From kadie Tue May 7 10:14:42 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue May 7 10:14:37 EDT 1991
In this issue:
Edward Vielmetti < : pointer to network and campus use policies
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
-------------------
Message-Id:
Subject: pointer to network and campus use policies
Date: Mon, 06 May 91 20:39:06 EDT
From: Edward Vielmetti
there's a nice collection of campus and network appropriate use
policies kept as part of the Computer Underground Digest archives.
See the directory
ftp.cs.widener.edu:/pub/cud/
especially the "networks" subdirectory there. Submissions and
additions are welcomed, send them to brendan@cs.widener.edu.
-- comp.archives file verification
ftp.cs.widener.edu
total 128
-r--r--r-- 1 0 7939 Mar 11 23:38 ut.software.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 5341 Mar 11 23:38 uninet.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 5800 Mar 11 23:38 onet.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 2790 Mar 11 23:38 nsfnet.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 2607 Mar 11 23:38 northwestnet.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 2375 Mar 11 23:38 nearnet.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 31098 Mar 11 23:38 mrnet.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 10296 Mar 11 23:38 farnet.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 21201 Mar 11 23:38 email.policies
-r--r--r-- 1 0 540 Mar 11 23:38 los-nettos.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 3833 Mar 11 23:38 ansnet.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 3881 Mar 11 23:38 cren.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 8577 Mar 11 23:38 concert.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 9572 Mar 11 23:38 compuserve.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 2171 Mar 11 23:38 cerfnet.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 2296 Mar 11 23:38 fricc.policy
-r--r--r-- 1 0 1186 Mar 11 23:38 Index
found network-use-policy ok
ftp.cs.widener.edu:/pub/cud/networks/
--
Edward Vielmetti, MSEN Inc. moderator, comp.archives emv@msen.com
"(6) The Plan shall identify how agencies and departments can
collaborate to ... expand efforts to improve, document, and evaluate
unclassified public-domain software developed by federally-funded
researchers and other software, including federally-funded educational
and training software; "
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, S. 218
From kadie Wed May 8 10:13:39 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed May 8 10:13:22 EDT 1991
In this issue:
Tom Limoncelli @ D : Written Policies
kadie (Carl Kadie) : Which
Sanjay Kapur
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 16:30:03 EST
From: Tom Limoncelli @ Drew University
Subject: Written Policies
I would be interested in reading the written policies of other
schools for comparison. Could anyone post their policy? (I'd be
particularly interested in the policy that Rutgers has.)
Could some FTP site administrator collect these and put them all into
a directory. It would be useful for other schools that are just
looking to write their own. Even if it was only 90% up-to-date it
would still be of service to the community.
-Tom
To start the ball rolling, here is what Drew publishes in their
Technology Handbook: (not in this order)
1. A policy statement that says, "don't make prank
phone calls or use other people's phone authorization codes".
2. we re-print from EduCom "A Guide To The Ethical And
Legal Use of Software For Members of the Academic Community".
3. The policy statement below (reprinted from the Drew University
Handbook 1989-1990 Section III: "Administrative Regulations:
Misuse of Computer Facilities") It's short, quite "from the
70's", and vague. I'm not looking for critiques, I'm graduating
in 3 weeks (anyone want to hire a very technical CS major with good
interpersonal skills?) and no body here that could change the
policy is on this mailing list. By the way, to put this in
context, Drew University is a small (1400 students) liberal arts
college with a tiny graduate school and a microscopic theology
school. It's in Madison, New Jersey.
------------------------------ cut here ------------------------------
(Typos are mine. -Tom)
Computing resources, like other resources of the University, are
provided for the use of Drew faculty, students, and staff. The
privilege of use by a student is not transferable to another student,
to an outside individual, or to an outside organization.
The theft or other abuse of computer time or facilities is not
different from the theft or abuse of other University property, and
violators of the computing privilege will be subject to disciplinary
action under the usual procedures for dealing with non-academic
discipline.
Abuses include but are not limited to:
1. Unauthorized entry into a file, either to read, execute or change.
2. Unauthorized transfer of files (copying).
3. Unauthorized entry into a network.
4. Unauthorized use of another individual's computer account.
5. Use of computing facilties to interfere with the work of another
student.
6. Unauthorized divulgence of code words or other means of entry.
7. Any intentional action to alter or destroy a diskette, other
recording media, or its content.
Use of the computing privilege to interfere with normal operation of
University computing systems or any other systems accessible throught
the University is prohibited and is subjected to severe disciplinary
action.
Users of computing facilities should be sensitive to the possible
abuses of those facilities and should not act in ways to encouarge
misuse by others.
------------------------------ cut here ------------------------------
-------------------
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 22:46:36 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105080246.AA08144@eff.org>
Subject: Which rights?
Here is my list of academic freedoms as applied to computers:
Freedom of expression
freedom to receive electronic mail and receive newsgroups
freedom to send mail and post notes to newsgroups
Privacy
information in a users disk files is private
(the user may not own the disk, but he or she does own the information)
email is private
Due Process
There is a general right to due process
notice must be given before new rules are enforced
warrents must be obtained prior to searches
rights cannot be signed away
Access
Computer and network access shall not be denied without due process
Limits
If a lack of resources requires that computer use be limited,
that limitation should implemented by giving (or selling)
some quota of resources to the user. No general restrictions
should be made on how the user uses those resources.
----------
I'd welcome comments, additions, and criticisms.
- Carl
-------------------
Date: Wed, 8 May 1991 02:06 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Which rights?
Message-Id: <61C8B0E4A400BB28@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie)
>
Carl,
Thank you for your "Bill of Rights" I will play Devil's advocate and ask you
some questions. Actually, quite a large number of questions.
I have a LOT of questions.
>Here is my list of academic freedoms as applied to computers:
>
They should not be limited to computers. Computers are just a tool, a fancy
one, but for the purposes of discussion of freedoms, still a tool. Academic
freedoms are too important to be limited only to computers. These principles
should apply to all facets of a University.
