From kadie Sun May 26 21:42:51 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun May 26 21:42:28 EDT 1991
In this issue:
Neil Rickert
Subject: Re: Harrassment via email
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Sat, 25 May 91 21:13:30 -0500
From: Neil Rickert
In article <9105260120.AA04007@math.uchicago.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>Perhaps *you* wouldn't disclose it; but there are certainly people who
>would. Permitting them to look at my mailbox is wrong. And suppose
>there were personal data in there that I specifically wanted to keep
>private from you personally (as opposed to you the sysadmin)?
But isn't that exactly the point of the notice. To warn you that you
should not assume anything on the computer is guaranteed private. If you
want absolute assurance that it is private, encrypt it. Or put it on your
own personal computer in your own home. While computer administrators
should do their best to maintain privacy of your data, there cannot be
any guarantees.
On some systems, when a file is created for a user, the user is allocated
raw disk space, and has the right to see whatever is written on that disk
space, even if it contains the data that another user once had. Even
writing zeros to disk when you erase a file is not a foolproof way of
avoiding this, since system personnel may migrate the file from one
physical location to another without telling you, and without zeroing the
old copy.
>System maintenance does *not* require violation of privacy except in
>extreme cases; in those cases, the sysadmin should provide advance
>notice to the user, and give him the opportunity to watch, to monitor
>the violation.
Extreme cases are admittedly rare. But when they occur, don't expect the
system personnel to have the budget line needed to hire a lawyer and follow
your proposed procedures. If you really believe they will follow your
advice of advanced notice, etc, you are living in a fools paradise.
>>>* Members of the University community may be punished for infractions
>>>against rules that are not listed here.
>
>> Most likely this is true too, although rarely stated in this blunt a form.
>
>Don't be silly. The University can't punish me for anything legal
>which they don't warn me about in advance. The only power they have
>over me is that granted contractually and explicitly when I enroll.
I wasn't being silly. The university might well have a complex contract
referring you to university statutes written in strict legalese. They might
also provide you with a list of DOs and DON'Ts in more friendly language.
They most certainly can punish you for infractions against the formal
document, even if that particular infraction is not listed in the
more readable list of DOs and DONTs.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
From: Aydin Edguer
Message-Id: <9105261427.AA25793@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: Re: Harrassment via email
Date: Sun, 26 May 91 10:27:33 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL6]
> Perhaps *you* wouldn't disclose it; but there are certainly people who
> would. Permitting them to look at my mailbox is wrong. And suppose
> there were personal data in there that I specifically wanted to keep
> private from you personally (as opposed to you the sysadmin)?
And here is where we reach the fundamental point of all this; trust.
If you cannot trust your system administrator to _not_ disclose information
which he finds as a "necessary incident to the rendition of his service"
(disclosure, unless required by law is illegal) then how can you trust him
not to actively search your files looking for information about him (which
is currently "only" morally wrong). There is nothing to prevent a sysadmin
from running a command similiar to:
"find / -type f -exec grep -l -i name"
currently, except the sysadmins' sense of responsibility.
The simple fact of the matter is, at some point you must either start
the trust the sysadmin _OR_ you should not keep sensitive information
on any machine which the sysadmin is responsible for. If you don't
trust the sysadmin, how can you trust the encryption program _he_
administers. Maybe the program captures all the keys....
NOTE: The use of "he" was used by the ECPA, I stuck with it for
consistency. There is certainly nothing gender specific
about the position of system administrator.
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
Date: Sun, 26 May 91 19:41:26 -0400
Message-Id: <9105262341.AA20138@bucsd.bu.edu>
Subject: message format, "From:" vs. "Sender:"
Sent-Via: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
Here is a typical message header from the comp-academic-freedom-talk
mailing list (with some lines removed):
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message-Id: <26BF5B8A70A0B045@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: Sanjay Kapur
Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 12:29 EDT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After re-reading RFC 822, I think the contents of the "From:" and
"Sender:" header lines should be switched. I'm guessing that you're
trying to get any error messages to go to you instead of to the author of
the message, but it is still wrong to switch the "From:" and "Sender:"
lines like you do. This screws up the defined way for figuring out who
the author is. When both "From:" and "Sender:" are present, then "From:"
is supposed to be the real author.
Notes:
* You should add an "Errors-to:" header that many mail handlers will honor
(including sendmail).
* From reading the code, when sendmail decides where to send error
messages, it will avoid sending to who the message is from when there is
an "Errors-to:" header. (There appears to be an obscure case where it
will send to both, but I can't tell for sure.)
* Sendmail determines who a message is from (not necessarily the author)
by looking at these fields in this order and using the first that has a
value:
resent-sender
resent-from
resent-reply-to
sender
from
reply-to
full-name
return-receipt-to
errors-to
Thus, even without adding an "Errors-to:" header, switching the "From:"
and "Sender:" headers so that "From:" contains a real person and
"Sender:" contains the list request address will result in errors being
sent to the list request address.
* The first line of the above headers (the "From " line) is not actually
part of the transmitted message but is out-of-band data that is put in
my mail drop file by the mail delivery program. The timestamp
represents when the message was deposited in my mail drop file.
If for some reason, you don't want to switch the values in "From:" and
"Sender:" from how you are doing it now, please tell me so we can argue
about it. :-)
--
Joe Wells
-------------------
Date: Sun, 26 May 91 19:47:16 -0400
Message-Id: <9105262347.AA20162@bucsd.bu.edu>
Subject: weird bounced mail!! (forwarded message from Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Sent-Via: kadie@eff.org
I sent this to comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org. Here's what
came back:
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Message-Id: <9105262342.AA23456@eff.org>
Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 1
Date: Sun, 26 May 91 19:42:03 -0400
----- Transcript of session follows -----
/home/kadie/cafin/Sun_May_26_19:42:06_EDT_1991.23458.caf
>From jbw@cs.bu.edu Sun May 26 19:42:03 1991 From: jbw@cs.bu.edu (Joe Wells) Subject: message format, "From:" vs. "Sender:" From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon May 20 12:42:00 1991 From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org After re-reading RFC 822, I think the contents of the "From:" and the message, but it is still wrong to switch the "From:" and "Sender:" the author is. When both "From:" and "Sender:" are present, then "From:" * From reading the code, when sendmail decides where to send error Thus, even without adding an "Errors-to:" header, switching the "From:" and "Sender:" headers so that "From:" contains a real person and * The first line of the above headers (the "From " line) is not actually If for some reason, you don't want to switch the values in "From:" and
awk: record `From jbw@cs.bu.edu S...' has too many fields
record number 1
Greetings
/home/kadie/common/bin/cafsave: test: argument expected
554 "|/home/kadie/common/bin/cafsave"... unknown mailer error 1
----- Unsent message follows -----
Date: Sun, 26 May 91 19:41:26 -0400
Message-Id: <9105262341.AA20138@bucsd.bu.edu>
Subject: message format, "From:" vs. "Sender:"
Sent-Via: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org
Here is a typical message header from the comp-academic-freedom-talk
mailing list (with some lines removed):
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon May 20 12:42:00 1991
Message-Id: <26BF5B8A70A0B045@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
From: Sanjay Kapur
Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 12:29 EDT
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
After re-reading RFC 822, I think the contents of the "From:" and
"Sender:" header lines should be switched. I'm guessing that you're
trying to get any error messages to go to you instead of to the author of
the message, but it is still wrong to switch the "From:" and "Sender:"
lines like you do. This screws up the defined way for figuring out who
the author is. When both "From:" and "Sender:" are present, then "From:"
is supposed to be the real author.
Notes:
* You should add an "Errors-to:" header that many mail handlers will honor
(including sendmail).
* From reading the code, when sendmail decides where to send error
messages, it will avoid sending to who the message is from when there is
an "Errors-to:" header. (There appears to be an obscure case where it
will send to both, but I can't tell for sure.)
* Sendmail determines who a message is from (not necessarily the author)
by looking at these fields in this order and using the first that has a
value:
resent-sender
resent-from
resent-reply-to
sender
from
reply-to
full-name
return-receipt-to
errors-to
Thus, even without adding an "Errors-to:" header, switching the "From:"
and "Sender:" headers so that "From:" contains a real person and
"Sender:" contains the list request address will result in errors being
sent to the list request address.
* The first line of the above headers (the "From " line) is not actually
part of the transmitted message but is out-of-band data that is put in
my mail drop file by the mail delivery program. The timestamp
represents when the message was deposited in my mail drop file.
If for some reason, you don't want to switch the values in "From:" and
"Sender:" from how you are doing it now, please tell me so we can argue
about it. :-)
- --
Joe Wells
------- End of forwarded message -------
The "- " at the beginning of some lines is added by my forwarding agent,
obeying some RFC.
--
Enjoy,
Joe Wells
From kadie Wed May 29 00:25:03 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed May 29 00:24:01 EDT 1991
In this issue:
"Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <9105280426.AA00220@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: FYI: POLICY SURVEY RESULTS
Xref: m.cs.uiuc.edu comp.admin.policy:102 comp.unix.admin:1389 vmsnet.admin:137 news.admin:3063
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!reed!intelhf!ichips!iwarp.intel.com!pdxgate!parsely!bucket!mtek!mtek.com!policy
From: policy@mtek.com
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,comp.unix.admin,vmsnet.admin,news.admin
Subject: POLICY SURVEY RESULTS
Message-ID: <1991May24.155415.11793@mtek.com>
Date: 24 May 91 15:54:15 GMT
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Lines: 184
The automated report attached below provides the results of the
recent survey of past practices and future forecasts in policy
administration based on returns received as of the report date.
