From kadie Mon Apr 22 01:07:12 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Apr 22 01:06:59 EDT 1991
In this issue:
-- A policy respecting academic freedom *protects* system admins
junger@cwru.cwru.e : Speculation as to why academic freedom suffers when compu
Dan Brown
Subject: kill bush kill quayle
Summary: A policy respecting academic freedom *protects* system admins
> I would suggest that a simple (?) program could be written which
> scans outgoing
> mail for certain key words (i.e. kill, president, drugs, prostitution),
> without the need for human interference. Thus, a majority of mailings could
> be allowed through without any interruption, and only a minimal few being
> flagged for checking.
On principle, I object to censorship.
In my opinion, semiautomated censorship worse than manual censorship
because it is likely more arbitrary and more less expensive.
Pragmatically, I object to censorship.
I don't think trying to censor your students and faculty reduces your
(moral or legal) liability. Instead, by becoming a censor you increase
your liability because now you are accepting responsiblity for the
words of your students and faculty. Before you were just a
distributor, now you are an editor.
A policy of censorship increases the hassles for the sys admin. Once
word gets out that you take responsibility for every note that your
students or faculty posts, you will be deluged with complaints. People
will confuse the opinion of your students and faculty with the official
opinion of your university. You will be morally obligated to respond
to each complaint with either some action or an explanation of why you
are taking no action. If you act by taking computer or network access
away from a student or faculty member, you may have to defend your
action in front of a disciplinary board.
A policy of censorship creates bad feelings. Students and teachers
inside your organization not like you because you censor their words.
Even outsiders who like censorship will not like you because they will
disagree with the way you censor.
A policy of free expression can reduce hassles for the sys admin.
Respect for academic freedom *protects* the sys admin (just as the
Freedom to Read statement protects librarians). Now if the sys admin
gets email complaining about a note, he or she can respond:
"Dear offendedreader@somewhere.net,
RE: Your request that we take away Joe Student's account
The views expressed by Joe Student are his own and do not necessary
represent the views of the University.
University policy supports free expression and prohibits censorship.
It would contrary to University policy to take away Joe Student's
account.
'Free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment
of [the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the
development of students, and the general well-being of society.]'
'The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as
a device of censorship.'
This policy is based on the 'Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of
Students.' If you would like a copy of the statement, I would be
happy to send it to you.
Your,
Jane Sysadmin
"
-------------------
Cc: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 91 14:31:57 EDT
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca
Message-Id: <91Apr21.143210edt.6188@nexus.yorku.ca>
In <9104202113.AA00240@math.uchicago.edu>, someone is quoted as saying:
| I would suggest that a simple (?) program could be written which
| scans outgoing
| mail for certain key words (i.e. kill, president, drugs, prostitution),
| without the need for human interference. Thus, a majority of mailings could
| be allowed through without any interruption, and only a minimal few being
| flagged for checking.
I suspect, rather strongly, that my running such a program on mail
otherwise protected by law would be regarded as a breach of the law...
and any loopholes would be rather quickly closed.
The subject came up in a related discussion here, and the reaction
of the community was that this was an insuficent technology looking
for an illegal application (:-))
--dave
-------------------
From: junger@cwru.cwru.edu
Message-Id: <9104212100.AA12841@eff.org>
Date: 21 Apr 91 16:48:00 EST
Subject: Speculation as to why academic freedom suffers when computers are around
Cc: junger@cwru.cwru.edu
I am happy that Dudley Irish has come to
a new position and that he now recognizes a student's right to academic
freedom in the context of the removal of a posting from a campus wide
unmoderated bulletin board. I am a little concerned, however, at the
reliance that he places on a statement of the American Association of
University Professors ("AAUP"), an organization that does a worthwhile
job of protecting academic freedom, but is not authorized to--and would
not claim authority to--legislate a definition of that freedom.
As a law teacher I am made very uncomfortable by the bald
statement of Tim Simpson (Department of Communication, Barry University,
Bitnet: SIMPSON@BARRYU) that "the term [academic freedom] is a legal
one." Whatever `Academic Freedom' may mean--and I do not think that it
is profitable to try to cabin it by an exact definition--it is not a
legal term. The existence of this list is, I think, evidence of that.
Since many--probably most--universities are private institutions,
efforts to protect academic freedom in such institutions by appeals to
the Constitutional right of free speech under the 1st and 14th
Amendments to the Federal Constitution will generally fail (or at least
be made very difficult) by the absence of state action. In rare cases,
it may be possible for a faculty member or a student to claim a
contractual right to academic freedom, but such an claim will inevitably
assert that the pre-existing right of academic freedom has been
impliedly incorporated into the faculty member or the student's contract
with the educational institution. (In most such cases the claimant will
be able to cite published institutional policies in favor of academic
freedom and try to incorporate that into the contract.) In general,
however, academic freedom is protected from the attack of academic (and
other) yahoos by the threat of negative publicity (and, in extreme
cases, boycotts by the AAUP), not by legal remedies.
Academic Freedom is an ideal inherent in the very idea of a
University, a community of scholars, an academic community. The
tradition of academic freedom can thus be traced back at least to the
medieval universities. The state and the bishop may try to suppress
that freedom; the faculty and students will--if they have any concept of
their roles in society and their own self-interest-- ardently defend it.
To anyone with a minimum awareness of the goals and values of
the academy, Jon C. Slenk's claims quoted below represent a vicious
misunderstanding of the nature of the academic enterprise: "Basically, a
private [educational] institution is a business venture: if they don't
make money they will go under. So, if they are a business venture, they
should be looking out for themselves. If they put a lot of money into
computing systems and let their students get onto the nets, then I
believe it is okay morally for them to say, `Hey, that letter can't go
out!' and yank it." [There may be trade schools that are run on that
basis, but their purpose is to produce fodder for the nations factories,
not educated men and women. And even that sort of dismal sausage
factory, if it is wise, will realize that its trainees are its
customers--and thus not to be offended--not just sausages being ground
out for consumption by the owners of the dark, satanic mills.] No
university or college with any academic pretensions, however slight, can
afford to advertise, or even admit, that it denies academic freedom
(unless, of course, there is some powerful countervailing concern, like
the religious dogma espoused by the institution or those values that are
often parodied under the label of "political correctness").
So the question that justifies the existence of this list is:
Why do universities and colleges seem so eager to deny academic freedom
to those who use computers, when they would defend it valiantly in other
contexts?
Here at Case Western Reserve University it seems pretty clear
that the answer lies in the fact that almost all of the faculty, most
of the students, the central administration, and the deans, have no idea
of how computers work or what they can be used for. At the same time,
the powers that be have decided that a computer network is a good thing
and have spent millions of dollars installing optical cables, and
hundreds of dollars buying software for the machines that are connected
to those cables. In these circumstances the entire University--faculty,
students, and administrators--find themselves at the mercy of the hands
who were hired to run that network. And those hired hands--who are
terribly overworked--have as little understanding of the needs of the
academic community as the powers that be had of the potentials and
pitfalls of computers. The hired hands see nothing wrong in trying to
keep publicly available information out of the hands of students and
faculty members by censoring postings on a public (electronic) bulletin
board; the powers that be, knowing that they know nothing of computers,
would not dream of overruling the hired hands; the scientists and
engineers who actually use computers in their work do not read
electronic bulletin boards and do not depend on hired hands--or, at
least, won't be hornswoggled by them; while the rest of the faculty and
students, who would never for a moment permit the removal of the same
information from the University libraries or bookstores, are, if
anything, secretly delighted that some computer nerd has gotten his
comeuppance.
Now I happen to be convinced that computers are useful tools to
aid in all sorts of academic undertakings, useful tools to aid in
thought. But the trouble is that the hired hands have tried to grab
control of the computers. And if computers have the potential that I
think they have, then those who control the computers are going to
control the production of our thoughts. Thus the computer, instead of
being liberating, becomes an instrument for dumbing-down our
institutions of learning--and the rest of society as well.
If I am right in this understanding--and I assure you that I
am--not only those soft-headed types who value freedom, but also the
hard-headed economic warriors locked in battle with Japan, Inc., should
be vitally concerned with the issue of computers and academic freedom.
Peter D. Junger
Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University
------
-------------------
Message-Id: <9104212129.AA29493@svax.cs.cornell.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 91 17:29:09 -0400
From: wayner@cs.cornell.edu (Peter Wayner)
Subject: Re: kill bush kill quayle
Hah, you should be aware that the government screens telegrams and
no doubt electronic mail for bad key words. Check out the book,
The Puzzle Palace, by James Bamford.
-Peter
-------------------
Message-Id: <9104212213.AA25432@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 91 18:13:56 -0400
From: Dan Brown
Subject: Re: Speculation as to why academic freedom suffers when computers are around
Cc: brown@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu
In reply to Peter Jungers last message, about the greed and incompetence,
I as a "hired hand" have a few objections.
First: Yes, most administrators are overworked, and probably shouldn't
have the task of being netcops or censors placed on their shoulders.
this doesn't mean that they are incompetant of completing the task,
just that they are too busy trying to deal with (often irate and
unreasonable) users, and complicated machines that are imperfect.
Second: To my knowledge, most administrators will try to offer the best
service they can to all of the users of the systems. They do not want
to control the machines for their own evil dictatorish purposes, as
was implied. They do want to maintain accessability, and usability
of the systems for all of the users.
Third: If the information is so publicly available, then how in the world
can an administrator be accused of censorship for removing it from his
system, especially if he or she, in his opinion, is doing so for
the betterment (IE, keeping it available for people to use to
communicate ideas, study, and do research) of the system. Is it
censorship to delete expired usenet messages? Technically that would
be removing information from the public view, but no one *1* screams
when this happens.
fourth: I and others have touched on this previously, I will restate here...
Does preserving academic freedom mean trying make sure EVERYONE is
ALWAYS able to do what he or she wants to do, or should it be taking
what resources (time, money, computers, anything) and dividing what
is available so that everyone has as much as possible? For example,
if one user crashes the system because he or she is doing research
on Unix Kernel programming, how fair is it to the user who is trying
to learn C (and probably dumping core here and there... taking up
disk space for...), or the user who is reading Comp-academic-Freedom
???
Some how it seems to me that people who are crying for freedom, and
delivereance from opression and mistreatment, are actually making a more
restrictive and opressive, law inflicted society. If for example, a
hypothetical individual sued a corporation because they removed a note,
that the corporation found innapropriate, for whatever reason, from a public
place. That individual wins the suit on the grounds that his right to
free speech has been violated (please don't ask for specifics, or argue that
mr/s Hy Pothetical wouldn't have won... stranger things have happened in the
courts of the United States). The corporation is probably going to make some
limitations about what can and can't be posted in places that they have
control over. There will also be a precedent (sp??) for other similar cases.
Perhaps some insurance company will even start offering censorship policies,
just in case you get sued for censoring something....
Does ANYONE out there see what I am saying??? It would seem to me that if
people had the sence not to walk in front of large moving public transporta-
tion vehicles, there wouldn't be less reason to cry for the right of way for
the pedestians. Much less for the bus company to charge $3.50 a block just
to cover insurance.
I guess that what I am trying to say is that there is a time and place for
everything, a forum for every discussion. A KKK member isn't probably going
to get alot said dressed in his robe, standing on a corner in East Cleveland,
though he probably has the right to. Students and faculty alike should use
some common sence about picking when where and how they are going to be
academic. They should consider the rights, and have some respect of the
rest of their community. So you say that there is no law that says that they
have to, well... there shouldn't have to be.
'Nuff Said.