>Freedom of expression
> freedom to receive electronic mail and receive newsgroups
> freedom to send mail and post notes to newsgroups
As long as the "freedom" is not any freer than for "paper" mail, i.e. If your
department allows you to send the same letter on the University/department
letterhead. If your department does not allow you to use the letterhead and
you have to purchase your own personal stationary, it is equivalent to
subscribing to a commercial uucp/usenet service.
>Privacy
> information in a users disk files is private
> (the user may not own the disk, but he or she does own the information)
Are the contents of your office wooden or steel desk private? Can the
University remove or open your desk or file cabinet? Under what circumstances?
( I mean dEsk not dIsk)
Are the contents your secretary's desk private? What if your secretary also
happens to be a student?
> email is private
Again, under what circumstances? Is mail that is intended for the "Chair" or
the department's "Graduate Program Director" private? Who decides if your
mail is for you as an individual or because of your position? What if mail
addressed to the "Graduate Program Director" is never read because the
individual does not care to read that?
>Due Process
> There is a general right to due process
Agreed. Except in an emergency but due process should be restored as soon as
the emergency is over and the period of emergency should be limited to a
well defined short period (Say 24 to 72 hours at the most)
> notice must be given before new rules are enforced
Agreed, except that under certain emergency conditions, the notice period may
not be as long. Here I want to propose another "freedom": there should be
an appeals process against "bad" rules.
> warrents must be obtained prior to searches
Does the University need a warrant to search a student/staff/faculty members
desk? (In my personal opinion, warrants should be required to do these
searches.) Another problem is that a suitably privileged person can conduct a
search on a computer system leaving no trace at all of having done so. There
is normally no proof of a search at all. This is not the case with other
places where warrants are used. Summary: Your files are searched because they
can be searched without a trace.
> rights cannot be signed away
Have you ever been admitted to a Hospital? :-) or obtained credit? :-) or
served in the armed forces ?
Anyone can sign rights away. When someone wants to retract their consent, the
questions that a court asks include:
a) Did the person knowingly sign them away?
b) Was any physical coercion use?
c) Was the period that the rights were signed away for an
unreasonably long period?
d) Was it lawful for the person to ask you to sign away your rights?
>Access
> Computer and network access shall not be denied without due process
Again what about an emergency?
>Limits
> If a lack of resources requires that computer use be limited,
> that limitation should implemented by giving (or selling)
> some quota of resources to the user. No general restrictions
> should be made on how the user uses those resources.
Who decides what a reasonable quota is? What if the multi-user computing
resource refuses to sell the quota or allow you to purchase more? What if the
quota is set at a ridiculous level (e.g. 10 Kbytes of disk space or 10 Kbytes
of network mail/week)
>
>----------
>I'd welcome comments, additions, and criticisms.
>- Carl
You asked for them, you got them.
Just as Freedom of the Press is essential for the preservation of Democracy and
the growth of a free people, Academic freedoms are essential to the
preservation of the "Universe" in University and for the growth of Education
and learning.
Usenet is a useful tool for conducting certain kinds of academic research
but is also widely perceived as the place where rec.humor and alt.sex reside.
These newsgroups may be useful for psychologists and psychiatrists. But the
reason a University does not want to carry them is very similar to the reason
that a University Library normally does not carry XXX rated videos or Archie
comics (except maybe in some places as special collections)
Looking forward to responses,
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Which rights?
<9105080246.AA08144@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 08 May 91 02:42:18 EDT
From: Edward Vielmetti
> Freedom of expression, Privacy, Due Process, Access, Limits
Carl,
There's a lot of leeway in these discussions to confuse "rights",
"privileges", "freedoms" -- each of which can be compromised in
different ways by misguided authority, resource limitations, or
percieved contractual obligations. Policies which are suitable to
rich organizations with plenty of resources can be completely
inappropriate to operations running on a shoestring.
For instance. I used to be system manager at a mathematics dept. at
a big ten school. We were consistently short on disk space (isn't
everyone?). For that reason, I decided not to get a newsfeed of
alt.sex.pictures, and not to go out of my way to install graphics
viewers. If someone had found another way to read the group and started
to save pictures, I would have spoken with them and asked them to remove
the stuff. Why? not becuase the nudie pix were evil or anything, but
becuase there just wasn't enough room to hold them. similarly I made
it clear to a user who kept voluminous logs of soap opera discussion
that he had to keep the size of his collection in check; whereas if the
same user had generated big numerical math results it would have been
just fine. so I guess I have to disagree with the implications of the
"limits" argument you present; an effective system manager may have to
take into account (in some general way) the contents of the data stored
on disk, and make policies according to how it relates to the academic
mission you are part of.
i also have some difficulty in the interpretation of your "due process"
clause. when I started as a system admin, there was no departmental
"policy document" to speak of, and no real time to write one. I suspect
that university policy would have kicked in if need had arisen, fortunately
it didn't. Decisions were ad hoc at times, within the constraints of
"what will the faculty advisors think" and "what will the chairman think".
Lots of "new rules" were enforced as needed on a sort of seat of the
pants basis, as I say there was no real time to codify them all. Had
there been a real serious disagreement of opinion, I suppose I would have
had to fall back on general department or college (or university)
procedures.
now, on to what I meant to say to start out with.
it's not enough to assert that you have these rights. it's not enough
to whine about some system administrator not letting you do such and
such a thing because it infringes upon your academic freedom. freedoms
like these need to be exercised to be valid; that means you need to
defy authority when it's reasonable to do so, call attention to
problems as they arise, and generally not let yourself (or your
colleagues) be stepped on.
my preference would be to see this list of rights / priveleges / freedoms
set up against some case history (e.g. Stanford and U Waterloo action
on rec.humor.funny, NCSA e-mail policy, the UMich "bad jokes" flap) and
see what lessons can be drawn from those cases which got big attention.
