From kadie Tue Jul 9 16:08:18 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Jul 9 16:07:30 EDT 1991
In this issue:
zaphod.mps.ohio-st : Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
kadie : Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!llama@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul7.060754.3327@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, <1991Jul7.160153.20042@ms.uky.edu>J
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>The clinic funding rule has not outlawed discussion of abortion, it simply
>prevents the government from helping clinics that do (help that the gov't
>is not required to give anyway). No constitutional right is absolute; any
>law could be applied to some situation where it could intrude on freedom of
>speech; this doesn't make every law unconstitutional. The recent SC
>decision on nude dancing contains mention of this. (Trivial example:
>a judge can order a jury sequestered and prevent them from discussing the
>case they're trying. This is constitutional because the defendant's
>right to a fair trial and the public's right of justice override the
>jury's right to freedom of movement and speech, and because jury service
>is a constitutional duty). [Kenneth Herron]
In cases such as the ones you mention, the constitutional interests
are weighed by the court. The question is which is more important,
an organizations right to free speech when their activities are
partially funded by the government, or the governments right to
refuse to fund organizations based soley on their speech (rather
than their "actions"). This is a tricky question any way you look
at it, because it is hard to seperate speech from actions. I can
see how reasonable people could disagree on this issue. Nonetheless,
I believe that free speech should win out here. The government can
find other (constitutional) ways to refuse to fund Planned Parenthood
if it wishes, whereas the possible abuses of "gag money" at this point
in our history where so much of our economy is federally controlled
are frightening to consider. How many Universities, traditionally
tolerant of unpopular speech (at least comparitively), accept
government funding in one way or other?
>Look at it another way: A clinic does not give up any rights by refusing
>to accept government money; it doesn't have a right to government money,
>and it doesn't have a right to exist if it can't pay its way. The clinic
>must *ask for* and *accept* the money with full knowledge that it can't do
>abortion counseling. Thus, it must *voluntarily* give up its right to
>do abortion counseling. All of this is legal; a person (or in this case
>a legal entity) may give up his constitutional rights and then be bound
>by that decision. [Kenneth Herron]
The other perspective is: Our government has decided to make some
funding available to family planning clinics. However, clinics with
otherwise identical services are differentiated in their ability to
receive funding by the content of their doctor/patient or
counselor/patient relationship, traditionally a strongly protected
area of speech.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
-------------------
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, 8 Jul 1991 18:09:27 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul8.180927.6801@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>The supreme court has ruled that the President can constitutionally
>forbid doctors to discuss abortion at federally funded clinics.
>I don't see what that does not also give the President the power
>to decide to forbid any discussion of evolution federally funded educational
>institutions.
[...]
Here is some more information.
Only 3 of the 5 majority justices used the reasoning given above.
The opinion of the 3 said explicitly that this reasoning doesn't apply
to universities because free speech is central to universities.
Stuart Reges, a computer science lecturer at Stanford University, was
recently fired after Bob Martinez, the drug czar, wrote a letter to
Stanford's President Kennedy. Mr. Reges is a vocal opponent of the War
on Drugs who has said that he has in the past carried illegal drugs in
his backpack while on campus. [There is no evidence that this claim is
true (or false).] The Martinez letter reminded Kennedy that Stanford
gets millions of dollars in federal grants and expressed surprise that
Stanford would employ someone like Reges.
Stanford's President Kennedy thought that banning rec.humor.funny was
a good idea because some found some of its jokes offense.
Here is some opinion.
Free and candid speech is also central to medicine. The reasoning of
the Supreme Court decision will either be repudiated or expanded. (I
realize that this is not much of a prediction.)
An expanded decision could eliminate free speech. For example:
"Newspapers that express an unofficial opinion may not be transported on
government roads." "Mailing lists and newsgroups that express an
unofficial opinion may not be transported on the Internet (or NREN)."
"Unofficial opinions may not be expressed in homes that were financed
by the FHA."
Some university administrators care nothing of academic freedom. They
will always take the path of least resistance. Thus, we must fight
to make academic freedom the easy path.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Message-Id: <9107081932.AA08458@eff.org>
From:
Subject: Please remove me from this list
Please remove ACCNEWS@HOFSTRA from this list ASAP
THANKS,
ACCNEWS@HOFSTRA.bitnet
-------------------
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, 8 Jul 1991 22:47:45 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul8.224745.2184@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Organization: The Lab Rats
From: genie!tom@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu
References <(Joe>, ,
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
In article brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.EDU (Joe Brennan) writes:
}As our text for today's sermon:
}ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
}> The supreme court has ruled that the President can constitutionally
}> forbid doctors to discuss abortion at federally funded clinics.
}> I don't see what that does not also give the President the power
}> to decide to forbid any discussion of evolution federally funded
}> educational institutions.
}Repeating myself in quoting this, but,
} 1st Amendment
} Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
} religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
} the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
} people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
} a redress of grievances.
}If a law abridges freedom of speech, it's unconstitutional. What other
}meaning can this text have? I know about the Supreme Court decision, but I
}cannot follow the reasoning of it.
and yet, year after year, Congress makes such laws. and year after year
the Supreme Court uses its superior legal knowledge and wisdom to determine
that, despite the way the english language worked then or works now, "no law"
really meant some laws (but just a few). and year after year, 90+% of the
people either don't notice or don't care. why is this?
--
tom@udel.edu ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu
"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
-------------------
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: bennett
From: bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett)
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
Message-Id: <1991Jul9.045234.17648@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References:
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 04:52:34 GMT
Lines: 50
In article comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>As our text for today's sermon:
>
> [much text deleted --SJB]
>
>On this 5th of July, we can merely salute our freedoms fading away on the
>Federal government's acquiring a controlling interest in pretty much
>everything, an ironic example of the free market at work. And the
Most of your followup is on the money, so I'm not quoting it here.