Dan Brown
brown@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
-------------------
Message-Id: <9104212309.AA28316@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 91 19:09:39 -0400
From: Dan Brown
Subject: Re: Speculation as to why academic freedom suffers when computers are around
as a foot note the my last post (note the *1*), I have know people to
complain about the deletion of old news messages, but that is a whole
different story, involving a somewhat different can of worms.
later.
Dan
From kadie Mon Apr 22 20:03:22 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Still too many notes to read? Try caf-news, instead
Status: RO
Summary: Yet another version of the mailing list
Don't have time to read dozens of notes a day? Trust my judgement? If
so, the subscribe to this list. You will receive about one note a week.
It will be a collection of the best notes from the caf-talk mailing list.
I will play editor and decide which notes are best.
To switch from comp-academic-freedom-batch to comp-academic-freedom-news
send e-mail to listserv@eff.org. Include these lines:
delete comp-academic-freedom-batch
add comp-academic-freedom-news
After you subscribe, you can contribute to the main list by
sending email to comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org (or
caf-talk@eff.org).
From kadie Wed Apr 24 10:21:33 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Apr 24 10:21:20 EDT 1991
In this issue:
"Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <9104230942.AA13327@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: FYI: Re: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom
Newsgroups: uiuc.general
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kadie
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom
Message-ID: <1991Apr23.083947.3254@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
References: <1991Apr23.082959.78@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 08:39:47 GMT
Lines: 88
[Here is text of the letter setting out the policy. Any typos are probably
mine - Carl]
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
National Center for Supercomputer Applications
152 Computing Applications Building
605 East Springfield Avenue
Champaign, IL 61820
217 244-0072
Date: April 1, 1991
From: Michael D. Smith, Associate Director,
Computer Operations and System Administration
NCSA Security Officer
Phone: (217) 244-7714, E-mail: msmith@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Re: Policy on the Use and Security of NCSA E-mail Facilities
NCSA wishes to inform its e-mail users of the primary purpose of the e-mail
facilities, as well as when and user what circumstances individual e-mail
messages may be monitored or examined.
NCSA's e-mail facilities were established and intended to be used for center
business only, as opposed to personal or private business.
NCSA does not promise or guarantee that individual e-mail messages are
private or secure. Authorized system administrators and/or security staff
may be required to monitor or examine e-mail messages udner the following
circumstances:
1.) In order to support e-mail, system administration personnel routinely
monitor the successful delivery of e-mail to users. Undeliverable e-mail due
to incorrect addressing, unknown users, and the like may be returned to the
system postmaster for delivery resolution. The system postmaster must at a
minimum, read the header containing crucial information about who and
where the e-mail was being sent in order to determine why the message was
not deliver to the designated recipients(s). In the course of the above
mentioned operator, the text of the message of course is also open to view.
2.) NCSA networks require monitoring as a standard for network
maintenance and problem resolution, capacity planning and product testing.
This requires watching information actually moving across NCSA networks.
In the course of network monitoring, it is possible that electronic mail
messages will be part of the information packets moving across the network.
As such, this mail might be exposed to the person actually doing this activity.
[page 2]
3.) In order to protect NCSA's e-mail facilities from flagrant abuse of the
above mentioned purpose of the system, as well as protect NCSA staff from
threats to their personal safety and well being, protect NCSA against fraud,
attempts to disadvantage NCSA, prevent and/or ensure NCSA against
inappropriate information disclosures, it might be necessary for authorized
system administration and/or security staff to monitor or examine and
individual employee's and/or user's e-mail. This type of activity is only
performed for legitimate security reasons; only when there is cause for such
activity and only at the discretion of the NCSA's Director.
The users themselves can minimize occurrences of two of the three above
mentioned activities (items 1 and 3) by following common sense guidelines
regarding the use of e-mail.
First, always take care when address e-mail messages, thus reducing the
chance of the e-mail being forwarded to the system postmaster for resolution.
Not only will this reduce the chance of your e-mail being examined, but it
will also significantly reduce the workload of our various system postmasters.
Second, strive to use the e-mail facilities for their intended purpose as
stated above.
E-mail is an inappropriate vehicle for the transmission of extremely personal
and/or confidential information which one would not disclosed to
others. Hardware and software problems to arise which might send your e-
mail to an inappropriate addressee whose receipt of such you might not have
intended or desired. Good judgment should be exercised when deciding to
incorporate such personal and/or confidential information.
cc: James R. Bottum, NCSA
Judith S. Libman, OVCR
Larry, [sic] L. Smarr, NCSA
Harvey J. Stapleton, OVCR
Steven A. Veazie, OUC
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 04:42:14 -0500
From: "Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <9104230942.AA06697@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom
[Enclosed is a copy of a note I posted in "uiuc.general," a campus-wide
newsgroup at the University of Illinois. I also sent e-mail copies
to the administrators who approved the policy and to several
Professors interested in these issues (including the president of
the local chapter of the AAUP). Following this note, expect copies
of the policy in question and my notes from a conversation with
Michael Smith of the NCSA.
I will, of course, keep the list informed as to what happens.
- Carl Kadie]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The new NCSA e-mail policy permits searches and punishment of
faculty, students, and researcher who "attack" the University, or the
NCSA in e-mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) is a department
in the University of Illinois' Graduate College. On April 1 [no kidding],
the NCSA set down a new e-mail policy. The policy was cleared by the
University's legal counsel and the Graduate College. Faculty, students,
and researchers, however, were not consulted.
Although the policy offers much good advice and addresses legitimate
security concerns, it is overly broad and vague. Moreover, it is
inconsistent with the principles of Academic Freedom, Constitutional
rights, and University policies with respect to freedom of expression
and privacy.
The policy should concern all users of NCSA's e-mail facilities. It should
also concern anyone who sends e-mail to a NCSA user or through a NCSA
managed network. Finally, it should concern anyone who believes that
the principles of academic freedom (including freedom of expression and
privacy) apply to computers.
In a sense, this note is not constructive. I will not suggest an
alternate e-mail policy. Instead, I will criticize the current policy.
It is my hope that criticism will lead to the retraction of the
current policy and creation of a more balanced policy that respects
the rights of computer users.
Specifically, here are nine criticisms (in no particular order):
1) The policy was created without user representation.
The faculty, students, and researchers who use NCSA e-mail should have
helped form any policy. Also, any University committees
concerned with Academic Freedom should have been consulted.
2) NCSA contracts with industry are not an excuse to override academic
freedom and individual rights.
One attempted justification of the policy is that the NCSA is
contractually obligated to provide security and confidentiality to
industry. This is no justification at all. Contracts with industry
must be made within the boundaries of Academic Freedom.
3) E-mail to users at the NCSA from outside the NCSA deserves more protection.
Under this policy, searches of a user's e-mail will be typically
conducted by inspecting that user's mbox file. If you send e-mail to a
NCSA user, your note might end up in his or her mbox. If the mbox file is
searched, your note might be read (without any suspicion about
you and without the permission of the addressee).
4) The policy gives the Director extraordinary power with no check and
balances.
No search can be done without explicit authorization from the Director
of the NCSA. The Director, however, reports to no one.
5) Due process is not guaranteed in the policy.
If a user (faculty or student) is found to have committed an offense,
he or she should have the right to a formal hearing and the right of
appeal.
Also, some of the due process that is provided is not guaranteed in
writing. For example, there is an unwritten policy that the Director
cannot delegate the authority to authorize a search. This protection
should be make explicit.
6) The policy fails to respect e-mail.
The policy allows disk space to be searched, but there is no similar
policy allowing telephones or campus mail to be monitored or offices
to be searched. Privacy should be respected in all its forms.
7) The policy is vague.
It prohibits e-mail that "attempts to disadvantage NCSA." What does
this mean? It prohibits "inappropriate information disclosures," but
does not define "inappropriate".
8) The policy may prohibit constitutionally protected speech.
According to Michael Smith, the Associate Director of the NCSA,
the phrase "attempts to disadvantage NCSA" prohibits attacks in
e-mail on the NCSA and the University. This interpretation (of
a vague phrase) is inconsistent with the First Amendment, Academic
Freedom, and University policy.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: "Congress shall
make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
This amendment also applies to the States and to State institutions
such as this University. It protects your right to forcefully
criticize institutions such as the NCSA and the University.
The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students it the main
statement on the academic freedom of students. It has been endorsed by
the American Association of University Professors, the U. S. National
Student Association, and the Association of American Colleges. It
says:
"Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the
pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general
well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth."
Faculty's freedom of expression is, of course, also protected by
Academic Freedom.
The University of Illinois Code on Campus Affairs says:
"STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
I. Preamble
A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus
is a member of the University community of which all members have at
least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from
institutional censorship; affiliation with the University as a
student does not diminish the rights or responsibilities held by a
student or any other community member as a citizen of larger
communities of the state, the nation, and the world."
...
"III. Campus Expression
A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the
University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order.
[...]
C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors
and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student,
faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial
policy or content."
...
"VI. Student Affairs
[...]
B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression
1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. [...]
2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their
own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities should
not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers
does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed
either by the sponsoring group or the institution."
9) The policy may allow constitutionally prohibited search.
The Fourth Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized."
A government institution, such as this University can not ignore these
protections just because it owns the facilities [Mancusi v. DeForte
392 U.S. 364, 368 (1967); Gillard v. Schmidt 579 F.2d 825, 829 (3d
Cir. 1978)]
University privacy policy is described in the Code on Campus Affairs.
I think University rules concerning assigned office space provide
the best model of how disk space and e-mail should be treated.
"IV. Privacy
A. Members of the University community have the same rights of
privacy as other citizens and surrender none of those rights by
becoming members of the academic community. These rights of privacy
extend to residence hall living. Nothing in University regulations or
contracts shall give University officials authority to consent to a
search by police or other government officials of offices assigned or
living quarters leased to individuals except in response to a properly
executed search warrant or search incident to an arrest.
B. When the University seeks access to an office assigned or living
quarters leased to an individual to determine compliance with
provisions of applicable multiple-dwelling unit laws, ordinances, and
regulations, or for improvement or repairs, the occupant shall be
notified of such action not less that twenty-four hours in advance.
There may be entry without notice in emergencies where imminent
danger to life, safety, health, or property is reasonably feared and
for custodial service.
C. The University may not conduct or permit a search of an office
assigned or living quarters leased to an individual except in
response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to
an arrest."
In conclusion, the new NCSA e-mail policy is inconsistent with the
constitutional rights and the academic freedom of faculty, students,
and researchers. It says that freedom of expression and the right to
privacy to not extend to computers. I urge the NCSA to rescind the
policy.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 04:43:19 -0500
From: "Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <9104230943.AA23706@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: FYI: Re: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom
Newsgroups: uiuc.general
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kadie
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom
Message-ID: <1991Apr23.084510.17584@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
References: <1991Apr23.082959.78@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 08:45:10 GMT
Lines: 193
[These are my notes from my conversation with Michael Smith - Carl]
Earlier today (April 23, 1991), Michael D. Smith and I talked over the
phone. He kind enough to answer my questions about the NCSA e-mail
policy. Mr. Smith is the Associate Director of the National Center for
Supercomptuer Applications (NCSA), a department of the University of
Illinois. He is also the Computer Operations and System Administration
NCSA Security Officer. It is he who sent the letter setting down the
NCSA's e-mail policy.
The following is my reconstruction of the information he provided. It
is based on the notes I scribbled down as we spoke; thus it contains
no direct quotes. I will, of course, send a copy of this note to Mr.