--Ed
emv@msen.com
formerly emv@math.lsa.umich.edu
From kadie Thu May 9 10:29:33 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu May 9 10:29:19 EDT 1991
In this issue:
George Rickerson < : Re: Which
Aydin Edguer
Edward Vielmetti < : Re: Which
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
-------------------
Message-Id: <9105081744.AA15038@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 08 May 91 12:33:19 CDT
From: George Rickerson
Subject: Re: Which rights?
I can't agree with your inclusion of privacy rights under the heading
academic freedom. I work for a tax-supported university. All of the
documents I create as part of my work, including letters, are the property
of the university and are public documents. That is, access to the
contents of those documents is a matter of university policy and has
nothing to do with my personal privacy. I can't see that any different
standard would apply to electronic documents.
If I want a letter to be private, I write it on my time, use my paper, and
mail it with my postage. Similarly, if I want my email to be private, I
had better compose it on my workstation and mail it on a service that I
have subscribed to.
The essential idea of academic freedom is not that my expressions are
private but that I am able to make those expressions, whatever they may
be short of something consituting moral turpitude, without fear of
retaliation.
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: Wed, 8 May 91 14:02:27 -0400
From: Aydin Edguer
Message-Id: <9105081802.AA19390@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: Re: Which rights?
I am not just playing devil's advocate. I seriously question your list
of "rights".
While the Bill of Rights is a marvel in simplicity, your list of
"academic freedoms" falls short on its first two issues due to excessive
specificity.
> freedom to receive electronic mail and receive newsgroups
> freedom to send mail and post notes to newsgroups
This assumes that the computer that the students/faculty/staff are given
access to has a network connection, either phone or hardwire. This is a
faulty assumption.
Secondly, this assumes that given a network connection that the facility
has sufficient disk space to store the software to send and receive news
or mail, the software available to do the same and that the there is further
space to store the messages. This is a faulty assumption.
Finally this assumes that a department is willing to say that any newsgroup
is valid to its research, which is what the equipment is to be used for.
This is simply not true. Not all equipment in a department is funded for
education, sometimes the equipment is donated or bought using funds that
have strict limitations on its use. Thus allowing news or external e-mail
access of any sort may be a violation of the equipment grant.
> warrents [sic] must be obtained prior to searches
To whom should an academic department go to obtain a warrant to search?
Who do you think is impowered by a search warrant?
> Computer and network access shall not be denied without due process
What do you mean by "due process"? Without a definition this statement has
little semantic value [to me].
> No general restrictions should be made on how the user uses those resources.
This goes against the current academic standards. Restrictions against
using academic resources for personal or commercial gain are an integral
part of most academia. This is a valid general restriction, thus your
right would be invalidated.
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
Message-Id: <9105082112.AA00338@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Which rights?
<9105081744.AA15038@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 08 May 91 17:12:15 EDT
From: "Manavendra K. Thakur"
>>>>> On Wed, 08 May 91 12:33:19 CDT, George Rickerson said:
> I can't agree with your inclusion of privacy rights under the
> heading academic freedom. I work for a tax-supported university.
> All of the documents I create as part of my work, including letters,
> are the property of the university and are public documents.
[...]
> If I want a letter to be private, I write it on my time, use my
> paper, and mail it with my postage. Similarly, if I want my email
> to be private, I had better compose it on my workstation and mail it
> on a service that I have subscribed to.
What about the students and professors who work at the university? Do
all the homework assignments and term papers and final examinations
that they produce belong to the university as well? Are these all
considered "public documents" as well? I hardly think so! I think
students and professors would be greatly angered to find out that
their grade records and peer-review evaluations were considered
"public documents" and disseminated freely.
Now transform that into an electronic context. If students and
faculty are given access to computers and the internet, are you really
claiming that just by virtue of the fact that someone mails a letter
from a taxpayer-funded computer that the letter then becomes
university property and a public document?
Again, I hardly think so.
I think the more appropriate analogy for a computer network in this
case would be to a US Postal Service mailbox that happens to reside on
campus. Both provide the means to communicate with people at local or
remote sites. In the case of the USPS mailbox, there are legal laws
that protect the privacy of first class letters. In the same way, I
and other people on the list are arguing that it is entirely
appropriate for the provider of an electronic mailbox -- especially if
this is in the context of an academic community -- to install similar
safeguards of privacy protection as the USPS.
> The essential idea of academic freedom is not that my expressions
> are private but that I am able to make those expressions, whatever
> they may be short of something consituting moral turpitude, without
> fear of retaliation.
(Those "moral turpitude" exceptions always get my goat. Who decides?)
Another important aspect of academic freedom is the right to be free
from unauthorized surveillance and unwarranted search and seizures -
precisely because such activities have a chilling effect on people's
willingess to express themselves "without fear of retaliation," as you
put it.
Now consider that these rights (no unauthorized surveillance, no
unwarranted search and seizures, and others) are in actuality
restrictions on the authority of administrative personnel. Now take
these same procedural safeguards and look at them from the point of
view of the beneficiary of these rights: saying that "administrators
may not perform surveillance without proper authorization" is
equivalent to saying "people have the right to privacy and that right
may not be infringed upon by the authorities without proper permission
and procedural safeguards".
So I would argue that the right to privacy is inherently tied with the
"essential idea of academic freedom" - and indeed to all freedoms
enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
For a third way of looking at it, consider what academic freedom would
be like in a perfect world. I submit that the ultimate goal of
academic freedom and indeed the Bill of Rights should be to make the
need for privacy obsolete. The way this would be attained is by
perfecting our administrative procedures and enlightening people to
the point that no one can be done any harm if they say unpopular
things (yes, even if they say things constituting moral turpitude).
