of
canceling other people's articles boils down to a question of
ownership and authority. By the time something has propagated it is
outside of the sphere of authority of anyone but the individual admins
of the systems the article is stored on. [... In] almost all other
cases I would consider someone canceling articles as a violation of
*my* domain of authority: my newsspool. If you cancel an article that
you consider illegal, for example, it makes me want to say: 'Hey, what
are you doing? Do you have a warrant? Who gave you the authority to
mess with data stored on my disks?' I mean, how would you feel if you
had some pirated software on your PC, and your neighbor were to just
walk into your home and start erasing it? I believe that in the the
USA at least that's even more illegal than software piracy."
Note 4 reviews the status of the Mark Lehrer/Akron BBS case:
4. "You may already know about the BBS 'sting' six months ago in Munroe
Falls, OH for "disseminating matter harmful to juveniles." Those charges were
dropped for lack of evidence. Now a trial date of 1/4/93 has been set after
new felony charges were filed, although the pretrial hearing revealed no
proof that *any* illegal content ever went out over the BBS, nor was *any*
found on it." (A summary of the Akron BBS case follows.)
<921202164908_71756.2116_DHG64-1@CompuServe.COM>
Notes 5-7 deal with an advisory from the Computer Emergency
Response Team (CERT), which dealt with the legality of
"keystroke monitoring" under US law.
5. I'm enclosing "information from the United States Department of
Justice, General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, Criminal
Division, regarding keystroke monitoring by computer systems
administrators, as a method of protecting computer systems from
unauthorized access." 18 U.S.C. 2510 (1986). It states that such
surveillance "may be defensible" but "the statute does not expressly
authorize such monitoring." It recommends that if system
administrators plan to engage in such monitoring, that the system
include a banner at login that warns that users may be monitored.
<1992Dec8.041023.4125@eff.org>
6. An NSI Security Manager discusses the relationship between CERT
"...one of many teams who provide security information and incident
handling services to a particular constituency" and its umbrella
organization, FIRST (the Forum of Incident Response and Security
Teams)"...which comprises response teams from many different companies,
government agencies (both US and non-US),universities, vendors, etc."
In regard to CERT's authority to recommend policy and/or procedures in the
legal arena, it was stated that [CERT] "merely reported to their
constituency the result of their discussions with the US DoJ. The crux of
the message is that if you ever hope to use keystroke logs against someone
who cracks your machine, you better warn the sucker they're being
recorded..."
<14DEC199215163611@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>
7. "CERT is recommending unilateral announcement of 'all users may be
monitored all the time, with no negotiation and no negotiated policy of
watching/monitoring only on 'probable cause'". As Net Citizens, we should
not cooperate with CERT, and we should "see if something can be done to
get some of the CERT's functions implemented in a way that respects
freedom and people's rights..."
<1992Dec18.100254.4122@nntp.hut.fi>
Notes 8-9 deal with a "joke" chain letter disseminated at the University
of Nebraska at Omaha;is it indeed a "chain letter"; and what should be the
appropriate response, if any, to such letters?
8. A wave of chain letter mania is sweeping the University of
Nebraska at Omaha. A new login message has been instituted which warns
that sending a chain letter on may result in "loss of account
privileges." The text of the joke chain letter is included. "The new
policy seems to skate dangerously close to censorship and
prior-restraint (what exactly *is* a 'chain- letter?')."
9. [Sys admin involved in the 'joke chain letter' controversy] "I
believe strongly in rights to academic freedom; to that end, I've put
considerable time and effort into making the resources of the Internet
available to as many people here as possible. That belief is one of
the reasons we maintain a full news feed under pressure to limit what
we carry (the type of pressure to which Universities in our system
have caved in)." However, the joke chain letter is an issue of
"resource abuse" rather than censorship.
Notes 10-11 are about the recent Appeals court decision which declared the
child pornography law unconstitutional.
10. The Wall Street Journal reported that "the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled, in US vs X-Citement Video Inc., (CA No. 89-50556), that the
sections of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of
1977 that deal with distribution, transportation, and receipt of sexually
explicit materials are invalid on First Amendment grounds. The court let
stand the prohibition on the production of child pornography." "This
ruling...may help to remove sysop worries about someone posting such
material on their system without their knowledge, or about network nodes
being liable for material passing through them."
<1992Dec17.232618.19727@netcom.com>
11. [A member of the California bar]: "This is likely to be good news for
sysops and site admins, since (as with video distribution or rental/sales)
there is no reason to charge site admins with actual knowledge of the
contents of any given article that passes through (or is stored on) a
site... for BBS and Usenet sites that simply carry a large number of
newsgroups,including the erotica images groups, there is no implication
that the site is engaged in active distribution of child pornography if a
small number of articles are later learned to contain material unlawful
under the Act."
<921217.37008063@robbe-grillet.postmodern.com>
Note 12 is about a Secret Service Raid at at Texas Tech Univ., where the
SS alleged that the seized computers from the dorm room were used to steal
software over the Internet.
12. The Secret Service seized computers from a dorm room at Texas Tech
University, alleging the equipment was used to steal software over the
Internet. The three men involved were not arrested, but they are
expected to be charged with computer crime, interstate transport of
stolen property, and copyright infringement. Texas Tech computer
operators contacted the Secret Service after noting credit information
in the software that was filling their data storage devices. Although
the USSS normally doesn't pursue software piracy, they do pursue using
"using electronic access devices such as passwords in the commission
of a crime". The current investigation falls under a revision of
copyright laws which allow felony charges to be brought against anyone
who pirates more than 10 copies of copyrighted software.
-Leslie Regan Shade]
cafv02n64
[For the two weeks ending January 3, 1993
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is about a Secret Service Raid.
1. The Secret Service seized computers from a dorm room at Texas Tech
University, alleging the equipment was used to steal software over the
Internet. The three men involved were not arrested, but they are
expected to be charged with computer crime, interstate transport of
stolen property, and copyright infringement. Texas Tech computer
operators contacted the Secret Service after noting credit information
in the software that was filling their data storage devices. Although
the USSS normally doesn't pursue software piracy, they do pursue using
"using electronic access devices such as passwords in the commission
of a crime". The current investigation falls under a revision of
copyright laws which allow felony charges to be brought against anyone
who pirates more than 10 copies of copyrighted software.
Notes 2-4 are on legal aspects of bulletin boards.
2. The legal aspects, rights, and responsibilities of computer users
and system operators are addressed in SYSLAW, a book which attempts
"to explore the gap between statutes and case law on the one side, and
technological reality on the other." The courts have yet to rule on
many of these topics, so the authors approach answers with fundamental
principles of constitutional and communications law, avoiding
inventing the law where it doesn't exist.
3. SYSLAW contains a comprehensive summary of legal liabilities and
obligations of bulleting board operators, as well as a compendium of
laws and practices relevant to all users. Topics covered in the book
include contracts, intellectual property, speech and the First
Amendment, privacy, sysop liabilities, and sysop/user relations.
Included are several federal statues on pornography, computer crime
laws, and federal fraud and abuse acts.
4. A sample BBS contract is provided, which includes: describing
access and services available, price and payment accepted, system
rules, privacy, editorial control, ownership of materials, limitation
of liability and indemnity, choice of law (for out of state and
foreign users), and general information. In addition to stating do's
and don'ts, the contract tries to explain or give justification for
certain policies.
Notes 5-6 are on property rights.
5. Property rights apply to things government-owned or considered
public property. Thus, much like a private citizen or company, the
administering agency of "public property" has the appropriate property
rights over their system. This is in relation to the CERT advisory on
keystroke monitoring and whether it applies to private computer
systems, public ones, or all systems.
<1992Dec22.150816.13247@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
6. However, the government derives its rights from the people, who
should have a say in what the policy concerning public property should
be. "If it's publicly funded the general public has a right to have a
say on the policy."
<1992Dec22.235726.23374@nntp.hut.fi>
Notes 7-8 are on chain letters.
7. Deciding what is and what is not a chain letter is difficult to
describe, but easy for a person to determine empirically. Two workable
definitions of a chain letter are: something equivalent to what the
Post Office considers a chain letter; letter distribution solely for
the sake of distributing the letter.
<1992Dec21.173054.18939@eff.org>
8. It's pointless to use an absolute definition for chain letters
since the definition will ultimately describe a particular chain
letter, and not be broad enough to describe all chain letters.
<1992Dec23.030644.26358@pegasus.com>
Note 9 is on pornography.
9. Photography of child pornography itself should not be a crime,
since it is merely the evidence of the crime. Also, punishing the
purchasers of such material doesn't punish the criminals themselves.
Finally, FoxVog Douglas contends that there is little or not child
pornography; rather, most distribution attempts are made by government
agents for the purpose of entrapment.
<1992Dec23.123731.9243@ousrvr.oulu.fi>
Notes 10-11 are on network policy.
10. The NSF considered Dialog (a commercial user of ANS) as an
acceptable research and education user, although Dialog would not
guarantee that all their traffic would adhere to NSFNet Acceptable Use
policies. Also, Dialog's customers were never given the chance to
pledge their user of Dialog would be research and education oriented.
<9212121748.AA06273@tmn.com>
11. The NSF allows use of its NSFNet backbone to any information
provider that states it expects the only use made of its resources
will be in support of research and education. However, the NSF asks
the information provider to cooperate in tracking down violations when
reported.
<9212302019.AA06836@ncri>
Note 12 is on censorship.
12. A user at the University of Miami threatens to forward posts he
considers offensive, racist, or intolerable to the poster's system
administrator, for further action.
<1993Jan3.135950.14274@umiami.ir.miami.edu>
- Karl]
cafv02n63
[Week ending December 20, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-5 are about CERT and the Dept. of Justice on Keystroke Monitoring
1. An NSI Security Manager discusses the relationship between CERT
"...one of many teams who provide security information and incident
handling services to a particular constituency" and its umbrella
organization, FIRST (the Forum of Incident Response and Security
Teams)"...which comprises response teams from many different companies,
government agencies (both US and non-US),universities, vendors, etc."
In regard to CERT's authority to recommend policy and/or procedures in the
legal arena, it was stated that [CERT] "merely reported to their
constituency the result of their discussions with the US DoJ. The crux of
the message is that if you ever hope to use keystroke logs against someone
who cracks your machine, you better warn the sucker they're being recorded..."
<14DEC199215163611@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>
2. "This notice is analogous to a public museum placing a notice on the
door 'Anyone entering this museum expressly consents to having all his or
her actions monitored and taped with cameras and microphones'..."
<1992Dec15.222234.29589@nntp.hut.fi>
3. "Merely stating that the user does not own the workstation does not cut
it. I don't own the phone lines leading from my apartment to the
neighborhood switch, but I'd be damned outraged if someone who *did* owned
them decided to tape all my calls!"
<1992Dec16.192639.12991@eecs.nwu.edu>
4. "CERT is recommending unilateral announcement of 'all users may be
monitored all the time, with no negotiation and no negotiated policy of
watching/monitoring only on 'probable cause'". As Net Citizens, we should
not cooperate with CERT, and we should "see if something can be done to
get some of the CERT's functions implemented in a way that respects
freedom and people's rights..."
<1992Dec18.100254.4122@nntp.hut.fi>
5. "The owner of a computer system, like an apartment complex owner, has
the right to ensure that the physical system is protected but the data on
it, like the contents of the apartments in a complex, belong to the
individuals who have leased the use of the resources."
<1992Dec17.181217.6001@colorado.edu>
Notes 6-8 are about Prodigy and censorship
6. (Mike Godwin): "Prodigy has a policy of barring messages directed at
other members, but allows messages that condemn a group...".
(Adam Gaffin): discusses Prodigy's "vision of online communications as
computer home-shopping network" and the nationwide protest organized by
Leaders of the Cooperative Defense Committee, focusing on censorship
issues, alleged bait-and-switch advertising, and the rising cost of
Prodigy email.
<1991Oct23.231002.24258@eff.org>
7. Responding to an analogy between the policies of the Prodigy censors, and
the presumed policies of the NYT editorial editors: "A bulletin board
system is decidedly different from a newspaper 'letters' page. For one
thing, you don't have the same kind of severe space restrictions that a
newspaper has."
<1992Dec17.064126.13063@eff.org>
Notes 8-10 are about Iowa State University's news censorship policy:
8. (ISU CC Administration staffperson): "As with many of the people
posting reactions to the usenet policy at ISU, you [Kadie] are unqualified
to comment on why or how the policy originated since you were not at any
of the meetings where the policy was discussed and were in no way involved
in the development or implementation of the policy....We were and still
are dealing with interpretation of state laws and are acting in response
to recommendations from the university's legal advisors."
9. (Carl M. Kadie): "Then what did motivate [ISU's] suppression
policy?" I'm enclosing the timetable of events. What you seem to be
"saying is that because the policy was developed behind closed doors
(without the participation of even the ISU Computation Center
Committee), public comment is invalid. I believe exactly the
opposite." "Neither version of the policy acknowledges any advice
from the University's legal advisors. As far as I know, your note is
the first public assertion that the University's legal advisors have
had anything to do with the policy."
<1992Dec19.022411.22138@eff.org>
10. (Mike Godwin): "I simply don't believe the legal advisers came
knocking on your door and asked you to kill those newsgroups. I
believe that quite the reverse happened: that these legal advisers...
were summoned to justify the decision of computer policymakers to kill
some newsgroups."
<1992Dec20.043445.941@eff.org>
Notes 11-12 are about the recent Appeals court decision which declared the
child pornography law unconstitutional
11. The Wall Street Journal reported that "the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled, in US vs X-Citement Video Inc., (CA No. 89-50556), that the
sections of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of
1977 that deal with distribution, transportation, and receipt of sexually
explicit materials are invalid on First Amendment grounds. The court let
stand the prohibition on the production of child pornography." "This
ruling...may help to remove sysop worries about someone posting such
material on their system without their knowledge, or about network nodes
being liable for material passing through them."
<1992Dec17.232618.19727@netcom.com>
12. [A member of the California bar]: "This is likely to be good news for
sysops and site admins, since (as with video distribution or rental/sales)
there is no reason to charge site admins with actual knowledge of the
contents of any given article that passes through (or is stored on) a
site... for BBS and Usenet sites that simply carry a large number of
newsgroups,including the erotica images groups, there is no implication
that the site is engaged in active distribution of child pornography if a
small number of articles are later learned to contain material unlawful
under the Act."
<921217.37008063@robbe-grillet.postmodern.com>
Leslie Regan Shade]
cafv02n62
[Week ending December 13, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 deals with the subject of cancelling postings by other
people.
1. A copyright holder has the right to cancel a posting by someone
else if the copyright holder believes that the posting violates his or
her copyright. "While I haven't done it, I believe that I have every
right to cancel any illicit posting of a ClariNet article should I
wish to."
<1992Dec07.074709.17211@clarinet.com>
Notes 2-4 deal with an advisory from the Computer Emergency
Response Team (CERT), which dealt with the questionable legality of
"keystroke monitoring" under US law.
2. I'm enclosing "information from the United States Department of
Justice, General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, Criminal
Division, regarding keystroke monitoring by computer systems
administrators, as a method of protecting computer systems from
unauthorized access." 18 U.S.C. 2510 (1986). It states that such
surveillance "may be defensible" but "the statute does not expressly
authorize such monitoring." It recommends that if system
administrators plan to engage in such monitoring, that the system
include a banner at login that warns that users may be monitored.
<1992Dec8.041023.4125@eff.org>
3. "I strongly suggest that everyone who values privacy and freedom
stop all cooperation with an organization (CERT) that recommends
fascist and Orwellian policies like this." I'd be willing to set up
archives and a mailing list in Finland for "responsible net.citizens
who value both security and privacy."
<1992Dec10.025308.14768@nntp.hut.fi>
4. "CERT explicitly neither condoned nor censured keystroke
monitoring in their message. Rather they disseminated what is
believed (by US DoJ) to be the latest accurate information about
the legal implications and recourse of those sites that do."
<1992Dec10.123018.8974@athena.mit.edu>
Note 5 is a long annotated posting regarding the student
disciplinary system of the U of Illinois.
5. Here is a reprint of a letter from the University of Illinois
Student Government Association Task Force which appeared in the Dec.
4, 1992, _Daily Illini_. It says "We have discovered that the
University student disciplinary system contains several severe flaws
that permit students to incriminate themselves, denies them the right
of counsel and places their future in the hands of a committee that is
unaware of proper legal procedure." I'm enclosing information
accessing related documenation via gopher.
Notes 6-9 deal with a warning given to a user for "obscenities and
name-calling" on the Internet.
6. [The recipient of the warning] "Doesn't this constitute a
subtle form of censorship?"
<1992Dec11.155303.5068@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>
7. "I don't think it's censorship. They could have just turned
off your account or (like here) revoked your ability to post
articles to the net, and that would have been censorship. All I
see is a polite request that you police yourself. Had they said
'or else...' on the end or threatened punitive measures, then that
would be closer to censorship".
<1992Dec11.192941.4095@bradley.bradley.edu>
8. "While freedom of expression at private universities is not a
legal constitutional right, it is usually a legal contractual right".
I'm enclosing several references in support of the constractual right
to be 'free from censorship'.
9. "It's often been said (in this forum), 'It's good to just have
a chat with someone, rather than arbitrarily yanking their
account/access/privileges.'
Now, when an admin sends an apparently polite note to a user, we're
right back into the ambiguities of 'warning', 'threat', and 'possible
punitive measures'".
<1992Dec11.182435.13904@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 10-12 deal with a "joke" chain letter; whether it is really
a chain letter or not; and what the appropriate response if any
should be to such letters.
10. A wave of chain letter mania is sweeping the University of
Nebraska at Omaha. A new login message has been instituted which warns
that sending a chain letter on may result in "loss of account
privileges." The text of the joke chain letter is included. "The new
policy seems to skate dangerously close to censorship and
prior-restraint (what exactly *is* a 'chain- letter?')."
11. "I read the joke chain letter. I don't think it is a chain
letter (any more than a toy car is car). Thus, I don't think the
new prohibition even covers the specific material they want to
ban... Here is what I think they should have done:
1) Announced that this joke letter is going around
2) Ask people to be considerate about what they email to others
2) Remind people of the University's rules about harassment"
<1992Dec11.165515.22434@eff.org>
12. [Sys admin involved in the 'joke chain letter' controversy] "I
believe strongly in rights to academic freedom; to that end, I've put
considerable time and effort into making the resources of the Internet
available to as many people here as possible. That belief is one of
the reasons we maintain a full news feed under pressure to limit what
we carry (the type of pressure to which Universities in our system
have caved in)." However, the joke chain letter is an issue of
"resource abuse" rather than censorship.
- Henry E. Hardy, seraphim@ais.org]
cafv02n61
[Week ending December 6, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[We desperately need new guest (or regular) editors, for information
send email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-4 continue the discussion of issues surrounding alleged child
pornography posted by a Cornell student to the Usenet.
1. "The copy I have of the law regarding child pornography goes on for 3
*pages* regarding the recordkeeping requirements." Namely, "you have to keep
records on *all* models [... and these] have to include the legal name and
*any other names EVER used by the person in the picture. And these records
must be available to the goverment for examination at reasonable hours and
times. And you must have a statement included with the distributed item(s)
telling where the records are and certifying that all people were of legal
age."
<1992Nov30.190522.13734@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
2. "I have spoken with some of those responsible for the restriction of the
alt.*.erotica newsgroups here at Cornell. I don't believe that the _only_
reason these groups were cut off was because of legal investigation. I know
that if I was responsible for the newsstand here, and was aware that it was
being directly abused (illegally so), that the easiest and most effective way
to deal with the problem is to simply cut off the newsgroup. Cornell is in
NO WAY obligated to provide those newsgroups to the Cornell community, in the
same way that it's not obligated to carry 'Playboy' in the circulars at the
undergrad library."
<1992Dec2.055703.10745@tc.cornell.edu>
3. "You may have inside information, but the only public statment was that
a.b.p.e was cut simply because a single article in it was being
investigated." Now it's true that "Cornell is not obliged to respect academic
freedom. [...] But if the university desires to follow academic freedom then
it must refrain from removing resources at the merest hint of questionable
legality. Cornell is not obligated to subscribe to Playboy. But if they do
have a subscription, and there is a protest against it, academic freedom
forbids them to cancel the subscription."
<1992Dec2.160210.5928@news.columbia.edu>
4. Well, then, what *can* a university do to discourage students from
storing/displaying objectionable pictures? "A rather low quota, plus a disk
that's continuously on the brink of overflowing," says one sysadmin. "You
forgot the result from a 'du' listing on all student accounts, sorted by
size, printed out regularly, stuck on the wall at the terminal room
entrance," writes another. "Peer pressure does wonders sometimes."
<1fnnnsINN8ps@iraul1.ira.uka.de>
Notes 5-8 discuss when/if it's appropriate for a sysadmin or superuser to
cancel someone else's articles.
5. "By screening articles and newsgroups the University may *increase* its
liability. (Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's
only goal.)"
6. But how about when: "[1] Someone forges a posting in your name.
(This has happened to me.) [2] You run an anonymous contact service
and one of its users asks you to cancel a posting. (This has happened
to me.) [3] You are the newsadmin for your site, and one of your users
posts copyrighted software to alt.sources. (This has happened to
me.)"
7. Or: "1) An excessively large article was posted to a discussion group
(usually uuencoded GIFs or the like). 2) A site (usually fidonet) starts
reposting old articles with new IDs. 3) A forged sendsys comes out."
<1992Dec6.104355.1025@ms.uky.edu>
8. Perhaps these are valid exceptions, but really, "the question of
canceling other people's articles boils down to a question of
ownership and authority. By the time something has propagated it is
outside of the sphere of authority of anyone but the individual admins
of the systems the article is stored on. [... In] almost all other
cases I would consider someone canceling articles as a violation of
*my* domain of authority: my newsspool. If you cancel an article that
you consider illegal, for example, it makes me want to say: 'Hey, what
are you doing? Do you have a warrant? Who gave you the authority to
mess with data stored on my disks?' I mean, how would you feel if you
had some pirated software on your PC, and your neighbor were to just
walk into your home and start erasing it? I believe that in the the
USA at least that's even more illegal than software piracy."
Notes 9-12 report computers-and-academic-freedom issues at the American
Library Association, University of Illinois, the Akron BBS, and Fresno State
University.
9. The American Library Assn.'s "Library Bill of Rights" condemns the
exclusion of materials "because of the origin, background, or views of those
contributing to their creation[.]" Is this the same ALA that approved
"boycotts of library materials published in Namibia and South Africa in 1987,
on the grounds that it would 'undermine the struggle for human rights in
South Africa'?" And which felt that American publishers shouldn't ship books
to those two countries for the same reason?
10. Meanwhile at the University of Illinois, "Two local attorneys
discussed their experiences with the University's discipline system
and its inequities Monday at the Student Government Association's task
force on the student discipline system. One of the attorneys said
that "the procedures have basically stayed the same" for seven or
eight years but recently "they started limiting what an attorney could
do" at a discipline hearing. The attorney suspect it's because six
years ago a discipline committee made a decision before hearing the
case, and "attorneys were very active in exposing the fix."
<1992Nov30.211557.1480@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
11. "You may already know about the BBS 'sting' six months ago in Munroe
Falls, OH for "disseminating matter harmful to juveniles." Those charges were
dropped for lack of evidence. Now a trial date of 1/4/93 has been set after
new felony charges were filed, although the pretrial hearing revealed no
proof that *any* illegal content ever went out over the BBS, nor was *any*
found on it." (A summary of the Akron BBS case follows.)
<921202164908_71756.2116_DHG64-1@CompuServe.COM>
12. Here's the computer use policy for Fresno State University, which insists
that all users learn to perform "password maintenance and file and directory
protection measures" on their accounts. Not that this will secure their
accounts, since "Department faculty and staff may access others' files when
necessary for the maintenance of the computing facilities" (in fact, nowhere
in this policy does FSU mention *its* responsibility to the overall security
of its systems). Oh, and "electronic mail and other electronic communication,
will not be used to annoy others." (Just to be sure, FSU will punish any and
all "obscene, abusive, or threatening messages.")
<9212011859.AA09215@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Aaron Barnhart]
cafv02n60
[Best of November, 1992
============================= KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily our opinions.
==================================================================
Notes 1-3 review the big story of the month, an FBI raid on a student
dorm that led to removal of the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
newsgroup on systems at Cornell University.
1. "Federal officials said they were investigating whether the
student used an electronic scanner to transmit child pornography onto
a computer file and send the pictures through an international
computer bulletin board."
<9211201816.AA21284@dahlia.cit.cornell.edu>
2. So were Cornell officials justified in shutting down the
"bulletin board" (the a.b.p.e. newsgroup) so quickly? "I do think
their rapid action demonstrates their ignorance as to the actual
nature of a.p.b.e." By contrast, Cornell folks are very familiar with
local newsgroup cu.general, and would certainly not shut *it* down
under similar circumstances: "If someone were to start posting
binaries, in particular child pornograpy there, I think they would be
much more likely to deal with the person individually." Also bear in
mind Cornell wanted to demonstrate "cooperation with the FBI in the
matter," and didn't feel obliged to preserve a.b.p.e. "simply by
virtue of having *some* protected speech content in [it.]"
<9211202036.AA12053@crocus.cit.cornell.edu>
3. A student was arrested and his dorm searched by the FBI in
connection with possible illegal materials he had been posting to
a.b.p.e. "According to the Cornell Daily Sun report I read, his
neighbours were altogether unsurprised that he was caught for this
particular crime. I have found Stuart Lynn to not be an overly zealous
system administrator. His reaction to the virus (where again students
were arrested) and to this incidence (which involves the Feds) was
exactly what was warranted."
<1992Nov24.125748.19653@shaman.com>
Notes 4-5 review the case of Steven Brack, a student at Ohio State
University whose behavior on OSU systems led to his expulsion.
4. Carl Kadie: "Talking with him via the Net and on the phone, I
was astounded at how sloppy OSU was with due process. For example,
they didn't even tell him what he was charged with until he asked.
Then they listed things he was accused of doing and (vague) rules that
we was accused of breaking but would not say which action(s) they
thought violated which rule(s). Finally, when he was expelled, they
listed only the rules they had determined he had violated but included
no 'finding of fact' as to which actions they had determined he had
actually done."
5. Steven Brack: "There was never a formal decision issued by the
[disciplinary] panel, only a finding that I violated said provisions
of OSU's rules. [...] I was not allowed to call witnesses from ACS
[Acad. Comp. Services], nor to compel any witnesses to testify, no
matter what their relation to the case. (Prof. John Bridge, who
brought the complaint about my posting the word 'fuck' to a newsgroup,
for example.) I was not allowed to put questions to the witnesses,
but rather could only suggest questions to the panel. I was not
allowed to introduce documentary evidence that would have shown that
ACS gave me permission to do everything I did. Matters of ACS
procedures, including the lack of published rules, were likewise off
limits. Despite this, the hearing lasted over 5 hours, one of the
longest they could remember, with my closing argument taking over 30
minutes, including interruptions by the chair, when he thought I was
saying things that weren't 'at issue.'"
<9211081708.AA22877@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Notes 6-7 discuss the revoking of system privileges from Robert McElwaine,
a student at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.
6. McElwaine is apparently guilty of posting "canned
prefabricated materials" to numerous newsgroups and mailing lists,
generating so many complaints that the school's director of computing
services has now decreed: "If, after being requested [by a mailing
list or newsgroup's 'owner'] to stop, he [McElwaine] continues to send
his materials The University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire will take steps
revoke his Internet privileges."
<1992Nov6.065819.22603@gnosys.svle.ma.us>
7. Carl Kadie: "I worry, since explusion from a communications
medium is not a typical university sanction. (Typical sanctions
include things like informal warnings, formal warnings, university
suspensions.) I note that labeling Internet access a "privilege" does
not remove due process requirements."
<1992Nov16.161114.15845@eff.org>
Notes 8-9 discuss sexual harassment policy generally, and how it relates
to sysadmin policy specifically.
8. "The point that we as system administrators and managers must
address is the following: is our task in this arena to do everything
possible to avoid a lawsuit against the company or university no
matter how ludicrous, but technically possible, the scenario; or is
our task to manage the system in a reasonable way, doing our best to
balance the rights and resposibilities of all the users in accordance
with company or university policies?"
9. And so, tempting though it may be for a sysadmin to step in
and arbitrate "complaints of unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature
(some user displaying sexually oriented images on their screen in a
public lab, for example), I think your options are much more limited
if you wish to reduce the possibility that the university, and perhaps
you personally, will be named in a sexual harassment lawsuit." In
fact, your *only* option in this situation is "Refer the matter to my
supervisors."
Notes 10-11 give two schools' very different approaches to net access.
10. "Basically the situation is this: We have a department on
campus called 'Academic Computer Center' which is in charge of the
universities Vax. This Vax is the gateway on campus to BitNet and the
Internet. However, student accounts on the machine cannot access
networks. Ie, 'ftp', 'telnet', 'rlogin 'rsh', and Internet email are
denied to these accounts. [...] The reason I had heard for ACC not
giving networking access was that it would put too much strain on the
Vax, despite the fact that all the other departmen with machines (like
mine) are using the vax for the network gateway." Right. Making a
Vax a *gateway* would kill it.
<4so4TB5w164w@cellar.org>
11. From another Ball State employee: "I, and many others, have
benefited greatly as a result - the use of EMail results in a terrific
amount of idea exchange, etc. The net result of this is that there is
more computer literacy on this campus than any other campus I have
ever seen." And interestingly, "in 99% of the complaints I have
heard, the user wants special privileges ABOVE AND BEYOND the normal
privs granted." Which is not to say that the legislature doesn't have
a "valid point," since "they DO grant the funding."
<3205@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Note 12 provides a model academic systems policy (in the editor's opinion).
12. This is a very long and thorough policy on computing at the
University of North Texas which establishes a committee, three titles,
and an ombudsman's position for computing, defines the roles of
everybody in the academic community w.r.t. computing, establishes
sanctions for faculty, staff, and students who don't comply, and even
offers official definitions of terms such as "workstation" and
"computer installation."
<9211292125.AA01321@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Aaron Barnhart]
cafv02n59
[Week ending November 29, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-5 shed new light and offer new views on the ongoing
child-porn/Usenet controversy at Cornell University.
1. A student was arrested, and his dorm searched, by the FBI in connection
with possible illegal materials he had been posting to alt.binaries.pictures.
erotica. "According to the Cornell Daily Sun report I read, his neighbours
were altogether unsurprised that he was caught for this particular crime. I
have found Stuart Lynn to not be an overly zealous system administrator. His
reaction to the virus (where again students were arrested) and to this
incidence (which involves the Feds) was exactly what was warranted."
<1992Nov24.125748.19653@shaman.com>
2. "Access to alt.binaries.pictures.* is not a fundamental human right," says
one observer. Carl Kadie responds: "I hope Cornell decision was based on
competent legal advice rather than the rationale you suggest. Your rationale
is too broad; it could be used to justify almost any ban of almost any
material." (With annotated references.)
3. To plead academic freedom when trying to save a newsgroup "ignores the
common decision problem when demands for academic resources far outstrip the
funds available for such resources." The decision not to carry alt.*.*.
erotica may simply reflect the prudent "allocation of funds."
<1992Nov25.210004.12913@netcom.com>
4. But even if that were so, Carl responds, the decision to discontinue
"challenged materials" (such as controversial newsgroups) should probably
be the outcome of formal due process. With that, Carl lists the American
Library Association's statement on challenged materials, an interpretation
of the ALA's "Library Bill of Rights."
5. On a related note, this note quotes relevant passages from the U.S.
Criminal Code that explains exactly what jurisprudence understands
"child pornography" to be.
<1992Nov29.222815.5416@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Note 6 reminds us that Cornell is certainly not the only school
restricting access to Usenet.
6. "Our Computation Center [at Iowa State University] has developed a
policy to restrict access to Usenet. It basically sets up a three tier
system: Focused access, which eliminates all alt. and rec. groups;
Standard access, which eliminates alt.personals.bondage, alt.sex,
alt.sex.bestiality ,alt.sex.bondage, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica,
alt.sex.motss ,alt.sex.pictures ,alt.sex.pictures.d
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d; and Full access, which allows all
groups." Guess which type of access the students get!
Notes 7-8 raise the question: How accountable must computing centers
at state-run universities be to the taxpayers?
7. From a Ball State sysadmin: "My concern is with the perception of some in
our university administration that most of what the cluster is used for is
email among students, largely for social purposes, and that that use is not
academic and should not be supported. [...] To keep [this issue] continually
to the fore is paranoid, but to ignore it completely is reckless.
<1992Nov25.084901.12342@bsu-ucs>
8. From another Ball State employee: "I, and many others, have benefited
greatly as a result - the use of EMail results in a terrific amount of idea
exchange, etc. The net result of this is that there is more computer literacy
on this campus than any other campus I have ever seen." And interestingly,
"in 99% of the complaints I have heard, the user wants special privileges
ABOVE AND BEYOND the normal privs granted." Which is not to say that the
legislature doesn't have a "valid point," since "they DO grant the funding."
<3205@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Notes 9-12 list computing policies at four universities.
9. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, where users may be punished for "Using
any computer facility to violate the Grounds for Disciplinary Action
(e.g. harassment, fraud, falsifying information, academic dishonesty, etc.)
Note: Harassment is that which is annoying or threatening to the person
receiving the message or action"!
<9211292124.AA01302@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
10. Louisiana Tech, which declares that "Fraudulent, harassing or obscene
messages and/or other materials are not to be sent or stored." Just in case
you do try storing them, "Computer Center personnel may access others' files
when necessary for the maintenance of central computer systems [... and] if
violations are discovered, they will be reported immediately to the
appropriate Vice President." Also, the Robert Morrises of the South are not
allowed to "deliberately attempt to degrade the performance of a computer
system."
<9211292125.AA01310@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
11. This is a very long and thorough policy on computing at the University of
North Texas which establishes a committee, three titles, and an ombudsman's
position for computing, defines the roles of everybody in the academic
community w.r.t. computing, establishes sanctions for faculty, staff, and
students who don't comply, and even offers official definitions of terms such
as "workstation" and "computer installation."
<9211292125.AA01321@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
12. The University of Nebraska (Omaha), which decrees that "No one should
attempt to encroach on others' use of the facilities or deprive them of
resources." And that "student, faculty and staff accounts, issued for
legitimate classroom or office work, must not be used for private consulting
and/or personal financial gain." Other than that, have fun.
<9211292126.AA01324@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Aaron Barnhart]
cafv02n57
[Week ending November 22, 1991
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-6 are about the latest computer-related criminal bust
at Cornell University.
1. A news report on the incident: "The New York Times said agents
this week raided a student's room as part of an investigation that
began Nov. 11, after the administrator of another bulletin board
told the Ivy League university of seeing material involving sexual
exploitation of minors."
<1992Nov21.184453.4548@eff.org>
2. A statement from Cornell's VP of I/T: "One of these sources may
have originated at Cornell, but there appear to be other sources
associated with other institutions. [...] Effective immediately,
Cornell's official newstand will no longer provide access to the
[alt.binaries.picturesb.erotica] hierarchy at least until we can
ascertain that there has been no violation of the law."
<1992Nov18.202832.1951@mail.cornell.edu>
3. The plot thickens. "Federal officials said they were
investigating whether the student used an electronic scanner to
transmit child pornography onto a computer file and send the
pictures through an international computer bulletin board."
<9211201816.AA21284@dahlia.cit.cornell.edu>
4. On the one hand, "It would have been all-too-easy to restrict
access to the whole alt hierarchy, or even all of Usenet, during the
'interim' period during which investigations are occurring," says one
Cornell user. Yet the school's code on such investigations, "Section J
of Article II of Title 3 of the Cornell Code of Conduct [...] is far,
far, far too vague. Further, Article II of Title 1 seems to exclude
the possibility of simultaneous University and criminal action."
<9211202036.AA12053@crocus.cit.cornell.edu>
5. "Would Mr. Lynn have ordered cornell.general (or whatever you have
like that) shut down if these individuals had posted the questionable
item(s) there? Would the university have closed off the Arts Quad if
they caught someone distributing alleged child pornography there? I
think not. I think that in any of those circumstances, the
individuals would have been addressed, while the forum would have been
left alone.
<1992Nov21.170010.3289@eff.org>
6. "I do think their rapid action demonstrates their ignorance as
to the actual nature of a.p.b.e." But they *do* know the nature of
cu.general -- "If someone were to start posting binaries, in
particular child pornograpy there, I think they would be much more
likely to deal with the person individually." So why close one and
not the another? One, "cooperation with the FBI in the matter,"
two, "simply by virtue of having *some* protected speech content
in them" doesn't get a.b.p.e. and similar newsgroups completely off
the hook.
<9211211820.AA14627@crocus.cit.cornell.edu>
Notes 7-9 concern reports of heavy-handed systems administration
at Southwest Missouri State University.
7. "One of my friends was recently ordered by the head of [the]
computer department to unsubscribe to a list server he was using,
because 'students never sign off of the list servers at the end of the
semester.' And he was actually using it for ACADEMIC purposes [...]
Our school DOES have a few problems with Internet, the main one being
people who ftp 5 or 6 megabyte files at peak hours. They seem to
think that the simplest way to solve all this would be to cut stu-
dents off from Internet entirely."
<1992Nov18.073637.22768@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
8. Maybe the author of article #7 should transfer to a school where
high-quality access is guaranteed and promoted. "When students
start asking the admissions office questions like: [...] Do all
students get Internet access? Under what limits? Do all students
get usernames? On what kind of systems? Limits? then the
university will start realizing the importance of such facilities."
9. Or maybe he should follow the lead of the alternative student
press and start his own system. "Too costly to startup? Too much
for students to manage without the official support and funding of
the university? Hmmmmm. Don't underestimate the power of pissed
off students!"
Notes 10-11 concern the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire's
actions to limit the postings of one of its students.
10. The note's author sends this from the school's director of
computing services: "If, after being requested [by a mailing list or
newsgroup's 'owner'] to stop, he [Robert McElwaine] continues to send
his materials The University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire will take steps
revoke his Internet privileges." The author adds that McElwaine
*should* cool it, because he's only posting "canned prefabricated
materials," but also finds this "attempt to prevent him from doing so
to be a bit scary."
<1992Nov6.065819.22603@gnosys.svle.ma.us>
11. "I worry, since explusion from a communications medium is not a
typical university sanction. (Typical sanctions include things like
informal warnings, formal warnings, university suspensions.) I note
that labeling Internet access a "privilege" does not remove due
process requirements."
<1992Nov16.161114.15845@eff.org>
Note 12 lists two noteworthy professional associations' ethics codes.
12. "Librarians must resist all efforts by groups or individuals to
censor library material [...] must protect each user's right to
privacy [...] must adhere to the principles of due process and
equality of opportunity [...] must distinguish clearly in their
actions and statements between their personal philosophies and
attitudes and those of an institution or professional body."
"Information professionals should [...] protect each information
user's and provider's right to privacy and confidentiality [...]
serve the legitimate information needs of a large and complex
society while at the same time being mindful of individuals' rights
[...] resist efforts to censor publications."
<1992Nov16.185943.18940@eff.org>
- Aaron]
cafv02n56
[Week ending November 15, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is about seizures of property belonging to BBS sysops
1. There's no longer a big problem with FBI agents using inappropriate
tactics in investigating cases of electronic bulletin board abuse. "Read
'The Hacker Crackdown' and get up to date."
<1992Nov10.192754.847@netcom.com>
Note 2 is about cross-border transmission of material that may be found
illegal in the recipient country.
2. Only the laws of the recipient country apply when illegal material is
transported across a border. If the material is legal in the country of the
sender, and if the country of the sender has no laws against export of the
material, the sender is blameless.
<3995@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Notes 3-5 are about a student's concerns that the university may be
misusing data on student computer use.
3. One academic computer center may be refusing network access to its student
users on the grounds that their use of network resources is often "frivolous."
How can they know this? Are they reading students' mail? Isn't that illegal?
