From kadie Tue Jun 4 00:09:48 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Jun 4 00:08:40 EDT 1991
In this issue:
"Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <9106030519.AA25909@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kadie
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Canceling someone else's article
Message-ID:
Nntp-Posting-Host: herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
References: <1991Jun1.164136.4553@herald.usask.ca>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 01:36:39 GMT
In <1991Jun1.164136.4553@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes:
[...]
>The UNIVERSITY bought the equipment. The UNIVERSITY owns the equipment. The
>UNIVERSITY gets to say how the equipment is to be used, who can use it, and
>what rules these users have to follow.
[...]
I would only add that it is the policy of most universities to create
and administer rules with the participation of faculty and students,
to respect the privacy of faculty and students (by, for example,
allowing searches of office space under certain very controlled
conditions), to make rules clear and specific, to give students
accused of violating rules a formal hearing (if the student so
wishes), to promote free expression by saying that "[t]he
institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a
device of censorship."
In my opinion, any university employee who violates this policy should
be disciplined. For example, a sys admin who expels a student from the
general university computer system without recourse to a formal
hearing should find him or herself subject to a formal disciplinary
hearing.
And, of course, any university computer policy that contradicts
general university policy (i.e. almost every university computer
policy I've ever read) is null and void.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
-------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 02:20 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: "Carl M. Kadie"
>
>In my opinion, any university employee who violates this policy should
>be disciplined. For example, a sys admin who expels a student from the
>general university computer system without recourse to a formal
>hearing should find him or herself subject to a formal disciplinary
>hearing.
>
Carl,
It is indeed fortunate for Systems Administrators (like me) that you do not
have the authority to order a disciplinary hearing :-)
I agree that a formal hearing should be required before expulsion from the
general university or departmental computer system.
Do you agree that suspending computing privileges pending a formal expulsion
hearing is a responsible and required excercise of the powers of a System
Administrator?
Do you also agree that if the hearing finds the student guilty, this finding
should be put in the individual's permanent record (transcript) and, depending
on the incident, may even lead to expulsion from the University itself?
>
>And, of course, any university computer policy that contradicts
>general university policy (i.e. almost every university computer
>policy I've ever read) is null and void.
Unfortunately general university policies are broad guidelines and leave a lot
of leeway when it comes to implementation.
Can we build an archive site which contains the complete text of University
policies ? University Policies may state freedom of expression
as a goal in the first paragraph, but, by the time you get to the 187th (say)
paragraph, they normally have thirty (say) limitations on it. Also local and
federal laws sometimes override general University Policy making the general
policy null and void while leaving the Computing policy intact.
Putting the Computing Policies of Universities in the eff.com ftp archive may
have one major negative effect. After reading them, a University Policy
making body may decide it is the "in" thing to have a restrictive computing
policy since all the other universities have restrictive policies.
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
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: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 16:16:30 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun3.161630.10523@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: ,
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>I agree that a formal hearing should be required before expulsion from the
>general university or departmental computer system.
>Do you agree that suspending computing privileges pending a formal expulsion
>hearing is a responsible and required excercise of the powers of a System
>Administrator?
To quote the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students (JSRFS):
"C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
Pending action on the charges, the status of a student
should not be altered, or his right to be present on the
campus and to attend classes suspended, except for
reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and
well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being
of students, faculty, or university property."
>Do you also agree that if the hearing finds the student guilty, this finding
>should be put in the individual's permanent record (transcript) and, depending
>on the incident, may even lead to expulsion from the University itself?
Quoting the JSRFS:
"To minimize the risk of improper disclosure, academic and
disciplinary record should be separate, and the conditions of access
to each should be set forth in an explicit policy statement.
Transcripts of academic records should contain only information about
academic status."
So, I don't think that *any* disciplinary info should be on a
student's academic transcript. On the other hand, computer infractions
are no less important than other infractions, and so should be treated
the same (possibly leading to expulsion from the University).
>Can we build an archive site which contains the complete text of University
>policies ?
I encourage everyone to get a copy of their university's student code.
And if the typing or scanning muse hits you, please email to me
whatever you feel like putting on-line.
>University Policies may state freedom of expression
>as a goal in the first paragraph, but, by the time you get to the 187th (say)
>paragraph, they normally have thirty (say) limitations on it. Also local and
>federal laws sometimes override general University Policy making the general
>policy null and void while leaving the Computing policy intact.
I haven't seen this. Can you give examples?
- 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: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 16:59:46 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Ohio State University CIS Policies
[This is the appropriate use, mail (and netnews), disk, and printer
policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and Information
Science Department]
ATTENTION: USERS OF CIS LABS
Policy on Appropriate Use
From: Bruce W. Weide, Chair, CIS Computer Committee
Date: February 1988
Subject: Policy on Appropriate Use of Computers and Computer Files
Your CIS computer lab account is meant to be used by you for
your class work and should be used for other activity only with a generous
dose of common sense and consideration for others. As a general guideline for
deciding what use of computers and computer files is appropriate, the Computer
and Information Science Department (at a faculty meeting on May 14, 1984)
adopted the following policy for uses of computers by faculty, staff, and
students:
It is recognized that computer files are a new form of property separable from
the media with which they are recorded, and that close analogies can be found
between the uses of computer files and of various other forms of physical
property. The Department shall use these analogies in making decisions about
the appropriate use of computer files and the protection of their privacy,
extending as nearly as possible exactly the same protection to computer files
as is traditionally extended to the analogous physical property.
The spirit of this policy is that the file space provided by the
University to individuals has exactly the same status as analogous, more
tangible facilities also provided by the University. Such facilities as
private library carrels, dormitory rooms, and gym lockers are technically owned
by OSU, and may be entered only for ''administrative'' purposes such as
building maintenance. Similarly, the computers and computer files of students,
staff, and faculty members, being electronic extensions of their personal work
areas, may not be inspected, copied, changed, or otherwise tampered with
without the permission of the owner, except for purposes relevant to the
administration of the computer system. Notice that copying (i.e., stealing or
''pirating'') computer software is also prohibited under this policy.
The statement above is concerned primarily with privacy protection,
but also applies to ''appropriate use'' in a broader context. For example, if
you want to experiment with software not directly related to your CIS class
work, or occasionally play a computer game provided on the system, feel free
to do so --- but please be considerate of others and do not occupy a
workstation with activity unrelated to your CIS class work during peak periods
of lab usage. Also, please think about the monetary costs of your use.}
Even though it literally costs nothing when you consume ''cycles'' on an
otherwise idle workstation during off-peak hours, you should not print
things unrelated to your class work, because this costs real money.
If you have any questions about this policy or how it might affect
you, please contact me.
------
ATTENTION: USERS OF CIS LABS
Policy on UNIX Mail Usage
From: Bruce W. Weide, Chair, CIS Computer Committee
Date: February 1988
Subject: Policy on UNIX Mail Usage
All users of the Computer and Information Science Department labs
are encouraged to use electronic mail and electronic bulletin boards as a
source of information and for better communication. This use is subject to the
following policy effective immediately:
All UNIX users are expected to learn to use electronic mail and bulletin
boards/newsgroups to facilitate internal communication (see short subject
document #42 and #16 on ''Mail'' and ''News'' available in HI 308). All
messages sent anywhere by anyone must be ''appropriate'' (see short subject
document #43 on ''Standards and Customs''). However, unless explicit written
permission has been granted by the CIS Computer Committee, only faculty, staff,
and CIS graduate students are permitted to send electronic mail or post
electronic bulletin board messages to non-OSU computers.
The objectives of this policy are obvious. First, on-campus
electronic communication is a very effective way of contacting people who may
not be immediately available, without playing ''telephone tag'' or wasting a
lot of time. It is also used by instructors to disseminate information to and
receive feedback from their students in a timely fashion, and it is therefore
crucial that everyone be able to use it. However, off-campus electronic
communication costs real money and is made available for a more specific
purpose: to facilitate faculty, staff, and graduate student collaboration on
research work with others outside OSU. Only in special circumstances should
undergraduate students need to use this off-campus service. If you feel you
are special in this regard please see me.
Second, while we have no desire to try to censor electronic
messages, we do have a specific obligation to the organizations that operate
our computer networks to make sure the house rules of etiquette are observed
by the people connected to them through our computer systems. Without
exception, these rules prohibit obscene language, personal attacks, attempts
to send anonymous messages, and a variety of other unsociable acts.
If you have any questions about this policy or how it might affect
you, please contact me.
------
ATTENTION: USERS OF CIS LABS
Policy on UNIX Disk Usage
From: Bruce W. Weide, Chair, CIS Computer Committee
Date: February 1988
Subject: Policy on UNIX Disk Usage
The Computer and Information Science Department labs, like most
computer systems, face a chronic shortage of disk space. In order to help
avert potential problems in this area, we have adopted the following policy
effective immediately:
Each UNIX user is assigned to one of the following general categories and has
a corresponding personal directory disk quota: guest or undergraduate student
(1.0MB), graduate student (1.5MB), staff (2.5MB), or faculty (2.5MB). A user
who needs additional space may request an increase in the quota by filling
out a ''UNIX Disk Space Request'' form available in the document rack in the
2nd floor hallway in CA. A requested increase of 50% from the default
personal quota (with reasonable cause and a faculty member's signature) will
be granted by the operator without further review. Any larger increase must be
approved by the CIS Computer Committee. Special project or group directories
may be created under the control of a faculty or staff member and may receive
significantly larger disk allocations with approval of the CIS Computer
Committee.
At present, disk quotas are not ''enforced'' by the system (e.g., in
the sense that you cannot continue to work once you exceed your quota). We
plan to rely on the reasonableness of the user community until and unless that
proves unwise. However, periodically an automatic audit of disk space usage
will be made and users who are over quota will be notified by electronic mail.
If you receive such a notice you are expected to remove files, archive them to
tape, or move them to an appropriate project directory so your usage falls
below your quota (see short subject document #41 on ''How to Save Disk Space''
available from the operator in HI 308). If these steps are not effective, you
may request a larger quota as noted above.
If the next audit (which will be conducted about 3 weeks later, or
sooner if disk space shortages are noted) shows you are still over quota, you
will again receive electronic mail. This time, a copy will also go to the
chair of the CIS Computer Committee and the Manager of CIS Computer Activities,
and you will be contacted to determine why you have not complied with the
request to keep disk usage in line. Failure to adhere to this policy may result
in loss of your privileges to use the facilities until your failure to comply
is adequately explained.
If you have any questions about this policy or how it might affect
you, please contact me.
------------------------------
ATTENTION: USERS OF CIS LABS
Policy on UNIX Printer Usage
From: Bruce W. Weide, Chair, CIS Computer Commitee
Date: February 1988
Subject: Policy on UNIX Printer Usage
Computer and Information Science at this time does not charge lab
fees, but absorbs the cost of consumable (such as printer output) from its
operating budget.
We have therefore adopted the following policy effective immediately:
Each user is permitted to make appropriate use of the printers for
his/her own work. It is recognized that legitimate printing needs will vary
widely among users. However, all users are expected to observe the following
guidelines (see also short subject document #20 on ''Reducing Your Laser
Printer Use'' available in HI 308):
Always display potential printer output on the screen before
printing it (e.g., by using ''xmore'').
Always check the length of a file before printing it so you are not
surprised by the amount of paper used (e.g., by using ''ls -l'').
If the above fails, and you must print a test run of a long file just
to see what the output will really look like on paper, first print a
small part of the beginning of the file (e.g., by using ''head'' to strip
off just the first several lines, perhaps a page or two, and printing
that part only).
Never print directly form your program; always write the output to
a file first so you can apply the above options.
Obey the standards of printer etiquette at all times (e.g., do not print
large jobs during peak hours; make sure you take only your own
printouts; keep the printer area neat and clean; and so on ).
At present, there are no printer quotas. We plan to rely on the reasonableness
of the user community until and unless that proves unwise. However,
periodically an automatic audit of printer usage will be made and users who
are among the top 10% of all printer users for the audit period will be
notified by electronic mail. If you receive such a notice you are expected to
examine your methods of printing and make a serious effort to reduce your
printing activity.
If the next audit (which will be conducted about 3 weeks later) shows you are
still in the top 10% of all printer users, you will again receive electronic
mail. This time, a copy will also go the chair of the CIS Computer Committee
and the Manager of CIS Computer Activities, and you will be contacted to
determine why you are printing so much more than a typical user. If your
usage is deemed unreasonable by the Computer Committee, your printer access
may be limited.
If you have any questions about this policy or how it might affect you, please
contact me.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!paul
From: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO)
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
Message-Id: <1991Jun3.171717.22288@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <1991Jun3.161630.10523@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 17:17:17 GMT
Lines: 32
comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.ORG writes:
[Actually Carl Kadie but for broken software on eff.org. The Sender is
comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.ORG, the message is
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu. This mis-feature affects mailing list recipients
as much mail2news gateways. ]
>SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>[...]
>>I agree that a formal hearing should be required before expulsion from the
>>general university or departmental computer system.
>
>>Do you agree that suspending computing privileges pending a formal expulsion
>>hearing is a responsible and required excercise of the powers of a System
>>Administrator?
Depending on the seriousness of the violation, yes. I have a responsibility
to other users as well.
>To quote the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students (JSRFS):
All well and fine but Statements, Policies, and other random Manifestos
seldom take into account the differences between computer communities and
other University property. Suspending a user's account is often the only
way to get their attention. Escalating to a formal complaint is seldom
necessary and saves everyone's time and energy.
/pbp
--
Paul Pomes, Computing Services Office
University of Illinois - Urbana
Email to Paul-Pomes@uiuc.edu
-------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 13:30 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
Message-Id: <2FAD4FFC30201133@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: kadie@eff.org
>To quote the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students (JSRFS):
>
>"C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
>
> Pending action on the charges, the status of a student
>should not be altered, or his right to be present on the
>campus and to attend classes suspended, except for
>reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and
>well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being
>of students, faculty, or university property."
>
Data on a computer as well as the computer resource itself is
"University Property" for the purpose of the above statement. Therefore the
suspension of computer access pending a hearing is allowed even by the JSRFS.
The problem with the JSFRS is that it has NOT been adopted officially by
any major University that I know off (please correct me if I am wrong)
In my opinion, unless and until the JSRFS is adopted by a major University,
it is more or less worthless.
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: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 17:35:50 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
(I understand that these polices will revised soon.)
The policies are better than most. The privacy policy is especially
good. In my opinion, the weakest policy covers email and netnews.
It says that undergrads are prohibited from posting or emailing off
campus. This rule is enforced very selectively. To quote an OSU sys
admin: "it's just something that's usable as a weapon against the
occasional real jerk." (I think such selective enforcement is
despicable.)
The policy justifies email and netnews censorship by referring to "a
specific obligation to the organizations that operate our computer
networks". It does not identify an organization or reference an actual
contract or policy that requires censorship. (I understand the general
policy of OSU prohibits censorship.)
It is vague, prohibiting "other unsociable [email] acts".
The fatal flaw in the policies is the lack of any notion of due
process. It looks like a student or a faculty member could be
suspending or expelled from the computer system at the whim of sys
admin without recourse to a formal hearing.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 7:51:51 HST
From: Patricia Sexton
Cc: psexton@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu
Subject: unsubscribe
Message-Id:
please unsubscribe
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106031810.AA10894@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 13:10:23 -0500
From: Neil Rickert
In article <9106030519.AA25909@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Carl Kadie writes:
>I would only add that it is the policy of most universities to create
>and administer rules with the participation of faculty and students,
>to respect the privacy of faculty and students (by, for example,
>allowing searches of office space under certain very controlled
>conditions), to make rules clear and specific, to give students
>accused of violating rules a formal hearing (if the student so
>wishes), to promote free expression by saying that "[t]he
>institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a
>device of censorship."
ATTENTION: All members of the University Community.
Our main campus computer is currently quite unreliable. We have been
able to determine that the cause is a sequence of jobs being automatically
scheduled by one particular student.
The student in question has been identified. This student insist on his
rights to a formal hearing before any action is taken to suspend or
restrict his computing privileges. He also insists on his rights to
legal representation. In order to provide him time to acquaint his
attorney with the circumstances, the hearing has been scheduled two
weeks from today.
You should be aware that because of the effect on the computer, many
standard jobs cannot be run. One of these is the payroll program.
That means that all paychecks this month will be delayed. Because this
is the last month of the fiscal year, all unspent funds revert to the
state. Therefore all paychecks normally due to be issued this month
will have to be withheld until the state legislature passes a special
bill re-appropriating the funds for this purpose. This will entail a
delay of at least 6 months, unless the legislature can muster the
2/3 majority necessary to take this up in a special session.
Sincerely,
Computer Center Management.