Again, this survey isn't "Real Science (TM)", but it certainly
points to some encouraging trends now underway -- and some clear
and present dangers that may stubbornly endure.
Thanks to all the administrators and system managers who took
the time to provide their input.
Bud Hovell
_______________
policy@mtek.com
------------------ cut ------------------------- cut --------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1991 by Bergen B. Hovell, Jr. This document is distributable for
any non-profit-making purpose so long as its contents are unaltered and
complete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLICY SURVEY TABULATION
As of: 05/23/91
Total responses: 293
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count %
----- -----
My *primary* job location is in:
1 0.3 Africa
9 3.1 Australia
19 6.5 Canada
40 13.7 Europe, except Soviet Union
1 0.3 Far East, except Japan and Soviet Union
0 0.0 Indian subcontinent
2 0.7 Japan
1 0.3 Mexico and Central America
0 0.0 South America
0 0.0 Soviet Union
215 73.4 United States
5 1.7 Other
My local organization is *primarily*:
67 22.9 Commercial - hardware or software manufacture
19 6.5 Commercial - hardware or software sales or service
11 3.8 Commercial - other manufacture
7 2.4 Commercial - other sales or service
131 44.7 Educational [university or other]
14 4.8 Governmental, except military
5 1.7 Health-care
2 0.7 Military
0 0.0 Religious or fraternal
24 8.2 Research, except educational
13 4.4 Other
Multi-user facilities of some kind have been locally available:
2 0.7 Fewer than six months
8 2.7 More than six months
10 3.4 More than 1 year
18 6.1 More than 2 years
8 2.7 More than 3 years
13 4.4 More than 4 years
94 32.1 More than 5 years
140 47.8 More than 10 years
I have total system administration experience of:
3 1.0 Fewer than six months
13 4.4 More than six months
45 15.4 More than 1 year
30 10.2 More than 2 years
33 11.3 More than 3 years
37 12.6 More than 4 years
104 35.5 More than 5 years
28 9.6 More than 10 years
I have total experience as a user [including sysadmin] of:
0 0.0 Fewer than six months
0 0.0 More than six months
7 2.4 More than 1 year
8 2.7 More than 2 years
16 5.5 More than 3 years
16 5.5 More than 4 years
100 34.1 More than 5 years
146 49.8 More than 10 years
Total users on all systems I currently administer:
8 2.7 1-5 users
41 14.0 6-25 users
40 13.7 26-50 users
49 16.7 51-100 users
82 28.0 101-500 users
23 7.9 More than 500 users
50 17.1 More than 1000 users
My *primary* administration activities are on systems which are:
241 82.3 Un*x [any flavor]
24 8.2 VMS
0 0.0 PC LAN
22 7.5 Combination - 2 or more of the above
6 2.1 Other multi-user
Historically, our policies [written or not] have included:
87 29.7 General guidelines
6 2.1 Specific do's & don'ts
159 54.3 Both of the above
32 10.9 None of the above
1 0.3 Don't know
8 2.7 New site - no historical practice
Historically, actual policy has been *mainly* defined by:
95 32.4 Informal day-to-day user practices
13 4.4 User-committee decisions [or similar formal means]
5 1.7 Directions of user's immediate supervisor
152 51.9 Sysadmin or system manager decisions
19 6.5 Upper management decisions
4 1.4 Don't know
5 1.7 New site - no historical practice
Historically, actual policy-enforcement authority came *mainly* from:
28 9.6 No one - each user did what he needed to do
17 5.8 Users, through active peer pressure
8 2.7 User-committee decisions [or similar formal means]
17 5.8 User's immediate supervisor or manager
191 65.2 Sysadmin or system manager
25 8.5 Upper management
3 1.0 Don't know
4 1.4 New site - no historical practice
Historically, policy information was presented to users *mainly* by:
63 21.5 Verbal info, primarily from other users
96 32.8 Verbal info from manager, supervisor, or sysadmin
44 15.0 On-paper-only written info from manager, supervisor, or sysadmin
84 28.7 On-line interactive [as well as on-paper] written policies
2 0.7 Don't know
4 1.4 New site - no historical practice
Recently, users raise policy questions:
69 23.6 Virtually never
65 22.2 Probably about once a year
108 36.9 Probably about once a month
41 14.0 Probably about once a week
10 3.4 More frequently
Recently, middle and upper managers raise policy questions:
96 32.8 Virtually never
67 22.9 Probably about once a year
97 33.1 Probably about once a month
25 8.5 Probably about once a week
8 2.7 More frequently
Future policies [written or not] will include:
52 17.8 General guidelines
6 2.1 Specific do's & don'ts
207 70.7 Both of the above
13 4.4 None of the above
15 5.1 Don't know
Future actual policy will be *mainly* defined by:
57 19.5 Informal day-to-day user practices
35 12.0 User-committee decisions [or similar formal means]
3 1.0 Directions of user's immediate supervisor
160 54.6 Sysadmin or system manager decisions
26 8.9 Upper management decisions
12 4.1 Don't know
Future actual policy-enforcement authority will *mainly* come from:
13 4.4 No one - each user will do what he needs to do
13 4.4 Users, through active peer pressure
10 3.4 User-committee decisions [or similar formal means]
17 5.8 User's immediate supervisor or manager
198 67.6 Sysadmin or system manager
30 10.2 Upper management
12 4.1 Don't know
Future policy information will be presented to users *mainly* by:
29 9.9 Verbal info, primarily from other users
44 15.0 Verbal info from manager, supervisor, or sysadmin
52 17.8 On-paper-only written info from manager, supervisor, or sysadmin
152 51.9 On-line interactive [as well as on-paper] written policies
16 5.5 Don't know
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: gardner
From: gardner@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike Gardner)
Subject: Re: Harrassment via email
Message-Id: <1991May28.144114.24053@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <1991May25.134605.961@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 May 1991 14:41:14 GMT
Lines: 53
comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.ORG writes:
> Let me give an example:
> Suppose, as a computer administrator, I discover that every time you read
> your mail your produce a core dump and a system warning message. Nobody
> else using the same software has this problem.
> I assure you I am going to look in your mailbox to find out what it is that
> is causing this system problem. You might as well be warned in advance.
> No, I am not going to disclose to anyone anything confidential I might
> happen to see. But I am going to track down that software bug, and that
> requires examining this data, privacy or no privacy.
What if the mail you happen to see looks like this person or even someone
who sent him mail is seriously violating some university rules, or even the
security of your system? Of course you are going to disclose that information.
You don't pull a gun unless you are willing to use it - and you don't poke
around in people mailboxes unless you are willing to make the hard decisions.
> Or, if it is not my responsibility to track down the bug, I may report the
> problem to our software vendors. I assure you that they will look inside
> your mailbox if they need to for resolving the problem.
You are going to let a non-university vendor poke around in people's private
mailboxes?
> You just cannot escape the fact that system maintenance sometimes requires
>examination of private data. Technically speaking, every time system
>backups are taken, your mailbox was read.
Copied, not READ. The proper proceedure in such a case would be to inform
the user FIRST that there is a problem and you need to look at his mailbox.
This allows him to make sure he doesn't have anything in there he wouldn't
want made public. You could then verify if the sanitized file still causes
problems and debug it. If it didn't still coredump, then you and the user
could have a talk about what he took out of his mailbox, and thus still
track down the cause of the problem.
If someone in your building never took his mail out his slot in the mail room,
so some of it kept falling out on the floor, would you open and read his
mail to find out why it falls on the floor? No, so why do it on your
computer?
>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
> Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
> Northern Illinois Univ.
> DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
CCC SS OO University of Illinois, Computing Services Office
C S O O Michael G. Gardner, Assistant Director, 1122 DCL
C S O O 1304 W Springfield, Urbana, Il 61801
CCC SS OO (217)244-0914 FAX (217)244-7089 gardner@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
-------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 1991 11:43 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Harrassment via email
Message-Id: <69A4D1A236002935@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: francis%zaphod@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
>
>Most people have a hell of a time keeping their private selves
>completely distinct from their professional selves.
Quite a few persons may disagree but it is theft of service to NOT keep them
distinct if you use someone else's (i.e. the University's) resources.
>
>System maintenance does *not* require violation of privacy except in
>extreme cases; in those cases, the sysadmin should provide advance
>notice to the user, and give him the opportunity to watch, to monitor
>the violation.
It is precisely these extreme cases why system administrators are needed.
Anything that can be done by a machine in such cases, should be.
>
>I don't know about office space, but I do know that, in my University
>apartment here and in the dorm room I had in undergrad, normal
>tenant's protections applied. In particular, the Housing Contract
>applying to my dorm room stated that the University could not enter my
>room without advance notice (a fairly long advance period was
>specified) unless there was an immediate threat to University property
>or to personal safety.
>
Dorm rooms are "houses", unlike offices which are not covered by the fourth
amendment:
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.
You have a right to prevent only "unreasonable" searches of "your" papers.
Anything in your office is presumed to belong to your employer. Your office
room building and furniture certainly does so belong and so can be legally
entered into and "searched". The New Jersey case quoted in this forum a few
weeks back and cited by the ACLU notwithstanding. Similarly
anything in the computer owned by the university is, under current law,
presumed to belong to the university. Since most Universities accept federal
funding, the fourth amendment applies to all state owned and Government (Both
state and federal) subsidised Universities.