<1992Nov2.041052.28698@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
4. The computer center is "tacky" in refusing network access, especially
e-mail access. If you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" the
system administrators cannot legally pry into your files. They do have the
right to remove that expectation by informing you that you may be
monitored, and then they can monitor you all they want.
<4so4TB5w164w@cellar.org>
5. Computer centers have lots of non-invasive ways of telling generally what
you're up to. There are lots of legitimate reasons why they need this
information. Many of the tools system administrators use are also available
to users (who, finger, ps). Postmasters often see more than they want to of
users' mail when it's bounced because of addressing problems, etc., but
without the information from those messages they can't fix user and network
problems.
<1992Nov13.144319.23661@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 6 and 7 work through a hypothetical situation in which a professor
exposes students to his religious beliefs via his .plan file, etc.
6. A professor shouldn't have to "warn" his students that there is a
quote from the Bible on his door, so he shouldn't have to warn them
that there is a Biblical quote in his .plan file.
7. The situation seems equivalent to putting biblical quotes in a syllabus.
It's inappropriate and unethical, but poses no more of a problem for the
computer center than quotes in a printed syllabus would pose for the campus
print center. Offended students should take the issue up with the
professor's academic superiors.
<1992Nov15.022727.16660@eng.umd.edu>
Notes 8 and 9 deal with a system administrator's feeling of discomfort
with material that may be included in some news groups she feeds to
hers site and others.
8. A system administrator can't screen EVERY message that's posted. This
means there's a good chance that some illegal material will slip through.
When a complaint occurs, some sites will dump the whole group; others
will just ignore the problem. What's the right thing to do?
9. It's hard to say what's legal or not, where pornography's concerned.
Illegality is decided by courts on a local basis, so what's illegal in
one place may not be so in another. There are no consistent legal tests
for what's obscene in child pornography, so how's a sysop to know?
<1992Nov11.161741.2429@news.columbia.edu>
Notes 10 and 11 deal with issues around Madonna's "Sex" book.
10. The Saint Louis city and county libraries cancelled their orders
for "Sex." Their reasons included the notion that it's wrong to spend
tax money for pornography; the book has received poor reviews; it's
spiral bound and won't hold up well; and it doesn't appear to have
lasting value. Their action is not censorship, they say, because
individuals can go to bookstores and buy the book.
<1992Nov12.233650.20@cobra.dra.com>
11. There's a remarkable contrast between what the Iowa State
University library says about Madonna's book ("the library should be a
place of access, not restriction") and the language Iowa State
University uses in its policy restricting access to alt.sex ("...some
of the material provided through Usenet has been objectionable to some
members of the university...[the university should] use material in
manners which respect others in the campus community").
<1992Nov13.181628.8561@eff.org>
- Mark]
cafv02n55
[Week ending November 8, 1992
============================= KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily our opinions.
==================================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-2 review the case of Steven Brack, a student at Ohio State
University whose behavior on OSU systems led to his expulsion.
1. Carl Kadie: "Talking with him via the Net and on the phone, I was
astounded at how sloppy OSU was with due process. For example, they didn't
even tell him what he was charged with until he asked. Then they listed
things he was accused of doing and (vague) rules that we was accused of
breaking but would not say which action(s) they thought violated which
rule(s). Finally, when he was expelled, they listed only the rules they had
determined he had violated but included no 'finding of fact' as to which
actions they had determined he had actually done."
2. Steven Brack: "There was never a formal decision issued by the
[disciplinary] panel, only a finding that I violated said provisions of OSU's
rules. [...] I was not allowed to call witnesses from ACS [Acad. Comp.
Services], nor to compel any witnesses to testify, no matter what their
relation to the case. (Prof. John Bridge, who brought the complaint about
my posting the word 'fuck' to a newsgroup, for example.) I was not allowed
to put questions to the witnesses, but rather could only suggest questions to
the panel. I was not allowed to introduce documentary evidence that would
have shown that ACS gave me permission to do everything I did. Matters of
ACS procedures, including the lack of published rules, were likewise off
limits. Despite this, the hearing lasted over 5 hours, one of the longest
they could remember, with my closing argument taking over 30 minutes,
including interruptions by the chair, when he thought I was saying things
that weren't 'at issue.'"
<9211081708.AA22877@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Notes 3-10 discuss sexual harassment policy generally, and how it relates
to sysadmin policy specifically.
3. "Part of the problem of rules about sexual harassment is that they are
rules, but they are not rules. I wonder what the word 'informally' means in
the phrase 'empowered to informally resolve'? I don't think the phrase
really means anything, but it is often the heart of the sexual harassment
policy. Informality precludes empowerment. Informal means outside of the
normal rules and regulations. I think that the informality gives sysadmins
more flexibility in their handling of these cases. [...] It seems to me that
harassment claims are a pretty difficult subject, and may be more complicated
when computer networks are involved."
<1992Nov3.162237.9767@news.columbia.edu>
4. "The point that we as system administrators and managers must address is
the following: is our task in this arena to do everything possible to avoid
a lawsuit against the company or university no matter how ludicrous, but
technically possible, the scenario; or is our task to manage the system in a
reasonable way, doing our best to balance the rights and resposibilities of
all the users in accordance with company or university policies?"
5. And so, tempting though it may be for a sysadmin to step in and arbitrate
"complaints of unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature (some user displaying
sexually oriented images on their screen in a public lab, for example), I
think your options are much more limited if you wish to reduce the
possibility that the university, and perhaps you personally, will be named in
a sexual harassment lawsuit." In fact, your *only* option in this situation
is "Refer the matter to my supervisors."
6. The author quotes Rice University's sexual harassment policy at length,
and comments: "I am suggesting that system administrators or supervisors are
elevating the risks to themselves and their companies or universities by
ignoring the complaint or telling the complainant to ignore the behavior. I
am suggesting that system administrators not involve themselves in
determining if a complaint is legitimate or reasonable if they don't have
to."
7. What about using the guideline of harassment being that which "a
reasonable person would find offensive, humiliating, or [an] interference
with his or her required tasks or career opportunities at the University"?
Well, that would seem to come later in the process than the time of the
complaint. So, once again, when you get a complaint, pass it on!
8. "There is also the problem of setting the 'reasonable' standards, e.g.
there may be 'womens' groups with an idea of what the 'reasonable woman'
finds accetable, are there directly equivalent 'mens' groups to present
a model for what the 'reasonable man' finds acceptable and unaccetpable?
The latter, if they exist, appear to be lacking in the publicity department."
<1992Nov4.080856.24951@aston.ac.uk>
9. "Reasonable people can still disagree -- I can quite reasonably believe
that my putting a racy GIF on my background window is protected speech; I
also think it's reasonable that my (female) supervisor would find it
bothersome. [...] If no compromise can be reached, and if neither party will
back down, one side must give in. Sometime, the question of "who should back
down" must ultimately be settled in the courts.
<9211052135.AA09761@hibiscus.cit.cornell.edu>
10. "This discussion, we should recall, started about the alleged 'sexual
harassment' nature of what a user chooses to display on hir windowed-screen
background. If such choices, which are so obviously in the nature of
free-speech expressions, are to be labeled 'sexual harassment' under the
'hostile environment' doctrine, then the 'must be of a sexual nature' clause
which you take as a given (and would make sense!) is NOT guaranteed AT ALL.
[...] The threshold, in my humble opinion, was crossed when it was conceded
that a 'free expression'-nature act, such as the choice of what to wear or
what to display in one's personal working environment, was in any way
equivalent to 'harassing' somebody else sexually, with unwelcome sexual
advances."
<1992Nov06.073839.10961@cadlab.sublink.org>
- Elizabeth, Aaron ]
cafv02n54
[Best of October 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-6 feature Carl Kadie's 1992 "Banned Computer Materials" list and the
subsequent calm, reasoned discussion that followed its posting.
1. "Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer
material banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State
University has the dubious distinction of being listed most often
(three times). The list proper starts after a list of the academic
institutions where bans or challenges have occurred. The list proper
is followed by instructions on how to get more information about
specific incidents and then by instructions on how to get general
information about computers and academic freedom."
<1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>
2. "More power to Iowa State University! The mere existence of
this list implies that there is something improper about electronic
censorship. The truth of the matter is that it is probably MORE
important than print censorship. Enough Americans feel that there
should be some limit to what can be depicted and described that we
have obscenity laws in this country. Why should we ridicule
universities and other organizations that choose to enforce the law of
the land?" (Etc.)
<199210072113.AA22128@eff.org>
3. "Iowa State U. is not enforcing the law. Virtually all the
material restricted is constitutionally protected. Morever, in Iowa,
universities are excepted from the state obscenity law. [see ref.] The
material apparently restricted not because it was illegal, but because
someone finds discussion of sex offensive." (Etc.)
<199210090359.AA22655@eff.org>
4. A UMass-Boston sysadmin: "I feel we are a site which is deeply
and fundamentally supportive of open access and free speech. It hurts
to see us listed on the same list as folks who are denying newsgroup
access, shutting off users, and other serious measures." To which
EFF's Mike Godwin replies: "[Then] how can you justify a system policy
that seems to be grounded in your personal opposition to seeing
offensive stuff appear on your screen when you run finger?"
(Especially as "you seem to define 'obscene' far more broadly than any
government body is allowed to do under the U.S. Constitution.")
<1992Oct2.011244.13372@eff.org>
5. The sysadmin replies: "We are a community, not a legal board.
We are engaged in teaching. Perhaps one of the things we are teaching
is working together in a group. When someone is very disruptive, or
offensive, by our community standards, we ask them to change. [...]
Students we've asked have changed with NO threats, NO hidden
consequences, NO nasty undertones. We've never taken an account away
so I don't think there are any hidden fears. Students seem to feel
free to debate policy, so I don't think there is hidden authoritarian
crackdowns."
6. "Carl, the thing that I really don't understand is that you
published a 'List' without contacting the named institutions IN
ADVANCE. [...] Handled improperly (as I feel was done in this case),
such a list creates an atmosphere of suspicion toward the named
entities. I hate to use the term, 'McCarthyism' but that's what this
whole affair smacks of."
<7863@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Notes 7-8 feature two of Carl's nominations for "Best Of" Usenet.
7. Best policy concerning prohibitions: the Electronic Frontier
Foundation. "Electronic mail on this system is as private as we can
make it. Attempts to read another person's electronic mail or other
protected files will be treated with the utmost seriousness. The
system administrators will not read mail or non-world-readable files
unless absolutely necessary in the course of their duties, and will
treat the contents of those files as private information at all
times." (Post includes full policy statement.)
<1992Oct29.200346.5545@eff.org>
8. Best policy concerning netnews: University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee. "Resolved: That full recognition and support be
given to the valuable resource provided by the network news system.
Rationale: Electronic transmission of information is playing an
increasingly vital role in higher education. This new technology
provides a unique vehicle for the participation of the university
community in the world-wide exchange of ideas." (Post includes full
policy statement.)
<1992Oct29.200825.5648@eff.org>
Note 9 addresses an important consideration for academic computing policy.
9. "I think it WRONG WRONG WRONG to blame every
intrusion/security risk/breach to students in the first place. This
attitude towards students is responsible for a rather un-academic
climate in many, if not most academic installations. From your posting
I see no evidence that you have a PROOF that the person responsible is
a student, unless you have caught him already (and in this case you
should know how to deal with the broken machine too). Then you should
not publicly put the blame upon 'a student'. [...] It could as well
have been one of your staff people."
<1992Oct15.142915.293@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Notes 10-12 discuss the implications of displaying nude GIFs in public places.
10. "Your university almost certainly has a written policy on
sexual harassment, that policy almost certainly details the sexual
harassment enforcment procedure. It is very unlikely that an ordinary
university department or staff person is authoritized by the school to
enforced the sexual harassment policy (by, for example, expelling
students from the computer system or by searching for *.gif files)."
<1992Oct9.010021.18858@eff.org>
11. One academic dept. decided on *this* policy statement: "We do
not dictate what students may or may not display on their computer
screens. We do, however, feel free to exercise our own rights to free
speech and tell students precisely what we think of their actions."
12. "The basic problem that tears at most admins is we want to
make all these decisions ourselves and have very liberal policies. I
personally would like to have $20,000 allocated to buy a dedicated
news machine that would carry all the newsgroups. Unfortunately at
some point lawyers and managers and accountants poke their noses in if
you request things like that and deep-six the whole idea. So most of
them shoe-string news onto existing machinery, with less disk space
than needed to carry even half the flow. [...] The more conscientious
admin's are the ones who try to balance what is allowable with what
their bosses and users want. [...] Safe to say though that admins were
once users and haven't forgotten that. But from down here in the
sewer-works, the view is different."
<71625@hydra.gatech.EDU>
- Aaron Barnhart]
cafv02n53
[Week ending November 1, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[This week's guest editor is Jared Danziger,
cjzw7l31@stimpy.ir.miami.edu - Carl]
Notes 1-2 are about Canada.
1. At least seven newsgroups from the alt.sex news hierarchy remain
banned at Wilfred Laurier University. The ban originated in the
actions of Hart Benzer, Director of Computer Services, who personally
considered the material in the newsgroups offensive. A concurring
opinion from other university administrators resulted in the ban of
these newsgroups. The newsgroups remain banned at least until a
committee on computers meets. Similar bans have occurred at other
universities throughout Canada.
<9210261909.AA25226@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
2. Amendments to the Canadian Constitution concerning Language Minority
Rights are empty guarantees due to escape clauses within the constitution.
In addition, the guidelines established by the amendments are impractical
and do not provide extensive enough coverage.
<199210262224.AA15552@eff.org>
Note 3 is about harassment.
3. "The computers in these cases are the means or tools by which harassment
takes place, they are not the harasser ('Computers don't harass people,
people harass people'). A person can be harassed by someone who sends them
unwelcome, sexually oriented hand-written or typed letters. Yet we don't
even consider banning paper correspondence... The law implies that
you should do your best to reduce the probability of harassment... The
only reasonable 'preventive' measure that an employer or school can
take with sexual harassment is to educate the employees or students about
sexual harassment, give examples of most likely unwelcome behavior, and
explain the possible consequences."
Notes 4-7 are nominations for best policy in various categories. These
policies are merely nominations, they may contain various flaws and may
not be well suited for many computing facilities. They are useful models
for the construction or revision of institutional policies.
4. Prohibitions: The EFF in house rules allow a broad range of
actions. Major points include:
"2. No use of this or any other EFF system as a staging ground
to crack other systems...
4. No use of this or any other EFF system for illegal or criminal
purposes.
9. Obstructing [other people's] work by consuming gratuitously
large amounts of system resources (disk space, CPU time) or by
deliberately crashing the machine(s) will not be tolerated....
11.Attempts to read another person's electronic mail or other protected
files will be treated with the utmost seriousness"
<1992Oct29.200346.5545@eff.org>
5. Netnews: "That the same standards and principles of intellectual
and academic freedom developed for university libraries be applied to
material received from the news network... That the same standards of
intellectual and academic freedom developed for faculty and student
publication in traditional media be applied to publication in computer
media."
<1992Oct29.200825.5648@eff.org>
6. Due Process: "Violations of the University Code of Computer Ethics
are treated like any other ethical violation as outlined in the
Student Handbook and applicable faculty and staff handbooks.
Violators may also be billed for illegal use of the computer systems
and may be prosecuted for statutory violations..."
<1992Oct29.201759.5761@eff.org>
7. Participation: "As constituents of the academic community, students
should be free, individually and collectively, to express their views
on issues of institutional policy and on matters of general interest
to the student body. The student body should have clearly defined
means to participate in the formulation and application of
institutional policy affecting academic and student affairs... the
actions of the student government within the areas of its jurisdiction
should be reviewed only through orderly prescribed procedures."
<1992Oct29.202705.5949@eff.org>
Notes 8-9 discuss how the Hatch Act affects federal employees and private
individuals and corporations who receive money from the federal government.
8. "The Hatch act applies only to federal civil service employees, not to
grantees and certainly not to students. I believe the State's "little
Hatch Acts" have similar scope. Moreover, the Hatch Act doesn't forbid all
political activity by covered employees."
<1992Oct30.192931.20021@eff.org>
9. "The Hatch act does not forbid Federal employees from engaging in
politics or from expressing political opinions. It forbids them from
certain official roles in partisan political campaigns, or for
collecting donations from political campaigns, and other than a couple
of little details, that is pretty much it. ...Federal employees still
have First Amendment rights"
<1cs5g4INN76p@agate.berkeley.edu>
- Jared Danziger]
cafv02n52
[Week ending October 25, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-10 are about the screening of GIF files by system administrators,
and the proper response to complaints concerning images displayed by others
in public.
1. A discussion of the appropriateness of screening GIF files is
continued from earlier postings. "... it's certainly not as binary as
'good' vs. 'bad'..." There are issues of copyright, creativity,
originality. "... there's no original creativity here, it's just
someone's facility with a sampler/scanner."
2. "... in a working shop our [system administrator's] job is to
facilitate use of our systems." Some sysadmins have policy
responsibility, some do not, but all sysadmins shoulder some social
responsibility. "... I would not want to be a system user or citizen
of a world in which EVERY small decision was engraved in stone in an
official policy."
3. One occasionally has policies against viewing certain material on
University equipment, and the University subscribes to all available
newsgroups. Sometimes the best way to deal with this is "not dealing
at all". "The question is not of suppressing it, but of making users
(by non-suppressive means!) to abandon... misuse by themselves."
<1992Oct19.102507.15648@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
4. "Why do [users] want *.pictures? ... It is *getting them for free* or at
least the feeling of that. ... Cost of transmission and storage *is* an
issue. And users... should become aware of it."
<1992Oct19.113827.17687@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
5. A sysadmins job is to do what management wants. "Management should
be making the policy decisions, not the [system] administrators
[regarding rules for viewing images on company equipment]."
<70@ocdis01.UUCP>
6. "The line between prohibited sexual harassment and protected
expression is very, very fine. ... No one should try to enforce the
rules unless they are authorized by the procedures." An excerpt from
the UIUC Code on Campus Affairs is provided as an example of who might
be authorized to take action.
<1992Oct19.175336.24090@eff.org>
7. Complaints should be resolved in an informal way if possible. However,
"In many cases a sysadmin has supervisory responsibility over people who are
not technically under his or her control. ... At the least, they should be
able to direct users to a more appropriate means of complaint."
<1992Oct20.150640.1599@news.columbia.edu>
8. Excerpts from a brochure issued by the President's Office at UK are
listed in which sexual harassment is defined to be conduct which
interfers with an individual's work, or creates an offensive working
or academic environment. The display of sexually explicit material
must be justified by a compelling educational purpose to be
permissable in the public University environment. "It is the
responsibility of each of us to prevent sexual harassment and to
respond appropriately to such illegal behavior when it occurs." How
should a sysadmin act in the face of such direction?
<1992Oct20.131432.2258@ms.uky.edu>
9. The definition of sexual harassment at UK in unconstitutional in the US.
What is an appropriate response? Not illegal prior review. References are
provided to relevant material.
<1992Oct20.192932.21030@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
10. Regarding the actions to be taken by sysadmins over complaints "What about
informally saying `I've received some complaints about this; could we find
some way for you to do it without bothering others?'" Informal attempts to
resolve problems should preceed the application of bureaucracy.
<1992Oct21.83754.29551@ms.uky.edu>
Note 11 is about the posting of political information in a mass mailing.
11. Two issues: is the user being punished for promoting a viewpoint and is the
user receiving due process. If the mailer is a student, is the action against
the student kept confidential in compliance with FERPA. References provided
for these points.
<1992Oct23.050254.20807@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 12 discusses making sysadmins the first contact for harassment complaints.
12. "If the person you go to with a complaint does not understand the situation
surrounding the complaint, they will not be in a ... position to offer
reasonalble advi[c]e or take reasonable action." There are dangers in
ignoring the problem as trivial, or in responding in a draconian manner, if
a fist contact isn't aware of the complexities of the issues.
<1992Oct23.193222.2611@news.columbia.edu>
- John F. Nixon]
cafv02n58
[Week ending October 18, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[This is a different version of CAF-News for the week
ending Oct 18th. I'd like to say that it is part of an
experiment to measure how two different editors do the same week,
but actually it is the result of a scheduling snafu. - Carl]
Notes 1-3 are part of a continuing discussion of the US Constitution and
its relationship to Supreme Court rulings.
1. The Supreme Court has appointed itself interpreter of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court may not consider the Constitution clear, and may make its
own interpretations, but these may or may not have bearing on debates about
the Constitution per se.
<1992Oct13.144935.14519@news2.cis.umn.edu>
2. The effect of Supreme Court interpretation has real-life effects. If not
for laws based on interpretations of the Constitution, the extension of
First Amendment protections to electronic media could not have been made.
<1992Oct13.160500.8637@eff.org>
3. But the Supreme Court often steps in where the Constitution is very
plain and, in the name of interpretation, changes the law from what was
the obvious intent of the Constitution. The verbatim text of the Constitution
is likely to have more impact than Supreme Court rulings on the thinking of
readers from other countries.
<1992Oct13.214422.22536@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Notes 4-7 discuss some aspects of the rights involved in displaying images
of nude humans in public places
4. Authoritarian responses to perceived violations by students of policy
about the display of nude images may do more harm than good. If the policy
is unjust, treating the violator as guilty may be the worse offense.
5. "...A sound definition of [sexual] harassment...needs to be more nuanced
with respect to content, context and intent than most of the rather broad
definitions advanced in recent years, in these pages and elsewhere."
<199210142013.AA03362@eff.org>
6. Just saying "display of images not related to one's job is prohibited"
is not likely to result in intelligent regulation of such display. A more
enlightened approach might be to "ban the action, not the potentiality, and
let the users be responsible (morally and legally) for their own actions."
<1992Oct15.231105.28424@news2.cis.umn.edu>
7. Prohibiting display of images unrelated to one's job is completely
ineffective. In many instances images that may be offensive to some are
nevertheless useful in an individual's work. A 1972 Playboy centerfold is
"one of the most published images in the academic literature of image
processing and data compression."
<1992Oct16.033130.20389@news.uiowa.edu>
Notes 8-10 give different sysops' views of the issues discussed
in notes 4-7.
8. System administrators walk a fine line between conserving resources and
having liberal policies on what their users can do with the machines they
manage. The more conscientious of them "balance what is allowable with what
their bosses and users want."
<71625@hydra.gatech.EDU>
9. The Internet is a place where ideas can be interchanged. Consuming its
bandwidth for scanned-in images from magazines seems wasteful. "Grow up.
Use this network for everyone's good. Develop a more REAL attitude toward
women and sexuality. And keep the GIFs to yourself."
10. A writer suggested that the sysop is like a janitor - s/he should not
be responsible for taking down an offensive picture from an office wall.
But many policies empower all people in "authority" to at least offer
advice to persons who find such material offensive, and the sysop in such
cases is a person in authority.
<1992Oct18.211928.22310@news.columbia.edu>
11. Carl introduces material about a professional organization for sysops.
<1992Oct12.200113.24453@eff.org>
- Mark]
cafv02n51
[Week ending October 18, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[This week's guest editor is Aaron Barnhart,
Aaron.D.Barnhart@gagme.chi.il.us. Several previous week's issues are
in production. - Carl]
Note 1 is about computing structure at some small-medium colleges.
1. (P_PARTELLO@UNHH.UNH.EDU:) "Last week I asked people about the
structure of computing on small-medium campuses." Here are the
responses from Florida State, Cornell Med, Shawnee State (O.), Cal
State/Dominguez Hills, Bradley Univ., Wisconsin-Parkside, St. Mary's,
U. of Michigan-Dearborn and the U of M Business School, and Babson
College.
<199210121907.AA23324@eff.org>
Notes 2-5 are about the display of "offensive" material.
2. "My opinion, as a part-time sysadmin: Public *display* of computer
images is usually covered under the same rules as posters,
calendars, etc. If someone else walks in and sees it, and is
offended, they have grounds for a complaint".
<1992Oct13.141359.4701@nastar.uucp>
3. "If someone looks over someone else's shoulder in a computer lab
and sees nude photos, how is that different from looking over
someone's shoulder in a University library and seeing pictures in the
copy of, say, Playboy which (s)he is reading? I believe that any
attempt by a librarian to ban the latter would be absurd; it's
clearly censorship to say that, although the library carries X, you
are not allowed to read it."
<1992Oct14.034619.6797@news.cs.indiana.edu>
4. "I've always been troubled by the assertion that the visible
presence of erotic images in some part of a workspace--independent of
either content, context, or intent--should be considered _per se_
sexual harassment." Needed is a definition of harassment that's "more
nuanced with respect to content, context and intent than most of the
rather broad definitions advanced in recent years, in these pages and
elsewhere."
<199210142013.AA03362@eff.org>
5. "There is an Audio-Visual lab in Frost Library at Amherst. If I
need to watch a film for a class, a videotape is placed in the A/V
lab and I can go down and watch it (with headphones) on one of the TV
sets there. If I were to watch something sexually explicit, whether
or not for class, would that constitute an offensive working
environment? I don't think it would."
Note 6 is about newsgroups supposedly banned in Australia.
6. "I can't help but feel that if [ARPAnet] would just remove the ban
[on alt.sex and alt.drugs newsgroups], and prepare to stand up to
hysterical media identities who would scream about 'tax payer dollars
funding a porno net', it would all be so much simpler."
<1992Oct14.063635.13759@cltr.uq.OZ.AU>
Note 7 is about Rice University's computer policy.
7. Rice's policy "allows searches and disclosure without
authorization, notification, or documentation. Contrast this with the
4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution" ...
<1992Oct15.135354.17230@eff.org>
Note 8 concerns attitudes toward students by academic computing staff.
8. "I think it WRONG WRONG WRONG to blame every intrusion/security
risk/breach to students in the first place. This attitude towards
students is responsible for a rather un-academic climate in many, if
not most academic installations. [...] Students are NOT a security
risk in the first place. This attitude leads to an active
discrimination where students are denied all rights and privileges,
if logically sound or not, for 'security reasons'."
<1992Oct15.142915.293@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Note 9 is a CFV on two additions to the comp hierarchy.
9. "This is a CALL FOR VOTES for the creation of two new newsgroups for
discussions and news on academic freedom on computers and networks.
The RFD was first posted on 1 Sep 1992. The last day to vote is 10
Nov 1992." The groups, comp.society.acad-freedom.{news,talk}, would
replace their counterparts currently in the alt hierarchy.
Note 10 continues discussion of the Banned Computer Material 1992 list.
10. "Whatever happened to the notion that 'honest persons can
disagree'? Has the *academic* 'mindset' so overreached itself as to
now assert that the *only* honest and admissible decisions are those
made by people who obey the academic.freedom.police? And that any who
do not thus conform should properly expect to find themselves
pilloried on a wanted poster published under that same threadbare
cloak of doubtful authority [the aforementioned list]? Would such
intolerance of *actual* dissent not make absurd any 'moral' claim
upon the abstract notion of preserving the *right* to dissent?"
<1992Oct16.155454.11788@mtek.com>
Note 11 considers academic freedom from one sysadmin's viewpoint:
11. "Sure I can get away with viewing or doing anything I want in my
own environs, with my own money. But when I'm using equipment that's
not my own, or at my place of work, suddenly rules start popping up.
In my own house, I can walk around naked. If I do this at work, it
would surely raise a few eyebrows at the very least."
<71625@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Note 12 is a critique of Mankato State's computing policy.
12. "Do you really mean to prohibit e-mail, etc. and random
experimentation? Your policy seems to be that students may use the
systems only to perform the exact tasks assigned by their
instructors."
- Aaron Barnhart]
cafv02n50
[Week ending October, 11 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-6 discuss Carl Kadie's list of academic sites which have
banned various computer materials during 1992.
1. Carl Kadie explains his principles with regard to academic freedom
on academic computer systems, and his interpretation of those
principles, leading to the overall conclusion that "computer polices
should be consistent with general university codes and widely accepted
statements on academic freedom such as the Joint Statement on Rights
and Freedoms of Students."
<1992Oct6.200521.794@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
2. Academic freedom is not unlimited. It does not extend to actions
which disrupt the essential operation of an organisation, constitute
harassment or slander, injure individuals or property, or which are
otherwise illegal.
<1992Oct5.152257.20361@eff.org>
3. The list of banned materials "served no real purpose other than to
misrepresent the entire issue of `what is acceptable use' at a site,"
especially since (1) no attempt was made to verify the accuracy of the
list by contacting relevant persons at each site mentioned, and (2)
each site was denied due process by not being given the opportunity to
verify the information before it was publicized.
<7863@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
4. "Enough Americans feel that there should be some limit to what can
be depicted and described that we have obscenity laws in this country.
Why should we ridicule universities and other organizations that
choose to enforce the law of the land?"
<199210072113.AA22128@eff.org>
5. Most of the material mentioned in the banned list is protected
under the American constitution. Moreover, many US states explicitly
exempt academic institutions from the effects of obscenity laws.
<199210090359.AA22655@eff.org>
6. "The [American Library Association] policies are simply the
feelings of a particular group of people with a particular political
bent and do not hold any authority over individual professional
librarians nor to library organizations in general, nor should they in
any way be confused or considered in the same light as constitutional
and legal law and precedent."
<199210102149.AA02334@eff.org>
Notes 7 and 8 concern the selective enforcement of rules, a discussion
which came out of the debate over Carl Kadie's list of banned computer
materials.
7. It would be wonderful if rules could always be applied to everyone
in the same way, but mitigating - and exacerbating - circumstances,
along with imperfect detection systems, will always mean that they
will not be.
8. Prohibiting users from owning materials with which they might be
able to break certain rules only increases ill-feeling, creates
unnecessary work for the system administrator, and may stop users from
doing legitimate work.
<9210101214.aa14686@Paris.ics.uci.edu>
Notes 9 to 11 discuss whether or not displays of nude pictures should
be allowed on computing facilities.
9. "What should sys admins do about nude pictures and displays of nude
pictures in public terminal rooms? Is a special rule banning such
pictures and/or displays needed?" Perhaps a distinction should be made
between ownership and private viewing, and public display, since the
former may the constitutionally protected while the latter may
constitute sexual harassment.
<1992Oct9.010021.18858@eff.org>
10. In my lab the display of sych pictures is not prohibited, but
those who do display them are informed of my view of their
intellectual and social merit, and encouraged not to display them.
Repeat `offenders' are rare!
11. The University of Karlsruhe Computing Center's HP Workstation
Manual states that: "Use of the workstations not related to scientific
research and education, especially playing games and the abuse of
graphic displays for displaying non-work-related pictures, is
prohibited. This is to explicitly notify you that abuse can result in
account revocation."
<1992Oct9.185121.12205@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n49
[Week ending October 4, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Note 1 is the latest edition of the "Banned Computer Material 1992"
list. [The original version is in the archive as
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/old.banned.1992]
1. A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German
universities, Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James
Madison U., Middle East Technical U., North Dakota State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., Princeton, Simon Fraser U., U. of British
Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley *, U. of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of Massachusetts at Boston,
U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle, U. of Ottawa, U. of
Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of Wyoming, United
Kingdom Net, Virginia Public Education Network, Virginia Tech,
Western Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid Laurier U.
(2), Williams College **
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.
<1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>
Notes 2-7 are about "banning" offensive .plan files.
2. In reply to a sys admin who says that asking that users not to put
offensive material in a .plan is not a ban: "It's based on content.
That constitutes censorship. Who decides what is or is not
'obscene, sexual, or violent'? If the specific logic to decide what
is or is not, is in writing, why not POST IT HERE ... If there is
no such specifics, how can anyone know in advance?"
<1992Sep30.192405.1619@netcom.com>
3. In reply to the sys admin's comment that "Saying 'you may post this
material anywhere except for this one place' is a far cry from
prohibiting or forbidding the material!": "On the contrary, [...]
American Constitutional jurisprudence is full of cases in which
regulation of expression based on content was considered to be
censorship."
<1992Oct2.011244.13372@eff.org>
4. [The sys admin:] "What are the consequences if a student doesn't
change a .plan file? **NONE** Lemme repeat for the last time: We
are a community, not a legal board."
5. [A sys admin at another site:] "I've had a few users who named
their programs with "offensive" words." ... When I see such a
thing, I drop a piece of email explaining that everyone can see
their process names. I don't tell them to cease and desist; I just
say 'hey, did you know what anyone on the system can see that?'
Most of my users don't even realize that others can see that
information; I've never had a 'repeat offender'.
<1992Oct1.154233.21781@ms.uky.edu>
6. Here is an excerpt from the Supreme Court decision _Cohen v.
California_. It says that offensive speech is protected unless
"substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially
intolerable manner."
<1992Oct1.132836.25405@eff.org>
7. Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions. They say
that offensive public expression is protected if those offended can
"effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities
simply by averting their eyes."
<1992Oct2.200348.2320@eff.org>
Note 8 is about the University of Limerick in Ireland:
8. "[T]here was a security incident involving a user who had the
process name 'Baader' [, his name]. Subsequent to his 'trial' and
expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his
process name to 'Baader' and promptly found himself disusered."
<1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com>
Notes 9-10 are about banning not only the running of some computer
programs but also possession of program's code.
9. In reply to an associate director of computing services who
compared possession of some programs' code to possession of a
handgun: "A COMPUTER PROGRAM IS NOT A HANDGUN. Computer programs,
at least in source code form, are PUBLISHED MATERIAL ... If my use
of computer resources provided for a particular purpose to me and
others interferes with that purpose, then you have a right to take
action ... But information itself may not be made '"illegal' ..."
10. In reply to the associate director comment that program code is to
running a prohibited program as burglary tools are to burglary: "I
view the distinction as rather like the distinction between
possessing a book that tells how to steal and actually stealing.
.... Academic libraries are full of books and reports that could
be used to break rules and laws. I've enclosed an example.
<1992Oct1.203856.7190@eff.org>
Note 11 is about network connectivity with the former Soviet Union (xSU).
11. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is asking that the xSU be
allowed to connect so as not to "to disenfranchise a large
fraction of the US R&E community whose aspirations for
unrestricted scientific and educational collaboration with their
peers and colleagues in the xSU NSF fully endorses."
<9209291450.AA22215@ncri>
Note 12 is a mini review of a book about freedom of expression.
12. The book, _Free Speech in an Open Society_, is new, up to date,
and has lots of references to relevant court cases. Enclosed are
the book's six suggested rules for speech rules in a free forum.
<1992Sep29.184810.10473@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv02n48 - in production
cafv02n47
[Week ending September 27, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-5 continue discussion of the Iowa State dorm-door "censorship"
case.
1. "If a given forum becomes unmanageable, the owners of the forum
should have the right to close it. [...] Does the university have a
resposibility (contractual or otherwise) to provide a proper living
environment for its students? Does an oft-harassed minority have a
right, under the University's codes/policies, to demand a living
environment free from harassment?"
<1992Sep21.84022.5459@ms.uky.edu>
2. "You presume that the door displays violate valid antiharassment
rules. I confess that I presumed that they did not. [...] Because
maybe all, and certainly most, of the material on people's door is
legal, to suppress that material would be an injustice." (Author
also quotes from _UWM Post v. Regents_.)
<1992Sep21.134410.14591@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
3. "No, I'm assuming that the administration wishes to close an
unmanageable forum (which may, or may not, have been directly
established as such)." For instance, some (non-electronic) university
bulletin boards, "notably those in administrative areas, are
controlled by prior approval of materials to be posted. Is this
censorship? I think not.
<1992Sep21.91745.13775@ms.uky.edu>
4. "I've seen out-of-the-way signs proclaiming such free speech
ghettos at U. of Illinois and U. of Texas. I haven't, however, ever
heard of anyone being restricted to them. Nor does the current U. of
I. Student Code refer to ours. [...] The school should enforce
antiharassment rules; it should not close down whole forums."
<1992Sep21.221307.629@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
5. (From the original Iowa State poster:) "The Dept of Residence has
not said anything about the nature of the posts that prompted this
policy, save that they were 'racist' and 'denegrating'. Rumor has it
that the student committee has been formed. [...] It would not
surprise me at all if we hear nothing until a new policy is approved
by the Dept of Residence. It would have the veneer of student
approval and would therefore be stronger in a court of law."
Note 6 is an announcement regarding the legal counsel available
through the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
6. "REQUESTS FOR HELP IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S NO CRIMINAL OR
CIVIL CASE This category includes situations in which, for example, a
college student has his computer-access privileges suspended because
a 'hacker newsletter' is discovered by a system administrator
rummaging through the student's directory. [...] If you are running
into a legal problem, or if you simply have a general legal question,
or even if you're having a problem on the Electronic Frontier and
you're not sure whether or not it's a legal problem, you should call
me, Mike Godwin, at 617-864-0665, or send me electronic mail at
mnemonic@eff.org or at 76711,317 on CompuServe. I won't always be
able to help, but I'm always willing to listen. And I may be able to
help more often than you'd think."
<1992Sep21.223239.26506@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 7 profiles First Amendment defender Nat Hentoff.
7. Notes from a recent lecture given by one of the great defenders of
the First Amendment, journalist Nat Hentoff, jazz critic, columnist
for _The Village Voice_ and author of the new book, _Free Speech for
Me--But Not for Thee_ (HarperCollins). Also bibliography and
annotations.
<1992Sep26.195343.28231@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 8 is a news item of possible university systems censorship.
8. "In keeping with the spirit of censorship, [Louisiana Tech
University] has turned off all the students e-mail functions for
Internet. [...] Not only has Tech turned off all the students
mailfeed, I have heard evidence that their are individuals reading
students mail/posts/[Netnews] subscriptions. I have also heard that some
students [Netnews] readings are used against them."
<1686D8F1E.ST32373@VM.CC.LATECH.EDU>
Note 9 reviews an article by academic computing expert Stephen
Franklin.
9. "While academic computing centers can be expected to provide a
smaller fraction of the total computing resources than in the past,
what they can be expected and challenged to provide can be of
increasing importance [...] in helping shape the academic community's
vision of what can be accomplished with these resources."
<199209232322.AA01056@orion.oac.uci.edu>
Note 10 is a reply to controversy over systems use at Ohio State.
10. (A private systems administrator:) "I make the decision, but then
I have the freedom of doing that - it's my system. College and
university managers don't have that freedom, since they have to
tolerate the goodie-two-shoes who are permitted to do their thinking
for them, and often must remove 'politicly sensitive' material from
their" systems.
<9209230011.AA11009@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu>
Notes 11-12 respond to computing policy at University of Rochester.
11. (A Rice University sysadmin:) "There is no absolute right of
privacy. There is a limited right of privacy. This means that while
a person has an expectation of privacy regarding their data files or
information, there are conditions under which a duly authorized
person may access those files without obtaining the owner's consent
first. The task for you and your users is to define the conditions
of access such that you can balance the user's expectation of privacy
with the need to keep the system operating effectively."
12. (A Skidmore College sysadmin:) "Use your established review
groups. Most universities have a student conduct board and many have
some form of Professional conduct committee for faculty/staff. Use
them to help keep your practices in sync with the rest of the
institution."
<1992Sep23.001942.8273@scott.skidmore.edu>
- Aaron Barnhart]
cafv02n46
[Week ending September 20, 1992.
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[Several issues still in production - Carl]
Notes 1-4 discuss disallowing users' access to computer resources when
it is suspected that their accounts have been misused.
1. (A system administrator:) If we crack a user's password using
crack, we lock them out by changing their shell. We reinstate the
account when the student shows us their id, and changes the
password. If we allowed unrestricted access to crackers while
waiting for due process, would we be liable for damages done to
other sites?
2. Assuming that the user is an authorized user at your site, your
response should be restrained. "By way of analogy, a student [who]
is accused of breaking a university window should not be expelled
from university pending disposition of the case. ... [In contrast,
a]t some schools, the [suspected] user is barred not for hours but
for days or even weeks." The right of access must be balanced with
other people's right to security.
<1992Sep17.182742.335@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
3. (A system administrator:) All hacking isn't dangerous. However, on
most commercial and many educational systems, assuming that it is
harmless is a bad idea. Temporarily disabling a userid until you
can contact the user is often the prudent thing to do.