But this last swipe is nonsense. We have never in the history of the
United States of America, nor in that of the English, Spanish, or Dutch
colonies that preceded them, had a free market. There has always been
some form or other of governmental interference. Therefore, although
it is verifiable and demonstrable that our freedoms are fading away and
that this fact is due to the federal government (actually, state and
local governments are responsible, too), it is not possible for that
process to be an example of a free market at work. On the contrary,
it is due to *government*, which is the antithesis and enemy of freedom
in general and of free markets in particular, at work.
>government is simply -our- representative, using -our- money to do it.
Yes, that *is* the propaganda that is fed to us from kindergarten
through college by our *government*-run propaganda propagation system
(read: public education). But anyone watching the picture can see the
words are lying. The government is the representative of those indivi-
duals who constitute the government, but yes, it is our money that those
individuals use against us in so many ways, including to extract still
money from us. The money feeds the individuals in government and also
goes to satisfy their fantasies. In these basic respects, nothing has
changed for thousands of years, at the very least.
>
>Joe Brennan
>
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
Systems Programming
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois 60115
**********************************************************************
* Internet: bennett@cs.niu.edu *
* BITNET: A01SJB1@NIU *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "Spent a little time on the mountain, Spent a little time on the *
* Hill, The things that went down you don't understand, But I *
* think in time you will." Oakland, 19 Feb. 1991, first time *
* since 25 Sept. 1970!!! Yippee!!!! Wondering what's NeXT... :-) *
**********************************************************************
-------------------
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: bennett
From: bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett)
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
Message-Id: <1991Jul9.052704.13711@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu> <1991Jul8.180927.6801@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 05:27:04 GMT
Lines: 78
In article <1991Jul8.180927.6801@eff.org> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
> [much text deleted --SJB]
>
>Here is some opinion.
>
>Free and candid speech is also central to medicine. The reasoning of
>the Supreme Court decision will either be repudiated or expanded. (I
>realize that this is not much of a prediction.)
>
>An expanded decision could eliminate free speech. For example:
>"Newspapers that express an unofficial opinion may not be transported on
>government roads." "Mailing lists and newsgroups that express an
>unofficial opinion may not be transported on the Internet (or NREN)."
>"Unofficial opinions may not be expressed in homes that were financed
>by the FHA."
Thank you. That is one of the most marvelously stated cases in so
few words for limited government that I have ever seen. It makes clear
that all of these facilities should never have been allowed to be
developed by, or fall into the hands of, government.
Another example in our modern society that frankly terrifies and
dismays me is the way government has blockaded any possibility of escaping
its control by getting off planet. Just as the USSR for so long kept
people from leaving who wanted to leave, so has our government made it
impossible for nongovernment agencies (i.e. companies) to develop the
means and markets that would make it possible for ordinary people to get
into space. Another tidbit of writing on the wall became visible when
even the illegitimate-but-somewhat-likable NASA was forced to sell what
little soul it may have possessed to the military in order to get enough
funding to finish the space shuttle development. That, you may remember,
resulted in many extra years being required for readying the shuttle
for production because it had to be two or two and a half times the
originally designed size in order to be able to carry large military
payloads. Net result: the muscular arm of the government now has
ready access to space, but the citizenry is just as trapped on earth
as before and has to pay for its own imprisonment.
>
>Some university administrators care nothing of academic freedom. They
>will always take the path of least resistance. Thus, we must fight
>to make academic freedom the easy path.
The way to get closer to that freedom would be quite painful and
I find it unlikely to be chosen: sell the state schools. The framers
of the Constitution definitely took a step backward from the ideals
of the Declaration of Independence. (Though what would one expect
from politicians delegated by colonial *governments*? Besides, just
one bad apple like Alexander Hamilton can be enough to spoil a whole
barrel.) They may have written into the Constitution a partial sepa-
ration of religion and state, but they completely omitted at least
two other prerequisites of a truly free society, namely, separation
of trade and state (this is part of how government feeds) and separa-
tion of education and state (this is how government ensures its con-
tinued existence without having to deal with much resistance.) We
will most emphatically *not* see any amendments to correct these
deficiencies because the framers did *not* leave the amendment process
open to the populace, but rather placed it into the hands of the
Congress and the state legislatures.
>
>- Carl
>
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
>
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
Systems Programming
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois 60115
**********************************************************************
* Internet: bennett@cs.niu.edu *
* BITNET: A01SJB1@NIU *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "Spent a little time on the mountain, Spent a little time on the *
* Hill, The things that went down you don't understand, But I *
* think in time you will." Oakland, 19 Feb. 1991, first time *
* since 25 Sept. 1970!!! Yippee!!!! Wondering what's NeXT... :-) *
**********************************************************************
-------------------
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 Jul 91 03:35:08 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul5.033508.1110@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
From: pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit533!diamond@decwrl.dec.com
References: , <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu>nntp
Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July
In article <1991Jul4.163522.25219@ms.uky.edu> ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>The supreme court has ruled that the President can constitutionally
>forbid doctors to discuss abortion at federally funded clinics.
>I don't see what that does not also give the President the power
>to decide to forbid any discussion of evolution federally funded educational
>institutions.
How dare you post such a thing? Don't you know that anyone who ever claimed
any deductions on their U.S. tax forms is prohibited from expresing concern
over the president's powers? If you pay 100% of your income in taxes, you
can speak freely; otherwise you're prevented.
--
Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.
-------------------
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, 9 Jul 1991 14:54:35 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul9.145435.26729@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Newsgroup readership
[This report shows the estimated newsgroup readership of
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and the eff groups. For more
info look in newsgroup news.lists - Carl]
From: reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid)
Newsgroups: news.lists
Subject: USENET Readership report for Jun 91
This is [not] the full set of data from the USENET readership report
for Jun 91. Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting
[in news.lists].
