From kadie Mon Jun 10 00:05:07 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Jun 10 00:05:02 EDT 1991
In this issue:
kadie : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State Un
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: Sun, 9 Jun 1991 05:41:18 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun9.054118.6034@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: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters)
> |(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.
I don't know anything in particular about OSU's reasoning either.
But I was once told by a lawyer (in reference to a harrassment case at
a former place of employment) that an organization can be held to be
guilty of sexual harrassment if it creates an environment in which
sexual harrassment of an employee is likely.
The case sited as an example (I understood it to be a true case though
I didn't bother to get any specific references):
A Doctor made issues of Playboy and Penthouse available to adult
patients in his waiting room (with precautions to prevent minors from
seeing them). A nurse in his employ noticed an upswing in the number
of offensive comments and the like from patients. When the doctor
refused to stop making the magazines available she filed suit claiming
that the distribution of the magazines in the office created an
environment in which she was much more likely to be sexually harrassed
even though the doctor did not in any way harrass her. She won the
suit and the doctor was forced to stop making them available.
I gathered that there have been other suits of a similar nature tried.
I don't know whether the laws applied were restricted to a specific
state or not.
But, being aware of this case I might give extra consideration to how
I allow sexually explicit images to be made available on a machine
that I run.
Fwp
--
Frank Peters Internet: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu Bitnet: FWP1@MsState
Phone: (601)325-2942 FAX: (601)325-8921
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
From kadie Mon Jun 10 00:31:53 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Jun 10 00:31:46 EDT 1991
In this issue:
kadie : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State Un
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: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 04:17:18 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun10.041718.19730@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
[...]
>A Doctor made issues of Playboy and Penthouse available to adult
>patients in his waiting room (with precautions to prevent minors from
>seeing them). A nurse in his employ noticed an upswing in the number
>of offensive comments and the like from patients. When the doctor
>refused to stop making the magazines available she filed suit claiming
>that the distribution of the magazines in the office created an
>environment in which she was much more likely to be sexually harrassed
>even though the doctor did not in any way harrass her. She won the
>suit and the doctor was forced to stop making them available.
[...]
The case you sight (site?) is certainly a tough one. [Anyone have a
reference?]
I think the key to the case is that the nurse was able to make a
reasonable case that she was actually being harassed (by the some of
the patients) and that, with the removal of the magazines, this
harassment would likely stop. The explicitness of the material was not
(directly) relevent; if the magazines in question had been Readers'
Digest and Highlights, the case would have been settled the same.
Also, the freedom to read in a doctor's office is not considered
important. In contrast, the freedom to read at a university or library
is of the highest importance.
(In a perfect world, the harassing customers and no one else would be
accountable for their actions.)
- Carl
--
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.
From kadie Tue Jun 11 00:10:01 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 11 00:09:15 EDT 1991
In this issue:
Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS
Policies)
Message-Id: <5B1F32269020908C@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>(In a perfect world, the harassing customers and no one else would be
>accountable for their actions.)
>
>- Carl
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
In a perfect world, there would be no harassment of the receptionist at all.
This may be too much of a deviation from the issue of Academic freedom:
In some jurisdictions, "endangering the welfare of a minor" can be a felony
and exposing college students who are minors to Pornography etc. may be
considered such an endagerment.
In the real world, most of the time, a person who aids and abets a criminal
is as guilty and liable as the the criminal who actually commits the crime.
In fact conspiracy to commit a crime is in itself a crime. So in some cases,
a System Administrator who sets aside space for X-rated GIF files which may be
seen by minors may be held criminally liable. (Big Disclaimer: I AM NOT A
LAWYER)
As for libraries stocking Playboy, there is nothing that usually prevents a 12
year old from the local Junior High to walk into the University Library to
look up any information. Therefore Libraries have to be careful and this may
be one reason to keep certain materials like Playboy "behind the counter".
Personally, I believe that ALL Anti-Pornography laws are unconstitutional. (I
AM NOT A LAWYER, PERSONAL OPINION ONLY)
Officially, I am sworn to uphold the constitution and all the laws of New York
state and of the United States and so my oath requires me to uphold even
Anti-Pornography laws.
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: 10 Jun 91 05:45:21 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun10.054521.4391@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
From: ogicse!pdxgate!qiclab!leonard@uunet.uu.net
References , ,
Subject: Porn/"Adult" Gifs
Here is my $0.02 worth.
Most of the systems that have been discussed have been publically funded. If
the people or persons funding your system knew about the lewd "backdrops" most
would revolk backing immediately!
I AM in favor of free-speech and all other freedoms....but when individuals
start displaying distasteful "photos" for the whole world to view....then it
should be the responsibility of the system manager to step in and do something
about it. There is too much at risk to have it ruined by some prepubescent
under-sexed individual!
-Bob-
-------------------
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: 10 Jun 91 15:48:22 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun10.154822.194@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References ,
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
In article <1991Jun8.215335.21240@eff.org> J Greely writes:
>
>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.
Why? Was she in some way unable to cope with dorm life, or is this merely
paternalism on your and the RAs part? Did it make a difference that she was
female? (I know I was in a dorm at 16, and nobody thought anything of it-- and
there is no legal difference between 15, 16, and 17, except with respect to
driving, in MD.)
>>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 'f' word probably is a bit strong-- I'd use the word 'paternalistic'. The
doctrine of in loco parentis was abandoned long ago, was it not?