P.S.: The computer problems will also impact students attempting to
complete assignments which use the computer. We have contacted
the instructors of these classes, suggesting that they make
extension available. However the faculty concerned are insisting
on their rights under academic freedom to issue failing grades to
all students who do not submit their work on time. We have since
contacted the registration office, who inform us that since the
deadline for withdrawal is past, students may not withdraw from
these courses unless they are willing to accept the automatic
fail which results from withdrawal after the deadline.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
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: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 18:11:35 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun3.181135.14893@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <2FAD4FFC30201133@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
[The Sanjay and Carl show continues :-) ]
SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>Data on a computer as well as the computer resource itself is
>"University Property" for the purpose of the above statement. Therefore the
>suspension of computer access pending a hearing is allowed even by the JSRFS.
I agree; a suspension pending a hearing should be allowed "for reasons
relating to [] safety [...]." A suspension-as-punishment prior to a
hearing should be prohibited (unless the student wavies his or her
right to a hearing.)
>The problem with the JSFRS is that it has NOT been adopted officially by
>any major University that I know off (please correct me if I am wrong)
[According to the AAUP:]
------------begin quote------------
In June, 1967, a joint committee, comprised of representatives from
the American Association of University Professors, U. S. National
Student Association, Association of American College, National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and National
Association of Woman Deans and Counselors, met in Washington, D.C.,
and drafted the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students
published below.
Since its formulation, the Joint Statement has been endorsed by each
of its five national sponsors, as well as by a number of other
professional bodies. The Association's Council approved the Statement
in October, 1967, and the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting endorsed it as
Association policy."
------------end quote---------
(The AAUP will, if worse comes to worse, censure a university
that violates the principles of academic freedom.)
The Joint Statement is a recommendation. Let me use my university, the
University of Illinois, as an example. The U. of I. did not say "we
adopted the Joint Statement". Rather, it created its own, more
specific statement using the Joint Statement as a base. In some places
U. of I. policy is stronger, in other places the two statements
are the word-for-word the same. I don't know of any case in which the
U. of I. statement is weaker than the Joint Statement.
Finally, regardless of official endorsements, I find the Joint
Statement eloquent and persuasive.
--
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: 3 Jun 91 19:34:18 GMT
Message-Id: <2332@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
From: lll-winken!taurus!shimeall@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9105311736.AA28170@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>, <1991May31.184315.11926@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Urban myths
The "dying child" myth just popped up in our local campus newspaper.
I've contacted the editor to let him know it was a myth. Can anyone
give me a citation to the mythic nature of this story? I'd like to
give him a cite when he calls back. Please respond via e-mail and
don't respond after 6:00pm PDT on 3 June 1991.
Tim
--
Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509)
-------------------
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: 3 Jun 91 19:18:26 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun3.191826.5463@cs.dal.ca>
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
From: bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!cs.dal.ca!ug.cs.dal.ca!dinn@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>a.ca
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes:
>[This is the appropriate use, mail (and netnews), disk, and printer
>policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and Information
>Science Department]
Here's our policy for Dalhousie University, in Nova Scotia Canada...
24 November 1986
GUIDE TO RESPONSIBLE COMPUTING AT DALHOUSIE
-------------------------------------------
In recognition of the contribution that computers can make to
furthering the educational and other objectives of the University,
this Guide is intended to promote the responsible and ethical use of
University computing resources. It is in the best interests of the
community as a whole that these resources be used in accordance with
certain practices which ensure that the rights of all users are
protected and the goals of the University are achieved.
This Guide applies to all computer and computer communication
facilities owned leased, operated, or contracted by the University.
This includes word processing equipment, micros, mainframes,
minicomputers, and associated peripherals and software, regardless of
whether used for administration, research, teaching, or other
purposes.
It should be noted that system administrators of various campus
computing facilities and those responsible for the computer access
privileges of others may promulgate regulations to control use of the
facilities they regulate. System administrators are responsible for
publicizing both the regulations they establish and their policies
concerning the authorized and appropriate use of the publicly
available equipment for which they are responsible.
Basic Principles
----------------
Individuals should use only those University computing facilities
they have been authorized to use.
They should use these facilities:
a. with respect to the terms under which they were granted access
to them;
b. in a way that respects the rights of other authorized users;
c. so as not to interfere with or violate the normal, appropriate
use of these facilities;
d. so as not to impose unauthorized costs on the University without
compensation to it.
Elaboration
-----------
1). Individuals should use only those University computing
facilities they have been authorized through normal University
channels to use. They should use these resources in a
responsible and efficient manner consistent with the objectives
underlying their authorization to use them.
2). Individuals should respect the rights of other authorized users
of University computing facilities. Thus, they should respect
the rights of other users to security of files, confidentiality
of data, and the benefits of their own work. Users should
respect the rights of others to access campus computing
resources and should refrain from:
(1) using the computer access privileges of others without
their explicit approval;
(2) accessing, copying, or modifying the files of others
without their permission; and
(3) harassing others in any way or interfering with their
legitimate use of computing facilities.
3). Individuals should respect the property rights of others by
refraining from the illegal copying of programs or data acquired
by the University or other users or putting software, data
files, etc. on University computers without the legal right to
do so.
4). Individuals should not attempt to interfere with the normal
operation of computing systems or attempt to subvert the
restrictions associated with such facilities. They should obey
the regulations affecting the use of any computing facility they
use.
Disciplinary Actions
--------------------
Reasonable suspicion of a violation of the principles or practices
laid out in this Guide may result in disciplinary action. Such
action will be taken through normal University channels.
Nothing in this Guide diminishes the responsibility of system
administrators of computing services to take remedial action in the
case of possible abuse of computing privileges. To this end, the
system administrators with the approval of the President and with due
regard for the right of privacy of users and the confidentiality of
their data, have the right, to suspend or modify computer access
privileges, examine files, passwords, accounting information,
printouts, tapes, and any other material which may aid in an
investigation of possible abuse. Whenever possible, the cooperation
and agreement of the user will be sought in advance. Users are
expected to cooperate in such investigations when requested. Failure
to do so may be grounds for cancellation of computer access privileges.
- Passed by Dalhousie Senate, 24 November 1986.
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106032258.AA03625@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Cc: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
<9106031810.AA10894@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 18:58:40 EDT
From: "Manavendra K. Thakur"
>>>>> On Mon, 03 Jun 91 13:10:23 -0500, Neil W. Rickert said:
> ATTENTION: All members of the University Community.
> Our main campus computer is currently quite unreliable. We have
> been able to determine that the cause is a sequence of jobs being
> automatically scheduled by one particular student.
[...]
> You should be aware that because of the effect on the computer,
> many standard jobs cannot be run. One of these is the payroll
> program.
[etc etc]
Neil,
This really is a rather pathetic way of making your point (which, as
written, doesn't seem to be much of a point at all).
Rather than contributing to the debate with constructive comments,
you're engaging in petty foolishness.
The flawed assumptions glossed over in your mindless little diatribe
are legion:
- That the University has a single "main campus computer"
- That the bulk of the University's computing is done on this
particular computer, including those handling employee
payroll and registrar's records
- That no quotas are enabled, either on disk space usage or
cpu usage
- That the operating system has no mechanism for running
certain jobs at higher priorities, or if such mechanisms
exist in the operating system, that the system managers do
not run certain jobs at higher priorities
- That it is a student who is the first person to discover
that s/he can hog system resources (replace the word
"student" with the word "faculty member" or better yet
"department head" and I bet the "Computer Center Management"
would have to swallow real hard before writing such a
mean-spirited and anti-academic-freedom message)
- That payroll funds are included in funds that revert to the
state (where I work, payroll funds are separate from funds
for capital expenditures etc)
etc etc etc
I hope you see my point: your note so trivializes and simplifies the
issues being discussed that the statements in your note cease to bear
any meaningful relevance to the matter being debated here. Hence it
does not contribute to the debate.
I recognize that you were trying to make a reductio ad absurdum
argument. I futhermore acknowledge that savage satire in the
tradition of Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, and Luis Bunuel (all three of
whom knew well the value of reductio ad absurdum arguments) certainly
has its value and its place.
Your note, however, does not even come close to succeeding as satire
of any sort, savage or otherwise. Nor does your note accomplish its
intended goal of reductio ad absurdum with any degree of success,
precisely because of the legion of flawed assumptions listed above.
I have much respect for your technical abilities, Neil, and I admire
your willingness to share your technical expertise on sendmail, DNS,
and other computer issues on various Usenet newsgroups.
But please - let's try to keep the debate on this mailing list a
meaningful and useful one. If you're going to use reductio ad
absurdum arguments, at least make sure that the arguments you're
making retain some modicum of validity and applicability to the issues
at hand.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
-------------------
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: 3 Jun 91 23:02:35 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun3.230235.20742@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: wuarchive!rex!ukma!morgan@decwrl.dec.com
References: , mo
Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management
Sanjay Kapur writes:
>
>The problem comes when the quotas
>are not the same for everyone:
>
> Who decides what quota an individual user gets?
I do, as the system adminstrator, after setting up a standard policy
with my boss. See below.
>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?
Show the user how to print/archive/compress all that mail.
>How can
>the system administrator be fair to someone who can not justify a research
>need for disk space?
Well, I work from the following guidelines:
1) Students get XXXX blocks for a quota.
Faculty get YYYY blocks.
Staff get ZZZZ blocks.
Guests are treated as students.
2) I don't care how each user uses their disk space, as long
as certain policies are followed. For instance, I don't
allow blatant use of our resources for personal enterprise.
It would have to be REALLY blatant, since I don't check user's
files. Of course, proper use of email is included in the
aforementioned policies.
3) Faculty/Staff with a *demonstrated* need for more permanent
space will have their quota increased at my discretion, with the con-
currence of my boss. This step will only be taken after archiving
every possible old file to tape. I don't let users keep old files
around "just in case"; I'll dump them to tape and restore them as
needed.
4) Students have a bit more difficulty getting a permanent increase
in quota. I can't count the number of times that I've done a
full listing of a student's directory (either in their presence
or with their permission), only to find piles of GIF files, two
years' worth of old email, core files, and executables for every
program they've ever written. With a gentle hint to clean up,
most students solve their own problem. It's amazing how much
disk space can be freed with a 1-hour "kermit to floppy disk"
or "compress" session.
5) Temporary increases in disk quota (on a per-semester basis) will
be honored with few questions; this is contingent on the physical
disk space available.
I haven't had any problems with this system.
--
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>
-------------------
Message-Id: <199106032338.AA09046@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Cc: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
<9106032258.AA03625@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 18:38:41 -0500
From: Neil Rickert
>Neil,
>
>This really is a rather pathetic way of making your point (which, as
>written, doesn't seem to be much of a point at all).
>
>Rather than contributing to the debate with constructive comments,
>you're engaging in petty foolishness.
I don't think so. My example was deliberately extreme, so unlikely
to happen. But the point was to demonstrate why the university must
be able to take urgent action to protect the other users. The simplistic
view stated by Carl Kadie is just not realistic.
>The flawed assumptions glossed over in your mindless little diatribe
>are legion:
>
> - That the University has a single "main campus computer"
> - That the bulk of the University's computing is done on this
> particular computer, including those handling employee
> payroll and registrar's records
This may come as a surprise to you, but their actually are universities
and colleges which do not have Harvard's budget for buying computers.
> - That no quotas are enabled, either on disk space usage or
> cpu usage
Not all system provide good quota support, except by human intervention.
> - That the operating system has no mechanism for running
> certain jobs at higher priorities, or if such mechanisms
> exist in the operating system, that the system managers do
> not run certain jobs at higher priorities
The priority systems don't all work very well. For example, I administer
a Unix system (not the campus mainframe). From time to time a user starts
up three or four jobs with high memory demands. The system thrashes badly
until I cancel the jobs. The priority system is of no help at all, since
it only uses CPU utilization for priorities, and with 10 cpus I often have
spare CPU time.
> - That it is a student who is the first person to discover
> that s/he can hog system resources (replace the word
> "student" with the word "faculty member" or better yet
> "department head" and I bet the "Computer Center Management"
> would have to swallow real hard before writing such a
> mean-spirited and anti-academic-freedom message)
If I find a job which is thrashing severely and causing problems for other
users, I am going to cancel it regardless of whether it is a student or
faculty. However users are warned that jobs with heavy resource demands should
not be run without making prior arrangements.
> - That payroll funds are included in funds that revert to the
> state (where I work, payroll funds are separate from funds
> for capital expenditures etc)
I am not completely certain of the details, but I believe what I described
is pretty close to the way funding is handled for the Illinois state systems.
>I hope you see my point: your note so trivializes and simplifies the
>issues being discussed that the statements in your note cease to bear
>any meaningful relevance to the matter being debated here. Hence it
Sorry, I disagree. As a mathematician, I am well aware that a single
counter example, no matter how unlikely it is to crop up, is enough to
disprove a proposition. Mathematicians usually construct extreme examples
when designing counter examples.
>But please - let's try to keep the debate on this mailing list a
>meaningful and useful one. If you're going to use reductio ad
I believe the debate will be more meaningful and useful if it some thought
is given to practicality and feasability. Spouting out grand theories of
freedom which do not take into account the practicalities of the situation
do not contribute to the debate.
I happen to believe in most of what Carl Kadie is saying as general
principles of freedom to be observed except when unusual circumstances
make them worse than the alternatives. But Kadie wants to make these
absolutes, and does not accept that there are other criteria, such as the
impact on others.
-Neil Rickert
-------------------
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: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 23:25:00 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: wuarchive!ukma!morgan@decwrl.dec.com
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes:
>
>It says that undergrads are prohibited from posting or emailing off
>campus. This rule is enforced very selectively. To quote an OSU sys
>admin: "it's just something that's usable as a weapon against the
>occasional real jerk." (I think such selective enforcement is
>despicable.)
>
>The fatal flaw in the policies is the lack of any notion of due
>process. It looks like a student or a faculty member could be
>suspending or expelled from the computer system at the whim of sys
>admin without recourse to a formal hearing.
>
Why, oh why, is *everything* turning into a "formal" or "due
process" situation? We've never had any problem with a student
that wasn't solved with a face-to-face conversation. I've
stopped chain letters, obscene files, and email flood wars with
a simple "please drop by to see me" message. Sure, users have
been locked out here; this only occurred when the student ignored
several requests to come in for a meeting. I haven't had to lock
anyone out yet; those few occurances were several years ago.
I realize that "due process" is a student right; however, aren't
we getting just a bit too stringent in its application? Heck,
I guess I'll have to schedule a hearing to kill user processes
that are using > 75% of the available system, since it's their
final project and I'm infringing their rights.
Let's step back, take a deep breath, and look at this from a
new perspective, shall we?
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>
-------------------
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: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 00:40:16 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun4.004016.20415@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu>
Subject : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>Why, oh why, is *everything* turning into a "formal" or "due
>process" situation? We've never had any problem with a student
>that wasn't solved with a face-to-face conversation. I've
>stopped chain letters, obscene files, and email flood wars with
>a simple "please drop by to see me" message.
At most places and in most cases no formal hearing is necessary. As
you point out, an informal face-to-face conversation is usually
sufficent. The *right* to a formal hearing, however, is a necessary
check on the sys admin's power. Consider the situation at Ohio State.
According to a sys admin there, at least three students are being/were
punished because a sys admin thinks they are "real jerk[s]". The
students apparently have no way to appeal this judgement.
>Sure, users have
>been locked out here; this only occurred when the student ignored
>several requests to come in for a meeting. I haven't had to lock
>anyone out yet; those few occurances were several years ago.
A student at Ohio State student tells me that users there are also
locked out (denied access to their computer account) when they are
wanted for a meeting. The difference is they are given no notice
before the lock out.
- 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: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 01:00:46 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun4.010046.20775@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <9106030519.AA25909@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>, <9106031810.AA10894@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
rickert@cs.NIu.EDU (Neil Rickert) gives this hypothetical scenario:
[...]
> Our main campus computer is currently quite unreliable. We have been
> able to determine that the cause is a sequence of jobs being automatically
> scheduled by one particular student.
> The student in question has been identified. This student insist on his
> rights to a formal hearing before any action is taken to suspend or
> restrict his computing privileges. He also insists on his rights to
> legal representation. In order to provide him time to acquaint his
> attorney with the circumstances, the hearing has been scheduled two
> weeks from today.
In this case, I'd side with the sys admin not with the student. Quoting
from the Joint Statement:
"C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
Pending action on the charges, the status of a student
should not be altered, or his right to be present on the
campus and to attend classes suspended, except for
reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and
well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being
of students, faculty, or university property."
In this case, stopping the killer job from running would relate to the
immediate well-being of students, faculty, or university property.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106040152.AA03827@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Cc: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
<199106032338.AA09046@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 21:52:25 EDT
From: "Manavendra K. Thakur"
>>>>> On Mon, 03 Jun 91 18:38:41 -0500, Neil Rickert said:
>>Rather than contributing to the debate with constructive comments,
>>you're engaging in petty foolishness.