>
>Don't be silly. The University can't punish me for anything legal
>which they don't warn me about in advance. The only power they have
>over me is that granted contractually and explicitly when I enroll.
Ignorance of law (or in this case policy) was never a valid defense. Just
because the University did not inform you does not mean that they can not
punish you.
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
-------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 1991 11:58 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Harrassment via email
Message-Id: <6BCE70C6A6002935@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: gardner@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike Gardner)
>What if the mail you happen to see looks like this person or even someone
>who sent him mail is seriously violating some university rules, or even the
>security of your system? Of course you are going to disclose that information.
>You don't pull a gun unless you are willing to use it - and you don't poke
>around in people mailboxes unless you are willing to make the hard decisions.
>
Does anyone know what the law is regarding disclosing information of a
criminal nature by a telephone repairman? Say a telephone repairman, while
checking line quality or a broken phone overhears a conversation in which a
drug deal or murder are discussed.
Under what circumstances can the phone company monitor the lines of someone
suspected of "phone phreaking" or its modern equivalent?
>If someone in your building never took his mail out his slot in the mail room,
>so some of it kept falling out on the floor, would you open and read his
>mail to find out why it falls on the floor? No, so why do it on your
>computer?
The above analogy is not correct. Mail falling on the floor is like a
diskquota being full. I do not think systems administrators will bother with
it at all, unless the user complained that the user is not getting any mail.
A better analogy is a piece of mail from which a very bad smell emnates. Or
a piece of mail with the barrel of a gun poking out. Or to take it one step
further, say a piece of mail from which a red liquid, which seems to be blood
dripping out.
What if the above packages also had bad addresses and were undeliverable
as such?
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
-------------------
From: Aydin Edguer
Message-Id: <9105281736.AA26349@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: Re: Harrassment via email
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 13:36:34 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL6]
DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney and this should not be taken as legal advice.
I am only trying to quote what seems to me to be relevant portions of
U.S. law.
In Message-Id: <6BCE70C6A6002935@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
> Does anyone know what the law is regarding disclosing information of a
> criminal nature by a telephone repairman? Say a telephone repairman, while
> checking line quality or a broken phone overhears a conversation in which a
> drug deal or murder are discussed.
While I see no requirement to report the conversation, such a disclosure
is legal under the ECPA of 1986.
According to USC Title 18, Part I, Chapter 119, section 2511
(18 USC ss 2511)
(3)(b) A person or entity providing electronic communication
service to the public may divulge the contents of any such
communication
(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service
provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime,
if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.
> Under what circumstances can the phone company monitor the lines of someone
> suspected of "phone phreaking" or its modern equivalent?
By monitor, what do you mean? Do you mean, to listen to the conversation or
do you mean to record the phone numbers called?
Once again, from the ECPA of 1986 (18 USC ss 2511):
(2)(h) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
(ii) for a provider of electronic communication service
to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was
initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another
provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or
electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudu-
lent, unlawful or abusive use of such service.
Aydin Edguer
NOTE: There is a copy of the ECPA available for FTP from EFF.ORG.
Readers are encouraged to obtain a copy and read it over.
-------------------
Message-Id: <9105281850.AA21433@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Harrassment via email
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
References:
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 13:50:25 -0500
From: Neil Rickert
In article <1991May28.144114.24053@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> you write:
>comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.ORG writes:
>> Suppose, as a computer administrator, I discover that every time you read
>> your mail your produce a core dump and a system warning message. Nobody
>> else using the same software has this problem.
>
>> I assure you I am going to look in your mailbox to find out what it is that
>> is causing this system problem. You might as well be warned in advance.
>
>What if the mail you happen to see looks like this person or even someone
>who sent him mail is seriously violating some university rules, or even the
>security of your system? Of course you are going to disclose that information.
If the information I happen to see has nothing to do with why I looked in
the mailbox, I am not going to disclose it.
>If someone in your building never took his mail out his slot in the mail room,
>so some of it kept falling out on the floor, would you open and read his
>mail to find out why it falls on the floor? No, so why do it on your
>computer?
Of course not. I could tell why it fell to the floor without opening it,
so there would be no need. But if I had reason to believe there was a bomb
inside the mail, I assure you I would report that to someone empowered to
act. And I don't expect the "owner" of the mailbox would be given time to
remove the evidence in advance.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 16:03:41 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105282003.AA04129@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Harrassment via email
kadie (that's me) writes:
>In the name of protecting privacy, the policy attacks privacy. It says
>the University has the power to "without notice, ... inspect ... any data
>[or] file"
>
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes
[...]
> Does it?
> Or is it just giving reasonable notice that nothing on the computer can
>be considered 100% private.
[...]
I was ambiguous when I wrote that Boston U. asserts the *power* to
conduct arbitrary searches. It may have been clearer if I had said
that Boston U. asserts the *right* to conduct arbitrary searches. In
any case, their policy is not a warning about the technical insecurity
of their computer system; it is a warning about the administrative
insecurity of their computer system.
The Boston University policy one-sidedly asserts that the University
has the right do anything and that faculty and students users have no
rights at all.
It asserts the right to violate the academic freedoms of faculty and
student. I condemn it.
-------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 16:37:04 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105282037.AA04490@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Harrassment via email
francis%zaphod@gargoyle.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Most people have a hell of a time keeping their private selves
>>completely distinct from their professional selves.
Sanjay Kapur writes:
> Quite a few persons may disagree but it is theft of service to NOT keep them
> distinct if you use someone else's (i.e. the University's) resources.
I am not a professional; I am I a university student. [My wife might
say that I am a professional student :-)] Are you saying that if
I read a university library book just for fun, I am a service thief?
[...]
>
> Dorm rooms are "houses", unlike offices which are not covered by the fourth
> amendment:
The Supreme court and I disagree with you.
[...]
> You have a right to prevent only "unreasonable" searches of "your" papers.
> Anything in your office is presumed to belong to your employer. Your office
> room building and furniture certainly does so belong and so can be legally
> entered into and "searched". The New Jersey case quoted in this forum a few
> weeks back and cited by the ACLU notwithstanding. Similarly
> anything in the computer owned by the university is, under current law,
> presumed to belong to the university.
[...]
As the New Jersey case shows, government ownership of property does
not necessarily give the government legal authority to search.
Moreover, we are talking about academic rights, not (necessarily)
legal rights. My university, and I assume others (maybe even yours),
explicitly guarantees the privacy of office space.
> >Don't be silly. The University can't punish me for anything legal
> >which they don't warn me about in advance. The only power they have
> >over me is that granted contractually and explicitly when I enroll.
>
> Ignorance of law (or in this case policy) was never a valid defense. Just
> because the University did not inform you does not mean that they can not
> punish you.
[...]
What if the policy is not even formulated until after the perceived
offence occurs? This seems to be what happened in the NCSA case:
someone embarrassed the NCSA; the NCSA formulated a policy that
prohibiting the embarrassing behavior; the NCSA punished the
offender. All very ex post facto.
The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says:
"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."
-------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 16:35:01 CDT
From: francis%zaphod@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
Message-Id: <9105282135.AA02622@arthur.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Harrassment via email
Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>Sender: francis%zaphod@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
>>
>>Most people have a hell of a time keeping their private selves
>>completely distinct from their professional selves.
>Quite a few persons may disagree but it is theft of service to NOT keep them
>distinct if you use someone else's (i.e. the University's) resources.
Sure--but I don't want to trust that the sysadmin will be that
honorable. Suppose, for example, that the syadmin were male, I had
slept with his girlfriend, she sent me mail about it, and he saw the
mail in his professional capacity. How many people will be able to
refrain from acting on that knowledge?
>It is precisely these extreme cases why system administrators are needed.
A necessary evil is still an evil. An unmonitored superuser is
dangerous.
>Anything that can be done by a machine in such cases, should be.
And anything that must be done by a human should be watched carefully.
Machines can be trusted, for the most part; humans, with their
annoying emotions getting in the way ( :-) are harder.
>Dorm rooms are "houses", unlike offices which are not covered by the fourth
>amendment:
The Bill of Rights applies only to the government. A landlord often
puts limitations in his leases; if you don't like the limitations, you
don't have to rent from him. (I suppose state universities are a gray
zone, but you can still give up certain rights voluntarily with the
lease. Consider the no-guns rule in Chicago's housing projects--the
NRA is fighting it, but they seem likely to lose.) Northwestern simply
has a fairly liberal lease. And I didn't try to say anything about
offices--someone else brought them up, together with dorm rooms, & I
was trying to separate them.
>Ignorance of law (or in this case policy) was never a valid defense. Just
>because the University did not inform you does not mean that they can not
>punish you.
Again, you are confusing rules that apply to the government with
contracts between private citizens. The government has power over its
citizens by virtue of the implicit social contract; contracts between
citizens are explicit. Accordingly, the government doesn't have to
tell you about rules already in existence, but universities must warn
you beforehand.
/============================================================================\
| Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.|
| Department of Mathematics |=============================================|
| University of Chicago | Welcome to the Real World. Enjoy the |
| francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | show. |
\============================================================================/
-------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 18:05:40 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105282205.AA05506@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Need info on computer acct policy
[This is was send to me as e-mail. I am posting it with the author's
permission - Carl]
Subject: Re: Need info on computer acct policy
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 14:07:13 PDT
From: cgd@ocf.Berkeley.EDU
[kadie@eff.org writes ]
>
> Most university computer policies seem to have been set down without
> serious user participation. Are there exceptions? Has anyone respected
> academic freedom (and possibly their own student code) and given users
> a voice?