I'm sure you're snickering by this point at my idealistic example, but
that's just the point: since it is quite unlikely that we'll ever
achieve such a perfect state of academic freedom, the need for privacy
has not (and probably will not) become obsolete. Far from it: the
need for privacy rights is intrinsic to the notion of academic freedom
and indeed to the idea of a free society.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
-------------------
Message-Id:
Cc: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Which rights?
<9105082112.AA00338@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 08 May 91 17:53:28 EDT
From: Edward Vielmetti
there are some interesting questions regarding the rights and
responsibilities for universities to keep as an archival record the
correspondence and letters of officials as they go about their daily
business. that is to say, if you sent a message to the President of
the University of Michigan by e-mail, it would be quite reasonable to
expect that 50 years hence it would land in some publicly searchable
archive of University records.
it might be good to pull into this discussion some university
archivists to determine where the "public" records begin and the
"private" ones end. trying to remember their names now....
consider that it may be an abberation of the early 90's that many
students and faculty have their only access to the Internet though
publicly funded and regulated systems. that would argue for more
people looking to conduct their electronic affairs and correspondence
in a more explicitly private environment, be that a home system, a
commercial e-mail service, or some kind of Cleveland Freenet-like
system where there's some element of public service but no strings of
University entanglements.
(obdisclaimer: i'm involved in a small startup enterprise to sell
reasonable priced individual internet connectivity and e-mail
services, so if people fled the inexpensive but un-private confines of
the university or the job site it would be good for business.)
--
Edward Vielmetti, MSEN Inc. (moderator, comp.archives) emv@msen.com
"With all of the attention and publicity focused on gigabit networks,
not much notice has been given to small and largely unfunded research
efforts which are studying innovative approaches for dealing with
technical issues within the constraints of economic science."
RFC 1216
From kadie Sat May 11 10:05:02 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat May 11 10:04:54 EDT 1991
In this issue:
rsk@gynko.circ.upe : Re: Which
stan kulikowski ii : leggo my eggo
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
-------------------
From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Posted-Date: Fri, 10 May 91 15:28:02 EDT
Message-Id: <9105101928.AA09402@gynko.circ.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Which rights?
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 15:28:02 EDT
Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center, Hospital of UPenn
X-Queued-Mail: 645messages
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
While I agree in principle with most of the rights you've enumerated,
I can't agree with these two:
> freedom to receive electronic mail and receive newsgroups
> freedom to send mail and post notes to newsgroups
The right of freedom of speech (academic or not) does not incur a
corresponding responsibility on anyone's part to provide the method
and means with which to exercise that right. In other words, my
freedom so speak doesn't mean that you have to pay for the soapbox.
If a university wishes (for example) to not carry news, or to make
news read-only, that's not an infringement of academic (or other) freedoms.
Nor is it an infringement if the university chooses not to support
off-campus e-mail, or to join one network instead of another, or to
join none at all. I think we probably all hope that universities will
choose to make news and mail as available as they can, given their
limited resources; but I think it's reaching to elevate these conveniences
to the same status as basic "rights".
---Rsk
-------------------
Message-Id: <9105101933.AA11502@eff.org>
2734; Fri, 10 May 91 14:32:58 CDT
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 14:28:14 CDT
From: stan kulikowski ii
Subject: leggo my eggo
if you are watching some of the other groups, we have a case study in
computer freedom of expression going on right now.
the new list announcement service (new-list@ndsuvm1.bitnet) circulated
the opening of a list, called legs (wyle@czheth5a), "an informal, anonymous
list for sharing images, discussion about women's legs". this has not been
received favorably on the women and information technology list (educom-w
@bitnic.bitnet). see their subject: thread 'outrageous'.
this is an example of one network group going after another network group as
an organized effort. at first suggestions were to write objections to the list
owner, mitchell wyle. it was then suggested that they join the list and send
objections there. recently the concensus seems to be send their objections to
the node manager (system@czheth5a) in zurich switzerland to get the middle
management to silence the legs group as 'inappropriate use of computer
resources'.
when one person complains about another person on the networks, we call this
a 'flame war'. a few months ago there was such an outbreak on the educational
technology group (edtech@ohstvma.bitnet) when one user flamed the use of the
term 'sex appeal' applied to early apple2 microcomputers. eventually flame
wars get damped down by other readers on a list, or they move into personal
email... where they probably belonged in the first place.
it seems that this legs/educom-w case has a parallel to flame warfare, but
on the level of network collectives, rather than individual users. besides
personally flaming the list owner, they have organized an effort to go for the
jugular: get system management to adjust the throttle on the offenders.
it would be interesting to find out how system@czheth5a responds to this
situation. would it matter if mitchell wyle were an art faculty conducting a
multidisciplinary seminar in anatomical representation or just some nerd
student with a foot fetish?
stan
. stankuli@UWF.bitnet
===
| | close your eyes, my darling, or three of them at least
--- -- old venusian lullaby
From kadie Sun May 12 23:38:05 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun May 12 23:37:39 EDT 1991
In this issue:
kadie (Carl Kadie) : New to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) archive
kadie (Carl Kadie) : Re: Which
-- General comments
kadie (Carl Kadie) : Which
-- Freedom of expression
kadie (Carl Kadie) : RE: Which
-- Privacy
kadie (Carl Kadie) : RE: Which
-- Due process
kadie (Carl Kadie) : Which
-- Personal use
kadie (Carl Kadie) : Which
-- Misc
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: Sat, 11 May 91 20:10:10 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105120010.AA11281@eff.org>
Subject: New to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) archive
Back issues of CAF-news are now available via anonymous ftp
from eff.org (192.88.144.3). They are in directory academic/news.
The issues to date are cafv01n01, cafv01n02, cafv01n03, and cafv01n04.
Also, the Computer Undergound Digest's archives contains the policy
statements from many universities. I've copied them to the CAF archive
on eff.org. They are in directory academic/widener. I'm enclosing
the Index file.