Smith. I assume he will correct any mistakes I make.
q: [In his first e-mail note to me, Mr. Smith mentioned that the e-mail
policy was "University Approved"] What does "University approved" mean?
a: The policy was approved by the University's legal counsel and the Graduate
College. [The NCSA is a department within the College of Graduate Studies.]
q: Was there any user input or any input from any University
committee's concerned with Academic Freedom?
a: No.
q: What was the motivation for creating this policy?
a: To stop flagrant abuse of resources. We also have contractual
obligations to industry.
q: Some of the language in the policy sounds like it is trying to
explicitly say that the NCSA is not covered by the e-mail provisions of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Was this a
motivation?
a: [Mr. Smith said he was familiar with the ECPA.] No, it wasn't.
q: Can you be more explicit about your contractual obligations?
a: We promise a certain level of security. For example, no letter
bombs, no threats, no viruses.
q: You don't mean "level of security" in any formal or governmental sense
do you?
a: No, I don't.
q: Did you consider general University privacy policies?
a: There is an article about security in the IEEE software review. Our
computers policy is consistent with the trend at Fortune 500 companies
and other Universities.
q: Has this policy ever been used?
a: It has been used once in the last six years.
q: But the policy as only been in effect for a couple months
[actually, less than a month]. Was this use after the policy was set
down?
a: Yes
q: So, it has been used once in the last two months? [Actually,
once is less than a month]
a: Yes
[If the suspect would like to tell his or her side of the story,
he or she could contact me (or just post a note).]
q: Can you detail how the Director authorizes monitoring of e-mail?
For example, is monitoring allowed only for a limited amount of time?
Is it limited to a particular location?
a: We should be clear here, "monitoring" is a bad word. We don't actually
read the e-mail when it is transmitted. We look at the user's mbox
file. [Note, mbox is the computer file in a user's home directory
where e-mail is often archived.] The investigation is, thus, of
very limited duration.
[Comment: "monitoring" is the word used in the policy letter.]
q: The mbox file can contains both mail sent *by* the user and mail *to*
to the user. Does this mean that you can look at mail send from outside
NCSA?
a: It is possible, but not likely.
q: Can the Director delegate the authority to authorize a search?
a: Absolutely not. The Director must authorize each investigation on a
case-by case basis.
q: What records are kept of the the search?
a: A full report is made. It is kept in a safe.
q: Is the user [suspect] eventually notified?
a: Yes, always.
q: Are records of the search keep confidential as required by the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [of 1974]?
a: Yes.
q: Are the records available to the user as required by the act?
a: Yes.
q: Can the Director authorize the monitoring of NCSA telephones?
a: We don't control our telephones, so he can not.
q: Can the Director authorize the search of NCSA office space?
Or campus mail or US mail sent from NCSA?
a: There is no policy about any of that, so a search cannot be done.
q: What is the relationship between the NCSA and the University?
a: The NCSA is department of the Grad College of the University.
q: The policy says that e-mail is only for NCSA business. What
is "NCSA business"?
a: You are misreading the policy. It says that when the e-mail system
was established, it was *intended* for NCSA business. People now use
it for personal business. That is OK. Personal use can be important;
it can be used to build relationships.
q: This question may not make as much sense now, but let me ask it anyway.
Would it be OK to discuss the e-mail policy via e-mail? Would it be
OK to criticize you or the Director in e-mail?
a: Yes, of course.
q: Would it be OK to make such criticism without your knowledge? In
other words, is there legitimate NCSA business that is private from
you?
a: Yes.
q: And under the e-mail policy, might you end up reading a note between
two NCSA users criticizing you?
a: It is possible.
q: In section three of the policy, it says that one reason for a
search is if there are "attempts to disadvantage NCSA." Can you
explain what this means?
a: Here is an example, suppose the NCSA has a nondisclosure agreement
with a company. And suppose someone tried to send out information
covered by the agreement. That would be an attempt to disadvantage
NCSA.
q: Let me clarify the situation. In this scenario, has the person
who is sending out the information signed a nondisclosure agreement.
a: Maybe not. Suppose it is a secretary. Here is another example of an
attempt to disadvantage NCSA: suppose some is sending e-mail that
attacks a person, or NCSA, or the University.
[Mr. Smith continued:] We've been talking about section 3 of the
policy [protection of NCSA from abuse], parts 1 [misaddressed e-mail
might be read] and 2 [e-mail may be read in the course of network
maintenance] are also important. Lots of e-mail gets misaddressed;
people should be more careful. There is no practical way to figure out
where note should go without the body of the note being possibly seen.
Also, notes can be seen by network analyzers [A network analyzer is a
device that monitors traffic on a network. At the least, it measures
the number of packets being sent. It is like a voltmeter for
information.]
q: Do network analyzers show the text of packets?
a: Some do and some don't.
q: Which kind does the NCSA have?
a: We use both.
[I commented that the merits (or deficentcies) of section 3 are
independent of the merits (or deficentcies) of sections 1 and 2.]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 07:18:07 EDT
From: stu@rsch.oclc.org (Stu Weibel)
Message-Id: <9104231118.AA03555@seneca.rsch.oclc.org>
Subject: Re: Big Brother's little helper
> So, Rick, how does it feel to be part of the problem?
Most of us just don't have time to indulge petty accusation. Please try to
keep the level of discourse above that of sarcasm and bickering, else nothing
of use can result.
Stuart Weibel
-------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 09:09:43 EDT
From: peabody!kss@gatech.edu (Kevin Smith)
Message-Id: <9104231309.AA10920@peabody.gatech.edu>
Subject: exploring new ways of thinking
Louis Giliberto writes: (in answer to Dudley Irish)
>Look, if in an academic environment I can't explore new and innovative ways
>of thinking no matter how stupid or wasteful they seem to you, then my
>academic freedom is being violated since I cannot learn how to learn. I
>cannot learn and experiment and find out what is the best way to think or
>to act or to be.
Dudley has had some very well thought-out things to say in this discussion;
thanks, Dudley. Some responses to him have been quite intriguing; some have
just ignored the points he made.
Louis, I agree that learning how to learn is the high aim here; but a large
part of that is learning how and in what forum to address one of your 'new
and innovative ways of thinking'! None of us would have much consideration
for someone who walked into a political science forum and said 'I would like
to talk about cancer prevention.' And if someone naively and innocently did
that, we would reject that discussion in that forum and encourage them to
go find where it did belong. They would be unfairly tying up other people's
resources without the consent of those other people. The specific case that
your response came from was a news administrator who returned articles that
were improperly posted to news groups -- each of which is a distinct forum
with a well defined and readily available charter. (the other case, examining
file names seems a breach of privacy but nothing to do with academic freedom).
Upshot of my perspective: You are free to think however you want (even as a
lowly student !-). However, if you want to participate in usage of shared
resources, it is completely your responsibility to learn how to effectively
use those resources. You can not write off irresponsibility under the heading
of academic freedom.
Kevin Smith
kss@cc.gatech.edu
Georgia Tech
-------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 11:20:26 CDT
From: cheselka@cactus.org (Mike R. Cheselka)
Message-Id: <9104231620.AA05157@cactus.org>
Cc: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Subject: Still too many notes to read? Try caf-news, instead
delete comp-academic-freedom-batch
add comp-academic-freedom-news
-------------------
Message-Id:
From: zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh)
Subject: Newsgroup
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 16:04:30 CDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL13]
I think this mailint list merits a newsgroup. It seems like it has
the need. (BTW: I sent my stuff to listserv to kill my subscription until
it becomes a newsgroup, I can't read it well in this format.)
--
The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
-------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 10:04:47 EDT
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9104241404.AA16675@eff.org>
Subject: Re: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom
Summary: NCSA will change its policy
[I originally sent this last night, but I don't think it got sent out,
so I'm resending - Carl]
I'm happy to report that the NCSA has decided to revise its e-mail
policy. According to James Bottum, Deputy Director of the NCSA, the
new policy will be created with the help of the NCSA's users and in
consultation with campus committees concerned with academic freedom.
- Carl Kadie
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From kadie Thu Apr 25 07:41:54 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Apr 25 07:41:45 EDT 1991
In this issue:
"Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <9104241937.AA28098@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom
Thanks to a discussion on "uiuc.general", a newsgroup at U. of Illinois,
more details are coming out.
1) It appears that some time in March (?), an NCSA student (?)
employee(s?) anonymously sent e-mail to someone?/everyone? at the
NCSA. The recipent(s) found the mail to be "rude, crude, and very
immature". The e-mail was make to look like it came from
"saddam@iraq.bunker.gov".
2) The sender was somehow identified (by a search of his or her mbox?)
and fired.
3) On April 1st, an e-mail policy was handed down that, among other
things, permits searches of mboxes is someone uses e-mail to "attempt
to disadvantage NCSA".
(I don't know the order of #2 and #3.)
-------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 16:04:27 MDT
From: Dudley Irish
Message-Id: <9104242204.AA01711@math.utah.edu>
Subject: Academic Freedom, Reasonable Use, and Due Process
O.K. I have read and thought about this long enough for the
traditional, "The problem as I see it," message.
In a probably futile attempt to make these issues clearer, I am not
even going to mention the "c" word. Instead I am going to talk about
three rooms. The first is Professor P's office, the second is P's
lab, and the third is the P's department's conference room.
Clearly, if you go into P's office and start spouting off about
something that annoys P then he/she is going to ask you to leave. If
you do not leave, then P will ask security to remove you. Has P
interfered with your academic freedom? No.
Second, suppose that a group of student headed by one of the graduate
students working for P starts an organization and at first they are
meeting in P's lab. However as the number of people and the frequency
of the meetings grow, it gets to the point that it is interfering with
the work going on in the lab. As a result P tells the graduate
student to register with the student government and start meeting in
the student union. Has P interfered with their academic freedom? No.
Third, in P's department there are a number of loose organizations of
students interested in particular topics in the field. They regularly
meet in the dept. conference room after reserving it with the dept.
secretary. Another group of students starts to organize and since a
fair number of them our in P's department they schedule their meetings
in the conference room. Eventually, the dept. chair finds out about
these meetings which have nothing to do with the department and tells
the secretary to stop letting them schedule the conference room. When
confronted by the students, the chair tells them to go meet in the
union. Has the chair interfered with their academic freedom? No.
There are public places and private places and there are places in
between. Neither your academic freedom or your right to free speech
allow you to violate my private places. As always there are degrees.
You could argue that the department chair did interfere with the
students freedoms, if the meeting pertained to the department. If
they were meeting to organize a protest of something the chair did or
didn't do, then you could argue that the chair was over stepping the
bounds.
I don't know the particulars of any of the instances described so far
in this discussion, but I think that we can work out a couple of clear
principles. First, my office is my office and if you do something in
my office that I don't like, I will kick you out. Similarly for my
lab. Second, a department has the right to limit the use of its
conference room to meetings that have something to do with the
department. Now, what makes this all work is that all institutions
that care about academic freedom for their students have a way for
those students to get a room for a meeting. At the University of
Utah, (this is from memory as a student so bear with me) you just
stumble into the student union, go down the office and tell them the
name of your organization, the officers, give them a copy of the
charter, and they will register you. Then as a registered group you
can schedule rooms to meet in. And before you ask, they do have
provisions for organizational meetings. They will schedule a room and
register you provisionally for an organizational meeting. And of
course, you can stand in the lobby and accost people as they walk by.
This is the problem as I see it. Most universities (and here it is,
the "c" word) don't have the computer equivalent of a student union.
Most computer activists don't seem to be happy with the suggestion that
they take their activism offline and into the student union. Frankly,
in my opinion (he said slipping into the asbestos suit), unless we are
talking about a system that is the computer equivalent of a student
union then a students use of that computer for non-class related
speech is not protected by academic freedom. Clearly at a well
managed and open minded institution there will be a great deal of
latitude granted on the computer systems which do exist. Also, I
think that we will see more and more computerized student unions.