+-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
| +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
| | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
| | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
| | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
| | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
| | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader
| | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
| | | | | | | | who read this group.
V V V V V V V V
331 24000 390 79% 448 968.9 5% 0.04 1.5% comp.org.eff.talk
615 12000 195 77% 2 26.2 100% 0.00 0.7% comp.org.eff.news
691 9400 153 46% 169 376.3 1% 0.03 0.6% alt.comp.acad-freedom
.talk
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
From kadie Thu Jul 11 23:10:17 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Jul 11 23:09:36 EDT 1991
In this issue:
kadie : Ohio State
kadie : Re: Ohio State
meckler@tigger.jvn : Re: Ohio State
Amanda Walker
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Ohio State
Last quarter Steven Brack, a student at Ohio State, was indefinitely
expelled from Ohio State's Academic Computing Services (ACS)
computers. Next month he is scheduled for his first hearing before
the Judiciary Committee. The original charges were very vague (for
example, he was accused of violating "miscellaneous rules"). At Mr.
Brack's request, he was recently given a list of specific charges.
Mr. Brack is accused of (this list is based on my notes from a
telephone conversation; any mistakes are mine):
1) typing the command "shutdown" on a Unix computer
2) posting obscenities (i.e. the phrase "fuck you") to national
builtin boards (i.e. the alt.flame and rec.aquaria newsgroups)
3) being expelled by ACS from all University networks
4) continuing his behavior on a student account on the engineering computer
5) The free print job of another student's account was charged to Mr.
Brack's social security
6) Another student's account at Ohio State was used to access Mr.
Brack's public account at the University of Denver.
7a) keeping nonacademic files on the Mac server
b) used multiple (i.e. two) Macs at the same time
8) Stored 24 copies of a program, maliciously
9) [same as #6?] Used an ACS computer, on which he did not have an
account, to access his account at the University of Denver.
- Carl
p.s. A collection of caf-talk notes relating to Steven Brack and
Ohio State are available via anonymous ftp from eff.org as file
academic/ohio-state.
--
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, 11 Jul 1991 15:37:12 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
One of most important lessons I have learned from our discussions on
the Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list is that good
communications between users and sys admins is critical. As Sanjay
Kapur, a sys admin at SUNY Stony Brook, wrote on June 20th:
"My experience has taught me that ALL problems of abuse etc. come
about due to lack of communications between the Systems staff and the
users. Direct access to the systems staff who actually manage the
system in addition to access to a front office (e.g. an accounts
offoce, a user support office, Student assistants) has to be a central
element of any policy."
The Ohio State affair could be a case study in what happens when
communications breaks down and all actions are ascribed to malice.
Remember how this all started. Mr. Brack reformatted the system manual
pages on an HP workstation.
Academic Computer Services's (ACS) viewpoint: Mr. Brack vandalized the
system.
Brack's viewpoint: It was an accident; I assumed it would only
reformat only my personal manual pages. If reformatting is such a
terrible thing to do, why are the file permissions set so that anyone
can do it?
In the next event, Mr. Brack got into a heated argument in alt.flame.
He replied to someone else's note with the message "fuck you". (This
is exactly the kind of message for which alt.flame was designed.) The
note that Mr. Brack replied was set so that by default all replies
would go to not only alt.flame but also rec.aquaria. Thus, Mr. Brack
posted the message "fuck you" to the aquarium newsgroup.
ACS's viewpoint: Mr. Brack is trying to make Ohio State look bad by
posting rude messages to the world.
Brack's viewpoint: I was tricked into posting to rec.aquaria. I didn't
even know that replies could be directed to other groups.
So how can ACS and Mr. Brack view the same events so differently?
William Murray's note of June 29 addresses this question:
"The student knows that systems are robust. 'Pac-Man' never broke.
'King's Quest' never broke. You could push as hard as you wanted to;
it never broke. You could not get out of the 'land.' It did not
break. Yet. Push! Problems are related to hardware and software,
not users. The rules of the game are implicit in the game. If you
can do it, it is legitimate. The way you 'win the game' is to explore
the land to its outermost boundaries."
"The system administrator knows that systems are fragile. Most have
come about by elaboration of earlier systems. They were not designed
of a piece. Even when we do a major upgrade, we often include
function from earlier systems, usually as an accomodation to users.
This functionality often includes gratuitous generality and
flexibility. The systems have often been extended to support user
populations which are much larger and less orderly than the ones for
which the systems were conceived. The result is systems which are not
as robust as might be indicated or expected for their current use and
user populations. The system administrator knows this."
Here are my comments on the specifics of the Ohio State affair. [I'm
quoting from my previous note.] Recall that the Joint Statement
on Rights and Freedoms of Students says that "[t]he burden of proof
should rest upon the officials bringing the charge."
>Last quarter Steven Brack, a student at Ohio State, was indefinitely
>expelled from Ohio State's Academic Computing Services (ACS)
>computers. Next month he is scheduled for his first hearing before
>the Judiciary Committee.
Either 1) Mr. Brack was punished without the chance for a hearing or
2) that he is in jeopardy of being punished twice for the same offense
(double jeopardy).
>1) typing the command "shutdown" on a Unix computer
He is not accused of executing this command; as an ordinary user
it would be impossible for him to execute this command.
>2) posting obscenities (i.e. the phrase "fuck you") to national
>builtin boards (i.e. the alt.flame and rec.aquaria newsgroups)
The phrase "fuck you" is rude, but protected speech. It is not
obscene. The posting to rec.aquaria was accidental. The posting
to alt.flame was consistent with the purpose of that newsgroup.
>3) being expelled by ACS from all University networks
This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part. If ACS expelled Mr. Brack
without due process, they have committed an offense.
>4) continuing his behavior on a student account on the engineering computer
Without more specific information this is not a legitimate charge.