> I don't think so. My example was deliberately extreme, so unlikely
> to happen. But the point was to demonstrate why the university must
> be able to take urgent action to protect the other users. The
> simplistic view stated by Carl Kadie is just not realistic.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Can you pinpoint exactly which
elements of the views stated by Carl are "simplistic" and "not
realistic"?
If you have the time, I'd like you to quote Carl verbatim, and then
underneath explain why you think his views are simplistic and not
realistic.
I'm sure Carl can defend his views on his own (hell, he's been holding
his own in the ongoing Kapur vs Kadie saga); I'm asking you to clarify
your statements because I'm interested in exchanging views with you on
these specific arguments.
>>I hope you see my point: your note so trivializes and simplifies the
>>issues being discussed that the statements in your note cease to
>>bear any meaningful relevance to the matter being debated here.
> Sorry, I disagree. As a mathematician, I am well aware that a
> single counter example, no matter how unlikely it is to crop up, is
> enough to disprove a proposition. Mathematicians usually construct
> extreme examples when designing counter examples.
Well, that would be all fine and good if we were all mathematicians
discussing mathematical theorems. But we're not all mathematicians,
and we're certainly not discussing anything approaching the tight
rigor of mathematical theorems.
So it doesn't matter if you can construct one single counter example.
In this context of discussing both current practices as well as ideal
practices, a single counter example doesn't demonstrate anything other
than a specific case that might need to be safeguarded against. I've
already described in my previous note several things that could be
done to protect against your single counter example - without
violating any tenets of academic freedom.
> I believe the debate will be more meaningful and useful if it some
> thought is given to practicality and feasability. Spouting out
> grand theories of freedom which do not take into account the
> practicalities of the situation do not contribute to the debate.
(You're talking like an engineer now, not a theoretical mathematician.
You're not one of those people who believe that people proposing
ISO standards should be forced to implement them, are you? :-)
I would disagree with you about "grand theories." They do have a
purpose and a value: they describe the ideals to which we should
aspire. I'm sure I don't have to describe to you the meaning of
asymptotically approaching a limit; consider ideals the equivalent of
those asymptotes in that you can never reach them completely but you
certainly can get very close.
The rights that then get officially or legally ratified simply define
what "very close" means - i.e. the minimum efforts that system
administrators and others in positions of authority need to make to
protect and uphold these rights.
This is, functionally at least, the operational method upon which
almost all of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Bill of Rights
rests. (Note that I didn't say the legal basis. I know about Marbury
vs. Madison and all that good stuff.)
Note that nowhere in this theoretical model has practical concerns
been eliminated. In fact, I would argue that the act of defining
"very close" necessarily includes such practical concerns, if for no
other reason than to ensure that no one mis-interprets or
mis-construes what was actually meant while defining "very close."
> I happen to believe in most of what Carl Kadie is saying as
> general principles of freedom to be observed except when unusual
> circumstances make them worse than the alternatives. But Kadie
> wants to make these absolutes, and does not accept that there are
> other criteria, such as the impact on others.
I agree with you on your first sentence, but it is in the second that
we part company. I don't think that Carl is ignoring other criteria
at all. What he's doing, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, is
trying to come up with a basis for ensuring *fairness* when people in
positions of authority decide that "unusual circumstances ... [are]
... worse than the alternatives." That's where the notion of due
process comes in - that is what injects fairness into the situation.
Hence the calls for administrative hearings and policies and
procedures.
I honestly don't see the "absolutes" that you're talking about here.
All I see Carl doing is providing guidelines for when you may and may
not excercise your authority as a system administrator, as well as
describing procedures that should be set up for those affected by your
decisions to appeal.
Such due process procedures protect not only users of computer systems
but system managers as well. The latter case becomes particularly
relevant if your boss asks or orders you to do something that violates
these policies; if those policies did not exist or were built up in an
ad-hoc make-em-up-as-you-go-along manner, you would not have much to
stand on.
All of this is completely consistent with the democratic system
established in the American Constitution, and the political theory
behind procedural safeguards is correspondingly well known - as are
the pitfalls, I might add. The point of this mailing list, then,
should be to emphasize the strengths of these procedural safeguards
and minimize their pitfalls.
So I confess that I'm a little amazed to hear Wes Morgan
say things like:
> Why, oh why, is *everything* turning into a "formal" or "due process"
> situation?
[...]
> I realize that "due process" is a student right; however, aren't we
> getting just a bit too stringent in its application?
I submit that academic freedom is to important of an issue to resolve
on an ad-hoc basis. I don't understand the opposition to procedural
safeguards, especially if those procedures essentially duplicate what
we system administrators are professing to be doing.
> Heck, I guess I'll have to schedule a hearing to kill user processes
> that are using > 75% of the available system, since it's their final
> project and I'm infringing their rights.
No, procedural safeguards do have their pitfalls, but this is not one
of them. Your example by no means follows necessarily from anything
that Carl or others on this list have said.
How can I say this? Because one of the most important things authors
of such safeguards have to do is spell out clearly when the safeguards
do and do not apply. Carl, to his credit, has already described his
views on this, at least on one specific point raised in this forum:
> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 18:11:35 GMT
> Message-Id: <1991Jun3.181135.14893@eff.org>
> Sender: kadie@eff.org
> References: , <2FAD4FFC30201133@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
> Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
>
> SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
> [...]
> >Data on a computer as well as the computer resource itself is
> >"University Property" for the purpose of the above statement.
> >Therefore the suspension of computer access pending a hearing is
> >allowed even by the JSRFS.
>
> I agree; a suspension pending a hearing should be allowed "for reasons
> relating to [] safety [...]." A suspension-as-punishment prior to a
> hearing should be prohibited (unless the student wavies his or her
> right to a hearing.)
So, given that a) the rights being described here simply define the
degree to which the ideals of academic freedom whould be approached
and b) the need for procedural, as opposed to personal, safeguards has
been demonstrated in previous postings, where do we disagree?
What are the specific areas - either in theory or in implementation -
that are causing contention?
Please write up your views if you have time. This is becoming a most
fascinating debate.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
From kadie Wed Jun 5 01:23:08 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Jun 5 01:22:04 EDT 1991
In this issue:
zaphod.mps.ohio-st : Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
BMACLENN%UVMVM.BIT : (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax del (fwd)
bu.edu!m2c!wpi.WPI : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
kadie (Carl Kadie) : Please ignore the modem tax rumor (again)
ns-mx!pyrite.cs.ui : Re: (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax del (fwd)
John Senior
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!clarkson!grape.ecs.clarkson.edu!nelson@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9106030519.AA25909@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>rpi
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
In article <9106031810.AA10894@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.NIu.EDU (Neil Rickert) writes:
In article <9106030519.AA25909@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Carl Kadie writes:
>I would only add that it is the policy of most universities to create
>and administer rules with the participation of faculty and students,
>to respect the privacy of faculty and students (by, for example,
>allowing searches of office space under certain very controlled
>conditions), to make rules clear and specific, to give students
>accused of violating rules a formal hearing (if the student so
>wishes), to promote free expression by saying that "[t]he
>institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a
>device of censorship."
Our main campus computer is currently quite unreliable. We have
been able to determine that the cause is a sequence of jobs
being automatically scheduled by one particular student. [...]
I get the point, but I'm unwilling to concede it to you. I know that
our university has a policy that says that your activities cannot
disrupt the teaching of classes. I'm sure that other universities
have similar policies.
If a student stands up in the front of a class, effectively interferes
with the lecture, and refuses to stop, that student will be removed
from the classroom. Said student will get a dressing-down from the
Dean of Students. If the activity continues, the student will probably
receive a formal hearing. If the activity continues before, during, or
after the hearing, the student would most likely be told to stay off
the campus. If the activity still continues, the student would be
arrested.
Under no conditions, that I can imagine, would the student be allowed
to continue the disruptive activity.
--
--russ I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Clear cutting is criminal, spiking trees is criminal, and using hyperbole of
this magnitude in a serious discussion is criminal. -- Irv Chidsey
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106041205.AA28163@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 21:19:56 EST
From: BMACLENN%UVMVM.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax ??? (fwd)
[This was another copy of the modem tax rumor. With the author's
permission, I have deleted the body of the note. - 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: 4 Jun 91 14:04:10 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
From: bu.edu!m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU!wpi!aej@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
>>>>> On 4 Jun 91 00:40:16 GMT, kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) said:
kadie> A student at Ohio State student tells me that users there are
kadie> also locked out (denied access to their computer account) when
kadie> they are wanted for a meeting. The difference is they are given
kadie> no notice before the lock out.
Golly. There could be _no_ genuine reason for this, could there?
Ever heard of hacking? Do you think the campus computer systems
should be down in deference to the "rights" of your hacker?
In your world, we'd have to leave the campus systems inoperative while
we wandered around looking for a judge...
-------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 10:32:22 -0400
From: kadie (Carl Kadie)
Message-Id: <9106041432.AA29769@eff.org>
Subject: Please ignore the modem tax rumor (again)
To repeat:
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.
-------------------
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: 4 Jun 91 14:15:09 GMT
Message-Id: <6323@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
From: ns-mx!pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9106041205.AA28163@eff.org>.c
Subject: Re: (COPY) (COPY) (COPY) Modem-user Tax ??? (fwd)
by BMACLENN%UVMVM.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU:
>
> 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
>
This is a moot issue! The tax proposal was withdrawn years ago, but
this bit of E-mail has refused to die. Do not forward it! If you have
already forwarded it to others, please tell them it was a mistake!
Finally, never use this chain-letter approach to political action! The
chain letters appear to persist long after the need for action has died.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
-------------------
Received: from vax1.tcd.ie by cs.tcd.ie with PMDF#10597; Tue, 4 Jun 1991 17:09
+0100
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 17:06 GMT
From: John Senior
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
Message-Id: <16F3EE0F00005769@vax1.tcd.ie>
could the list admin. remove me from the list please?
mail to the listserv doesn't seem to work.
John.
-------------------
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: 4 Jun 91 12:48:26 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Institute of Informatics, University of Oslo
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!sics.se!ifi.uio.no!rmz@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>se
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
> Why, oh why, is *everything* turning into a "formal" or "due
> process" situation? We've never had any problem with a student
> that wasn't solved with a face-to-face conversation.
Well, in some cases the system administrators are not as sensible as
you. We have just had a case where two students had behaved badly on
the IRC (Internet Relay Chat). After failing to get in contact with
the offenders, the system administrator decided that the right thing
was to close down the entire IRC service. In this case due process
instead of total dictatorical powers may have prevented that. The
offenders probably got what they deserved, they where excluded, the
problem was that everyone else was to.
--
(Rmz)
Bj\o rn Remseth Institutt for Informatikk Net: rmz@ifi.uio.no
Phone: +472 453466 Universitetet i Oslo, Norway NeXTmail: rmz@neste.ifi.uio.no
-------------------
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: 4 Jun 91 16:09:47 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu>
Subject : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>In article <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes:
>>
>>The fatal flaw in the policies is the lack of any notion of due
>>process. It looks like a student or a faculty member could be
>>suspending or expelled from the computer system at the whim of sys
>>admin without recourse to a formal hearing.
>>
>
>Why, oh why, is *everything* turning into a "formal" or "due
>process" situation? We've never had any problem with a student
>that wasn't solved with a face-to-face conversation. I've
>stopped chain letters, obscene files, and email flood wars with
>a simple "please drop by to see me" message. Sure, users have
>been locked out here; this only occurred when the student ignored
>several requests to come in for a meeting. I haven't had to lock
>anyone out yet; those few occurances were several years ago.
>
>I realize that "due process" is a student right; however, aren't
>we getting just a bit too stringent in its application? Heck,
>I guess I'll have to schedule a hearing to kill user processes
>that are using > 75% of the available system, since it's their
>final project and I'm infringing their rights.
>
>Let's step back, take a deep breath, and look at this from a
>new perspective, shall we?
I was barred from use of the computer systems at the UMCP computer science
center without warning. The message put up when I attempted to log on told
me to talk to "the System Administrator", whoever the heck that might be. So
I called the guy I knew logged on as 'root'--- he told me that I had been
locked out by a different guy, the "accounts administrator". I talked to this
'accounts administrator', who told me that he had heard reports that I had
been 'bothering people' (by messing with X-windows), but that to get my account
back, I would have to talk to the 'system administrator'. I talked to him
again, and was sent back to the 'accounts administrator', who sent me
back to the 'system administrator'. I got sick of the obvious runaround, and
went and applied for a number of new accounts under phony names. Eventually,
they brought me to the judicial programs office or having all those accounts,
and I was found responsible for 'theft of services'.
If there had been some sort of due process in the first place, perhaps I
wouldn't have had such trouble. Informal stuff only works when both sides are
trying for a real solution-- not when the side with more power only wants to
avoid what they percieve as a problem by getting rid of the student involved.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
-------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 14:38:50 -0500
From: jim thomas
Message-Id: <199106041938.AA10529@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Cc:
You suggested an archive site for various university policies. Try the
CuD archives, which includes a number of university computer policies.
-------------------
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: 4 Jun 91 19:10:53 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Computing Systems, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: fs7.ece.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ef1c+@sei.cmu.edu
References <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu>,
Subject : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
Excerpts from netnews.comp.admin.policy: 4-Jun-91 Re: Ohio State
University C.. Matthew T. Russotto@eng. (2734)
> I got sick of the obvious runaround, and went and applied for a number
> of new accounts under phony names. Eventually, they brought me to the
> judicial programs office or having all those accounts, and I was found
> responsible for 'theft of services'.
> If there had been some sort of due process in the first place, perhaps I
> wouldn't have had such trouble.
You're kidding, right? You wouldn't have broken the rules if they
hadn't given you so much trouble, is that what you're saying?
> Informal stuff only works when both sides are
> trying for a real solution-- not when the side with more power only wants to
> avoid what they percieve as a problem by getting rid of the student involved.
Did you ever consider finding someone else to help you? The system
administrator and the accounts administrator each have a boss. The
words, "I want to speak to your supervisor" can get you places if you
feel that you're being unjustly treated.
Part of gaining maturity is learning that when you seem to be stuck in a
bad position you should look for alternate solutions, not break the
rules. Yes, you were unjustly treated by having your account turned off
without warning and then given the run around, but you played right into
their hands by then breaking the rules.
----------------------------
Esther C. Filderman ef1c+@andrew.cmu.edu
System Manager Library Automation
Mercury Project Carnegie Mellon University
They are gardeners and carpenters.
They are not tomato men.
-------------------
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: 4 Jun 91 19:00:25 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun4.190025.2131@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ra!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>r
Subject : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>If there had been some sort of due process in the first place, perhaps I
>wouldn't have had such trouble. Informal stuff only works when both sides are
>trying for a real solution-- not when the side with more power only wants to
>avoid what they percieve as a problem by getting rid of the student involved.
Exactly! And due process only works when it isn't grossly painful. I
once had a problem with an undergraduate IRC user at a large US
university. Despite many recorded instances of antisocial behavior
(he'd get drunk and start sending everyone /usr/dict/words...), his
system administrator's attitude was "The process of pulling his
account is so long and nasty that I'm not even going to try. Good
luck."
One would wonder if they would have taken any action if the medium had
been netnews or mail. In any case, a few technical fixes to IRC
sufficed to solve the problem. When due process fails, not much is
left. A fancy document can't guarantee that the process works, either.
It merely helps.
-------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 15:50:11 -0500
From: "Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <9106042050.AA05403@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: FYI: Re: Reform (was: Trial flawed)
Xref: m.cs.uiuc.edu news.admin:3270 news.groups:5725 comp.groupware:204
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!vela!umich!caen!spool.mu.edu!uunet!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,comp.groupware
Subject: Re: Reform Trial.* (was: Trial flawed)
Message-ID: <1991Jun02.164956.83@looking.on.ca>
Date: 2 Jun 91 16:49:56 GMT
References: <1991May30.144345.15890@gorm.ruc.dk> <1991May31.022710.11297@looking.on.ca> <1991May31.192813.28009@gorm.ruc.dk> <1991Jun01.041929.8253@looking.on.ca>
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 41
In article emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti) writes:
>How do you discover new groups? What if someone says "hm, i wonder
>what is in alt.industrial, has anyone said anything interesting in
>there in the last month?" You can't believe that a 45 character blurb
>approved by someone who doesn't even read the group is going to help
>you there. It's mighty handy to keep around a day or two of news in
>even the most random and banal of newsgroups on the off chance that
>something interesting will pop up.
Mighty handy, but mighty expensive. The way I do it is that an empty spool
for every group exists on my machine. Any reader can subscribe to such
a group, and they will see nothing there (except perhaps crossposts)
However, within a few hours, the last 80 articles (ie. old articles, unless
there are 80 new in the few hours) appear in the group, and it keeps coming
until the user unsubscribes again.