--
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: 10 Jun 91 15:08:02 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun10.150802.29622@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References: , <9106071728.AA03206@tillicum.frame.com>, aarpa
Subject: Re: OSU--not just for breakfast anymore
In article J Greely writes:
>
>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.
But of course-- most users behave like the sheep the sysadmins want them to be,
they do their coursework, maybe send a little electronic mail across campus,
and nothing else. You only get trouble when someone pushes the system --
accidentally or purposely, legitimately or not, creating some work for the
system administrator.
There are several hundred, maybe more than 1000 accounts of the type I have
at the University of Maryland computer science center. I know personally of
about 5 people who have had negative run-ins with the system administrators.
That's 1/2 of 1% -- looks good on paper, right? Except when you realize that
ALL the conflicts were handled badly.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
-------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 7:26:33 HST
From: David Lassner
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University
CIS Policies)
Message-Id:
Using Playboy as the example makes it too easy. That's clearly a mainstream
magazine. Extend the analogy to harder-core material (including the kind of
stuff that brings on criminal proceedings in many states) and scanned bitmaps
of copyrighted information.
Then questions might become: how many University libraries subscribe to
Penthouse Letters? How many audio-visual collections make animal porn widely
available? How many computer labs on campus distribute pirated software?
What obligations do Universities have to provide access to these materials
when they are available through commercial means?
-------------------
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: 10 Jun 91 18:11:16 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun10.181116.1890@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References: , <5B1F32269020908C@ccmail.sunysb.edu>.u
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
In article <5B1F32269020908C@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>
>Personally, I believe that ALL Anti-Pornography laws are unconstitutional. (I
>AM NOT A LAWYER, PERSONAL OPINION ONLY)
>
>Officially, I am sworn to uphold the constitution and all the laws of New York
>state and of the United States and so my oath requires me to uphold even
>Anti-Pornography laws.
If the antipornography laws are unconstitutional, you are not breaking your
oath if you do not uphold them.
--
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: Mon, 10 Jun 91 19:39:36 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun10.193936.21548@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!dave@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org>, <1991Jun8.035801.11343@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>,
Reply-To : dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies)
cgd@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou) writes:
>You say that "only brown nosers get appointed to the policy committee."
I didn't, but I have observed this to be true.
>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.
How is this different from other examples of such committees...like,
let's say...Congress?
>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.
A politically correct statement if I ever heard one. 8)
Actually, I'd have to disagree with you. There is a clear cut foray into
"due process" and the fundamental tenet of American justice "innocent
until proven guilty" in this entire discussion.
>However, in the world of computers, i've yet to see an opinion biased
>by race, creed, color, etc - it simply is not relevant.
I can cite a few examples. E-mail me if you like.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!dxh
If your own vice happens to be the search for virtue,
recognize that it is so.
-------------------
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, 10 Jun 1991 21:16:31 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun10.211631.23141@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: The Ohio State University
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!dysart@uunet.uu.net
References <(David>, ,
Subject: Obligations of Libraries (was Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs)
In article david@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.EDU (David Lassner) writes:
>
>What obligations do Universities have to provide access to these materials
>when they are available through commercial means?
For my $0.02 worth ... since virtually all materials available in libraries
are available through commercial means (for the right price), what obligation
does any University library have to provide Raccess to any materials?
--
Mitch Dysart
dysart@magnus.acs.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: 10 Jun 91 23:02:05 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun10.230205.139@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY
From: wuarchive!rex!ukma!sean@uunet.uu.net
References (David, Lassner),
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
Few people have mentioned on here the fact that most publically
readable adult GIFS are copyrighted, and regardless of content most
have been copied illegally.
Sean
--
** Sean Casey
-------------------
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, 11 Jun 1991 00:23:31 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun11.002331.13159@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
[Reposted from comp.admin.policy - Carl]
From: jfraser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jane Fraser)
In article <1991Jun8.200358.13482@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>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.
>
I happened to have lunch today with Bill Studer, Director of the
Libraries here at Ohio State. Playboy is available only by
temporarily trading your student/faculty/staff ID for it, but anyone
may read it. The only age limit imposed would be that the person
would have to be able to reach the counter to present his/her ID. :-)
The librarians assembled (most of the OSU Library administration) were
strong in their remarks that librarians everywhere believe in
unregulated access to library materials.
By the way, the OSU Library is believed to be the only place with a
complete collection of Hustlers. Someone in sociology needed them for
research and used research funding to assemble the back collection.
The researcher gave it to the library on condition that they maintain
a subscription to keep the collection up-to-date.
Jane M. Fraser
Co-Director
CAST, Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications
The Ohio State University
210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
614-292-4129
--
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, 11 Jun 1991 01:20:24 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun11.012024.13653@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References (David, Lassner),
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
david@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.EDU (David Lassner) writes:
>Using Playboy as the example makes it too easy. That's clearly a mainstream
>magazine. Extend the analogy to harder-core material (including the kind of
>stuff that brings on criminal proceedings in many states) and scanned bitmaps
>of copyrighted information.
>Then questions might become: how many University libraries subscribe to
>Penthouse Letters? How many audio-visual collections make animal porn widely
>available? How many computer labs on campus distribute pirated software?
[...]