Until then, I think that the administrators of limited computer
resources are entitled to ask people to take their activism offline
and into the student union.
This brings us to the real issue, due process. In all of the cases
that I have read about much of the controversy seems to arise out of
the fact that the concerned student did not receive due process. I
think that it is very important to make sure that a student is not
removed from a computer system without due process. As per the joint
statement published by the AAUP, "Pending action on the charges, the
status of a student should not be altered, or his right to be present
on the campus and to attend classes suspended, except for reasons
relating to his physical or emotional safety and wellbeing, or for
reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or
university property." This should apply to computers too.
-------------------
From: junger@cwru.cwru.edu
Message-Id: <9104242207.AA20760@eff.org>
Date: 24 Apr 91 17:58:00 EST
Subject: "We can do anything we want with our network"
Cc: junger@cwru.cwru.edu
I am glad to see from Carl M. Kadie's most recent message that
NCSA has decided to revise its e-mail policy.
I wish that the powers that be here at Case Western Reserve
University were as reasonable. This morning I attended a meeting of our
Faculty Senate's Computer Committee where I raised the issue of
censorship of electronic messages and suggested that the Faculty Senate
should adopt a firm position that the use of electronic media is fully
protected by the principle of academic freedom. The Vice-President in
charge of out network was there and, though it was not really relevant
to my point, we got in a dispute as to whether the CWRU case that has been
mentioned here actually involved a violation of academic freedom and free
speach--that was the case involving the removal from a public electronic
bulletin board of the _source code_ of a chat program that demonstrated
how to get a packet driver to send a packet over an ethernet. I
insisted that the censorship of source code could not be justified as
necessary to prevent a clear and pressing danger; the vice-president--to
my astonishment--then claimed that he had obtained an opinion from our
University Counsel's office to the effect that the posting of the
message (including the source code) could amount to a fourth degree
felony (or misdemeanor or whatever, my ears were too startled to listen
well) under Ohio law.
So this afternoon I called the Counsel's office and spoke with
an assistant counsel. He said that he had never given such an opinion,
but that he had said that if the program was _used_ by a student to
improperly obtain information from a computer network (or something like
that) then it might constitute a violation of Ohio law.
Now that's OK. The assistant counsel was giving perfectly
proper advice; lawyers are not generally held liable for the misuse, or
the misconstruals, that their clients make of their opinions. But then
the assistant counsel went on and told me--I don't know if he gave this
opinion to the Vice President or not--"it's our network and we can do
whatever we want with it."
Now the assistant counsel is probably right as a matter of law,
so long as the university doesn't try to increase its endowment by wire
fraud or something like that, but that hardly addresses the question of
academic freedom. I have every confidence that the Faculty Senate will
in its testudinarian fashion eventually make clear that academic
freedom is not abandoned when one uses a computer; but I am afraid that
that resolution is going to take a long time.
In the meantime, I hope that some of you will post messages that
I can in turn show to the University administration in order to shame it
into behaving properly.
I can't help but think of the subtitle that Thorsten Veblen
wanted to use for his book on The Governance of Universities: "A Study
in Utter Depravity."
Peter D. Junger
Case Western Reserve University
Law School
Cleveland, Ohio
Internet: JUNGER@CWRU.CWRU.EDU ---- Bitnet: JUNGER@CWRU
------
-------------------
From: parghi@cs.uiuc.edu (Amit Parghi)
Message-Id: <9104250411.AA02654@vlad.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: CWRU CJS
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 23:11:32 CDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL6]
A while back, Dan Brown said:
> I do not support a student who uses the excuse of academic freedom to cry
> foul when the university removes a posting to a system that belongs to the
> university, that gives out specific information that can be used to the
> detrement of the university, and it's property.
I won't really get into this, as this is the crux of the debate/flame-war
that's been going on for a while; however, I will say that you should be
careful as to how you define "to the detriment of the University." That
phrase strikes me as very slippery and open to abuse.
> A point of interest... has anyone ever tried to get information from a
> public library about the operation of the phone system? It for the most part
> isn't there.
I don't understand your point here. If you mean to say that libraries don't
or can't carry "potentially dangerous information" (and that, by extension,
such info shouldn't be carried on a university newsgroup), you're wrong.
The main reason libraries don't carry these documents is that they're too
expensive (from US$100 and up) in relation to the very small number of
people who would be interested in them. But you can call up Bellcore on
their 800 number and order as many as you like (call them at 800 521 CORE --
I'm sure they take plastic money!).
Aside: If librarians had infinite funds and a sufficient number of
interested clients, they could be persuaded to order the latest "Notes on
the Network"; librarians, you'll find, are among the first people to fight
restrictions on what libraries can and cannot carry.
Amit
-------------------
Message-Id: <9104250512.AA22530@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 01:12:32 -0400
From: Dan Brown
Subject: Re: CWRU CJS
A question or two, for which I have a funny feeling I already know what kind of
answer I am going to get...
Should system administrators have the privilage of removing infomation from
the system that they administrate, when, in his/her opinion that information
is a security breach, or could be used to breach security?
If you answer yes, who should grant the sys-amin this privilage, and make sure
that that sys-admin doesn't abuse it? Also, wouldn't this removal of infor-
mation be considered CENSORSHIP?
If you answer no, then, why bother with encrypting the password file? Or...
why bother with requiring News and Mail to be authenticated in some manner?
Please don't think that I am advocating censorship. I feel that there should
be some manner of control so that there isn't a total free for all. Perhaps
I am being pessimistic, but I am not sure that I would trust everyone on the
net to behave in a manner that is agreeable to everyone else. I don't feel
that a totally anacronistic system, where anyone is free to say what they
want, when they want, using the excuse of rights of academic freedom to do
so, is going to be the peaceful exchange of a cornicopia of knowledge that
people expect it to be.
This is especially true when the knowledge that is being conveyed such that
it is a breach of security. Unfortunately, we have to live with the fact that
the people are given the responsibility for maintaining that security are
human, and have to make judgements about what they feel to be breaches of
security that neccesitate their attentions.
These sys-admins are in many ways between a rock and a hard place in terms
of issues such as these. They are charged with maintaining security, but when
they remove controversial information, prevent users that have violated rules
from using the machines, impose quotas, and other such dastardly deeds, they
are accused of impeding scholarly pursuits, and violating academic freedoms.
This happens even though they are trying to do their jobs in the best interests
of the majority of the users.
So it goes. I hope that I am never personally placed in a position where I am
going to have to make such a judgement call, because I feel like no matter
which direction I go, I am going to be doing something wrong.
Nuff Said.
Dan
From kadie Fri Apr 26 09:03:42 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Apr 26 09:03:27 EDT 1991
In this issue:
davecb@nexus.yorku : Re: Academic Freedom, Reasonable Use, and Due Process
sobiloff@stolaf.ed : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
stan kulikowski ii : another brick in the wall
kadie (Carl Kadie) : "CAF News"
-- A third version of the mailing list
Dudley Irish
Thank you Mr. Irish, this was a usefull and worthwhile exercise.
However, I wish to disagree most strongly with your underlying assumptions...
In <9104242204.AA01711@math.utah.edu>, Dudley Irish says:
| Now, what makes this all work is that all institutions
| that care about academic freedom for their students have a way for
| those students to get a room for a meeting.
[...] Frankly,
| in my opinion (he said slipping into the asbestos suit), unless we are
| talking about a system that is the computer equivalent of a student
| union then a students use of that computer for non-class related
| speech is not protected by academic freedom. Clearly at a well
| managed and open minded institution there will be a great deal of
| latitude granted on the computer systems which do exist. Also, I
| think that we will see more and more computerized student unions.
| Until then, I think that the administrators of limited computer
| resources are entitled to ask people to take their activism offline
| and into the student union.
My home university had and has a differnt approach: it has no student
union building and for may years had no strong student organizations. Instead
it was sensitive, almost oversensitive, to student concerns.
As a student faced with a ``situation'' in a lab, I had considerable
latitude for action against the department which caused the problem: I had
help from my own department, broad moral support from my classmates, pointed
advice from the legal aid department of the law faculty and, if necessary,
members of the senate elected from the student body prepared to make a
motion of public censure (!)
This is a very different situation from an organization which thinks in
terms of places and property: this is an institution which has a tradition
of propriety.
In part that is due to the fact that the university was created from three
religious colleges who had had to learn to get along with each other:
Assumption (Roman Catholic), Iona (United Church) and Canterbury (Anglican).
In part it is due to the different history of Canadian/British versus
American universities.
In our tradition, student iniatives are part of the university process,
just as students are part of the university community. Students have rights
and duties as members of the community and these are supported by the whole
community. One does not have to purchase a building to exercise one's
rights, any more than one has to purchase a printing press to exercise one's
talents at the student newspaper.
I do not believe this tradition is all that unfamiliar in the United
States: I have visited places where it seems to have grown much as it did
at Windsor.
Nor do I believe the tradition of baseing personal rights on property
rights is peculiar to the 'States. I have seen it here, and have fallen
into the trap myself, as Peter Danielson can testify.
I have come to belive that property-based arguements are an
oversimplification: they lead to conclusions that are actively distructive
to the purposes and tratitions of the university.
I claim that it is the tradition, including the tradition of granting
extraordinary academic freedoms, that informs the process. It is the
tradition of fairness that causes a university to make space and resources
available, even though they belong to the administration of the university.
Indeed, the university that has a student union probebly needs one...
--dave (at a university that just built a ``stuent centre'') c-b
-------------------
Message-Id: <9104251447.AA00179@stolaf.edu>
From: sobiloff@stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1991 09:41:52 WET DST
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.2 7/11/90)
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
I get things in batch form, so please bear with me as I address two issues...
(Hmmmm... I'm starting to feel like the AI in Vinge's _True Names_...)
>Sender: Dudley Irish
>Subject: Academic Freedom, Reasonable Use, and Due Process
>
>This is the problem as I see it. Most universities (and here it is,
>the "c" word) don't have the computer equivalent of a student union.
>Most computer activists don't seem to be happy with the suggestion that
>they take their activism offline and into the student union. Frankly,
>in my opinion (he said slipping into the asbestos suit), unless we are
>talking about a system that is the computer equivalent of a student
>union then a students use of that computer for non-class related
>speech is not protected by academic freedom.
As I see it, the equivalent of a student union in virtual reality can
take on any form--from a local newsgroup to a mailing list to a talk
or irc session. The only thing that is held in common is that it is
done with the aid of (usually) public computers. Here at St. Olaf we
have a local newsgroup (sto.general) that serves this purpose; other
places might use a different method. But what it all boils down to is
this (IMHO): the college provides some sort of physical place for students to
gather and discuss whatever they want with restrictions that are only
there because these meeting areas are a limited resource. Similarly,
the college provides a virtual environment in which one should be able
to freely associate within the bounds of the resources available. News
and other forms of communication are made available just like physical
meeting rooms, making the computer network a virtual equivalent of a
physical student union.
>-------------------
>Sender: Dan Brown
>Subject: Re: CWRU CJS
>Should system administrators have the privilage of removing infomation from
>the system that they administrate, when, in his/her opinion that information
>is a security breach, or could be used to breach security?
No, but it's a rather long justification. Please see below.
>If you answer no, then, why bother with encrypting the password file? Or...
>why bother with requiring News and Mail to be authenticated in some manner?
First, censoring information that could be used inappropriately goes against
the First Ammendment. There have been a large number of books that have
been published that detail all sorts of nasty things you can do: pick locks,
build bombs, etc. Doing any of these things is illegal, but the knowledge
is not (except, as I understand it, in California). Similarly, the knowledge
and the passing on of the knowledge of the finger security flaw is not
illegal. In fact, it *should* be passed on because it then gives the sysadmin
the chance to correct the problem.