You are limited to this on a uucp system. On an internet system, a better
idea would be to have what was eventually planned for NNTP. If a user wants
to look at a group you don't get, you talk to an NNTP server that does have
the group somewhere out on the net. (This requires the concept of feed
servers and "server" servers.) If the user likes what she sees, a feed
is set up. (Assuming this is allowed by admins, of course)
>
>groups of 100 people don't tend to have newsgroups. remember the
>lurker factor, it's a considerable number of folks who never post
I am aware of this, however, the argument I was refuting was "if 100 people
want to read it, it's more efficient as a newsgroup than mailing list."
This argument is the old one at the heart of the voting scheme.
>in addition, your licence agreement for dynafeed puts it out of the
>reach of a number of systems which might otherwise consider it.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the licence then. Nobody pays for dynafeed.
If a site is a professional uucp feeding site like uunet (of which there
are perhaps only a few dozen) I ask them to do me a favour (not money)
in return. I would not call this putting it out of reach of a number of
systems, or unreasonable.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106042213.AA03960@eff.org>
From: TK0JUT1%MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU@UICVM.uic.edu
Subject: MAIL TEST
Mail test. Sorry for the inconvenience.
-------------------
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: 4 Jun 91 21:02:41 GMT
Message-Id: <44147@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
From: lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!netnews.upenn.edu!pender.ee.upenn.edu!chip@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jun4.004016.20415@eff.org>,
Reply-To : chip@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Charles H. Buchholtz)
Subject : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article aej@manyjars.WPI.EDU (Allan E Johannesen) writes:
>>>>>> On 4 Jun 91 00:40:16 GMT, kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) said:
>
>kadie> A student at Ohio State student tells me that users there are
>kadie> also locked out (denied access to their computer account) when
>kadie> they are wanted for a meeting. The difference is they are given
>kadie> no notice before the lock out.
>
>Golly. There could be _no_ genuine reason for this, could there?
We do this when we have reason to believe that someone has broken into
an account and is using it without the owner's permission. We change
the shell on the account so that it simply displays a message asking
the person to come to our office.
When they arrive, we ask them if the activities were authorized by
them or not. If they say, "yes I did that", then we unlock the
account and deal with whatever they did. If the action was not in
violation of any other restrictions, we simply apologize for the
inconvenience.
If they say, that they authorized someone to use their account, then
we give them the lecture on "account sharing" and unlock the account.
If they say that they don't know what we're talking about, then we
unlock the account, make sure that they change the password, scan the
account for back doors or other security holes, and try to determine
how the account was cracked.
We couldn't think of any other reasonable response to take when we
have good reason to believe that an account has been cracked.
Certainly, leaving it open and sending mail is not appropriate under
those circumstances.
Charles H. Buchholtz chip@ee.upenn.edu
Systems Programmer Engineering & Applied Science
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: Tue, 04 Jun 91 17:22:58 EDT
Message-Id:
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!bluemoon!sbrack@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> In article <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
> >In article <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes
> >>
> >>The fatal flaw in the policies is the lack of any notion of due
> >>process. It looks like a student or a faculty member could be
> >>suspending or expelled from the computer system at the whim of sys
> >>admin without recourse to a formal hearing.
> >>
> >
> >Why, oh why, is *everything* turning into a "formal" or "due
> >process" situation? We've never had any problem with a student
> >that wasn't solved with a face-to-face conversation. I've
> >stopped chain letters, obscene files, and email flood wars with
> >a simple "please drop by to see me" message. Sure, users have
> >been locked out here; this only occurred when the student ignored
> >several requests to come in for a meeting. I haven't had to lock
> >anyone out yet; those few occurances were several years ago.
> >
> >I realize that "due process" is a student right; however, aren't
> >we getting just a bit too stringent in its application? Heck,
> >I guess I'll have to schedule a hearing to kill user processes
> >that are using > 75% of the available system, since it's their
> >final project and I'm infringing their rights.
> >
> >Let's step back, take a deep breath, and look at this from a
> >new perspective, shall we?
>
When I was locked out of my class account early this quarter,
I made 15 phone calls to 10 different people, not counting
being transferred all over campus.
Apparently the policy of our system administration is to keep
students from solving problems on the local admin level. My
account priveleges were restored after I met with the chair
of the department that owned, but did not manage, the system in
question. My telephony took me all the way from my professor
to the local system manager to the director of Academic Computing
Services, then to the Dean of the Engineering College. I finally
called our University Ombudsperson, who helped me determine who
I should have been talking to, as none of the people I talked to
directed me to the right place.
===========================================================================
Steven S. Brack sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University
sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu
===========================================================================
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106050013.AA05194@eff.org>
From: TK0JUT1%MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU@UICVM.uic.edu
Subject: Re: MAIL TEST
-------------------
From: bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net
Message-Id: <9106050414.AB20438@relay2.UU.NET>
Subject: Back issues
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 22:42:45 CDT
Mailer: Elm [revision: 64.9]
I have just sent in my request to get the weekly summary of the CAF. Is
there any way that you could send me the last 4 installments of that? It
looks to be very interesting reading, and I am posting everything that I get
from here on a large national BBS, and there are readers there that are
very interested in what the EFF has to say as well.
Thanks.
Eric Hunt
Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL
-------------------
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, 5 Jun 1991 05:01:31 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun5.050131.7719@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <9106050414.AB20438@relay2.UU.NET>
Subject: Re: Back issues
Back issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp from eff.org
(192.88.144.3). They are in directory academic/news. CAF-talk is
archived in the directory academic/batch. These directories are
convenient but sometimes out-of-date. The files academic/newsin and
academic/batchin are usually up-to-date.
Also, the Computer Undergound Digest's archives contains the policy
statements from many universities. I've copied them to the CAF archive
on eff.org (and added some additional files). The policies are in
directory academic/widener.
- Carl
encl: README file for the CAF archive
Info on how to access the archive via email.
=================
README
-----------------
Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
This is an electronic library of information about computers and
academic freedom.
It is available via anonymous ftp to eff.org (192.88.144.3) in
directory "academic". For more information, to make contributions, or
to report typos contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org).
=================
batch
-----------------
This is a directory of notes that have been sent over the
comp-academic-freedom mailing list. Each file is a list
of one week's notes (in batch form). Also, see "news".
=================
batchin
-----------------
This is a list of all notes that have been sent over the
comp-academic-freedom mailing list. The notes are in the batch
(digest) format.
=================
caf
-----------------
A discription to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list.
=================
ecpa.1986
-----------------
Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related
to e-mail privacy.
=================
eff.rights
-----------------
An overview of the electronic frontier and the U.S Bill of Rights
=================
email.privacy.essay
-----------------
"Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law
school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex
=================
jmcabstract
-----------------
Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny"
at Stanford. In March of 1991, he travelled to the University of
Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" was (and still is) banned.
At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second
talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the
abstract of that talk. (Also, see "stanford.statements")
=================
k12.networks.survey
-----------------
Results of a survey by EDUCOM and IBM on the status of
computer networking in K12 education.
=================
library.canada
-----------------
Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom
=================
library.porn
-----------------
A parody of a real newpaper article published in the Houston Chronicle. The
parody is my Carl Kadie. It was published in rec.humor.funny.
=================
library.us
-----------------
The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association
and Association of American Publishers.
=================
library.us.excerpts
-----------------
Excepts from the "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library
Association and Association of American Publishers.
=================
listserv.tar
-----------------
Listserv code for Unix
We got the code from UCSD. We improved it (mostly with modifications
to the Makefile). Sadly, there is no real documention.
=================
ncsa.email
-----------------
The National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) is a department
in the University of Illinois' Graduate College. On April 1, 1991
the NCSA set down a new e-mail policy. The policy was cleared by the
University's legal counsel and the Graduate College. Faculty, students,
and researchers, however, were not consulted.
This note has three parts. The first is a critique of the policy. The
critique concludes that the policy is inconsistant with the
Consitution, Academic Freedom, and University policy. The second part
of this notes is the text of the policy. The third part is notes from
a conversation with an NCSA Administrator.
[On of April 23, 1991 (14 hours after this information was distributed),
the NCSA as decided to revise its policy.]
=================
news
-----------------
This is a directory of all issues of the Computers and Academic Freedom News.
=================
newsin
-----------------
This is a list of all issues of the Computers and Academic Freedom News.
=================
nsf
-----------------
The tentative statement by the National Science Foundation on
acceptable use of the backbone networks.
=================
ocf.bylaws
-----------------
These are the bylaws of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, an
organization that democratically manages computer resources for
thousands of users.
=================
ocf.consitution
-----------------
This is the Constitution of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, an
organization that democratically manages computer resources for
thousands of users.
=================
reg2rights
-----------------
The history of student regulations at the University of Illinois
from 1904 to present. Shows how policies evolve.
=================
stanford.statements
-----------------
"In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those
computers."
This file contains
1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny"
2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries
3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford
(also see "jmcabstract")
=================
student.freedoms
-----------------
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
statement on student academic freedom.
=================
uiuc.code.excerpts
-----------------
Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on
Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985)
=================
widener
-----------------
The computer polices of many schools. This is a directory of files.
For a description of the file see file widener/Index. (The files are
from the Computer Underground Digest archives, available via anonymous
ftp from ftp.cs.widener.edu.)
=================
=================
Last update
Thu May 30 19:46:10 EDT 1991
----from comp.windows.ms -- Frequently asked questions-----
4. Is it possible to use a mail server instead of ftp?
There are a number of sites that archive the Usenet sources newsgroups
and make them available via an email query system. You send a message
to an automated server saying something like "send comp.sources.unix/fbm",
and a few hours or days later you get the file in the mail.
>> There are several sites that will perform general FTP retrievals for
you in response to a similar mail query. For information on using one
of them, send a message like this to info-server@cs.net :
request: info
topic: help-ftp
request: end
(NOTE: this server is currently "down for repairs". No estimate on when
or if it will return.)
And for info on another one, send this message to bitftp@pucc.bitnet :
help
Please be considerate, and don't over-use these services. If people
start using them to retrieve hundreds of megabytes of GIF files, they
will probably disappear.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
From kadie Thu Jun 6 16:06:52 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Jun 6 16:06:10 EDT 1991
In this issue:
Jim Ennis
From: Jim Ennis
Subject: subscription
Please add me to the comp-academic-freedom-news mailing list.
Jim Ennis
University of Central Florida
JIM@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU
-------------------
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: 5 Jun 91 13:46:18 GMT
Message-Id: <3274@ria.ccs.uwo.ca>
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ria!valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca!wlsmith@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>, os.phys
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
Why don't we rename this group to comp.sys.Ohio.cis.policies ?
-------------------
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: 5 Jun 91 14:38:33 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References: , <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>, tto
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) writes:
>>
> When I was locked out of my class account early this quarter,
> I made 15 phone calls to 10 different people, not counting
> being transferred all over campus.
>
> Apparently the policy of our system administration is to keep
> students from solving problems on the local admin level. My
> account priveleges were restored after I met with the chair
> of the department that owned, but did not manage, the system in
> question. My telephony took me all the way from my professor
> to the local system manager to the director of Academic Computing
> Services, then to the Dean of the Engineering College. I finally
> called our University Ombudsperson, who helped me determine who
> I should have been talking to, as none of the people I talked to
> directed me to the right place.
Absolutely. This is apparentely quite common-- every problem I've had with
this University, in various departments, has resulted in this sort of
runaround. Seems to be standard operating procedure-- which is why a formal,
known, due process is needed. The university has a process that staff and
faculty can use against students-- why shouldn't students have a process
to use against staff and faculty?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
-------------------
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: 5 Jun 91 14:31:00 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun5.143100.21423@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>,
Subject : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article ef1c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Esther Filderman) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.admin.policy: 4-Jun-91 Re: Ohio State
>University C.. Matthew T. Russotto@eng. (2734)
>
>> I got sick of the obvious runaround, and went and applied for a number
>> of new accounts under phony names. Eventually, they brought me to the
>> judicial programs office or having all those accounts, and I was found
>> responsible for 'theft of services'.
>
>> If there had been some sort of due process in the first place, perhaps I
>> wouldn't have had such trouble.
>
>You're kidding, right? You wouldn't have broken the rules if they
>hadn't given you so much trouble, is that what you're saying?
Had there been a way I could have gotten my own account back, the one I am
entitled to as an undergraduate at this school, I would not have applied for
any phony accounts. That is what I am saying.
>> Informal stuff only works when both sides are
>> trying for a real solution-- not when the side with more power only wants to
>> avoid what they percieve as a problem by getting rid of the student involved.
>Did you ever consider finding someone else to help you? The system
>administrator and the accounts administrator each have a boss. The
>words, "I want to speak to your supervisor" can get you places if you
>feel that you're being unjustly treated.
Maybe. Probably not. I tried that sort of tack in a similiar situation at
a different office which was giving me trouble, and found myself in a nice
little loop-- a bigger runaround. Only thing that worked was writing a letter
to the director of the office-- with copies to everyone from the governor of
the state on down. It also took quite a bit of time, something that I didn't
have in the other situation (try doing CS classwork without an account).
>Part of gaining maturity is learning that when you seem to be stuck in a
>bad position you should look for alternate solutions, not break the
>rules. Yes, you were unjustly treated by having your account turned off
>without warning and then given the run around, but you played right into
>their hands by then breaking the rules.
I see no need to be constrained by any rules when the other side is not. From
a practical point of view, attempting to play their game their way may have
saved me some trouble with the judicial programs office-- but it also would
have caused me to fail my class.
It's all fine and good for you, when you make the rules but don't necessarily
have to write them down or follow them yourself, to claim that informal
procedures are enough, or that students when wronged by you should follow the
rules you set up. It's a different matter for a student with his account cut
off, projects due, confronted with sysadmins working against him, who are
apparently responsible to no one and need to follow no rules.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
-------------------
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: 5 Jun 91 18:12:37 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>t.cis.o
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article <1991Jun4.004016.20415@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes:
>At most places and in most cases no formal hearing is necessary. As
>you point out, an informal face-to-face conversation is usually
>sufficent. The *right* to a formal hearing, however, is a necessary
>check on the sys admin's power.
Nothing in those policies overrides university rules. The student's
rights are spelled out quite clearly elsewhere, and there's no reason
to double the size of every policy document by repeating them. If the
policies were in the form of a contract that each user had to sign
before getting an account, *then* I'd agree that everything needs to
be spelled out. Our posted policies are no different, really, than a
"shoes required" sign outside the volleyball court.
>Consider the situation at Ohio State. According to a sys admin
>there, at least three students are being/were punished because a sys
>admin thinks they are "real jerk[s]".
I don't know who you're referring to, but for most of us, a user
becomes categorized as a "real jerk" when he (or she, but almost
always he...) manages to do stupid or abusive things often enough or
serious enough to catch our attention. There are about 1200
undergraduate students on our system; you've *really* got to work at
it to stand out. I recently found several megabytes of publicly-
readable X-rated gifs in an account with a one meg quota. Do I think
he's a jerk? You betcha.
His punishment? I changed the perms on them and forwarded his name
to the operator who takes care of over-quota users. Next time he
comes to my attention, will I assume he's guilty of deliberate abuse?
Probably not. This was pretty mild, and I wouldn't even have been
annoyed if they hadn't been world-readable.
>The students apparently have no way to appeal this judgement.
This judgement is usually a one-time thing. If they don't make a
habit of doing stupid or abusive things on the system, we'll never
notice them again (2000 other users make excellent camouflage).
>A student at Ohio State student tells me that users there are also
>locked out (denied access to their computer account) when they are
>wanted for a meeting. The difference is they are given no notice
>before the lock out.
Our department (I don't know about the many other groups who create
student accounts) doesn't usually lock users out without notice unless
we suspect someone's using an account to break into our system. Of
course, a student who only logs in once every two weeks may miss an
e-mail warning.
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
From: mink@coyote.datalog.com (Clint Ruoho)
Message-Id: <8qy231w163w@coyote.datalog.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 22:07:30 MST
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
add comp-academic-freedom-batch
-------------------
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: 5 Jun 91 20:02:50 GMT
Message-Id: <130736@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!elephant.cis.ohio-state.edu!weide@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jun4.004016.20415@eff.org>
Subject : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
Today someone pointed me to this newsgroup because I was chair of the
Ohio State University CIS Department Computer Committee in 1984, when
the usage policies that were recently posted to this newsgroup were
adopted. After having read the follow-ups to the original posting, I
thought I should make a few remarks. To summarize:
(1) Only one person affiliated with OSU (one of our system staff in
message #61) seems to have contributed to the discussion. Apparently
no one else -- including the poster of the original message -- is in
any way associated with OSU, has any first-hand knowledge of how the
policies are administered, or knows whether they have been workable.
(2) Most of the discussion actually has had little to do with OSU
policies. There has been considerable dialogue about a problem a
student had at Maryland -- all under the heading "Ohio State
University CIS Policies."
----
(1) In article <1991Jun4.004016.20415@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl
Kadie) writes:
>
>At most places and in most cases no formal hearing is necessary. As
>you point out, an informal face-to-face conversation is usually
>sufficent. The *right* to a formal hearing, however, is a necessary
>check on the sys admin's power. Consider the situation at Ohio State.