According to earlier note, the Ohio State Univeristy library
subscribes to Hustler. The Chicago Theological Seminary library
collection includes the "The Joy of Lesbian Sex".
Your other point is well taken. A univerisity can certainly prohibit
illegal activity on its campus. I would hope, however, the university
would act even handedly. Remember a scanned picture of Calvin and
Hobbs is just as bad (with repect to copyright) as a scanned picture
from Playboy. Also, I note that next to many university photocopiers
is an explaination of copywrite law. There is not, however, a guard.
Also, I have never heard of a university searching assigned office
space or dorm rooms for material photocopied in violation of someone's
copyright.
- 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, 11 Jun 1991 01:23:52 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun11.012352.13809@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <5B1F32269020908C@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
I write:
>(In a perfect world, the harassing customers and no one else would be
>accountable for their actions.)
SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
> In a perfect world, there would be no harassment of the receptionist at all.
I condemn sexual (and every kind of) harassment and don't defend the
display of offensive material in the classroom, lab, or office. In my
opinion, the solution is to prohibit the offensive display (i.e.
prohibit the harassment), not to ban the offensive material (electronic
book burning.)
SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>Personally, I believe that ALL Anti-Pornography laws are
>unconstitutional. (I AM NOT A LAWYER, PERSONAL OPINION ONLY)
>Officially, I am sworn to uphold the constitution and all the laws of
>New York state and of the United States and so my oath requires me to
>uphold even Anti-Pornography laws.
We need to be clear with our terms here. I know of no laws against
"pornography", only laws against "obscenity". Most pornography (the
nonobscene stuff) is protected by the first amendment. Especially, in
New York :-)
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 21:58 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS
Policies)
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>We need to be clear with our terms here. I know of no laws against
>"pornography", only laws against "obscenity". Most pornography (the
>nonobscene stuff) is protected by the first amendment. Especially, in
>New York :-)
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
>
The following discussion is more about legal freedom than academic freedom.
In New York city maybe, but New York is a large state and what may just be
pornographic in New York city may be obscene a few hundred miles from the
city.
Also, the same pornographic material which is nonobscene when adults view it
may be considered obscene when minors view it.
I am worried about the legal responsibilities and liabilities of the
system administrator if a minor has access to the pictures.
In other words, will the ACLU back me up if I provide space for
pornographic/obscene pictures on the system and minors view it
and go to the police?
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
From kadie Wed Jun 12 13:02:49 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 12 13:01:32 EDT 1991
In this issue:
Firewall!ddsw1!zan : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State Un
Sanjay Kapur
munnari.oz.au!deak : Cutting excessive student use of printer paper
cis.ohio-state.edu : OSU ACS policies & lack of them
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: Tue, 11 Jun 91 06:55:58 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun11.065558.23079@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
From: Firewall!ddsw1!zane@uunet.uu.net
References: , <5B1F32269020908C@ccmail.sunysb.edu>, <1991Jun10.181116.1890@eng.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
In article <1991Jun10.181116.1890@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <5B1F32269020908C@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>>
>>Personally, I believe that ALL Anti-Pornography laws are unconstitutional. (I
>>AM NOT A LAWYER, PERSONAL OPINION ONLY)
>>
>>Officially, I am sworn to uphold the constitution and all the laws of New York
>>state and of the United States and so my oath requires me to uphold even
>>Anti-Pornography laws.
>
>If the antipornography laws are unconstitutional, you are not breaking your
>oath if you do not uphold them.
This is true. I'd just like to clarify one thing...something that
someone might be confused about. The oath says the constitution and the
laws. The placement of the word constitution could imply that it had
precedence. Even if it was second, the very nature of the constitution
means that it has precedence.
(I missed your original post, sorry, what's your job?)
--
The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
-------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 12:10 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS
Policies)
Message-Id: <6DB5C6A3F2209865@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
I said:
>>>Personally, I believe that ALL Anti-Pornography laws are unconstitutional. (I
>>>AM NOT A LAWYER, PERSONAL OPINION ONLY)
>>>
>>>Officially, I am sworn to uphold the constitution and all the laws of New York
>>>state and of the United States and so my oath requires me to uphold even
>>>Anti-Pornography laws.
>>
>>If the antipornography laws are unconstitutional, you are not breaking your
>>oath if you do not uphold them.
>
> This is true. I'd just like to clarify one thing...something that
>someone might be confused about. The oath says the constitution and the
>laws. The placement of the word constitution could imply that it had
>precedence. Even if it was second, the very nature of the constitution
>means that it has precedence.
> (I missed your original post, sorry, what's your job?)
>
>--
>The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
>
>
What I had said originally was that in my PERSONAL opinion those laws are
unconstitutional. My personal opinion may not be legally correct. If the
Supreme court has upheld those laws then legally they ARE constitutional and
so I AM bound by my oath to uphold them, my personal opinion notwithstanding.
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: 11 Jun 91 16:00:34 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun11.160034.15474@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References , , <1991Jun10.230205.139@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
In article <1991Jun10.230205.139@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>Few people have mentioned on here the fact that most publically
>readable adult GIFS are copyrighted, and regardless of content most
>have been copied illegally.
A smokescreen if I've ever seen one. Nobody complains about scanned
'Calvin and Hobbes' cartoons, and they are just as copyrighted.