Encryption of the password file insures that an individual can control the
amount of access that others have to his or her files. Authentication of
messages ensures accountability for your actions. I don't see how these
relate to academic freedom, however... what am I missing?
--
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|//////////////////////////////////////////
| Blake Sobiloff, Saint Olaf College | "A white, hetereosexual male who's |
| sobiloff@stolaf.edu | politically incorrect and proud of it." |
/////////////////////////////////////|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
-------------------
Message-Id: <9104251449.AA28869@eff.org>
5966; Thu, 25 Apr 91 09:48:39 CDT
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 09:47:53 CDT
From: stan kulikowski ii
Subject: another brick in the wall
another brick in the wall
stan kulikowski ii
educational research and development center
the university of west florida, pensacola
in our discussions so far, we have been treating academic freedom as if it
were a desireable feature of education, and yet it seems to be a very rare
commodity. we seem to have come to some consensus that academic freedom is a
common law. afterall, the hallmark examples in favor of academic freedom are
the persecutions of socrates and copernicus which occurred in vastly different
legal systems. tenure and AAUP policies serve as contractual instantiations
of that concept. nowdays, censorship of email and usenet news are topics of
concern in restricting this freedom.
some of us claim:
!> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 09:09:43 EDT
!> Sender: peabody!kss@gatech.edu (Kevin Smith)
!> Message-Id: <9104231309.AA10920@peabody.gatech.edu>
!>
!> Louis Giliberto writes: (in answer to Dudley Irish)
!>
!> >Look, if in an academic environment I can't explore new and innovative
!> >ways of thinking no matter how stupid or wasteful they seem to you, then
!> >my academic freedom is being violated since I cannot learn how to learn.
!> >I cannot learn and experiment and find out what is the best way to think
!> >or to act or to be.
!>
!> Louis, I agree that learning how to learn is the high aim here; but a large
!> part of that is learning how and in what forum to address one of your 'new
!> and innovative ways of thinking'!
!>
these sound like general operational requirements of an education, but a
great bulk of education proceeds without academic freedom. i know of a
local college in which students can be expelled and faculty dismissed if
their attendence at chapel falls below a certain level. do we claim these
people are not being educated? did abelard never educate anyone because
religious conventions permitted only limited expression?
on kidsnet@pittvms we have been discussing the addition of K-12 to networking
and the problems in establishing a real NREN.
!> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 23:13 EDT
!> From: KIDSNET MAILING LIST
!> Message-id: <9E48D0C4BADF407D92@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
!> From: dswartz@lobo.rmhs.colorado.EDU
!>
!> ...
!>
!> We will soon have a limited UseNet feed (there has to be some censorship
!> of material to a high school ! ) and we also plan on having an anonymous
!> FTP site set up for use by the network.
!>
!> Dave Swartz - Rocky Mountain High School, Fort Collins, CO
!>
i suspect the comment above about censoring news feeds is aimed at removing
alt.sex and similar fora of expression from the network consumption of the
students. obviously, ftp will have to be censored, or the little knippers will
just whistle up the alt.sex archives and there goes the old censorship. the
same with personal email. i did such a sidestep once when the purdue censor
yanked one of my postings (without any notification, by the way). i pushed the
file to cms bitnet, sent it to a friend in massachusetts and he posted it on
the nets for me. he prefaced the submission with "they are having trouble with
their postings at purdue..." :)
so when and how does academic freedom come into education?
if we believe that everything should be available to allow the readership to
self-determine what they need, you can bet that alt.sex will be consumed in
bulk by elementary students. i was about 10 when i became interested in
centerfolded magazines. i think most girls and boys share this experience in
spite of the availability restrictions placed on the media. do you think
we will ever convince elementary teachers to teach their students to
experiment with learning in these areas of strong natural interest? hardly.
the age of consent. the magic 18 years old? alt.sex has been consistently
one of the most popular usenet news feeds. the strength of this sophomoric
interest certainly speaks for access levels before attendence in our networked
postsecondary schools. here are the top 10 for usenet news feeds this week.
how many of these do you think will be censored on moral grounds from secondary
and elementary networks?
!>
!> Date: 22 Apr 91 22:30:20 GMT
!> Message-ID: <130070@uunet.UU.NET>
!> From: newsstats@uunet.UU.NET
!> Approved: rick@uunet.UU.NET
!> Subject: Top 25 News Groups for the last 2 weeks
!>
!>
!> No. of $ Cost % of Cumulative
!> Rank Kbytes Articles per Site Total % of Total Group
!> 1 8754.7 224 23.10 4.2% 4.2% alt.sex.pictures
!> 2 4842.8 121 12.78 2.3% 6.5% comp.binaries.ibm.pc
!> 3 3238.4 121 8.55 1.6% 8.1% comp.mail.maps
!> 4 3036.3 67 8.01 1.5% 9.6% comp.sources.misc
!> 5 2613.6 1353 6.90 1.3% 10.8% alt.sex
!> 6 2580.2 678 6.81 1.2% 12.1% bionet.molbio.genbank
!> 7 2539.4 1037 6.70 1.2% 13.3% talk.abortion
!> 8 2183.8 58 5.76 1.1% 14.3% comp.binaries.mac
!> 9 2169.6 1164 5.73 1.0% 15.4% rec.arts.startrek
!> 10 2145.6 1314 5.66 1.0% 16.4% soc.culture.indian
!> ...
when we say that freedom is determined by our defense of those who say things
we detest, are we prepared to network all and any data into our elementary
schools?
one view that has been expressed is that academic freedom only exists for
faculty to explore unpopular knowledge. that might narrowly cover the problems
of socrates and copernicus, but an academy is an interaction between teachers,
students, and curriculum. what if some faculty were allowed to offer a
seminar, but the administration refused to schedule a room, publish it in
course offerings and forbade any student, staff, or visitor from attending?
shouting on a soapbox in the campus commons is a pretty hollow academic
freedom. are we not just talking research freedom and publishing freedom, or a
common right of the academic process to engage fully in study with whatever
resources are available? afterall, educators today do recognize peer learning,
student-to-student teaching, as a legitimate and effective form of knowledge
transfer in schools. i am told that oriental academics have instutionalized
student tutoring, much like study groups in our law schools. are these somehow
excluded from unrestricted exercise of their study?
the aristocratic model: the top be free; the rest do follow.
ok, so the formal notion seems to be that academic freedom is a concept which
only covers the elite, tippy-tip of educational structure. the masses at the
elementary base are only given access to what the elite decide is best for
them. surely education throughout history has been this way, and continues
that way today and tomorrow. look how long the instructional design of
biological texts has been effected by parochical interests in a few megabytes
of text produced millenia ago. will lower level academics ever be free as long
as they are operated by grassroots politics and the benevolent tyranny of local
school boards? local school facilities are little more than feudal domains.
like it or not, that's what we got.
the administered use of our computing systems is just reflecting what always
has been. perhaps, these issues in computer systems are more precisely and
clearly articulated because the increases in speed and volume of data transfer
are bringing up the issue of freedoms more and more rapidly... so a few more of
those near the top may get enfranchized into the elite. the very process of
grading, passing and failing, is an asymmetric power which moves down the
academic structure... fundamentally limiting the freedoms of those getting when
compared to those giving. the place where new or unpopular knowledge is
debatable is in the heights. even the church appointed devil's advocates for
this purpose.
the network educational model is then something different. efficient
computer transfer of data is bringing this forward by offering floodgates of
access to all levels uniformly. knowledge can flow in both directions:
something more than information down and test results up. it is up to us to
provide justification, and i suggest that the student role in the academic
process is an important place to consider. if the receiver does not enjoy a
similar degree of freedom to the transmitter, how does the knowledge transfer
ever happen? the final quality of exchange will be really determined by the
narrowest channel, not the most free.
hey, teachers, leave them kids alone...
stan
REFERENCES
kevin smith (1991) exploring new ways of thinking.
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org; internet;
archived anonymous ftp eff.org, cd academic.
dave swartz (1991) intro for dave swartz. kidsnet@pittvms.bitnet;
archived anonymous ftp vulcan.phyast.pitt.edu,
cd pub/kidsnet.
newsstats (1991) top 25 news groups for the last two weeks.
newsstats@uunet.UU.NET; 22 apr 91.
. stankuli@UWF.bitnet
===
º º close your eyes, my darling, or three of them at least
--- -- old venusian lullaby
-------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 12:39:48 EDT
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9104251639.AA29387@eff.org>
Subject: "CAF News"
Summary: A third version of the mailing list
For folks who do not have time to read dozens of notes a day (and who
trust my judgement), I've created a third version of the mailing list.
It is called comp-academic-freedom-news.
If you subscribe to this list, you will receive about one note a week.
It will be a selection of notes from the caf-talk mailing list. I will
play editor and select notes.
=How to quit/join/switch=
To leave any version of the list. Send email to listserv@eff.org. Include
the line:
delete comp-academic-freedom-
where is talk, batch, or news.
To join any version of the list. Send email to listserv@eff.org. Include
the line:
add comp-academic-freedom-
If you wish, you may join multiple versions of the list. (When I give
readership numbers, I try not to count duplicates.)
As always, to send a note to the list(s), email to
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org (or caf-talk@eff.org).
= Archives =
Every note that has been posted to the list is available via
anonymous ftp to eff.org. The directory is "academic". The file is
"batchin". Every issue of caf-news (so far there has been only one)
is available in file "newsin". [If you can't find these files,
look at the README file. I may have moved them.]
= MetaEditorial Philosophy =
(Why caf-news will be biased and what you can do about it.)
There was a complaint on the net recently. Someone charged that the
editor of a moderated newsgroup was biased. The proposed solution was
to replace him with someone who would not be biased. I don't believe
that there is such a thing as an unbiased person. (And indeed, in
this case, no such person was found.)
If a communication channel (such as caf-news) is biased, the solution
is not to "unbias" it. Rather, the solution is to add more channels.
In other words, if you find you don't like caf-news, you *should*
create your own moderated mailing list.
For this solution to be practical, it must be relatively easy to add
new channels. I think it is. You can select articles from caf-talk.
You can get the listserv software (for unix) via anonymous ftp from
eff.org. (The file is academic/listserv.tar.) And, you can post an ad
in caf-news telling folks how to join your list.
- Carl
-------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 11:54:37 MDT
From: Dudley Irish
Message-Id: <9104251754.AA06108@math.utah.edu>
Subject: RE: Dan Brown's Question
In principle, I believe that if the system administrator finds some
information on the system that poses a clear and present danger to the
smooth operation of the system, then they can and indeed would be
obliged to remove it. However, I am hardpressed to think of anything
that would qualify. To continue in my theme of "The problem as I see
it," this is the problem: What constitutes a clear and present danger
and who decides. I wouldn't. I would refer it to the Director (the
faculty member that I report to) and sugest to him that he consult
with the Chair, the relevant adviser, and the student or faculty
member before making a decision.
The problem is due process. It seems to me that it is unfair to
charge the system administrator with making these decisions and as I
have said, I would refuse to. Unfortunately, there seem to be sys
admins out there who are happy to make these decisions. However, the
solution (?) is not a policy of allowing anything, but rather a policy
requiring due process.
-------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 12:09:10 MDT
From: Dudley Irish
Message-Id: <9104251809.AA06161@math.utah.edu>
Subject: RE: Re: Academic Freedom, Reasonable Use, and Due Process
"davecb" has pointed out an assumtion in my comments. I did assume a
basicly adversarial relation between the students and the
administration. However, I would argue that if there isn't an
adversarial relationship then there isn't a problem. It sounds like
at his university this issues are unlikely to arise.