<7012@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
4. Lockouts are justified to bar unauthorized users, to prevent
continued serious abuses, or as a result of due process. They
should not be used to "get a user's attention" when a less drastic
method would work.
<1992Sep17.000546.19059@eff.org>
Notes 5-7 concern a policy at Iowa State University which prohibits
posting material on the doors of University residence halls.
5. Most housing contracts contain a clause in which the resident
agrees to obey the policies set by the University. It is unclear
whether that clause is enforceable in this case, but they have more
lawyers than you.
<1992Sep17.220307.1470@eng.umd.edu>
6. "I can't conclude that they've put much 'careful' thought into the
matter. I'm also very skeptical as to what the phrase 'work with
students' means to an administration that attempts to take such
action." Contractual rights of the University cannot supersede the
US Constitution. Applying the rule without regard to the content
of the postings may mean that everyone's right to free speech is
being violated.
<1992Sep18.140341.8023@newstand.syr.edu>
7. Attempting to implement an illegal policy by using a facade of
legitimate concerns, such as fire safety, is also illegal. The
University cannot arbitrarily pick and choose where they will allow
free expression. ... The rule is clearly motivated by *viewpoint
discrimination*. If they thought they could ban only "bad"
displays, they would have.
<1992Sep18.143018.8205@newstand.syr.edu>
Notes 8 and 9 concern the "alt" news groups. Alt news groups are
separate from the "official" Usenet hierarchy. Some users may be
offended by articles in some alt news groups.
8. (A system administrator:) Dartmouth receives and distributes the
alt groups. The decision is made by Computing Services; if a major
problem developed, a Dean or Trustee might get involved. This has
not yet happened. I am not speaking for Dartmouth, but I feel if a
site can afford it, it should provide access to alt.
<1992Sep19.210718.10207@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
9. If the problem is displaying or printing offensive images from the
alt groups, the policy should deal with the inappropriate behavior.
"There's no need to restrict what people may read privately or
store in their account as long as you make clear to users that they
should behave politely in public."
<1992Sep21.020503.9397@Princeton.EDU>
Note 10 is a long declaration of the principals of academic freedom.
10. This note is extracted from _World University Service Academic
Freedom 1990: A Human Rights Report_ by Laksiri Fernando, et al.
It is a declaration on academic freedom from "World University
Service", a 70-year-old international academic organization.
<1992Sep18.174723.21325@eff.org>
- Paul]
cafv02n45
[Week ending September 13, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[This week's guest editor is John B. Tan.
We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. Issues #41,43,46-48 are in production.
- Carl]
Notes 1-2 are about an incident of intellectual property theft
1. ("A definite beginner in my profession":) One of my projects is being
distributed as networked resources without my consent or the copyright
statement intact. This person is influential and powerful within my
profession and by fighting I may put my fledgling career at risk. I need
advice badly.
<199209080137.AA01381@eff.org>
2. Only you yourself can decide whether or not to resist. Should you
decide to fight: (1) Keep a meticulous log of all contacts and
conversations regarding the incident. (2) Seek out allies stronger than
your offender. 'Many schools have some form of "professional conduct"
board who's mission is to review such charges. In other cases, it may be
the Dean or VP for Academic Affairs.' (3) Make your case with the key
individual(s) identified above.
<1992Sep8.120236.4910@scott.skidmore.edu>
Note 3 is a critique of the computer policy of University of Hawaii,
College of Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
3. The policy, although a pretty good attempt at making the rules
explicit, violates legal and moral requirements for due process, privacy,
free expression, and user participation in some places. It asserts that
computer use is a privilege and not a right, which, if not well clarified,
will allow "sys admins the authority to summarily suspend users from the
computer *before* establishing that the user has done anything". The
policy also empowers a sys admin to search a user's email and files without
having to seek higher authorization or to notify the user. The policy was
apparently created and enforced without the participation of the user
community.
<1992Sep8.163018.8554@eff.org>
Note 4-5 is about a student being denied a hearing under the Student Due
Process Policy at WSU.
4. Things have not changed in WSU (writes John Palmer). Only recently in
1991, the "C&IT denied a student account to someone, and when that someone
tried to get a judicial hearing under the Student Due Process Policy, the
C&IT (and university attorneys) argued that the student wasn't being
disciplined, but was being denied access to "protect other users", so he
didn't have any rights at all." A letter from the C&IT said that the
Student Due Process Policy "applies only when the University (or another
charging party) seeks to discipline a student, [and] 'Discipline' consists
of expulsion, suspension, probation, etc." The letter goes on to add that
"What has happened [is not disciplinary action but] is that the C&IT has
declined to facilitate your access to the computer because of your past
history of abusing the University computing system."
<1992Sep8.171858.8639@tygra.Michigan.COM>
5. [Carl writes,with supporting annotated references available from ftp.]
"Ohio State University used the same kind of Humpty Dumpty redefinition of
words when they expelled Steven Brack from the computer. (We are not
authorized to punish you, therefore the stuff we did to you must not be
punishment.) I'm confident that if such a case every got the court, the
University would lose."
<1992Sep8.212232.16054@eff.org>
Note 6 is about a court decision on a free speech dispute at SFA University
6. A year ago, a group of students at Stephen F. Austin University (the
Young Conservatives of Texas) hung fliers which read, "SEX and politics are
a lot alike. You don't have to be good at them to enjoy them." SFA
officials called the fliers sexist and tried to bar the group from posting
them. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the
students filed a federal lawsuit May 15, asking that the SFA sign-posting
policy be overturned. A settlement has apparently being reached, with an
undetermined amount of money included, and the new policy agreed to allows
the poster that started the controversy, and allows school officials "to
regulate how large posters can be and where they are placed." However,
"the school may take down a sign that the president deems will incite
fights or ``imminent lawlessness'' - concepts defined strictly by federal
courts."
<1992Sep8.183722.834@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 7 is summary of the 1992-1993 Guidelines for use of Campus and Network
Computing Resources at Princeton University
7. This framework for "responsible, considerate, and ethical behavior" in
the use of the university's computing resources include reminders to users
not to: "intentionally seek information ... belonging to other people";
"decrypt or translate encrypted material, or obtain [unauthorized] system
privileges"; tie up computing resources in "excessive game playing or
other trivial applications [such as the] sending [of] frivolous or
excessive mail". A user's absence from a public computer or workstation
should be "no longer than warranted by a visit to the nearest restroom" and
"a device unattended for more than ten minutes may be assumed to be
available for use". Electronic mail "must meet the same standards for
distribution or display as if they were tangible documents" and changes to
electronic information contained in the network "will be considered forgery
if it would be considered so on a tangible document or instrument."
<1992Sep8.193517.12597@eff.org>
Notes 8 - 10 discusses some issues on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
8. The Background: A staff worker of MCI Mail, looked into the contents
of ex-employee Eugene Wang's MCI Mail account, and discovered Borland's
marketing plans and other confidential information sent to Symantec Corp.
This brought civil suits against Gordon Eubanks, president of Symantec, and
Wang. The Question: Did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's
email?
<1992Sep9.231718.1863@PacBell.COM>
9. What the staff worker did seems apparently legal. The Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 specifically exempts providers of
electronic communications services from the prohibitions against seeing the
messages. In addition, the worker has the right to divulge what is
inadvertently discovered to law enforcement agencies if it pertains to a
crime. However, did the worker stumble upon the evidence by chance or was
he actually snooping around?
10. When I was a LAN administrator for a medium sized company, what I did
when closing a user account was nuke the email, make a quick pass through
their directories and nuke anything that appeared to be personal.
Remaining files were referred to their supervisor. "Yes, we read 'private'
files. But it was our job to cleanup the account, and better *us* than
their supervisor! I frankly couldn't have told you the next day what had
been in 90% of the files that got deleted as 'personal'". I could read any
file on the LAN, but there are something like 4 gigabytes of files out
there and therefore if I *wanted* to snoop, it will not be possible,
there's just too much to go thru!
<1992Sep11.234228.25430@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
11. "This isn't necessarily true, particularly if you want to "target" a
few individuals with well-organized directories."!
12. Although the employee of the mail provider is permitted some access, I
don't think they are allowed to go on snooping expeditions. However, from
the [long sections from the law apart from the ECPA quoted], it would
appear that employees of service providers are definitely protected if they
access messages as part of their normal duties. "It's not clear what the
penalties are for improper disclosure by an employee as they are not
directly listed. The previous section ... includes fines of $5000 and
imprisonment up to 6 months for unlawful access if no commercial advantage
occurs (much worse if commercial advantage occurs), but says that conduct
authorized by a provider is excepted. Very confusing." If reading someone
else's mail, before it is deleted, is normal procedure at MCI Mail,
customers should be told and they might be upset.
<1992Sep12.165743.7720@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
- John B. Tan]
cafv02n44
[Week ending September 6, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-5 are distinct; no significant threads developed during this first
week of classes at most schools. It looks like most of us were busy with
other things!
1. On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes. "This is a policy
statement from the American association of University Professors. The
statement was endorsed by AAUP's Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure
and by its Council at their meetings in June 1992."
<1992Sep1.232150.23045@eff.org>
2. "Women Against Censorship" is a collection of essays by feminists
opposed to censorship and certain antipornography movements. Excerpts here
discuss antipornography law, its effect on the feminist movement, its
potential for polarizing feminists against one another, and the
relationship between civil liberties and feminism.
<2519@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
3. This is a reposting from ClariNet of a UPI article concerning censorship
in the classroom. People for the American Way, a civil liberties group,
reports that censorship or challenges of textbooks, classic novels, and
other materials are at their highest levels in 10 years of surveys. Censors
appear to be more successful now than at any time in the past four years.
The most frequent rationales for challenges were that the materials were
Satanic, New Age, or anti-Christian. Objectionable language and offensive
sexuality were the next most frequent rationales.
<1992Sep1.214241.984@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
4. Carl Kadie updates us on recent changes to the CAF Archive, where
information on computers and academic freedom is kept. Material includes
back issues of the CAF newsgroup discussions and CAF-News digests, book
reviews, legislators' addresses, frequently asked questions on a number of
topics, reports on laws and litigation, and more.
<1992Sep2.210144.8139@eff.org>
5. Not so much because it's pertinent to computers and academic freedom,
but because there's room this issue for it, here is a recent edition of
John December's wonderfully useful list of Internet information resources
and services. A browse through it will tell you where to look for: the
electronic texts of books on networking; electronic journals and
newsletters; Gopher and WAIS services; BBS lists; e-mail addresses; network
etiquette; weather maps; and much more. It's the Swiss Army knife of
Internet information!
- Mark]
[Best of August 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. The selections are based on earlier abstracts
by Elizabeth and me.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-6 review issues related to decisions by certain Canadian
universities to ban newsgroups on grounds they contain pornography.
1. "Following some unfavourable publicity, the University of Manitoba banned
all newsgroups dealing with sex. This kind of heavy-handed reaction is
deplorable. [...] An enlightened policy would treat electronic media in the
same way that libraries treat written material. Library acquisition policies
have a strong history of ensuring access to all materials legally obtainable,
and of not unjustly excluding material on the grounds that it might be
offensive to some people. The ultimate choice of what to read can and should
rest with the readers themselves."
<1992Aug24.205712.7453@zooid.guild.org>
2. "Here is some of the history of government [U.S., U.K., Canada]
suppression of sexual materials. I think history shows
that such suppression is relatively new and that it exists in spite
of, not because of, scientific evidence." (Includes references.)
<1992Aug7.151318.9822@eff.org>
3. And to supplement the items in the previous note: "Here is a
repost listing many studies that tested the [U.S.] Meese [Commission
on Pornography's] conclusions scientifically. (Many of the studies
were done in Canada.)" (Very long bibliography follows.)
<1992Aug7.151709.9915@eff.org>
4. Carl Kadie wants to know: "Has textual material been found to
be obscene in Canada or the U.S. since _Ulysses_?" A reader replies,
"Yes," and offers numerous examples. (Includes references.)
5. A Simon Fraser University student's response to newsgroup
cancellations at her university: "The question of censorship is a
tricky one, however, because censors after all, exist to censor, and
they don't usually act in the interests of women when they doit - they
act as representatives of the state, and this is problematic to say
the least. [...] I'm not so sure the discussion groups should have
been cancelled, since these were often a legitimate forum for
discourse, and do not intrude on people wandering through a given lab
in the way that an unencoded .gif file has a way of doing."
<1992Aug15.213252.22415@sfu.ca>
6. "I read recently in UBC Reports that the [University of British
Columbia] President has 'asked all UBC units to ensure that university
property is not being used to gain access to, create, or store (such)
pornographic material on university computing equipment'. I am
disturbed by the possibilities in this. [...] Given operator
privileges, it would be easy to write programs that would scan users
files and mailboxes for keywords, according to some particular scheme
of sexual or political censorship."
<21AUG199215492898@reg.triumf.ca>
Notes 7-8 offer points of view from two sysadmins weighing issues of
community responsibility versus issues of academic freedom.
7. A UMass-Boston sysadmin: "We alow folks to have ANYTHING THEY WANT in
their private files and to make ANYTHING THEY WANT publicly readable. They
may create any mailing list they want, and post to usenet within the standard
guidelines distributed in Comp.news.newusers etc. ALL we are limiting is what
may be displayed in certain public, unsolicited areas... mainly finger (which
is considered a systems tool) and publicly visible X-terminal screens. If
someone wanted to post the lyrics to cop killer, we would NOT ban it from the
system, we would just ask them to replace the message with a pointer to a
publicly readable file. [...] I think it's analagous to making users check
out a library book, or take the book from an open stack, as opposed to
posting the contents of the book on the walls. If we limited access in any
way, or made users go through any paperwork to get acess, I think that would
be censorship."
8. A Mount Holyoke sysadmin: "I have decided that for the time being I will
continue my current policy of carrying everything, and if I am challenged on
it by my superiors, will strongly recommend AGAINST restricting the flow of
News through our system in any way." Among the reasons why: "It seems likely
that the legal responsibility for distributing copyrighted material rests
with the poster. [... And:] If (when) this issue does result in law-suits, it
is unlikely to be here at my small institution, and more likely will involve
an organization such as UUNET which is already prepared for this eventuality
and has formalized it's policy on the issue."
Notes 9-10 profile two system-snooping programs that recently made the
news.
9. "Questions have been raised about a program used by Computing
Services to find profane file names. [...] Hart Bezner, Director of
Computing Services [at Wilfrid Laurier University], said the program
operated routinely during the mid-eighties, 'but it [the language]
cleaned up so we quit looking.' [...] Bezner, however, was not
explicit as to what was done with the results from the program. A
former Laurier student [...] said that when he contacted Computing
Service, he was told he would have to get a new [password]: "They said
that the computer went through and deleted nasty words".
<1992Aug13.182157.5688@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
10. Then there's Crack, the password-cracking program. What should
sysadmins' position be toward users found to possess it? "I've been a
sysadmin for 4 years, and I've used Unix for 11 years. However, many
sites' admins are inexperienced; indeed, many of them become sysadmins
by default. [...] Many of those novice sysadmins depend on the
assistance of their more experienced colleagues. In some ways, we
*are* our 'brother's keeper'. I believe that I, as a sysadmin, have a
certain obligation to the other systems using our common network(s).
Why should I allow my system to be used as a 'forward base' from which
to attack other systems? Should I adopt an attitude such as 'well,
he's not cracking MY password file, so I don't care'? [...] shouldn't
I prevent it in the first place, if such a goal is (relatively)
attaniable?"
<1992Aug27.115813.28741@ms.uky.edu>
Note 11 reviews an Electronic Frontier Foundation forum regarding the
future of NSFNet, the Internet's backbone.
11. "Two major themes emerged from the nearly six hours of discussion
[...] First, there has been substantial lack of shared understanding
about some of the draft's key elements," namely many unexplained
technical terms and concepts of the new NSFNet. Second, regarding the
bidding process to determine the vendor that will support NSFNet for
the next few years, "the draft has no guidelines to suggest how bids
will be evaluated," nor is there one word about NSFNet's relationship
to the next-generation federal National Research and Education
Network, which is eventually expected to displace it. "The draft also
fails to illuminate how the NSF determines when a technology is no
longer 'experimental' and can be provided commercially without further
government funding."
<1992Aug19.150341.18832@eff.org>
Note 12 is a statement by the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
(CPSR) regarding the future of communications privacy.
12. "We anticipate that there will be three different types of privacy
problems as the NREN" -- which eventually will succeed NSFNet as the backbone
of the Internet -- "continues to evolve. First, as commercial organizations
become users of the network, they will gather personal data, and wish to sell
lists. The address files for list servers could be sold, and users may find
themselves 'subscribed' to lists they have no interest in. [...] Second,
efforts to promote competitiveness in the delivery of network services may
also lead to the disclosure of network data which will compromise user
privacy. [...] The disclosure of Customer Proprietary Network Information
(CPNI) has already surprised many telephone customers who now receive calls
from companies with whom they have no prior relationship. These companies
are able to describe the customer's telephone calling habits in great
detail. Users of NREN services are also likely to object to the disclosure
of network information. The third problem is that law enforcement agencies
are likely to make 'greater demands' on communication service providers to
turn over records of electronic communications to the government and to
provide assistance in the execution of warrants." (Includes CPSR
recommendations.)
<1992Aug30.202432.22763@eff.org>
- Aaron]
cafv02n42
[Week ending August 30th, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 5 are responses to a query about policies regarding
possession and use of programs, such as Crack and COPS, which might be
used for unacceptable purposes.
1. At Rice University attempting to gain unauthorized access to a
computer system is prohibited, but merely possessing copies of Crack
or COPS is not. Indeed we regularly use these programs in order to
find and fix potential security holes.
2. Prohibiting users from possessing and using certain programs
doesn't really violate the ideal of free expression, nor does it
amount to banning legal material. Academic freedom is not equivalent
to a blank cheque, and a university is under no obligation to support
any interest shown by students in subjects which they are not enrolled
to study.
<1992Aug26.174017.1077@ms.uky.edu>
3. System administrators have obligations to the wider community of
network users. They should take steps to ensure that their system
cannot be used as a base from which to attack other systems, and they
should cooperate with other administrators in investigating suspected
cracking activities.
<1992Aug27.115813.28741@ms.uky.edu>
4. Users and system administrators should cooperate in formulating a
policy regarding permissible and impermissible system usage, but the
administrator, having the best knowledge of the system, should have
the final say.
<1992Aug28.140932.657@ms.uky.edu>
5. Usage restrictions should be decided upon by a consensus between
all the people involved. Real conflicts of interest are rare and most
cases can be easily settled if all parties are willing to cooperate.
<1992Aug28.153108.2829@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Notes 6-9 are on miscellaneous subjects.
6. "If you enjoy full communications privileges (and wish them
extended to others), you WILL, eventually, be offended. It's part of
the virtual territory." If you don't wish to be offended you should
take steps to avoid reading anything that might offend you.
<1992Aug24.92353.3596@ms.uky.edu>
7. A letter to the editor of the _Globe & Mail_ condemns the
University of Manitoba's decision to ban alt.sex* and argues the
merits of free speech and free access to information.
<1992Aug24.205712.7453@zooid.guild.org>
8. In response to a Baylor student's query, Carl Kadie says that it is
unlikely that Baylor University screens Usenet articles one-by-one as
"such an undertaking would be very expensive. On the other hand, it is
not unlikely that Baylor excludes newsgroups based on the school's
religious doctrine."
<1992Aug27.150751.11322@eff.org>
9. Here is the text of the "Proposed Privacy Guidelines for the NREN"
presented by Marc Rotenberg of CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility) at the Open Forum on Library and Information Service's
Roles in the National Research and Education Network
<1992Aug30.202432.22763@eff.org>
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n41
[Week ending August 23, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[We desperately need new guest (or regular) editors, for information
send email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-4 discuss the prohibition of the alt.sex.binaries newsgroup
at Simon Fraser University.
1. Simon Fraser's director of academic computer services is quoted
as saying, "It's the same as if somebody wants Playboy or
Penthouse. We don't have them in the university library." When a
student notes that _Playboy_ *is* in the SFU library, another
poster replies: "The material that caused the problems in a.s.b are
hardly things that would be found in either magazine."
<3726@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
2. Even so, "Students at state schools in the U.S. cannot legally
be punished for publishing material that is merely potentially
harmful."
<1992Aug19.200347.7215@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
3. A recitation from the Canadian constitution (where Simon Fraser
is located): "Everyone has the following freedoms:" which includes
"freedom of thought,belief,opinion and expression,including
freedom of the press and other media of communication".
4. To the rebuttal that Canada's legislature regularly bans
materials anyway, this reply: "The final arbiter is *still* the
Supreme Court of Canada - the constitution and charter of rights is
still the law of the land.[...] If a legislature passes such laws,
they are still subject to the Supreme Court striking down such laws
if they're too broad, or completely unreasonable. The situation is
no different than the US."
<3742@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Notes 5-6 consider various issues related to alt.binaries.pictures and
whether passing "illegal materials" through it is good reason for
shutting the newsgroup down.
5. "And to answer the question, alt.binaries.pictures.* accounts
for around 10% of of my total incoming news (in size, not in number
of articles, obviously). It takes up about 5% of my newsspool since
I expire it faster than everything else."
6. "The person who used to keep the FAQ on alt.sex.pictures (I think his name
was Brian Reid) said that he once sent letters to Playboy, Penthouse and
Hustler asking them about thier feelings and intentions about things like
a.s.p. [...] The response, as far as I understand it was that if he became
moderator, they might consider sueing to stop a.s.p."
<1992Aug19.123528.10045@nntp.nta.no>
Note 7 replies to a statement alleging "computer porn" at the University
of British Columbia.
7. "I read recently in UBC Reports that the UBC President has 'asked all UBC
units to ensure that university property is not being used to gain access to,
create, or store (such) pornographic material on university computing
equipment'. I am disturbed by the possibilities in this. [...] Given operator
privileges, it would be easy to write programs that would scan users files
and mailboxes for keywords, according to some particular scheme of sexual or
political censorship."
<21AUG199215492898@reg.triumf.ca>
Note 8 reviews an Electronic Frontier Foundation forum regarding the
future of NSFNet, the Internet's backbone.
8. "Two major themes emerged from the nearly six hours of discussion
[...] First, there has been substantial lack of shared understanding
about some of the draft's key elements," namely many unexplained
technical terms and concepts of the new NSFNet. Second, regarding the
bidding process to determine the vendor that will support NSFNet for
the next few years, "the draft has no guidelines to suggest how bids
will be evaluated," nor is there one word about NSFNet's relationship
to the next-generation federal National Research and Education
Network, which is eventually expected to displace it. "The draft also
fails to illuminate how the NSF determines when a technology is no
longer 'experimental' and can be provided commercially without further
government funding."
<1992Aug19.150341.18832@eff.org>
- Aaron Barnhart]
cafv02n40
[Week ending August 16th, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[Many issues are in production - Carl]
Notes 1 to 5 concern the censorship of materials on the basis of
alleged obscenity (as defined by a recent Canadian Surpeme Court
decision). This debate arose in the wake of some Canadian
institutions' removal of the Usenet alt.sex hierarchy.
1. "Deciding something should be censored because it could have
indirect negative effects is not a stand against pornography, it's a
stand against the whole notion of free speech... The strength of free
speech [is that] you get to hear as much as you wish to hear from
whomever you care to listen to, and then make up your own mind about
what the truth is."
2. "Considered as a whole, alt.sex has scientific, political,
literary, and artistic value and therefore should not be banned as
obscene... The actions of the administrators show the chilling
effects of the law. Because the law is so vague and because it
provides no easy way to ask for definitive clarifications, such
effects are inevitable."
<1992Aug11.112000.4307@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
3. "I am not [in favour of] censoring reasoned argument that, for
instance, "women like rape" or "children like sex with adults" (much
as I abhor that position). I am for censoring certain material that
makes no arguments, presents no opinions, and can have the effect of
reinforcing and encouraging rapists and child molesters."
<1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca>
4. This article gives a list of cases in which material has been
threatened with censorship on the basis of obscenity in the USA since
the 1930s.
5. "Pornography, and by this I'm referring to the explicit display of
women for consumption by men, is part of the reproduction of cultural
meaning in our society. It DOES discuss ideas. It addresses the
question of what is the cultural standard for a sexually desirable
woman, and what her power relation is to the man who can have access
to a commodified version of her sexuality through the purchase of a
representation of this idealized sexuality."
<1992Aug15.213252.22415@sfu.ca>
Notes 6 to 10 concern whether Usenet sites should refuse to receive
newsgroups which contain copyrighted materials.
6. While I am strongly opposed to censorship based on notions of
offensiveness, I am tempted to follow a policy that newsgroups
which are used to distribute demonstrably illegal materials should
not be carried.
7. The exclusion of illegal newsgroups would be in line with library
policies, which state that "1) laws should be obeyed 2) legal advice
should obtained from compete sources 3) restrictive laws should be
challenged (with legal means) 4) and that challenged material should
be given due process."
<1992Aug13.180458.9340@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
8. If it could be argued that Usenet was a common carrier then only
the posters of illegal material would be legally help accountable.
However, the common carrier argument has never been tested and ignores
the heavily state funded nature of the Internet and therefore Usenet.
<1992Aug13.195436.19296@telematics.com>
9. "While USENET is certainly a service and a priviledge, at an
ACADEMIC institution most people consider it quite inappropriate for
any person or committee to judge what material is acceptable and what
is not."
10. "After reading other people's views on the issue, I have decided
that for the time being I will continue my current policy of carrying
everything, and if I am challenged on it by my superiors, will
strongly recommend AGAINST restricting the flow of News through our
system in any way."
Note 11 contains an article by Jim Boyce which appeared on July 14th
in the Wilfrid Laurier University's student newspaper, the Cord. It
is posted with his permission.
11. After a student brought the matter to the attention of the
newspaper, questions have been raised at WLU about a program used by
Computing Services to find "profane" file names.
<1992Aug13.182157.5688@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n39
[Week ending August 9th, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 6 discuss the censorship of pornographic material. This
discussion stems from the decision of some Canadian universities to
stop receiving the alt.sex.* newsgroups because they offend some and
are allegedly illegal.
1. To claim that human beings are forced to become criminal in their
actions merely by exposure to depictions of criminal activity is
clearly false, and to argue in favour of the censorship of certain
material on that basis is equally false.
<1992Aug3.122757.1104@hubcap.clemson.edu>
2. "If the [alt.sex.bondage] community could bring itself to cancel the illegal
articles, and put them in another newsgroup which Canada could block,
then there would be no reason to block a.s.b, and the universities
would feel freer to get it back."
<1992Aug5.001511.27836@cs.sfu.ca>
3. "I find it odd that people can't see a distinction between [the
Fascist or Stalinist restriction of rational debate of ideas], and the
kind of censorship of socially undesirable non-rhetorical material
which has been practised for centuries all over the world -- including
the US under the Constitution and the First Amendment."
<1992Aug6.185205.250@cs.sfu.ca>
4. "What right is being defended when my speech [is] banned because of
your mores. The 'right' not to have other people violate your mores?
If there is such a right then there is no room for other rights...
Here is some of the history of government suppression of sexual
materials..."
<1992Aug7.151318.9822@eff.org>
5. Here is a list of some studies which have investigated the
relationship between pornography and violence.
<1992Aug7.151709.9915@eff.org>
6. "I am not concerned with harm. I have no doubt at all that [some
books have had] a mainly pernicious influence on the world. But I know
that the way to counter lies is with truth, not suppression.
Censorship only increases the harm, and dilutes freedom with the very
tyranny we claim to oppose."
Notes 7 to 9 are on issues related to the censorship of material based
on content.
7. The president of the University of British Columbia, in Canada,
recently circulated a letter in which he described his intention to
ensure that "university property is not being used to access, create
or store pornographic material on university computing equipment."
8. "There are _many_ newsgroups which are offensive to various
religious bodies - ranging from soc.bi to alt.atheism to alt.drugs.
In _each_ of these cases, one or more religions could make as valid a
case for removing the group as could be made for the removal of
alt.moslem.wanted.gay. Yet, _none_ of those cases would justify their
removal. If Usenet is to have any value as a tool of communications,
it _must_ be totally free of any form of censorship. This includes
censorship based on political, moral, OR religious grounds."
<30smyck.adamsr@netcom.com>
9. People at the University of Massachusetts at Boston are permitted
to store any material they wish in private files, make any of their
files publicly readable, create any mailing list, and post anything to
Usenet. What they may not do is display, for instance on a publicly
visible X-terminal, material that could not be given a `PG-13' rating.
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n38
[Best of July 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. The selection and paraphrases are based on earlier abstracts
by Elizabeth, Mark, Adam, and John.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Articles 1-5 are about sexual material on academic computers in Canada.
1. This is a transcript of a portion of a CITY-TV broadcast from 6
July. A reporter and a student (?) explore the alt.sex newsgroup. A
system administrator (?) states the University is not taking the
position of censor, and does not control the information an individual
may seek out. One female states that this material is harmful to
women, and a different female says that, although offensive, nothing
should be done to restrict the information.
<1992Jul7.150830.27316@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
2. These are articles by Peter Moon of The Globe and Mail, Toronto.
The first is "Network Sex: Is increasingly explicit material on some
computer bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity." The second is
"Network lets users say what they think." Reprinted with permission.
<1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
3. This article, which seeks to correct the view of the Internet as a
public medium for the dissemination of "sleazy" material, has been
sent to the editor of the _Globe & Mail_.
4. "There are three main questions here:... (1) Is there erotic
material that, if it were readily available, would make some people
more prone to commit acts of rape and child sexual abuse?... (2) Is
the risk (in terms of infringement of general human rights) of
censoring such material so high that we should allow it to be
available anyway?... [and] (3) Where do you draw the line?"
<1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca>
5. A Canadian user argues that alt.sex is permissible by Canadian law.
"Under the Charter this expression is protected, and has as much
right to access to the medium as discussions of neutrino emmision or
neural networks..."
Note 6 is a reaction to the suggestion people outside Canada should
restrict their netnews articles to that which is unobjectionable in
Canada.
6. A user objects to the idea that what should be permissible should be
determined by recognizing guidelines imposed by countries other than the
US. "Using this formula, the limits of what can be posted to USENET
would be the limits imposed by the strictest country who participates in
the net."
<1992Jul13.142103.15845@spdcc.com>
Notes 7-8 are about .plan files that might offend.
7. "I recently put the lyrics to "Cop Killer" by Ice-T in my .plan file so
that it shows up when someone else does "finger jbw@cs.bu.edu".
Two people have complained to my department's chair... .He asked
me informally to remove it. I told him I would not do so voluntarily."
8. As long as nobody is forced to see the material in question, the
student should not be punished. Material in public access information
areas should be "PG-13." Other users should be able to "finger" anyone
"without getting any sort of shock."
Note 9 is about user-selected publicly-accessible software.
9. The policy of the University of Kentucky's Engineering Computing
Center will be that "The installation of recreational network
resources, such as MUD, Netrek, or IRC clients/servers, are explicitly
prohibited UNLESS these programs include use restrictions based on
time of day and number of users. The installation of these resources
may only be performed by ECC staff."
<1992Jul30.94721.2490@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 10-12 are about hostility toward women in Usenet and academia.
10. "In the US, people are trying to stamp out speech they find
offensive. So they label it "harassment", claim that it
"discriminates", and ban it from the workplace, schools, housing,
etc." A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses this
problem, and is here reprinted with the permission of the WSJ.
<1992Jul3.221144.20089@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
11. "Since virtually every place where people associate is a workplace
for someone, even if it's just the people who maintain the
establishment, prohibiting "offensive work environments" requires
suppressing free speech in almost any place people could gather to
discuss issues."
<1992Jul3.232416.23672@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
12. "...I think most [men] do not understand the climate of fear in which
women live in this country. And that fear restricts their freedom of
expression." Men feel free to post notes requesting rides, for
example, while women do not. "I'm not saying we have to delete the
alt.sex groups from Usenet, but I would like to make men aware of how
I feel ... when attending lecture[s where] gratuitous references [to]
alt.sex.pictures [are made]."
- Carl]
cafv02n37
[Week ending August 2nd, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 3 concern whether or not to grant access to a deceased
user's account to the user's family.
1. "Today we [had] a very interesting and sensitive situation arise --
a user passed away and now the user's parents would like access to the
user's account." Given that I feel a user's account to be private,
and that the account "may contain information that could be considered
`sensitive' or `revealing'" what should I do?
<1992Jul23.215931.13522@menudo.uh.edu>
2. The executor of the user's estate should have the legal right - and
obligation - to inspect the user's account, along with all his or her
other effects.
<1992Jul29.100142.21482@ms.uky.edu>
3. I doubt that the user's heirs or executors have the right to *use*
the account. Whether they have a right to a copy of the files held in
the account is more difficult to determine. Some of the files might
be the property of the owners of the machine. It might be difficult
to decide which files were the user's personal property and which were
not.
<1992Jul29.215819.15965@news.iastate.edu>
Notes 4 to 6 are part of a debate on censorship which has arisen in
the wake of the refusal of some Canadian universities to carry
alt.sex.* groups, and the publication of an article entitled
"Computers Graphic When it Comes to Porn" in the Canadian newspaper
_The Globe and Mail_.
4. "There are three main questions here:... (1) Is there erotic
material that, if it were readily available, would make some people
more prone to commit acts of rape and child sexual abuse?... (2) Is
the risk (in terms of infringement of general human rights) of
censoring such material so high that we should allow it to be
available anyway?... [and] (3) Where do you draw the line?"
<1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca>
5. "Don't shut people out of information, the more information we have
the wiser we become... I propose that the elimination of a.s.b. was an
elimination of a group comitted to the dissemination of information
with regards to a consensual activity, that sought to avoid any damage
to the psyche or body of it's practitioners."
6. This article, which seeks to correct the view of the Internet as a
public medium for the dissemination of "sleazy" material, has been
sent to the editor of the _Globe & Mail_.
Articles 7 to 9 are on miscellaneous subjects.
7. "You have every right, as the administrator, representing the owner
of the machine, to make certain restrictions. Having Freedom of
Speech doesn't obligate anyone to Provide the Soap Box. But it won't
do you a whole lot of good in the long run."
<18937@fritz.filenet.com>
8. [Forwarded from the Computer Underground Digest] At a hearing this
week before the National Commission on Library and Information
Science, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
recommended a privacy policy for the National Research and Education
Network or `NREN.'
<9207281913.AA11355@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
9. The policy of the University of Kentucky's Engineering Computing
Centre will be that "The installation of recreational network
resources, such as MUD, Netrek, or IRC clients/servers, are explicitly
prohibited UNLESS these programs include use restrictions based on
time of day and number of users. The installation of these resources
may only be performed by ECC staff."
<1992Jul30.94721.2490@ms.uky.edu>
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n36
[Week ending July 26, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1 through 3 are about a Canadian journalist's articles on
Internet "pornography."
1. These are articles by Peter Moon of The Globe and Mail, Toronto.
The first is "Network Sex: Is increasingly explicit material on some
computer bulletin boards free speech, or obscenity." The second is
"Network lets users say what they think." Reprinted with permission.
<1992Jul21.164722.252@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
2. If you're talking to the press, don't rely on estimates of Usenet
readerships. The real numbers are impossible to get, and anyway most
subscribers are "lurkers" and don't post at all. Any story about alt.
sex.bondage is likely to paint a needlessly dark picture of Usenet.
<1992Jul22.001149.29524@clarinet.com>
3. Lurk factors are huge (one example shows 180 lurkers to 25 active
posters). Usenet newsgroups give shy persons an opportunity to listen
without imposing the expectation that they will participate.
<711770390@romeo.cs.duke.edu>
Notes 4 through 6 discuss the witholding from children of alt.sex.*
and its relation to free speech and censorship.
4. All this talk about censorship of Usenet is insane. It's good not
to let children view sexually explicit material, but because people
who attend universities are of legal age that doesn't apply to Usenet.
If one is offended, one needn't continue to read or view the offensive
material.
<1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
5. Note 4 seems to be drawing a possibly arbitrary line between
adults (who do have absolute freedom of speech) and children (who
don't?!?). By the way, some university students are in their early
teens which by the logic in note 4 would justify withdrawing
alt.sex.* from undergrads. ...Seems like censorship!
<1992Jul22.175643.15218@cs.sfu.ca>
6. Allowing young children (age 7, for example) to access alt.sex.* is
reasonably analogous to allowing them access to adult bookstores. Just
as the laws excluding them from adult bookstores aren't censorship or
violations of first amendment rights, so is withholding alt.sex.* from
them not censorship.
<1992Jul23.122034.28066@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
Note 7 is about child pornography law.
7. Can a computer-generated picture of sexual activity involving
children be considered child pornography? According to the relevant
U.S. statute, shipment/receipt of pornography involving children is
criminal only when the "visual depiction involves the use of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct." A computer-rendered image
would not involve such use of a minor.
<1992Jul25.113338.2310@panix.com>
Notes 8 through 11 are concerned with students placing in their
.plan files "cop killer" song lyrics. Notes 8 and 9 discuss the
economic case for universities permitting or prohibiting certain
activities. Note 10 discusses ethics and freedom and note 11
discusses the requirement that a University treat account holders
consistently.
8. A previous poster argued that a student paying fees at a university
may, by doing so, acquire certain rights to the use of the school's
computers. How much of the cost of those computers is paid for by the
fees, though? At some schools student fees pay for a proportionately
small part of the computer facilities. In other ways, too, the previous
poster is mistaking privileges for rights.
<1992Jul20.193027.1585@rice.edu>
9. A university "is a company and you buy their product. This doesn't
give you a right to control their money, any more than "buying a Mars
bar gives you the right to control the candy company. "The only recourse
you have...is not to buy the product."
10. As long as nobody is forced to see the material in question, the
student should not be punished. Material in public access information
areas should be "PG-13." Other users should be able to "finger" anyone
"without getting any sort of shock."
11. Print out a session stamped with time and date in which you finger
a number of other users who you know to have questionable material in
their .plan files. Use this as evidence that the university is singling
you out unfairly and inconsistently if it requires YOU to remove from
your .plan file material it finds offensive. This makes the issue a
first amendment case that the university would likely lose.
<1992Jul21.142535.21786@digibd.com>
- Mark]
cafv02n35
[Week ending July 19, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[The editor of this issue is Adam C. Gross, ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu.]
Notes 1-3 are about the economic considerations of carrying alt.sex
1. "A quick look at the Arbitron stats'll show that alt.sex is one of
the most popular groups on usenet... .Know what'd happen to my site's
disk-space if alt.sex was killed, assuming that I'm the only person
reading it? Nothing. I could, can, and will find a way to gate the
newsfeed into my e-mail. "
2. "You seem to think that sites are being forced to pay for the newsgroups
you object to. This is not the case. Remember, Usenet is not an
official organization, but rather an informal congregation of sites that
share newsfeeds between each other."
<1992Jul13.001349.12315@nntp.uoregon.edu>
3. "If one want to keep the good stuff in alt.sex, and weed out the
offensive stuff, someone's gonna have to read everything and expire said
articles -- this person doesn't work for free."
<1992Jul13.133949.8564@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Notes 4 & 5 are about carrying alt.sex feeds across international boundaries.
4. A user objects to the idea that what should be permisable should be
determined by recognizing guidlines imposed by countries other than the
US. "Using this formula, the limits of what can be posted to USENET
would be the limits imposed by the strictest country who participates in
the net."
<1992Jul13.142103.15845@spdcc.com>
5. A Candian user argues that alt.sex is permisable by Candian law.
"Under the Charter this expression is protected, and has as much
right to access to the medium as discussions of neutrino emmision or
neural networks..."
Notes 6-8 are about the limits of free expression in .plan files
6. "I recently put the lyrics to "Cop Killer" by Ice-T in my .plan file so
that it shows up when someone else does "finger jbw@cs.bu.edu".
Two people have complained to my department's chair... .He asked
me informally to remove it. I told him I would not do so voluntarily."
7. "You do have the right to personal expression as delineated in the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You *do not* have the right
to demand that someone else supply you a venue for that expression.