>5) The free print job of another student's account was charged to Mr.
>Brack's social security [number]
The other student charged the free print job to Mr. Brack's social
security number with Mr. Brack's permission. They did this because
the file that contained the other student's SSN was corrupted.
>6) Another student's account at Ohio State was used to access Mr.
>Brack's public account at the University of Denver.
The other student accessed Mr. Brack's account at the University of
Denver. This violates no Ohio State rules (or rules of the University
of Denver system).
>7a) keeping nonacademic files on the Mac server
This violated no Ohio State rules. (Rather than ask
Mr. Brack to remove his files; all his files were deleted.)
>b) used multiple (i.e. two) Macs at the same time
This is a petty accusation. Using multiple Macs when the lab is nearly
empty violated no Ohio State rules. When asked to move to one Mac
(because a class was expected), Mr Brack did.
>8) Stored 24 copies of a program, maliciously
This is false. Mr. Brack used 24 meg of disk space, but did
not store 24 copies of any programs. This violated no Ohio State
rules. When asked to free up disk space, Mr. Brack did.
>9) [same as #6?] Used an ACS computer, on which he did not have an
>account, to access his account at the University of Denver.
Same as #6.
In sum, you may not like Mr. Brack. You may have found his "fuck you"
note offense and his subsequent defense of himself whinny. But whether
you like him or not, the pettiness and weakness of the charges against
Mr. Brack (he is not accused of causing any actual damage), support
the conclusion that this whole affair has more to do with poor
communications than with computer vandalism.
I would hope that the charges against Mr. Brack would be dropped and
that his computer expulsion would be ended. In the future, I hope that
ACS will handle problems less hystically and more professionally by:
1) working with the user community to create and implement a good
written policy
2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem
3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when
neccessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing.
What do you think?
- Carl
References
The full text of all the notes I quoted from are available via
anonymous ftp to eff.org in files academic/news/June,
academic/ohio-state, and academic/student-rights.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 12:41:21 -0400
From: meckler@tigger.jvnc.net (Nancy Nelson)
Message-Id: <9107111641.AA01127@tigger.jvnc.net>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
Please unsubscribe us from this list
Meckler@tigger.jvnc.net
thanks
-------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 13:57:24 EDT
From: Amanda Walker
Message-Id: <9107111757.AA09780@visix.com>
Subject: Adventures at Ohio State
I apologize if this is following up on a stale discussion, but I have
a few comments to make about the continuing saga of "Students vs.
OSU." As a disclaimer, I'll point out that I was an OSU student from
1984-1988, and was employed by the CIS department for most of that
time, first as a part-time student employee, later as a full-time
systems programmer. My information may be a little out of date--if
so, I'm sure J Greely or someone else who's still at OSU can correct
me :).
If it hasn't been done already, I'd like to point out that "hpuxa" and
"magnus" are run by the IRCC (OSU's university computer center), and
not the CIS department, which has its own computing facilities and
staff. The IRCC and CIS dept. have a long history of disagreement
regarding how to manage systems, and how to treat users. There is no
monolithic "OSU" computer staff (or policies), and I would encourage
people to be more specific in their complaints. But, on to sbrack's
letter. My comments come from a very pragmatic point of view, and may
elicit responses along the lines of "that's not fair," or "it
shouldn't be that way." That's as may be, but none of us lives in a
perfect world.
Well, I had an account on HPUXA, OSU's predecessor to MAGNUS.
Even HPUXA was pretty new. Until a couple years ago, the only thing
resembling a public-access system at OSU was a DECsystem-20, which
could barely handle internet email, much less news. The IRCC is
probably still not used to people using computers as communication
resources as well as computing resources. Sometimes things that look
like malice are simply inexperience.
It was much like having my own UNIX box.
True, but it wasn't. Because it was a common resource, you had a very
real responsibility to avoid doing things that interfered with other
people's use of that same resource. If I spill coffee on one of my
books, the only cost is to me. If I spill coffee on a library book,
the cost is time, money, and hassle for me, the library staff, and
anyone else who wants to use the book while the library is trying to
replace it (if this is possible at all).
I made two mistakes.
I'd agree with you there, although I might have a different idea of what
exactly they were :)...
First, I ran a command called "fixman," [...] I had a meeting
wherein I basically agreed not to do it again, & to only run a
small selection of commands.
Sounds fair to me.
But, I got into trouble on news. [...] Well, I was having an argument
with a man in alt.flame.
That, I'd say, was part of your second mistake :).
My followup contained some "not so polite" language, & OSU's
systems people received e-mail about my crossposted article.
And this was the rest of your second mistake. As you have noticed,
your actions reflect on the people who run the machine you are using,
and on the university. Even though you may put disclaimers in your
signature, in the eyes of the rest of the world, the university is
vouching for your behavior.
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 sympathize, believe me, and as you've presented things, it seems a
little extreme. However, it's hard to say for sure without having
actually been involved.
I posted an article in news.admin, from another InterNet account
I had at Ohio State, detailing what had happened, & asking their
opinions.
This was your third mistake. Even if you didn't intend it that way,
it looks like an attempt to intimidate the HPUXA staff into changing
their decision. This is a guaranteed way to screw yourself over:
taking a private complaint to a public forum. OSU has plenty of ways
to resolve disputes--if going up the chain within the IRCC didn't
work, there's always your faculty advisor or the ombudsman's office.
OSU is big enough that there's almost always a way to fix anything,
and there's even probably already a form made up for the purpose.
Yelling "help, help, I'm being repressed!" around the world is only
going to get more people mad at you. At this point in the dispute,
this will not act in your favor...
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.