--
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: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 20:37:24 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun11.203724.17246@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: wuarchive!ukma!morgan@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9106071847.AA05129@eff.org>ma
Subject: Re: Radical Utilitarianism as Bureaucratic Convenience
In article <9106071847.AA05129@eff.org> TK0JUT1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU writes:
>>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.
[ WOW! I've never been called a demagogue before! 8) ]
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the original post. I did not quote
that sentence as the basis for policy; I use it as the determining
factor in my day-to-day activities as a system administrator. The
"needs of the many" rule is used ON A CONTINGENCY BASIS to develop
a solution for an administrative problem. I certainly did not intend
to state it as the total of my "administrator's attitude". On a daily
basis, I may be called upon to make quick decisions in order to keep
the system(s) available to the widest range of users. If, on occasion,
a single person is inconvenienced, so be it. Keep in mind that a
"disruptive influence", as you put it, can result in literally hundreds
of users being affected. With security problems, those users may be
permanently inconvenienced (password theft, file deletion, et cetera).
>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.
This is certainly true. Many policies, especially in academia, are rather
punitive in nature. We certainly need to develop better policies; that's
almost a given in this situation. However, almost all postings on this
subject have held the individual student's right paramount to everyone else's.
Where shall we draw the line between individual users and the user population
as a whole? That's the REAL question, and no one wants to approach the issue;
they'd rather argue about individual cases, without a care for the other XXXX
users on the system.
>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.
Perhaps they had more opportunity to do so. It's much easier to exercise
academic freedom in, say, psychology, than in Electrical Engineering. Of
course, the topics generally classed as "humanities" are usually more sub-
ject to controversy than those in the "hard" sciences (the recent debate
about "cold" fusion notwithstanding).
Please keep in mind that I write from the perspective of a system admini-
strator. I don't make policy, although I do contribute to it. My door
is always open to users; they also have full access to my supervisor. I've
never had a long-term problem with a user. I've never had to lock anyone
out. I can count on one hand the number of times I've deleted users' files.
Perhaps I've been lucky.
In closing, I agree with Carl; the "needs of the many" concept HAS been
abused by those who make policy. However, it has a very real place in
day-to-day administration, and we must consider it when developing policy.
Comments, as always, are welcome, either in this forum or via email.
Best,
Wes
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
Curator of the benchmark archives at wuarchive.wustl.edu <128.252.135.4>
-------------------
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, 11 Jun 1991 23:01:37 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun11.230137.1410@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References , <1991Jun10.230205.139@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jun11.160034.15474@eng.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
[Reposted from comp.admin.policy - Carl]
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
In article <1991Jun10.203000.22473@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jfraser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jane Fraser) writes:
> In article <1991Jun8.200358.13482@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>Refering to OSU's subscription to Playboy ...
>>
>>jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>>[...]
>>
>>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).
>>
>
> I happened to have lunch today with Bill Studer, Director of the
> Libraries here at Ohio State. Playboy is available only by
> temporarily trading your student/faculty/staff ID for it, but anyone
> may read it. The only age limit imposed would be that the person
> would have to be able to reach the counter to present his/her ID. :-)
>
> The librarians assembled (most of the OSU Library administration) were
> strong in their remarks that librarians everywhere believe in
> unregulated access to library materials.
>
As a former student of OSU, I have to admire their stand on this issue
:).
For system admins, the question is do you regard your site as
library-like or (adult) bookstore-like?
Since I am not selling anything, I would go the library route. Perhaps
we should all change the names of our machines to "electronic library site"
instead of "anonymous ftp site".
Brett
=============================OFFICIAL=DISCLAIMER================================
The opinions and views expressed here are strictly my own and do not
necessarily reflect the official position of either the U.S. Air Force
or its contractors.
=====================DO=NOT=REMOVE=TAG=UNDER=PENALTY=OF=LAW===:)================
--
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: Wed, 12 Jun 1991 01:25:39 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun11.202539.1@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu>
Organization: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!granroth@world.std.com
References Lassner), , <1991Jun11.012024.13653@eff.org>
Subject:
In article <1991Jun11.012024.13653@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> . . .
> Remember a scanned picture of Calvin and
> Hobbs is just as bad (with repect to copyright) as a scanned picture
> from Playboy. Also, I note that next to many university photocopiers
> is an explaination of copywrite law. There is not, however, a guard.
> . . .
This is getting off the original topic, but I've seen these comments
again and again implying that it is illegal to copy any portion of
copyrighted material under any circumstances. I hope people don't
really believe this. Unless my understanding is way off, it is *not*
illegal to copy portions of such materials for your own use or even
for instructional purposes or reviews, etc. As another example, it
is *not* illegal to copy entire movies from Cinemax for your own
viewing ("delayed viewing").
Is the copyright actually violated in the copying or in what is done
with the copy?
-Larry Granroth@IowaSP.physics.UIowa.edu IOWASP::GRANROTH
-------------------
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: 12 Jun 91 01:25:13 GMT
Message-Id: <1429@sol.deakin.OZ.AU>
Organization: Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
From: munnari.oz.au!deakin.OZ.AU@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Cutting excessive student use of printer paper
We have a number of laser printers, HP DeskJets, etc about the
campus which use single sheet paper. We are finding that students
are using an enormous amount of paper and ink (the DeskJet ink
costs more than the paper) and that 99% of students' printout
finishes in the garbage bin. We want to cut down on the wastage
and are interested to know if anyone has some suggestions for
this problem. For example, students could pay for their paper.