However, given that it is a religious school, I wonder what the
administrations reaction to some of the seamier news groups would be.
Dudley Irish / dirish@math.utah.edu / Manager Computer Operations
Center for Scientific Computing, Dept of Mathematics, University of Utah
The views expressed in this message do not reflect the views of the
Dept of Mathematics, the University of Utah, or the State of Utah.
-------------------
Message-Id: <9104251842.AA01548@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 14:42:09 -0400
From: Dan Brown
Subject: RE: Dan Brown's Question
>requiring due process.
But what of the fact that the speed of "due process" is likely to be
considerably longer than the time it takes for a "violation" to occur, or to
be propogated?
I use the term violation loosely, since it has been demonstrated that there
are many definitions, and individual interpretations of such.
Also, since the system administrator is likely to be held responsible for
the information that is stored on the systems that he/she manages, why
shouldn't s/he be allowed to censor it, if s/he feel it neccessary to do so?
IMHO if someone isn't allowed to protect themselves from being associated,
then that person shouldn't be held resonsible. From what I have seen, in our
society, it doesn't work that way. Anyone can be held liable for anything
that they are vaguely associated with. Why should they not be allowed to
protect themselves?
-------------------
From: sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Message-Id: <9104260009.AA03882@isis.cs.du.edu>
Subject: Re: Still too many notes to read? Try caf-news, instead
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 18:09:27 MDT
Cc: sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu (Steven S. Brack)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
delete comp-academic-freedom-talk
add comp-academic-freedom-news
-------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 20:20:29 CDT
From: francis%zaphod@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
Message-Id: <9104260120.AA01682@arthur.uchicago.edu>
Subject: CWRU CJS
Dan Brown writes:
If you answer no, then, why bother with encrypting the password file? Or...
why bother with requiring News and Mail to be authenticated in some manner?
There's no authentication (except that you can usually tell what site
it came from).
/============================================================================\
| Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.|
| Department of Mathematics |=============================================|
| University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, |
| francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes |
\============================================================================/
From kadie Sat Apr 27 09:40:41 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Apr 27 09:39:48 EDT 1991
In this issue:
sobiloff@stolaf.ed : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
kadie (Carl Kadie) : Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch editio
-- Has anyone *tried* standing on principle and policy?
francis%zaphod@gar : Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch editio
-- Censorship sucks.
-- Yes, but even worse you left a mechanism in place.
The addresses for the list are now:
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-talk@eff.org
listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 08:54:31 EDT
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9104261254.AA08815@eff.org>
Cc: comp-academic-freedom-talk, sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu
Subject: Still too many notes to read? Try caf-news, instead
Your note got sent to "listmaster@eff.org" rather than "listserv@eff.org".
Please resend to listserv@eff.org
Thanks,
Carl Kadie, acting listmaster of eff.org
--------------
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
Sender: sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 18:09:27 MDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
delete comp-academic-freedom-talk
add comp-academic-freedom-news
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 10:29:29 -0400
From: rsk@juniper.circ.upenn.edu (Rick Kulawiec)
Posted-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 10:29:29 -0400
Message-Id: <9104261429.AA17887@juniper.circ.upenn.edu>
Subject: Well, was I a censor?
Cc: rsk@juniper.circ.upenn.edu
First, I'm going to respond to this:
> From: stan kulikowski ii
>
> i did such a sidestep once when the purdue censor
> yanked one of my postings (without any notification, by the way).
That's simply not true -- you may disagree strongly with what I did,
but you have no reason to think that I ever did anything behind your back.
There are lots of reasons your article may not have made it out: full disk
partitions, dropped network connections, NNTP botch, etc....it happens
every day.
I don't think I'll ever convince Stan that I was not acting as
a censor when I was the news administrator for the computing center
at Purdue. His mind seems to have been made up long ago, and he now
insists on the label "censor", which I feel is undeserved. Let me
tell the rest of you why, and then you, if you want, can try to convince
me otherwise. I'd like to think I have an open mind about this; but
responses like "How does it feel to be part of the problem?", which
came my way the other day, are probably not going to very persuasive. ;-)
First, a word about how Usenet news works for those of you on Bitnet
and other places. Usenet news is essentially a distributed bulletin
board, compartmentalized into several hundred sections dealing
with numerous topics. (E.g. comp.ai.vision deals with AI techniques
in computer vision; rec.backcountry deals with hiking, etc.)
Individual messages posted to these "newsgroups", as they are
called, propagate from site to site via a flooding algorithm that
tries to send every article to every site. Estimates of the size
of Usenet vary wildly, but 10,000 sites and 500,000 users are probably
ballpark numbers. Every site that runs news has, in theory, a
mail address "news" to which comments, complaints, and miscellany
may be sent; the local news administrator is supposed to be on
the receiving end of that address.
Newsgroups fall into two broad categories: moderated and unmoderated.
Unmoderated newsgroups may be posted to directly by anyone; an article
sent to one of these newsgroups will show up locally (first), and then
will work its way outward from there. Moderated newsgroups may only
be posted to by the moderator: the proper etiquette is to mail the
article to the moderator, who screens it and then posts it. What
"screens" means varies from moderator to moderator. Some just check
to see if the topic of the article is appropriate to the newsgroup
and pass it on; others lightly edit to fix grammar and spelling errors;
still others try to winnow a large volume of articles in order to
present a small number that strike a balance between multiple points
of view. In the ten years that I've been on Usenet, I've been
completely impressed with how hard moderators try to do their task
with equanimity; I can count the number of times (that I'm aware of)
that a moderator did something dubious on one hand.
Usenet etiquette is defined by a set of continually evolving consensus
guidelines which are periodically posted to the newsgroup
news.announce.newusers, and are available at most sites in a publicly-readable
directory. These guidelines are mostly refined common sense, e.g.
"Don't post an article to 83 newsgroups", "When following up, don't
quote a 300-line article in its entirety", and so on.
Many sites supplement this with a set of guidelines for the use of
their local newsgroups; I provided the users at Purdue's computing center
with a 4-page document that (1) summarized the Usenet etiquette and
(2) explained the local etiquette.
Now a word about Purdue. Purdue's administration is extremely sensitive
to adverse publicity of any kind -- believe me, I know from firsthand
experience. They were, and are, concerned about the contents of any
articles emanating from a Purdue site. This is why, for a very long
time, only faculty and the staff (full-time and student) of the
computing center were allowed to post articles to non-local newsgroups.
(This was *not* my choice. I argued for changing it about once a semester.)
This is also why, at one point, computing center staff were advised that
posting articles to non-work-related groups could be construed to
constititute a misuse of center resources. (This also was *not* my
choice. I argued against it strongly on the grounds that it was
a content-sensitive restriction as opposed to a context-based restriction.)
Now here's the real problem: users were posting articles that generated
complaints. Now, a few squawks here and there are no big deal. But when
one article from one user generates dozens of letters to "news" from
people all over the world, there's a problem. For a time, I tried to
ignore it, because dealing with news was one small part of my job, and
I had other fish to fry. But when the complaints began to reach people
other than me, I began to worry. There were rumblings that news could
possibly go away. So here's what I did: I set up the outbound news
spooler so that it would send me a copy of any outbound article.
Once a day, I glanced through these (usually there were less than 10)
to see if any of them had anything grossly wrong with them. "Grossly
wrong" means "things that don't follow Usenet etiquette", for example,
an article which quoted a preceding (lengthy) article in its entirety.
("Grossly wrong" does *not* mean "expressed an unpopular point of view".)
If I found such an article, I'd send out a cancel message (which causes
the article to disappear from Usenet), and mail the article back
to the originator with a note telling them what was wrong with it.
The idea of this was to sidestep the process that would start when
the complaints coming in reached the ears of those people higher up.
Did I like doing it? No. It was a pain in the ass. But it beat having
news yanked in its entirety, which seemed to me to be a very real
possibility if something wasn't done.
Was it censorship? I don't think so, and let me tell you why not.
First, I consider what I was doing no more obstrusive that what someone
might do with a physical bulletin board in a campus hallway: if the
person in charge of the bulletin boards finds a "Couch for sale"
note on the bulletin board reserved for student jobs, is it
censorship for them to unpin that note and carry it back to the
person who posted it and ask them to put it on the for-sale board?
Second, I never returned anyone's article to them because of what
they had to say -- I allowed articles to pass (lots of them) that were
critical of the computing center, critical of Purdue, critical of my
favorite football team, whatever.
Third, I made sure everyone had a chance to know the rules up front:
they were posted to local newsgroups, available in a public directory
on every machine, referred to by the news-posting program itself, and
so on. I didn't want anyone to be surprised -- but I know some people
were. (Which brings up a separate issue: if you need to tell 7000 users
of your systems something, *how* do you tell them?) I don't think the
rules were terribly restrictive -- to use the physical bulletin board
analogy again, many campuses have rules that specify no postings
larger than 8.5x11 inches, or require an approval stamp for certain
bulletin boards, or reserve some departmental bulletin boards for
things like grades, class announcements, etc.
Fourth, if I really wanted to censor someone, I had far more effective
means at my disposal. With a few keystrokes, I could have disabled
them from posting news to any or all newsgroups. I could have rigged
a program to cancel all of their articles every night. I could have
caused our outbound news link to drop all their articles on the floor.
(Or, best of all, I could have done nothing and waited for the one
article that would cause Purdue to yank Usenet news entirely.) But
I certainly wouldn't have told them about it.
There's more to it, but this is long enough, I think, to get the
idea across. I welcome reasoned arguments to the contrary position,
especially those which refute points 1-4 above.
---Rsk
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 11:16:19 EDT
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca
Message-Id: <91Apr26.111624edt.6148@nexus.yorku.ca>
Dudley Irish writes
| In principle, I believe that if the system administrator finds some
| information on the system that poses a clear and present danger to the
| smooth operation of the system, then they can and indeed would be
| obliged to remove it.
I can give a parallel and probably less contentious example, and
draw some conclusions from it:
The university I serve had a problem early this year: a person used our
telephone system to break into a terminal server and escaped into the
Internet. This is contrary to one of our policies, and was used to attempt
break-ins on various internet-connected machines.
There is little argument against considering this a ``bad thing'', but
there was a privacy/security-of-information issue and many of the other issues
we've been discussing in the context of news:
o a clear and present danger,
o a breach of policy,
o a due process problem, and
o an administrator-responsibility issue.
The privacy issue was paramount: this person was connected to us via the
public telephone networks. As such we could not even identify him without
showing cause, obtaining a court order and serving it on the phone company.
This meant the problem rapidly escalated to the directoral level, and we
got some guidance, rather than being left to guess.
We managed to resolve it in about two days, based on the following
reasoning:
1) The clear and present danger was to other sites who were suffering from
the actions of someone using one of my machines.
2) The breach of policy that we were interested in was that we someone was
on the network but was not identifiable or authenticatable.
3) The due-process problem was worsened by the fact that we could not
contact the person to deal, fairly or otherwise, with them.
4) The administrator was responsible, but did not have leave to act.
We elected to use the ``clear and present danger'' issue as a justification
for the policy issue, and dealt with it initially at that level. If we had
not had a policy that touched on the problem, we would have been in a much
shakier position.
We attempted to find out how to contact the person and failed. We therefor
had to consider unilateral action, and provide due process only after the
fact if he complained.
We asked the phone company and the affected sites if they had an
investigation ongoing that they wished us to join. The affected sites did
not, The telephone company had contacted us previously, but we could not
contact them in a reasonable period of time (~24 hours) and chose to assume
that they did not have anything ongoing.