Another mistake. However much injustice you may feel was done to you,
as a student (and, I'm sad to say, especially as a freshman), you will
not win a public faceoff with the administration of a state university
unless you have someone like a state senator on your side (and even
then it's not very likely). Even if your arguments would have convinced
people in the privacy of their own offices, conducting the argument in
a worldwide public forum ensured that you wouldn't succeed.
Owing to several less-than-scrupulous people, the discussion
degenerated into a flame war.
If this was at all a surprise, I'd say you haven't been reading Usenet
long enough to be posting to alt.flame or news.anything.
I was called "an ME freshman who thinks he has the world by the
sensitive appendages" by Karl Klienpaste, OSU's resident net.god.
Well, Karl is nothing if not blunt :). However, from what you
yourself have described, I can see how he'd feel that way. It sounds
descriptive, if a little colorful...
That was not exactly the epitome of proper conduct, but because of his
reputation, he was allowed to get away with it.
Well, since he was not involved in the decision in the first place, he
was just as much a spectator as anyone else on the net. Who exactly
do you think "should" have censured him for it? The Ohio
Supercomputer Center? Why should they care? OSU overall? You've
caused them more trouble than he has...
Shortly thereafter, I realized it was a losing battle, packed it in, &
left the debate in news.admin.
Your first good move.
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.
Fair enough, since that's what the account was provided for. The fact
that undergraduates *can* read & send mail & news from engineering and
CIS workstations is a consciously taken risk on the part of the staff
(I know-- I was there during the discussion when CIS first got its
hordes of Suns). Someone who has already acted irresponsibly on the
net makes it an even greater risk.
I didn't, & instead started using bluemoon for mail & news. (No FTP
or telnet, though 8()
Another good move.
OSU's people have harrassed my friends who were using (with my
permission) my account at Denver University.
This seems a little excessive, although I'm tempted to ask what Denver
thinks of you letting random people use your account there.
These people jumped to the conclusion that I was using these
accounts, rather than simply letting others do so.
This does not seem at all unreasonable to me. How should they know
someone else is using your account? It's your account, after all.
You're responsible for it.
If you wish to get Ohio State's perspective on this matter,
you may write to the parties involved on the OSU side:
Once agin, I point out that Karl Kleinpaste, at least, is only a
spectator, albeit one with a very well-earned good reputation.
your case calmly and rationally. I wonder why you didn't try to use
that skill within the university's channels for resolving disputes.
You aren't stupid, and you don't sound malicious, but you certainly
sound like you've excercised poor judgement. It may seem unfair to be
punished for this, but I assure you, it's far better for this to
happen in college than in the "real world(tm)" :).
Most places, being irresponsible doesn't get your account turned off.
It gets you fired.
Amanda Walker
Visix Software Inc.
"I think you should profit from the mistakes of others. You don't live long
enough to make them all yourself." -- Lowell Ferguson
-------------------
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, 11 Jul 1991 18:21:20 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul11.182120.12042@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
A coorespent has sent me email, defending the authority of sys admins
to suspend user accounts pending a hearing if the user accounts
poses a treat to the system.
I agree that a sys admin should have this authority. In fact the Joint
Statement says much the same thing. It says:
"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."
I don't, however, think this principle applies in the Ohio State case.
Steven's expulsion from the computer is not temporary while he awaits
a hearing. It is forever. He has no way to appeal the punishment
because it was inflicted as an administrative action, not as part of
University disipline. Steven's only recourse is to charge the ACS
administrators with official misconduct.
Next month's hearing will decide if Steven should be punished even
*more* with an official warning from the University, or a suspension
or expulsion from the University. It will not address his computer
expulsion.
I think this whole mess could have been avoided if either party had
acted more maturely. Maybe that was impossible. Steven was a freshman
and ACS was new (or at least a rapidly growing) organization. Now
Steven and ACS seem to be in a death grip that could end with Steven's
expulsion from OSU and employment termination for several ACS
administrators.
- 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, 11 Jul 1991 21:32:45 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul11.213245.14980@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.182120.12042@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
I've exchanged email with two people at Ohio State about the affair.
Neither correspondent wishes to post publicly or even anonymously.
One explicitly expressed fear of retaliation by ACS.
Both correspondents tell me that my phrase "ACS was [a] new (or at least a
rapidly growing) organization" is not accurate. It would be better to
say that the focus of ACS has recently changed and that it is now less
mainframe and more network and workstation oriented.
One correspondent tells me that it is the opinion of some people
working for ACS that Steven Brack is not the pure, naive freshman he
makes himself out to be.
The other tells me that ACS has abused other users worse than they are
abusing Steven. The only difference is that, thanks to the network,
Steven is more vocal that past victims.
Note that my correspondents don't contradict each other; they could
both be right.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Subject: smtp mail failed
From: cbmvax!amix!uucp@uunet.UU.NET (UUCP Administrator)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 07:13 EDT
Message-Id: <679144426.AA20126@amix.commodore.com>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2637
Your mail to cbmvax is undeliverable.
---------- diagnosis ----------
<<< 554 sendall: too many hops (17 max)
---------- unsent mail ----------
>From uunet!eff.org!comp-academic-freedom-talk Wed Jul 10 07:13 EDT 1991 remote from amix
id AA05554; Wed, 10 Jul 91 07:23:33 EDT
id AA14843; Wed, 10 Jul 91 02:35:33 EDT
id AA28422; Tue, 9 Jul 91 22:56:43 EDT
From: uunet!eff.org!comp-academic-freedom-talk-request
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 20:55:08 -0400
Message-Id: <9107100055.AA08022@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.14
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 16952
Computers and Academic Freedom (news version)
June 30, 1991
Vol. 1, No. 14
Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your
From kadie Sat Jul 13 17:19:12 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Jul 13 17:18:02 EDT 1991
In this issue:
mac@cis.ksu.edu (M : StonyBrook Sysadmin sucks!
Sanjay Kapur
Subject: StonyBrook Sysadmin sucks!
In Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) of June 1991
(Vol. 1, No. 15) Sanjay said:
>Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 02:25 EDT
>From: Sanjay Kapur
>Subject: Users and Systems staff interaction
>I have been a Systems Administrator now for about seven years.
>I consider users to be the reason I have a job. I do my best to avoid any
>action that might constitute even a minor annoyance to even one user....
And if Sanjay is the "root" with whom I repeatedly TRIED to correspond
for the two weeks during which I was participating in an NSF Workshop
held at Stony Brook recently, he "avoid[s] ... annoyance" by simply
refusing to answer his email!
Details: about 30 "teachers of Computer Science" attended the Workshop,
and we were given accounts on what I presume was an instructional
computer system (my email address ended in "@ic.sunysb.edu"). While
working in an undergraduate terminal room in the CS building, I was
approached by a Stony Brook student asking for help. Basically, all he
wanted to know was how to compile a FORTRAN program and fix his syntax
errors. I quickly learned that the only way provided by the system
was to compile and have the errors scroll by on the terminal screen!
I tried to invoke the "error" procedure which is available in many
unix systems, but it wasn't available (or else wasn't in the PATHs to
which I had access) at Stony Brook.
So after showing the student how to redirect his syntax errors to a
temporary file then then use his editor to edit both the temporary
file and his original source-code file (i.e., a workaround fix), I
sent email to "root" asking about "error".
And received absolutely NO answer.
So I ftp'd "error" from my home unix system and tried to install it
on my Stony Brook account, figuring that I'd eventually give it to
the student and, through the grapevine, to the rest of the students.
But it was missing an "include" header file. I sent email to "root"
asking about the whereabouts of this header file.
And received absolutely NO answer.
So I ftp'd the appropriate file from my home unix system, hoping it
might be enough consistent with the Stony Brook system. It wasn't,
and I gave up.
I DID receive ONE response from "root" when I (earlier) asked him/her
whom I could contact about the miserable physical conditions in the
undergraduate terminal room (the terminal keyboards were on tables
which were about six inches too high for the chairs provided, and
the terminal screens were situated such that looking at them required
one to also look directly at UNshaded/UNblocked windows through which
bright sunlight was reflected from a bright-white concrete wall of an
adjacent building). His/her response was something to the effect of
"Oh, they've been that was maybe ten years, and that room is going to
be remodeled someday anyway, so don't worry about it."
I left Stony Brook majorly annoyed!
Thank Heavens the System Admins here at Kansas State University aren't
like Stony Brook's!
--Myron.
--
# We preserve our freedoms using three boxes: ballot, jury, and cartridge.
# Myron A. Calhoun, Ph.D. E.E.; Associate Professor (913) 539-4448 home
# INTERNET: mac@cis.ksu.edu (129.130.10.2) 532-6350 work, 532-7353 fax
# UUCP: ...rutgers!ksuvax1!harry!mac W0PBV @ K0VAY.KS.USA.NA
-------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1991 10:10 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: StonyBrook Sysadmin sucks!
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>
>In Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) of June 1991
>(Vol. 1, No. 15) Sanjay said:
>
>>Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 02:25 EDT
>>From: Sanjay Kapur
>>Subject: Users and Systems staff interaction
>
>>I have been a Systems Administrator now for about seven years.
>
>>I consider users to be the reason I have a job. I do my best to avoid any
>>action that might constitute even a minor annoyance to even one user....
>
>And if Sanjay is the "root" with whom I repeatedly TRIED to correspond
>for the two weeks during which I was participating in an NSF Workshop
>held at Stony Brook recently, he "avoid[s] ... annoyance" by simply
>refusing to answer his email!
Sorry, but I am SYSTEM (not root) on @cc.sunysb.edu and on @sunysb.edu
and I DO answer my mail.
The root on @ic.sunysb.edu is a completely different person who I see maybe
once a month.
I manage a VAXcluster running VMS where the Fortran compiler is much
friendlier than on any stupid Unix system.
>
>Details: about 30 "teachers of Computer Science" attended the Workshop,
>and we were given accounts on what I presume was an instructional
>computer system (my email address ended in "@ic.sunysb.edu"). While
>working in an undergraduate terminal room in the CS building, I was
>approached by a Stony Brook student asking for help. Basically, all he
>wanted to know was how to compile a FORTRAN program and fix his syntax
>errors. I quickly learned that the only way provided by the system
>was to compile and have the errors scroll by on the terminal screen!
>I tried to invoke the "error" procedure which is available in many
>unix systems, but it wasn't available (or else wasn't in the PATHs to
>which I had access) at Stony Brook.
>
> (text omitted)
>
>I left Stony Brook majorly annoyed!
>
>Thank Heavens the System Admins here at Kansas State University aren't
>like Stony Brook's!
Not everyone is the same and I am extemely annoyed at being lumped together
with someone else.
Please get your facts straight next time.
I demand that you post an apology for your attack on me.
>--Myron.
>--
># We preserve our freedoms using three boxes: ballot, jury, and cartridge.
># Myron A. Calhoun, Ph.D. E.E.; Associate Professor (913) 539-4448 home
># INTERNET: mac@cis.ksu.edu (129.130.10.2) 532-6350 work, 532-7353 fax
># UUCP: ...rutgers!ksuvax1!harry!mac W0PBV @ K0VAY.KS.USA.NA
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
-------------------
Resent-Message-Id: <9107121632.AA02294@eff.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 11:28:03 CDT
Resent-From: "A.J. Wright"
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request%eff.org@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 08:18:07 -0500
Message-Id: <9107121318.AA18248@depot.cis.ksu.edu>
Subject: StonyBrook Sysadmin sucks!
This sort of personal attack has no place on this or any other list. Do not
send tripe to my mailbox again. And such words as "sucks" used in a public
forum and talk of cartridge boxes may sound impressive among third graders
but not here.