Your .plan file resides on University owned equipment."
<1992Jul17.212641.18596@rice.edu>
8. "I believe academic freedom requires freedom of personal expression
because otherwise someone else gets to decide that my "academic
expression" is really just "personal expression". That would seriously
harm academic freedom."
Note 9 is about the policy of charging user fees for access to the Internet.
9. A user in Chile: " Recently, all users of the Internet, including
universities, were notified that starting July 1st, there will be
a minimum monthly rate plus a charge per megabyte of international
traffic, with 18% sales tax on top."
<9207152134.AA18513@jester.usask.ca>
]
cafv02n34
[Week ending July 12, 1992
[This week's guest editor is is John F. Nixon. A critique
of the Virginia policy given in article 12 is available
via anonymous ftp from
ftp.eff.org:pub/policies/virginia.pen.edu.critique.
- Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-3 are about a broadcast on CITY-TV (an independent Toronto television
station) concerning pornography on Usenet.
1. This is a transcript of a portion of a CITY-TV broadcast from 6
July. A reporter and a student (?) explore the alt.sex newsgroup. A
system administrator (?) states the University is not taking the
position of censor, and does not control the information an individual
may seek out. One female states that this material is harmful to
women, and a different female says that, although offensive, nothing
should be done to restrict the information.
<1992Jul7.150830.27316@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
2. The lack of a central control within Usenet may prove surprising to
reporters. "This lack of control is something that, in my mind, would
be very difficult for those in conventional media to grasp." Usenet
mechanisms may replace conventional media, and we should be aware this
may affect the behavior of the press towards Usenet.
<2A5A5D2D.32D7@telly.on.ca>
3. The misunderstanding of the Canadian background (political and
historical) to the CITY-TV broadcast is debated. "Most Canadians also
seem to support laws restricting certain materials which we deem
pornographic. I dare say that few Canadians perceive any significant
clash between these values and their fundamental rights." Most
Canadians support the "hate literature laws".
<1992Jul12.152040.9493@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Notes 4-9 are about sexual harassment on Usenet.
4. "Have there ever been any cases in the U.S. of sexual harassment
charges related to postings on Usenet?"
<9207082121.AA11628@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov.ocf>
5. "If some women find Usenet (or some other medium) hostile, what
should be done? Should they be protected by some authority?" "I think
'protection' from offsensive ideas is paternalism."
<1992Jul10.010025.6972@eff.org>
6. "...I think most mem do not understand the climate of fear in which
women live in this country. And that fear restricts their freedom of
expression." Men feel free to post notes requesting rides, for
example, while women do not. "I'm not saying we have to delete the
alt.sex groups from Usenet, but I would like to make men aware of how
I feel ... when attending lecture[s where] gratuitous references [to]
alt.sex.pictures [are made]."
7. "I have never seen any indication that women are subject to
violence for things which they say in a public forum." There is a
disparity between rates of violence for men and women, with men
subject to greater violence. "I find the assumption that violence
against women should receive some special attention not given to
violence against men rather sexist."
<1992Jul10.224407.23105@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
8. (Lars Bader:) "Sorry, my last post was too harsh. Patt Leonard's
remarks were a statement of frustration... not a demand for
censorship." [Ed. - I have included this in fairness to Lars]
<1992Jul11.020445.1227@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
9. "...the conputer-mediated environment is proving no more
enlightened than its analog counterpart." The majority of Usenet posts
are by men, and the majority of posts on women's issues are also by
men. "It is obvious that the rule-makers are going by the same old
rules."
Note 10 concerns a study by Syracuse University on the role of public libraries
in determining Internet/NREN policy.
10. "Syracuse University's School of information Studies announces the
availability of a year long study inventigating the role of public
libraries in developing and exploiting the next generation of national
networks embodied in the Internet/NREN."
<199207101342.AA16960@eff.org>
Note 11 presents Virginia's Public Education Network Acceptable Use Policy.
11. The "Acceptable Use Policy" for Virginia's Public Education
Network is presented, with guidelines and policy statements.
"Acceptance of the policies are automatic upon use of the network."
The Public Education Network is accessable to K-12 teachers and
students.
<199207071841.AA17968@eff.org>
Note 12 is about the Email policy of the State of Washington
12. "The state of Washington has an E-mail policy that divides email
records into 3 catagories: calendars, policy and non-policy
correspondence."
<199207081837.AA06941@eff.org>
- John F. Nixon]
cafv02n33
[Best of June 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. The selection and paraphrases are based on earlier abstracts
by Elizabeth, Paul, Mark, and guest editor Lorrie Ackerman.
===============================================================
[We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
email to kadie@eff.org. - Carl]
Notes 1-4 are about new computer polices covering everything from
email privacy to the content of newsgroups.
1. This is the text of the "interim e-mail advisory" from University
of Illinois, effectively a new computer privacy policy. "Over the
past year, the campus administration has received a number of
inquiries about access to files maintained on electronic media.
Essentially, the questions focused on the privacy of such
communications and the conditions under which someone may look at
another person's files."
<1992Jun2.011050.15719@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
2. "I have extensively revised and expanded many of the computing
policies that apply to the largest educational network at Rice,
Owlnet." Includes notes on Rice's University Computing Policy,
Owlnet Policies, Owlnet Policies Enforcement Guidelines, Owlnet
Student Advisory Committee Charter, System Administrator Statement
of Ethics, and Owlnet Application Agreement. Also includes access
information for these documents.
<1992Jun27.181753.21585@eff.org>
3. (A system administrator:) The list of newsgroups we cannot carry
[on the United Kingdom's UKnet Backbone] includes alt.sex*,
alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and rec.arts.erotica.
<1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
4. As reported in the University of Toronto _Bulletin_, that
university is not planning to intercept or censor any of the files
available on the Internet that may contain violent pornographic
material.
<1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Notes 5 and 6 are about the law.
5. "A federal judge declared unconstitutional Tuesday the decency
clause the National Endowment for the Arts used in determining who
receives grant money, saying it was too vague and overbroad in
restricting artists' freedom of speech."
<1992Jun10.040756.10831@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
6. "All but one of the six leading candidates for California's 14th
Congressional District have formally committed to protect
traditional constitutional liberties against technological
threats." Several have signed a formal statement to this effect
(names and copy of statement included). This may "be the first time
that major-party congressional candidates have ever committed to
explicit action to protect technology-related civil liberties."
Notes 7-10 are about offensive, harassing, and anonymous computer
communications.
7. The "Standard Manager's Reply" (Revision A), to be sent to users
complaining about the content of the e-mail or newsgroup posting of
a subscriber to the manager's system, espouses the delights of
freedom of expression, clear thinking, and kill files.
<6980@public.BTR.COM>
8. Comments on and criticisms of the "Standard Manager's Reply".
9. Harassment is intentional, unwanted person-to-person communication
by any channel. Explicitly tell the harasser to stop communicating
with you. Save copies of all communications. If the harassment
continues, contact a system administrator, university official or
the courts.
<1992Jun11.180712.21660@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
10. Many students are afraid to ask questions for fear of looking
foolish, either in the eyes of their peers or their instructors.
Some means of posting anonymously is a good thing, but completely
anonymous accounts are not. Anonymous mail is hard to reply to, but
anonymous postings to a news group can work. With Plato/NOVANET,
the University of Illinois has had long experience with large scale
newsgroups, and has sound policies on anonymity that we could learn
from.
<12951@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
- Carl]
cafv02n32
[Week ending July 5th, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 4, while not directly addressing the subject of rights in
electronic circumstances, are of interest as they discuss the
historical background of and present political attitudes toward the
United States' Bill of Rights.
1. The Bill of Rights does not contain cast-iron guarantees. The
American Founders believed in a strong yet limited central government
and so were careful to keep to phraseology which allowed of individual
states' own interpretations.
<1992Jun30.162510.22754@anasazi.com>
2. There is no conspiracy to quash teaching of the "correct
interpretation of the Constitution and the natural rights of man" due
to its supposedly being "antithetical to big government and the
liberal agenda." At the most there is evidence of the inadequacy of
the American schooling system.
<1992Jul1.211845.13410@amhux2.amherst.edu>
3. The Federalist Papers, while not being "the preamble to the
Constitution," are cited by Supreme Court Justices since they an
insight into the arguments of some influential and important thinkers.
4. The Framers of the Bill of Rights were not far-sighted saints. They
were willing and able to accept slavery, did not advocate the
enfranchisement of women and non-whites, and did nothing to protect
people from the excesses of state governments as well as the federal
government.
<1992Jul2.114549.13751@athena.mit.edu>
Notes 5 and 6 support the deletion of the NSFNet's Acceptable Use
Policy in the interests of free trade and the avoidance of commercial
monopolies.
5. The solution to the problem of the NSF "essentially providing free
rides to direct [commercial] competitors via government subsidy" is to
scrap the AUP entirely. This would "open up a world of competition,"
eliminate any chance of a monopoly position on commercial traffic, and
generally be a ">good thing<."
6. While the goal of only subsidizing academic or research use of the
network was laudable in its early days, it is inappropriate now that
the government seems to be adopting the goal of a nation-wide network
structure.
<9207011437.AA26039@feldspar.bbn.com>
Notes 7 to 10 are on miscellaneous subjects.
7. The US Senator Gore has just announced a bill that would "ensure
the widest possible application of high performance computing and
networking." While I applaud the goals of the Bill I am somewhat
pessimistic about its chances of being more than an election promise.
<9207012156.AA00183@pcpond.cis.upenn.edu>
8. USENET is not as isolated as some people seem to think. For
instance, during the attempted coup in Moscow the information posted
to USENET was used by Voice of America and CNN.
<130dp3INNeo@rodan.UU.NET>
9. "In the US, people are trying to stamp out speech they find
offensive. So they label it "harassment", claim that it
"discriminates", and ban it from the workplace, schools, housing,
etc." A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses this
problem, and is here reprinted with the permission of the WSJ.
<1992Jul3.221144.20089@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
10. "Since virtually every place where people associate is a workplace
for someone, even if it's just the people who maintain the
establishment, prohibiting "offensive work environments" requires
suppressing free speech in almost any place people could gather to
discuss issues."
<1992Jul3.232416.23672@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n31
[Week ending June 28, 1992
[This issues guest editor is Lorrie Ackerman, lorracks@wucs1.wustl.edu
- Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-5, the whole issue, cover a variety of topics.
1. It is nearly impossible to keep students from posting to news, and there
is no good reason to do this. "It would seem to me that a little user
education, and instilling a sense of responsibility in students....would
be a lot more effective, and probably a lot less work."
2. Speculations on "why the First Amendment uses the language 'Congress
shall make no law....' while the remainder of the Bill of Rights uses
language like 'the right to [something] shall not be violated.'"
3. The news system for the Cleveland Free-Net "has been patched to support
anonymous newsgroups as a class of moderated newsgroups, and all identifying
information is removed from the header of an article before it is mailed
to the moderator....The system seems to be quite effective...."
<9206250251.AA04855@nextsun.INS.CWRU.Edu>
4. Information overload on the net could be eased by the addition of meta
discussion groups in which self-selected commentators make short comments
on posts. People could write kill files to select articles to read
based on these comments.
<1992Jun25.092338.8704@cadlab.sublink.org>
5. "I have extensively revised and expanded many of the computing policies
that apply to the largest educational network at Rice, Owlnet." Includes
notes on Rice's University Computing Policy, Owlnet Policies, Owlnet Policies
Enforcement Guidelines, Owlnet Student Advisory Committee Charter, System
Administrator Statement of Ethics, and Owlnet Application Agreement. Also
includes access information for these documents.
<1992Jun27.181753.21585@eff.org>
- Lorrie]
cafv02n30
[Best of May 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. Many of the paraphrases are based on earlier paraphrases by
Elizabeth, Paul, Andrew, and by guest editor A. Andrew Brennan.
===============================================================
Note 1 discusses some of the privacy risks of Florida State's new
ID/ATM/Calling card.
1. Florida State's new Seminole ACCESS system (for Fall '92) will
combine an ID card, ATM card, MCI calling card and a credit card all
in one. While touting convenience and ease of use, it also permits
ACCESS offices to track an alarming number of an individual's
activities - it's all in the database!
<9205121714.AA18456@systems.cc.fsu.edu>
Notes 2-3 discuss the events at Iowa State University in which the
Usenet group rec.arts.erotica was banned and in which a student's
computer access was revoked after he redistributed articles from that
group - there is, however, a happy ending to the story.
2. "When Iowa State University restricted alt.sex it violated the
principles of academic freedom. When it punished a student for
exercising his Constitutional right to free expression in a University
forum and imposed that punishment summarily in violation of that
student's Constitutional right to due process, it violated the law."
<1992May6.033143.16713@eff.org>
3. From the student who had his account closed: "I have my account
back."
<1992May8.064304.8364@news.iastate.edu>
Note 4-5 discuss Iowa State University's and the University of Nebraska
at Lincoln's rationalizations for censorship.
4. In reply to a previous assertion that "Iowa State and U. of
Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention as reason to
censor newsgroups. Neither institutions are citing any other
university, state, or federal regulations for their actions." ISU
admins have cited Chapter 728, [Iowa's Obscenity Law] though it
exempts libraries and educational institutions.
<1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
5. UNL has said that had they continued to supply the "pornographic"
alt. hierarchy and someone had complained to the federal government,
UNL would have been required to prove that the groups met the criteria
of the NSFNET backbone service's acceptable use policy, or risk losing
NSFNET access. This is based on a misunderstanding of the NSFNET's
powers and of their policies.
<1992May5.005813.281@eff.org>
Note 6 discusses the distribution of "alt" groups in the UK.
6. Usenet relies on the goodwill of those operating the servers which
distribute the news. "In the UK, the great majority of these systems
are operated by academic institutions, who seem to have decided not to
forward the 'alt.*' hierarchy, in particular, and a number of other
groups which are either judged to be 'unsuitable', or clearly only
relevant to, say, the US."
<1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>
Notes 7-8 discuss censorship of the alt.sex.bondage newsgroup in the
light of recent events in Canada.
7. "The following is a transcription of a report broadcast on CBC
Radio's news program "The World at Six," aired 27 May 92 and monitored
on 9755 KHz at 2300 UTC. All spelling and punctuation has been added,
and may be incorrect."
8. In a letter to the administrators at the University of Manitoba I
said, among other things, that "there are those who feel very strongly
that a University should never tell its people what they can't read."
<1992May31.080939.25516@clarinet.com>
Notes 9-10 discuss trying to appeasing Canadian censors.
9. If we are to ensure that alt.sex.bondage is safe from the censors -
in Canada or elsewhere - we must make an effort to exclude depictions
of non-consensual sex from the newsgroup.
<1992May29.174945.20946@cs.sfu.ca>
10. If we encourage self-censorship of alt.sex.bondage, and advocate
creating `alt.sex.nonconsensual' as both a forum for that genre of
writing and as a target for the Canadian censors, then we allow them a
foot in the door. We must stand by our right to write about what we
choose.
<15492@autodesk.COM>
Notes 11-12 are about the how Usenet fits in with the university ideal
and the meaning of peer pressure in the context of Usenet.
11. "Usenet is *most positively* an invaluable resource. If anything
represents the free flow of information and expression of ideas that
our institutions of higher learning purport to value, this is it."
<1992May10.093635.27536@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
12. 'Peer pressure' is the Usenet community telling the jerk that he is
a jerk. 'Administrative sanction' is the sysadmins telling/forcing
the user to become normal - often by removing his 'voice.'
Administrative sanctions should be based on policies previously set
forth for the user community. Usenet's 'peer pressure' becomes
necessary when it is realized how few administrative sanctions there
actually are and that even these are based on the individual
institution's policies - there is no network-wide police force.
- Carl]
cafv02n29
[Week ending June 21, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 3 concern how universal the right to freedom of speech
should be - in particular whether it should be allowed to "fascists"
and "holocaust revisionists".
1. "Freedom of expression isn't a luxury to be denied until we reach a
perfect society; it is instead our best [way] of perfecting (or at
least improving) society."
<1992Jun16.220303.28270@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
2. Censorship is not the best way to combat the irresponsible and
untrue statements made by holocaust revisionists. Intelligent
refutation is far more effective - although the nature of the
statements themselves is as damning as any counter-argument.
<1992Jun19.061006.23999@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
3. "What good is fighting for ideals if you destroy those ideals in
the fight? If your idea of a "perfect" world doesn't include freedom
of expression I want no part of it... If we want the network to be
treated as a common carrier, then at least for pay services [we] have
no right to censor based on content alone."
<1992Jun19.084539.1206@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Notes 4 to 6 discuss how users should deal with being offended while
using the Internet, and how system administrators should respond to
users who can't deal with it.
4. A guide to dealing with offensive or abusive email and news
messages, with the emphasis being on tolerance, kill files and mail
filters.
<1992Jun17.052430.20515@uwasa.fi>
5. The "Standard Manager's Reply" (Revision A), to be sent to users
complaining about the content of the e-mail or newsgroup posting of a
subscriber to the manager's system, espouses the delights of freedom
of expression, clear thinking, and kill files.
<6980@public.BTR.COM>
6. Comments on and criticisms of the "Standard Manager's Reply".
Notes 7 and 8 concern the rights of system administrators to access
users' accounts.
7. "You are given an account with the understanding that you will not
use it to attempt to crack the system. But if you use that account to
learn the passwords of other users, then you are abusing the trust
placed in you by the system administrator, and he can remove your
access for it."
<1992Jun18.200126.486@newshost.lanl.gov>
8. "The reasoning was something like the computer was like a hotel and
the account a room in it. The files were like drawers or coatracks.
We had the right to enter and look at anything as we owned the
'premises'."
<1992Jun19.065554.8876@eff.org>
Notes 9 to 11, although unrelated, each address the issues of free
speech and censorship.
9. The New York Times of 6/10/92 reported that a Williams College
student has been subpoenaed after refusing refusing to talk with
Secret Service agents about a computer message he had written which
contained a "death threat" against George Bush.
<1992Jun11.001601.29258@morrow.stanford.edu>
10. As reported in the University of Toronto _Bulletin_, that
university is not planning to intercept or censor any of the files
available on the Internet that may contain violent pornographic
material.
<1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
11. "I do _not_ want to restrict anybody's right to post or read
whatever they wish, nor am I trying to accommodate or compromise with
those who do. I just want _for myself_ some additional means for
selecting what I want to read."
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n28
[Week ending June 14, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is a repost of a long discussion of the use of "handles" to
provide anonymity online.
1. This article is [a pointer to ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/anonymity,]
an excerpt from an issue of FIDONEWS
on individual privacy and the use of handles. It accepts the need of a
system operator to know the name of a user; but suggests that the use of a
handle is analogous to a request to withhold the name in a letter
to the editor. The article concludes with a set of guidelines for
preserving the right to be anonymous.
<92083.072152SOCICOM@auvm.american.edu>
Note 2 is a reprint of a UPI news article from ClariNet in which a US
Judge found artistic expression to be protected speech.
2. "A federal judge declared unconstitutional Tuesday the decency
clause the National Endowment for the Arts used in determining who
receives grant money, saying it was too vague and overbroad in
restricting artists' freedom of speech."
<1992Jun10.040756.10831@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 3 is a list of news groups not carried in the UK because of content.
3. (A system administrator:) The list of newgroups we cannot carry
includes alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
rec.arts.erotica.
<1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
Note 4 is a comment on a request by Canadian police for information on
sexually explicit postings from an American anonymous posting service.
4. (A system administrator:) The police are more concerned with
stopping it than with charging someone. It handled correctly, the
police will gain a better understanding of USENET, and not
overreact. A greater concern is that the University administration
will overreact in response to public pressure.
<3530@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Note 5 concerns a Canadian writer who was denied entry into the US
because US officials did not approve of some of his writings.
5. The writings are freely available in the US. "So you could argue
that his "right" to freely express his ideas has not been denied
by the US. Only his choice of method has been restricted."
<194@ceylon.gte.com>
Note 6 concerns a speech on the basic elements of a legal system. The
speech was given by US Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy in
Australia.
6. According to Justice Kennedy, the fundamental elements that the law
and legal system rest are:
". that government rested on the consent of the people
. that government protected a core of personal rights - today
called human rights
. that there must be an enduring structure which guaranteed
the first two elements
. that there be an obligation on each citizen to obey the law
and to transmit the rule of law to a subsequent generation."
<920614170756.20204464@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Notes 7-9 concern the legality of searching files owned by users if
violations of system policies are suspected.
7. In the US, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act may limit
what a system administrator can and cannot do. A signed legal
opinion can prevent a lot of heartache.
8. (A system administrator:) 3 times in 5 years I have found a
"suspicious" executable. The command "strings" usually gives me
enough information to confirm or refute that suspicion.
<1992Jun12.102023.26109@ms.uky.edu>
9. (A professor of computer science:) If in doubt, consult legal
counsel. It is my understanding that any search I perform on my
system at my own initiation is legal. The results of that search
can be given to law enforcement agencies, and used in trial. "Note
that this does not cover evidence that may conflict with the ECPA
(but if you are the owner/operator of the system doing the search
to maintain system integrity, you are probably okay), the
Educational Records Privacy Act (the "Buckley Amendment"), state
and Federal wiretap laws, and a few other such laws. ... It is the
*civil* parts of these acts that may cause the most difficulty."
Note 10 concerns restrictions designed to reduce network traffic by
banning certain types of packets.
10. When a restriction is leveled against everyone equally and is
based on resource concerns, it is not a censorship issue.
According to the backbone statistics, IRC and netnews generate
almost 11% of the traffic.
<1992Jun8.95807.8525@ms.uky.edu>
Note 11 concerns an section of the Criminal Code of Canada which bans
"a magazine, periodical or book that exclusively or substantially"
pictorially depicts the commission of a crime.
11. "Under this definition, about 90% of the comic books that exist in
the world are going to run afoul of this definition. Even the
Disney comics are going to get into trouble since one of the main
themes in any tale concerning Scrooge McDuck is the attempt of
others to obtain parts of his wealth (theft is a crime!)."
<1992Jun9.004550.9542@wolves.uucp>
Note 12 discusses how to deal with harassing computer communications.
12. Harassment is intentional, unwanted person-to-person
communication by any channel. Explicitly tell the harasser to
stop communicating with you. Save copies of all communications.
If the harassment continues, contact a system administrator,
university official or the courts.
<1992Jun11.180712.21660@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Paul]
cafv02n27
[Week ending June 7, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, or
QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-3 are about anonymous sexual harassment at universities
1. At Vanderbilt University, a group of students used a computer
system to harass other students. The students were all using a system
devised at Vanderbilt to allow students to share ideas in a rapid-fire
anonymous exchange. One badly harassed female student filed a
complaint with Vanderbilt and the U.S. Department of Education (DOE).
The designer of the system has apologized to the student. DOE action
is pending.
2. Students commonly harass others via interactive messages. The
author provides a program with which his students can identify their
harassers. When the specific perpetrator is unknown, the harassed
student can sue the institution rather than the perpetrator. But
anonymity may be the only condition under which some students will
contribute ideas to class discussions. Sometimes their fears of
humiliation or reprisal are warranted. What to do?
3. Many students are afraid to ask questions for fear of looking
foolish, either in the eyes of their peers or their instructors. Some
means of posting anonymously is a good thing, but completely anonymous
accounts are not. Anonymous mail is hard to reply to, but anonymous
postings to a news group can work. With Plato/NOVANET, the University
of Illinois has had long experience with large scale newsgroups, and
has sound policies on anonymity that we could learn from.
<12951@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Notes 4-8 deal with aspects of censorship in Canada relative to newsgroups.
4.Canadian authorities want to know where some alt.sex.bondage
postings originated. Better than gathering hearsay over the net, they
should really make sure a law has been violated and that the violation
occurred in their jurisdiction. "This is new ground you are treading
on, so you better make damn sure you do it right." The wizvax
anonymous posting service is really just pseudonymous and isn't
secure. Posters can be traced, if necessary, so there is some
accountability.
5. Newsgroup sources feeding Canadian sites may want to stop supplying
alt.sex.*, rec.arts.erotica, and others that may violate Canadian law.
Individuals posting to such groups probably have nothing to fear; it's
the party taking the material into Canada who may be liable. Posting
with a distribution of "USA" may help in the event you were
prosecuted. Laws on this subject are ill-formed at present, but will
evolve in the next decade.
<1992Jun07.183019.15970@pavnet.pcn.org>
6. "Most all the material in alt.sex.*, etc is perfectly legal in
Canada. Most Netnews transfers are initiated by the information
requester, not by the provider. In other words, it is mostly Canadians
who transfer Netnews articles into their nation." Setting one's
newsgroup distribution option to USA doesn't solve the problem that
some postings violate the community standards of many US cities. This
is no solution. (Includes annotated references.)
<1992Jun8.033130.14724@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
7. In December 1988 the University of Waterloo banned the newsgroup
rec.humor.funny. Later, other newsgroups were banned. Dr. Johnny Wong,
Associate Provost for Computing at UW, announced that he would restore
all banned newsgroups. This decision came about after a university
review committee concluded that "a University administration should
not make non-financial decisions about what people can and can't read
on campus."
<1992Jun5.015001.11933@eff.org>
8. The Canadian Broadcasting Company contacted Stephanie Gilgut, owner
of wizvax. Through a distortion of her comments, they made it sound as
though she agreed that the material that passed through her anonymous
posting service was obscene and that it included a how-to manual for
violent acts against others, when in fact she had explicitly denied
that. (Contains quotes from both Gilgut and the CBC stories.)
<1992May30.221527.5614@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Note 9 is about traditional civil liberties and new technology.
9. "All but one of the six leading candidates for California's 14th
Congressional District have formally committed to protect traditional
constitutional liberties against technological threats." Several have
signed a formal statement to this effect (names and copy of statement
included). This may "be the first time that major-party congressional
candidates have ever committed to explicit action to protect
technology-related civil liberties."
Notes 10-12 are about the email privacy policy at the U. of Illinois.
10. This is the text of the "interim e-mail advisory" from University
of Illinois, effectively a new computer privacy policy. "Over the past
year, the campus administration has received a number of inquiries
about access to files maintained on electronic media. Essentially, the
questions focused on the privacy of such communications and the
conditions under which someone may look at another person's files."
<1992Jun2.011050.15719@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
11. Just as paper mail does, e-mail forms part of the "official
record" of a university's business. University employees are sometimes
advised to keep private documents separate from those of official
business. The same recommendation may be useful for electronic
documents as well.
<1992Jun2.120432.9595@scott.skidmore.edu>
12. Secure encryption of mail files may be a way to keep your mail
from being read without your permission and cooperation. Will judges
order individuals to decode their mail and other files so they can be
searched for evidence? There may be parallels with reporters who
destroy their materials to protect their sources. "And what about
student's files and email? Are they protected against bludgeoning in
the name of finding scraps of information? Can you say 'chilling
effect'"?
<1992Jun3.223032.20875@ms.uky.edu>
- Mark]
cafv02n26
[Week ending May 31st, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not
necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-8 (all the articles in this issue) discuss censorship of the
alt.sex.bondage newsgroup in the light of recent events in Canada.
1. "The following is a transcription of a report broadcast on CBC
Radio's news program "The World at Six," aired 27 May 92 and monitored
on 9755 KHz at 2300 UTC. All spelling and punctuation has been added,
and may be incorrect."
2. In a telephone conversation, an Inspector of the Winnepeg police
gave it as his opinion that if material from the alt.sex.bondage
newsgroups were distributed to the Canadian public, the distributor
could be charged, as could the originator.
<1992May28.010057.18609@cs.sfu.ca>
3. If we are to ensure that alt.sex.bondage is safe from the censors -
in Canada or elsewhere - we must make an effort to exclude depictions
of non-consensual sex from the newsgroup.
<1992May29.174945.20946@cs.sfu.ca>
4. "I am not about to argue for Absolute Freedom of Speech because I
don't believe in it. I have another principle, that I have no problem
accepting, that is *just* as virtuous and *just* as well-thought-out
as yours: Consensuality."
<8185@wizvax.methuen.ma.us>
5. If we encourage self-censorship of alt.sex.bondage, and advocate
creating `alt.sex.nonconsensual' as both a forum for that genre of
writing and as a target for the Canadian censors, then we allow them a
foot in the door. We must stand by our right to write about what we
choose.
<15492@autodesk.COM>
6. "The net _is_ consensual. Already. You don't have to read
something if you don't want to. And nothing you read here is going to
kill you, or make you do anything you don't want to do."
<1992May30.033230.1556@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
7. "Cutting off any newsgroup on the basis of content is wrong... Once
you do that you have opened the door for banning all posters who
offend you. I strongly believe that universities should not be in the
business of censorship whatever the motives."
<1992May30.033323.23965@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
8. In a letter to the administrators at the University of Manitoba I
said, among other things, that "there are those who feel very strongly
that a University should never tell its people what they can't read."
<1992May31.080939.25516@clarinet.com>
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n25
[Week ending May 24, 1992.
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 concern UPI stories on posting controversial signs at
universities in Wisconsin and Texas.
1. (From UPI:) "A banner depicting a swastika evolving into a Star of
David prompted a spontaneous fight between two men at the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee." A university official defended the First
Amendment right which allowed the banner to be hung.
<1992May20.180954.9736@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
2. (From UPI:) Conservative students at Stephen F. Austin State
University in Nacogdoches accuse University officials of violating
their First Amendment rights. Officials will not permit students to
post fliers using a quote by former Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-AZ. The
quote, ``SEX and politics are a lot alike. You don't have to be good
at them to enjoy them'', was deemed obscene by the officials. An ACLU
representative said students do not forfeit their rights at the
university gates.
<1992May20.180644.28931@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 3 concerns a faculty senate resolution at the University of Delaware.
3. The faculty senate at the University of Delaware has adopted a
'Policy for Responsible Computing.' "By adopting this policy, the
Faculty Senate recognizes that all members of the University are also
bound by local, state, and federal laws relating to copyrights,
security, and other statutes regarding electronic media. The policy
also recognizes the responsibility of faculty and system
administrators to take a leadership role in implementing the policy
and assuring that the University community honors the policy."
<199205201436.AA16818@eff.org>
Note 4 concerns an attempt by Sen Byrd, D-WVa4 to rescind a set of NSF
grants with funny names.
4. "In an attempt to embarrass the administration over its 'pork
barrel' rhetoric, Senator Byrd, West Virginia, is sponsoring a bill to
rescind a bunch of peer reviewed NSF grants that have funny names."
The attempt to rescind the grants "should be of great concern to us.
It greatly undermines the peer review process and, I can say from
experience, adds to the bureaucratic delays in grant processing."
<12215@borg.cs.unc.edu>
Note 5 concerns the decision of a Harvard Law School disciplinary
board not to punish the authors of a controversial parody.
5. "On May 21st, the Harvard Law School disciplinary board announced
that it would _not_ take action against the authors of the
now-infamous parody article 'Manifesto of Post-Mortem Legal
Feminism.' Although the board found the parody offensive, it found
no law school rules had been broken. The dean of the law school still
has the option of initiating disciplinary action.
<1992May24.124726.3824@athena.mit.edu>
Note 6 explains how to access the computers and academic freedom
mailing list through the EFF mailing list server.
6. You can subscribe or unsubscribe to mailing list by sending email
to "listserv@eff.org". A list of the commands understood by the
listserv program is included.
<199205220110.AA17058@eff.org>
Note 7 concerns the American Library Association's Intellectual
Freedom Committee recommended guidelines for setting policies on
patron behavior and library usage.
7. The ALA's IFC has developed a set of guidelines which can be used
to set policies on patron behavior and library usage. The policies
attempt to allow libraries to maintain a safe and healthy environment
for staff and patrons without violating patron's rights. The
guidelines are appropriate in CAFNEWS as they may be used as models by
institutions seeking to develop rules regarding patron behavior and
electronic access to information and resources.
<199205191804.AA04126@eff.org>
Note 8 concerns the use of a city ordinance to restrict the material
purchased by a city library.
8. (A user:) A city ordinance prohibiting the town from
"facilitating, encouraging, or promoting homosexuality,sadism,
masochism, and pedophilia" is being used to review books purchased by
the city library. City Council member Ralf Walters was quoted as
saying: "What we want to make sure of is that the head librarian is
complying with the law and community values,"
<1992May22.230825.21383@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Note 9 discusses the distribution of "alt" groups in the UK.
9. Usenet relies on the goodwill of those operating the servers which
distribute the news. "In the UK, the great majority of these systems
are operated by academic institutions, who seem to have decided not to
forward the 'alt.*' hierarchy, in particular, and a number of other
groups which are either judged to be 'unsuitable', or clearly only
relevant to, say, the US."
<1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>
Note 10 concerns abusive users on "chat"-type teleconferencing
systems.
10. (A user:) BITNET RELAY, similar to IRC, supports the ability to
ignore all messages from a specified user. This eliminates the need
to deny such a user access because of abusive posting.
<1992May20.001222.18130@yang.earlham.edu>
- Paul]
cafv02n24
[Week ending May 17, 1992
[This week's guest editor is A. Andrew Brennan,
brennan@hal.hahnemann.edu - Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is about Iowa State's Usenet newsgroup censoring reasons.
1. In reply to a previous assertion that "Iowa State and U. of
Nebraska are using the possibilities of NSF intervention as reason to
censor newsgroups. Neither institutions are citing any other
university, state, or federal regulations for their actions." ISU
admins have cited Chapter 728, [Iowa's Obscenity Law] though it
exempts libraries and educational institutions. [Editor's note: Iowa
Chapter 728 was included in a following note.]
<1992May11.132630.23905@news.iastate.edu>
Note 2 deals with computing policies vs. computer professionals.
2. (Bob Rehak:) Most people in charge of computer resources either
have good credentials (and no computer skills) or have computer skills
and don't have any desire to share the resources with the user
community. In situations that a system might need to shutdown, it is
often necessary to call/visit several managers before taking any
action - though it remains my responsibility.
(Stacy Veeder:) Often the worst fault of the operators taking the
brunt of the questions, etc. is uninterested ignorance. Local network
administrators are competent - and provide the best computer services
possible. The politically required cross-consulting may cause one to
find other solutions to problems.
<199205111758.AA11573@eff.org>
Note 3 discusses some of the "features" of Florida State's Seminole
ACCESS system.
3. Florida State's new Seminole ACCESS system (for Fall '92) will
combine an ID card, ATM card, MCI calling card and a credit card all
in one. While touting convenience and ease of use, it also permits
ACCESS offices to track an alarming number of an individual's
activities - it's all in the database!
Unfortunately, the "classification" of this seemingly private
information is somewhat loose (ex. librarians having access to fields
not necessarily related to the library). Plus, with all of the
features of THE card being interpreted electronically, there are
questions about possible abuse of the power vested in the card and/or
security given by a 4 digit PIN.
<9205121714.AA18456@systems.cc.fsu.edu>
Note 4 points out some of the differences in dealing with email and
IRC and/or BITNET RELAY.
4. RELAY is teleconferencing system - similar to email only in the
aspect of being a method of network communication. Due to the 'web'
of servers, etc. it is possible for a single user to inconvenience
RELAY users all over the world. While one user can be internationally
obnoxious, it is not as easy to restrict these users from doing so -
using the policies currently in place. It would seem that if any
control is deemed necessary for these types of teleconferencing
systems, we're going to need to develop a new set of procedures to
deal with them.
<1992May12.151828.21744@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 5 and 6 compare print publishing & censorship with Usenet News.
5. Usenet news can be likened unto publications with the networks
acting as a press. Given this analogy, the local administration takes
the place of the publishing house and it's editors - able to select
the materials that they will "publish" on their systems. This is not
censorship, this is reality.
<920512#119#131650_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu>
6. The publishing house analogy is not sufficient - the volume of
information that passes through is overwhelming. A closer similarity
is to the telephone company - they aren't responsible for what
subscribers say over their lines. [Editor's note: The analogy is
good, but this one lacks the permanent quality of the publishing house
(and the nets) ... now if the phone companies were to be logging each
and every message that passes through ... whoa! there's a paranoid
thought.]
<1992May14.062344.14289@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Note 7 recaps notes from a SPA (Software Publishers Association) talk to UPenn
sysadmins.
7. A few points from a recent talk to UPenn sysadmins by the SPA: When
the SPA visits your site, they can seize hardware through a court
order. Generally, they do not do so - instead performing an on-site
audit of software. The SPA has never actually gone to court - usually
settling with offending institutions out of court. They have a
self-audit kit available to you and your organization. They do not
try to enforce licensing of non-member companies, but they also do not
publicize which companies are members.
<77815@netnews.upenn.edu>
Notes 8-11 make distinctions between Usenet "peer pressure" and
administrative actions/sanctions.
8. Deliberate abuse of networks - email, news, etc. - is a valid
reason for turning an account off. But, the problem then lies in
determining intent. Since the only pieces of information are the
newsgroup(s) the message was sent to and the content of the message -
virtually any administrative action can be construed as an act of
censorship.
<1992May12.181507.7296@ultra.com>
9. 'Peer pressure' is the Usenet community telling the jerk that he is
a jerk. 'Administrative sanction' is the sysadmins telling/forcing
the user to become normal - often by removing his 'voice.'
Administrative sanctions should be based on policies previously set
forth for the user community. Usenet's 'peer pressure' becomes
necessary when it is realized how few administrative sanctions there
actually are and that even these are based on the individual
institution's policies - there is no network-wide police force.
10. I wouldn't remove the (ab)user's account. It might be considered
more appropriate to enforce disk/mail quotas so that the user is
forced to deal with the hate mail before accessing news.
<1992May14.081130.17848@yang.earlham.edu>
11. Most people would change their posting habits after enough hate
mail. Unfortunately, they often send copies to the sysadmins ("Look
at what your users are doing") and with a large user community this
type of action can cause the sysadmin to be forced to deal with the
user. In some cases, the decision to remove the account may be based
entirely on keeping the system from running out of disk storage space.
Peer pressure isn't as easy as it used to be.
<9205151636.08@rmkhome.UUCP>
Note 12 details an educational kit for ethics in computing.
12. Southern Connecticut State University and Educational Media
Resources, Inc. have prepared a kit (containing three videotapes and two
monographs) for teachers to show social and ethical implications of computing
in their classes. The kit can aid computer science departments in fulfilling
accreditation requirements. Additional details can be retrieved by contacting
the Research Center on Computing and Society at SCSU.
<199205132109.AA01445@eff.org>
- Andrew]
cafv02n23
[Best of April 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. Many of the paraphrases are based on earlier paraphrases by
Adam, Elizabeth, Mark, Paul, me, and by guest editor Fred Nixon.
===============================================================
Notes 1-3 are about Netnews removals at the University of
Nebraska, Lincoln and in Germany.
1. [A UNL user:] On March 2nd, the alt groups were eliminated by UNL's
Computing Resource Center (CRC). Although the reason given was lack
of resources, the content of the groups played a major part. The
chairman of the UNL Academic Senate Computational Services and
Facilities Committee felt in hindsight that the committee did not have
all the facts when they recommended a limited set of news feeds. On
April 6th the UNL Academic Senate Executive Committee voted to request
restoration of the majority of the alt.* groups.
2. [_The Daily Nebraskan_:] "Pornography was a factor in the UNL
Computing Resource Center's decision to stop supplying and entire
hierarchy of USENET news groups to UNL computers, the CRC director
said Thursday."
<9205040334.AA04565@cse.unl.edu>
3. A story in the German paper "EMMA" resulted in the banning of the
"sex" news groups at several universities. Among the groups banned was
"alt.sexual.abuse.recovery."
<199204201927.AA07124@eff.org>
Notes 4-5 are about computer policy at the University of Illinois
and at Iowa State University.
4. [Editor's note: This policy was recently changed -cmk] The NCSA
email policy permits searches and punishment of facility users who
criticize the NCSA or University in email. The policy was created to
justify (after the fact) a search of the computer files of a student
employee. In reaction to the criticism, the NCSA asked a campus wide
committee to review the policy. The committee recommended a policy
closer to the University's general privacy policy. The campus legal
counsel apparently objected to the new policy, since it might increase
the University's liability. It appears counsel is waiting for the
courts to establish law in this area.