The director ruled that the policy breach required the person be denied
access to the server, effective the next day if an outside investigation
would not be threatened.
The next day was added a password to the line.
We heard nothing further from any of the parties and closed the case.
The lessons we could apply to a news-posting case are these:
1) A policy in another area is wonderful: it distills
previous experience and allows one to make progress
during high-stress periods.
2) Fear motivates people to escalate to responsible people
quickly
3) Even clear and present danger doesn't require one to
leap before you look...
--dave
-------------------
Message-Id: <9104261734.AA19414@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Cc: brown@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Subject: Re: Dan Brown's Question
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 13:34:38 -0400
From: "Sam Hill Cabal, DS"
Dan Brown writes:
Also, since the system administrator is likely to be held responsible for
the information that is stored on the systems that he/she manages, why
shouldn't s/he be allowed to censor it, if s/he feel it neccessary to do so?
IMHO if someone isn't allowed to protect themselves from being associated,
then that person shouldn't be held resonsible. From what I have seen, in our
society, it doesn't work that way. Anyone can be held liable for anything
that they are vaguely associated with. Why should they not be allowed to
protect themselves?
I reply:
Dan, a system administrator _should_not_ be held responsible for
information stored on a system that they _manage_. The job of
a sys-admin is to keep the system running, and to fix it when it
crashes.
I don't understand people who get upset and send nasty messages to
sys-admins when they read something that offends them on Usenet,
on a BBS, or in e-mail. The person responsible is the person who
composed the message, and not the people running the computer it
was sent from. What I tend to do is read everything that looks
interesting -- if I start to see a pattern where one person (or
username, anyway) is posting stuff I think is stupid or offensive,
I stop reading stuff from that username -- via a kill file or just
by deleting messages from that username from my mail.
People need to start taking responsibility for their _own_ actions
and opinions, rather than laying that responsibility on others.
If sys-admins take it upon themselves to censor outgoing news/mail,
they are saying that all news/mail that is allowed to pass is
approved by the institution and that they are taking responsibility
for its contents.
TSD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hill Cabal "Them people'll do anything for money. You'd be
bwdavies@sunrise.bitnet suprised. They ain't like us, Doc. They're
bwdavies@rodan.acs.syr.edu Christians." -Seldom Seen Smith
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 14:19:04 EDT
From: peabody!kss@gatech.edu (Kevin Smith)
Message-Id: <9104261819.AA05791@peabody.gatech.edu>
Subject: stupid or offensive mail
Sam Hill Cabal (?????) writes:
was sent from. What I tend to do is read everything that looks
interesting -- if I start to see a pattern where one person (or
username, anyway) is posting stuff I think is stupid or offensive,
I stop reading stuff from that username -- via a kill file or just
by deleting messages from that username from my mail.
In this discussion of `sensoring' of news or mail, a lot of people seem
confused on this -- the question is not about whether mail or news or
whatever is `stupid or offensive', it is whether it is `improperly posted'
or `destructive'. Stupid or offensive postings merely reflect your own
ignorance. Improper or destructive ones overstep your rights as users of
the system. Controlling these is certainly still open to question, but
let's not waste more discussion on mail that is merely `stupid or offensive'.
Kevin Smith
kss@cc.gatech.edu
-------------------
Message-Id: <9104261848.AA07275@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 14:48:01 -0400
From: Dan Brown
Subject: Re: stupid or offensive mail
Irregardless of whether or not the mail/news is 'stupid or offensive' or
it is 'dangerous' the blame for the content of that mail/news is probably
going to be partly laid on the sys-admin. Take note of the previous message
by the purdue sys-admin. Who do you think gets the chore of reading mail
addressed to news, or postmaster???
Please note that I am not advocating that sys-admins should censor mail/news,
but noting where the blame for an offending (what ever the reason) document
is going to be put.
dhb
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 14:52:01 EDT
From: Christopher M Mauritz
Subject: Re: stupid or offensive mail
Message-Id:
Re: bothersome/dangerous mail/news
While the individual posting the offending news/mail is ultimately
responsible for his/her actions, it is the sys admin. who has the power
to compel the person to stop. Therefore, sometimes it is a necessary
evil to contact the postmaster at the site.
Just my $.02...(probably all its worth anyway )
cheers,
Chris
------------------------------+---------------------------
Chris Mauritz |Show me the way to the
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |next whiskey bar...
|-Kurt Weil-
-------------------
Message-Id: <9104261916.AA19945@stolaf.edu>
From: sobiloff@stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1991 14:10:20 WET DST
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.2 7/11/90)
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
>Sender: Dan Brown
>Subject: RE: Dan Brown's Question
>
>Also, since the system administrator is likely to be held responsible for
>the information that is stored on the systems that he/she manages, why
>shouldn't s/he be allowed to censor it, if s/he feel it neccessary to do so?
>
>IMHO if someone isn't allowed to protect themselves from being associated,
>then that person shouldn't be held resonsible. From what I have seen, in our
>society, it doesn't work that way. Anyone can be held liable for anything
>that they are vaguely associated with. Why should they not be allowed to
>protect themselves?
We have to get over the silly notion that a sysadmin can actually monitor and/
or be responsible for the contents of a multi-user system. They act more like
the network specialists at AT&T than anything else. Of course, if someone
violates the law/breaks security/whatever, then you can go after them because
they've committed a crime. Until this point, however, it is mere possibility.
If, however, you are in a position where you *are* being held responsible
for the contents of your multi-user system I'd do two things. First, lobby
the administration to change their views--explain the utter rediculousness
of the idea. Second, until that change comes about lock everyone out of the
system until you can inspect every single byte. This should motivate some
change... :-)
--
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|//////////////////////////////////////////
| Blake Sobiloff, Saint Olaf College | "A white, hetereosexual male who's |
| sobiloff@stolaf.edu | politically incorrect and proud of it." |
/////////////////////////////////////|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 16:10:51 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9104262010.AA11971@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Summary: Has anyone *tried* standing on principle and policy?
Several sysadmins have said that in response to outside complaints
they were compelled to censor/screen outgoing notes.
[By the way, thanks for expressing this view. I'm sure it is representative
of how many sysadmins feel.]
I would tell the complainers that
1) "[T]hat sponsorship of" a news/e-mail systems "does not necessarily
imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed, either by the
sponsoring group or the institution."
2) That neither I nor anyone else at the University has the
authority to censor a student or professor for his or her expression;
because University rules state that "institutional control of campus
facilities should not be used as a device of censorship."
Maybe my advice is too pure. Has any sysadmin, someone whose been in
the trenchs, tried this? Is it possible and practical to stand on
principle (and University policy) or is the pressure from the outside
just too great?
- Carl
p.s. If you write a summary line at the top of your note, it will
show up (with your name and the title) in the table of contents
of the batch edition.
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 16:12:40 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9104262012.AA12000@eff.org>
Subject: FYI: Re: Self-censorship (was ++>><< SCUMBAG HOMOPHOBES)
Xref: eff soc.women:2773 alt.sex:8328 alt.sex.motss:151 alt.censorship:244
Path: eff!world!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kadie
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,alt.evil,soc.women,soc.men,alt.sex,alt.sex.motss,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Self-censorship (was ++>><< SCUMBAG HOMOPHOBES)
Message-ID:
Date: 26 Apr 91 13:47:17 GMT
References: <1991Apr14.202032.8965@umiami.ir.miami.edu> <1991Apr17.074018.26250@aucs.AcadiaU.ca> <1991Apr17.212326.14141@eedsp.gatech.edu> <161359@felix.UUCP>
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Lines: 39
Nntp-Posting-Host: herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right
to speech that advocated violence.
(My response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill
of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression.)
In 1919 the Court agreed. Indeed, it want even farther saying that any
speech that had a 'tendency' to cause a volation of the law could be
punished. This principle was used to convict a Socialist for mailing
antiwar leaflets.
In 1925 the Court established stronger speech protections, stating
that speech could not be punished unless it presented 'a clear a
present danger' of imminent harm. In 1931, this was used to overturn a
conviction based on a California law. That law make it illegal to
publically salute a red flag -- the symbol of (violent) revolution.
In 1950's during the second Red Scare, the Court backtracked saying
that the clear-and-present-danger principle did not apply to speakers
who advocated overthorwing the government, no matter how remote the
danger of such an occurrence might be. (This paved the way for jailing
policitial activists, loyalty oaths, etc).
In the 1969 case of Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down
the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under a criminal syndicalism
law and established a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or
punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action'
and it is 'likely to produce such action.' Otherwise, the First
Amendment protects even speech that advocates violence. The
Brandenberg test is the law today.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 15:39:24 CDT
From: francis%zaphod@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
Message-Id: <9104262039.AA03681@math.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Well, was I a censor?
were. (Which brings up a separate issue: if you need to tell 7000 users
of your systems something, *how* do you tell them?) I don't think the
There's the "msgs" system, for one thing.
I personally feel that there should be some way to set up a newsgroup
which people can't avoid reading; then news-specific messages could be
guaranteed delivery to exactly the people who read news. (It'd be
moderated, of course. :-)
A local one and a Usenet-wide one, maybe.
/============================================================================\
| Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.|
| Department of Mathematics |=============================================|
| University of Chicago | Should five percent appear too small, |
| francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | Be thankful I don't take it all. "Taxman" |
\============================================================================/
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 15:52:04 CDT
From: francis%zaphod@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
Message-Id: <9104262052.AA03695@math.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
I would tell the complainers that
1) "[T]hat sponsorship of" a news/e-mail systems "does not necessarily
imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed, either by the
sponsoring group or the institution."
This sounds like it should deal with most cases. Somebody said a
while back that they patched their NNTP server to add a disclaimer
line to each header. Maybe this should become a standard feature.
/============================================================================\
| Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.|
| Department of Mathematics |=============================================|
| University of Chicago | Should five percent appear too small, |
| francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | Be thankful I don't take it all. "Taxman" |
\============================================================================/
-------------------
Message-Id: <9104262132.AA12441@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 14:25:27 CDT
From: George Rickerson
Subject: Re: Well, was I a censor?
Random House Dictionary:
censor, n. 1. an official who examines books, plays, news programs, etc., for
the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, poilitical,
military, or other grounds. 2. any person who supervises the manners or
morality of others.
I suppose technically you were a censor, but only in the least offensive (to
me) sense of the above-quoted definition. The rules are reasonable, and it
sounds like you enforced the rules in a reasonable manner. Academic freedom
is not a synonym for anarchy, in my opinion. However, the basis of my
opinion gets somewhat wobbly after thinking about the following definition
from the same dictionary:
academic freedom, 1. freedom of a teacher to discuss any social, economic,
or political problems without interference or penalty from officials,
organized groups, etc. 2. freedom of a student to explore any field or hold
any belief without interference from the teacher.
Given that some rules and guidelines are necessary to insure the well-being
of a computer network, it doesn't appear to me that one could implement this
definition in a computer network.
George Rickerson
Office of Library Systems
513 Clark Hall
Univ. of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211
(314) 882-7233
C6340A@UMVMA.BITNET
C6340A@UMVMA.UMSYSTEM.EDU
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 20:42:49 -0400
From: jbw@cs.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Message-Id: <9104270042.AA21070@bucsd.bu.edu>
Subject: disclaimers automatically added to outgoing messages
Summary: Censorship sucks.
Warning: This message was not approved by a censor.
References: <9104262052.AA03695@math.uchicago.edu>
Sent-Via: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
>>>>> "Francis" == Francis Stracke writes:
> 1) "[T]hat sponsorship of" a news/e-mail systems "does not necessarily
> imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed, either by the
> sponsoring group or the institution."