>According to a sys admin there, at least three students are being/were
>punished because a sys admin thinks they are "real jerk[s]". The
>students apparently have no way to appeal this judgement.
>...
>A student at Ohio State student tells me that users there are also
>locked out (denied access to their computer account) when they are
>wanted for a meeting. The difference is they are given no notice
>before the lock out.
As J. Greely pointed out in #61, OSU has an elaborate policy on
academic misconduct that is used as the basis for pursuing serious
alleged violations of the computer usage policies. The procedures are
spelled out elsewhere, not in the posted policies. Indeed the
policies HAVE BEEN used as the basis for academic misconduct actions.
In urgent situations (e.g., break-in in progress), the staff takes
immediate action to control damage, but "due process" is not therefore
inherently violated, as several people have been quick to point out.
As for the business of being locked out of an account "when they were
wanted for a meeting," this statement is a mystery to me. First, I
have no idea what it means. Furthermore, if a student felt cheated by
the policy, the obvious recourse would be to talk to the current chair
of the Computer Committee or the OSU CIS Department chair, not to
someone at Illinois. While I was chair of the committee no one raised
such a question, and I doubt the current chair has heard it either.
----
(2) Much of the discussion has centered on the experiences of a
student at the University of Maryland, but the articles were still
under the heading of "Ohio State University CIS Policies." A casual
reader may have missed this, thinking that the problems arose at OSU
from (or at least under) the posted policies.
----
A final remark: The policies are about 7 years old now, and some of
them need to be changed to reflect different accounting methods, etc.
For example, in 1984, CIS paid for OSU's access to national and
international networks. Undergraduates were discouraged at the time
from sending mail outside OSU because each message cost us real money
(of which we had none to spare, and still don't). Now the situation
is entirely different, with the University picking up the essentially
fixed cost of Internet connection. The written policies are currently
under revision to reflect these kinds of changes; the de facto policy
for some time has been that anyone is free to send mail, etc. There
was never any intention of "censoring" mail, just making the network
connection affordable on a limited budget.
Overall, I think people here would agree that having written policies
to cover computer usage has served us well. I would advise
institutions that have no such policies in place to consider adopting
ones that make sense for the particular computing environment in
question.
Cheers,
-Bruce
------
Prof. Bruce W. Weide
Dept. of Computer and Information Science
The Ohio State University
2036 Neil Ave. Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1277
USA
Phone: 614-292-1517
E-mail: weide@cis.ohio-state.edu
-------------------
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: 5 Jun 91 20:38:55 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Computing Research Lab
From: spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!nmsu!opus!ted@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>, nmsu
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
...
The university has a process that staff and faculty can use against
students-- why shouldn't students have a process to use against
staff and faculty?
the use of the word `against' is symptomatic of very deep structural
problems in the organization. once it gets to the point where system
administrators consider users to be trouble to be avoided, and users
consider system administrators to be obstacles to be bypassed, then
there is essentially no hope for constructive action.
i know of no way to get out of this sort of situation.
i do know from personal experience, both on the user and the
administration side that it isn't that hard to avoid getting into this
sort of situation in the first place.
my own checklist of things to do includes the following axioms for
administration include:
1) the systems are there for users to use
2) i am here to make the systems work as well as possible
3) the only purpose for user restrictions is to enhance the user
environment
strict application of these rules from the beginning tends to make the
environment much less confrontational.
--
When in doubt, take the trick.
Hoyle & Hoyle (quoting Hoyle)
-------------------
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, 5 Jun 1991 21:18:37 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun5.211837.9574@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ukma!morgan@uunet.uu.net
References: , <199106032338.AA09046@mp.cs.niu.edu>, <9106040152.AA03827@zerkalo.harvard.edu>s
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
This was really neat; rather than respond to me directly or through a
direct followup, I find that Manavendra buried this in a reply to someone
else:
thakur@zerkalo.harvard.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes:
>So I confess that I'm a little amazed to hear Wes Morgan
> say things like:
>
>> Why, oh why, is *everything* turning into a "formal" or "due process"
>> situation?
>[...]
>> I realize that "due process" is a student right; however, aren't we
>> getting just a bit too stringent in its application?
>
>I submit that academic freedom is to important of an issue to resolve
>on an ad-hoc basis. I don't understand the opposition to procedural
>safeguards, especially if those procedures essentially duplicate what
>we system administrators are professing to be doing.
Listen *very* carefully to this sentence:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
If some user is loading my system to the breaking point, I *will*
zap his offending jobs and ask him to stop by for a chat. If a
user repeatedly overshoots his quota, the system itself *will* make
him get rid of some files. If I can spare it, I *might* give a
user some additional disk space, given a solid educational reason.
If a user is sending abusive/obscene/flooding email and ignores my
requests to cease and desist, I *will* prevent that user from sending
further email. We may talk about it later, but I will, in the interim,
take the steps I feel are necessary for the protection/support of all
the other users of my systems.
This is NOT a question of "academic freedom"; this is a situation
that frequently occurs in the business world, as well as in academia.
>>[ scenario of student loading system down with projects ]
>No, procedural safeguards do have their pitfalls, but this is not one
>of them. Your example by no means follows necessarily from anything
>that Carl or others on this list have said.
Oh, really? Doesn't the student have the "RIGHT" to complete his
coursework, according to the JSRFS? Where do his rights as a stu-
dent intersect my rights as a system administrator and de facto
representative of all users? Am I not, as the administrator, acting
on behalf of all the system's users when I take action such as this?
Can I legitimately take action, in light of the JSRFS' provisions?
I think it's rather clear that this situation follows from Karl's
comments on student rights and computing. Perhaps you should read
them again.
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>
-------------------
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, 5 Jun 1991 21:18:37 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun5.211837.9574@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ukma!morgan@uunet.uu.net
References: , <199106032338.AA09046@mp.cs.niu.edu>, <9106040152.AA03827@zerkalo.harvard.edu>s
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
This was really neat; rather than respond to me directly or through a
direct followup, I find that Manavendra buried this in a reply to someone
else:
thakur@zerkalo.harvard.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes:
>So I confess that I'm a little amazed to hear Wes Morgan
> say things like:
>
>> Why, oh why, is *everything* turning into a "formal" or "due process"
>> situation?
>[...]
>> I realize that "due process" is a student right; however, aren't we
>> getting just a bit too stringent in its application?
>
>I submit that academic freedom is to important of an issue to resolve
>on an ad-hoc basis. I don't understand the opposition to procedural
>safeguards, especially if those procedures essentially duplicate what
>we system administrators are professing to be doing.
Listen *very* carefully to this sentence:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
If some user is loading my system to the breaking point, I *will*
zap his offending jobs and ask him to stop by for a chat. If a
user repeatedly overshoots his quota, the system itself *will* make
him get rid of some files. If I can spare it, I *might* give a
user some additional disk space, given a solid educational reason.
If a user is sending abusive/obscene/flooding email and ignores my
requests to cease and desist, I *will* prevent that user from sending
further email. We may talk about it later, but I will, in the interim,
take the steps I feel are necessary for the protection/support of all
the other users of my systems.
This is NOT a question of "academic freedom"; this is a situation
that frequently occurs in the business world, as well as in academia.
>>[ scenario of student loading system down with projects ]
>No, procedural safeguards do have their pitfalls, but this is not one
>of them. Your example by no means follows necessarily from anything
>that Carl or others on this list have said.
Oh, really? Doesn't the student have the "RIGHT" to complete his
coursework, according to the JSRFS? Where do his rights as a stu-
dent intersect my rights as a system administrator and de facto
representative of all users? Am I not, as the administrator, acting
on behalf of all the system's users when I take action such as this?
Can I legitimately take action, in light of the JSRFS' provisions?
I think it's rather clear that this situation follows from Karl's
comments on student rights and computing. Perhaps you should read
them again.
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>
From kadie Thu Jun 6 16:08:44 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Jun 6 16:08:13 EDT 1991
In this issue:
meaddata!dedek@uun :
Frank Anshen
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
From: meaddata!dedek@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>, , <3274@ria.ccs.uwo.ca>
Subject : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article <3274@ria.ccs.uwo.ca>, wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne L. Smith) writes:
|> Why don't we rename this group to comp.sys.Ohio.cis.policies ?
Because the group (I believe) is for the discussion of academic freedom
in the realm of computing (only). No further restrictions are made on
the subject matter (i.e., we could easily talk about MIT comp.sys policy).
But seriously, if you don't like the current thread why don't you
start a new one, or kill it? I think the OSU thread is interesting
and relevant.
$.01 + one penny (mine)
OBfreedom-talk: When I was in school I sent a note to the help desk
complaining about a perceived problem with the VAX system
administrator. It contained a bad word describing that admin. The
note appeared on the ACS bulletin board. Luckily, my boss saw it and
removed it (after having a 'talk' with me). Ever since then, I don't
send anything confidential via e-mail.
Have fun!
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106061814.AA05150@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 91 13:04:53 EDT
From: Frank Anshen
I would like to subscribe to this list.
Frank Anshen
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106061848.AA06153@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 91 13:04:53 EDT
From: Frank Anshen
I would like to subscribe to this list.
Frank Anshen
-------------------
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: 6 Jun 91 17:12:53 GMT
Message-Id: <131149@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
From: spool.mu.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!elephant.cis.ohio-state.edu!weide@uunet.uu.net
References: , <5JUN91174755@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>h
Subject: Re: fascinating subject
In article <5JUN91174755@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> dmittleman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu writes:
>I find this discussion fascinating (even IF much of it deals with OSU).
As I tried to suggest in a recent posting, almost NONE of this
discussion deals with Ohio State's policies. If you wish to follow up
on the problems faced by people at Maryland, Arizona, etc., perhaps it
would be wise to change the "subject" field (or follow up to this
article, which by some miracle happens to have a different subject
heading).
Thanks,
-Bruce
-------------------
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: 6 Jun 91 15:16:09 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun6.151609.6820@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>, <1991Jun5.234114.18168@milton.u.washington.edu>e
Subject : Due process
In article <1991Jun5.234114.18168@milton.u.washington.edu> fetrow@bones.UUCP () writes:
>
> I have a slightly different perspective on this. "Due Process" should always
>be around, at least as a backup to informal procedures (e.g. a student
>ombudsman) but it doesn't (in my experience) speed things up to invoke them.
>It doesn't fix a place with bad communication and bad attitudes (at least not
>by itself).
Nope. But it can stop the stomping of students by administrators-- no matter
what their attitude.
>
> Of course I'm writing from the luxurious vantage point of someone who knows
>virtually all the users of our system with an office right off the main terminal
>room. It gives the place more of a "team" feel than the "us and them" often
>(but not always) seen in larger installations and helps keep the communications
>channels flowing (it helps a lot to be able to see how customers interact with
>the machines).
Quite a different vantage than that of a system admninistrator who works in
an office two floors down and in a restricted access area.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
-------------------
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: 6 Jun 91 15:11:24 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun6.151124.6687@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References , <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu>, ha
Subject : Due process and computer policies
[subject changed because someone from OSU didn't want to be tarred with UMCPs
brush, though it appears their policies are similiar.]
In article ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes:
>
>In article <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>
> ...
> The university has a process that staff and faculty can use against
> students-- why shouldn't students have a process to use against
> staff and faculty?
>
>the use of the word `against' is symptomatic of very deep structural
>problems in the organization. once it gets to the point where system
>administrators consider users to be trouble to be avoided, and users
>consider system administrators to be obstacles to be bypassed, then
>there is essentially no hope for constructive action.
Yep. I just don't use their systems (preferring instead to use other systems
here NOT run by the same people)
>i do know from personal experience, both on the user and the
>administration side that it isn't that hard to avoid getting into this
>sort of situation in the first place.
>
>my own checklist of things to do includes the following axioms for
>administration include:
>
>1) the systems are there for users to use
According to the system administrators, you are to use the systems to do your
work, and nothing else. You aren't to play with all the toys (like
X-windows), or compile games in your account, or whatever (note that there are
no written rules against these sorts of activities-- I was told this by the
system administrator at one point when trying to get my account back)
Note that these are not class accounts-- they are general accounts available
to any undergraduate for any purpose (though you were required to have them
for one class)
>2) i am here to make the systems work as well as possible
Yeah, they kept claiming that-- but they felt they could make the system work
better (and make their job easier) for the typical user if they got rid
of 'problem users'. And-- they were probably right. The system runs a lot
faster if there aren't people running X programs, compiling things, and
generally exploring the system.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
From kadie Sat Jun 8 00:57:50 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Jun 8 00:56:38 EDT 1991
In this issue:
:
:
: Ohio State University ACS Policies
fernwood!uupsi!sun : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
cis.ohio-state.edu : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
: Number of CAF mailing list members
:
cgh@frame.com (Gra : OSU--not just computing policies
TK0JUT1%MVS.CSO.NI : Radical Utilitarianism as Bureaucratic Convenience
Sanjay Kapur
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References , <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu>,
Subject : Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies)
In ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes:
[...]
>the use of the word `against' is symptomatic of very deep structural
>problems in the organization. once it gets to the point where system
>administrators consider users to be trouble to be avoided, and users
>consider system administrators to be obstacles to be bypassed, then
>there is essentially no hope for constructive action.
In the past, I have tried to argue for due process and participation
rights with appeals to idealism and authority (e.g the Joint Statement
on Rights and Freedoms of Students).
This thread of conversation highlights the pragmatic reasons for
supporting these rights. Due process gives the disgruntled user a
nondestructive path. It may also helps keep the policy enforcer honest
(to use an expression from poker). User participation in the
formulation and application of policy gives the policy a feeling of
legitimacy. It also helps fight us vs. them attitudes.
It may seem counterintuitive, but a overly strict policy may encourage
the very problems it tries to solve.
- 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: Thu, 6 Jun 1991 20:29:15 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun6.202915.8548@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References <199106032338.AA09046@mp.cs.niu.edu>, <9106040152.AA03827@zerkalo.harvard.edu>, <1991Jun5.211837.9574@ms.uky.edu>
Subject : Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>Listen *very* carefully to this sentence:
> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
The problem with the sentence is that it can (and historically has)
been used to justify every kind of excess. Individual rights must be
balance with the collective need. That is the purpose of a good
policy.
- 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: Thu, 6 Jun 1991 21:36:16 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun6.213616.9661@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Ohio State University ACS Policies
[Here is the draft policy statement from another OSU organization
(that I may have confused with CIS). The policy seems very resonable.
My impression from email conversions with ACS users is that many of
them don't know about the policy; perhaps because it has not been
finalized. It would be nice if users participated in the policy's
formluation (and application). ASC users can see the newest version
of the policy by typing "man magnus" at the Unix prompt. - Carl]
7 March 1991 magnus(1)
DRAFT
NAME
magnus - a brief description of MAGNUS
DESCRIPTION
The MAGNUS system is a cluster of several Unix systems run by
Academic Computing Services (ACS) for use by members of the Ohio
State University community. The main user systems in the cluster
are two DECsystem 5500's running the Ultrix operating system.
There is a separate system for Usenet news. The main processors
have 64 megabytes of main memory, 1 gigabyte of private system
disk storage, run at 28 million instructions per second, and are
connected by a private shared ethernet communications link. The
cluster has 4 gigabytes (one gigabyte is 1000 megabytes) of user
disk space and 1 gigabyte of news storage disk space. The main
processors are connected to SONNET for network access and also
have 64 serial links connected to the network switch for tele-
phone access. When you log in to MAGNUS, your session may end up
on either of the main processors. However, the environment is
set up so that all of your files and resources are available no
matter where your session or program is actually running. You
have a choice of three user interfaces when using MAGNUS. The
first is the default menu interface for VT100-compatible termi-
nals and microcomputer terminal emulators. The second is the
standard Unix shell command line interface. The third is a VMS
command line interface.
MAGNUS USAGE GUIDELINES
The MAGNUS system is intended to provide access to electronic
mail, information services, and text-oriented Unix computing. It
also serves as a Unix training resource. The system has a full
complement of Unix software, including several compilers. These
compilers are intended for use in textual programming, program
development and training applications. The MAGNUS system was not
designed to support intensive numeric computational processing.
That service is available on the IBM 3081D MVS system which has a
wide variety of numeric software packages. See a mainframe con-
sultant in Baker Systems Engineering, Room 508 for further infor-
mation on the MVS system.
MAGNUS resources are intended for fair and distributed use among
a large number of authenticated users with logon accounts. Usage
should be consistent with the university's instruction, research,
and service missions.In the event your usage patterns interfere
with other users, the system administrators may ask you to help
assure a fair distribution of resources by running your processes
at a lower priority or by avoiding practices which penalize other
users. If this does not resolve the difficulty, User Services
representatives will contact you to determine how your needs can
be met consistent with our goal of meeting all other customers'
needs. In the event that you are not logged in or cannot be
reached when your processes are interfering with fair use by
MAGNUS - The Ohio State University 1
magnus(1) 7 March 1991
DRAFT
others, system administrators may lower your processes' priori-
ties or terminate your processes. You will be sent an electronic
mail message with full details. Examples of inappropriate
activity would be running a server program which allows use of
system resources without login authentication or maintaining a
serial or network connection open with no activity for over an
hour.