<1992Apr26.204032.20854@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
5. "The due process protection of the policy is good. The privacy
protection is unclear. Free expression protection is poor. (The policy
imposes speech restrictions on email and other computer media.
Specifically, it prohibits rude expression and any expression of a
political nature. In my opinion, these speech restrictions violate
academic freedom and the law.)"
<1992Apr2.174625.23219@eff.org>
Note 6 is the Nebraska University Students for Electronic Freedom.
6. This is the Statement of Purpose from the Nebraska University
Students for Electronic Freedom. The group promotes academic freedom,
works to protect privacy, acts as "watch dog" group for university
administration, educates the user community, and strives to broaden
access to electronic communication systems.
<1992Apr1.192701.28737@eff.org>
Note 7 is about fighting words, the "right" not to listen, and the
"right" not to be offended.
7. The Supreme Court says that there is no right not to be offended
except when privacy is 'invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.
Any broader view ... would effectively empower a majority to silence
dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.'
<1992Apr27.143505.9602@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about cracking program and email privacy policy.
8. "I have a problem with outlawing cracking programs: ... Would it be
illegal to possess a paper on access security that contained the
source code for a cracking program? Where do they draw the line
between intellectual discourse and intent to break into someones
account?"
<1992Apr30.164835.1816@opac.osl.or.gov>
9. This is a summary of opinions on email privacy, gleaned from a
questionnaire distributed to comp.admin.policy, comp.risks, and
comp.society.
Notes 10-12 are about logging user activity.
10. [An administrator:] I have been logging "anonymous" ftp's for
months. It was done in response to people abusing privileges by
uploading files to bypass local quotas, or to share with friends.
After discussion in the picture discussion groups, I decided to post a
notice about the logging and upload restrictions at login. Others
argued that "anonymous" implied that no logging would be done. Login
as anonymous now gives a message warning that that is not so. A sample
warning is provided.
11. "One should consider the overall chilling effect of [telnet]
monitoring. What effect will it have on the users--and the
institution--as a whole?"
<1992Apr16.035456.6200@ms.uky.edu>
12. I have never encountered a library system which retains the
patron/book association after the book is returned. "Most libraries
will vehemently protect the privacy of their patrons."
- Carl]
cafv02n22
[Best of March, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. Many of the paraphrases are based on earlier paraphrases by
Adam, me, and by guest editors Terry Rooker and David Swanlund.
===============================================================
Notes 1-3 are about the U. of Nebraska at Lincoln's ban of
all alt.* newsgroups.
1. For anyone who has been following the alt.* controversy at UNL,
the following article appeared on page one of _The Daily Nebraskan_,
the student newspaper of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, on
Tuesday, March 7, 1992. _UNL loses `alt' computer files_ by Mike
Lewis staff reporter. Used with permission of the Daily Nebraskan.
<9203212232.AA24018@cse.unl.edu>
2. [A UNL alum:] "The reasons given for the decision are so
transparent as to be internationally embarrassing to the University."
"There may be newsgroups that you wish not to take. If that is the
case, be honest about it." "If you are in need of additional
resources, they should be requested [...]"
<1992Mar26.214421.26447@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
Note 3 is about Switzerland's SWITCH (an academic networking
consortium).
3. "In addition to banning some usenet newsgroups, SWITCH is also blocking
packets to the local eunet chapter (chuug). We have to route most
packets from Zurich to Geneva and back to Zurich. Others go as far as
Amsterdam, and, yes, still others go to the USA and come back (hee
hee). SWITCH is blocking nntp, telnet and ftp to local sites connected
to eunet."
<1992Mar2.135005.14877@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Note 4 is about student and sys admin reaction to actions such as the
U of Cincinnati's move to terminate accounts of users who telnet to
"game" and IRC hosts.
4. "Yes, the users have to become responsible with the use of the
resources and get involved in policy-making. But the administrators
should help in this process by asking for input, opening policy
meetings, and by acting less arbitrarily upon the users they are
trying to serve."
<1992Mar1.230835.9357@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 5-6 are critiques of computer policies.
5. "This is a critique/review of the U. of Delaware computer policy
proposal." The policy is *very* polished. "I do have some concern
about punishment before 'conviction'" and "[t]he policy could be
improved by saying that nondisruptive, noncommercial "personal use" of
the computer [is] permitted and encouraged subject to whatever
limitations local sites may impose."
<1992Mar26.220927.5131@eff.org>
6. The _Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources_ is a detailed
list of infractions and penalties at the U. of Illinois at Chicago.
This article is a critique of this policy. The infraction descriptions
are vague, and the penalties are severe. In general, the stated policy
would allow system administration to enforce any arbitrary policy and
still be in accordance with this policy.
<1992Mar18.191830.5134@eff.org>
Notes 7-9 are about email and "anonymous" ftp privacy.
7. Here are the results of an informal poll of sys admins about email
privacy. One respondent says that searches for technical reasons are
not the same as searches to investigate wrong doing. One says that he
or she was once asked to search a users files, but flatly refused.
<1992Mar23.184747.13631@eff.org>
8. Enclosed is a sample account request form from the U. of
New Mexico. It specifies under what conditions the user can and cannot
expect privacy for their email.
9. Anonymous ftp does not necessarily mean that the process is
anonymous. ftp.uu.net is one such system that requires a domain style
email address for a password. All file transfers are logged, but the
initial login message informs the user of this.
<1992Mar12.213307.11252@uunet.uu.net>
Notes 10-12 are about what harassment is and how email filtering can
sometimes stop it.
10. [A professor who studies sexual harassment:] "It sounds generally
right" that merely making offensive-to-some information available has
never been found to create an illegal hostile environment. "The
availability of all kinds of materials in libraries is completely
protected....now, that's a TRUE First Amendment issue!"
<1992Mar25.180208.4528@eff.org>
11. A technique for email filtering using elm is explained.
<1992Mar5.164036.26921@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>
12. Another technique for email filtering, using HM, is explained.
<1992Mar6.021936.5715@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Carl]
cafv02n21
[Week ending May 10th, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 4 discuss the events at Iowa State University in which the
Usenet group rec.arts.erotica was banned and in which a student's
computer access was revoked after he redistributed articles from that
group - there is, however, a happy ending to the story.
1. "ISU has once again overstepped its bounds... ISU is subject to the
5th amendment, which guarantees due process. ISU cannot use its
'executive powers' to decide what students have the right to use the
equipment without exercising due process."
<1992May6.021706.7137@news.iastate.edu>
2. "When Iowa State University restricted alt.sex it violated the
principles of academic freedom. When it punished a student for
exercising his Constitutional right to free expression in a University
forum and imposed that punishment summarily in violation of that
student's Constitutional right to due process, it violated the law."
<1992May6.033143.16713@eff.org>
3. "I am surprised and saddened that it is a university that is
crossing this complicated line *toward* censorship and *more*
restrictions when even the federal and most state legal statutes
contradict such actions."
<9205071603.AA26232@antaire.com>
4. From the student who had his account closed: "I have my account
back."
<1992May8.064304.8364@news.iastate.edu>
Notes 5 and 6 concern issues of relevance to the situation at ISU. The
first offers a critique of an article in the Winnipeg Free Press which
"exposed" the alt.sex.* Usenet hierarchy's availability at the
University of Manitoba. The second discusses the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln's decision to stop supplying the entire alt.
hierarchy.
5. "Usenet is *most positively* an invaluable resource. If anything
represents the free flow of information and expression of ideas that
our institutions of higher learning purport to value, this is it."
<1992May10.093635.27536@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
6. UNL has said that had they continued to supply the "pornographic"
alt. hierarchy and someone had complained to the federal government,
UNL would have been required to prove that the groups met the criteria
of the NSFNET backbone service's acceptable use policy, or risk losing
NSFNET access. This is based on a misunderstanding of the NSFNET's
powers and of their policies.
<1992May5.005813.281@eff.org>
In Note 7 Carl Kadie offers his critique of the Middle East Technical
University's policy relating to computer and network use.
7. "The METU policy provides no due process protection and bans much
speech."
<1992May4.223243.28741@eff.org>
Note 8 describes the Potomac Telephone Company's examination of the
feasibility of creating an "electronic village" in Blacksburg,
Virginia.
8. "If such an undertaking proves feasible, all homes, businesses,
and schools in the town will be connected on a high speed electronic
network....Those on the network will be able to use electronic mail,
join online discussion groups, and take advantage of a wide range of
business, educational, financial, and general communications services.
They may also use the Internet..."
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n20
[Week ending May 3, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 are about the University of Nebraska at Lincoln's decision
to remove the alt.* newsgroups.
1. [_The Daily Nebraskan_] "Pornography was a factor in the UNL
Computing Resource Center's decision to stop supplying and entire
hierarchy of USENET news groups to UNL computers, the CRC director
said Thursday."
<9205040334.AA04565@cse.unl.edu>
2. [Student at UNL] "[T]he real reason that the alts were removed was
not due to resources. Rather, that issue has served as a justification
for the decision. ... [T]he computer responsible for taking care of
news has been running at well under capacity (41% when we checked)."
<9204281832.AA00992@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV>
Note 3 is about fighting words, the "right" not to listen, and the
"right" not to be offended.
3. The Supreme Court says that there is no right not to be offended
except when privacy is 'invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.
Any broader view ... would effectively empower a majority to silence
dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.'
<1992Apr27.143505.9602@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 4-6 are critiques of computer policies at Virginia Tech and
Princeton.
4. "The [Virginia Tech] policy shows good user participation and due
process. Privacy could be improved by detailing the procedure by which
searches are authorized. Freedom of expression could be improved by
removing vague speech restrictions."
<1992Apr27.214917.13402@eff.org>
5. Enclosed are excerpts from Princeton's "Guidelines for the use of
Campus and Network Computing Resources".
<199204292110.AA23705@eff.org>
6. Princeton bans computer speech that would be protected by the
Constitution if it were a public university. The good news, from my
point of view, is that it explicitly treats computer speech like
traditional speech.
<1992Apr29.213206.24214@eff.org>
Notes 7-8 are about freedom of expression in traditional media. Such
cases create formal and informal precedents that might be applied to
computer media cases.
7. The yearbook for the University of Southwestern Louisiana includes
a photo of a bare-breasted woman. University administrators say that
although they don't like the photo, they lack authority to censor it.
<1992Apr27.164301.27154@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
8. The Harvard Law Review parody violated "[o]ne of the exigencies of
decency and civility [:] _de mortuis nil nisi bonum_, '[Speak] nothing
but good about the dead.' "Still, un-Ivy behavior is normally not
grounds for all Hell breaking loose and the roof falling in on one,
even at Harvard."
<18573@smoke.brl.mil>
Notes 9-10 are about computer administration.
9. In reply to an article that said that it's OK to log the
destination of telnets and email just as it's OK for the phone company
to keep a record of calls: In some places, it is considered a
violation of privacy for the phone company to release phone records
even to the police.
<1992Apr28.112552.23369@nntp.hut.fi>
10. "I have a problem with outlawing cracking programs: ... Would it
be illegal to possess a paper on access security that contained the
source code for a cracking program? Where do they draw the line
between intellectual discourse and intent to break into someones
account?"
<1992Apr30.164835.1816@opac.osl.or.gov>
- Carl & Adam]
cafv02n19
[Week ending April 26, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 discusses the removal of the alt groups at the University of
Nebraska, Lincoln.
1. (A user:) On March 2nd, the alt groups were eliminated by UNL's
Computing Resource Center (CRC). Although the reason given was lack
of resources, the content of the groups played a major part. The
chairman of the UNL Academic Senate Computational Services and
Facilities Committee felt in hindsight that the committee did not have
all the facts when they recommended a limited set of news feeds. On
April 6th the UNL Academic Senate Executive Committee voted to request
restoration of the majority of the alt.* groups.
Note 2 discusses a little known campaign law which may chill political
discourse on public networks
2. (A user:) Federal (US) and state regulations governing political
campaign contributions require that "contributions-in-kind" for or
against a candidate or issue be accounted for just like cash
donations. "Is *personal* electronic political speech, press and
assembly protected at work or school -- or is it a corporate or
institutional political donation?" Such speech would be permitted if
written using a company owned pen, or over a company owned phone. "Why
should *electronic* speech and *electronic* assembly be different?"
Note 3 reports a set of news groups banned in Germany because of content.
3. A story in the German paper "EMMA" resulted in the banning of the
"sex" news groups at several universities. Among the groups banned
was "alt.sexual.abuse.recovery."
<199204201927.AA07124@eff.org>
Note 4 summarizes a long thread on posting "hate" speech and the first
amendment.
4. (Administrator:) What recourse do we have if a student posts hate
news items? (A user:) You are legally bound by your student code.
What does it say about free expression? "The Student Code for many
(most?) universities prohibits censorship even in university-owned
media." References from the CAF archives are attached.
<1992Apr23.175248.28395@eff.org>
Note 5 discusses an article from Scientific American. Does email
correspondence from the White House belong in the National Archive?
5. The Archive collects paper letters and memos and claim that email
backup tapes are also official records. The Federal Records Act
prohibits the destruction of official records. What status should an
easily tampered source of information such as this be given?
Notes 6 and 7 list recent changes FTP archives concerning Computers
and Academic Freedom.
6. A list of recent changes to the CAF Archive at ftp.eff.org is
attached.
<1992Apr20.180322.4646@eff.org>
7. An archive containing the computing policies of 30+ universities
has been established at ariel.unm.edu in the directory /ethics. A list
of those policies is attached.
<199204221825.AA10087@eff.org>
Note 8 discusses whether it is ethical to log users who access an FTP
archive "anonymously".
8. (An administrator:) I have been logging for months. It was done in
response to people abusing privileges by uploading files to bypass
local quotas, or to share with friends. After discussion in the
picture discussion groups, I decided to post a notice about the
logging and upload restrictions at login. Others argued that
"anonymous" implied that no logging would be done. Login as anonymous
now gives a message warning that that is not so. A sample warning is
provided.
Note 9 is a UPI story about a parody in the Harvard Law Revue which
some found offensive.
9. Law professor David Kennedy claims charges should be brought
against the authors of a parody of an article by slain law professor
Mary Joe Frug, and the editors of the Harvard Law Revue, which
published the parody. Three other professors have asked that
Kennedy's motion be dismissed, as the parody is protected by the First
Amendment.
<1992Apr23.235407.3663@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 10 recounts the attempts by an Auburn University Gay and Lesbian
student group to gain university recognition.
10. (A student:) The debate started when the Auburn Gay and Lesbian
Alliance requested recognition from the Auburn student government
association, and therefore access to student fees. The government
refused on biblical grounds. When the university administration
overruled the decision, the state legislature passed a law banning gay
and lesbian student unions from state schools statewide. The governor
of Alabama will sign the bill. "The government of Alabama is
attempting to rescind free speech and assembly rights of a group under
the guise of public morality." I encourage other student unions to
pass a resolution condemning this action.
<199204250421.AA28481@eff.org>
Note 11 discusses the University of Illinois's National Center for
Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) email policy.
11. The policy permits searches and punishment of facility users who
criticize the NCSA or University in email. The policy was created to
justify (after the fact) a search of the computer files of a student
employee. In reaction to the criticism, the NCSA asked a campus wide
committee to review the policy. The committee recommended a policy
closer to the University's general privacy policy. The campus legal
counsel apparently objected to the new policy, since it might increase
the University's liability. It appears counsel is waiting for the
courts to establish law in this area.
<1992Apr26.204032.20854@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Paul]
cafv02n18
[Week ending April 19, 1992
[The draft policy discussed in issue 2.17 will (if finalized and
accepted) apply only to the U. of Kentucky's Engineering Computer
Center, not to the whole campus. The discussion continues this
week. - Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-5 discuss Wes Morgan's draft Student Access/Use Policy for the
University of Kentucky's Engineering Computer Center (ECC).
1. Carl Kadie says, with respect to a sysadmin's monitoring the
creation of mailing lists by users: "Do you really want to take even
partial responsibility for the lists that you do approve of? What if
you give it an official University OK, and *then* it starts being used
for credit card [fraud]?"
<1992Apr13.154330.19059@eff.org>
2. "Any restrictions placed on your computing access must be directly
related to the charges filed against you. Any restrictions must be
approved by the Director of Engineering Computing prior to their
initiation... In the event that you, knowingly or unknowingly, appear
to have violated ECC or University policy, the ECC will attempt to
contact you."
<1992Apr13.144306.3022@ms.uky.edu>
3. That he monitors the creation of mailing lists by his users does
not mean that a sysadmin is exercising prior review over (and
therefore taking responsibility for) the subsequent contents of that
list.
<1992Apr13.150507.8230@ms.uky.edu>
4. Punishments meted out by the ECC are acceptable provided that they
are minor, that they are not imposed before the user has a chance to
speak, that appeals are possible and that reports of disciplinary
actions, and the reason for them, taken by the ECC are made available
to all users. More severe punishments should only be imposed by the
university Judicial Committee.
<1992Apr14.151655.19264@eff.org>
5. "I think that a 'policy history' would be extremely valuable in
handling future violations. I'd like to be able to reference past
incidents, for questions such as 'Has this happened before?' and 'How
was it handled in the past?'. I'm considering a 'sanitized' notebook,
with names removed."
<1992Apr14.120017.15683@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 6 to 8 concern the Equal Employment Opportunity Comission's
(EEOC's) sexual harassment rules, and whether its definition of
harassment is too broad.
6. "Whiloe working, a group of users and another consultant were
engaged in conversation with me. Topics included masturbation, sex,
feminism, and religion. A user overheard some thing I said, most of
which she found offensive... I have been informed that making comments
that "are sexual, or could be construed as sexist" are grounds for a
sexual harrassment charge."
7. "You are yet another victim of the _fantastic_ expansion of the
term 'sexual harassment'."
<32660026@hpmwmat.HP.COM>
8. Part of the EEOC's definition of sexual harassment is that it
creates a "hostile, intimidating, or offensive working environment".
This is a very vague definition, and a potentially dangerous one.
<1992Apr16.154842.29800@lmpsbbs.mot.com>
Notes 9 to 12 address the issue of a sysadmin's right (or otherwise)
to log outgoing telnet sessions in the interests of security.
9. "Yes, I have the root password, yes I *could* invade people's
privacy, but I'm a professional and I don't. If you don't trust the
people with root to respect your privacy (or at least to respect the
policies of your site concerning privacy), then fire your SysAdmin and
get one that you can trust."
<73966@netnews.upenn.edu>
10. "Order and freedom are mutually exclusive for the most part...
monitoring all users to make sure they are not trying to do anything
wrong is an invasion of privacy."
<1992Apr14.191146.29321@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
11. "The ability to monitor everyone does not mean that you should; in
this respect, I do not think telnet logging - including ones not
originating at your site, as the original poster also wanted to do -
should occur until a break-in is suspected."
<1992Apr15.205702.29713@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
12. "One should consider the overall chilling effect of the
monitoring. What effect will it have on the users--and the
institution--as a whole?"
<1992Apr16.035456.6200@ms.uky.edu>
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n17
[Week ending April 12, 1992
[This week's guest editor is Fred Nixon, fnixon@sol.utc.edu. - Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is about email privacy.
1. This is a summary of opinions on email privacy, gleaned from a
questionnaire distributed to comp.admin.policy, comp.risks, and
comp.society.
Note 2 is about the FCC and the Net.
2. Broadcasting regulations do not apply to the net, as FCC
regulations are an exception to the general rule of government control
of expression. Three books discussing the limits of free speech are
mentioned.
<1992Mar25.195314.6998@eff.org>
Notes 3-7 are about high school teachers secretly monitoring student
local-area network use.
3. Privacy issues arising from the use of LANs are presented. Faculty
members are using net management tools to observe high school students
working on the net. Comments are requested on the legality of, and
ethical basis for, such activity when it is known to the students, and
when it is not known to the students.
<1992Apr9.125538.5968@bsu-ucs.uucp>
4. Faculty use of such network management tools may have a legitimate
use; but casual monitoring should not be allowed. System
administrators have broader scope for monitoring, extending to
occasional monitoring. Information gleaned from such sessions should
remain undisclosed.
<1992Apr10.170023.7720@ms.uky.edu>
5. If the lack of privacy is clear from the start, there is no
violation of any law when monitoring students. A situation where all
mail is monitored is described. It is a lab which can be used ONLY for
class work.
<6682@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
6. Results of a Supreme Court decision regarding searching grade or
high school students. Public School officials can search a grade/high
school student when "reasonable grounds" exist for finding evidence
that rules have been broken. States can set stricter standards. An
annotated reference is included, including quotations from the ACLU
Handbook, _The Rights of Students_.
<1992Apr11.000627.23277@eff.org>
7. The draft of the unofficial Statement on Computers and Academic
Freedom does not deal specifically with high school students. Private
communications should be treated the same regardless of communications
medium.
<1992Apr11.154521.768@eff.org>
Notes 8-9 are about a draft U. of Kentucky [Engineering Computer
Center (ECC) - carl] policy.
8. The University of Kentucky [EEC -carl] Student Access and Use Policy is
submitted for comments. This is not official policy, and is in draft
form.
<1992Apr9.160725.7355@ms.uky.edu>
9. Review of the UK [EEC - Carl] policy, from the point of view of a academic
computer center employee and graduate student. Several questions are
raised, including the restriction of access before the guilt of the
student is determined.
<1992Apr11.150009.6432@news.iastate.edu>
Note 10 is about academic cheating and privacy.
10. A summary of published material regarding academic cheating;
backup tapes were examined to determine if collusion had occurred
between students exchanging email. The students unsuccessfully argued
they had been set up by an unnamed third party. A summary of risks
posed by computer systems in an academic setting is included.
Note 11 is about library confidentially.
11. In a followup to questions about the tracking of library
materials to patrons, Mr. Hart states that he has never encountered a
library system which retains the patron/book association after the
book is returned. "Most libraries will vehemently protect the privacy
of their patrons."
[ guest editor's note: has anyone considered the problem of library
system backups? If these are kept for any length of time, the
link between the borrower and the book remains traceable as long
as the backups are kept around. This could be for years... ]
Note 12 is about the responsibilities that come with free speech.
12. A quick reminder that free speech carries with it tremendous
responsibility, and may easily be abused by the majority in pursuit of
a noble goal. A confrontation with a Klan march, a counter
demonstration, was planned to shout-down the Klan marchers. "I just
hate to see well meaning people attempting... to destroy the 1st
amendment rights of whoever they happen to disagree with".
<1992Apr10.184852.26771@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Note 13 is about proposed anti-pornography legislation in
Massachusetts.
13. Information regarding the Massachusetts' anti-pornography
legislation. This bill would make trafficking in pornographic
materials a sex discrimination violation (subject to triple damages).
An explicit :-) exemption is granted public, university, and college
libraries.
<1992Apr12.055744.3899@wpi.WPI.EDU>
- Fred]
cafv02n16
[Week ending April 5, 1992
[This week's guest editor is Mark Sheehan, sheehan@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu.
At Mark's suggestion, I've added a bibliography on database security
to the CAF archive. It was compiled by G. Pernul and G. Luef. To
get this document by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line:
send acad-freedom/books pernul,_g
- Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is a policy docoument from North Dakota State University:
1. [NDSU POLICY ON MISUSE OF COMPUTER FACILITIES] Responsible computer
use means files, passwords, and output are private; no offensive
material shall be entered or sent; no unauthorized copies shall be
made; no unauthorized commercial use shall be made; violators shall
be disciplined.
<199204012129.AA24760@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
2-5 continue the story about removal of alt.* news groups by
the Computer Resource Center at the University of Nebraska
2. Justifying the U of Nebraska's removal of alt.* groups on the basis
of economics may be a masquerade for censorship. Students would
probably be willing to pay for alt.* access. Another poster's
accusation that tuition-paying students are freeloading is ironic.
3. Universities can make their own decisions about what network
expenditures are reasonable for their circumstances. They step out of
line, however, if they or their policies infringe on individuals' or
groups' rights to participate in legal network activities _at their
own expense_. Individuals have many options, though campuswide news
service is probably beyond the means of most.
<1992Apr3.013330.23763@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
4. It's reasonable to cut all alt groups, or any other whole branch of
the news group hierarchy for reasons of economics. "It's what the
hierarchies are *there* for...." If individual groups are cut because
of objectionable content, that's censorship. If all of a branch is cut
because of a few offensive groups, there's also a problem.
<1992Mar31.221948.9349@clarinet.com>
5. The group, Nebraska University Students for Electronic Freedom,
promotes academic freedom, works to protect privacy, acts as "watch
dog" group for university administration, educates the user community,
and strives to broaden access to electronic communication systems.
<1992Apr1.192701.28737@eff.org>
Notes 6-8 discuss e-mail privacy concerns about postmasters
interfering and about users reposting others' mail.
6. The law says providers of electronic communications service can
look at mail if necessary, but must keep it confidential in most
cases. It allows providers to divulge evidence of illegal activity
to proper authorities. Codes of ethics should have the same basis,
but may further limit postmasters' rights to view others' mail.
"Users should...have the right to understand the privacy
limitations of their system, even if some of them don't agree with
those limitations."
<1992Mar31.000038.4435@rice.edu>
7. The postmaster should have the right to view the body of any
message, but should not necessarily have a right to an understanding of
its meaning. Thus encryption is OK. One reason postmasters need to see
message bodies is because that's where some mail systems store the
headers the postmaster needs to return misaddressed messages.
8. Contrary to what one poster asserts, it's not illegal in your
own e-mail to quote from a message sent you by another user. On the
other hand, in extreme cases, it may be a civil wrong -- a tort.
While the original sender may have a common law copyright to the
exact word of her/his message, it is, at least in the case in
question, "fair use" of that material to resend it.
<303@gls47212.law.cwru.edu>
Note 9 helps resolve some concerns about harassment of a presumably
innocent bystander following the recent virus ruckus at Cornell.
9. Stuart Lynn of Cornell Communications and Information
Technologies (CIT) wrote this poster to explain the facts behind a
scary news item in a Cornell-area paper. CIT was not flexing its
muscle, Lynn says, and warning users that it could make their e-mail
public if it wished. However, "Cornell's counsel does not feel that the
ECPA of 1986 applies to it because it is not providing e-mail services
'to the public.' Only to the members of the Cornell Community."
<1992Apr1.025240.17959@cs.cornell.edu>
Notes 10-11 continue the criticism of Iowa State University's
ethics statement and netnews policy.
10. "The due process protection of the policy is good. The privacy
protection is unclear. Free expression protection is poor. (The
policy imposes speech restrictions on email and other computer
media. Specifically, it prohibits rude expression and any
expression of a political nature. In my opinion, these speech
restrictions violate academic freedom and the law.)"
<1992Apr2.174625.23219@eff.org>
11. The Iowa State policy is more enlightened than the University
of Nebraska - Lincoln policy. Users should have little concern
about lists being kept of individuals who have requested access to
restricted news groups. Similar lists kept by libraries, video
stores, etc. exist and their misuse has not chilled their commerce.
The ISU policy recognizes the impossibility of policing postings to
news groups.
<1992Apr4.050354.13778@tssi.com>
Note 12 is about the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom.
12. "One place good place to report censorship incidents is the
Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom. Reports here may help increase
awareness of, for example, computer-media censorship. The
Newsletter only prints reports that are documented with newspaper
articles."
<1992Mar31.152657.1753@eff.org>
- Mark]
cafv02n15
[Week ending March 29, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-3 are about removal of the alt.* newsgroups by the Computer
Resource Center at the University of Nebraska.
1. Lack of resources is a legitimate reason to remove (or not select)
a set of newsgroups. Disk drives aren't the only cost in providing
Netnews service. Other costs include staff and the computers
themselves.
<1992Mar24.91906.8818@ms.uky.edu>
2. "The issue is not really whether Nebraska doesn't have the
resources to carry the alt.groups. The issue, instead, is whether
they're using 'limited resources' as an excuse for not carrying
newsgroups they regard as controversial."
<1992Mar27.225144.29958@eff.org>
3. [A UNL alum:] "The reasons given for the decision are so
transparent as to be internationally embarrassing to the University."
"There may be newsgroups that you wish not to take. If that is the
case, be honest about it." "If you are in need of additional
resources, they should be requested [...]"
<1992Mar26.214421.26447@sparky.imd.sterling.com>
Notes 4-6 are about privacy in email and Netnews reading.
4. Here are the results of a poll of U. of Illinois sys admins about
email privacy. Opinions varied. One thinks that only a judge should be
able to authorized an email search. Another thinks that keyword
searches are OK without such authorization.
<1992Mar23.182015.18970@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
5. Here are the results of a similar poll of non-U. of Illinois sys
admins. One respondent says that searches for technical reasons are
not the same as searches to investigate wrong doing. One says that he
or she was once asked to search a users files, but flatly refused.
<1992Mar23.184747.13631@eff.org>
6. Sys admin have a legitimate need to look at users' .newsrc files
(the files that tell what newsgroups user's read). This information
helps sys admins configure the Netnews facilities. However,
"readership information for specific users should be kept
confidential."
<1992Mar25.101311.8450@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 7-9 are about the law and freedom of speech (and association).
7. At Auburn University in Alabama, the student government, the State
Attorney General, and the State Legislature are trying to remove
recognition of the Gay Lesbian Alliance, a student organization.
<1992Mar24.191617.13162@eff.org>
8. A student at the University of Southern California asks for help in
filing a 'hate speech' complaint against a fellow student. You have no
grounds for filing. "State universities have no authority (i.e. it is
illegal for them) to punish students for hate speech. The way to fight
such bad speech is with good speech." [Editor's note: USC is not a
state university.]
<1992Mar25.205435.31172@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
9. [A professor who studies sexual harassment:] "It sounds generally
right" that merely making offensive-to-some information available has
never been found to create an illegal hostile environment. "The
availability of all kinds of materials in libraries is completely
protected....now, that's a TRUE First Amendment issue!"
<1992Mar25.180208.4528@eff.org>
Notes 10-11 are about specific network and university polices.
10. [Gordon Cook:] The National Science Foundation should drop its
acceptable use policy because 1) Congress doesn't seem to want it 2)
it would allow commercial enterprises to offer more and better
services to research and education.
<9203232058.AA00975@tmn.com>
11. "This is a critique/review of the U. of Delaware computer policy
proposal." The policy is *very* polished. "I do have some concern
about punishment before 'conviction'" and "[t]he policy could be
improved by saying that nondisruptive, noncommercial "personal use" of
the computer [is] permitted and encouraged subject to whatever
limitations local sites may impose." [Editor's note: The policy draft
is available via anonymous ftp from zebra.cns.udel.edu as file
pub/udel.guidelines_draft. Or, for a possibly out of date version,
send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send other-comp-policies udel.edu
]
<1992Mar26.220927.5131@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv02n14
[Week ending March 22, 1992
[This week's guest editor is Terry Rooker,
trooker@bombe.nswc.navy.mil. - Carl.]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 are about the UNL restricting alt.* access.
1. For anyone who has been following the alt.* controversy at UNL,
the following article appeared on page one of _The Daily Nebraskan_,
the student newspaper of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, on
Tuesday, March 7, 1992. _UNL loses `alt' computer files_ by Mike
Lewis staff reporter. Used with permission of the Daily Nebraskan
<9203212232.AA24018@cse.unl.edu>
2. (Carl Kadie:) The UNL policy is equivalent to book burning, and
could be applied to traditional libraries. The university should
clarify its intellectual freedom policy and apply it equally to
electronic and traditional media. (includes references)
<1992Mar21.225125.9543@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 3 is about the EFF Pioneer award winners.
3. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today announced the five
winners of the first annual EFF Pioneer Awards for substantial
contributions to the field of computer based communications. The
winners are: Douglas C. Engelbart of Fremont; Robert Kahn; Jim
Warren; Tom Jennings; and Andrzej Smereczynski. The award is
described as are the achievements of the winners.
Notes 4-5 are about a stringent penalty for computer misuse.
4. Enclosed is the _Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources_
from the U. of Illinois at Chicago.
<199203181655.AA03311@eff.org>
5. (Carl Kadie:) The _Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources_
is a detailed list of infractions and penalties at the U. of Illinois
at Chicago. This article is a critique of this policy. The infraction
descriptions are vague, and the penalties are severe. In general, the
stated policy would allow system adminstration to enforce any
arbitrary policy and still be in accordance with this policy.
<1992Mar18.191830.5134@eff.org>
Note 6 is about a regional networks solution to commercial use of
Internet.
6. The growth of the Internet is staggering. As the Internet
increases in size there is more demand for it to become the single
network used by all computer users. NSF policy prevents commercial
use of the Internet. There are several alternatives to this
restriction. NEARnet is a regional network that already supports
commercial use which would preclude its connection to the Internet.
A solution is proposed to use a combination of the NSF backbone and
commercial services to support the existing NEARnet members.
<9203190129.AA18713@psi.com>
Note 7 is about one system's attempt to protect user privacy.
7. (Wes Morgan:) In response to concerns about email privacy I try
to protect my users by not archiving electronic mail during backups.
By using cpio(1) it is easy to exclude the mailboxes from the backup.
Only user mail in the user's system mailbox is liable to search. The
analogy is to postal mail sevrvice; once a letter is delivered the
postal service no longer has jurisdiction. Even this analogy is
incomplete as some systems keep mail in a comman mail directory.
<1992Mar19.94600.15681@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about bibliographies concerning libraries and
censorship.
8. Enclosed is a short biblography of bibliographies on library
intellectual freedom, pornography, censorship, privacy etc.
<9203191716.AA05219@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
9. Enclosed are selected excerpts from the bibliographies. The focus
seems to be on high school libraries, so maybe the problem is more
common there than in universities.
<9203191809.AA05485@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 10 is about a service to provide back copies of USENET groups.
10. Because of the volume of USENET traffic few site can maintain
more than a few weeks worth of articles. Because of the volume there
is much information available from USENET. NetNews/CD is a product
that will provide a copy of the USENET groups on a subscription
basis. Also included in the subscription is NetGems which includes
the X11R5 sources, the GNU software, as well as the comp.sources.*
archives.
<94605@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com>
Note 11 is about email privacy notification.
11. Enclosed is a sample account request form. It specifies under
what conditions the user can and cannot expect privacy for their
email.
Note 12 is about a legal decision concerning email privacy.
12. Enclosed is an excerpt from a legal decision. An analogy is
drawn that basically implies that simply because the opportunity
exists, access can still be considered a violation if the perpetrator
is unauthorized. It is not clear what lasting affect this decision
will have. [notice this is an australian posting]
<920322151214.21203539@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
- Terry]
cafv02n13
[Week ending March 15, 1992
[With this issue March is done. The guest editor for this issue is
David Swanlund (david@swan.vm.iastate.edu). - Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is about censorship and SWITCH (in Switzerland -cmk).
1. The majority does not have the right to restrict or censor
information desired by the minority, even if that material is
offensive. In this regard, "Switch is like a library, worse than that
switch is not only censoring their library, they also put up
roadblocks and refuse people access to their libraries." Would-be
censors should have to "_PROVE_ beyond reasonable doubt in a just
court that something is harming others (and arguably that they don't
wish to be harmed)" before that something is restricted or censored.
<16825.9203091724@pyr.swan.ac.uk>
Note 2 is a forwarded message about a proposed bill to allow easy
wire tapping by the FBI.
2. The Bush administration is a proponent of a bill to ensure that
all commercial and private telephone exchanges allow easy wire
tapping by the FBI. Non-compliants would be fined up to $10k/day. "At
best, the FCC's easy-wiretapping requirements would be a hinderance
to commerce", and "At worst, roving wiretaps could become easier."
<199203101029.AA06819@eff.org>
Note 3 is about commercial use restriction on the net.
3. "We've built this highway, but imposed these restrictions on who
can use the highways, only automotive engineers, so the car doesn't
look awfully useful. Imagine if federal highways were 'no commercial
use' and you were in the trucking industry...?"
<9203130452.AA05819@world.std.com>
Notes 4-7 are about logging ftp usage
4. Creating logs of ftp usage is unneeded. Such logging done without
the user's knowledge infringes on the user's right to privacy.
<1992Mar11.172359.1124@math.okstate.edu>
5. A point on the side of making logs. "The system log at the
Stanford site was the primary link which allowed the traceback of the
Macintosh MBDF-A virus to the students who released it (who
are now involved in criminal proceedings)."
<9203111808.AA23181@hibiscus.cit.cornell.edu>
6. Anonymous ftp does not necessarily mean that the process is
anonymous. ftp.uu.net is one such system that requires a domain style
email address for a password. All file transfers are logged, but the
initial login message informs the user of this.
<1992Mar12.213307.11252@uunet.uu.net>
7. In response to note 4, (Jim Lick, who runs his own service)
"Having guest ftp does not mean you can dump anything you want
there." ... "And I am free to refuse service if you don't provide the
information I want. If you don't want to, you don't have to use the
service."
Notes 8-11 continue the discussion of collecting information about
system users.
8. Computers make it very easy to collect information about people
and their use of a system. This should make people more concerned
about the results of such collection.
9. Default login names are supplied by the client side of ftp,
allowing the user to enter what he/she desires. The internet in
general will remain insecure "until authentication becomes part of
the standard suite of protocols, including application-level
protocols, used on the Internet"
<1992Mar10.175513.1600@mtholyoke.edu>
10. There may be good reasons to log system access, "But maybe you
could live without it, and we'd have a slightly friendlier society."
11. There are laws regulating credit bureaus or the use of the Social
Security Number by different entities. An example of a sysop selling
a user's e-mail address to some company for marketing purposes "may
be legal but it's not the kind of world I want to live in."
- David]
cafv02n12
[Week ending March 8, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-5 are about SWITCH's policy of not carrying certain newsgroups
1. "SWITCH may be a private organization, but as information provider
to institutions of higher education they have a moral responsibility to
_not_ use their position to manipulate which information the public is
exposed to and which it isn't."
<1992Mar2.025634.13544@mtholyoke.edu>
2. "The right to publish what we want is important, but the right not
to be told by others what you *must* publish or transmit is of equal
importance. These two rights are the two sides of freedom of expression."
<1992Mar02.082931.21643@clarinet.com>
3. "In addition to banning some usenet newsgroups, SWITCH is also blocking
packets to the local eunet chapter (chuug). We have to route most
packets from Zurich to Geneva and back to Zurich. Others go as far as
Amsterdam, and, yes, still others go to the USA and come back (hee
hee). SWITCH is blocking nntp, telnet and ftp to local sites connected
to eunet."
<1992Mar2.135005.14877@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
4. "And when a USENET feed decides that it will not carry certain
newsgroups, you are free to get your own feed from somewhere else. It
isn't convenient, it isn't as cheap, maybe, but nobody said that USENET
had to be convenient and cheap. And it certainly isn't censorship."
<1992Mar3.003102.27987@talon.ucs.orst.edu>
5. [A user from Switzerland] "Can the government (or a governmental
organisation) decide on anarbitrary basis to cut some perfectly legal
newsgroups and let others pass freely?"
<1992Mar3.184031@litsun.epfl.ch>
Notes 6-9 are about game and IRC policies in light of U of Cincinnati
move to terminate accounts of users who telnet to "game" and IRC hosts.
6. "Yes, the users have to become responsible with the use of the resources
and get involved in policy-making. But the administrators should help
in this process by asking for input, opening policy meetings, and by
acting less arbitrarily upon the users they are trying to serve."
<1992Mar1.230835.9357@ms.uky.edu>
7. A student defends the right to telnet to foriegn hosts because it is
often for valid academic reasons.
<199203022336.AA12510@eff.org>
8. "If I was asked to hire a programmer I would much rather hire someone who
was familiar with the resources available on the net, becoming familiar
with them involves using it for recreation as well as work."
<1992Mar6.042104.14586@wpi.WPI.EDU>
9. "In my opinion, users should participate in the development of policy.
Also, unless you want to set up a formal "computer-infractions judical
committee", you should should tie into regular university judicial
procedures."
<1992Mar7.195213.17699@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 10-11 are about configuring your email reader to filter out
messages from certain individuals.