- Carl
encl: Index to policy statements of many universities
README file for the CAF archive
Info on how to get these files via email.
================================
index.policy
This file
A general Info file.
Acadia.policy
Acadia University Computer Centre, Computer Centre Policies
Baylor.policy
Baylor University's Ethics Code and Policies
Bibliography
A file for citations and references.
BITNET.policy
BITNET Abuse policy
BostonU.policy
Boston University's Policy on Computing Ethics
ColgateU.policy
A policy statement from Cogate Univerity's
Student Handbook. As well as a copy of the standard
agreement form.
ColumbiaU.policy
University of Columbia's Policy. Permission to copy
should be sent to the CUCCA seth@ctr.columbia.edu
DanWebster.policy
Daniel Webster College's policy agreements for
student employees.
JMadisonU.policy
a draft of a Computer Ethics Statement by an
Ad Hoc Committee on Computer Literacy at James Madison
University
Kansas.State.policy
A policy statement published by Computing and
Telecommunications Activities, Cardwell 20, Kansas
State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. Oct. 1988
MichStU.policy
John Lees forwards a _draft_ of a policy for the College
of Engineering at Michigan State University.
Mich.TechU.policy
MTU Policies, Michigan Technological University
NewCastleU.policy
University of New Castle rules and regulations for central
& departmental facilities. Comments by Alan Hargraves.
NewMexStU.policy
D. Bryan Emery submits a published policy statement
from New Mexico State University. It has evolved
from several iterations of study.
Other.Info
Files that reference other pertinent information
and sources.
Purdue.policy
Purdue Univ. Engineering policy, August 7, 1987
RIACS.policy
(Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science).
It draws heavily from the MIT Project Athena policy
statement posted earlier in RISKS.
RoseHulman.CS.policy
Frank Young Chairman, Department of Computer Science
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology September, 1989
Submits the Computer Science Department's policy.
UofIdaho.policy
University of Idaho's Ethics Policy
UofMissouriC.policy
U of Missouri-Columbia Computing Rules and with comments
Reprinted from the _Campus_Computing_Newsletter_ of the
University of Missouri- Columbia, Vol 16 Number 2,
October 1988, pages 5-6.
see also the COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT Statement on
Academic Dishonesty (UMC.CS.policy)
UofMissouriKC.policy
Computer Ethics policy University of Missouri-Kansas City
From UMKC, Access A New Era, January 1988.
contact "Greg Johnson -aka CCGREG@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU"
UofMissouriRolla.policy
University of Missouri-Rolla, Computing Guidelines
Published June 15, 1989
This statement references Missouri Revised Statutes.
contact "Greg Johnson -aka CCGREG@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU"
UofNewMexico.policy
U of New Mexico based loosely on the Univ.
of Washington's Ethics policy. It incorporates new
statements in the area of research on self replicating
code and is definitive about copyrights.
UofPitt.policy
Univ. of Pittsburgh User's Guide to Academic Computing,
September 1987 (the latest handy).
UofWales.policy
U of Wales computing policy.
UMC.CS.policy
U of Missouri-Columbia Computer Science Department
statement on academic dishonesty.
WashU.Engr.policy
The Center For Engineering Computing's Unix
Instructional Account Policies
------------
Paper copies only:
from CAUSE- CSD-0246 Baylor Univ. Policies. 1 page.
CSD-0219 Loyla Univ. Policies long.
=================
README
-----------------
Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
This is an electronic library of information about computers and
academic freedom.
It is available via anonymous ftp to eff.org (192.88.144.3) in
directory "academic". For more information, to make contributions, or
to report typos contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
batch
-----------------
This is a directory of notes that have been sent over the
comp-academic-freedom mailing list. Each file is a list
of one week's notes (in batch form). Also, see "news".
=================
batchin
-----------------
This is a list of all notes that have been sent over the
comp-academic-freedom mailing list. The notes are in the batch
(digest) format.
=================
caf
-----------------
A discription to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list.
=================
ecpa.1986
-----------------
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
eff.rights
-----------------
An overview of the electronic frontier and the U.S Bill of Rights
=================
email.privacy.essay
-----------------
"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex
=================
jmcabstract
-----------------
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he travelled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" was (and still is) banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
k12.networks.survey
-----------------
Results of a survey by EDUCOM and IBM on the status of
computer networking in K12 education.
=================
library.canada
-----------------
Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom
=================
library.porn
-----------------
A parody of a real newpaper article published in the Houston Chronicle. The
parody is my Carl Kadie. It was published in rec.humor.funny.
=================
library.us
-----------------
The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association
and Association of American Publishers.
=================
library.us.excerpts
-----------------
Excepts from the "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library
Association and Association of American Publishers.
=================
listserv.tar
-----------------
Listserv code for Unix
We got the code from UCSD. We improved it (mostly with modifications
to the Makefile). Sadly, there is no real documention.
=================
ncsa.email
-----------------
The National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) is a department
in the University of Illinois' Graduate College. On April 1, 1991
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.
This note has three parts. The first is a critique of the policy. The
critique concludes that the policy is inconsistant with the
Consitution, Academic Freedom, and University policy. The second part
of this notes is the text of the policy. The third part is notes from
a conversation with an NCSA Administrator.
[On of April 23, 1991 (14 hours after this information was distributed),
the NCSA as decided to revise its policy.]
=================
news
-----------------
This is a directory of all issues of the Computers and Academic Freedom News.
=================
newsin
-----------------
This is a list of all issues of the Computers and Academic Freedom News.
=================
nsf
-----------------
The tentative statement by the National Science Foundation on
acceptable use of the backbone networks.
=================
stanford.statements
-----------------
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
student.freedoms
-----------------
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
uiuc.code.excerpts
-----------------
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
=================
widener
-----------------
The computer polices of many schools. This is a directory of files.
For a description of the file see file widener/Index. (The files are
from the Computer Underground Digest archives, available via anonymous
ftp from ftp.cs.widener.edu.)