Unauthorized computer use may have serious consequences that
could result in suspension, dismissal, and/or criminal penalties.
You are cautioned to protect your password and computer files.
Your computer account is provided for your use and your use only.
You may not give your password to any other person. You may not
use another person's account even if they give you their pass-
word. If system administrators find indications that your
account has been compromised or is subject to unauthorized use,
the account will be immediately disabled for your protection.
User Service personnel will then contact you as quickly as possi-
ble to resolve the situation.
ON-LINE ASSISTANCE
MAGNUS systems administrators are available for on-line assis-
tance and consultation. The hours are 8am to 9pm Monday through
Thursday, 8am to 6pm Friday, and 11am to 4pm Saturday and Sunday.
You can reach this on-line service by sending mail to "consult".
From other systems, send mail to the full address of
"consult@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu". Mail received outside the
listed hours will be handled during the next scheduled assistance
hours. You may also telephone 292-0886 (on campus, 2-0886) during
the listed hours.
ON-LINE DOCUMENTATION
Most Unix commands, software, file formats, and other items are
documented in the Unix on-line reference manual pages. To see the
on-line reference manual for an item, use the man command. For
example, enter man ls for information about the ls command.
USER DISK FILE BACKUPS
All new or changed user disk files are backed up to digital audio
tape cartridges (DATs) on a daily basis to minimize accidental
loss of data. The backups are done near midnight. If you lose a
file that you have had at least overnight, send mail to "con-
sult". Provide as much information as possible about the file:
its name, when you deleted it or noticed it was gone, when you
last knew it was on disk, etc. A system administrator will
attempt to restore your file and notify you.
2 MAGNUS - The Ohio State University
7 March 1991 magnus(1)
DRAFT
USER DISK FILE SIZE LIMITS
Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Students may use up to 2 megabytes
of disk storage by default. This default is called a soft quota.
Undergraduate students may use up to 500 kilobytes. Faculty,
Staff, and Graduate Students can apply for a higher limit by
sending mail to User Services, "custserv@magnus". All users can
exceed their limit temporarily. The system will allow you to use
up to 2.5 times your default limit for a short period. This
larger temporary limit is called a hard quota. Once you have
exceeded your soft quota, you will be allowed three more logins
to free enough disk storage to get below your limit. You can use
the disk usage command, du, and the quota command to monitor and
manage your disk use. Send mail to "consult@magnus" if you need
assistance or information about your quotas and actual use.
SYSTEM TEMPORARY DISK FILES
The system uses a temporary file system, /tmp, to store of
scratch files and for other short term storage. Files in this
file system are removed daily. Temporary files not in active use
may be removed at any time to improve system performance.
INCOMING MAIL STORAGE
New incoming mail messages are stored in a disk area called the
system mail spool. This area is shared by all users. Your incom-
ing mail is stored in this area so that you can still receive
mail even if you are temporarily over your normal disk quota.
Mail programs such as elm and Berkeley mail may allow you to
leave mail in the system spool files temporarily before moving it
into your own disk files. These files in your own disk space are
usually called received or mbox . We recommend that you leave
only a few mail messages in the system mail spool and that you
regularly move your mail into your own disk files. Since the
system mail spool is a shared area, if you keep too large an
incoming mail spool, you could affect other users. In the event
that your system mail spool storage becomes quite large, usually
more than 100 messages, depending on size, a system administrator
will contact you to help you reduce your system mail spool. If
you cannot be contacted, for example if you are on vacation, your
incoming messages will be placed in a file, compressed, and moved
into your disk space. You will get a new mail message explaining
what has happened and how to read the messages. If you have any
difficulty, send mail to "consult".
MAGNUS SOFTWARE
The MAGNUS system runs DEC's ULTRIX Unix operating system.
Therefore it has all the software DEC provides with that system.
Some of this software is supported by DEC and some is unsup-
ported. The on-line reference manual pages for the software,
accessed with the man command, give the status for specific
MAGNUS - The Ohio State University 3
magnus(1) 7 March 1991
DRAFT
programs and commands. Use the command man software for more
detailed information.
The system also has software added by ACS. Some of this software
was developed by ACS, some was obtained from public domain or
cooperative Unix user sources, and some has been purchased from
software vendor companies. The on-line reference manual pages for
the software will identify the source of an item and whether it
is supported or unsupported.
Software designated as not supported by DEC will not be supported
by ACS. Unsupported items will be maintained at low priority. In
addition user assistance may not be available for unsupported
software.
SEE ALSO
help - a command that shows a brief list of UNIX commands.
software - a manual page describing software available on MAGNUS
man - use man man for help with the man facility
cti - an on-line tutorial
AUTHOR
This manual page is maintained by the MAGNUS staff. Please send
comments to suggest@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
4 MAGNUS - The Ohio State University
--
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: 6 Jun 91 20:00:25 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: HUGIN Expert A/S
From: fernwood!uupsi!sunic!dkuug!iesd!iesd.auc.dk!abraham@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>aham
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
>>>>> On 5 Jun 91 18:12:37 GMT,
>>>>> jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) said:
jgreely> This was pretty mild, and I wouldn't even have been
jgreely> annoyed if they hadn't been world-readable.
Would you please explain why making them world *readable* would annoy
you? My reaction would be the exact opposite. If other people can't
read them, they might get their own private copies, thereby wasting
more disc space.
At this site, people are encouraged to place pictures they want to
keep (regardless of the "rating", this is not an arts department) at a
central place. Currently about 35 MB is used for such pictures, about
0.1% of the total amount of disc space. Games (also keept central)
use a similar amount of disc space. I think more disc space would be
wasted, if the users had their own private copies instead.
-------------------
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: 7 Jun 91 17:01:39 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>nucodon
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article abraham@iesd.auc.dk
(Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>jgreely> This was pretty mild, and I wouldn't even have been
>jgreely> annoyed if they hadn't been world-readable.
>Would you please explain why making them world *readable* would annoy
>you?
A combination of university rules and state law. I don't care if a
user has a picture showing why a dog is a girl's best friend (although
that collie did *not* look happy), but if it's world-readable in a
directory named "look", it can cause legal problems for the
department.
>My reaction would be the exact opposite. If other people can't
>read them, they might get their own private copies, thereby wasting
>more disc space.
They do. Of the 60+ meg of images I found on student file servers,
I'd say at least half of them were duplicates, and many of them were
already installed in our public "tame" raster directory. If we could
set up a group-readable area for images of questionable taste (group
"quest", perhaps? :-)), we could perhaps cut down on the amount of
duplication. I have a feeling that the department chairman's response
to this idea would not be favorable (he's already come very close to
ordering us to forcibly remove all questionable images from the
system).
This material has been reviewed by independent
experts who found, based on their professional
experience and training, that the material:
* has scientific value
* does not appeal to the prurient
interests of the average adult American.
Material is intended for viewing/reading by
adults only, for use in the privacy of the
customer's home. Not for public use.
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
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, 7 Jun 1991 17:36:45 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun7.173645.3955@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Number of CAF mailing list members
If you are curious about the growth of the CAF mailing list, I have
created a plot of the number of mailing list members over time.
The plot shows the membership of each version of the list (talk,
batch, and news). The plot goes from April 10, 1991 to June 7, 1991.
(On June 7th there were 300 mailing list members. The newsgroup
readership is unknown.)
The plot is available via anonymous ftp from eff.org. It is file
academic/member.ps. To see the plot, print the file on a postscript
printer.
The plot shows that mailing list membership went down when the
newsgroups where created. (This is what I hoped for; it means less
work for me). But a week later mailing list membership started
climbing again in response to articles in the EFFector and comp.risks.
Mailing list membership (and I assume newsgroup readership) is now
at an all time high.
- 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: Fri, 7 Jun 1991 18:02:27 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun7.180227.4515@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References , ,
Subject : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
>In article abraham@iesd.auc.dk
> (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>>Would you please explain why making them world *readable* would annoy
>>you?
In jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>A combination of university rules and state law.
Can you be more specific? What rules? What law?
It sounds like you selectively enforce your disk quotas based on
how much the content might embarrass the department chairman.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 10:28:29 PDT
From: cgh@frame.com (Grant Hogarth)
Message-Id: <9106071728.AA03206@tillicum.frame.com>
Subject: OSU--not just computing policies
With all due respect to the two people from OSU who spoke about their policies
and the implementation and enforcement thereof, I feel compelled to add my
$0.02.
As a former (Graduate) student of OSU, I must say that I
found the administration there generally uncaring of any student's rights
and/or priviledges *except* where they conflicted with or assisted that
faculty/administrator's own political (internecine) agenda. If they conflicted,
the student was squashed or ignored, if they assisted, they were glorified
*for as long as it was politically expedient to do so*. The departmental
student ombud was powerless, and the University ombud (as far as I could see)
served only as an apologist for the University. Thus, I was not at all surprised
to read the accounts of the absolutist, elitist attitude of the computer
administration.
Apologies for sounding so splenetic, but I believe that corporate attitude
devolves from the head down, and that like a fish, the head seems to rot first.
\Grant Hogarth (MA '89)
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106071847.AA05129@eff.org>
From: TK0JUT1%MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU@UICVM.uic.edu
Subject: Radical Utilitarianism as Bureaucratic Convenience
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>Listen *very* carefully to this sentence:
>> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
>The problem with the sentence is that it can (and historically has)
>been used to justify every kind of excess. Individual rights must be
>balance with the collective need. That is the purpose of a good
>policy.
Carl, you are quite correct, and the sentence you cite (especially in the
context of the original post) is a bit demogogic. It reduces to an absolute
what is, in utilitarian philosophy, a contingency problem: Needs and
consequences are a balance that cannot be determined a priori as the statement
suggests, and some of the posts opposing your view seem to reflect primitive
pragmatism that elevates administrative requisites over a reasoned balance
between academic freedom (and dangers to it) and the needs of minimizing
disruptive influences. As distasteful as it is to many of us, part of the
socialization process of students includes goofing up, around, and off.
Dealing with new types of social transgression is one way societies as well as
students mature. There seem to be quite a few who see the proper social
response as primarily punitive rather than creative.
Perhaps this varies by discipline. In an old (1966) piece in SOCIAL PROBLEMS
by L. Lewis, it was reported that those in the behavior/social sciences were
significantly more supportive both of exercising and defending academic
freedom than those in physical sciences, engineering, and related disciplines.
Jim Thomas
-------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1991 17:07 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Many versus One.
Message-Id: <729C29B180207082@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
There has always been one major problem with the philosophy that the
needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one:
Who decides what the needs of the many are?
or
How do you trust the decision maker to make the "right" choice?
Most Freedoms exist to protect the individual from (other) people
who decide what is good for them.
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: Fri, 07 Jun 91 15:46:07 EDT
Message-Id:
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!bluemoon!sbrack@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun5.214035.18533@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>8em
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
tsarver@andersen.uucp (Tom Sarver) writes:
> In article <1991Jun3.161630.10523@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes:
> >SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
> >[...]
> >>I agree that a formal hearing should be required before expulsion from the
> >>general university or departmental computer system.
> >
> >>Do you agree that suspending computing privileges pending a formal expulsio
> >>hearing is a responsible and required excercise of the powers of a System
> >>Administrator?
> >
> >To quote the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students (JSRFS):
> >
> >"C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
> >
> > Pending action on the charges, the status of a student
> >should not be altered, or his right to be present on the
> >campus and to attend classes suspended, except for
> >reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and
> >well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being
> >of students, faculty, or university property."
> >
> My opinion (and everyone has one ;-> is that allowing a user (or student)
> access to a system for which his access rights are in question, is unsafe,
> to say the least (I prefer reckless). Reason: A skilled user (who would
> wish to curtail an unskilled user?) could begin, or continue, harmful
> acts within or using that system. This person has nothing to lose with
> electronic vandalism now that he/she has been caught.
But, if a user did something wrong, & I'm talking about mistakes,
not overtly malicious acts, isn't it a little presumptuous to
assume that he will have an electronic temper tantrum & do
something nasty? There are, of course, problems where denying
access is the only safe thing to do, but in most cases, account
suspension/termination is not mandated.
Look at the way our legal system works: if I get pulled over for
speeding, will they make me sit in jail until my hearing date?
No. They will extend some modicum of trust to me by letting me
remain in society's "system." If the crime is more severe, then
I may have to be held in jail awaiting trial. Recognition is
given to the severity of the offense, & the offender's likelihood
of causing harm if allowed back into society.
===========================================================================
Steven S. Brack sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University
sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu
===========================================================================
-------------------
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, 07 Jun 91 16:13:56 EDT
Message-Id:
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!bluemoon!sbrack@uunet.uu.net
References: , <5JUN91174755@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>.
Subject: Re: fascinating subject
dmittleman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (I think that I shall never see, a number prim writes:
> I find this discussion fascinating (even IF much of it deals with OSU).
>
> Here at Arizona there are few written policies for managing user
> shenanigans on the computers. I happen to know many of the people on the
> systems staff quite well and they are honest, intelligent people trying to
> do a good job. However, the fact that their superiors don't weem to want
> any written policies (cause written policies can hem you in - I conject)
> can cause very real problems.
It's important to remember that organizations other than
Computer Science run multiuser systems on OSU's campus.
OSU's Academic Computing Services has (as far as I can tell)
no in-place policy regarding use of its computing systems.
They expect users to act with common sense. Unfortunately, that
creates 2 problems: (1) Their common sense is sometimes different
than that of a user, & (2) their common sense policy differs
between members of the ACS administration.
> Cases in point:
>
> 1. A University employee posted jokes of questionable taste on a computer
> conferencing system. A student complained to the Dean of Students that the
> jokes were sexual harassment. The Dean of Students, who till this event
> DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THERE WERE COMPUTER CONFERENCING SYSTEMS ON CAMPUS
> had no idea how to deal with this situation. No policies existed; a year
> later still no policies exist. {The case in question was ignored and just
> went away on its own.}
In many cases, it takes a serious violation (or a user that won't
back down) to get any kind of written policy. News & mail are
probaBLY ACS's largest problems. Users, many of whom have no
idea how news & mail works, sometimes use it improperly. Also,
some users make use of news & mail maliciously. A recent example
was a grad (?) student who sent anonymous threatening e-mail to
several female TAs in one department. I work in one of the
campus computer labs, & I come across users who don't understand
the difference between what should be posted & what should be
e-mailed, especially when replying to or following up on a news
article.
> 2. The systems administrator noticed that too many undergrads were
> TELNETing off campus and concluded that the students were using University
> resources to play MUDs (multi-user dungeon games). There is a policy
> against game playing on the campus computers, but in this case [1] the
> students are only using the campus computer as a gateway off campus - the
> game is on another computer somewhere else, and [2] there is no way to
> prove that the students were playing MUDs, it is only conjecture on the
> administrator's part. The administrator was told by her superiors to
> simply shut off the accounts of any students she suspected of playing MUDs
> and to not turn their accounts back on until they came and spoke with her
> and received a lecture on the evils of MUD playing. Is this correct? Is
> this wise?
Assuming someone is doing something wrong just because his
actions are unusual is wrong. Did the admin TELNET to the sites
in question in order to see what was there? If it was a game
machine, it would be pretty open. Or just check the remote
machine's who port to see what login was being used? It isn't
terribly difficult to figure out whether the offending students
were using a games account remotely, or doing something wholly
legitimate. In any case, an account shouldn't be suspended
based on "conjecture on the administrator's part."
> 3. I wanted last semester to send e-mail to all graduate students who have
> campus accounts. A listing of such account names is not publicly available
> but I can easily write code to scan the system for a couple of weeks and
> capture the account names of all grad student acocunts which were active.
> I can do this using only the resources available to me with my own
> priveleges. Then I can create a distribution list from this data. I
> wanted to send out e-mail discussion my views on campus computing. I
> believe that such an e-mail distribution is protected by the first
> amendment as political speech. Being a good sport, I called the systems
> administrator and gave her advance notice of what I was planning to do and
> asked what policies existed that I should be aware of. NO POLICIES EXIST
> TO ADDRESS WHAT I WANTED TO DO. They dissuaded me from making the post and
> being a good sport and valuing my relationship with the systems staff I
> chose not to send the message via e-mail, but I was disturbed that they
> have no policies. I asked what they will do when someone inevitably sends
> mass e-mail without asking first. They have no idea; nor are they now
> making any policy having been alerted to the situation.
While it's understandable that there wouldn't be a policy dealing
specifically with what you were trying to do, there should be
general policies governing how much e-mail one user can send in
a given time period.
> I conclude from these very real situation - as well as the situations I
> have been reading about at other compuses - that [1] well thought out
> policies are important, [2] due process is vital, and [3] systems run much
> better when there are reasonable people running them - but sometimes that
> is too much to hope for.