A.J. Wright Dept of Anesthesiology Univ of Alabama@Birmingham
---------------------------Original message----------------------------
In Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) of June 1991
(Vol. 1, No. 15) Sanjay said:
>Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 02:25 EDT
>From: Sanjay Kapur
>Subject: Users and Systems staff interaction
>I have been a Systems Administrator now for about seven years.
>I consider users to be the reason I have a job. I do my best to avoid any
>action that might constitute even a minor annoyance to even one user....
And if Sanjay is the "root" with whom I repeatedly TRIED to correspond
for the two weeks during which I was participating in an NSF Workshop
held at Stony Brook recently, he "avoid[s] ... annoyance" by simply
refusing to answer his email!
Details: about 30 "teachers of Computer Science" attended the Workshop,
and we were given accounts on what I presume was an instructional
computer system (my email address ended in "@ic.sunysb.edu"). While
working in an undergraduate terminal room in the CS building, I was
approached by a Stony Brook student asking for help. Basically, all he
wanted to know was how to compile a FORTRAN program and fix his syntax
errors. I quickly learned that the only way provided by the system
was to compile and have the errors scroll by on the terminal screen!
I tried to invoke the "error" procedure which is available in many
unix systems, but it wasn't available (or else wasn't in the PATHs to
which I had access) at Stony Brook.
So after showing the student how to redirect his syntax errors to a
temporary file then then use his editor to edit both the temporary
file and his original source-code file (i.e., a workaround fix), I
sent email to "root" asking about "error".
And received absolutely NO answer.
So I ftp'd "error" from my home unix system and tried to install it
on my Stony Brook account, figuring that I'd eventually give it to
the student and, through the grapevine, to the rest of the students.
But it was missing an "include" header file. I sent email to "root"
asking about the whereabouts of this header file.
And received absolutely NO answer.
So I ftp'd the appropriate file from my home unix system, hoping it
might be enough consistent with the Stony Brook system. It wasn't,
and I gave up.
I DID receive ONE response from "root" when I (earlier) asked him/her
whom I could contact about the miserable physical conditions in the
undergraduate terminal room (the terminal keyboards were on tables
which were about six inches too high for the chairs provided, and
the terminal screens were situated such that looking at them required
one to also look directly at UNshaded/UNblocked windows through which
bright sunlight was reflected from a bright-white concrete wall of an
adjacent building). His/her response was something to the effect of
"Oh, they've been that was maybe ten years, and that room is going to
be remodeled someday anyway, so don't worry about it."
I left Stony Brook majorly annoyed!
Thank Heavens the System Admins here at Kansas State University aren't
like Stony Brook's!
--Myron.
--
# We preserve our freedoms using three boxes: ballot, jury, and cartridge.
# Myron A. Calhoun, Ph.D. E.E.; Associate Professor (913) 539-4448 home
# INTERNET: mac@cis.ksu.edu (129.130.10.2) 532-6350 work, 532-7353 fax
# UUCP: ...rutgers!ksuvax1!harry!mac W0PBV @ K0VAY.KS.USA.NA
-------------------
From: Wes Morgan
Subject: Hyperbole from the EFF (or, at least, from Carl)
Message-Id: <9107122042.aa06043@s.s.ms.uky.edu>
NOTE: This posting is submitted publicly in answer to several pieces
of electronic mail recently received here, and to "head off" future
mail on this subject.
In the June edition of the Computer and Academic Freedom news digest,
distributed by EFF, you'll find a posting by me. I've appended that
posting to the end of this message for your perusal.
In the introduction to the digest, Carl wrote:
>
>[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of June
>
>This issues starts with reports of user abuse at Ohio State and in
>industry and a report of sys admin abuse at the University of
>Kentucky.
If you read the posting, you won't find *any* allegations of any
form of "sys admin abuse". I never claimed that I was being abused,
nor did I suggest that the incidents mentioned were anything more
than examples of normal situations which sysadmins must face.
I didn't even *use* the word "abuse" in my posting.
Apparently, Carl decided, *on his own*, that I was claiming some
type of abuse; in fact, he decided to include it in the digest
under that heading. He totally ignored the question behind the
posting; in fact, that question is not answered or rebutted in
the remainder of the digest.
After careful thought, I can only find four possible explanations
for this misrepresentation of my posting:
1) Carl completely misunderstood the nature of my posting.
I've exchanged a significant amount of email with Carl,
and I find this hard to believe.
2) Carl has an ax to grind with me. Although I have been
rather voiciferous in my defense of system administrators,
I don't think that Carl is the type to resort to such
tactics.
3) Carl decided that the leadin message for the digest was
lacking in "oomph", and decided to take the sensationalist
route. I must admit that "sysadmin abuse" is an eye-catching
term; as soon as I saw it, I searched for the article, wondering
who at UKentucky was suffering. Imagine my surprise.
4) Carl decided that, to include my posting under an EFF
masthead, some form of "rights" or "abuse" topic was
necessary.
I don't think that items #1 and #2 are possible in this case; that leaves
only #3 and #4 for consideration. If either is the true reason behind
this action, it's a sad comment on both the EFF and Carl's editing.
Considering the subject of this newsgroup/digest, it's a shame that
my words were twisted in such a manner.
As a result of this digest, I've already received several pieces of
electronic mail which cast stones at my professional integrity. I
have also received some mail asking why this posting was classified
as "sysadmin abuse", and if I really disliked users to that extent.
As far as I know, no one in my "chain of command" is a subscriber
to this newsgroup or the digest; if they are, I imagine that I may
have some explaining to do. I don't relish that thought.
Again, I don't dislike users (or their needs and problems), nor do
I feel that I am being "abused"; it's all part of the territory.
I would greatly appreciate a retraction in the next issue of the
digest, as well as in the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.