Is it possible to install coin or card operated printers?
Any suggestions would be most appreciated.
Thanks.
--
Phil Carter Computing Services Centre,
Academic Programmer Deakin University, Warrnambool campus
carterp@deakin.oz.au Princes Highway,
Tel: +61 55 618427 Warrnambool 3280, AUSTRALIA
-------------------
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, 12 Jun 1991 15:26:31 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun12.152631.6126@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: The Ohio State University
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!treeves@uunet.uu.net
Subject: OSU ACS policies & lack of them
Sbrack says academic computing services at OSU has no policy -
interesting comment since I have read that policy and I have been told
(by one who knows) that mr brack signed a copy (possibly after the hpuxa
incidents which I have no firsthand knowledge of)
I do know that we have a number of file servers on microcomputer
networks which normaly do not have student accounts. In 4 labs for classes
we have generic numbered accounts which are issued for a quarter at a time.
For this we have no written policy just an understanding with the faculty
(who are to tell students) that this is class use only.
In this case we HAVE operated on trust and common sense. After a
couple of years of this we have had only a few very minor incidents, with
one exception.
In 3 of 4 labs we have had NO TROUBLE WHATSOEVER. Not a SINGLE file
stored on a server that was not a product of the class. The minor incidents in
the one lab were a couple games stored on server, which I dumped.
The one exception was mr brack who IMO severely abused his access
and suggested the solution was force (enforced quotas) rather than good old
trust and common sense. Appleshare servers do not in fact offer that option,
but I would use it if I could.
Thanks to mr brack what we may be forced to do is give every student
in all those classes a written policy statement and possibly make them sign
them and turn them in before we allow access.
You see, mr brack forced us to take action, but he can correctly state
that he recieved no written policy and we had no formal procedure (i am talking
about the micro servers ONLY). None has been needed.
This puts us in an awkward posiiton and while he may not believe
it we are VERY concerned about academic freedom, privacy of computer files and
generaly avoiding stupid rules and restrictions.
This would be a significant chunk of extra work which I do not have
time for. Therefore my service to students (and that's what my job boils down
to) in other areas would be reduced.
Who benefits? An informal system of trust will be replaced with rigid,
very strict rules and a stupid waste of paper.
We will try to get away with just posting a sign in the lab
saying only class work may be stored on server. Progams will be deleted
without notice. Documents will NOT be read to determine class relatedness, but
if we think the amount is excessive we will ask via instructor (I don't have
students names) for them to clean up. After a short period we will remove
oldest files if they don't clean up.
Is the sign idea adequate ? what do you all think
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
| That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|
| Microcomputer software support, | treeves@magnus.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU |
From kadie Fri Jun 14 13:30:55 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Jun 14 13:30:45 EDT 1991
In this issue:
munnari.oz.au!deak : Cutting excessive student use of printer paper
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: 12 Jun 91 01:25:13 GMT
Message-Id: <1429@sol.deakin.OZ.AU>
Organization: Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
From: munnari.oz.au!deakin.OZ.AU@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Cutting excessive student use of printer paper
We have a number of laser printers, HP DeskJets, etc about the
campus which use single sheet paper. We are finding that students
are using an enormous amount of paper and ink (the DeskJet ink
costs more than the paper) and that 99% of students' printout
finishes in the garbage bin. We want to cut down on the wastage
and are interested to know if anyone has some suggestions for
this problem. For example, students could pay for their paper.
Is it possible to install coin or card operated printers?
Any suggestions would be most appreciated.
Thanks.
--
Phil Carter Computing Services Centre,
Academic Programmer Deakin University, Warrnambool campus
carterp@deakin.oz.au Princes Highway,
Tel: +61 55 618427 Warrnambool 3280, AUSTRALIA
From kadie Sat Jun 15 01:01:08 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 15 01:00:28 EDT 1991
In this issue:
kadie : Punishment
kadie : Punisher
Neil Rickert
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Punishment
Resolved: Users should not be suspended or expelled from computer
systems as punishment for computer-policy infractions.
[My mind is still open on this question, but for the sake of debate,
I'll try to make the case.]
The most common punishment for a computer-policy infraction seems to
suspension or expulsion from the computer. I think think is often
inappropriate and harsh.
It is inappropriatate because the computer system, like the library, is
not a treat for rewarding good students; rather it is an indispensable
educational resource.
When punishment is motivated by a desire to set an example for others
or as response to an hysterical fear of so-called hackers, it is often
overly harsh. Disciplinary action should respond to the indent of
the student and the damage caused by the student, not outside pressures
In developing responsible student conduct, disciplinary proceedings
play a role substantially secondary to example, counseling, guidance,
and admonition. For example, a written warning with a copy to the
student's file may suffice.
- 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, 14 Jun 1991 19:27:22 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jun14.192722.339@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Punisher
Resolved: The punishment that a computer administrator can impose on a
student should be not exceed that which an instructor can impose.
In 1904, the student regulations at the University of Illinois allowed
an instructor to punish a rule infraction by suspending a student from
class for up to three days. Such suspensions had to be reported to the
President immediately.
Today, an instructor can lower a grade or give the student a written
warning with a copy going to the student's file. An instructor cannot
suspend or expel a student (but can, of course, recommend such
action).