The beauty of a good policy is that it exists separate from the
people who enforce it. But, without a strong policy,
administrative technique varies widely from one person to another.
What one would suspend an account for might warrant an e-mail
warning from another, or no action at all from yet another.
===========================================================================
Steven S. Brack sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University
sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu
===========================================================================
-------------------
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: 7 Jun 91 22:23:41 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>nucodon
Subject: publicly-readable "adult" gifs
In article <1991Jun7.180227.4515@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>In jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>>A combination of university rules and state law.
>Can you be more specific? What rules? What law?
The university's sexual harrassment rules, and the state law on making
"pornography" available to minors (we *do* get some). After one
incident, the chairman (in response to a threatened lawsuit) was quite
prepared to order all questionable images deleted, and future
offenders treated harshly. Fortunately, that didn't happen, but it
could.
>It sounds like you selectively enforce your disk quotas based on
>how much the content might embarrass the department chairman.
It sounds like you don't read too well. If you're within your quota,
we don't care what you have in there, but in the specific case of R-
or X-rated graphic images, we care about the file permissions. The
only "selective enforcement" of disk quotas is based on the relevance
of the files to the funded purpose of the system (computer science
instruction). If you're over quota because of course work, we'll work
with you to solve the problem (possibly increasing your quota). If
it's because of saved news or GIF files, we'll tell you to get rid of
them. How much it "embarrasses the chairman" has *nothing* to do with
it.
"Sexual harassment at work -- is it a
problem for the self-employed?"
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
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: 7 Jun 91 22:57:31 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9106071728.AA03206@tillicum.frame.com>cis.ohi
Subject: OSU--not just for breakfast anymore
In article <9106071728.AA03206@tillicum.frame.com> cgh@frame.COM
(Grant Hogarth) writes:
> With all due respect to the two people from OSU who spoke
>about their policies and the implementation and enforcement thereof,
>I feel compelled to add my $0.02.
With all due respect to Mr. Hogarth, I'm forced to say that it appears
he attended a different university than the one I've been kicking
around at for the past seven years. I'm familiar with incidents that
fit his description, but they have mostly been the exception rather
than the rule.
>and the University ombud (as far as I could see) served only as an
>apologist for the University.
The only person in the University Ombudsman's office with whom I am
personally acquainted is C. Grey Austin, Ombudsman Emeritus. He is
one of the most thoroughly professional people I have encountered at
this university.
>Thus, I was not at all surprised to read the accounts of the
>absolutist, elitist attitude of the computer administration.
So much for "with all due respect". Now that you're through venting
("splenetic", yeesh!), why not try joining the discussion?
"Attention everybody! Rules state
that occupancy by more than one (1)
reality at a time is dangerous and
unlawful!"
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
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, 8 Jun 1991 00:30:15 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
From: stanford.edu!msi.umn.edu!umeecs!news-server!bagchi@uunet.uu.net
References: , <5JUN91174755@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>e
Subject: Re: fascinating subject
I find it interesting that a lot of systems with really vacuous
computing policies have strict policies against computer "games".
My first objection is purely philosophical: What's so wrong with
using resources to play MUDS or hack, or whatever. If I'm staying within
my disk quotas, things should be OK. There are already rules against
hogging resources, and as far as I'm concerned, a gearhead with a
crunchin' fortran program is just as guilty as someone running a mongo
game. in loco parentis isn't here...if someone MUDS too much, and
their grades suffer, that's their problem.
Next is actually in loco parentis. I'm C.S. I fell in love
with computers because I want to write the worlds greatest video game.
It's not easy. Game writing takes *everything* you know about C.S.
makes it more enjoyable. I've got a feeling that I"m not alone, and
if a U wants to have good programmers, they should encourage game
playing/design.
Ah, well...wrong newsgroup again.
-rj
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranjan Bagchi - asleep...... | v,i,j,k,l,s,a[99];
bagchi@eecs.umich.edu | main() {
------------------------------- for(scanf("%d",&s);*a-s;v=a[j*=v]-a[i],k=i=s*k&&++a[--i]) ;
} /* Osovlanski and Nissenbaum */
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1991 20:53 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article
Message-Id: <922171EE10207082@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
> But, if a user did something wrong, & I'm talking about mistakes,
> not overtly malicious acts, isn't it a little presumptuous to
> assume that he will have an electronic temper tantrum & do
> something nasty? There are, of course, problems where denying
> access is the only safe thing to do, but in most cases, account
> suspension/termination is not mandated.
And in most cases, a reasonable system administrator will not suspend/
terminate the account. System administrators (should) suspend accounts only
when they suspect a malicious act or a mistake that can damage other
user's files or deny other users access to the system (i.e. hogging).
It IS malicious on the part of the system administrator to use account
suspension/termination as a punishment. Punishment should be upto a judicial
body.
>
> Look at the way our legal system works: if I get pulled over for
> speeding, will they make me sit in jail until my hearing date?
> No. They will extend some modicum of trust to me by letting me
> remain in society's "system." If the crime is more severe, then
> I may have to be held in jail awaiting trial. Recognition is
> given to the severity of the offense, & the offender's likelihood
> of causing harm if allowed back into society.
>
>
>
It depends on the jurisdiction and if the driver was drunk at the time. You
may find yourself cooling your heels in jail for drunk driving BEFORE you are
brought before a court. That is not normally considered punishment although
it may count towards the final sentence.
>===========================================================================
>Steven S. Brack sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University
>sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu
>===========================================================================
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: Sat, 8 Jun 1991 02:51:46 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.025146.16881@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References ,
Subject : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
>In article <1991Jun7.180227.4515@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (that's me) writes:
>>Can you be more specific? What rules? What law?
jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>The university's sexual harrassment rules, and the state law on making
>"pornography" available to minors (we *do* get some).
[...]
>[I]n the specific case of R-
>or X-rated graphic images, we care about the file permissions.
[...]
(I'll respond with two notes.)
So the question is where does free expression end and harassment
begin?
Just as I have a right to speak, write, listen, and read; so, I also
have a right not to speak, not to write, not to listen, and not read.
The denial of my right not to listen or my right to to read is
harassment.
Thus, a campus meeting or rally by American's Against the Left-Handed
(AALH) does not harass me because I don't have to attend the meeting
and I can avoid the rally.
On the other hand, if AALH members following me home, calling me a
"dirty lefty", I am being harassed.
Similarly, if you look at a picture of a nude person or show that
picture with someone who wants to see it, no one is harassed.
When, you display that picture in the office or on an unwilling
person's X-terminal, you are harassing the unwilling people who
must view the picture.
You cannot harass me merely by setting file permissions such that
others can view material that I find offensive.
Finally, I note that Ohio State subscribes to Playboy magazine. (They
really do; I checked). By collecting these pictures of nude people,
the library harasses no one. Allowing you to see the pictures,
harasses no one. On the other hand, if you photocopy the pictures and
put them on an unwilling person's desk, you harass that person.
- 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, 8 Jun 1991 03:21:51 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.032151.18841@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References ,
Subject : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
(This is the second half of my response - Carl)
>In article <1991Jun7.180227.4515@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (that's me) writes:
>>Can you be more specific? What rules? What law?
jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>The university's sexual harassment rules, and the state law on making
>"pornography" available to minors (we *do* get some).
[...]
>[I]n the specific case of R-
>or X-rated graphic images, we care about the file permissions.
[...]
(I'll respond with two notes.)
So the second question is how far can the freedom to read (or view)
be suppressed in the name of protecting youth?
My information on this may be out-of-date, but according to
the ACLU's Handbook on the Rights of Authors and Artists (1984):
"Although the Supreme Court has not yet considered the issue [of minor
access laws], three 'display' or 'access' statutes have been struck
down as unconstitutional by lower courts. A Georgia display law was
invalidated because it prevented the perusal by and limited the sale
of constitutionally protected material to adults. Protecting minors
was held to be an inadequate justification for such a severe
interference with adults' First Amendment rights. A Colorado display
statute was invalidated because the court concluded that channels for
the interchange of literary, political, artistic, and scientific ideas
about sex were effectively closed by the statute and that its
enforcement would regulate to a commercially infeasible degree the
activities of responsible members of the community. Likewise a
California court invalidated a display ordinance which required that
commercial establishments seal magazines or books containing sexually
explicit but non-obscene picture, keep them out of the reach of
minors, or else bar minors from entering the stores. [...]"
Does anyone know the details of the state of Ohio law? How do the
librarians and art teachers at OSU stay out of jail? Do they card for
underage students? Do resident advisors police dorm rooms, making sure
that no 17 year olds are allowed to R-rated movies on cable?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
From kadie Sat Jun 8 23:49:52 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Jun 8 23:48:57 EDT 1991
In this issue:
wuarchive!rex!uflo : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
wuarchive!rex!uflo : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
wuarchive!rex!uflo : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
spool.mu.edu!caen! : Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies)
europa.asd.contel. : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
stanford.edu!agate : Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies)
kadie : Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies)
kadie : Re: Local Internet access
root@nextserver.cs : Re: Local Internet access
TK0JUT1%MVS.CSO.NI :
cis.ohio-state.edu : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State Un
cis.ohio-state.edu : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State Un
cis.ohio-state.edu : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State Un
kadie : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State Un
kadie : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State Un
kadie : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State Un
zaphod.mps.ohio-st : Re: Local Internet access
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: 8 Jun 91 03:09:05 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.030043.10579@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Organization: Florida State University
From: wuarchive!rex!uflorida!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!fsu1.cc.fsu.edu!otto@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>,
Reply-To : otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article , aej@manyjars.WPI.EDU (Allan E Johannesen) writes...
>>>>>> On 4 Jun 91 00:40:16 GMT, kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) said:
>kadie> A student at Ohio State student tells me that users there are
>kadie> also locked out (denied access to their computer account) when
>kadie> they are wanted for a meeting. The difference is they are given
>kadie> no notice before the lock out.
>Golly. There could be _no_ genuine reason for this, could there?
I agree. There could be no genuine reason for this.
-------------------
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: 8 Jun 91 03:20:20 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.031457.10779@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Organization: Florida State University
From: wuarchive!rex!uflorida!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!fsu1.cc.fsu.edu!otto@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu>,
Reply-To : otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article , ef1c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Esther Filderman) writes...
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.admin.policy: 4-Jun-91 Re: Ohio State
>University C.. Matthew T. Russotto@eng. (2734)
>> Informal stuff only works when both sides are
>> trying for a real solution-- not when the side with more power only wants to
>> avoid what they percieve as a problem by getting rid of the student involved.
>
>Did you ever consider finding someone else to help you? The system
>administrator and the accounts administrator each have a boss. The
>words, "I want to speak to your supervisor" can get you places if you
>feel that you're being unjustly treated.
Yes. I've gone that route, too. (Miss Manners [tm] suggests it in one of
her books.B-) The trouble is that they usually just route you back down so
now you've got a 2-D bounce pattern.
Thomas Jefferson twice said that a little rebellion now and then is a good
thing.
-------------------
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: 8 Jun 91 03:13:13 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.030731.10683@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Organization: Florida State University
From: wuarchive!rex!uflorida!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!fsu1.cc.fsu.edu!otto@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>
Reply-To : otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes...
>In article <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>In article <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes:
>>>The fatal flaw in the policies is the lack of any notion of due
>>>process. It looks like a student or a faculty member could be
>>>suspending or expelled from the computer system at the whim of sys
>>>admin without recourse to a formal hearing.
>>Why, oh why, is *everything* turning into a "formal" or "due
>>process" situation? We've never had any problem with a student...
>I was barred from use of the computer systems at the UMCP computer science
>center without warning. The message put up when I attempted to log on told
..
>back to the 'system administrator'. I got sick of the obvious runaround, and
>went and applied for a number of new accounts under phony names. Eventually,
>they brought me to the judicial programs office or having all those accounts,
>and I was found responsible for 'theft of services'.
>If there had been some sort of due process in the first place, perhaps I
>wouldn't have had such trouble. Informal stuff only works when both sides are
>trying for a real solution-- not when the side with more power only wants to
>avoid what they percieve as a problem by getting rid of the student involved.
My favorites are when it's the administration that's violating one's
rights (both when recognized by law and not). If you or your daddy's not a
lawyer or politico, you can petition for redress of grievance all you want
and the bozos get away with it.
Current policies requiring abuse of socialist insecurity numbers come to
mind.
-------------------
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: 8 Jun 91 04:03:58 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.035801.11343@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Organization: Florida State University
From: spool.mu.edu!caen!uflorida!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!fsu1.cc.fsu.edu!otto@uunet.uu.net
References , <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu>, <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org>
Reply-To : otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Subject: Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies)
In article <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes...
>In the past, I have tried to argue for due process and participation
>rights with appeals to idealism and authority (e.g the Joint Statement
>on Rights and Freedoms of Students).
>This thread of conversation highlights the pragmatic reasons for
>supporting these rights. Due process gives the disgruntled user a
>nondestructive path. It may also helps keep the policy enforcer honest
>(to use an expression from poker). User participation in the
>formulation and application of policy gives the policy a feeling of
>legitimacy. It also helps fight us vs. them attitudes.
No. That's not adequate. What happens with "student participation in the
setting of policy" is that only brown nosers get appointed to the policy
committee. Even among large groups of students (student governments),
problems have arisen recently with the imposition of political correctness
doctrines.
-------------------
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: 8 Jun 91 03:35:53 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.032922.11001@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Organization: Florida State University
From: europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!prism!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!fsu1.cc.fsu.edu!otto@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>, , <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu>
Reply-To : otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies
In article <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes...
>In article sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) writes:
>> When I was locked out of my class account early this quarter,
>> I made 15 phone calls to 10 different people, not counting
>> being transferred all over campus.
>> Apparently the policy of our system administration is to keep
>> students from solving problems on the local admin level. My
>> account priveleges were restored after I met with the chair
>> of the department that owned, but did not manage, the system in
>> question. My telephony took me all the way from my professor
>> to the local system manager to the director of Academic Computing
>> Services, then to the Dean of the Engineering College. I finally
>> called our University Ombudsperson, who helped me determine who
>> I should have been talking to, as none of the people I talked to
>> directed me to the right place.
>Absolutely. This is apparentely quite common-- every problem I've had with
>this University, in various departments, has resulted in this sort of
>runaround. Seems to be standard operating procedure-- which is why a formal,
>known, due process is needed. The university has a process that staff and
>faculty can use against students-- why shouldn't students have a process
>to use against staff and faculty?
As lead hot-line person I usually try to short out the run-around by taking
the person's statement, name and means of contact and running down the
appropriate person to set things right. It hasn't outright failed, yet,
but it occasionally gets co-workers ticked off at me.
-------------------
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, 8 Jun 1991 10:35:30 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: UCB Open Computing Facility
From: stanford.edu!agate!agate!cgd@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>,
Subject: Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies)
In article <1991Jun8.035801.11343@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) writes:
In article <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes...
>In the past, I have tried to argue for due process and participation
>rights with appeals to idealism and authority (e.g the Joint Statement
>on Rights and Freedoms of Students).
>This thread of conversation highlights the pragmatic reasons for
>supporting these rights. Due process gives the disgruntled user a
>nondestructive path. It may also helps keep the policy enforcer honest
>(to use an expression from poker). User participation in the
>formulation and application of policy gives the policy a feeling of
>legitimacy. It also helps fight us vs. them attitudes.
No. That's not adequate. What happens with "student participation in the
setting of policy" is that only brown nosers get appointed to the policy
committee. Even among large groups of students (student governments),
problems have arisen recently with the imposition of political correctness
doctrines.
You say that "only brown nosers get appointed to the policy committee."
I don't think this is true, especially where the students have any say in
who represents them on the policy committee. And if the general body
of students (or users) has no say, then it cannot be said that they
really participate, or are represented.
I honestly don't think that comments on the wonderful subject of
"political correctness" (the topic amuses me...) are relevant to this
discussion - in some things, such as academics, and funding situations,
arguments can probably be made in favor of PC or against.
However, in the world of computers, i've yet to see an opinion biased
by race, creed, color, etc - it simply is not relevant.
If you will attempt to argue that students who *ARE* *REPRESENTED* by
peers on a policy-making committe (or whatever) are not better off
(in most cases) than if they were not represented, well, let's just say
that i'll be very amused.
cgd
UCB OCF Staff - Though these are my words, and mine alone...
--
< Chris G. Demetriou | "Everybody's playing the game, >
< cgd@ocf.berkeley.edu | But nobody's rules are the same. >
< ...!ucbvax!ocf!cgd | Nobody's on nobody's side." - Chess >
<=============================================================================>
< Annoyance for hire. Name a time. Name a place. Name a target. I'm there.>
-------------------
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, 8 Jun 1991 16:33:35 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.163335.10409@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org>, <1991Jun8.035801.11343@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>,
Subject: Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies)
> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) writes:
[...]