Francis> Somebody said a while back that they patched their NNTP server to
Francis> add a disclaimer line to each header. Maybe this should become a
Francis> standard feature.
Or in the case of a site that engages in censorship, a disclaimer should
be added that says "This article approved by censor".
--
Enjoy,
Joe Wells
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 20:42:42 -0400
From: jbw@cs.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Message-Id: <9104270042.AA21067@bucsd.bu.edu>
Subject: Re: Well, was I a censor?
Summary: Yes, but even worse you left a mechanism in place.
Warning: This message was not approved by a censor.
References: <9104261429.AA17887@juniper.circ.upenn.edu>
Sent-Via: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
>>>>> "Rick" == Rick Kulawiec writes:
Rick> That's simply not true -- you may disagree strongly with what I did,
Rick> but you have no reason to think that I ever did anything behind your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rick> back.
No matter how loudly you deny that Stan's reasons are true, it does not
mean that he has no reasons to think you censored his article. The mere
fact that you are known to monitor outgoing USENET articles because of
prior complaints about other articles is a very strong reason for him to
believe you were responsible for an act of censorship.
If you wanted people to think you were an honest upstanding citizen, you
should have refused to ever become involved in any USENET monitoring, no
matter what the circumstance were.
Rick> Purdue's administration is extremely sensitive to adverse publicity
Rick> of any kind -- believe me, I know from firsthand experience. They
Rick> were, and are, concerned about the contents of any articles
Rick> emanating from a Purdue site. This is why, for a very long time,
Rick> only faculty and the staff (full-time and student) of the computing
Rick> center were allowed to post articles to non-local newsgroups.
Translation: They do not wish to allow freedom of expression to their
students on USENET. They wish to prevent articles with certain contents
from being posted. (In the outside world, this is known as CENSORSHIP.)
(Yes, Purdue has the legal right to do this. Having the right to censor
is a separate issue from whether the censorship is moral.)
Rick> Now here's the real problem: users were posting articles that generated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rick> complaints.
"The real problem" is that you (and presumably many others) at Purdue
didn't stand up to defend the right to free expression (which was not
legally guaranteed in these circumstances, thus requiring someone to stand
up for it, or it would be lost).
Rick> But when the complaints began to reach people other than me, I began
Rick> to worry. There were rumblings that news could possibly go away.
And you (and others) weren't willing to fight for it. Or rather, you
*were* willing to censor for it.
Rick> So here's what I did: I set up the outbound news
Rick> spooler so that it would send me a copy of any outbound article.
Rick> Once a day, I glanced through these (usually there were less than 10)
Rick> to see if any of them had anything grossly wrong with them.
And you got to decide. And of course, you're perfect and would never make
a mistake and "accidentally" censor based on informational content. But
what about your successor? Is he/she as unbiased as you claim to be?
Rick> "Grossly wrong" means "things that don't follow Usenet etiquette",
Rick> for example, an article which quoted a preceding (lengthy) article
Rick> in its entirety.
Can you name one grossly wrong thing that could not be detectable with a
program? Until you thoroughly prove why a program could not do the job,
your explanation is just an excuse. A program is preferable because
artificial intelligence does not yet exist and thus a program could not
censor an article based on its message.
Rick> First, I consider what I was doing no more obstrusive that what someone
Rick> might do with a physical bulletin board in a campus hallway: if the
Rick> person in charge of the bulletin boards finds a "Couch for sale"
Rick> note on the bulletin board reserved for student jobs, is it
Rick> censorship for them to unpin that note and carry it back to the
Rick> person who posted it and ask them to put it on the for-sale board?
Yes, this is censorship, as per definition 1 of censorship and definition
1.2 of censor listed here (from Webster's, unknown edition):
cen.sor.ship \'sen(t)-s*r-.ship\ n 1: the institution, system, or practice
of censoring or censors 2: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor 3:
exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
1. cen.sor \'sen(t)-s*r\ \sen-'so-r-e--*l, -'so.r-\ n [L, fr. cense-re to
assess, tax; akin to Skt s'am.sati herecites] 1: one of two magistrates of
early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and
conduct 2a: an official who examines publications for objectionable matter
2b: an official who reads communications and deletes forbidden material
archaic 3: a faultfinding critic 4: the psychic agency that represses
unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness - cen.so.ri.al aj
2. censor \'sen(t)s-(*-)rin\ vt or cen.sor.ing : to subject to censorship
Currently, the owner of the communications medium has the right to censor
any communication that uses it. I do not argue that this is wrong in the
case of a hallway bulletin board. I do argue that this is wrong in the
case of USENET. Thus, in addition to the fact that your example does not
exhibit something that is not censorship, it is irrelevant to the current
debate.
Rick> Second, I never returned anyone's article to them because of what
Rick> they had to say -- I allowed articles to pass (lots of them) that were
Rick> critical of the computing center, critical of Purdue, critical of my
Rick> favorite football team, whatever.
But why should we believe you? You've already admitted you were involved
in censorship (you did not use this word), therefore destroying much of
your credibility. The only statement we have that says you showed
restraint is from you.
Even if you didn't abuse the mechanism, and we have only your word on
this, the mechanism you set up is very easy to abuse. It makes it very
easy for someone in charge to tell the current censor that articles with
certain contents are not to go out. It also relies on the integrity of
the censor, which is historically an unwise thing to do.
Fortunately, there are still easy ways to get around instances of network
fascism like this, eg. mail to news.group.name@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu.
--
Enjoy,
Joe Wells
From kadie Sat Apr 27 12:19:59 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Correction to Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed)
Status: R
This is a correction to the table of contents for today's edition.
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Apr 27 09:39:48 EDT 1991
In this issue:
kadie (Carl Kadie) : Still too many notes to read? Try caf-news, instead
rsk@juniper.circ.up : Well, was I a censor?
davecb@nexus.yorku. :
"Sam Hill Cabal, DS : Re: Dan Brown's Question
peabody!kss@gatech. : stupid or offensive mail
Dan Brown ><< SCUMBAG HOMOPHOBES)
francis%zaphod@garg : Well, was I a censor?
francis%zaphod@garg : Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch editi
George Rickerson
Subject: Well, was I a censor?
jbw@cs.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:
>>>>>> "Rick" == Rick Kulawiec writes:
>No matter how loudly you deny that Stan's reasons are true, it does not
>mean that he has no reasons to think you censored his article. The mere
>fact that you are known to monitor outgoing USENET articles because of
>prior complaints about other articles is a very strong reason for him to
>believe you were responsible for an act of censorship.
[Purdue's worries deleted]
>Translation: They do not wish to allow freedom of expression to their
>students on USENET. They wish to prevent articles with certain contents
>from being posted. (In the outside world, this is known as CENSORSHIP.)
They want to protect themselves from being involved in libel
suits--this is certainly just (after all, libel is wrong, so
preventing it is not--unless carried too far, of course). Don't know
what else they wanted to prevent.
>Rick> But when the complaints began to reach people other than me, I began
>Rick> to worry. There were rumblings that news could possibly go away.
>And you (and others) weren't willing to fight for it. Or rather, you
>*were* willing to censor for it.
This is completely unfair. He undertook to carry on minor censoring
of the serious problems in order to forestall total censorship (in the
form of news getting nuked).
Whose academic freedom would have been protected if he had stood by
and let the administration remove news?
>Rick> "Grossly wrong" means "things that don't follow Usenet etiquette",
>Rick> for example, an article which quoted a preceding (lengthy) article
>Rick> in its entirety.
>Can you name one grossly wrong thing that could not be detectable with a
>program? Until you thoroughly prove why a program could not do the job,
He just did. Included articles come up in many forms; the only way a
scanning program could check for this would be with a serious
dedication of CPU time and access to older articles than may be
available at the site.
It would also need a good deal of debugging, which might have meant
justifying a large time expenditure to his bosses.
[corkboard analogy deleted]
>Yes, this is censorship, as per definition 1 of censorship and definition
>1.2 of censor listed here (from Webster's, unknown edition):
[definition deleted]
>Currently, the owner of the communications medium has the right to censor
>any communication that uses it. I do not argue that this is wrong in the
>case of a hallway bulletin board. I do argue that this is wrong in the
>case of USENET. Thus, in addition to the fact that your example does not
>exhibit something that is not censorship, it is irrelevant to the current
>debate.
What's the difference that makes one wrong and the other right?
Anyway, he wasn't forbidding people to say stuff, he was just getting
them to say it politely (broad definition of "politeness"). He sent
back articles so they could be rephrased, *retaining the same
content*, and reposted. That does *not* fit the definition you
quoted.
>But why should we believe you? You've already admitted you were involved
>in censorship (you did not use this word), therefore destroying much of
>your credibility. The only statement we have that says you showed
>restraint is from you.
There was also a previous message from somebody who said Rick had come
to him & explained why he should rephrase. This person had no
complaints. And he has *not* admitted to censorship: you are
misreading the definition.
>Even if you didn't abuse the mechanism, and we have only your word on
>this, the mechanism you set up is very easy to abuse. It makes it very
>easy for someone in charge to tell the current censor that articles with
>certain contents are not to go out. It also relies on the integrity of
>the censor, which is historically an unwise thing to do.
This is true. However, if (as he seems to have said) mild censorship
was necessary to preserve everybody's USENET access (isn't Gene
Spafford at Purdue?), it was probably the right decision.
>Fortunately, there are still easy ways to get around instances of network
>fascism like this, eg. mail to news.group.name@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu.
Lovely. Mail is even easier to fake than news.
/============================================================================\
| Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.|
| Department of Mathematics |=============================================|
| University of Chicago | Should five percent appear too small, |
| francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | Be thankful I don't take it all. "Taxman" |
\============================================================================/
-------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 17:32:25 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9104272132.AA22328@eff.org>
Subject: Well, was I a censor?
Summary: Hide behind principle, not censorship
q: Suppose my boss at the University says "I just got a complaint letter,
either tone down netnews or I will order it shut down. Now if I monitor
outgoing mail/notes to be sure it is "nice", I'm a a censor?
a: Yes. You may not be an evil censor (merely a between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place
censor), but you are a censor.
q: What can I do?
a: (These suggestions are pure in the sense that I've never tried
them)
1. Tell others at your University of the situation and of your
dilemma; tell us. If your boss hates criticism, he or she may
discover that there is more protection behind the principle of
academic freedom and freedom of expression than behind censorship.
2. (I think I saw this in an army movie.) Tell your boss that because
you are not sure that his or her orders are consistent with University
policy, that you would like those orders in writing. Say that you
are carrying out the orders under protest.
q: Is it OK to inspect all notes and to censor out notes that are not
of a moderate tone?
a: (I'm paraphrasing from an ACLU handbook on teacher's legal rights)
Generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First
Amendment [or Academic Freedom -cmk], does not lose that protection
because its tone is sharp. Discussions will not always be models of
decorum. A court observed that "often those with the power to appoint
will be on one side of a controversial issue and find it convenient to
use their opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to squelch
them.
q: Is it OK to inspect all notes and to censor out notes that may
be libelous?
a: Inspecting all notes before they go out is inconsistent with
academic freedom. It is prior restraint.
Legally, as far as I've heard, there as never been a libel suit
because of something written on the net. (Thus, no such libel suit has
ever been won, and no electronic distributor, e.g. a University, has
ever been found liable for libel.)
By inspecting the notes you may be *increasing* your liability. The
law on this is not settled, but it is reasonable to suppose that
by inspecting notes you are accepting responsibility for them. Before
you were just a distributor, now you are an editor.