This policy is wise; it is a check against overly harsh punishment. (A
suspension from the classroom, computer, or campus is serious because
it may prevent a student from completing a required homework or
test.)
Today (not at U of Illinois that I've heard of, but at other places),
computer administrators expel students from the computers. The
expulsion are often indefinite. There is often no report made
to anyone outside the computer organization. The student
is given no explanation of his or her rights (apparently because
computer administrator believes that the student has no rights.)
Computer administrators should work under the same constraints
as instructors. They should not be allowed to punish a student
with suspension or expulsion for the computer system.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Message-Id: <199106142048.AA30684@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Punishment
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 15:47:59 -0500
From: Neil Rickert
In article <1991Jun14.185503.29844@eff.org> Carl Kadie writes:
>Resolved: Users should not be suspended or expelled from computer
>systems as punishment for computer-policy infractions.
Resolved: Drivers shall not have their licenses suspended or cancelled
as punishment for driving infractions (including, but not limited to,
DUI).
>The most common punishment for a computer-policy infraction seems to
>suspension or expulsion from the computer. I think think is often
>inappropriate and harsh.
The most common punishment for drunk driving seems to be suspension or
cancellation of driving privileges. I think it is innappropriate and harsh.
>It is inappropriatate because the computer system, like the library, is
>not a treat for rewarding good students; rather it is an indispensable
>educational resource.
It is inappropriate because the highways are not a treat for rewarding
good drivers, but are an essential transportation requirement of our
modern society.
>When punishment is motivated by a desire to set an example for others
>or as response to an hysterical fear of so-called hackers, it is often
----------------------------------
I know you are going to disagree with the comparison, although I think it
is really not that far off.
The whole trouble with your view is your emphasis on PUNISHMENT. If you
strictly mean that, I agree. Removal of computer resources, or of driving
privileges, as punishment is usually not appropriate. But when a drunk
driver loses his license the usual purpose is not punishment, but the
protection of other drivers, and sometime just to get a message to the
driver as to the seriousness of his actions. Likewise when a student
computer privileges are suspended it is usually to prevent his further
harm to other users, or to bring matters to his attention.
On this system I have students whose phone number is not available to me
because the student has decided to keep this private. I have students who
never read their mail. When I suspend their account in such a way that
the next time they log on they see a message explaining why the account was
suspended, and what action they must take to resolve the present problem and
to avoid recurrences, I get their attention in a manner not otherwise
possible.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 17:04 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Punishment
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Resolved: Users should not be suspended or expelled from computer
>systems as punishment for computer-policy infractions.
>
Karl, your resolution above is unimplementable in a real world.
I would like to change your resolution to:
For ALL multi-user computing resources at a University:
a) Users should not be denied access to computing resources as punishment
for computer-policy infractions except when such punishment is the
result of a judicial proceeding.
b) Suspension of access by itself does not constitute punishment if it is
done to protect other users and the system and the resources of the
University (e.g. Paper, toner, telephone costs etc.).
c) Suspension pending a judicial hearing is allowed only to protect other users
and the system and the resources of the University
Expansion of "Computer Accounts" to "Computing Resources" makes more sense as
the concept of computer accounts evolves and the concept of computer as just
being a Unix Computer connected to dumb terminals gets outdated. Computing
Resources also includes PC and MAC sites. Departmental facilities (as
distinct from a research group's computers) should also be covered by any
policy.
Sometimes the operating system itself suspends access to an account if it
suspects that there is a break-in attempt, i.e. too many login attempts with
an invalid password. Suspension when a break-in is suspected either by the
operating system or the Systems Administrator is neither punishment nor an
attempt to restrict access but to protect the account for the legitimate user.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: junger@cwru.cwru.edu
Message-Id: <9106142225.AA03883@eff.org>
Date: 14 Jun 91 18:21:00 EST
Subject: Re: Punishment
Cc: junger@cwru.cwru.edu
Once again the question of due process confronts us. It is
one thing to suspend a student's account when he is apparently doing
something that puts the system at risk, until the matter can be
straightened out. It is something quite different to expel a student
from the system as a punishment.
Suspensions of the first sort must, of course, be done by
those responsible for the system, but they should never be punitive and
they should only be for the amount of time necessary to straighten the
matter out.
I do not see how it can ever be an appropriate punishment for a
student to be permanently expelled from a computer system (or a library) if
access to the system (or library) is necessary for the student's course work.
I am sure that it is never appropriate for computer system administrators
to be the one who punish students, or anyone else. Punishment is
a matter within the jurisdiction of deans of students, student honor courts,
and similar institutions, not systems administrators.
It may, of course, be appropriate for systems adminsitrators to
file complaints against a student who is accused of violating the rules
relating to computers, but the ststems administrators should only
serve as complaining witnesses not as judges, and the student who
is accused is entitled to due process in such a case.
The real difficulty is getting the faculty and administrators
who are not sophisticated in the ways of computers to understand
that there is no significant distinction, as far a punishment of
students is concerned, between access to academic libraries and access
to academic computers.
Peter D. Junger
Law School
Case Western Reserve University
------
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 15 Jun 91 04:02:42 GMT
Message-Id:
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!night@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jun14.185503.29844@eff.org>, <199106142048.AA30684@mp.cs.niu.edu>>
Subject: Re: Punishment
rickert@cs.NIu.EDU (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1991Jun14.185503.29844@eff.org> Carl Kadie writes:
>>Resolved: Users should not be suspended or expelled from computer
>>systems as punishment for computer-policy infractions.