=================
=================
Last update
Sat May 11 20:00:36 EDT 1991
================================
----from comp.windows.ms -- Frequently asked questions-----
4. Is it possible to use a mail server instead of ftp?
There are a number of sites that archive the Usenet sources newsgroups
and make them available via an email query system. You send a message
to an automated server saying something like "send comp.sources.unix/fbm",
and a few hours or days later you get the file in the mail.
>> There are several sites that will perform general FTP retrievals for
you in response to a similar mail query. For information on using one
of them, send a message like this to info-server@cs.net :
request: info
topic: help-ftp
request: end
(NOTE: this server is currently "down for repairs". No estimate on when
or if it will return.)
And for info on another one, send this message to bitftp@pucc.bitnet :
help
Please be considerate, and don't over-use these services. If people
start using them to retrieve hundreds of megabytes of GIF files, they
will probably disappear.
-------------------
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 17:09:22 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105122109.AA20340@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Which rights?
Summary: General comments
Last week I posted a list of how academic freedom might be applied to
computers and networks. Several folks critiqued the list. This note
and the ones following it are a response to questions and comments of
the critiques. For simplicity, I'm organizing the responses by topic
rather than correspondent. Items from the original list are marked
with a ">". The text of the critiques is marked with "]". (You can
find the author particular comment by looking through the full-text
CAF-batch archive. It is available via anonymous ftp from eff.org as
file academic/batchin).
] While the Bill of Rights is a marvel in simplicity, your list of
] "academic freedoms" falls short on its first two issues due to excessive
] specificity.
I agree that the list is no Bill of Rights; But hey, its only
the first draft.
Indeed, maybe we don't even need an explicit list of computer rights.
Maybe it is enough to say "General principles of academic freedom
shall be fully apply computers and networks." Or even better, "General
principles of academic freedom shall be fully apply to every aspect of
the University."
I would note, however, that Case Western has a provision like this
with regards to censorship, and yet a student was censored. Thus, if
only as an academic exercise, it may be valuable to spell out exactly
how the principles of academic freedom apply to computers and
networks.
The hardest part of enumerating rights is that:
] Policies which are suitable to
] rich organizations with plenty of resources can be completely
] inappropriate to operations running on a shoestring.
For example, if the computing resource of a University consists of only
five personal computers, is there any room for rights?
This is a dilemma that I don't know the answer to, but here are
some possible approaches:
1. Express the rights broadly enough that they cover everything from
five personal computers to a University with at least one computer for
every student and a network that connects everyone.
2. Assume some threshold of computing maturity. Just as not every
school is a university and not every collection of books is a library,
so it might be that not every set of computer resources is an X (we need
a word for this).
My fear is that universities will see this as a loophole and will
explicitly say "Our computer resources are not an X, so the principles
of academic freedom do not apply." A university is more prestigious
than a trade school. A library is more prestigious than a departmental
reading room. An X, however, is not yet more prestigious than a highly
restricted set of computer resources.
Ideally, system administrators would fight for computer rights
the way that librarians fight for the freedom to read and professors
fight for academic freedom.
3. Make having an X (i.e. computing resources to which the principles
of academic freedom apply) a prerequisites for being a (good) University.
Just as a University should have a library, it should also have an X.
If it does not have an X (or a library, or doesn't respect the academic
freedom of its students) it falls short of being a (good) University.
- Carl
-------------------
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 18:31:36 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105122231.AA20822@eff.org>
Subject: Which Rights?
Summary: Freedom of expression
>Freedom of expression
> freedom to receive electronic mail and receive newsgroups
> freedom to send mail and post notes to newsgroups
] As long as the "freedom" is not any freer than for "paper" mail, i.e.
] If your department allows you to send the same letter on the
] University/department letterhead. If your department does not allow
] you to use the letterhead and you have to purchase your own personal
] stationary, it is equivalent to subscribing to a commercial
] uucp/usenet service.
There are different kinds to costs. Some University costs are easily
itemized, for example, stamps, laser printing, long distance telephone
calls. Other costs are harder to itemize: local phone calls, use of a
conference room, e-mail.
With regard students to getting a room for a speaker to give a talk,
the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says "The
institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a
device of censorship."
I would say that if the University can figure out how to itemize
costs (say, for coffee at the talk) then let them pass those costs
on. But until they do, especially, if the incremental cost are low,
the use of those resource should be considered one of the benefits of
paying tuition or of teaching.
[As an aside, what if a school is so short of space that it can not
provide space to students would like to invite an outside speaker. Can
that school be a good university?]
] Usenet is a useful tool for conducting certain kinds of academic research
] but is also widely perceived as the place where rec.humor and alt.sex reside.
] These newsgroups may be useful for psychologists and psychiatrists. But the
] reason a University does not want to carry them is very similar to the reason
] that a University Library normally does not carry XXX rated videos or Archie
] comics (except maybe in some places as special collections)
The purpose of free expression and the freedom to read goes beyond
what is needed to do formal research. Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms
of Students put it well:
'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.'
The American Library Association's Freedom to Read Statement says:
'The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously
under attack. Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the
country are working to remove books from sale, to censor textbooks, to label
"controversial" books, to distribute lists of "objectionable" books or authors,
and to purge libraries. These actions apparently rise from a view that our
national tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and
suppression are needed to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption
of morals. We, as citizens devoted to the use of books and as librarians and
publishers responsible for disseminating them, wish to assert the public
interest in the preservation of the freedom to read.
We are deeply concerned about these attempts at suppression. Most
such attempts rest on a denial of the fundamental premise of democracy: that
the ordinary citizen, by exercising his critical judgment, will accept the
good and reject the bad. The censors, public and private, assume that they
should determine what is good and what is bad for their fellow citizens.'