>
I point to the OCF here at UC Berkeley.
With the exception of a faculty sponsor (who is actively non-involved 8),
we are completely student run.
We have a constitution, and under this constitution, the users of the
cluster (about 1500) can elect various managers, and, if the elected
managers do not perform as the users see fit, they can have the
managers removed and/or overturn their decisions.
There is a board of directors which is also elected that makes most
policy decisions, and can be removed/overridden by the general
membership as well.
One interesting point about the entire organization:
Though we publicize the various mettings heavily, and encourage
attendance and user interest/activity, there usually ends up
being less than 20 users at a given general meeting, and i think
that there are currently 6 users on the BoD. Even though it's in
their interest to be involved and help make policy, the vast
majority of our users are simply interested in being able to get their
mail, read their news, use irc, or whatever, and are completely
uninterested in policy. It seems that the people who are most
interested are those who *LEFT* the organization in all respects a
long time ago, and enjoy criticizing the flaws of the current elected
officers.
cgd
cgd@ocf.berkeley.edu
OCF {Staff, BoD}
-------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 18:18:27 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105282218.AA05613@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Need info on computer acct policy
[This is the Constitution of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, an
organization that democratically manages computer resources for
thousands of users.]
The OCF Constitution
As ratified or amended by votes of the OCF membership: 3 February
1989
Preamble
We, the computer using community of the Berkeley campus of the
University of California, provide by this Constitution an
organization dedicated to the pursuit of obtaining and managing
open computing resources. The intent of this organization is to
provide an environment where no member of Berkeley's campus
community is denied the computer resources he or she seeks. This
group's spirit can be traced directly to the former Undergraduate
Computing Facility, however this organization's membership is
much more widely open. It is also the intent of this group to
appeal to all members of the Berkeley campus community with
unsatisfied computing needs and to provide a place for those
interested in computing to fully explore that interest. It is
the intention of this group that no small number of people ever
control the accessibility of any OCF sponsored computing
facility.
Articles
1. Name
This organization shall be called the Open Computing Facility and
may also be referred to as the OCF.
2. Members
2.1. General Membership
Any UC Berkeley student, faculty or staff member may be an
OCF Member.
2.2. Active Members
2.2.1. Eligibility
Active Membership status is restricted to U.C. Berkeley
Faculty and Staff and Registered Students.
2.2.2. During General Meetings
Any member of the OCF shall be an Active Member by
physical presence at an OCF General Meeting.
May 28, 1991
2
2.2.3. Between General Meetings
Any OCF Member who has attended an OCF General Meeting in
either this semester or the one preceding shall be an
active member.
2.3. Inactive Members
Any OCF Member who is not an Active Member shall be
considered an Inactive Member.
3. Officers
3.1. Elected Officers
3.1.1. Offices
The only elected offices are General Manager and Site
Manager(s).
3.1.2. Eligibility
All elected officers must be Active Members.
3.1.3. When Elected
The officers shall be elected at each OCF Elections
Meeting.
3.1.4. Term Of Office
The officers' terms shall begin immediately after
election and last until the next election.
3.1.5. Removal From Office
An officer shall be removed from office if, at a General
Meeting, the members vote to remove him or her.
3.1.6. Succession
If any elected position becomes vacant, a General Meeting
will be called to elect a replacement.
3.1.7. General Manager Duties
The General Manager is the chief political and executive
officer of the OCF and shall chair all meetings.
3.1.8. Site Manager Duties
The Site Manager is the chief system manager of a
particular installation of computing equipment. In the
absence of the General Manager, a Site Manager shall
chair meetings.
3.2. Board of Directors
3.2.1. Membership
3.2.1.1. General Manager and Site Manager(s)
The General Manager and Site Manager are ex officio
members of the Board and shall have no more and no
less power than any other member of the Board.
May 28, 1991
3
3.2.1.2. Other Directors
Other Directors shall be appointed and removed
through the OCF Decision Making Process.
3.2.2. Term Of Office
The term shall expire at the next Elections Meeting.
3.2.3. Duties
Directors shall normally be responsible for the creation,
implementation and discussion of the majority of OCF
actions. Also the Board shall review all of the actions
of the General Manager and Site Manager at its
discretion.
3.3. Interim Manager
When the OCF is not formally in session, or any other time
when there is a temporary vacancy in an elected office, the
OCF Decision Making Process shall designate a member or
members to see to it that the OCF functions properly.
4. Meetings
The OCF is formally in session during the Fall Semester and the
Spring Semester. This is the only time General Meetings can take
place. The OCF is informally in session between the semesters.
During this time the Faculty Sponsors and the Interim Managers
are responsible for the functioning of the OCF.
4.1. General Meetings
The OCF Decision Making Process can call a General Meeting at
any time. When possible, one weeks notice shall be given.
4.1.1. Election Meetings
The Elections Meeting shall, in this order, approve the
Faculty Sponsors, elect the General Manager, elect the
Site Managers, appoint Directors and then consider new
business.
4.1.1.1. Fall Meeting
The OCF shall meet during the week immediately
preceding Thanksgiving.
4.1.1.2. Spring Meeting
The OCF shall meet during the second week following
Spring Break.
4.1.2. Special General Meetings
4.1.2.1. How Called
Ten OCF members can call a Special General Meeting
when the normal process for calling a General Meeting
is not feasible.
May 28, 1991
4
4.1.2.2. Procedure
These ten members must notify the General Manager if
possible, provide prominent public notice of the
meeting at least one week beforehand and must try to
contact all members of the OCF.
4.2. Voting
4.2.1. Elections and General Meetings Quorum
By definition a quorum exists at these meetings.
4.2.1.1. Special General Meetings
Quorum consists of 25% of all Active Members prior to
the meeting.
4.2.2. Board Meetings
Quorum consists of 3/4 of the Board of Directors or five
Board members, whichever is greater.
4.2.3. Procedure
4.2.3.1. Election of Officers
The election of officers shall be by secret ballot.
A simple majority of those casting votes (including
abstaining votes) is required. If on the first ballot
no candidate receives a simple majority, then there
will be a runoff between the top two candidates. The
voting will continue until one candidate receives a
simple majority.
4.2.3.2. Other Votes
All other votes require a simple majority to pass.
4.2.3.3. Proxy
An OCF Member must be present at a meeting to vote.
5. Faculty Sponsors
The OCF Faculty Sponsors shall consist of a faculty member or
faculty members who are dedicated to the functioning of the OCF.
These Faculty Sponsors shall be selected by the OCF Board of
Directors and shall be subject to selection by the OCF at the
Elections Meeting.
6. The OCF Decision Making Process
6.1. Faculty Sponsors
The Faculty Sponsor or Faculty Sponsors shall have ultimate
authority over any OCF actions except for constitutional
amendments and the approval of the Faculty Sponsors.
6.2. OCF Membership
The OCF Active Membership shall have authority over any OCF
actions except where such action conflicts with Article 6.1.
May 28, 1991
5
6.3. OCF Board of Directors
The OCF Board of Directors shall have authority over any OCF
actions except where such action conflicts with Articles 6.1
and 6.2.
6.4. OCF General Manager
The OCF General Manager shall have authority over any OCF
actions except where such action conflicts with Articles 6.1,
6.2 and 6.3.
6.5. OCF Site Managers
OCF Site Managers shall have authority over any OCF actions
except where such action conflicts with Articles 6.1, 6.2,
6.3 and 6.4.
7. Bill of Rights
7.1. Nondiscrimination
The OCF shall not discriminate in any way against any person
by race, color, religion, marital status, national origin,
sex, age, sexual orientation, handicap, college major or
political activity.
7.2. Hazing
The OCF shall not haze, in accordance with California state
law.
7.3. Grievance
Any individual who has a grievance with the OCF shall first
contact the General Manager. He or she may then appeal to
the Faculty Sponsors and then finally to the University of
California through established channels.
7.4. Conduct
All users of OCF managed facilities shall comply with
University of California regulations, including the UC
Berkeley Student Conduct Code and any OCF regulations.
7.5. Freedom of Information
All official OCF documents must be provided to interested
parties without undue delay and the OCF may not charge above
cost to do so.
7.6. Privacy
Individuals' rights of privacy shall not be violated without
reasonable cause.
7.7. Rights Not Enumerated
The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained
by individuals.
May 28, 1991
6
8. Amendments and Bylaws
8.1. Amendments
8.1.1. Process
A proposed amendment to the Constitution must be
presented for consideration at a General Meeting. If the
Membership votes to further consider the amendment, it
shall be open for voting for a review period, of not less
than two weeks. Voting in this case may be through
electronic or physical means. A 2/3 majority of all
Active Members is required for approval.
8.1.2. Annotation
Whenever this Constitution is amended, an annotation of
the date of ratification shall be added to the beginning
of this document and shall be further noted immediately
following the new amendment.
8.1.3. ASUC Records
All amendments, additions, or deletions must be filed
with the ASUC Student Affairs Office within one week of
adoption, and must be in consonance with University of
California and ASUC regulations and policies.
8.2. Bylaws
Bylaws may be created or modified as needed, through the OCF
Decision Making Process.