> No. That's not adequate. What happens with "student participation in the
> setting of policy" is that only brown nosers get appointed to the policy
> committee.
[...]
cgd@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou) writes:
[...]
>I don't think this is true, especially where the students have any say in
>who represents them on the policy committee. And if the general body
>of students (or users) has no say, then it cannot be said that they
>really participate, or are represented.
[...]
>UCB OCF Staff - Though these are my words, and mine alone...
I would note that (unlike most of us) Chris Demetriou knows of what he
speaks. The University of California at Berkeley's Open Computer
Facility is an organization that democratically manages computer
resources for thousands of users. (It's consititution and bylaws are
available via anonymous ftp from eff.org as files
academic/ocf.contitution and academic/ocf/bylaws.)
As to the issue of censorship under the guise of political
correctness. I can't imagine the situation being any worse than it is
under university administrators. When a unit of Stanford cut off the
rec.humor.funny newsgroup because some people found some of its jokes
offensive, "Donald Kennedy, Stanford's President, told the Academic
Senate that he supported the suppression but would defer to the
Senate." [see file academic/stanford.statements]. Boston University's
computer policy (among others) forbits "... making accessible
offensive [or] annoying ... material." [see file
academic/widener/bostonu]
- 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, 8 Jun 1991 16:42:15 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.164215.10572@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Re: Local Internet access
[Reposted with permission of the author - Carl]
From: sbrack
Just another expatriate MAGNUS user... 8)
Message-ID:
References:
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 15:03:41 EDT
csmith writes:
> sbrack writes:
>
> > Seriously, if you want to know interesting facts about magnus &
> > Ohio State, e-mail me.
>
> We're listening ...
Well, I had an account on HPUXA, OSU's predecessor to MAGNUS.
I had news & mail access, along with a UNIX command shell.
It was much like having my own UNIX box. I could write & run
programs on it, I could up- & down-load files from all over the
world (through the InterNet), & I could gain experience in how
large machine operating systems work.
I made two mistakes. First, I ran a command called "fixman,"
which I, by default, had permission to run. This command
reformatted the manual pages (like help files) on HPUXA. I
thought it only worked on my manual pages, but the command
instead reformatted the manual pages for the entire system.
OSU was not pleased 8). I had a meeting wherein I basically
agreed not to do it again, & to only run a small selection
of commands.
I did that. But, I got into trouble on news. HPUXA recieves
about the same news groups that bluemoon does. They cut out
some groups, like alt.sex.pictures, but the pretty much allow
a large number of news groups. Well, I was having an argument
with a man in alt.flame. He posted an article to a group
called control (which is where cancel messages & other news
"control" messages are supposed to go.) I posted a followup
to that article. What I did not notice until too late was that
the author of the original article had set followups to go to
3 or 4 completely inappropriate newsgroups. My followup contained
some "not so polite" language, & OSU's systems people received
e-mail about my crossposted article. When I finally heard whwt
had happened, my account had been suspended, so I couldn't even
cancel my original article.
I had another meeting. This time I was told I would not be
getting my account back. Period. No dicussion at all.
So, I was just a little bit upset that I had lost my account
over a prank pulled by someone half-a-continent away. I
posted an article in news.admin, from another InterNet account
I had at Ohio State, detailing what had happened, & asking their
opinions. I thanked those that agreed with me (my e-mail ran
about 10 to 1 in my favor), & attempted to persuade those that
didn't to my point of view. Owing to several less-than-scrupulous
people, the discussion degenerated into a flame war. I was called
"an ME freshman who thinks he has the world by the sensitive
appendages" by Karl Klienpaste, OSU's resident net.god. That
was not exactly the epitome of proper conduct, but because of his
reputation, he was allowed to get away with it. Shortly
thereafter, I realized it was a losing battle, packed it in, &
left the debate in news.admin. At about the same time, I was
denied access to my engineering workstation account, which I had
been using for news & mail, as well as classwork. Not having
access to that account would have made it impossible to pass
my engineering course.
I got that account back, after calling everyone from my prof to
the Dean of the college of Engineering. We finally agreed that
I could have my account back, provided I did not access news or
mail, or any other "non-class-related" fuctions, from that
account. I didn't, & instead started using bluemoon for mail
& news. (No FTP or telnet, though 8()
OSU's people have harrassed my friends who were using (with my
permission) my account at Denver University. These people jumped
to the conclusion that I was using these accounts, rather than
simply letting others do so. OSU suspended three of my friends
acounts, & sent a letter "warning" about me to another.
If you wish to get Ohio State's perspective on this matter,
you may write to the parties involved on the OSU side:
Bob Dixon rdixon@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Bill Miller bmiller@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Clifford Collins ccollins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Bob DeBula bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Karl Kleinpaste karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu
I guarantee that they won't have anything good to say about me,
but their responding to what I say about the situation is the
only way those of you who are interested can gain an unbiased
view of the situation.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steven S. Brack The Ohio State University |
| |
|"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for |
| your right to say it." |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 12:31:03 CDT
From: root@nextserver.cs.stthomas.edu (Max Tardiveau)
Message-Id: <9106081731.AA04647@ nextserver.cs.stthomas.edu.cs.stthomas.edu. >
Steven S. Brack writes :
> I made two mistakes. First, I ran a command called
> "fixman," which I, by default, had permission to run.
> This command reformatted the manual pages (like help
> files) on HPUXA. I thought it only worked on my manual
> pages, but the command instead reformatted the manual
> pages for the entire system. OSU was not pleased 8). I had a
> meeting wherein I basically agreed not to do it again, & to
> only run a small selection of commands.
I am a sysadmin here at the University of St.Thomas. If one of our
users did this, and unless I somehow knew s/he had done this in a
malicious way, I think I would feel more embarassed than the user,
because that command should not have been runnable/accessible in the
first place. It looks like they made you pay for their negligence. I
usually encourage people to try things out, and I tell them (how
foolish of me !) that they normally cannot break anything, so that
they feel free to experiment with anything they want. This assumes,
of course, that the user is not malicious, just curious. Keeps me on
my toes.
> Well, I was having an argument
> with a man in alt.flame. He posted an article to a group
> called control (which is where cancel messages & other news
> "control" messages are supposed to go.) I posted a followup
> to that article.
Wow ! Big mistake ! When someone starts screwing around with the
control groups, it's time to drop out of the flame war in a hurry.
Why get thousands of people angry just because you want to make your
point over some poor irresponsible schmuck ?
> OSU's people have harrassed my friends who were using (with my
> permission) my account at Denver University. These people jumped
> to the conclusion that I was using these accounts, rather than
> simply letting others do so.
Rarely a very good idea. The very idea of computer accounts is that
whatever comes out of an account is assumed to have been done by you.
You can't blame anyone for thinking that if your account is active,
then you must be using it. Most universities (I don't know about
Denver University) specifically forbid the use of accounts by anyone
but the legitimate owner. There are good reasons for that.
Just another uninformed opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Tardiveau Department of Computer Science
University of St.Thomas St.Paul, MN 55105
Internet : m9tardiv@cs.stthomas.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Read my MIPS ! No new VAXes !" -- Bush, after sniffing freon.
-------------------
Message-Id: <9106081752.AA11325@eff.org>
From: TK0JUT1%MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU@UICVM.uic.edu
otto@FSU1.CC.FSU.EDU writes:
> No. That's not adequate. What happens with "student participation in the
> setting of policy" is that only brown nosers get appointed to the policy
> committee.
This sounds like a problem for students to resolve and doesn't change the
Carl's original point regarding the value of student representation. The
solution would be to assure that students become more involved in affairs that
affect their lives, but given present climate of student cynicism and apathy,
lots of luck.
> Even among large groups of students (student governments), problems have
> arisen recently with the imposition of political correctness doctrines.
What does this mean? Please give examples. The current media
hype of "political correctness" seems grossly exaggerated.
Could you be specific?
-------------------
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: 8 Jun 91 18:38:12 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>nucodon
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
You're slipping, Carl. You just agreed with someone.
In article <1991Jun8.025146.16881@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Similarly, if you look at a picture of a nude person or show that
>picture with someone who wants to see it, no one is harassed.
>When, you display that picture in the office or on an unwilling
>person's X-terminal, you are harassing the unwilling people who
>must view the picture.
Right. Taken alone, sexual harrassment rules can only be used to
prohibit display of the images in question. In addition to the
examples that you give, add "displaying that picture on your own
screen in a public lab" (the only kind of screen available to most of
our users...).
>You cannot harass me merely by setting file permissions such that
>others can view material that I find offensive.
Correct. That's why I started this whole thing by saying "a
*combination* of university rules and state law".
>Finally, I note that Ohio State subscribes to Playboy magazine. (They
>really do; I checked).
I know; I checked too, before I posted. I didn't have a chance to ask
how they regulate access, although I note that it's currently recieved
in the rare books room, which requires you to give your ID when
requesting materials.
>By collecting these pictures of nude people, the library harasses no
>one. Allowing you to see the pictures, harasses no one.
Leaving them in a conspicuous location (or putting it on top of your
books in a study room) *might*. I note that they don't have it
sitting next to "Newsweek".
"It's the old problem, of course --
the one that makes life so tough for
murderers -- what to do with the
body."
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
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: 8 Jun 91 19:02:15 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>nucodon
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
In article <1991Jun8.032151.18841@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>So the second question is how far can the freedom to read (or view)
>be suppressed in the name of protecting youth?
I don't see how this has a hell of a lot to do with the situation.
It's interesting reading (I mostly approve of the ACLU, although
they've got a few blind spots), but I think your analogy is a bit
strained. I'm also not sure why you've split this discussion up, but
I 'll go along with it.
>"...A Georgia display law was invalidated because it prevented the
>perusal by and limited the sale of constitutionally protected
>material to adults..."
Without the details of the law under question, I can't see any
relevance. The same applies to the other cases cited. We don't
prevent anyone from acquiring images, passing them around, or
privately displaying them. Judging from the amount of stuff on our
disks, we're *certainly* not "preventing the perusal" of the material.
>Do resident advisors police dorm rooms, making sure
>that no 17 year olds are allowed to R-rated movies on cable?
Cable? You must have a different kind of dorm. I don't recall that
option when I lived there. Not having been an RA, I can't say exactly
what they're required to watch out for, but I do recall one who nearly
had a nervous breakdown keeping an eye on the fifteen-year-old on her
floor.
"Give him some orange juice and a
sugar cookie, ... maybe a tetanus
shot. He'll be fine."
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
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: 8 Jun 91 21:26:37 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>nucodon
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
Carl responded in e-mail (with permission to repost):
|>Correct. That's why I started this whole thing by saying "a
|>*combination* of university rules and state law".
|Can you clarify this?
At the moment, no. I've defended things about as far as I can based
on my understanding of the situation. To put the whole thing to rest
for good (on the net? hah!) I'll have to meet with the people who
started this whole mess and read the relevant rules and laws for
myself. Since I'll be away at Usenix next week (and, I believe, the
chairman will be gone when I get back), I don't know when that will
be. Maybe I'll get lucky and the whole thing will expire :-)
|(You can post a reply to the net, quoting this note if you wish.) It
|seems that the harassment rule might prohibit public display, but
|would not require restrictive file permissions.
I agree that "public access" to the files does not itself seem like it
constitutes sexual harrassment, but I do not have the university rules
to quote from. Hell, there's always the chance that my explanation of
the reasons behind this is dead wrong. I don't *make* policy. I've
been known to suggest it, and I'm occasionally forced to improvise,
but I'm not on the computer committee.
"But *sniff*, you will come
back to play with us again,
won't you?"
"Of *course* I will!
On the second Tuesday
of next week."
"Hooway! Hooway!"
"Wait! The *second* Tuesday?"
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
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, 8 Jun 1991 22:01:16 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.220116.21736@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References ,
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
[Reposted from comp.admin.policy - Carl]
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Refering to OSU's subscription to Playboy ...
jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
[...]
>I know; I checked too, before I posted. I didn't have a chance to ask
>how they regulate access, although I note that it's currently recieved
>in the rare books room, which requires you to give your ID when
>requesting materials.
[...]
It's my impression that materials such as Playboy are kept in places
such as the Rare Book room to protect the magazine from the reader,
not the reader from the magazine. (Playboy is prone to be stolen; a
vulnerable not shared by GIF files).
Perhaps a real-life librarian can set Mr. Greely and me straight (just
send e-mail to caf-talk@eff.org).
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
--
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, 8 Jun 1991 21:51:48 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.215148.21076@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
[reposted from comp.admin.policy - Carl]
From: cgd@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou)
In article jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>Do resident advisors police dorm rooms, making sure
>that no 17 year olds are allowed to R-rated movies on cable?
Cable? You must have a different kind of dorm. I don't recall that
option when I lived there. Not having been an RA, I can't say exactly
what they're required to watch out for, but I do recall one who nearly
had a nervous breakdown keeping an eye on the fifteen-year-old on her
floor.
This is slightly off the topic, but the final clause of the above
paragraph really makes me wonder...
Theoretically, by the time a person is in college, they should be
old enough to decide much for themselves - after all, they're
shaping the course of their lives with the decisions that they make
about what classes to take, and how to spend their time...
So why should one college student be "singled out," if you will,
and looked after any more than the rest, who are, supposedly just
as mature?
sure wouldn't want to go to that school! fascism just doesn't do it
for me...
cgd
I just got up - i'm not even sure if i'm speaking for myself...
--
< Chris G. Demetriou | "Everybody's playing the game, >
< cgd@ocf.berkeley.edu | But nobody's rules are the same. >
< ...!ucbvax!ocf!cgd | Nobody's on nobody's side." - Chess >
<=============================================================================>
< Annoyance for hire. Name a time. Name a place. Name a target. I'm there.>
--
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, 8 Jun 1991 21:53:35 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun8.215335.21240@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
[reposted from comp.admin.policy - Carl]
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
In article cgd@ocf.Berkeley.EDU
(Chris G. Demetriou) writes:
>In article jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
> Not having been an RA, I can't say exactly
> what they're required to watch out for, but I do recall one who nearly
> had a nervous breakdown keeping an eye on the fifteen-year-old on her
> floor.
>Theoretically, by the time a person is in college, they should be
>old enough to decide much for themselves
Theoretically, I agree. I don't know if her job *required* her to
give special attention to that minor (are RA's legally considered to
be acting in loco parentis?), I just know that she did. It's similar
to keeping an eye on students who are underage for liquor (most of
them, these days...); I don't know what the legal basis for their
interest is, but I know they're interested. Of course, I thought that
the parents of this student were damn fools for putting her in a dorm
at fifteen.
>sure wouldn't want to go to that school! fascism just doesn't do it
>for me...
Ooooh, he used the f-word. Gratuitously, IMHO. When I get back from
Usenix I'll contact the dorm folks and ask about the legal position of
their staff with respect to their charges. I suspect that "fascism"
has nothing to do with it.
"The motto of the place is 'Knowledge
in pursuit of excellence'. Not
truth, not beauty, not art or
science. Just excellence."
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
--
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: Sun, 9 Jun 1991 01:49:08 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun9.014908.29094@zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!shape.mps.ohio-state.edu!alden@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun8.164215.10572@eff.org>-state.
Subject: Re: Local Internet access
In article <1991Jun8.164215.10572@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[Reposted with permission of the author - Carl]
>
>From: sbrack
>Just another expatriate MAGNUS user... 8)
>Message-ID:
>References:
>Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 15:03:41 EDT
>
> I made two mistakes. First, I ran a command called "fixman,"
> which I, by default, had permission to run. This command
> reformatted the manual pages (like help files) on HPUXA. I
> thought it only worked on my manual pages, but the command
> instead reformatted the manual pages for the entire system.
> OSU was not pleased 8). I had a meeting wherein I basically
> agreed not to do it again, & to only run a small selection
> of commands.
Interesting how you make yourself look like such an angel in this posting.
I've been told that your attitude towards ACS on both of these issues was
along the line of "the system let me do it, so I must be allowed to do it
and I shouldn't get in trouble for it", only you weren't so polite in your
dealings with them.
> Owing to several less-than-scrupulous people, the discussion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I hope you include yourself in this statement - because many others do.
> degenerated into a flame war. I was called
> "an ME freshman who thinks he has the world by the sensitive
> appendages" by Karl Klienpaste, OSU's resident net.god.
Hmm - you made several WRONG statements about Karl, you were asked (by
several people) to prove these statements and you never came up with
proof - instead you "...packed it in and left the debate in news.admin."
Funny - I'd call it "put my tail between my legs and ran".
> At about the same time, I was
> denied access to my engineering workstation account, which I had
> been using for news & mail, as well as classwork. Not having
> access to that account would have made it impossible to pass
> my engineering course.
Going on what you've said so far I would agree with you that this was unfair.
I'm happy to hear that you were able to get your account back. BTW, what was
their excuse for pulling your account in the first place?
...dave