10. A technique for filtering using elm is explained.
<1992Mar5.164036.26921@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu>
11. Another techinque for filtering, using HM, is explained.
<1992Mar6.021936.5715@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Adam]
cafv02n11
[Best of February 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
Many of the paraphrases are based on earlier paraphrases by Paul,
Elizabeth, and Adam.
===============================================================
Notes 1-4 discuss newsgroup removals rationalized by creative
interpretations of law. Sites around the world have found this an
effective way to ban almost any topic, for example, war, drugs, gay
rights, crime, rape, abortion, and sex (including recovery from sexual
abuse and United Press International stories mentioning sex).
1. SWITCH, the federal institution which provides the network
connections between Swiss universities, has decided to refuse to carry
certain Usenet newsgroups on the grounds that they *might* be illegal
under Swiss law. Newsgroups banned include alt.drugs,
alt.politics.homosexuality, clari.news.terrorism.
<1992Feb20.180752@sic.epfl.ch>
2. (A person in Ireland:) "The computer/censorship issue related to
the fact that only crosspostings to the group _talk.abortion_ appear
here." If a posting to such a group had information on how to procure
an abortion, are we any more liable than a library with an English
telephone directory which has the phone number of an abortion clinic?
<1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>
3. This is a parody of the Iowa State University policy that bans
discussions of sex (and previously drugs). It shows what the policy
might say if it were honest. It starts "We, a handful of individuals
in the Iowa State University Computation Center, have imposed a policy
on the distribution of Usenet newsgroups. ... The purpose of this
statement is to provide an after-the-fact justification of a decision
that we made without looking at the academic freedom issues."
<1992Feb23.201324.12799@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
4. Carnegie Mellon University promotes self-censorship by its threats
to investigate of Eric Jefferson on charges of sexual harassment
unless he stops writing public articles that some find offensive.
<46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org>
Notes 5-7 are about privacy.
5. A user on this system was apparently running a password cracking
program. An administer searched my files and found I had a copy of
the newest version of Crack. I have legitimate reasons for having
this program. I have received mail from the Chairman of the
Department "inviting" me to discuss my account privileges. "It really
bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably anyway)
just for the mere possession of a program."
<9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
6. [From Brewster Kahle, the operator of the directory of servers in
the WAIS system:] The new breed of "digital librarians" must consider
the ethical obligations which follow from their privileged position
with regard to the users whom they serve.
7. Under what circumstances can the university disclose personal
information about a student computer user, say, through 'finger'?
Enclosed excerpts from the Family Education and Privacy Rights of Act
provide a partial answer.
<1992Feb6.233159.24859@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 8 concerns a system administrator's policy of acting quickly in
case of rules violations. Often a student's account is restricted for
days.
8. (A student:) On a Friday afternoon I discovered all my accounts at
the University Of Aston in Birmingham, England had been disabled. I
was told that something I was running was congesting the network. To
sort things out I needed to meet with the head of the department, by
appointment, on the following Tuesday.
<1992Feb26.192151.6435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Note 9 discusses the issue of TERMINUS, a terminal server at MIT
which allows users to connect to any port of any Internet connected
machine and which has been seen as a security threat by the NSFnet.
9. The NSF cannot be expected to cut off MIT or TERMINUS any more than
the phone company could be expected to disconnect MIT's phones just
because someone used their phone lines to break into a system. If
anything will shut down TERMINUS it will be the privatization of the
network which will no longer allow them to put the onus of security
onto other sites.
<1992Feb18.215827.4@sdg.dra.com>
Note 10 discusses the history of altnet, the set of "alt" groups.
10. Contrary to the 'history' given in the Iowa State University
policy, the alt groups were not created by a 'collective group of
Usenet "news administrators"' as a place for dangerous topics. In
fact, the alt groups were created to fight the suppression of the
collective group.
<3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
- Carl]
cafv02n10
[Week ending March 1, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 concerns the limits a university may place on free speech.
1. According to a short item in the Chicago Tribune, some at the
University of Wisconsin want to draft new, narrower "hate speech" rule
to replace the rule that was struck down by the district federal
court. The author of the original restrictions says that he isn't sure
the rule is needed anymore.
<1992Feb26.165417.12215@eff.org>
Note 2 suggests that obscenity is in the eye of the beholder.
2. (A user:) If anything is obscene, surely it is discussing new ways
of systemically killing people. Why do people who are not troubled by
that get so upset at groups which discuss new ways of finding pleasure?
<1992Feb26.232807.4485@nntp.hut.fi>
Note 3 discusses arguments presented to justify a Swiss Network's
decision not to carry certain newsgroups.
3. What article of law allows someone to file a lawsuit against the
network if it is carrying material they do not like? If such a law
exists, does it apply equally to email? If the network does censor
newsgroups, does that imply that it fully supports the information in
the remaining newsgroups?
<1992Feb24.173533@lglsun.epfl.ch>
Note 4 discusses a student who created an "alt" newsgroup. The news
administrator on the machine he uses claims the user forged the
message creating the group, and refuses to carry the group.
4. "Since you put your name on the post it wasn't a forgery, but your
news admin is still free to consider it an improper newgroup."
<1992Feb28.100229.27960@ms.uky.edu>
Note 5 discusses the history of altnet, the set of "alt" groups.
5. The alt groups were created outside of the USENET guidelines and
propagated by alternate uucp links. One force for change was an
attempt to carry a political group in a technical forum because that
forum was better distributed. Another was that some system
administrators would not carry certain newsgroups no matter what the
name.
<3198@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>
Note 6 suggests that informing anyone who will listen about the true
nature of controversial news groups may forestall future problems.
6. (An administrator:) If a reporter or legislator asks about the
net, I tell them about the huge variety of newsgroups from the
scientific and technical to those discussing controversial issues.
"I've never had a bad reaction to this presentation..."
<11169@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Note 7 reacts to a proposed policy on calculator use during exams.
7. The proposed policy raises due process concerns. I have a simpler
solution: I do not allow the use of such devices. "The reasoning is
simple: Programmers should be proficient, personally, in computation."
Notes 8 and 9 concern a system administrator's policy of acting
quickly in case of rules violations. Often a student's account is
restricted before the student is notified of the violation.
8. (A student:) On a Friday afternoon I discovered all my accounts at
the University Of Aston in Birmingham, England had been disabled. I
was told that something I was running was congesting the network. To
sort things out I needed to meet with the head of the department, by
appointment, on the following Tuesday.
<1992Feb26.192151.6435@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
9. This happens at Berkeley every so often. Usually, the student can
get his account back by talking to the system administrator. I
sympathize with the administrator, but it would not occur to the
university to lock a student out of his/her dorm without prior
warning.
Note 10 rebuts the claim that students have little cause for complaint
if an administrator restricts a student's account for non-academic uses.
10. (A student:) I pay extra money for my account. Suppose I rent a
car. I take it for a ride in the country. Does the rental company
have a right to disable the car, and leave a note saying, "Your engine
has been taken out and the locks on the doors have been changed since
you went for a ride in the country that was totally unrelated to the
business in which you rented this car." No good comes from system
administrators being harsh to their users.
Notes 11 and 12 discuss liability for the electronic transmittal of
information. Specifically, abortion information may not be
distributed in Ireland.
11. (A discussion of the incident in which a pregnant 14 year-old girl
was not permitted to leave the country to seek an abortion in
England.) "The computer/censorship issue related to the fact that
only crosspostings to the group _talk.abortion_ appear here." If a
posting to such a group had information on how to procure an abortion,
are we any more liable than a library with an English telephone
directory which has the phone number of an abortion clinic?
<1992Feb24.222848.12187@maths.tcd.ie>
12. In fact, you can get the banned information by calling Northern
Ireland, or Boston, Massachusetts. Are they going to prosecute the
Irish PTT, or British Telecom, or Ma Bell?
<1992Feb26.165136.9723@wetware.com>
- Paul]
cafv02n09
[Week ending February 23, 1992 [23rd->23 -cmk]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 are 6 discuss the issue of TERMINUS, a terminal server at MIT
which allows users to connect to any port of any Internet connected
machine and which has been seen as a security threat by the NSFnet.
1. The NSF cannot be expected to cut off MIT or TERMINUS any more than
the phone company could be expected to disconnect MIT's phones just
because someone used their phone lines to break into a system. If
anything will shut down TERMINUS it will be the privatization of the
network which will no longer allow them to put the onus of security
onto other sites.
<1992Feb18.215827.4@sdg.dra.com>
2. A simple solution to the security problems caused by terminus would
be to instigate a policy of allowing users of open terminal servers to
connect to only port 23 (telnet) on remote systems.
<1992Feb18.112035.26089@ms.uky.edu>
3. Network policy and implementation should not compel a site to apply
one network's policy to other network's. The responsibility for
compliance with network policy should rest with the service requester,
not the service provider.
<1992Feb19.163425.9651@eff.org>
4. The Arpanet used to an open environment in which the sharing of
resources was encouraged and those resources were freely offered. In
the evolution of the Arpanet into the Internet, with all the demands
for security made by various sites on it, we have lost something
valuable.
5. While the loss of the 'small town' attitude of not locking doors is
to be regretted, it is not a feasible way to address issues in the
'big city' that the Internet has become.
<1992Feb20.180456.10987@news2.cis.umn.edu>
6. "The issue under discussion is not how individual target sites
should "deal with" TERMINUS-based incursions -- that is pretty much
known. The issue is whether MIT ought to continue providing the toys
wherewith more and more sites can be made to have to "deal with" the
nuisance."
<50076102@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Notes 7 and 8 carry on from the TERMINUS controversy to discuss what
is and is not acceptable use of national academic networks in general.
7. The TERMINUS case has brought up a number of questions about
network access that ought to be applied more widely. On what basis
should institutions provide researchers and students with access to
academic networks?
<9202182129.AA25590@phloem.uoregon.edu>
8. Here are some suggestions as to what might be educational
institutions' NREN access policies.
<9202191440.AA20298@cise.cise.nsf.gov>
Notes 9 to 11 are on unrelated issues addressing ethics and censorship
in computer-use.
9. [From Brewster Kahle, the operator of the directory of servers in
the WAIS system:] The new breed of "digital librarians" must consider
the ethical obligations which follow from their privileged position
with regard to the users whom they serve.
10. Does unauthorised access to a Company's computer constitute
grounds for dismissal of an employee? The Denco Ltd. v. Joinson case
turned on this issue.
<920218194602.2020c632@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
11. Switch, the federal institution which provides the network
connections between Swiss universities, has decided to refuse to
carry certain Usenet newsgroups on the grounds that they may be
illegal under Swiss law.
<1992Feb20.180752@sic.epfl.ch>
Note 12: And now for something completely different...
12. [Carl Kadie, abandoning his position as the Staid and Rational
Source of all Well-Documented Argument:] Here is a parody of the Iowa
State University Usenet policy.
<1992Feb23.201324.12799@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n08
[Best of January 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
[Many of these paraphrases are based weekly paraphrases by
Elizabeth, Paul, and me. - Carl]
Notes 1-3 regard a recent controversy at Carnegie Mellon
University involving issues of sexual harassment and freedom of
speech.
1. As described in the Carnegie Mellon student newspaper 'The Tartan',
student Eric Jefferson has had sexual harassment charges filed
against him because of his postings to a CMU bulletin board for
the Women's Center.
<1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org>
2. Here is a ruling on sexual harassment from the university of
Wisconsin which quite clearly indicates that Jefferson's postings did
not and cannot constitute harassment.
<1992Jan29.221441.18673@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
3. Jefferson's chastisement does not constitute a threat to freedom
of speech - indeed, constitutional protections are irrelevant in a
privately owned university. However, the more important issue is
whether the university is more committed to the ideal of freedom of
speech or to the ideal of the free exchange of ideas. The two are not
the same, and the free expression of hatred can create an atmosphere
in which ideas cannot be freely shared.
<8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu>
Notes 4-5 discuss academic freedom and the right of sites to limit
access to netnews.
4. At Iowa State University, by default, a machine does not receive
the newsgroups alt.sex.*, alt.drugs, alt.psychoactives. The head of
the department where the machines are located can request that the
machines have access to the omitted groups. Students and staff are
attempting to change the policy.
<1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu>
5. "If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of
arbitrary censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of
arbitrary censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an
electronic library of ideas."
<1992Jan26.045844.10853@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Notes 6-7 concern the UC's court-ordered search of computer files.
6. Dean Pentcheff (dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu): This is a summary of
the events surrounding "UC's court-ordered search of files on two of
its Unix mainframe computers... [This summary is] based on my own
understanding of what's going on. These are not "official" summaries,
either from the University of California, or from the plaintiff in the
case. I am not involved with the case in any capacity except as an
interested observer."
7. There are some grave inconsistencies inherent in defining a user's
files as 'university records'. For example, such a definition means
that a user who reads *her or his own email* might violate of federal law.
<1992Jan14.032659.8519@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 describes the outcome of the recent Cubby vs. Compuserve case.
8. The effect of the Compuserve decisions has been to show that the
more a computer-mediated forum is monitored, the greater the liability
of the moderators/owners for what is said in that forum. If there is no
censorship then liability rests entirely with the authors of
individual posts.
9. Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org): By granting CompuServe's request
for a summary judgment (finding CompuServe not liable), the court has
strengthened first amendment protection for online services. The
judge's decision holds that CompuServe was a distributor, not a
publisher. Like a bookstore owner, CompuServe is not required to
review everything it carries prior to providing it to its customers.
<1992Jan6.204341.5096@eff.org>
Notes 10-11 discuss the recent removal of software from users'
accounts, computer suspendions before hearings, and searches
of user files at the University of Wyoming,
10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon
receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the
users had to remove all IRC software from their accounts and agree not
to use IRC on the computer. "After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster)
account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be
searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be
disusered without hope for reinstatement."
<3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200@mrgate.uwyo.edu>
11. Even if the university was within its legal rights, did it have the
moral right to take this action? Specifically, should the
administrator have suspended the accounts before establishing that the
user had done something wrong? (No.) And should he have searched user files
without authorization? (No.)
<199201101800.AA13167@eff.org>
Note 12 is about Freedom of (impolite) Speech.
12. The ACLU handbook on teachers' legal rights and Robert J. Wagmam's
_The First Amendment Book_ indicate that "The Freedom of Speech
guaranteed by the Constitution *does not* require that speakers be
polite."
<1992Jan5.025518.11163@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv02n07
[Week ending February 16, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 discuss a student whose computer access was threatened
because an archived copy of a password cracking program was found
among his files.
1. A user on this system was apparently running a password cracking
program. An administer went looking around and found I had a copy of
the newest version of Crack. I have legitimate reasons for having
this program. I have received mail from the Chairman of the
Department "inviting" me to discuss my account privileges. "It really
bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably anyway)
just for the mere possession of a program."
<9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
2. Your treatment may violate due process procedures. Supporting
quotes from the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students are
included.
<1992Feb16.202149.17301@eff.org>
Note 3 concerns student protests over the Ohio State _Lantern_'s
coverage of a Revisionist advertisement.
3. The Ohio State University _Lantern_ refused to accept an ad which
claimed that the Holocaust never occurred. Instead, it ran the ad on
the editorial page, as news, along with an anti-Revisionist editorial
cartoon and a seven paragraph explanation. Jewish students are calling
for the resignation of the _Lantern_'s editor-in-chief, advisor, and
business manager. The _Lantern_'s covered was balanced; what is the
effect of the challenge? "When we become afraid to speak our minds,
when we become fearful of expression because of what others might
think, and when we stifle academic pursuit because of what is
currently "correct," then we lose what it means to be fully human."
<9202141919.AA21041@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Note 4 is a list of computer crime statues recently uploaded to the
SULAW archive.
4. "The following files have been uploaded to the SULAW archive
(sulaw.law.su.oz.au). They are presently located in the /upload
directory but will eventually be moved to the /pub/law directory."
<1992Feb16.151824.2536@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
Note 5 is an article from _The Jewish Advocate_, a Boston weekly,
concerning anti-Semitism on the Internet.
5. A Berkeley graduate student was "stunned to discover" anti-Semitic
material on the Internet. No specific legal action is planned since
the university's policies on computer expression are general. A
spokesman for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith said, "We
don't advocate censorship. We encourage Internet subscribers to use
their subscription power, their keyboard power, to register their own
objections to this perversion of computer technology."
Note 6 is a discussion of new rules for gaming on machines in a lab at
the University of Illinois.
6. Previously, you could game until someone needed that machine for
academic use. However, people are reluctant to ask a gamer to give up
a machine. "My job is to see that that person gets a computer, not
that another gets to play 6 hours of Civilization."
<1992Feb11.160723.20190@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Notes 7-9 concern the lengths to which a student must protect
information stored on a school computer. Is it a violation of
academic integrity to have a "022" umask?
7. A Cornell student was told by a TA, "by leaving class files
unprotected, allowing anyone to walk in and peruse my solutions to
programming assignments, I could potentially be considered to be
providing solutions to the assignments, particularly since I've done
it "knowingly" by changing the protection myself."
<9202102257.AA20024@crocus.cit.cornell.edu>
8. Under Dartmouth's honor code, the situation would be treated
differently. If someone steals something, they are at fault. If you
left it unprotected so they could copy it, you can be held
responsible.
<1992Feb12.140210.10645@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
9. A user asks, "If you left written things in the unlocked room,
would that be considered the same thing?". "I consider locks (and the
permission bits in UNIX filesystems) to be the thing to use WHEN I DO
NOT TRUST PEOPLE. However I do not think it should be someone else's
place to tell you who to trust and who not to trust."
<1992Feb12.013327.3257pdh@netcom.COM>
Notes 10-11 continue the discuss on speech restrictions CMU's computer
bulletin boards.
10. A prior message claimed that the suppressed speech was
"intimidating, harassing, or sexually harassing", and that "Such
speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, can
be shown to do real harm." This user claims that it is the result of
shouting fire which should be punished, not the shouting. "What
exactly is the difference between offensive, intimidating, and
harassing?"
<1992Feb11.080542.20333@Princeton.EDU>
11. How can you quantify unacceptable speech? If I proposition a
woman, am I guilty of some crime other than rudeness? What if I made
a (crude) statement of fact?
<1992Feb9.213333.3056@hubcap.clemson.edu>
- Paul]
cafv02n06
[Week ending February 9. 1992
[This week's guest editor is Adam C. Gross,
ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu. - Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-6 are about the Eric Jefferson case at Carnegie Mellon, where a
student was accused of sexual harrasement because of a series of his
postings to a local bboard.
1. The university's threats of an investigation if the postings don't
stop promotes self censorship.
<46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org>
2. "Users were and are free at any time to refrain from
reading articles from the poster in question. They apparently did
not do so. Therefore, they _chose_ to read more from the poster,
thus invalidating the unwantedness criterion of the EEO definition. [of
sexual harresment]"
<9202032245.AA03081@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
3. Public universities are probhibited from banning 'politically
incorrect' speech because of the _Doe v. U. of Michigan_ and _UWM Post
v. U. of Wisconsin_ rulings.
<1992Feb4.210805.11317@eff.org>
4. [A CMU student:] The university supported mail readers do not allow a
user to suppress another individuals posts.
<0dXzHyC00UgII0ilcP@andrew.cmu.edu>
5. "CMU is embarking on a slippery slope, as do all who wish to
supress expression for any reason. It is impossible to objectively
determine what might be "intimidating, harassing, or sexually
harassing." The search for truth is compromised when _any_ expression
is supressed."
<9202071322.AA09866@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
6. [A CMU student:] "[This] IS about suppressing speech that was
merely offensive." "[H]ow can it be harassment when one can easily
ignore the message or not even read it at all?"
Notes 7-9 are about the disclosure of personal information on the U of
Illinois systems through such programs as finger.
7. [A U of Illinois student:] "Before the new software was installed, an
account holder could alter how he/she was identified when another
computer user on the same or a connected system requested information
about that person using the finger program. The current software has the
fingerd program return part or all of the person's legal name. I must
protest this change, and request
that the problem be fixed."
<1992Feb3.224647.28831@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
8. [A member of the U of Illinois Computing Services Office:] "CCSO
believes the perception of anonymity leads to increased belligerence and
decreased sense of responsiblity for one's actions. The fact that one
is ultimately traceable does not have the same effect as being
immediately identified."
<1992Feb4.193335.16780@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
9. Under what curcumstances can the university disclose or require
personal information about a student? Enclosed excerpts from the
Family Education and Privacy Rights of Act provide a partial answer.
<1992Feb6.233159.24859@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 10 is about the availability of some newsgroups at U of Oregon.
10. [The director of Network Services at the U of Oregon:] Techincal
limitations of the most popular Mac newsreader force limited USENET
availability.
<199202052354.AA01561@eff.org>
- Adam]
cafv02n05
[Week ending February 2, 1992 ["2nd"->"2" -cmk]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1 to 3 regard the duties of a system administrator who becomes
aware, by examining bounced mail, that a user may be being sexually
harassed.
1. A sysadmin has a moral responsibility to discourage sexual
harassment. Although the discovery was made accidentally, it was a
legitimate discovery, and once the sysadmin is formally aware of the
situation, he has a duty to act.
<9201271901.AA26229@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
2. Unless the sysadmin has been explicitly asked by the user to help
end the harassment, he is unable to take any action - he is, indeed,
jumping to conclusions in deciding that the situation is one of
harassment. By reading more than the headers of bounced mail, and by
taking action without a request having been made, he would be
violating the privacy of both users.
3. The legal situation in Finland suggests that mail that is file
protected can only be read by those from whom it is not protected.
This might mean that Postmaster can legitimately read all mail that is
bounced to him or her.
<1992Jan31.101449.13991@nntp.hut.fi>
Notes 4 and 5 discuss a hypothetical 'Netnews Bill of Rights' based on
the Library Bill of Rights.
4. Carl Kadie: "All computers offering Netnews are forums for
information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should
guide their services: ... "
<1992Jan27.201548.22829@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
5. This is an in-depth critique of Carl Kadie's 'Netnews Bill of
Rights.'
<1992Jan27.165137.14992@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 6 to 11 regard a recent controversy at Carnegie Mellon
University involving issues of sexual harassment and freedom of
speech.
6. As described in the Carnegie Mellon student newspaper 'The Tartan',
student Eric Jefferson has had sexual harassment charges filed
against him because of his postings to a CMU bulletin board for
the Women's Center.
<1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org>
7. "Here are the collected works of Eric Scott Jefferson: ..."
<1992Jan31.211130.19359@eff.org>
8. From 'The Tartan' - "Bboards provide a unique opportunity for
communication and opinion exchange, often with people you would never
otherwise meet. Every Andrew user has a responsibility, however, to
police him- or herself and keep posts appropriate."
<1992Jan28.223916.20536@eff.org>
9. Although offensive, Jefferson's posts do not constitute
harassment since they were posted to a public forum and not to an
individual. Suppression would amount to a violation of Jefferson's
right to free speech.
<1992Jan28.234454.22561@eff.org>
10. Here is a ruling on sexual harassment from the university of
Wisconsin which quite clearly indicates that Jefferson's postings did
not and cannot constitute harassment.
<1992Jan29.221441.18673@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
11. Jefferson's chastisement does not constitute a threat to freedom
of speech - indeed, constitutional protections are irrelevant in a
privately owned university. However, the more important issue is
whether the university is more committed to the ideal of freedom of
speech or to the ideal of the free exchange of ideas. The two are not
the same, and the free expression of hatred can create an atmosphere
in which ideas cannot be freely shared.
<8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n04
[Week ending January 26, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-4 discuss whether unauthenticated dial-in Internet access
should be provided.
1. The problem with providing unauthenticated Internet access is that
it is not possible to trace responsibility for an action back to its
source.
<25353.Jan1904.08.2692@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
2. MIT's TERMINUS provides anonymous access by default. It has been
and will be used by crackers. If someone has an Internet machine,
they are responsible for that machine; no one takes responsibility for
TERMINUS.
<4342.Jan2010.33.3392@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
3. A partial solution to authentication problems is RFC 931. If the
originating machine runs an RFC 931-compliant server, other hosts can
find out which user owns the connection from that host to their
machine. An archive address is provided.
<26789.Jan1907.36.0392@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
4. "Net access is not a right; civil liberties do not apply to the
base issue of network access (they can apply to specific services,
such as netnews)."
<1992Jan21.110534.11426@ms.uky.edu>
Notes 5-6 discuss the right of an administrator at anonymous FTP site
to remove material protected by copyright.
5. A crack program was uploaded to an anonymous FTP area. The program
appeared to contain portions of a game copyrighted by Sierra. "...
having a publicly writeable upload area does not give someone else the
right to place anything they want there, as it is not a public forum."
<1992Jan20.225330.1164@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
6. The upsetting part of the administrator's action was that he said
he would notify system administrators. That notification may assume
illegal actions, when ignorance was actually the cause.
<27624@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Notes 7-10 discuss academic freedom and the right of sites to limit
access to netnews.
7. At Iowa State University, by default, a machine does not receive
the newsgroups alt.sex.*, alt.drugs, alt.psychoactives. The head of
the department where the machines are located can request that the
machines have access to the omitted groups. Students and staff are
attempting to change the policy.
<1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu>
8. The first amendment does not mean that a government entity cannot
edit or restrict the material it carries. "Your right to free speech
does not extend itself to include complete, unrestricted access to the
state's possessions."
<1992Jan25.193640.25341@anomaly.sbs.com>
9. Iowa State is not required to provide netnews. They may limit
which groups they carry. However, they have a moral responsibility
not to censor articles in a newsgroup.
<1992Jan26.170429.27078@eff.org>
10. "If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of
arbitrary censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of
arbitrary censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an
electronic library of ideas."
<1992Jan26.045844.10853@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Note 11 discusses security and privacy issues raised by a proposed
public directory service.
11. The North American Directory Forum (NADF) introduced a "User Bill
of Rights" to address security and privacy issues regarding entries
and listings in its proposed cooperative X.500 public directory
service. The proposed bill of rights is included.
<9201232252.AA04537@psi.com>
- Paul]
cafv02n03
[Week ending January 19th, 1992
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 concern the UC's court-ordered search of computer files.
1. Dean Pentcheff (dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu): This is a summary of
the events surrounding "UC's court-ordered search of files on two of
its Unix mainframe computers... [This summary is] based on my own
understanding of what's going on. These are not "official" summaries,
either from the University of California, or from the plaintiff in the
case. I am not involved with the case in any capacity except as an
interested observer."
2. There are some grave inconsistencies inherent in defining a user's
files as 'university records'.
<1992Jan14.032659.8519@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 3-5 regard the rights of universities to restrict use of their
facilities.
3. Universities have the authority to limit the uses to which their
facilities are put, provided that those limitations are impartially
applied.
<1992Jan14.161057.27161@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
4. The owner of a computer system does not have the right to freely
inspect private mail held on that system. The owner may make it clear
to users that he or she reserves the right to inspect mail, but
without the tacit or explicit consent of the user such a declaration
is meaningless.
<920115103016.21400522@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
5. The onus is on an institution to make users aware of its policies
and intentions regarding private mail. Without such an explicit
statement the user can assume that a reasonable expectation of privacy
is warranted.
<920115105919.21400522@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Note 6 states students' rights with regard the closure of computer accounts.
6. A university cannot cut off a student's computer access - or deny
him or her the use of any other university facility - without due process.
<1992Jan15.025831.29351@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 7-8 are a response to Brian Peretti's paper "Computer
Publications and the First Amendment".
7. Peretti gives a definition of computer publications, and offers a
rationale for giving such publications the same protection afforded to
the printed press, radio and television.
<920116161057.2140105f@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
8. Peretti's claim that computer 'publication' is most nearly
analogous to the public media has some problems with it. It does not
address the issues of electronic mail, and is based on a prioritising
of the channel of communication over the content.
<920117103003.21401617@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Note 9 describes a trivial reason behind a request for an account closure.
9. CERT requested that a user's account be investigated after a
complaint that the user had made 'offensive' netnews postings. The
offensiveness turned out to consist of the relatively minor flaming of
the complainant during a political discussion.
<406@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Note 10 describes the outcome of the recent Cubby vs. Compuserve case.
10. The effect of the Compuserve decisions has been to show that the
more a computer-mediated forum is monitored, the greater the liability
of the moderators/owners for what is said in that forum. If there is no
censorship then liability rests entirely with the authors of
individual posts.
- Elizabeth]
cafv02n02
[Week ending 12 Jan 1992
[The guest editor this issue is Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu).
- Carl Kadie]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 discusses whether an information provider is responsible
for an information requestor's use of NSFNET.
1. Is it proper for a site to cut off access to my site if I refuse
to remove material they find offensive?
A site may sever contact. "Your freedom to talk doesn't require
them to listen." An information provider is not required to remove
materials, but might find access blocked by other sites. The NSFNET
Project Office may determine whether a use is appropriate or not.
<1992Jan6.070807.109@sdg.dra.com>
Notes 2-4 are about the Cubby, Inc. vs CompuServe libel case.
2. Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org): By granting CompuServe's request
for a summary judgment (finding CompuServe not liable), the court has
strengthened first amendment protection for online services. The
judge's decision holds that CompuServe was a distributor, not a
publisher. Like a bookstore owner, CompuServe is not required to
review everything it carries prior to providing it to its customers.
<1992Jan6.204341.5096@eff.org>
3. (A moderator:) Why hasn't Smith v. California affected record store
owners prosecuted for selling obscene albums? If it is because the
stores were informed that they had obscene albums and declined to
purge them, how will this effect an information provider who is asked
to remove questionable material? Can they be held liable for its
content?
<1992Jan07.061636.26835@clarinet.com>
4. Although CompuServe received a summary judgement, the case against
the person posting the alleged defamatory material, and the third
party contracted to operate the forum continues. A 'moderator' who
prescreens material may increase their liability, since they are more
like publishers than bookstore owners.
<1992Jan8.183626.24959@eff.org>
Note 5 provides a reference to a discussion of libraries and
minor-access laws.
5. kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie): "American Library Association
policy forbids libraries from limiting access because of a patron's
age." However, "Only a few states have legal definitions of a
library." Whether a BBS or Usenet site is considered a library might
depend on how it is run.
<1992Jan8.215233.24855@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 6-9 discuss the recent removal of IRC software from users'
accounts at the University of Wyoming.
6. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon
receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the
users had to remove all IRC software from their accounts and agree not
to use IRC on the computer. "After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster)
account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be
searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be
disusered without hope for reinstatement."
<3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200@mrgate.uwyo.edu>
7. Even if the university was within its legal rights, did it have the
moral right to take this action? Specifically, should the
administrator have suspended the accounts before establishing that the
user had done something wrong? And should he have searched user files
without authorization?
<199201101800.AA13167@eff.org>
8. "If the University has contractual or legal requirements for due
process in the revocation of computer accounts, then he and the others
who lost their accounts may very well have a case." A university may
have legal or contractual obligations to the users of its facilities.
<199201101912.AA15236@eff.org>
Note 9 gives an overview of a recent discussion on hackers, computer
privacy, and the government's role in computer security.
9. Guests on KQED's Forum program, including Cliff Stoll, Steve Sawyer
and Jay Ward, discussed computers and security. Topics included the
difference between crackers and hackers, corporate policies on
privacy, and the Buckley Amendment (student access to university
records).
<1992Jan11.083311.25336@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Note 10 discusses a case at UC Berkeley which points to an apparent
conflict between the Buckley Amendment and the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.
10. The family of a student disciplined for allegedly breaking into
university computers is suing the university. They have requested all
records stored on two mainframes concerning the student. The
university has searched all files on these mainframes for the
student's login id. The university will seek to stop execution of the
order on the grounds that examining each file would be an undue burden
(and not on privacy grounds).
Note 11 is a reminder that "ALT" news groups are created and managed
differently.
11. Carl Kadie: You cannot create a news group and expect Usenet sites
to enforce your charter. Matthew Russotto: "Most importantly, don't
create an ALT group and expect ANYTHING to be enforced."
<1992Jan12.025341.4239@eng.umd.edu>
- Paul]
cafv02n01
[Two weeks ending January 5, 1992
[The guest editor this issue is Elizabeth M. Reid
(emr@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU). This is the first issue
of volume 2. The last issues of volume 1 are forthcoming.
- Carl Kadie]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is about Freedom of (impolite) Speech.
1. The ACLU handbook on teachers' legal rights, and Robert J. Wagmam's
_The First Amendment Book_, indicate that "The Freedom of Speech
guaranteed by the Constitution *does not* require that speakers be
polite."
<1992Jan5.025518.11163@eff.org>
Note 2 about is Internet/inter-network censorship.
2. Although the NSF can refuse to connect to other parts of the
Internet, non-NSF bodies are under no obligation to remove material
that contravenes NSF regulations from their sites. Users of NSFNet
may be bound by their regulations, but merely making information
available to NSFNet (or any other net) does not constitute a use of
that network.
<1992Jan5.161331.29246@eff.org>
Notes 3-7 are about privacy in e-mail and U.S. mail.
3. There is a crucial difference between using the U.S. mail system
and using electronic mail "via an employer-owned machine using an
employer-owned account" that means that users of the latter have no
inherent right to privacy in e-mail.
<1991Dec31.144936.19661@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
4. Provided that they are paying for the use of the facilities,
universities have the right to examine material that is intended to be
sent through U.S. mail or through electronic mail.
5. A university would need to provide a disclaimer if it intended to
monitor private e-mail, since the use of the word 'mail' contains an
implication of privacy.
<1992Jan1.134326.28721@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
6. Under federal law, a university may not inspect U.S. mail that they
are paying for. Before the application of postage to an item, the
institution "enjoys no special privilege of having paid for the mail"
and once postage is affixed the item is "unquestionably U.S. mail" and
is protected by postal regulations. Whether this should also apply to
electronic mail is undecided, however the indications are that unless
users of privately owned systems have been told that their e-mail is
not private, then it is assumed to be so.
<1992Jan1.214839.1611@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
7. While reading private e-mail would be an invasion of privacy,
scanning e-mail for key words or viruses might be analogous to
monitoring U.S. mail for explosive or volatile materials, and could
therefore be legitimate.
Note 8 is about censorship of obscenities on IRC and USENET.
8. Censorship on the basis of obscenity or racial harassment is a bad
thing. Since some people will always be offended by some things, this
curtailing freedom of speech could set a precedent for denying freedom
of speech altogether.
<9201050905.AA13749@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
- Elizabeth M. Reid]
cafv01n45
[Month of December, 1991
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
(Some of these paraphrases are based earlier paraphrases and
summaries written by Bob Solon and me.)
Note 1 is a summary of many 1991 cases.
1. Enclosed is an end-of-year update of the Banned Computer Material
list. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U., the U. of
Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of Waterloo,
U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U., Pennsylvania State
U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U., U. of Wisconsin,
and others.
<1991Dec18.181508.10501@eff.org>
Notes 2-4 are about Iowa State University's restrictions on who can
see newsgroups such as alt.sex.
2. [Mike Godwin, staff counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation:]
Although the policy's stated purpose is to avoid violations of law, in
fact, all (or almost all) of the material restricted is legal and
Constitutionally protected.
<1991Dec19.175822.21404@eff.org>
3. "The Iowa State University policy should, in my opinion, be changed
to better respect intellectual freedom by more accurately reflecting
library policy (and the law)." It violates the principles of at least
three American Library Association policy statements. (These are
enclosed.)
<1991Dec16.191620.21567@eff.org>
4. The policy was imposed by the Computation Center over the
objections of the Computer Center Newsgroup committee and University
Computation Center Advisory Sub-Committee.
<1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu>
Note 5 is about a pornography-on-usenet article that appeared in the
German feminist publication EMMA.
5. Contrary to what the EMMA article says, Usenet is not used mainly
for transmission of pornographic material. Less that 7% of Usenet
traffic is even related to sex.
Notes 6-7 try to answer frequently asked questions.
6. Enclosed are answers (with references) to the questions "Should my
university remove Netnews newsgroups because some people find them
offensive?" (No.) and "If it doesn't have the resources to carry all
newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?" (Like it selects books
and magazines.)
<1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org>
7. "q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the
University may *increase* its liability."
<1991Dec20.045445.4243@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about punishment of inflammatory speech
at a private religious university and prohibition of
rude speech at a public state university.
8. Enclosed is a note in which the sys admin of Marquette University
reports that a student has been expelled from the computing facilities
as a result of posting an inflammatory message. I think that
inflammatory speech "should be out competed, not outlawed." Also,
students should not be punished without due process.
<1991Dec18.215846.17384@eff.org>
9. An Iowa State University policy says "[s]ending rude ... material
via any electronic mail or bulletin board facility is strictly
forbidden." The courts have said that "[i]t is not the job of the
government to enforce concepts of courtesy, cooperation, and common
sense with respect to expression."
<1991Dec3.045840.18238@eff.org>
Articles 10-11 discuss issues of user privacy vis-a-vis computers.
10. [A sysadmin] The Unix "ps" command has many positive uses. Also, "... if you don't have anything to hide, you have
no reason for privacy" in the context of computer systems. I
advocate educational "cross-pollination" and productivity from
relatively open systems, especially in an educational environment.
<1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu>
11. "[T]he contents of an academic computer, other than
directory information and any publicly posted material, are private
unless their owners or creators choose to make them public."
Such a policy should also pertain to students and staff,
as well as faculty.
<199112050610.AA19751@eff.org>
Note 12 is about the resource use of the MUDs, a type of recreational
programs.
12. I've measured network traffic at my site. During hours when MUDs
are prohibited, they are 6% of network traffic. During hours when they
are allowed they are 30% of traffic. "[W]hile MUD playing here isn't a
problem for our T1 connection, it could be troublesome to a site with
a 56KB connection."
- Carl]
cafv01n44
[Week ending December 22, 1991
Sorry, this issue is late. The backlog is almost clear. If you might
be interested in helping by guest editing an issue of CAF News, please
send me email at kadie@eff.org.
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Note 1 is a summary of many 1991 cases.
1. Enclosed is an end-of-year update of the Banned Computer Material
list. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U., the U. of
Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of Waterloo,
U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U., Pennsylvania State
U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U., U. of Wisconsin,
and others.
<1991Dec18.181508.10501@eff.org>
Notes 2-5 are about Iowa State University's Netnews policy.
2. [ISU's 'Usenet News Policy':] "While most of these news lists
provide a wealth of technical, research-based, and collateral
material, a few lists may contain material which may be illegal or
viewed by some as socially or morally objectionable."
<1991Dec16.192659.21805@eff.org>
3. [ISU's 'Standard List':] "The 'Standard News List' is the full
Usenet newsgroup list MINUS certain groups excluded because their name
and accompanying description appear to offer potential conflicts with
law, (particularly with child protection and pornography law) or with
policies such as the sexual harassment policy."
<1991Dec16.200545.23159@eff.org>
4. "The Iowa State University policy should, in my opinion, be changed
to better respect intellectual freedom by more accurately reflecting
library policy (and the law)." It violates the principles of at least
three American Library Association policy statements. (These are
enclosed.)
<1991Dec16.191620.21567@eff.org>
5. [Mike Godwin, staff counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation:]
Although the policy's stated purpose is to avoid violations of law, in
fact, all (or almost all) of the material restricted is legal and
Constitutionally protected.
<1991Dec19.175822.21404@eff.org>
Note 6-7 are about an incident at Marquette University, a Catholic
school.
6. Enclosed is a note in which the sys admin of Marquette University
reports that a student has been expelled from the computing facilities
as a result of posting an inflammatory message. I think that
inflammatory speech "should be out competed, not outlawed." Also,
students should not be punished without due process.
<1991Dec18.215846.17384@eff.org>
7. "[O]nce student forums are created they should not be censored."
<1991Dec20.184053.24331@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 try to answer frequently asked questions.
8. Enclosed are answers (with references) to the questions "Should my
university remove Netnews newsgroups because some people find them
offensive?" and "If it doesn't have the resources to carry all
newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?"
<1991Dec16.154149.15030@eff.org>
9. "q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?
a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the
University may *increase* its liability."