[end of quote]
On a more specific note, many academic libraries do carry Playboy. And
they will accept almost any donation (absorbing the relatively small
cost of cataloging and storing the material). This policy gives the
residents of my community a chance to read the American Atheist's
magazine and the John Birch Society's magazine.
] For instance. I used to be system manager at a mathematics dept. at
] a big ten school. We were consistently short on disk space (isn't
] everyone?). For that reason, I decided not to get a newsfeed of
] alt.sex.pictures, and not to go out of my way to install graphics
] viewers. If someone had found another way to read the group and started
] to save pictures, I would have spoken with them and asked them to remove
] the stuff. Why? not because the nudie pix were evil or anything, but
] because there just wasn't enough room to hold them. similarly I made
] it clear to a user who kept voluminous logs of soap opera discussion
] that he had to keep the size of his collection in check; whereas if the
] same user had generated big numerical math results it would have been
] just fine. so I guess I have to disagree with the implications of the
] "limits" argument you present; an effective system manager may have to
] take into account (in some general way) the contents of the data stored
] on disk, and make policies according to how it relates to the academic
] mission you are part of.
I see limiting access of a newsgroup based on volume (e.g.
alt.sex.pictures) as much better than limiting access based on content
(e.g. alt.sex, rec.humor.funny.) The problem is (to use a poker
expression) keeping the Sys Admin honest (not *you* of course,
*other* sys admins). I see giving users a quota of disk space that
they can assign to newsgroups as one possible mechanism. If disk space,
is really, really, really short all bets are off.
] Finally this assumes that a department is willing to say that any newsgroup
] is valid to its research, which is what the equipment is to be used for.
] This is simply not true. Not all equipment in a department is funded for
] education, sometimes the equipment is donated or bought using funds that
] have strict limitations on its use. Thus allowing news or external e-mail
] access of any sort may be a violation of the equipment grant.
Consider two scenarios:
1) A donor offers the University a new classroom building but
only on the condition that no student or faculty organzations
supporting gay rights be allowed to meet there.
2) A donor offers the University a new chip fabrication
building with no classrooms or meeting space at all. Thus, no
gay-rights organziations could meet there.
In the first scenario, I would hope that that University would refuse
the gift as being inconsistent with the Univerty's principles. In my
opinion, the second scenario would be OK. Thus, I would modify the
rights list to say something like
If the incremental cost is small then there is a
> right to receive electronic mail and receive newsgroups
> right to send mail and post notes to newsgroups
And, in any case, mail and newsgroups shall not be censored
] The right of freedom of speech (academic or not) does not incur a
] corresponding responsibility on anyone's part to provide the method
] and means with which to exercise that right. In other words, my
] freedom so speak doesn't mean that you have to pay for the soapbox.
] If a university wishes (for example) to not carry news, or to make
] news read-only, that's not an infringement of academic (or other) freedoms.
] Nor is it an infringement if the university chooses not to support
] off-campus e-mail, or to join one network instead of another, or to
] join none at all. I think we probably all hope that universities will
] choose to make news and mail as available as they can, given their
] limited resources; but I think it's reaching to elevate these conveniences
] to the same status as basic "rights".
Under the principle of academic freedom, your tuition or work at a
University *does* give you right to use certain resources to express
your opinion (and to hear the opinion of others). Cost can be a
legitimate reason for restricing resources, but the content of the opinion
can not. (Thus, I can think of no legitimate reason for a university
to make newsgroups read-only.)
-------------------
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 18:58:03 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105122258.AA20974@eff.org>
Subject: RE: Which rights?
Summary: Privacy
>Privacy
> information in a users disk files is private
> (the user may not own the disk, but he or she does own the information)
> email is private
> warrants must be obtained prior to searches
] Are the contents of your office wooden or steel desk private? Can the
] University remove or open your desk or file cabinet? Under what
] circumstances? ( I mean dEsk not dIsk) Are the contents your
] secretary's desk private? What if your secretary also happens to be a
] student?
and
] I can't agree with your inclusion of privacy rights under the heading
] academic freedom. I work for a tax-supported university. All of the
] documents I create as part of my work, including letters, are the property
] of the university and are public documents. That is, access to the
] contents of those documents is a matter of university policy and has
] nothing to do with my personal privacy. I can't see that any different
] standard would apply to electronic documents.
As matter of fact my desk is private. When I lived in the dorm, by
dorm room was private. Here what the the Joint Statement on Rights and
Freedoms of Students says:
'1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied
by students and the personal possessions of students should not be
searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For
premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an
appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom
application should be made before a search is conducted. The
application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects
or information sought. The student should be present, if possible,
during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution,
the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed.'
Here is what my Univerity's student code says:
"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."
Also, if you work for a public university you also have a constitutional
right to privacy. [From the ACLU handbook on the rights of teachers]
"An anonymous cartoon had appeared in a local newspaper ridiculing the
financial and personnel policies of the Fair Lawn, New Jersey, Board of
Education by depicting the board members a poker players, apparently
gambling away emplyees' salaries and jobs. Suspecting the guidance
counselor as the offending cartoonist, a board member entered the
guidance counselor's school at night, found a janitor with a pass key,
directed him to unlook the door to the guidance counselor's suite, and
observing a slightly opened drawer in the guidance counselor's disk,
pulled it completely open, revealing copies of the cartoon. The court
ruled that this action violated the guidance counselor's Fourth
Amendment rights." [This case is very similar to the incident which
apparently motivated the NCSA's policy.]
-------------------
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 19:14:26 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105122314.AA21105@eff.org>
Subject: RE: Which rights?
Summary: Due process
>Access
> Computer and network access shall not be denied without due process
>Due Process
> There is a general right to due process
> notice must be given before new rules are enforced
] What do you mean by "due process"? Without a definition this statement has
] little semantic value.
and
] i also have some difficulty in the interpretation of your "due process"
] clause. when I started as a system admin, there was no departmental
] "policy document" to speak of, and no real time to write one. I suspect
] that university policy would have kicked in if need had arisen, fortunately
] it didn't. Decisions were ad hoc at times, within the constraints of
] "what will the faculty advisors think" and "what will the chairman think".