9. Dissolution
The assets of the OCF constitute a continuing trust for the
benefit of all members of the Berkeley campus community
interested in open computing facilities. In the event of the
dissolution of the OCF for whatever reason, the assets, after
payment or adequate provision for payment of all outstanding
debts and obligations of the OCF shall be transferred to a non-
profit fund, foundation or corporation which is organized and
operated exclusively for the purposes for which the OCF was
founded. All unspent ASUC funds shall remain the property of the
ASUC.
May 28, 1991
-------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 1991 18:23 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Need info on computer acct policy
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie)
>
>Subject: Re: Need info on computer acct policy
>Date: Tue, 28 May 91 14:07:13 PDT
>Sender: cgd@ocf.Berkeley.EDU
>
>[kadie@eff.org writes ]
>
>
>I point to the OCF here at UC Berkeley.
>
>
I would appreciate it if someone elaborated on what exactly OCF is.
Is it a central or departmental computing facility? Who all have access to
it? Who funds it?
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
-------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 18:24:43 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105282224.AA05658@eff.org>
Subject: Need info on computer acct policy
[These are the Bylaws of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, an
organization that democratically manages computer resources for
thousands of users. - Carl]
Bylaws of the OCF.
1. The General Manager and the Site Managers cannot
appoint directors except when the OCF is not in session
and the Board of Directors cannot make a quorum because
there are fewer than five directors in town.
2. The OCF Board of Directors shall meet weekly.
3. Any Director missing two consecutive regularly
scheduled meetings will be removed from the Board,
regardless of whether the meetings achieve quorum.
4. OCF Board meetings must be announced to all Directors
at least twenty-four hours in advance.
5. Resolutions by the Board of Directors can be put to a
vote electronically. When putting a resolution to the
Board in this manner, all Board members must be
included in the request for votes. To pass an issue
this way, at least half of all the Board members must
agree. If the motion fails to achieve a majority
within seventy-two hours of being called to such a
vote, the motion fails. The results of the vote will
be posted in role call form.
6. Attendance lists and minutes for all OCF meetings shall
be maintained for the decisions of that meeting to be
valid.
May 28, 1991
-------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 1991 19:03 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Need info on computer acct policy
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie)
>
>[This is the Constitution of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, an
>organization that democratically manages computer resources for
>thousands of users.]
>
> The OCF Constitution
>
After reading the OCF constitution and bylaws, I think that the OCF is an
excellent idea and I hope other University communities adopt it. I am very
much interested in OCF's founding history.
I still have a few questions: Who funds OCF? What happens when the funding
dries up?
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: <9105282344.AA25450@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Harrassment via email
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 18:44:25 -0500
From: Neil Rickert
In article <9105282037.AA04490@eff.org> you write:
>Moreover, we are talking about academic rights, not (necessarily)
>legal rights. My university, and I assume others (maybe even yours),
>explicitly guarantees the privacy of office space.
>regulations."
Does this mean that the janitor does not come in to empty your waste
until you have signed an agreement as to when this is permitted?
Does this mean that the university never does an inventory check without
first making an appointment to enter your office?
Or do you just have a meaning of "private" which is different from
everybody else.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
Message-Id: <9105282359.AA06832@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 1991 19:59:18 EDT
From: Joe Ryan
Government Documents List ,
Interlibrary Loan List ,
Library Administration and Management ,
Library Planning ,
Discussion of Library Reference Issues ,
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum ,
Computers and Academic Freedom List ,
Coalition for Networked Information ,
Information Retrieval List
Please distribute as appropriate...excuse the cross-postings.
=========================================================================
May 29, 1991
ELECTRONIC NETWORKING:
RESEARCH, APPLICATIONS, AND POLICY
Meckler Publishing announces a new journal: Electronic Networking:
Research, Applications and Policies (formerly advertised as Research
Networking and Information Systems), edited by Charles R. McClure
with Associate Editors: Ann Bishop and Philip Doty and Resource
Review Editor: Joe Ryan.
This cross-disciplinary journal will provide coverage of an evolving
area of information technology and communication: the rapidly growing
use of telecommunications networks to provide information services
and products. The journal will publish papers that report research
findings related to electronic networks, that identify and assess
policy issues related to networking and that describe current and
potential applications of electronic networking.
The purpose of the journal is to describe, evaluate, and foster
understanding of the role and applications of electronic networks.
Moreover, the journal intends to promote and encourage the
successful use of electronic networks. The journal will be of
interest to network users, managers, and policy makers in the
academic, computer, communication, library, and government
communities. Volume I will consist of two issues published in
1991; volume II and future volumes will be issued quarterly.
Initially the journal will appear in paper format. The editors
and publisher are exploring options to move into an electronic
format at a future date.
The editors welcome contributions on topics related to electronic
networks such as:
o Uses and impacts of electronic networks in research and education
o Managerial and organizational concerns
o Standards
o Technical considerations in the design and operation of networks
o Public and private sector roles and responsibilities in network
development
o Social and behavioral factors affecting the use and effectiveness
of networks
o The development of the National Education and Research Network
(NREN)
o Infrastructures needed to support electronic networking
o Policy issues at the national, regional, state, and institutional
levels affecting the use and development of electronic networks.
Types of contributions may range from reports on research, assessments
of policies and applications, or opinion essays. Papers will be
reviewed by an Editorial Board and external experts as appropriate.
A Resource Review section will critically evaluate the latest books
journals, reports and networked information of interest to our readers.
Prospective contributors to the journal should contact Charles R.
McClure, Editor, (CMMCLURE@suvm.acs.syr.edu) Ann Bishop, Associate
Editor, (A71BISHO@suvm.acs.syr.edu); Philip Doty, Associate
Editor, (P71DOTYX@suvm.acs.syr.edu); or Joe Ryan, Resource Review
Editor, (JORYAN@suvm.acs.syr.edu); at the School of Information
Studies, Syracuse University 4-206 Center for Science & Technology,
Syracuse NY, 13244-4100; Phone: (315) 443-2911; Fax: (315) 443-5806 for
additional information and guidelines for the submission of manuscripts.
Members of the editorial board include:
Martin Dillon, Director of Research, OCLC
Pamela Q. J. Andre, National Agriculture Library
Susan Estrada, Executive Director, CERFnet
Brian Kahin, Science Technology and Public Policy Program,
Harvard University
Michael McGill, Ameritech Information Systems
Tracy LaQuey Parker, Computation Center, University of Texas
Carol Parkhurst, Asst. Univ. Librarian, University of Nevada,
Reno
Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Professor of Law, Villanova University
Fred W. Weingarten, Executive Director, Computing Research Assoc.
Pat Molholt, Acting Dir., Resesselaer Polytechnic Inst. Library
The board, McClure, Bishop, Doty, and Ryan have been involved in
research efforts related to national electronic networking. They
have published widely on topics related to electronic networks and
frequently speak on the topic at various professional meetings.
=========================================================================
-------------------
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 20:58:25 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9105290058.AA07655@eff.org>
Subject: Harrassment via email
In article <9105282037.AA04490@eff.org> kadie@uiuc.edu (that's me) writes:
>>Moreover, we are talking about academic rights, not (necessarily)
>>legal rights. My university, and I assume others (maybe even yours),
>>explicitly guarantees the privacy of office space.
>>regulations."
Neil W. Rickert writes:
> Does this mean that the janitor does not come in to empty your waste
>until you have signed an agreement as to when this is permitted?
> Does this mean that the university never does an inventory check without
>first making an appointment to enter your office?
> Or do you just have a meaning of "private" which is different from
>everybody else.
I am happy to report that the University of Illinois has discovered
that privacy does not have to be sacrified for sanitation :-)
[This is mostly a reprint of a note posted May 12th]
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."
And this is 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.'
From kadie Thu May 30 11:36:22 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu May 30 11:36:11 EDT 1991
In this issue:
Ellen Greenblatt < : Subscription
Neil Rickert
Wed, 29 May 91 09:06:12 EDT
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 09:04:51 EDT
From: Ellen Greenblatt
Subject: Subscription
SUBSCRIBE COMP-ACADEMIC=FREEDOM-TALK@EFF.ORG Ellen Greenblatt (U. at Buffalo)
-------------------
Message-Id: <9105291534.AA01731@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Harrassment via email
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 10:34:34 -0500
From: Neil Rickert
In article <9105290058.AA07655@eff.org> kadie@uiuc.edu writes:
>Here is what my Univerity's student code says:
>...
>There may be entry without notice in emergencies ... and
>for custodial service.
Sounds like a gaping big loophole to me.
>And this is 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
Note the word "should", which suggest that this is a wish list setting
a standard of ethical conduct, but with no guarantees.
It sounds to me as if the level of privacy is about the same as the level
of privacy on most well run computers. The only difference I can see is in
the choice of wording. Your University's code was probably written with
a strong concern about public relations, and with a design to allay your
fears. The BU computer code was written instead to make sure you were aware
of the limitations of computer privacy, and perhaps to warn you against the
type of misconceptions that a public relations approach encourages.
Personally I prefer the second approach to notification.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 22:39:33 GMT
Message-Id: <1991May29.223933.21869@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: How to quit the mailing lists
I am happy to report that Computers and Academic Freedom mailing
lists are now available as newsgroups. The newsgroups are
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk (gatewayed to comp-academic-freedom-talk)
- everything posted to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, or mailed to caf-talk@eff.org,
appears here without human intervention.