<1991Dec20.045445.4243@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Note 10 is a report if an incident at the University of Illinois at UC.
10. My account was suspended, apparently for posting a parody to
rec.arts.startrek that some people found offensive.
<9112191932.AA13509@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n43
[Week ending Dec 15, 1991
Sorry, this is so late. Editing help on future issues of CAF-News (as
a guest or associate editor) would be greatly appreciated. For more
info, send me email (kadie@eff.org).
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-5 are about Iowa State University's restrictions on who can
see newsgroups such as alt.sex.
1. [Student at Iowa State U.:] "[T]he university just recently
unveiled a policy designed to censor the following groups from
virtually every student and most faculty."
<1991Dec15.164750@IASTATE.EDU>
2. [Student at Iowa State U.:] The Computation Center justifies its
ban of certain topics by saying that it is protecting itself legally.
Yet the University Library has books (apparently legally) on exactly
the same topics. Enclosed is a list of such books including _The sex
atlas : a new illustrated guide_.
<1991Dec14.060314.21529@news.iastate.edu>
3. [Iowa State U. student] The policy is bad because it assumes that
readers are irresponsible, it effects students more than faculty, and
it invades the privacy of readers by requiring them to go on record as
wanting to read 'dirty' newsgroups.
<1991Dec14.230519@IASTATE.EDU>
4. [Member of the ISU Computation Advisory Committee] The Director of
the Computation Center told me that the purpose of the policy is to
transfer all responsibility to the reader. With some extra effort
(getting an account on Wylbur and signing the release form), students
can still access all the newsgroups.
5. The policy was imposed by the Computation Center over the
objections of the Computer Center Newsgroup committee and University
Computation Center Advisory Sub-Committee.
<1991Dec15.163311.4917@news.iastate.edu>
Notes 6-7 are a pornography-on-usenet article that appeared in the
German publication EMMA.
6. Contrary to what the EMMA article says, Usenet is not used mainly
for transmission of pornographic material. Less that 7% of Usenet
traffic is even related to sex.
7. In the aftermath of the EMMA article the University of Stuttgart
has banned newsgroups alt.sex and sci.military on the grounds that
they are offensive.
<1991Dec11.011316.7019@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>
Articles 8-10 are about managing the resource use of recreational
programs like IRC and MUDs.
8. Recreational computer use can be managed if there is mutual respect
between user and sys admin and reasonable priorities are set.
<1991Dec8.155639.5510@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
9. I've measured network traffic at my site. During hours when MUDs
are prohibited, they are 6% of network traffic. During hours when they
are allowed they are 30% of traffic. "[W]hile MUD playing here isn't a
problem for our T1 connection, it could be troublesome to a site with
a 56KB connection."
10. If university computers charged uses at cost, priority system and
restrictions on game-playing would be unnecessary.
<1991Dec10.144304.2037@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Note 11 is about directory information.
11. Different people consider different information private.
Information should only be released with the consent of the person it
is about.
<1991Dec10.125232.28052@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n42
[Month of November, 1991
[The guest editor this week is Lorrie Ackerman. I really need
more guest editors for the New Year (I'll be away till Jan 6th).
If you are interested, please send me email (kadie@eff.org).
For information on being a guest editor, send email to
archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line: send acad-freedom call-for-guest-editors
- Carl Kadie]
[These paraphrases are excerpted from weekly editions of CAF-news edited
by Carl M. Kadie and Benjamin Gross.]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 are critiques of university computer policies.
1. The policy of Ohio State University's Academic Computer Services is
too vague. "It seems to claim that the ACS staff does not need to
follow due process procedures to expel a user from the ACS computers."
<1991Nov9.152336.10203@eff.org>
2. The policy of the University of Texas Computer Science department
is too broad. It does not detail the process leading to a computer
expulsion. It offers little privacy protection. It prohibits some
constitutionally-protected speech.
<1991Nov5.023409.6759@eff.org>
Notes 3-4 are about system administration.
3. (A user:) "If the users software interferes with the running of
the lab, he/she is warned about it, & continues to do it, then your
solution [ordering the user to stop and temporarily turning off the
user's account] seems the only one available."
<9111152223.AA19536@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
4. Instead of a list of Acceptable Uses, we should have a list of
Unacceptable uses. I am appalled by the idea that I must beg permission
for anything not on the list of Acceptable Uses.
<9111162029.AA27328@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 5-6 are about Steven Brack and Ohio State University.
5. A student should be given the findings of fact upon which the
formal hearing board bases its decision. In the Brack case, no
findings of fact were given. This is unfair and likely illegal.
(Legal references are enclosed.)
<1991Nov19.192831.1996@eff.org>
6. (Steven Brack:) "The only action I ever performed that had any
impact on the system was the fixman command." I ran it because its
manual page led me to think that it would improve the display time of
my manual pages. My action was noticed because fixman acts globally,
not locally, and because it kept running (for hours) after I thought
that I had killed it.
<9111190335.AA14297@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
Note 7 is about an access suspension incident.
7. (A student:) Mohawk Valley Community College suspended my computer
access (without any hearing) for 1) setting the (correct) time on the
PCs in the lab where I worked and 2) sharing simple utility programs
with other users. Administrative appeals were futile. I failed my
English class when the sys admin refused to give me copies of my
files. I eventually transferred to another school.
<1991Nov15.152856.25079@pool.info.sunyit.edu>
Note 8 is about system administration goals.
8. (A sys admin:) The goal of limiting the user-admin ratio is
worthy, but difficult. The goal of communicating with and educating
users is practical and productive.
<1991Nov18.150215.11121@ms.uky.edu>
Note 9 is about the Alt.sex flap at U of Iowa.
9. "Today's Daily Iowan, Monday Nov. 25, 1991, has joined the fray. On
the top of page 3A, on the left, is the headline 'UI Computer Files Contain
Pornography', followed by the same kind of incisive reporting of the alt.sex
newsgroups that we have been used to from the print media. The article does
mention that the "pornography" is carried by USENET, but no mention is made
of other material on USENET. The article indicates that the U of I computers
contain "over 70,000 pages" of pornography, which is nonsense -- this
is roughly the total number of postings that have been delivered to Iowa's
machines over USENET, but nobody at the DI seems to have noticed that things
get deleted on a regular basis."
<9300@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Note 10 is about the different kinds of recreational computer uses.
10. (A student:) There should be a distinction made between the different
kinds of recreational computer uses, "those that have an arguable nexus
to the communication of ideas and those that do not (by which I refer
principally to computer games)." This especially applies to general
use computers and sites.
<199111252159.AA14818@eff.org>
Note 11 is about rules that may effectively outlaw library catalog searches.
11. Rules that outlaw offensive computer expression also effectively outlaw
on-line searches of library catalogs because many catalogs contain
offensive titles.
<1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
Notes 12 and 13 are about ps and other system accounting measures.
12. (Carl M. Kadie, in response to Steven Brack who says it is not
one user's place to decide what process other users can execute:)
Users should have access to ps because "if I see that you have what
looks like a run away process, I can send you and/or the sys admin
email. Why should I be the one doing this? Because, I'm the one who
wants the cycles. The sys admin isn't logged into the computer, or
isn't paying close attention. You may have logged off or started work
on another task, not realizing that your job is still running."
<1991Nov25.213447.14114@eff.org>
13. (Wes Morgan:) ps and other accounting measures are not an invasion
of privacy because the computer is a publicly available resource. Since the
computer account is provided by the university and "your use of a given
computer system affects all other users of that system....then the need
for this information becomes apparent." The users' real information, at
minimum the users' real names, must be available so they can be contacted,
otherwise the users loose the benefits of effective electronic communication.
<1991Nov26.232012.2924@ms.uky.edu>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=GUEST EDITOR-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Lorrie Ackerman -- Washington U. engineering and policy grad student
6639 University Dr. Apt 1-W, St. Louis, MO 63130 (314)727-4910
(Student Life newspaper office #: 935-5441--call me there any time)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- lfa1@cec1.wustl.edu -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
]
cafv01n41
[Week ending December 8, 1991
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a summary of the article and not
necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Articles 1-4 concern computer policies at various universities.
1. A staff librarian at the U. of Newcastle Libraries reports and
comments on policy currently under discussion regarding acceptable-use
and access policies for their computers. In particular, the policy
"You may not use the University's computing facilities to send
obscene, offensive, bogus, harassing, or illegal messages" generated
much concern, as did the proposal to limit student access to AARNet
([An] Australian [part of the Internet -cmk]) only to research or
study purposes. There was little concensus about the validity of the
new policies in the Newcastle user community.
<43858C4B08C002AE@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
2. Carl Kadie defends his (from an earlier article) criticisms of
aspects of the [Iowa State University -cmk] policies, specifically:
"Sending rude, obscene, or harassing material via any electronic mail
or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden." Several court cases
are cited in support of the position that "It is not the job of the
government to enforce concepts of courtesy, cooperation, and common
sense with respect to expression."
<1991Dec3.045840.18238@eff.org>
3. According to a Duke University [staff -cmk] member, who received his
information from a College Press Service paraphrase, the University
of Washington stopped carrying "...a computer channel containing
pornograhic materials...." presumably alt.sex.pictures. Apparently
the University stopped this group in response to a negative article
about to be printed in the Seattle _Post-Intelligencer_.
<393@news.duke.edu>
4. A member of the Oxford University (UK) astrophysics department
reports on [-cmk] the unavailability of the alt.sex.* hierarchy and some
other parts of the alt.* hierarchy at his university. He also believes
that the situation at Oxford is similar throughout the UK.
<1991Nov27.110018.3066@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
Articles 5-8 discuss issues of user privacy vis-a-vis computers.
5. A sysadmin explains some positive uses for the ps command, and defends
generally the idea that "...if you don't have anything to hide, you have
no reason for privacy" in the context of computer systems. He also
advocates educational "cross-pollination" and productivity from
relatively open systems, especially in an educational environment.
<1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu>
6. A sysadmin summarizes a previous post about privacy on computer
systems that says that the free flow of ideas is not the same as the free
flow of "more mundane personal data." He then contrasts this position
with his own, i.e., the difference between protected information as that
"for which a legitimate use has not been found" and protected information
as "all information which is not inherently sensitive" but excluding
email, which has an "expectation of privacy."
<1991Dec3.004350.10326@usl.edu>
7. A user continues the privacy discussion by critiquing the idea tha
t says that just because something is not technically unconstitutional,
that it is acceptable. He posits that free speech and privacy are not
necessarily incompatible, indicts the "if you have nothing to hide, you
have no reason for privacy" idea as a slippery-slope to erosion of
individual rights in general, and argues that "there will always be
tension between privacy and he free flow when it comes to certain kinds
of information. "
<199112042116.AA08975@eff.org>
8. Another user indicates his own views on privacy in computer systems.
He believes that "...the contents of an academic computer, other than
directory information and any publicly posted material, are private
unless their owners or creators choose to make them public." He also
suggests that such a policy should also pertain to students and staff,
as well as faculty.
<199112050610.AA19751@eff.org>
Articles 9-12 contain list various resources useful in discussions
of computers and academic freedom.
9. Listed is a bibliography on e-mail privacy, reposted with
permission from the researcher.
<1991Dec2.161917.2116@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
10. The various files that are available from the CAF archive are
listed, along with instructions on how to retrieve them and short
summaries of each subject heading.
<1991Dec2.213719.6458@eff.org>
11. A list of free speech resources that are available from the
CAF law archive are summarized and explained.
<1991Dec2.025652.9833@eff.org>
12. A student lists legal resources available online from the
Sydney University Law School archives.
<1991Dec1.121032.2094@darwin.ntu.edu.au>
Bob Solon, bsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Guest Editor
]
cafv01n40
[Week ending Dec 1, 1991
========================== KEY ==================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE/SUMMARY of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
=================================================================
Note 1 Discusses system administratiors that ban or restrict IRC.
1. (a sysadmin) "Certainly, denying IRC access unilaterally hurts the
concientious, fair minded IRC users who don't unfairly monopolise these
resources, but how on earth do you cheaply implement a fairer policy?
(Suggestions greatfully appreciated!)' and "IRC has a >0 cost and a >0 benefit,
and presently the benefits outweigh the cost so I provide IRC services. If the
balance changes adversely, I'll limit the service or remove it completely."
Notes 2-5 are discussing the benefits and problems of system accounting.
2. (Carl M. Kadie) "Use of 'ps -aux' should not be severely restricted because
it allows users and sys admin to see the amount of computer resources being
used as they are being used. This allows high-CPU runaway jobs to be identified
and stopped before they waste more resources (e.g. fixman). This allows users
to make intelligent decisions about when and where to run new jobs. This allows
peer pressure to be applied to users who use an unfair amount of resources for
the given situation."
<1991Nov25.162134.6865@eff.org>
3. (Carl M. Kadie) Defends his position that users should have access to ps
against (Steven Brack) who says it is not one users place to decide what
process other users can execute. Carl says "if I see that you have what looks
like a run away process, I can send you and/or the sys admin email. Why should
I be the one doing this? Because, I'm the one who wants the cycles. The sys
admin isn't logged into the computer, or isn't paying close attention. You may
have logged off or started work on another task, not realizing that your job is
still running."
<1991Nov25.213447.14114@eff.org>
4. (Wes Morgan) States that he does not believe ps and other accounting
measures are an invasion of privacy, because the computer is a publicly
avaliable resource. Since the computer account is provided by the university
and "your use of a given computer system affects all other users of that
system," "then the need for this information becomes apparent." He states that
the users real information, at least a minimun of the real name, must be
avaliable so that they can be contacted, otherwise the user loses the benefits
of effective electronic communication."
<1991Nov26.232012.2924@ms.uky.edu>
5. (Jim Thompson) "I rejected, and continued to reject, the notion that ps is
"privacy-invasive"; if anything, I tried to put the burden where it belongs: on
those who wish to protect every bit and byte of information regarding
themselves." Although, "users have a right to know, up front, what information
about them might be disclosed, and how -- even if they have no choice about
some of it, for example their real name being associated with their uid via
finger."
<9111271314.AA02555@se33.wg2.waii.com>
Note 6 is a staff member from ACS at OSU.
6. (ACS employee) States that he will not condone or condem the ACS policy,
but, "that Ugly rumours about censorship at ACS are ridiculous." "Opinion -
can't prove it - but my experience is ACS is filled with people who strongly
believe in electronic freedom, open computing, call it what you will." and "We
brought usenet & e-mail to the masses here. We fought for it, we are fighting
for it." Also, "some people regarded as villains here are trying hard to make
computing more open and useful on campus. The major limitation is money - or
put another way people at the very top of osu & state gov't have to see
computing as basic part of education. We do."
<1991Nov25.165500.11219@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Note 7 is on the Alt.sex flap at U of Iowa.
7. (Doug Jones) reports "Today's Daily Iowan, Monday Nov. 25, 1991,
has joined the fray. On the top of page 3A, on the left, is the headline 'UI
Computer Files Contain Pornography', followed by the same kind of incisive
reporting of the alt.sex newsgroups that we have become used to from the print
media. The article does mention that the "pornography" is carried by USENET,
but no mention is made of other material on USENET. The article indicates that
the U of I computers contain "over 70,000 pages" of pornography, which is
nonsense -- this is roughly the total number of postings that have been
delivered to Iowa's machines over USENET, but nobody at the DI seems to have
noticed that things get deleted on a regular basis."
<9300@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about restricting personal use of the universities computers.
8. (A student) Says that he believe that there should be a distinction
of the diffrent kinds of recreational computer use, "those that have have an
arguable nexus to the communication of ideas and those that do not (by which I
refer principally to computer games)." This especialy applies to general use
computers and sites.
<199111252159.AA14818@eff.org>
9. (Carl M. Kadie) says "The policy could be improved by applying the "game
policy" to all noncommercial personal use." "In other words, instead of banning
nongame, noncommercial personal use, SEASnet should at least allow nongame,
noncommercial personal use on the same basis that it allows game playing." and
"I was not suggesting *adding* a restriction; I was suggesting *removing* a
restriction."
<1991Nov25.223548.15641@eff.org>
Note 10 is a site manager has problems with gamers and would like suggestions.
10.(Site manager) "I manage 8 student computing sites with about 500 machines
(PC, MAC, NeXT) and I'm having more and more trouble with gamers, especially
IRCers and MUDers." and "Our policy states that the sites are primarily for
academic work. If all the machines are full when a person comes in to do a
paper, all the gamers are booted for a period of time. This is getting to be a
major headache for my staff. How do you all handle it?"
<1991Nov27.215410.18938@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
11. (Carl M. Kadie) Enclosed is a first draft of a bibilography on Computers
and Academic Freedom.
!---------------------> Guest editor: Benjamin Gross <------------------------!
! Mail to: b-gross@uiuc.edu /!\ NeXT mail: bgross@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu !
! No matter where you go, there you are. --Buckaroo Bonzai-- !
!-------------> Reality is only for those who lack imagination. <-------------!
!--> Disclaimer: I speak only on my own behalf, all opinions are my own. <--!
]
cafv01n39
[Week ending November 24, 1991
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 are about academic freedom incidents.
1. (A student:) Mohawk Valley Community College suspended my computer
access (without any hearing) for 1) setting the (correct) time on the
PCs in the lab where I worked and 2) sharing simple utility programs
with other users. Administrative appeals were futile. I failed my
English class when the sys admin refused to give me copies of my
files. I eventually transferred to another school.
<1991Nov15.152856.25079@pool.info.sunyit.edu>
2. According to the LA times, 'A reproduction of a famous Goyav
painting of a nude woman has been taken down from a classroom wall at
Penn State following a complaint from a woman professor that it was a
form of sexual harassment.' The painting was moved to the student
center. When we can't leave, "[w]e should "be free *not* to be
subjected to things we find offensive ...".
<91319.162616JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Notes 3-7 are about Steven Brack and Ohio State University.
3. (Steven Brack:) "The only action I ever performed that had any
impact on the system was the fixman command". I ran it the because its
manual page led me to think that it would improve the display time of
my manual pages. My action was noticed because fixman acts globally,
not locally, and because it kept running (for hours) after I thought
that I had killed it.
<9111190335.AA14297@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
4. "This brings up an interesting point. Should administrators
remove/disable the man pages for administrative commands? "Perhaps a
blanket note in the admin man pages is appropriate; something like
'This is an administrative commands; general users should not execute
it. This man page is provided for information ONLY!' might do the
job."
<1991Nov19.215003.27317@ms.uky.edu>
5. (Steven Brack:) "I did everything I could to get the charges &
specifications, but OSU wouldn't give them to me." Also, "[a]lthough I
disagree that my actions needed defending, I did defend them [at the
formal hearing]. I explained each action in terms of why I did it &
what its effect was. I also explained how little guidance I had from
ACS as to what was permissible & what wasn't."
<9111190356.AA14385@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
6. (Steven Brack:) "I am retaining counsel, and will fight OSU from a
legal standpoint, rather than being trapped playing their game, by
their rules, on their field."
<9111190340.AA14311@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
7. A student should be given the findings of fact upon which the
formal hearing board bases its decision. In the Brack case, no
findings of fact were given. This is unfair and likely illegal. (Legal
references are enclosed.)
<1991Nov19.192831.1996@eff.org>
Notes 8-9 are about universities and the law.
8. According to a monograph (with legal references) by the General
Counsel of Southern Illinois University: State universities are
constrained by the 14th amendment. The _Goss v. Lopez_ due process
decision applies to public universities as well as to secondary
schools. Students subject to expulsion or long-term suspension must be
given adequate notice (i.e. written, explicit, specific) of charges.
<1991Nov23.190239.14673@eff.org>
9. According to a law book: "'In _Papish v. Board of Curators of
University of Missouri ... the high Court ruled that the use of
["motherfucker"] in a paper distributed on a college campus was not
disruptive of the school environment."' Student control of media
decreases the chance university liability. "[T]he _Hazelwood_ decision
that allows censorship of sponsored high school newspapers does not,
according to a footnote in the decision, apply to universities."
<1991Nov19.202845.3261@eff.org>
Notes 10-12 are on miscellaneous topics.
10. (A sys admin:) The goal of limiting the user-admin ratio is
worthy, but difficult. The goal of communicating and educating users
is practical and productive.
<1991Nov18.150215.11121@ms.uky.edu>
11. Enclosed is the privacy policy for the University of Pennsylvania
Campus Wide Information System (CWIS). It ways that
personally-identifiable use records will not be kept.
<199111221525.AA11205@eff.org>
12. Rules that outlaw offensive computer expression also outlaw
on-line searches of library catalogs because many catalogs contain
offensive titles.
<1991Nov21.182340.11577@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n38
[Week ending November 17, 1991]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
Notes 1-2 are about an article in the University of Illinois at C-U's
student newspaper. The article quoted a Computing Service Organization
sys admin as saying "if someone is caught using language that would be
vulgar or rude to a 'reasonable person,' the University steps in.".
1. (A student at U. of Illinois (me, in fact):) "I was very surprised
to read this. I was under the impression the the University of
Illinois was free of speech restrictions (except for restrictions on
harassment)." Enclosed are excerpts from University code.
2. The University sys admin says he was misquoted by the newspaper.
<1991Nov14.054421.24194@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Notes 3-4 are about speech restrictions at Iowa State University.
3. A sys admin at Iowa State says that they reprimanded a user for
saying, in effect, that someone should be dead. The user should not
have been punished. Rudeness is not a crime. Rude speech is generally
protected.
4. Iowa State University policy prohibits the sending of "rude"
material. This policy is very likely infringes on
Constitutionally-protected rights. References are enclosed.
<1991Nov14.203127.16256@eff.org>
Notes 5-6 are about Steven Brack and Ohio State University.
5. The Joint Statement says that the procedure for student appeals
'should be clearly formulated and communicated in advance.' Academic
Computing Services not only doesn't seem to notify users of their
right to appeal; it doesn't seem to recognize their right to appeal.
<1991Nov13.142722.13085@eff.org>
6. (Steven Brack:) "As far as I know, you can't be dismissed for being
a pain in the ass. What OSU did was to overreact to three or four
minor incidents." Enclosed is more information about what I did.
<1991Nov13.214531.2899@eff.org>
Note 7 is about Rice University's requirement that users obtain
permission before sending email or posting notes off-campus.
7. (University admin:) "The University wants some reasonable
acknowledgment that a user ... understands the responsibilities they
have as a user of the networks." The policy was created after a
student threatened to sue Rice for revoking his access. (Access was
revoked after someone threatened to sue Rice and the student over
email that the student sent.)
<9111122320.AA07027@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about the law.
8. According to a wire service report, a commercial BBS has dropped
all screening/censoring (including screening of off-topic notes)
because it feels that this will reduce its liability.
<1991Nov13.144642.13768@eff.org>
9. According to a newspaper story, a U.S. District Judge has told
Alabama A&M that it's students (allegedly involved in a fight) 'must
be informed of specific charges against them and given the names of
those who are to testify against them.'
<1991Nov15.212358.28314@eff.org>
Notes 10-11 are about system administration.
10. (A user:) "If the users software interferes with the running of
the lab, he/she is warned about it, & continues to do it, then your
solution [ordering the user to stop] seems the only one available."
<9111152223.AA19536@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
11. (A sys admin:) Enclosed are three steps that would improved
user/sys admin communications. One of the steps is to reduce
the user-admin ratio at large sites.
<9A03910890421012@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Notes 12-13 are about policy making.
12. Instead of a list of Acceptable Use polices, we should have a list
of Unacceptable uses. I am appalled by the idea that I must beg
permission for anything not on the list of Acceptable Uses.
<9111162029.AA27328@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
13. (The creator of first "finger" service:) "A missing feature in
finger is anonymity for those who wish it." I didn't think to add it.
<1991Nov15.221601.2527@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
- Carl]
cafv01n37
[Week ending November 10, 1991]
================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
=======================================================
Notes 1-2 are critiques of university computer policies.
1. The policy of Ohio State University's Academic Computer Services is
too vague. "It seems to claim that the ACS staff does not need to
follow due process procedures to expel a user from the ACS computers."
<1991Nov9.152336.10203@eff.org>
2. The policy of the University of Texas Computer Science department
is too broad. It does not detail the process leading to a computer
expulsion. It offers little privacy protection. It prohibits some
Constitutionally-protected speech.
<1991Nov5.023409.6759@eff.org>
Notes 3-6 are about the computer policies at Rice University.
3. The policy of Rice University is vague and offers little privacy
protection.
4. Rice has a detailed due-process procedure for computer infractions.
A description of the procedure is enclosed.
<9111091713.AA18825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
5. (A student at Rice:) Rice's requirement that students get
permission before using computer media to communicate off-campus is
unnecessary and overly restrictive. It also creates the possibility of
selective enforcement.
<9111091728.AA18902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
6. (The same Rice student:) Rice's policy allows users to be punished
for infractions before it has been determined that an infraction has
actually occurred. This has happened to me.
<1991Nov9.034938.7383@rice.edu>
Note 7 is about the offensive-to-many "yehweh" posting.
7. "Those women who received the post via email do have a case for
sexual harassment. They should push those cases not [cases based on]
the general post [to soc.women]." The general post is like a library
book except that with a kill file you can 'rip up offensive material'
without effecting the ability of others to access the material.
<9111071452.AA06180@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-9 are about interlibrary loan policy. Such policy might guide
computer network policy.
8. Of the two main interlibrary loan policies, one says that
interlibrary loans should only be used to obtain material for research
and serious study. The other says that interlibrary loans can be used
to request any material.
<1991Nov8.210320.15630@eff.org>
9. "For [the National Science Foundation Net] to say 'you can not
offer this nonacademic, nonresearch material via FTP' is like the
National Interlibrary System telling a library that they can not offer
nonserious, nonresearch material via [some other] interlibrary loan
system." Such a requirement would violate both interlibrary loan
policies.
<1991Nov8.221534.17684@eff.org>
Notes 10-13 are about Steven Brack's dismissal from Ohio State
University and OSU policy,
10. (Steven Brack, a [former] student at Ohio State University:)
Enclosed is the letter of dismissal I received from OSU.
<9111060339.AA24819@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
11. "How would you feel if you were expelled from school without even
knowing what you were being punished for?" Steven Brack's hearing was
unfair because "he was not given was the correspondence between his
alleged actions and the rules that the actions, if true, would
violate." This is "a violation of the procedural due process as
guaranteed by the Constitution."
<1991Nov6.195106.1643@eff.org>
12. According to the ACLU handbook: _The Rights of Students_, before
you can be severely punished, you have a due process right to know the
specific acts you are charged with committing and the specific rules
that those acts violate.
<1991Nov6.220216.4349@eff.org>
13. (A former OSU student:) "OSU defines, quite rigidly, whaich
entities at the University may impose sanctions, & what sanctions each
may impose. [Academic Computing Services] is not listed anywhere in
that section of the handbook." It apparently uses this lack of
authority as an excuse for ignoring due process.
<9111090242.AA25801@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu>
================== Remember ================================
The words after the numbers were a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
=======================================================
- Carl]
cafv01n36
[Special issue: Best of October
The words after the numbers are a short paraphrase of the article, not
necessarily my opinion.
Note 1 is a CAF Statement.
1. Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom -- This is an
attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to academic
computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion about
computers and academic freedom.
<1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org>
Notes 2-6 are about incidents and policy at specific universities.
2. The University of Waterloo has lifted its ban on newsgroups "from
alt.sex.bondage to rec.humor.funny". Enclosed is the story of the ban.
<1991Oct03.060346.5082@looking.on.ca>
3. (Student at WWU:) Alt.sex was removed on the order of one person,
the Vice Provost for "information and communication".
<1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
4. Many of Ohio State's so-called charges against Steven Brack are
trivial (for example, using two Macs at once). Mr. Brack is also
charged with a Constitutionally-protected activity (posting a
vulgarity). The vagueness of the so-called charges (alleged activities
are never matched to the University rules they violate) makes it
impossible for Mr. Brack to defend himself.
<1991Oct13.150613.14818@eff.org>
5. UCLA's Computer Use Policy could be improved with better privacy
protection and the elimination of procedures that allow users to be
punished for rule infractions before it is determined that infractions
have actually occurred.
<199110261528.AA24204@eff.org>
6. (Addressed to the U. of Illinois at Chicago sys admin:) "[Y]ou
overstepped the bounds of your authority when you punished the student
for his expression." The speech in the note, although offensive, was
Constitutionally protected. "Statements in a free-speech forum such as
soc.women [cannot] constitute sexual harassment." Moreover, you are
not authorized by your university to decide sexual harassment cases.
<1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org>
Notes 7-9 are about newsgroup policy.
7. "I think that unmoderated Netnews newsgroups facilities offered by
most universities are free-speech forums. ... I offer three
justifications for this opinion."
8. University sys admins should enforce newsgroup charters even
charters that discriminate based on sex or viewpoint.
<1991Oct29.150556.5266@eff.org>
9. Postings to the net, like other expressive actions, should only be
punished if they cause substantial interference with the rights of
others. A few off-topic posts do not constitute substantial
interference. Enclosed are the general rules my school has against
disruptive and coercive action.
<1991Oct24.014633.28623@eff.org>
Notes 10-12 are about the application of library policy to newsgroups.
10. (Computer administrator at Iowa State:) Having a selection policy
based on Library policy is the proverbial ounce of prevention.
<1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu>
11. The National Science Foundation's network rules are unclear. The
rules should recognize that the NSF has created an on-line electronic
library system. Enclosed is a copy of the American Library
Association's Diversity Statement (a statement that discusses both
sexual and sexist material).
<1991Oct2.225512.3857@eff.org>
12. A judge as ruled that CompuServe (a commercial on-line information
provider) isn't liable for some of the contents of its network. The
judge compared CompuServe to a public library or a bookstore that
can't feasibly examine every publication it carries.
<1991Nov1.195246.13037@eff.org>
Note 13 is about K-12 net access.
13. Net access and use by grade and high schoolers should be
supervised by an instructor.
- Carl]
cafv01n35
[Week ending November 3, 1991
The words after a number are a short paraphrase of the article, not
necessarily my opinion.
Notes 1-3 are news of the week.
1. (Steven Brack, student at Ohio State University:) After a 4 hour
hearing, "I have been dismissed from the university, with no
possibility of reentry until 1/93!"
<1991Oct28.135044.18831@eff.org>
2. "This past summer, the University [of Pennsylvania]'s Data
Communications Dept. began electronic monitoring and logging of users'
annex terminal sessions." "This action was approved by the management
of the Data Communications Dept., who did not consult with any larger
University body."
<54609@netnews.upenn.edu>
3. A judge as ruled that CompuServe (a commercial on-line information
provider) isn't liable for some of the contents of its network. The
judge compared CompuServe to a public library or a bookstore that
can't feasible examine every publication it carries.
<1991Nov1.195246.13037@eff.org>
Notes 4-6 are about the unofficial, draft Statement on Computers and
Academic Freedom. To get a copy of the statement and other comments,
send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send acad-freedom caf-statement
4. The Draft does not deal with confidentiality well. Computer
systems, especially Unix, necessarily allow users to monitor the
status of other users.
<1991Oct29.163743.15765@ms.uky.edu>
5. The Statement should be developed and refined by the participants
of the CAF discussions, but no statement should claim to speak for all
participants.
<1991Oct30.153518.19993@eff.org>
6. The Draft is useful as is. "I have already forwarded a copy of the
[draft] CAF Statement to the Director of Academic Computer Services at
the University of Iowa, with my personal recommendation that we adopt
something like it as policy."
<8856@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Notes 7-8 are about the law.
7. "Enclosed is the full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This
recent district court ruling goes into detail about the difference
between protected offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even
mentions email." (The judge overturned the U. of Wisconsin's speech
restrictions.)
<1991Oct29.041514.16218@eff.org>
8. README file for the CAF law archive -- This is an on-line
collection of law related to computers and academic freedom. It
includes both case law and legislation. To get the newest version of
the README file, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send caf-law README
<1991Oct29.210145.18387@eff.org>
Notes 9-11 are about newsgroup policy.
9. "I think that unmoderated Netnews newsgroups facilities offered by
most universities are free-speech forums. ... I offer three
justifications for this opinion."
10. A previous poster says that a writer's right to post, can be
overridden by readers' right not to be offended. "[T]here is no
right-not-to-be-offended." To suppress offensive speech is to censor.
"The free flow of ideas is the essence of freedom, both academic,
economic, and political."
<9111021803.AA15019@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
11. University sys admins should enforce newsgroup charters including
charters that discriminate based on sex or viewpoint.
<1991Oct29.150556.5266@eff.org>
Notes 12-13 are about Netnews service.
12. Western Washington University continues its ban on roughly 15 news groups.
<1991Oct30.040844.8212@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
13. Netnews is not just important to the mission of a Computer Science
department; it is critical. It teaches students about electronic
communications and it provides essential information.
- Carl]
cafv01n34
[Week ending October 27, 1991
There is a backlog of CAF-news. To catch up, I will be publishing one
issue a day all this week. For information on how to receive only the
CAF-news abstract, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom caf
The words after a number are a short paraphrase of the article, not
necessarily my opinion.
Notes 1-2 are about policy statements.
1. Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom -- This is an
attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to academic
computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion about
computers and academic freedom.
<1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org>
2. README file for the Computer Policy and Critiques Archive -- This
is a collection of the computer policies of many schools. The
collection also includes critiques of some of the policies. To get the
newest version of the README file, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send other-comp-policies README
<1991Oct26.175424.26881@eff.org>
Notes 3-7 are about the "yehweh" posting, a violent and sexually
explicit story that was posted to the soc.women newsgroup apparently by
a student of the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).
3. (UIC sys admin:) Sorry about the posting. I've taken action to
prevent such postings in the future. The note was not protected speech
because "it can be considered as a generalized form of sexual
harassment".
<9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
4. (Addressed to the UIC sys admin:) "[Y]ou overstepped the bounds of
your authority when you punished the student for his expression." The
speech in the note, although offensive, was Constitutionally
protected. "Statements in a free-speech forum such as soc.women [cannot]
constitute sexual harassment." Moreover, you are not authorized by
your university to decide sexual harassment cases.
<1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org>
5. (The student from whom's account the note was posted:) "Maybe it was
a breakin,a forgery,or I left my terminal unattended, but I DIDN'T
POST IT!!!"
<9110252158.AA17812@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
6. (Student at another school:) My legal advisors say that private BBS
owners might be responsible for the notes their users post. By
analogy, University sys admins might be responsible for their user's
postings. I would be willing sue. "It would be lovely if the
democratically determined newsgroup charters ..., finally had some
teeth."
<9110262137.AA21310@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
7. (Addressed to the previous poster:) "There is a vast difference
between a *private* bbs that one may join or refuse to join because of
the rules, and a university that has a written policy of allowing the
free exchange of ideas." "You decided to read it and you should have
stopped when you'd read enuff to know what it is. And then flamed it,
and set your followups to alt.flame or /dev/null." A call for
newsgroup charters with teeth is a call for net.police.
<9110271907.AA24778@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 8-11 are about newsgroup policy.
8. "I see the unmoderated Usenet and Altnet newsgroups as free-speech
forums. Their charters state the intended focus of the forum, not the
legal boundaries. The penalty for moving too far from the focus,
should, in my opinion, be social disapproval, not official
punishment."
<1991Oct23.210725.19475@eff.org>
9. Postings to the net, like other expressive actions, should only be
punished if they cause substantial interference with the rights of
others. A few off-topic posts do not constitute substantial
interference. Enclosed are the general rules my school has against
disruptive and coercive action.
<1991Oct24.014633.28623@eff.org>
10. How about on-line disclaimers that reminds users that they may find
material in Usenet newsgroups that offends them? Also that the user,
not site, is not responsible for what users reads and writes to the
net.
<1991Oct23.210321.283@ms.uky.edu>
11. A judge has said that 'a steady stream of unwelcome messages over
an electronic mail system' can constitute harassment.
<9110231905.AA03782@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Notes 12-13: Miscellaneous
12. The Alt.sex.* hierarchy was killed on PSUVM, Penn State's main
general purpose computer.
<9110231820.AA03361@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
13. UCLA's Computer Use Policy could be improved with better privacy
protection and the elimination of procedures that allow users to
be punished for rule infractions before it is determined that infractions
have actually occurred.
<199110261528.AA24204@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n33
[Week ending October 20, 1991
I'm using a new format this week for the abstract. The format is based
on a design by Tad Guy. THE WORDS AFTER THE NUMBERS are a short
paraphrase of the article, not necessarily my opinion.
Notes 1-10 are related to the brouhaha in the State of Washington.
Notes 1-2 are about what happened.
1. A state auditor's criticism of game playing and pictures of naked
people on computers at Central Washington University (CWU) lead to
a demotion at CWU, newspaper criticism of the University of Washington
(UW), and newsgroup removal at Western Washington University (WWU).
<199110180040.AA04264@eff.org>
2. (Student at WWU:) Alt.sex was removed on the order of one person,
the Vice Provost for "information and communication".
<1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Notes 3-4 express disapproval of the newsgroup censorship.
3. The removal of alt.sex sets a precedent that could lead to the
removal of other controversial newsgroups (e.g. talk.abortion). The
removal is a blow against the freedom of intellectual discourse.
<17OCT199119542932@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>
4. If you accept the principle that computer sites should select
newsgroups the way that (traditional) libraries select magazine
subscriptions, then the removal and the procedure that led to the
removal violate the Library Bill of Rights.
<1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org>
Notes 5-6 are about the legality of newsgroup bans.
5. Public school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student
publication simply because of displeasure with the content.
<1991Oct19.151904.20184@eff.org>
6. Courts are reluctant to endorse prior restraints, but do allow
removal of libelous material.
<1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>
Notes 7-8 Tell how other schools have fought efforts to suppress newsgroups.
7. (Reposted from the CAF Archive:) Stanford overturned a ban on
rec.humor.funny by referring the issue to the Committee on Libraries.
The Committee said that "the criteria for including newsgroups in
computer systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries."
8. (Computer administrator at Iowa State:) Having a selection policy
based on Library policy is the proverbial ounce of prevention.
<1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu>
Notes 9-10: Other notes related to the brouhaha.
9. What good is Usenet? The Net instantiates the ideal of a
marketplace of ideas. Unlike other free forums, it allows users to
express their ideas without drowning each other out. It even helped in
the fight against the Soviet coup.
<8661@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
10. Some say that Usenet should be hidden from the press as long as
possible. This is wrong; it is like hiding the University Library from
reporters for fear that they will discover that it contains explicit
material. Also, to avoid complaints from offended Usenet readers,
computer sites should warn users that they might find some material
offensive and that they read at their own risk.
Note 11 is a continuation of last week's thread about grade and high
schoolers getting sexual material from the net.
11. (Janet Murray, an organizer of the Texas K-12 net): Reporter Joe
Abernathy's report of a "major porno incident" was inaccurate. No
Texas students did see or could have seen the "porno" article.
<199110171337.AA17490@eff.org>
Note 12 is a repost from comp.admin.policy.
12. 260 people replied to a survey about undergrad access to the Net.
Most of the sites reported that undergrads have full net access.
<9110191524.AA07825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n32
[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.).<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]
cafv01n31
[Week of September 30 to October 6, 1991
The first notes this week are about the NSFnet's AUP (National Science
Foundation Net's Acceptable Use Policy). The first note traces the
evolution of NSFnet from a platform for doing research about
networking to its (almost, but not quite) common-carrier function
today<1991Oct4.180750.3733@eff.org>. The second note asserts that the
Net is legally a "limited public forum". Such status means that the
government cannot, for example, practice viewpoint
discrimination.<1991Oct4.055552.19960@eff.org> The third note says
that the Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine is already broad enough
to cover the Net; the doctrine does not need to be
extended.<1991Oct4.151847.29603@eff.org>
The next note is an observation and reply. The observation is that
NFSnet is not the same as Usenet. Thus, Usenet may be a free-speech
limited public forum while NFSnet is constrained by its Acceptable Use
Policy. The reply points out that the NFSnet AUP is very broad and
that actual practice, not just formal policy, is
important.<1991Oct4.165949.2146@eff.org> The fifth note interprets
recent NSF actions to mean that "anyone transmitting material across
the NSFnet had better be prepared to explain how it furthers NSFnet's
stated goals". Alternatively, NSF users can ask a research library to
vouch for them.<1991Oct5.183000.37@sdg.dra.com> The next note says
that the NSF's rules are unclear but that the rules should recognize
that the NSF has created an on-line electronic library system. The
note includes a copy of the American Library Association's Diversity
Statement (a statement that discusses both sexual and sexist
material).<1991Oct2.225512.3857@eff.org>
The last NSF-related note is a discussion about the power of users and
sys admins to influence (or resist) NSF
policy.<1991Oct4.134400.2052@ms.uky.edu>
The next two notes are about material that seems nonacademic. The
first note reports that magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse cover
serious topics such as arms control and
censorship.<1991Oct1.133036.8510@ousrvr.oulu.fi> The second note
excerpts a UPI report on an academic pornography
conference.<1991Oct4.203547.6378@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
The next note is an excerpt from the Supreme Court's recent Rust v.