> Resolved: Drivers shall not have their licenses suspended or cancelled
>as punishment for driving infractions (including, but not limited to,
>DUI).
>>The most common punishment for a computer-policy infraction seems to
>>suspension or expulsion from the computer. I think think is often
>>inappropriate and harsh.
> The most common punishment for drunk driving seems to be suspension or
>cancellation of driving privileges. I think it is innappropriate and harsh.
The problem with this analogy is that suspension of a driver's license
only occurs after due process. Carl's whole point is that computer
access can be taken away by a system administrator with no warning, let
alone due process.
If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it addresses the issue.
One question I would like to bring up is that is suspending account
privileges always the only solution to abuses? Couldn't restricting
the account in some way protect other users from the offending user's
abuses without having to lock the account? Granted, the answer to
this question depends on many factors, including what the abuses
where, and the environment it takes place in (OS, central computer
or distributed system, local customizations, etc.). What do people
think?
--
Trip Martin
night@rpi.edu
--
Trip Martin
night@rpi.edu
From kadie Sat Jun 15 23:29:09 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 15 23:28:37 EDT 1991
In this issue:
bbrown@pepvax.pepp : punishmet
Sanjay Kapur
Subject: punishmet
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 22:39:13 PDT
Cc: bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.edu (Bruce Brown)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL10]
i feel throwing people of systems in this day and age
is equivelant to taking away vincent van gogh paint
brushes. after all he never sold a painting and his
behavior was socially unacceptable. it is bogus to
think due process will protect a persons rights!
-bruce
-------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 02:01 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: punishmet
Message-Id: <3D48F5CDC0210C7C@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.edu (Bruce Brown)
>
>i feel throwing people of systems in this day and age
>is equivelant to taking away vincent van gogh paint
>brushes. after all he never sold a painting and his
>behavior was socially unacceptable. it is bogus to
>think due process will protect a persons rights!
> -bruce
What is your opinion about drunk drivers? taking away a drunk drivers license
may not permit the person to go to work or buy groceries. Should such a
person be allowed to get back on the road and get into accidents and possibly
kill someone.
If Vincent Van Gogh's painting material was supplied by the University and the
University expelled him, it would be correct, in my opinion for the university
to recover such material even in this day and age.
Also, I do not know the state of due process and civil rights in Paris in the
later portion of last century. Maybe if there was due process, Van Gogh would
have remained sane.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 02:05 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Punishment
Message-Id: <3DE498F180210C7C@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>
>> The most common punishment for drunk driving seems to be suspension or
>>cancellation of driving privileges. I think it is innappropriate and harsh.
>
>The problem with this analogy is that suspension of a driver's license
>only occurs after due process. Carl's whole point is that computer
>access can be taken away by a system administrator with no warning, let
>alone due process.
>
>If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it addresses the issue.
>
>
Cops normally confisicate the license and throw the drunk driver in the drunk
tank to sleep it off. Check with your local cops for the procedure. In most
drunk driving incidents, the driver is arrested and released only later on
AFTER bail has been posted.
The analogy is therefore DOES address the issue.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 02:36 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Punishment
Message-Id: <423CB31FE0210C7C@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
> Suspensions of the first sort must, of course, be done by
>those responsible for the system, but they should never be punitive and
>they should only be for the amount of time necessary to straighten the
>matter out.
I agree.
> The real difficulty is getting the faculty and administrators
>who are not sophisticated in the ways of computers to understand
>that there is no significant distinction, as far a punishment of
>students is concerned, between access to academic libraries and access
>to academic computers.
There are several significant distinctions:
1) libraries are funded differently than Computer resources.
2) The concept of usage based resource accounting charged to the end user
does not exist in libraries.
3) Systems administrators are not treated like faculty like Librarians are.
4) All faculty, staff and students automatically get library privileges at all
libraries on campus. This does not happen with computer accounts.
There is one similarity
1) An individual's library privileges are suspended for abuse of resources,
e.g. non-return of overdue books may cause the person's library card to be
suspended and the student may be denied course registration till fines are
paid up.
>
>Peter D. Junger
>Law School
>Case Western Reserve University
>------
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: 15 Jun 91 17:20:49 GMT
Message-Id: <17366@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Organization: GrinchCo
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!cs.utexas.edu!helios!zeus.tamu.edu!gmw0622@world.std.com
References Lassner), , <1991Jun10.230205.139@ms.uky.edu>
Reply-To : gmw0622@zeus.tamu.edu
Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies)
In article <1991Jun10.230205.139@ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes...
>Few people have mentioned on here the fact that most publically
>readable adult GIFS are copyrighted, and regardless of content most
>have been copied illegally.
>
>Sean
>
>--
>** Sean Casey
Actually, this gets mentioned many times, and it never is mentioned with the
fact that most non-adult GIFS are copyrighted also. It's just one more
smokescreen.
Mr. Grinch
-------------------
From: junger@cwru.cwru.edu
Message-Id: <9106151901.AA12984@eff.org>
Date: 15 Jun 91 14:51:00 EST
Subject: Re: Punishment
Cc: junger@cwru.cwru.edu
Sanjay Kapur quotes me as saying:
> The real difficulty is getting the faculty and administrators
>who are not sophisticated in the ways of computers to understand
>that there is no significant distinction, as far a punishment of
>students is concerned, between access to academic libraries and access
>to academic computers.