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news (a moderated newsgroup corresponding to
comp-academic-freedom-news)
- the best notes from caf-talk (as selected by me). A collection
is posted at the end of each week, and now at the end of each month.
To quit the mailing lists (because, for example, you will be reading
the newsgroups), send mail to listserv@eff.org. Include the line
delete comp-academic-freedom-
where is either talk, batch, or news. If that doesn't work,
sent email to me at caf-talk-request@eff.org.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
From kadie Sat Jun 1 00:06:15 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Jun 1 00:04:43 EDT 1991
In this issue:
34AEJ7D%CMUVM.BITN : Is this
CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU!34 : Is this
elroy.jpl.nasa.gov : Email privacy vs. System management, was Re: Harrassment
Sanjay Kapur
0035; Thu, 30 May 91 10:02:44 EDT
Date: Thu, 30 May 91 10:00:35 EDT
From: 34AEJ7D%CMUVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Organization: The Village
Subject: Is this true?
>[...]
>I was the person who was the news administrator described above...
>[...]
Why should we accept the above at face value, since the original poster was
quite circumspect in not mentioning names or specifying identifying details?
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 30 May 91 14:00:35 GMT
Message-Id: <9105310938.AA13763@eff.org>
Organization: The Village
From: CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU!34AEJ7D%CMUVM.BITNET@eff
Subject: Is this true?
>[...]
>I was the person who was the news administrator described above...
>[...]
Why should we accept the above at face value, since the original poster was
quite circumspect in not mentioning names or specifying identifying details?
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 31 May 91 12:58:01 GMT
Message-Id: <1991May31.125801.29115@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!ukma!morgan@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Email privacy vs. System management, was Re: Harrassment via email
There's a very thin line between the privacy of users' email and
the needs of the system (all users). Here's how I handle problems
such as the "reading mail causes core dump/system warning" example
discussed in earlier messages.
1) Send a message to the user, asking them to stop by my office.
2) Assuming that the user actually comes by my office, we'll go
through his mailbox together, with his permission.
3) If he doesn't, I would use egrep to look for non-ASCII charac-
ters in his mailbox. Notice that this does not show me any
lines other than those which contain non-ASCII characters. I
see no ethical problem here, since I'm not "reading his mail".
4) If step 3 does not solve the problem, I might, after clearing
this with my boss, extract all header lines from the user's
mailbox. Ethically, this bothers me just a bit; however, I
feel that it is justified, since I'm not reading the actual
mail. Heck, on BITNET you can pull the source/destination
address from email *while it's in transit*, even if it's not
addressed to you. Many mail problems are caused by garbled
or improper headers; this approach will yield a solution in
many cases.
5) If step 4 is unsuccessful, I'd send more email to the user,
informing him of the problem and asking him to clean out his
mailbox.
6) If all else fails, I'll convert his mailbox to a regular text
file (by removing the mailer's delimiters, control characters,
et cetera) and move it to the user's home directory. Again, I
can do this without actually reading the email.
This plan is relatively simply to implement in UNIX; I can't speak to
CMS/VMS/PRIMOS/whatever systems.
An aside: I was recently discussing system administration with a few
of our users, and I mentioned that we'd be implementing disk
quotas on the email partition. (Note: under the UNIX operating
system, all user mailboxes may be maintained in a separate
disk partition/file system.) One of my users commented that
a quota system would be an implicit censorship of users, since
it would limit the amount of mail that the user could have at
one time. My perspective is that every mailer has a "capture
to disk file" feature that allows the user to move a message
to his home diskspace. If the user is close to his quota in
his home diskspace, that's his problem. As a system administrator,
my respect for the user's privacy does not extend to unlimited
disk space, especially with 1800 users. 8)
Comments, anyone?
Best,
Wes
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
Curator of the benchmark archives at wuarchive.wustl.edu <128.252.135.4>
-------------------
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 10:31 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management, was Re: Harrassment via email
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender:
> elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!ukma!morgan@uunet.uu.net
>This plan is relatively simply to implement in UNIX; I can't speak to
>CMS/VMS/PRIMOS/whatever systems.
Your plan would be impossible to implement on a VMS system where mail is kept
in an indexed RMS file in the user's directory.
>
> As a system administrator,
> my respect for the user's privacy does not extend to unlimited
> disk space, especially with 1800 users. 8)
>
Actually, this problem can be bypassed if there is chargeback accounting on the
system. The user can request more disk space, the user is charged more money.
If sufficient money is collected, a new disk can be purchased.
The question then is: Is chargeback accounting censorship?
> morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
> morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
> morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
> Curator of the benchmark archives at wuarchive.wustl.edu <128.252.135.4>
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
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 31 May 91 14:31:00 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
From: ccmail.SUnysb.EDU!SKAPUR@eff
Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management, was Re: Harrassment via email
>Sender:
> elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!ukma!morgan@uunet.uu.net
>This plan is relatively simply to implement in UNIX; I can't speak to
>CMS/VMS/PRIMOS/whatever systems.
Your plan would be impossible to implement on a VMS system where mail is kept
in an indexed RMS file in the user's directory.
>
> As a system administrator,
> my respect for the user's privacy does not extend to unlimited
> disk space, especially with 1800 users. 8)
>
Actually, this problem can be bypassed if there is chargeback accounting on the
system. The user can request more disk space, the user is charged more money.
If sufficient money is collected, a new disk can be purchased.
The question then is: Is chargeback accounting censorship?
> morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
> morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
> morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
> Curator of the benchmark archives at wuarchive.wustl.edu <128.252.135.4>
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
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 31 May 91 14:51:46 GMT
Message-Id: <43971@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
From: wuarchive!rex!ukma!widener!netnews.upenn.edu!pender.ee.upenn.edu!chip@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991May31.125801.29115@ms.uky.edu>wid
Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management
In article morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>An aside: I was recently discussing system administration with a few
> of our users, and I mentioned that we'd be implementing disk
> quotas on the email partition. [...] One of my users
> commented that a quota system would be an implicit
> censorship of users[...]. As a system administrator,
> my respect for the user's privacy does not extend to unlimited
> disk space, especially with 1800 users. 8)
>
>Comments, anyone?
Many people yell "censorship" whenever someone does not let them do
what they want, and it involves communication. The most absurd
example I can think of is, "The phone company won't let poor people
make long distance phone, because poor people don't have enough money
to pay for them. That's censorship!"
I wouldn't worry too much about the "C" word, in your case.
I've got 2000 students, plus faculty and staff, on one machine, and
I've got a solution that seems to work well. I pick a size that I
decide is a good maximum size for a mailbox(call it N). I use N=50K.
I run a cron job every month which send mail to people who's mailboxes
are bigger than 2N, explaining how to save mail to their home
directories, how to delete mail, and why it's inconsiderate to have a
huge mailbox.
I also run another monthly job which handles mailboxes larger than 3N.
This program divides the mailbox into two parts, the most recent N
stay in the mailbox, and the rest gets compressed and moved into the
user's home directory. A letter is sent explaining what happened and
why, and how to read the compressed mail.
Sorry for posting a procedure to a policy newsgroup.
Charles H. Buchholtz chip@ee.upenn.edu
Systems Programmer Electrical Engineering
University of Pennsylvania.
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 15:50:36 GMT
Message-Id: <1991May31.155036.16870@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <1991May31.125801.29115@ms.uky.edu>, <43971@netnews.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management
(Generally, I think) quotas are not censorship.
In fact, quotas are often the alternative to censorship. Without
quotas, the sys admin is put in the often untenable position of having
to decide what user information is worthy of diskspace and what is
information is not. With quotas, the user makes these decisions.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
From: bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.edu (Bruce Brown)
Message-Id: <9105311736.AA28170@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>
Subject: (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax ??? (fwd)
Date: Fri, 31 May 91 10:36:17 PDT
[With the author's permission, I've deleted the body of this
note. It was about a (false) rumor of a modem tax. - Carl]
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 31 May 91 17:36:17 GMT
Message-Id: <9105311736.AA28170@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
From: pepvax.pepperdine.EDU!bbrown@eff
Subject: (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax ??? (fwd)
Forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 30 May 91 17:20:16 EDT
From: Esther Grassian
Subject: (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax ???
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Please forgive the cross-posting to other lists, but this message is of
importance to anyone who uses a modem.
Esther Grassian
UCLA College Library
ECZ5ESG@UCLAMVS
-------------------------TEXT-OF-FORWARDED-MAIL--------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 May 91 12:43:52 PDT
From: Melcir Erskine-Richmond
Subject: Modem-user Tax ???
---(Forwarded from: MICHAELC@PENNDRLS.BITNET, Dated: Fri, 24 May 91 08:46:22
PDT)---
Date: Fri, 24 May 91 11:46:23 EDT
From: MICHAELC@PENNDRLS.BITNET
91.04.18
Dear Friends,
I received the following message at a recent conference organized by
the Southern California Regional HP Users' Group (SCRUG). Everyone at
the conference agreed to pass on the information verbatim.
FROM: MATT DOMSCH
SUBJECT: MODEM TAX
A new regulation that the FCC is quietly working on will directly
affect you as the user of a computer and modem. The FCC proposes that
users of modems should pay extra charges for use of the public
telephone networks which carry their data. In addition, computer
network services such as Compuserve, Tymnet, & Telenet would also be
charged as much as $6.00 per hour for use of the public telephone
network. These charges would very likely be passed on to the
subscribers. The money is to be collected and given to the telephone
company in an effort to raise funds lost to deregulation. Jim Eason of
KGO newstalk radio (San Francisco, CA) commented on the proposal during
his afternoon radio program during which he said he learned of the new
regulation in an article in the New York Times. Jim took the time to
gather the addresses which are given below.