Sullivan decision (the so-called abortion gag-rule decision). That
decision explicitly recognizes that "the university is a traditional
sphere of free expression so fundamental to the functioning of our
society that the Government's ability to control speech within that
sphere by means of conditions attached to the expenditure of
Government funds is restricted ..."<1991Oct2.001031.1159@eff.org>
The last two note report the end of the University of Waterloo's ban
on newsgroups "from alt.sex.bondage to rec.humor.funny". The first
note gives the history<1991Oct3.172138.338@eff.org>. The second note
is the official announcement of the new policy. The new policy
recognizes that each user is responsible for what he or she writes. It
says that all available newsgroup will be carried without screening or
censorship. It establishes a procedure for dealing with bad (illegal?)
notes posted from off-campus.<1991Oct4.153000.29957@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n30
[Best of the month of September, 1991
The first and second notes are a critique of the policy of Computing
Services at Central Michigan University. In the policy, Computing
Services asserts ownership on all "user" files on its system. The
critique calls this assertion an attempt of theft, pointing out that
University ownership would mean that the University could sell user
files to outsiders. The critique calls a new policy, created with user
participation.<1991Sep2.192241.1731@eff.org>
<1991Sep4.003030.2331@eff.org> The third note agrees that user
participation is desirable, but observes that users are often
apathetic and uninterested in policy.
<202C75A18080B52F@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
The next two notes concern the application of library policy to
computers. The first note reports that the American Library
Association (ALA) says that access restrictions can be censorship. The
note includes the ALA's definitions of censorship and related terms.
<1991Sep23.151518.18589@eff.org> The next note tries to clarify the
analogy between a traditional library and a computer. The note says
that Netnews should compared to a library, rather it should be
compared to the set of publications from which a library selects. The
note also includes the Hypothetical Netnews Bill of Rights, a
modification of the ALA's Library Bill of Rights.
<1991Sep18.152828.6297@eff.org>
In the next note, Mike Godwin, legal staff for the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) says that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA) could be reasonably construed to protect university email.
<1991Sep23.190848.24422@eff.org>
The next note says that allowing some personal and recreational use of
computers that are mostly for instructional use, works fine in
practice.<1991Sep26.041948.27809@visix.com>
The next note concedes that an owner can do most anything he, she, or
it wishes with his, her, or its computer. When that owner is an
organization, however, it must act within the bounds of its charter.
Thus, the U.S. Government must act within the bounds of its charter,
the Constitution.<1991Sep18.200431.12028@eff.org>
The next two notes are about magazine/newsgroup selection. The first
note says that contrary to what they may say, many librarians avoid
the selection of material that offends them.
<6665D4606E821004@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The second note highlights the
ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing. The Workbook covers
everything from developing a selection policy to handling challenges
to controversial materials.<1991Sep21.215316.833@eff.org> The full
Workbook is available on-line; just send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send library-policies selection-workbook.ala
Recently, someone at the University of Illinois posted a note that
some found offensive. Some of the offended said that the poster could
be punished by the University. The penultimate note is an explanation
of why a state university such as the University of Illinois cannot
legally punish a student for being offensive.
<1991Sep17.195000.9335@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
The last note is a discussion of rules that balance an individual
user's rights with the need to keep the computer system running
smoothly. The note includes six real-life problems, possible rules
might cover the problems, and a report about how the problems were
really solved.<1991Sep5.205747.17426@mp.cs.niu.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n29
[For the week of September 23 to September 29, 1991
The first three articles cover two topics. The first says that
unwritten rules are bad and that a site that is really for
instructional use only should subscribe to few or no
newsgroups.<1991Sep23.041527.1439@eng.umd.edu> The second note says
that there is nothing wrong with a site being mostly for instructional
use and a little for recreational use. Experience shows that this
works.<1991Sep26.041948.27809@visix.com> The third note explains why
written rules are better than unwritten rules.<4B0Z91w164w@bluemoon.rn.com>
The next three notes are about restricted access to magazines and
newsgroups. The first note says that access restrictions can be
censorship.<07829621CE001F77@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The second says that
there are sometimes legitimate reasons to restricted
access<199109231818.AA23069@eff.org>. The third note reports that the
American Library Association (ALA) recognizes some forms of access
restriction as censorship. It then lists the ALA's definition of
censorship and other related terms.<1991Sep23.151518.18589@eff.org>
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) protects the
privacy of "public" email users. In the next note, Mike Godwin, staff
lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), says that the
ECPA could be reasonably construed to protect university
email.<1991Sep23.190848.24422@eff.org> The note following suggests
that the ability to send and receive mail from off campus makes a
university email system more "public"<8264@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>.
The final four notes are about the ALA's Intellectual Freedom
Statement. The first note is the text of the Statement. 'It talks
about the role of free expression in a democracy and the role of an
information provider ("We need not endorse every idea contained in the
materials we produce and make available."). It argues against
censorship and labeling. Finally, it talks about professional
responsibility ("We perceive the admirable, often lonely, refusal to
succumb to threats of punitive action as the highest form of true
professionalism: dedication to the cause of intellectual freedom and
the preservation of vital human and civil liberties.")'
<1991Sep24.033201.24899@m.cs.uiuc.edu> The next note says
that parts of the Statement are Quixotic, stupid, and Libertarian.
<917C2FD0A24073B3@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The third note asserts that
fighting censorship is not stupid.<1991Sep24.200349.27056@mp.cs.niu.edu>
The fourth note questions the application of the label "Libertarian"
<1991Sep24.061001.13417@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n28
[For the week of September 16 to September 22, 1991
If you believe that sys admins should select newsgroups the way that
librarians select books and magazines, you will find the first two
notes useful. The first note is a short list of suggestions gathered
from the American Library Association's "Workbook for Selection Policy
Writing".<1991Sep21.215316.833@eff.org> The second note is the full
text of the Workbook, including a complete sample
policy.<1991Sep21.193707.22331@eff.org>
The next notes contrast traditional libraries and computer libraries.
The first note list similarities and differences
<1991Sep17.172347.9216@eff.org>. The second note clarifies the
comparison. For example, "Netnews" is not compared to a library, but
to rather a set of publications. It is a Netnews service that compared
to a library. The note also creates a "Hypothetical Netnews Bill of
Rights" by slighting rewriting the "Library Bill of
Rights".<1991Sep18.152828.6297@eff.org>
The next note argues against the proposition that all selection is
censorship and that exclusion of some newsgroups might increase
liability.<1991Sep16.135211.16610@ms.uky.edu> Next, a note says that
if the owner of a computer system is the U.S. government it must act
within the constraints of its charter (the
Constitution).<1991Sep18.200431.12028@eff.org> Then, a note opins that
availability of a newsgroup on another easily accessible system would
be a valid selection criterion.<1991Sep22.024825.5272@eff.org>
In the middle of September, someone posted a note to uiuc.general, the
general campus newsgroup at the University of Illinois. At least two
student were offended by the note and said that University discipline
could be applied to the poster. Enclosed is a note that argues that
University discipline is not appropriate because it would infringe on
the poster's contractual and constitutional right to free
expression.<1991Sep17.195000.9335@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
The next two notes are about magazine selection. The first note
observes that recreational magazines including Playboy are inexpensive
and popular. It conjectures that a general lack of library
subscriptions to such magazines indicates that offensiveness plays a
bigger role in selection than librarians
admit.<6665D4606E821004@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The second note says that
funds for academic departments and libraries are so tight that even
inexpensive magazines loose out to periodicals that are needed
more.<199109191903.AA09665@eff.org>
The last note points out recent article in the Harvard Law Review. The
Review article discusses e-mail monitoring and the
law.<910919001657.20205765@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
- Carl]
cafv01n27
[Week of September 9, 1991 to September 15, 1991
The first eight notes deal with applying library policy to a Netnews
facility. The first note argues that while academic libraries can
concentrate on educational material, they should interpret the word
"educational" very broadly.<1991Sep9.085026.33361@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
The next note reports that Usenet/Netnews is historically educational
<9109092011.AA00258@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>. The third note defines and
distinguish "censorship" and
"selection"<199109091819.AA26087@eff.org>. The fourth, responding to a
note in CAF-News 1.26, asserts that librarians who keep Playboy under
lock and key really are doing it protect the magazine, not to avoid
controversy.. The fifth note suggests that
computer sites that try to ban "offensive" newsgroups, may be held
responsible when someone is offended by a note that gets through in an
"inoffensive" newsgroup.<199109090239.AA04619@eff.org>
A while back I posted a note to a library-related mailing list. The
note described Netnews and gave examples of (what I consider)
censorship. The examples included Stanford's removal of
rec.humor.funny (it was later returned) and Wes Morgan's statement
that his site might not subscribe alt.sex to avoid controversy. In the
sixth note, Wes Morgan objects to the idea that avoiding material to
avoid controversy is censorship.<1991Sep10.212523.3734@ms.uky.edu> The
seventh note is a reposting of my invitation to librarians.
<1991Sep11.175808.23857@eff.org>
The eighth note tries to define "library" to see how well term can
cover a Netnews service. The note lists the legal definition of
"library" for the few states that have such a definition. Indiana's
definition seems the best.<1991Sep12.185627.26936@eff.org>
The next to notes are about the CAF archive and CAF-News. The first
note announces a reorganized archive of academic computer
policies.<1991Sep10.015128.3970@eff.org> The second note explains the
editorial policy of CAF-News.<1991Sep11.220354.29371@eff.org>
The last two notes are about email privacy. The first note explains
the the law's ambiguous
protection.<92EC79568E81427D@ccmail.sunysb.edu> The second, opins on
the limited circumstances in which a sys admin could legally and
ethically look at a user's email.<94B10ABABE81427D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
cafv01n26
[September 2, 1991 to September 8, 1991
The first three notes this week discuss the Computing Services Policy
at Central Michigan University. The first note critiques the policy,
saying that it authorities the University to steal user
files.<1991Sep2.192241.1731@eff.org> The second note corrects an error
in the first note. (The policy does allow the University to steal user
files, but not user copyrights).<1991Sep4.003030.2331@eff.org> The
third note suggests that apathetic users are in part responsible for
bad policies.<202C75A18080B52F@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
The next two notes offer arguments that might persuade a University
administrator or sys admin that user files should be
private.<1991Sep5.161230.19723@eff.org><199109040532.AA06854@eff.org>
In CAF-News 1.24 Neil Rickert described several scenarios that
illustrated the flexibility that a sys admin needs. The scenarios
cover everything from runaway processes to sending unwanted messages
to the terminals of others. Two notes address these scenarios. The
first outlines rules that in the opinion of the author respect the
user while allowing the sys admin solve the problems
presented.<1991Sep5.181039.22607@eff.org> In the second note, Mr.
Rickert tells he handled the real-life incidents on which the
scenarios were based.<1991Sep5.205747.17426@mp.cs.niu.edu>
The final notes are about the idea of applying library policy to the
network media such as Netnews. The first note warns that academic
librarians are not as privileged as it may seem. For example, some are
poorly paid.<9109031509.AA21419@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> The next note
argues that sys admins should not select newsgroups the way that
librarians select magazines; rather, they should select newsgroups the
way that airlines select
routes.<9109061947.AA00162@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> The third notes says
that the application of library policy to computer media does not
require a merger of a university's library administration and computer
services administration.<1991Sep6.215531.21421@eff.org> In the final
note, a sys admin opins that librarians who restrict access to Playboy
may say that the restriction is to protect the magazine but really it
is to avoid controversy.<5BCA15E24E81324C@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n24
[This week we (finally) seem to get a handle on the likely legal
status of Netnews at public universities. The first note quotes a
court decision that explains and applies the Supreme Court's public
forum doctrine.<1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org> Under this doctrine,
Netnews and email (but not necessarily the computer as a whole) seem
to be "limited-public forums". The second note points out that under
this analysis sys admins legally *can* select which Netnews newsgroups
their site will acquire.<1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu> The third
says that Netnews newsgroups *should* be selected much the way that
librarians select material. Also it includes a discussion of whether
Netnews should be considered a single forum and a collection of many
forums.<1991Aug30.131213.24391@ms.uky.edu>
The next six notes concern a site's responsibility for the content of
Netnews. The first note explains why a sys admin may not want to carry
a controversial newsgroup such as alt.sex. The reasons include fear of
criticism (and lawsuits) and fear of obscenity and pantering
laws.<1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu> The next note suggests that
alt.sex has a valid purpose, namely to "provide an open (unmoderated)
forum to express views and questions about
sex". The third note argues that
while obscenity and pantering laws do exist, they are not as broad as
some may imagine. Also, it reports that the American Library
Association fights official access restrictions based on
age.<1991Aug26.165422.18472@eff.org>
The fourth note, quoting a law book, argues that a public university's
sponsorship of a student publication does not makes it the "unfettered
master" of content.<1991Aug29.162832.11923@eff.org> The fifth note,
quoting the same law book, says that public schools can not legally
withdraw sponsorship of student publications "simply because of
displeasure with the content."<1991Aug26.190318.20989@eff.org> The
sixth note tries to answer the question of how public schools should
address their concerns about libel and obscenity in student
publications. Quoting from the same book, the note says that prior
restraints are generally forbidden, but "[s]tudents can be punished
and publications confiscated if the material distributed ... is
libelous or obscene ..."<1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>
The last two notes are about due process and the a sys admin's need
for flexibility. The first note quotes a (different) law book that
reports that due process requirements have not "turned classrooms and
schools into courtrooms". It also explains that some due process is
legally required unless the matter is trivial (or there is an
emergency).<1991Aug26.192951.21811@eff.org> At some schools, a student
will be suspended from the computer anytime the computer
administration wants the student to meet with them. In the last note,
a sys admin says such suspensions should not be used until reasonable
attempts to set up a meeting have failed. The note also gives examples
of when a sys admin needs
flexibility.<1991Aug31.162538.22121@mp.cs.niu.edu>
- Carl]
[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of August
August 5, 1991 to September 1, 1991
The first five notes discuss freedom of expression on the net. In the
first note, a sys admin at the University to Kentucky says that one
reason that his site dropped Netnews was because his Dean received
mail complaining about the postings of several users. (He also says
that when they upgrade their hardware they may support Netnews but may
not carry the alt.sex newsgroup because minors might be able to access
it.)<1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu> In the second note a student
argues that Netnews is much like other small student publications he
has worked on (and so should be treated like other student
publications).
The third note describes the likely legal status of Netnews at public
universities. It quotes a court decision that explains and applies the
Supreme Court' Public-Forum Doctrine. Under this doctrine, Netnews and
email (but not necessarily the computer as a whole) seem to be
"limited-public forums" in which "viewpoint discrimination" is
prohibited.<1991Aug29.202609.17233@eff.org> The fourth note, quoting a
law book, expands on this. It says that a public university's
ownership of a student publication does not given it unfettered
control of content and that "... school authorities cannot [legally]
withdraw support from a student publication simply because of
displeasure with the content."<1991Aug29.162832.11923@eff.org> The
fifth note tries to answer the question of how public schools should
address their concerns about libel and obscenity in student
publications. Quoting a law book, the note says that prior restraints
are generally forbidden, but "[s]tudents can be punished and
publications confiscated if the material distributed ... is libelous
or obscene ..."<1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org>
The next three notes concern the freedom to read Netnews. The first
note explains why a sys admin may not want to carry a controversial
newsgroup such as alt.sex. The reasons include fear of criticism (and
lawsuits) and fear of obscenity and pantering
laws.<1991Aug29.201145.4152@ms.uky.edu> The second note points out
that under the Limited-Forum Doctrine, sys admins legally *can* select
which Netnews newsgroups their site will
acquire.<1991Aug29.215250.22926@ms.uky.edu> The third note suggests
that sys admins should select newsgroup the way that librarians select
books and periodicals. It includes references to American Library
Association (ALA) policy documents. The note reports that the ALA
fights official access restrictions based on
age.<1991Aug26.165422.18472@eff.org>
The next note explains that although private universities do not have
Constitutional obligations to their students, they often have
legally-binding contractual obligations to provide, for example,
provide due process.<1991Aug12.145434.3380@eff.org>
The last four notes are about policy making and due process. The first
note is excerpts from a 100 page on-line document. The document
advises on site security and also makes some good suggestions about
policy making.<1991Aug7.163131.23490@eff.org> The next note, argues
that that like academic, library, and parking policy, university
computer policy should be in the main student
handbook.<1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>
The third note, quoting a book on school law, reports that due process
requirements have not "turned classrooms and schools into courtrooms".
It also explains that some due process is legally required unless the
matter is trivial (or there is an
emergency).<1991Aug26.192951.21811@eff.org> Finally, at some schools,
a student will be suspended from the computer anytime the computer
administration wants the student to meet with them. In the last note,
a sys admin says such suspensions should not be used until reasonable
attempts to set up a meeting have failed. The note also gives examples
of when a sys admin needs more flexibility than a formal policy might
allow.<1991Aug31.162538.22121@mp.cs.niu.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n23
[This week's note continues the discussion on freedom of expression on
(public) university computers. The first five notes discuss issues in
the abstract. In the first note, a sys admin argues that sys admins
and computers cannot be expected to follow library procedures unless
computers are funded like libraries and sys admins are given academic
status like academic librarians <2F0D768BFC00965B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>.
In the second note a student says that Netnews is much like other
small student publications he has worked on (and so should be treated
like other student publications) .
The next note is an exchange about government funding of personally
objectionable material. The poster says that contributing a small
price to shared channels (roads, libraries, networks) is worthwhile
because it helps "to ensure freedom of communication, movement, and
other activity that ultimately benefits everybody,..."
<1991Aug18.215350.21835@mp.cs.niu.edu>. The fourth note discusses when
an sys admin would be obliged to let a user use a computer for some
expressive purpose <9108211525.AA01871@zerkalo.harvard.edu>. The fifth
note points out the need for an authorative answer to question of
"when is a university-owned computer properly regarded as an
instrument of free expression?" <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>
The next note changes the topic a bit. In it, a student (me), says
that like academic, library, and parking policy, university computer
policy should be in the main student handbook
<1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>.
The last five notes discuss the Netnews policy of the Engineering
Computing Center of the University of Kentucky. In the first note, a
sys admin explains that his site doesn't allow games and doesn't
support Netnews. He says that one reason that they dropped Netnews was
because their Dean received mail complaining about the postings of
several users. He says that when they upgrade their hardware they may
support Netnews but will not carry the alt.sex newsgroup because
minors might be able to access it.
<1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>. The next note says that cutting
off all Netnews access (in part) because of complaints amounts to
censorship by the University of Kentucky. In the third note, a sys
admin suggests that a university's safest bet may sometimes be to
improperly censor a student <26E77EDC1C200482@ccmail.sunysb.edu>. The
second-to-last note criticizes the decision deny adults access to
alt.sex and advocates use of a selection policy of the type
traditional libraries use <1991Aug19.215539.15837@eff.org>. In the
last note, the U. of Kentucky sys admin explains that their decision
not to carry alt.sex is not based on legal concerns but rather on a
desire to avoid bad publicity and "complaints up and down the
administrative hierarchy" <1991Aug23.152139.15501@ms.uky.edu>.
- Carl]
cafv01n22
[This week in CAF-News includes the beginning of a discussion about
when universities can legitimately restrict free expression on
computers <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>
<1991Aug14.182241.26728@eff.org>. (Is it enough, for example, to
declare a computer "for classwork only"?)
The third article explains that users are required to keep their
passwords confidential to increase accountability
<1991Aug15.033650.8313@bradley.bradley.edu>.
Next, a note explains that although private universities do not have
Constitutional obligations to their students, they often have
contractual obligations to their students to provide, for example,
provide due process <1991Aug12.145434.3380@eff.org>. Another note
argues that the university lawyer cannot be trusted to give a correct
opinion on proposed computer policies <1991Aug12.173421.5645@eff.org>.
And a note lists three books on library selection policy. These books
would be useful to anyone who wants to setup a newsgroup selection
policy that respects academic freedom. (The books also tell how to
defend the selection of controversial books/newsgroups.)
<1991Aug15.200628.27084@eff.org>
The last two notes list the abstracts of earlier issues of CAF-News
<1991Aug15.174837.23862@eff.org><1991Aug15.193552.26018@eff.org>.
- Carl]
cafv01n21
[The week ending August 11th was slow. There are only four notes in
this CAF-news. The first argues for the importance of academic freedom
<9108050251.AA18992@eff.org>. The next is a list of the files in the
CAF archive <1991Aug6.174158.4108@eff.org>. The third is excerpts from
a 100 page on-line document. The document advises on site security and
also makes some good suggestions about policy making
<1991Aug7.163131.23490@eff.org>. The final note in a story about
single-word censorship <9108071845.AA26106@eff.org>. - Carl]
cafv01n20
[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of July
The first notes discuss cases. Ohio State University and Steven Brack
are back in the news. Recall that Mr. Brack was permanently expelled
(without the chance for a formal hearing or appeal) from OSU's
Academic Computer Services (ACS) computers. Now a Judicial Committee
hearing will decide if Mr. Brack be should punished some more
(apparently for the same alleged offenses). Mr. Brack is charged with,
among other things, obscenity (i.e. typing "fuck you" in newsgroup
note.) The third note about the Ohio State case is a reminder that
only Mr. Brack's side of this case has been presented in this forum.
In addition to the Ohio State case, there is a report of student of
the University of Georgia being suspended for knowingly aiding
crackers by supplying them with an encrypted password file. (The
student seems to have received due processes.) There are also reports
of due-process procedures being ignored at Virginia Commonwealth
University and at Wayne State University.
The next three notes are about searches of computer files. The first
quotes the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students on
(noncomputer) searches. The next describes proposed federal rules
on computer searches by the police. The third argues that a probable
cause rule is enforceable.
There are three notes about policy. In the first, I critique Ohio
State ACS computer policy because it seems to allow expulsion from
their computers without the opportunity for a formal hearing or an
appeal. The next note outlines the topics that a model policy should
cover. The last lists a proposed U.S. constitutional amendment. It
would guarantee Constitutional protection (like freedom of
expression) of computer users.
The last two notes outline the contractual and constitutional
constraints on sys admin (and University) authority. They explain that
universities are under a contractual obligation to treat students
fairly. Every administrator and student should read these notes.
<1991Jul11.130240.8071@eff.org>
<1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>
<9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu>
<1991Jul30.013420.19111@eff.org>
<17042@life.ai.mit.edu>
<1991Jul22.160227.12830@tygra.Michigan.COM>
<1991Jul25.152614.11476@eff.org>
<9107262014.AA00439@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9107310026.AA02625@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
<1991Jul26.153810.5953@eff.org>
<9107200443.AA08721@eff.org>
<1991Jul30.202126.7529@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n19
[The first five notes in this collection discuss searches of computer
files. Issues covered include probable cause, enforcement of probable
cause requirements, the reasonableness of expecting privacy, and system
defaults that can be set to make problems with user-user snooping much
less likely.
In the news, a report of student a the University of Georgia who was
suspend from the University after distributing an encrypted password
file. It appears that the student received due process.
The next notes outline the contractual and constitutional constraints
on sys admin (and University) authority. They explains that
universities are under a contractual obligation to treat students
fairly. Every administrator and student should read these notes.
The final notes discuss an initiative to develop a sample computer
policy that would respect academic freedom. The notes include a
request (by me) that we wait until more students return to campus next
month to pursue this project. Other notes propose outlines of a sample
policy.
<1991Jul25.201452.836@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
<9107310026.AA02625@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
<1991Jul30.013420.19111@eff.org>
<1991Jul30.202126.7529@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n18
[The first four notes address the question "Under what conditions
should a user's computer files be searched?" Helen C. O'Boyle reports
that when faculty and students at Virginia Commonwealth University
asked that "emergency searches" be reported to the user with 24 hours,
the computer staff refused. Other notes list the (general) search
policies of the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students,
the U.S. Bill of Rights, the Code of the University of Illinois, and a
proposed law on computer searches.
The final four notes discuss cases. There is a report that at Wayne
State University the official "Student Due Process Policy" was
completely ignored. A student at Ohio State, who was once expelled
from ACS/IRCC computers, offers a reminder that we are only getting
Steven Brack's side of the story. In the next note, I critique as new
Ohio State ACS computer policy because it seems to permit computer
expulsions without due process. In the final note, a student tells how
he quit Hamline University after he was expelled from the computer
with notice, explanation, or recourse.
<17183@life.ai.mit.edu>
<1991Jul25.152614.11476@eff.org>
<1991Jul25.153649.11765@eff.org>
<9107262014.AA00439@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
<1991Jul22.160227.12830@tygra.Michigan.COM>
<9107251551.AA14954@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
<1991Jul26.153810.5953@eff.org>
<5493@orbit.cts.com>
- Carl]
cafv01n17
[The first note in this collection argues that "to make judgments
about either Mr. Brack or Ohio State's ACS group at this point would
be grossly unfair." The next three notes follow up on this discussion.
(The second note strongly criticizes a comment I made last week.)
The next two notes discuss freedom of expression on the net. The
second note includes a *proposed* U.S. constitutional amendment that
would explicitly guarantee many civil liberties on computers, networks,
and other technology. If you are interested in these topics, you may
enjoy the comp.org.eff.talk and comp.org.eff.news newsgroups.
Two notes discuss a user's recourse if he or she is treated unfairly.
A user shares her personal experience that in practice effective
recourse is more difficult than theory would suggest.
The penultimate note asks about computers and academic freedom
when more grade and high schools are on the net. In the last note,
a sys admin reports that he is able maintain his system without
reading user email.
<9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu>
<1991Jul19.162337.28426@oar.net>
<19035@helios.TAMU.EDU>
<1991Jul21.225222.790@visix.com>
<9107180458.AA23651@eff.org>
<9107200443.AA08721@eff.org>
<1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu>
<17042@life.ai.mit.edu>
<9107171705.AA11091@eff.org>
<1991Jul19.181817.5287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- Carl]
cafv01n16
The first article of this collection, describes how
Supreme Court's recent endorsement of the gag rule (with respect
to abortion clinics) might effect universities. The next note
shows the estimated readership and propagation of the CAF-talk
newsgroup.
The bulk of this issue discusses the case of Steven Brack at Ohio
State University. Steven is formally charged with (among other things)
"obscenity" (i.e. he wrote "fuck you" to an open newsgroup). In a
small digression from this particular case, Helen C. O'Boyle, a grad
student at Virginia Commonwealth University, talks about the general
problem of punishment before (or without) a hearing. The issue
ends with a request by me, on behalf of Steven, for e-mail letters
of support.
<1991Jul8.152054.22306@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<1991Jul11.130240.8071@eff.org>
<1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>
<1991Jul11.182120.12042@eff.org>
<16945@life.ai.mit.edu>
<1991Jul13.141842.15316@oar.net>
<1991Jul13.154053.19782@eff.org>
<16957@life.ai.mit.edu>
<1991Jul14.203548.6278@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n15
[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of June
This issues starts with reports of user abuse at Ohio State and in
industry and a report from the University of Kentucky on the pressures
faced by sys admins (caused in part by users). The next note shows
what can happen when users are denied due process; they may take
matters into their own hands causing much more serious problems. A
note by William Murray attributes most user/sys admin conflict to
honest differences in how each perceive computer systems.
Two notes discuss graphics files of naked people. The notes argue that
University's can not prohibit such files without violating the rights
of their student. Library policy with regard to pictures of naked
people and the issue of sexual harassment are considered.
The final six notes tell how to make things run smoothly. Users and
sys admins should give each other the benefit of the doubt; "ALL
problems of abuse etc. come about due to lack of communications
between the Systems staff and the users." An experienced sys admin
reports that it is almost never necessary to suspend users. Another
reports that user participation in policy making really works. Both
of these observations are supported by the Joint Statement on the
Rights and Freedoms of Students.
<677391652@macbeth.cs.duke.edu>
<1991Jun18.214726.15504@ms.uky.edu>
<1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>
<85910629160058/0003158580NB2EM@mcimail.com>
<1991Jun8.025146.16881@eff.org>
<1991Jun11.002331.13159@eff.org>
<1991Jun18.225345.5510@eff.org>
<2E8DFD2EDC217F86@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<2EAE2FFB1C217F86@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<1991Jun3.161630.10523@eff.org>
<9106142225.AA03883@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n14
[This is the CAF-news for the week ending June 30, 1991. The first
three notes discuss student exploration; if a student breaks the
system, does it matter if he or she did it accidently or maliciously?
The last note discusses intellectual property agreements in which the
University may claim some ownership in material you developed at the
University.
<1991Jun19.152817.11174@eng.umd.edu>
<85910629160058/0003158580NB2EM@mcimail.com>
<9106291747.AA21148@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n13
[This week's selection is mostly about user-sys admin relations. In
the first note, a sys admin describes the pressures of his job. In the
next series of notes, users describe bad experiences at the University
of Kentucky, at the University of Maryland, in industry, and at the
University of Illinois. The topic is concluded with notes from sys
admins and users that tell the secrets of great user-sys admin
relations (good communication and moderation-in-action.)
Next, a note argues against charging users with "theft of service"
because the charge is too broad. The last note tell how you might be
able to switch from e-mail delivery of CAF-news to newsgroup delivery.
I will be out of town the next two weekends, so distribution
of issues #14 and #15 may be delayed.
<1991Jun18.214726.15504@ms.uky.edu>
<1991Jun19.033916.15559@ms.uky.edu>
<1991Jun19.150932.10836@eng.umd.edu>
<677391652@macbeth.cs.duke.edu>
<1991Jun21.162541.6816@eff.org>
<1991Jun21.221847.2599@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
<60910619203406/0003158580NB2EM@mcimail.com>
<1991Jun19.222310.490@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu>
<199106211448.AA16771@mp.cs.niu.edu>
<1991Jun18.225345.5510@eff.org>
<2E8DFD2EDC217F86@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<2EAE2FFB1C217F86@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<1991Jun18.222848.4792@eff.org>
<1991Jun18.164302.26318@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n12
[This compilation includes more discussion about GIF images
of nude people. A correspondent tells how librarians deal with
similar material. Also, sexual harassment issues are again addressed.
Another note argues that the mistreatment of even a fraction of a
system's users is important. And a sys admin describes the
inconvenience of creating and enforcing a formal policy.
Finally, two related propositions are debated:
Resolved: Users should not be suspended or expelled from computer
systems as punishment for computer-policy infractions.
Resolved: The punishment that a computer administrator can impose on a
student should be not exceed that which an instructor can impose.
<1991Jun10.041718.19730@eff.org>
<1991Jun10.150802.29622@eng.umd.edu>
<1991Jun11.002331.13159@eff.org>
<1991Jun11.012024.13653@eff.org>
<1991Jun11.012352.13809@eff.org>
<1991Jun12.152631.6126@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
<1991Jun14.185503.29844@eff.org>
<1991Jun14.192722.339@eff.org>
<199106142048.AA30684@mp.cs.niu.edu>
<9106142225.AA03883@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n11
[This compilation includes a call for student and faculty
participation in policy formation and application. The call is
endorsed by a sys admin at Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, a place
where such participation is the standard operating procedure. Also, the
question "Should users be automatically suspended from the computer if
they are suspected of an infraction?" is discussed. There is a
critique of the (soon to be revised?) Ohio State CIS email policy. Due
process is discussed with examples of punishment without due process
from UMCP and Ohio State. Pragmatic benefits of due process are
asserted. Finally, the question "Does the availability of GIF images
of nude people constitute sexual harassment?" is discussed.
<9106030519.AA25909@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
<1991Jun3.161630.10523@eff.org>
<1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>
<1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>
<1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org>
<1991Jun8.025146.16881@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n10
[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of May
This is a compilation of the best notes from May. It includes several
notes detailing how academic freedom might be applied to computers.
Issues considered include privacy, participation, quota enforcement,
freedom to read, and personal use. Several notes tell how academic
freedom is (or is not) being applied at particular universities
including the University of Illinois and Boston University. From
Berkeley comes a description of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility
(OCF), an organization that *democratically* manages computer
resources for thousands of users. Also, the compilation includes a
case study that tells how a general student policy has evolved
since 1904. After reading the case study you will be able to say "hey,
this computer policy looks like something from the 1930's." Finally,
there is a note that tells how to get back issues from the CAF archive.
<9105011453.AA22372@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU>
<9104301615.AA18715@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
<9105080246.AA08144@eff.org>
<9105122258.AA20974@eff.org>
<9105130011.AA21448@eff.org>
<9105180533.AA15472@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9105120010.AA11281@eff.org>
<9105160259.AA03505@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
<1991May25.064142.6947@eff.org>
<9105282218.AA05613@eff.org>
<1991May31.222422.28508@agate.berkeley.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n09
[This issue covers more topics than usual. The most important
information is a description of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility
(OCF), an organization that *democratically* manages computer resources
for thousands of users. The OCF constitution and bylaws are included.
Other topics discussed are arbitrary searches (re Boston University),
the need for clear and explicit policy (re U. of Illinois/NCSA), what
telephone company employees do when they overhear a phone call, how
email problems can be fixed without reading the body of notes, and
what do to about (perceived) disk-quota abuse.
The final note announces new distribution methods for the lists and
tells how to switch.
<9105282003.AA04129@eff.org>
<9105282037.AA04490@eff.org>
<9105281736.AA26349@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
<9105290058.AA07655@eff.org>
<9105282218.AA05613@eff.org>
<9105282224.AA05658@eff.org>
<1991May31.125801.29115@ms.uky.edu>
<1991May31.222422.28508@agate.berkeley.edu>
<1991May29.223933.21869@eff.org>
- Carl
p.s. I hope to switch caf-news to the official digest format soon. ]
cafv01n08
[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of April
This is a compilation of the best notes from April. It includes the
original announcement for the CAF archive and copies of general policy
statements from the American Library Association, the Canadian Library
Association, and the American Association of University Professors.
It also includes reports of a victory for freedom of expression at
Denver University, newsgroup censorship at Purdue and Case Western,
and one-sided e-mail policy at the University of Illinois.
<9104230942.AA06697@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9104241937.AA28098@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n07
[This issue considers the circumstances under which a (computer)
postmaster should read the body of misaddressed e-mail. In also
includes a brief history of Academic Freedom in the US and comments
whether system admins should stand up for user rights. Sally Webster
solicits "ethics war stories". A computer-user right is asserted: the
right to participate in policy formulation and application. Finally,
Boston University's computer policy is criticized as one sided.
<26BF5B8A70A0B045@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<9105221543.AA04005@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
<9105230457.AA06305@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9105231059.AA03402@eff.org>
<1991May25.064142.6947@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n06
[Three topics are discussed in this issue: What is the relation
between newsgroup systems and traditional libraries? How should
privacy rights be applied to diskspace and email? How do general
University policies evolve? The last question is addressed with a
survey University of Illinois policy from 1904 to present. It is
interesting to see both the trend and how external forces such as
Alcohol Prohibition and the Red Scares effected policy.
<4FCF515E64A02A50@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<9105122258.AA20974@eff.org>
<9105131420.AA12458@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
<9105180533.AA15472@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9105191821.AA10037@eff.org>
<71D2016A10A0B502@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<9105160259.AA03505@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9105161620.AA16521@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n05
[This issue includes information on how to get back issues of caf-news
from the archives and information on how to get copies of the computer
policies of many schools. It also has a report of attempted expression
suppression (under the guise of political correctness?).
The main topic in this issue is a discussion of exactly how the principles
of academic freedom should be applied to computers and networks (with
excerpted comments from Sanjay Kapur, Edward Vielmetti, George Rickerson,
Aydin Edguer, and Rich Kulawiec.
<9105080246.AA08144@eff.org>
<9105082112.AA00338@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
<9105101933.AA11502@eff.org>
<9105120010.AA11281@eff.org>
<9105122109.AA20340@eff.org>
<9105122231.AA20822@eff.org>
<9105122258.AA20974@eff.org>
<9105122314.AA21105@eff.org>
<9105122352.AA21296@eff.org>
<9105130011.AA21448@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n04
[This issue includes three proposed user policies. One of the policies
says that "personal development" use is OK, but "personal use" is not.
Several notes address the practicality and wisdom of such a
distinction. Other notes discuss the policy of checking that user's
newsgroup postings are proper according to the (sys admin's
understanding) of a newsgroup's charter. Finally, more news about the
NCSA e-mail policy: The old policy stands until (and unless) a new
policy is created.
<9104292203.AA18193@pilot.njin.net>
<9104301615.AA18715@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
<922ADE512800A959@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<9105011453.AA22372@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU>
<9105011456.AA24798@gynko.circ.upenn.edu>
<9105011927.AA13111@eff.org>
<8E75F7AFA400C18A@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
<9105021115.AA05692@garuda.sics.se>
<9105022007.AA28870@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9105022050.AA29260@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9105031746.AA04308@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
- Carl
p.s. I sent Issue #3, covering the week ending April
28, on Wednesday, May 1st. If you did not receive that issue, please
send e-mail to kadie@eff.org]
cafv01n03
[This issue covers notes posted in the caf-talk mailing list from
April 21th to April 28th. Starting this coming Sunday, caf-news will
be published on Sunday and will cover notes posted the previous week.
In this issue, a system administrator from Purdue tells why he
censored outgoing newsgroup messages. The necessity of the censorship
at Case Western and Purdue censorship is discussed (with comments by
people close to the incidents.)
I critique a new e-mail policy by a department of the University of
Illinois. According to the security officer of department, the policy
permits disk-space searches of people who attack the University or the
department in email. As of today (May 1st), the policy stands;
according to the department, the policy will not be rescinded until
(unless) a new policy is created.
Other notes discuss the nature of academic freedom and the use of
University facilities.
<9104212213.AA25432@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
<9104212100.AA12841@eff.org>
<9104230942.AA06697@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9104241404.AA16675@eff.org>
<9104241937.AA28098@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
<9104242207.AA20760@eff.org>
<91Apr25.083240edt.6275@nexus.yorku.ca>
<9104270042.AA21070@bucsd.bu.edu>
<9104261429.AA17887@juniper.circ.upenn.edu>
<9104270042.AA21067@bucsd.bu.edu>
<9104272132.AA22328@eff.org>
<9104261734.AA19414@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
- Carl]
cafv01n02
[This issue covers notes posted in the caf-talk mailing list from
April 14th to April 21st. Next Wednesday, I'll publish selected notes
up through April 28th. After that the caf-news will be published on
Sunday, and will cover notes posted the preceeding week. Also,
starting with the next issue, the formatting of the notes will be
improved (there will not be so many header lines).
This issue includes the policy statements from the American and
Canadian Library Associations and the American Association of
University Professors. Several notes suggest ways that these policy
statements should be applied to computers. Netnews censorship at
Purdue and Case Western is also discussed (with notes from both the
censor and the censored of Purdue).
<9104281641.AA00199@eff.org>
- Carl]
cafv01n01
[A victory for freedom of expression at the University of Denver.
In this issue:
Carl Kadie Annoucing the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
Brendan Kehoe Re: Annoucing the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
Carl M. Kadie FYI: Jim Sanders censored no more
Andrew Burt Jim Sanders censored no more
Thomas E. Kunselman Computer Services Philosophy and Academic Decision-making
- Carl]