And then he says:
>There are several significant distinctions:
>
>1) libraries are funded differently than Computer resources.
>2) The concept of usage based resource accounting charged to the end user
> does not exist in libraries.
>3) Systems administrators are not treated like faculty like Librarians are.
>4) All faculty, staff and students automatically get library privileges at all
> libraries on campus. This does not happen with computer accounts.
>
>There is one similarity
>1) An individual's library privileges are suspended for abuse of resources,
> e.g. non-return of overdue books may cause the person's library card to be
> suspended and the student may be denied course registration till fines are
> paid up.
But none of his distinctions are universally true. Some libraries and some
computer systems are funded in identical fashions. Many computer systems
do not charge the end user--for example, I am not charged for my access to
CWRUnet here at Case Western Reserve University, and neither are the students.
Not all institutions treat librarians as faculty members and, so I gather, at
some institutions the system administrators are librarians. And, finally,
it is not true at many institutions--including CWRU--that all fcaulty, staff,
and students ``automatically get library priveleges at all libraries on
campus,'' but it is true here that all are eligible for CWRU computer accounts.
More to the point, none of these distinctions has anything to do with what
I was writing about, which was carefully limited to the ``punishment of
students'' as you--or even Mr. Kapur--can see if you will check the portion
of my letter that he quoted.
And, of course, the one similarity that Mr. Kapur found--the suspension
of library privileges and course registration until library fines are paid--
also has nothing to do with the question of student punishment; the fines
are late charges, not punishment, while the suspension is simply a means
of collecting the fines, and is also not punitive.
Mr. Kapur demonstrates an almost poetic ability to come up with weird
anologies. He has persuaded me that the concern I expressed in my
original posting was too limited. Another real problem is the inability
of computer systems administrators to understand complicated concepts like
fairness or due process.
Peter D. Junger
CWRU Law School
------
-------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 15:36 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Punishment
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Mr. Kapur demonstrates an almost poetic ability to come up with weird
>anologies. He has persuaded me that the concern I expressed in my
>original posting was too limited. Another real problem is the inability
>of computer systems administrators to understand complicated concepts like
>fairness or due process.
>
>Peter D. Junger
>CWRU Law School
>------
The reason is very simple. Systems Administrators are not appointed for their
ability to understand those concepts. The reasons are historical. Most of
the bosses of systems administrators came from the old MIS background of
financial data processing, payroll and similar applications. Due process
is just not relevant in those computer applications. I know of several
instances across the country where systems administrators got into trouble
with their boss for allowing "free expression" on the computer bulletin
boards.
The supposed lack of ability to understand democratic concepts that you very
gratiously attribute to systems administrators is unfair and is stereotyping a
whole group of people.
It is very easy for a (highly paid) lawyer to ask the Systems Administrator to
do something for which a systems administrator is most likely to get fired.
Not suspending a trouble maker's account who then proceeds to lock out the
University President from the computer is most probably going to put me out of
a job. Are you or the ACLU going to come to my defense then?
For fairness and due process to work in the real world:
BEFORE A USER CAN GET DUE PROCESS, SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATORS HAVE TO BE PROTECTED.
I will NOT stick my neck out for someone to chop it. Give me good armor to
protect my neck, and I will stick out my neck to defend due process.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 16:19 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Punishment
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: junger@cwru.cwru.edu
>But none of his distinctions are universally true. Some libraries and some
>computer systems are funded in identical fashions. Many computer systems
>do not charge the end user--for example, I am not charged for my access to
>CWRUnet here at Case Western Reserve University, and neither are the students.
I agree that I was being a bit facetious. I personally believe that libraries
and computers should be treated in a similar fashion. If you read the
archives of this discussion, you will see quite a few articles in which I have
myself made that point.
>Not all institutions treat librarians as faculty members and, so I gather, at
>some institutions the system administrators are librarians. And, finally,
>it is not true at many institutions--including CWRU--that all fcaulty, staff,
>and students ``automatically get library priveleges at all libraries on
>campus,'' but it is true here that all are eligible for CWRU computer accounts.
There are differences and similarities in how Universities operate and in how
they operate their facilities. What I was trying to point out was that
Librarians are afforded more latitude and freedom in their actions than
Systems Administrators. One major difference is that in quite a few cases (
not all), librarians are more accountable to their peers whereas nearly all
Systems Administrators are accountable to their boss.
>
>And, of course, the one similarity that Mr. Kapur found--the suspension
>of library privileges and course registration until library fines are paid--
>also has nothing to do with the question of student punishment; the fines
>are late charges, not punishment, while the suspension is simply a means
>of collecting the fines, and is also not punitive.
Sorry, but I believe that a fine by definition is punishment. "Late charge"
is an euphemism for fine.
>
>Mr. Kapur demonstrates an almost poetic ability to come up with weird
>anologies. He has persuaded me that the concern I expressed in my
>original posting was too limited. Another real problem is the inability
>of computer systems administrators to understand complicated concepts like
>fairness or due process.
>
>Peter D. Junger
>CWRU Law School
>------
Peter, I will reply to your very personal insult by saying: And lawyers know
little of how to manage a computer system. (i.e. they have no idea about the
pressures put on systems administrators)
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