What you should do: First, take the time to download this message and
the letter which follows. Next, find three or more other BBS systems
which are not carrying this message and upload this text. Finally,
print three copies of the letter which follows (or write your own) and
send a signed copy to the three addresses. It is important that you
act now. The bureaucrats already have it in their mind that modem
users should subsidize the phone company and are now listening for
public comment. Please stand up and make it clear that we will not
stand for government restriction on the free exchange of information.
The three addresses to write to: (a letter to send follows)
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20554
Chairman
Senate Communication Subcommittee
SH-227 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
Chairman
House Telecommunication Subcommittee
B-331 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Sir:
Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal which
would authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the public
telephone network. This regulation is nothing less than an attempt to
restrict the free exchange of information among the growing number of
computer users. Calls placed using modems require no special telephone
company equipment, and users of modems pay the phone company for use of
the network in the form of a monthly bill.
In short, a modem call is the same as a voice call and therefore should
not be subject to any additional regulation.
Yours truly,
...
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 18:09:48 GMT
Message-Id: <1991May31.180948.18996@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <9105311736.AA28170@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>
Subject: Plese ignore modem tax rumor
The modem-tax rumor is based on events that were settled several years
ago. Every few months, however, it pops up again. PLEASE don't spread
the rumor further,;it is a waste of time.
p.s. That sick kid doesn't want any more postcards
The FCC is *NOT* considering banning religious shows from TV
Removing the tops of pop cans does *NOT* help pay for dialysis.
E-mail based pyrimid schemes are immoral.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 31 May 91 18:43:15 GMT
Message-Id: <1991May31.184315.11926@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
From: spool.mu.edu!agate!forney.berkeley.edu!jbuck@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9105311736.AA28170@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>berk
Subject: Re: (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax ??? (fwd)
Everyone:
The FCC is not considering a modem user tax. They were, several
years ago. Every few months, someone discovers some old message
referring to this dispute, posts it again, and throws all the
new users into a panic.
Please ignore the message.
--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 31 May 91 19:22:33 GMT
Message-Id: <6295@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
From: ns-mx!pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9105311736.AA28170@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>
Subject: Re: (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax ??? (fwd)
by bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.EDU (Bruce Brown):
> FROM: MATT DOMSCH
> SUBJECT: MODEM TAX
>
> A new regulation that the FCC is quietly working on will directly
> affect you as the user of a computer and modem. The FCC proposes that
> users of modems should pay extra charges for use of the public
> telephone networks which carry their data. ...
WARNING: I first saw this letter, or something very much like it, over
2 years ago. A year ago, I saw a note saying that someone had contacted
the FCC and found out that the issue is moot and has been moot for some
time. Yes, a modem tax was considered at some time, but apparently, it
was dropped in the face of loud opposition. The opposition continues
to this day because this darned note continues to circulate from bulletin
board to bulletin board and seems to be impossible to stamp out.
If anyone forwarded the original note to someone else or to some other
list before they read this note, they have helped propagate the darned
thing.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
-------------------
Message-Id: <9105312014.AA20721@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 31 May 91 15:09:28 CDT
From: George Rickerson
Subject: Re: (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax ??? (fwd)
Not again!! This stuff about the modem tax is old old old and it is not a
current issue. It got dropped years ago. Every so often someone else gets
a message about it and blasts it out over the network. I suppose it's good
it happens since it reminds us to use good judgment in evaluating the
information we receive electronically.
George Rickerson C6340A@UMVMA.BITNET
Office of Library Systems C6340A@UMVMA.UMSYSTEM.EDU
513 Clark Hall (314) 882-7233
Univ. of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 31 May 91 20:09:28 GMT
Message-Id: <9105312014.AA20721@eff.org>
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
From: UMRVMB.UMR.EDU!C6340A%UMVMA.BITNET@eff
References: ,
Subject: Re: (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax ??? (fwd)
Not again!! This stuff about the modem tax is old old old and it is not a
current issue. It got dropped years ago. Every so often someone else gets
a message about it and blasts it out over the network. I suppose it's good
it happens since it reminds us to use good judgment in evaluating the
information we receive electronically.
George Rickerson C6340A@UMVMA.BITNET
Office of Library Systems C6340A@UMVMA.UMSYSTEM.EDU
513 Clark Hall (314) 882-7233
Univ. of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211
-------------------
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 16:25 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: kadie@eff.org
>
>(Generally, I think) quotas are not censorship.
>
>In fact, quotas are often the alternative to censorship. Without
>quotas, the sys admin is put in the often untenable position of having
>to decide what user information is worthy of diskspace and what is
>information is not. With quotas, the user makes these decisions.
>
>- Carl
>
Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. The problem comes when the quotas
are not the same for everyone:
Who decides what quota an individual user gets?
Suppose an account is shared for two purposes: Research and reading mail. The
research usage requires a huge quota. But instead of doing research the user
uses up the quota for mail. What can the system administrator do? How can
the system administrator be fair to someone who can not justify a research
need for disk space?
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
-------------------
From: bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.edu (Bruce Brown)
Message-Id: <9105312035.AA29519@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>
Subject: sorry about my fwd
Date: Fri, 31 May 91 13:35:31 PDT
Cc: bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.edu (Bruce Brown)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL10]
I am sorry about posting misinformation.
The FLAMES I am getting will help me build
my self-esteem. Really my cat thinks I am
a good person even though I will not allow
her to walkon my keyboard. I did not feel
like I commited a *war crime* but I will be
very carefal before I post again.
*SORRY*
-bruce bbrown@137.159.8.1
-------------------
Date: Fri, 31 May 91 16:37:51 -0400
From: Aydin Edguer
Message-Id: <9105312037.AA27829@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: Re: MODEM TAX
Cc: ECZ5ESG%UCLAMVS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu,
USERNTCP%SFU.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu, bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.edu,
hfrederic@igc.org, karen@igc.org, maner@andy.bgsu.edu,
rrouvali@hawk.ulowell.edu
Please stop forwarding the article on the "MODEM TAX" to everyone. It is
old and no longer correct. Please contact anyone you sent this message to
and inform them that it was no longer correct.
If possible, get in contact with MATT DOMSCH and get a correction to him
to be passed on to everyone at the Southern California Regional HP Users'
Group.
The "MODEM TAX" was first proposed in June of 1987 (Released: July 17, 1987).
It was CC Docket Number 87-215. The "MODEM TAX" plan was dropped in March of
1988. That is right, the plan is almost 4 years old and was dropped over 3
years ago.
The complete text of the plan is available from:
lcs.mit.edu: /telecom-archives/docket.87-215
lcs.mit.edu: /telecom-archives/fcc.policy
Copies of newpaper articles concerning the end of the plan can be
found on:
wuarchive.wustl.edu: /mirrors/misc/bbs/fccquits.txt
wuarchive.wustl.edu: /mirrors/misc/bbs/fcc-says.no
wuarchive.wustl.edu: /mirrors/misc/bbs/nocharge.doc
wsmr-simtel20.army.mil: FCCQUITS.TXT
wsmr-simtel20.army.mil: NOCHARGE.DOC
wsmr-simtel20.army.mil: FCC-SAYS.NO
If you really think that there may be a new "MODEM TAX", please, call the
FCC before spreading this rumor any further. There are two divisions of
the FCC which have responsibilities in this area: The first is the Policy
Division (+1 202 632 9342); the second is the Tariffs Division(+1 202 632 5550).
[The main number for the FCC is +1 202 632-7000]
I just took the time to call today, and neither division has any such "MODEM
TAX" under consideration. If you are unable to access the newspaper articles
using either FTP or BITFTP, I will send you one copy of them to be sent to
others you contact. Please do not refer them to me.
Please end this NOW!
Aydin Edguer
Facilities Manager
Computer Engineering & Science
Case Western Reserve University
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 31 May 91 20:35:31 GMT
Message-Id: <9105312035.AA29519@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
From: pepvax.pepperdine.EDU!bbrown@eff
Subject: sorry about my fwd
I am sorry about posting misinformation.
The FLAMES I am getting will help me build
my self-esteem. Really my cat thinks I am
a good person even though I will not allow
her to walkon my keyboard. I did not feel
like I commited a *war crime* but I will be
very carefal before I post again.
*SORRY*
-bruce bbrown@137.159.8.1
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 31 May 91 20:25:00 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
From: ccmail.SUnysb.EDU!SKAPUR@eff
Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management
>Sender: kadie@eff.org
>
>(Generally, I think) quotas are not censorship.
>
>In fact, quotas are often the alternative to censorship. Without
>quotas, the sys admin is put in the often untenable position of having
>to decide what user information is worthy of diskspace and what is
>information is not. With quotas, the user makes these decisions.
>
>- Carl
>
Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. The problem comes when the quotas
are not the same for everyone:
Who decides what quota an individual user gets?
Suppose an account is shared for two purposes: Research and reading mail. The
research usage requires a huge quota. But instead of doing research the user
uses up the quota for mail. What can the system administrator do? How can
the system administrator be fair to someone who can not justify a research
need for disk space?