] Lots of "new rules" were enforced as needed on a sort of seat of the
] pants basis, as I say there was no real time to codify them all. Had
] there been a real serious disagreement of opinion, I suppose I would have
] had to fall back on general department or college (or university)
] procedures.
I think must students and faculty see having a note censored, a disk
file search, a computer account taken away, access to the net taken
away, etc, as serious penalties and are thus entitled to due process
protection. Specifically, here is what the Joint Statement on Rights
and Freedoms of Students says:
A. Standards of Conduct Expected of Students
The institution has an obligation to clarify those standards of
behavior which it considers essential to its educational mission and
its community life. These general behavioral expectations and the
resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable
regulation of student conduct, but the student should be as free as
possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his
education. Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and
interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles
of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be
instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with
significant student participation and published in advance through
such means as a student handbook or a generally available body of
institutional regulations.
[Section B is about searches. See the earlier note.]
C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
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.
D. Hearing Committee Procedures
When the misconduct may result in serious penalties and if the
student questions the fairness of disciplinary action taken against
him, he should be granted, on request, the privilege of a hearing
before a regularly constituted hearing committee. The following
suggested hearing committee procedures satisfy the requirements of
procedural due process in situations requiring a high degree of
formality.
1. The hearing committee should include faculty members or students,
or, if regularly included or requested by the accused, both faculty
and student members. No member of the hearing committee who is
otherwise interested in the particular case should sit in judgment
during the proceeding.
2. The student should be informed, in writing of the reasons for the
proposed disciplinary action with sufficient particularity, and in
sufficient time, to insure opportunity to prepare for the hearing.
3. The student appearing before the hearing committee should have the
right to be assisted in his defense by an adviser of his choice.
4. The burden of proof should rest upon the officials bringing the
charge.
5. The student should be given an opportunity to testify and to
present evidence and witnesses. He should have an opportunity to hear
and question adverse witnesses. In no case should the committee
consider statements against him unless he has been advised of their
content and of the names of those who made them, and unless he has
been given an opportunity to rebut unfavorable inferences which might
otherwise be drawn.
6. All matters upon which the decision may be based must be
introduced into evidence at the proceeding before the hearing
committee. The decision should be based solely upon such matters.
Improperly acquired evidence should not be admitted.
7. In the absence of a transcript, there should be both a digest and
a verbatim record, such as a tape recording, of the hearing.
8. The decision of the hearing committee should be final, subject
only to the student's right of appeal to the president or ultimately
to the governing board of the institution.'
-------------------
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 19:52:47 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105122352.AA21296@eff.org>
Subject: Which Rights?
Summary: Personal use
> No general restrictions should be made on how the user uses those resources.
] This goes against the current academic standards. Restrictions against
] using academic resources for personal or commercial gain are an integral
] part of most academia. This is a valid general restriction, thus your
] right will immediately be invalidated.
I am aware that most universities restrict commercial use of university
resources (unless you cut them in). I accept this. In fact, for a state
school, commercial use may be illegal.
I am not aware of general prohibitions of personal, noncommercial use.
Is it against the rules to read a magazine in the University library
just for fun?
My university does restrict the use of campus (paper) mail. This may
be legitimate because delivering personal mail would have a significant
effect on costs. Note, however, they should be fair and impartial in
how such rules are applied (if they are a public institution, they must
be fair and impartial). They shouldn't turn a blind eye to personal
mail except when they are out to get someone. They shouldn't say that
campus mail against unionization is ok, but campus mail for it is
prohibited.
Most organizations (even the NCSA) realize that personal use of
computer communications is inevitable. In fact, most organization
see it has desirable since it builds relationships and motivates
people to learn to use the technology. It is very hard to draw a
distinction between legitimate personal development and illegitimate
personal development.
What about using CPU cycles for personal uses like games or making
shopping lists. Consider the use of classroom space. Classes have a
higher priority, but the science fiction club can usually get space at
night. I would hope that rather than a blanket prohibition,
University's would allow some "free" use either at certain times of
day or by giving users some quota of CPU to be used as they wish.
- Carl
-------------------
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 20:11:23 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105130011.AA21448@eff.org>
Subject: Which Rights?
Summary: Misc
] Here I want to propose another "freedom": there should be
] an appeals process against "bad" rules.
Good point. Students and Faculty should have a voice in creating
policy and in changing policy. Here is what the Joint Statement on Rights
and Freedoms of Students says:
'C. Student Participation in Institutional Government
As constituents of the academic community, students should be
free, individually and collectively, to express their views on issues
of institutional policy and on matters of general interest to the
student body. The student body should have clearly defined means to
participate in the formulation and application of institutional policy
affecting academic and student affairs. The role of the student
government and both its general and specific responsibilities should
be made explicit. and the actions of the student government within the
areas of its jurisdiction should be reviewed only through orderly and
prescribed procedures.'
> rights cannot be signed away
] Have you ever been admitted to a Hospital? :-) or obtained credit? :-) or
] served in the armed forces ?
]Anyone can sign rights away. When someone wants to retract their consent, the
] questions that a court asks include:
] a) Did the person knowingly sign them away?
] b) Was any physical coercion use?
] c) Was the period that the rights were signed away for an
] unreasonably long period?
] d) Was it lawful for the person to ask you to sign away your rights?
A ploy that some institutions use is to make the user sign, as a
condition of getting a computer account, a form that says "It is OK
with me if y'all search my files anytime you want for no good reason
or kick me off the system without telling me why." Such waivers should
be abolished.
Well, this is the last note of this round. I would like to see a
dialog on these issues. Again your comments and criticisms are
welcome. (Also, if someone posts a criticism, you are more than
welcome to respond.)
- Carl