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
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 31 May 91 12:37:51 GMT
Message-Id: <9105312037.AA27829@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
From: alpha.ces.cwru.EDU!edguer@eff
Subject: Re: MODEM TAX
Please stop forwarding the article on the "MODEM TAX" to everyone. It is
old and no longer correct. Please contact anyone you sent this message to
and inform them that it was no longer correct.
If possible, get in contact with MATT DOMSCH and get a correction to him
to be passed on to everyone at the Southern California Regional HP Users'
Group.
The "MODEM TAX" was first proposed in June of 1987 (Released: July 17, 1987).
It was CC Docket Number 87-215. The "MODEM TAX" plan was dropped in March of
1988. That is right, the plan is almost 4 years old and was dropped over 3
years ago.
The complete text of the plan is available from:
lcs.mit.edu: /telecom-archives/docket.87-215
lcs.mit.edu: /telecom-archives/fcc.policy
Copies of newpaper articles concerning the end of the plan can be
found on:
wuarchive.wustl.edu: /mirrors/misc/bbs/fccquits.txt
wuarchive.wustl.edu: /mirrors/misc/bbs/fcc-says.no
wuarchive.wustl.edu: /mirrors/misc/bbs/nocharge.doc
wsmr-simtel20.army.mil: FCCQUITS.TXT
wsmr-simtel20.army.mil: NOCHARGE.DOC
wsmr-simtel20.army.mil: FCC-SAYS.NO
If you really think that there may be a new "MODEM TAX", please, call the
FCC before spreading this rumor any further. There are two divisions of
the FCC which have responsibilities in this area: The first is the Policy
Division (+1 202 632 9342); the second is the Tariffs Division(+1 202 632 5550).
[The main number for the FCC is +1 202 632-7000]
I just took the time to call today, and neither division has any such "MODEM
TAX" under consideration. If you are unable to access the newspaper articles
using either FTP or BITFTP, I will send you one copy of them to be sent to
others you contact. Please do not refer them to me.
Please end this NOW!
Aydin Edguer
Facilities Manager
Computer Engineering & Science
Case Western Reserve University
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 22:24:22 GMT
Message-Id: <1991May31.222422.28508@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
From: stanford.edu!agate!forney.berkeley.edu!jbuck@decwrl.dec.com
References: , fo
Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management
In article , SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
|> Suppose an account is shared for two purposes: Research and reading mail. The
|> research usage requires a huge quota. But instead of doing research the user
|> uses up the quota for mail. What can the system administrator do? How can
|> the system administrator be fair to someone who can not justify a research
|> need for disk space?
The system administrator is not mother. If the user is irresponsible, the
system administrator need not intervene. Eventually your hypothetical user
will find out that he has to delete some of the mail to make room for his
research work, and the problem will solve itself.
Most institutions solve this problem with billing. What you do is figure out
how much you're paying for CPUs, hardware, disk space, etc and people can
have more disk space by having their departments or research projects pay
more money. Disks are cheap these days; buy more disk. In the case of
instructional computing (class accounts, etc) there will be enough money
in the budget to give users the use of a certain amount of disk.
--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 22:39:33 GMT
Message-Id: <1991May29.223933.21869@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: How to quit the mailing lists
I am happy to report that Computers and Academic Freedom mailing
lists are now available as newsgroups. The newsgroups are
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk (gatewayed to comp-academic-freedom-talk)
- everything posted to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, or mailed to caf-talk@eff.org,
appears here without human intervention.
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news (a moderated newsgroup corresponding to
comp-academic-freedom-news)
- the best notes from caf-talk (as selected by me). A collection
is posted at the end of each week, and now at the end of each month.
To quit the mailing lists (because, for example, you will be reading
the newsgroups), send mail to listserv@eff.org. Include the line
delete comp-academic-freedom-
where is either talk, batch, or news. If that doesn't work,
sent email to me at caf-talk-request@eff.org.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1991 02:51:20 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: The World
From: bzs@world.std.com
References: ,
Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management
>Suppose an account is shared for two purposes: Research and reading mail. The
>research usage requires a huge quota. But instead of doing research the user
>uses up the quota for mail. What can the system administrator do? How can
>the system administrator be fair to someone who can not justify a research
>need for disk space?
Research should be generating revenue. If it's not and it's eating
resources then you have a problem. I'm not saying it should be simply
charged back, but there has to be some grounding in reality. I once
had a student who was doing what seemed like reasonable research
(thesis work) but was consuming every bit of disk space on every
machine he could get an account on (and every available cycle, he
would make a roomful of shared, departmental machines painful to use
all day and night, ouch!)
I finally had to put my foot down, everyone was up in arms, and point
out that it's not up to me to determine if his research was
significant or not. It was up to the rest of the world. And,
fortunately or not, that was measured in research funding (all he
really needed was maybe $20K in equipment, and I sincerely believed if
his advisor and him were slightly motivated would have no trouble
locating this, there were some computer companies interested in his
work.)
A typical model is that a small but fair amount of resources is
considered everyone's (bona-fide) "right". A larger amount could be
considered "seed grant" to generate funding and explore ideas and
shouldn't be needed for very long, several months or so. Larger
amounts should reflect granting levels or even direct contributions
(it depends on whether the particular university considers such things
to be overhead or not, usually the middle amount would be maintained
thru the grant as "overhead" contribution and larger amounts
negotiated based on "contribution".)
Once a system like that is put in place it's not the admin's
responsibility to worry about what the space is used for. I have
certainly known less applied faculty who's e-mail was research
(joint correspondence etc.)
The "meanest" thing I ever did was put an incorrigible disk hog on the
same partition as the dept chair and then washed my hands of the
problem (in this case I had asked repeatedly for someone to deal with
this as it was outside of my authority although people were acting
like it was mine to solve, funny tho, the problem just went away...I
guess I solved it :-)
If faculty are adamant about quotas etc, which is a fine and
reasonable policy if that's what they want (I've seen it work), then
they have to provide someone willing to settle disputes amongst
themselves, or a committee or whatever. It's not possible for an admin
to deal with this in most cases, you'd just end up a whipping boy to
flail at every time resources ran short. If you don't have the
authority, you don't have the job.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1991 00:52:49 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun1.005249.13409@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
From: sugar!leif@uunet.uu.net
References: , , <9105312014.AA20721@eff.org>
Subject: Re: (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax ??? (fwd)
C6340A%UMVMA.BITNET@UMRVMB.UMR.EDU (George Rickerson @ EFF
mail-news gateway) wrote:
>Not again!! This stuff about the modem tax is old old old and
>it is not a current issue. It got dropped years ago. Every so
>often someone else gets a message about it and blasts it out over
>the network. I suppose it's good it happens since it reminds us
>to use good judgment in evaluating the information we receive
>electronically.
I think we must be in on the birth (and re-birth, and re-re-birth 8-)
of a new urban legend! I've come across variations of this message (All
of which mention Jim Eason of KGO) on Usenet (2 or 3), Fidonet (1 or 2)
and Forum net. On the other hand, it probably does the FCC good to have
the cage rattled occaisionally.
--
Curious about the Libertarian Party? Call LP National HQ at 1-800-682-1776,
or send your USPS address to 76177.2310@COMPUSERVE.COM, attn. Marc Montoni
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 91 00:37:03 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun1.003703.8413@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
From: europa.asd.contel.com!noc.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@uunet.uu.net
References: , m
Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management
In article Sanjay Kapur writes:
>Suppose an account is shared for two purposes: Research and reading mail. The
>research usage requires a huge quota. But instead of doing research the user
>uses up the quota for mail. What can the system administrator do?
This is an interesting question. I've known a few users who have large
quotas and tend to keep lots of GIF files (graphical interchange
format -- a way of storing images) of women (and animals?) in various
stagest of undress and/or interaction.
As system manager, I exhort my users to make sure that our resources
are avilable to do astronomy first. I also don't look down that much
if people want to read some news and play some games. But I draw the
line when someone is filling up a lot of dollars worth of disk space
when they could go down to the corner store and buy some dirty
magazines for much less. And when the GIFs have filled up the disk and
someone can't get their work done, I start informing superiors.
Meow.
However, as Joe Admin, I won't take official *action* unless I've gone
through channels first. And ethically speaking, I avoid saying
anything until resource exhaustion happens.
From kadie Sun Jun 2 23:59:46 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Jun 2 23:59:41 EDT 1991
In this issue:
spool.mu.edu!agate : Re: Email privacy vs. System management, was Re: Harrassm
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
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 1 Jun 91 06:13:46 GMT
Message-Id: <16476@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing
From: spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!felix!haynes@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991May31.125801.29115@ms.uky.edu>dar
Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management, was Re: Harrassment via email
In article <1991May31.125801.29115@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>There's a very thin line between the privacy of users' email and
>the needs of the system (all users). Here's how I handle problems
>such as the "reading mail causes core dump/system warning" example
>discussed in earlier messages.
(list of reasonable things deleted for brevity)
I don't want to say you are overdoing the concern for the privacy of users'
mail. I think we have to be careful, though, that users don't get an
exaggerated idea of the confidentiality of their mail. Users need to be
aware that confidentiality is not guaranteed, so anything sensitive should
be encrypted. Mail is vulnerable to system crackers, network eavesdroppers,
unscrupulous persons with superuser access, unscrupulous persons in nodes
the messages pass through. Then there are various mailers which in case
of trouble delivering mail route the entire message to postmaster at some
site.
Of course all the above is modified by how well-connected the machine is,
how many users it has, how many administrators/operators it has, etc.
--
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@ucsccats.bitnet
"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