Best,
Wes Morgan
------------article appended from caf-digest-------------
>Date: 18 Jun 91 21:47:26 GMT
>Message-Id: <1991Jun18.214726.15504@ms.uky.edu>
>Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
>From: cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!morgan@uunet.uu.net
>Subject: Have you walked the proverbial mile?
>
>
>You know, I've been reading this discussion group since its inception,
>and a question has occured to me.
>
>Large amounts of animal dung have been heaped upon system administrators
>in these discussions. How many of you are, or have been, system admini-
>strators in any capacity?
>
>Most system administrators have been on the other side of this fence;
>we were users before we were administrators. Can any of the partici-
>pants in these discussions make the opposite claim? Unless you've
>been an administrator (a PC BBS, network, mail admin, news admin,
>or whatever), how can you "put horns" on all of us?
>
>I think that users would find it educational to spend a few days
>"hanging around" with the administrators. You could watch us
>cringe when some user starts 8 background jobs, bringing the sys-
>tem to a crawl while 20 other users are currently active. You could
>hear us groan as someone decides to print 10 copies of their thesis
>instead of spending a few dollars at the copy shop. You could listen
>in as users walk in and say "You *have* to give me 15 Mb of disk space."
>You could hear us delicately handle an irate user who demands that we
>purchase documentation in their native language because "the English
>ones are too hard to understand." You could learn as we explain
>to a user that he shouldn't give his password out to all his friends.
>
>None of the scenarios in the previous paragraph are fictitious; they
>have all happened *to me* in the last year, some of them several times.
>
>If you spent some time with a system administrator, you'd learn that
>we're usually too busy to waste time persecuting individual users. It
>takes a certain skill to juggle the needs of thousands of users. While
>you may have had problems with one or two of us, don't start issuing
>blanket condemnations until you've walked that mile in our shoes.
>
>Wes
--------------end appendage from caf-digest-------------------
--
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
-------------------
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, 12 Jul 1991 22:02:43 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul12.220243.6109@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <9107122042.aa06043@s.s.ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Hyperbole from Carl (not from the EFF)
Let me start with a disclaimer: The comp-academic-freedom-talk and
-batch mailing lists and the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroups are
unedited, free forums.
The comp-academic-freedom-news mailing list and the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news newsgroup (aka CAF-news) are mine, in the
the sense that I am the sole moderator/editor. They are not EFF
publications; EFF has no editorial control over them. If, for some
reason, I was kicked off the EFF computer, I would produce CAF-news
from somewhere else. [I hope my disclaimer doesn't sound too
defensive.]
If any mistakes have been made, I am solely responsible. (I will add
an explicit disclaimer to that effect to the future editions of
CAF-news.)
morgan@ms.UKy.EDU (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>In the introduction to the digest, Carl wrote:
>>
>>[SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of June
>>
>>This issues starts with reports of user abuse at Ohio State and in
>>industry and a report of sys admin abuse at the University of
>>Kentucky.
>If you read the posting, you won't find *any* allegations of any
>form of "sys admin abuse". I never claimed that I was being abused,
>nor did I suggest that the incidents mentioned were anything more
>than examples of normal situations which sysadmins must face.
>I didn't even *use* the word "abuse" in my posting.
[...]
>After careful thought, I can only find four possible explanations
>for this misrepresentation of my posting:
[...]
> 3) Carl decided that the leadin message for the digest was
> lacking in "oomph", and decided to take the sensationalist
> route. I must admit that "sysadmin abuse" is an eye-catching
> term; as soon as I saw it, I searched for the article, wondering
> who at UKentucky was suffering. Imagine my surprise.
I would say that this is closest to the truth. I meant to indicate
that your article talks about the pressures on sys admins caused in
part by users. It appears that my hyperbole was very ineffective. I can
say categorically, that I have no reason to believe that Mr. Morgan has
ever been abused (in any literal sense) by his users. I apologize for
any grief my poorly chosen phrase has caused.
>I would greatly appreciate a retraction in the next issue of the
>digest, as well as in the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.
I hope you accept this apology and retraction. I'll repeat it
in the next CAF-news.
- 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, 12 Jul 1991 22:27:03 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul12.222703.6825@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.182120.12042@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.213245.14980@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
[I'm posting this anonymously for a person at Ohio State.- Carl]
Carl, I'm very uneasy about you defending Steven Brack, but certainly
don't want to get into the public debate about it. I just wanted to
let you know that, as an EFF supporter, I worry about "tainting" the EFF
with users who refuse any responsibility for their actions. As much as I
agree that people have a right to due process in (non-emergency) academic
computer situations, and then the right to appeal to the usual campus
judiciary, I don't think he is a good sample case. I watched the earlier
flames on news.admin, and want to add a few details then-generally-accepted
to your summary of events. My overall impression is that Mr. Brack is one
of those people who *will* *not* learn, no matter how many times something
is explained to him or he is warned that something is undesirable -- he is
not a case of having an account revoked out of the blue for no known (to
him) reason.
In article <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org> you write:
>Remember how this all started. Mr. Brack reformatted the system manual
>pages on an HP workstation.
>
>Academic Computer Services's (ACS) viewpoint: Mr. Brack vandalized the
>system.
>
>Brack's viewpoint: It was an accident; I assumed it would only
>reformat only my personal manual pages. If reformatting is such a
>terrible thing to do, why are the file permissions set so that anyone
>can do it?
I agree with this assessment. My sympathies tilt, however, when *after*
things had been explained to him, Mr. Brack still maintained that he had
a perfect right to do it. Like the later cases, he never admitted doing
anything wrong, even by accident. (I suspect even making this whole
series of mistakes, individually followed by listening and understanding
why they were mistakes, and apologizing, would have allowed him to keep
his accounts. Refusing to listen and claiming persecution, though...)
>In the next event, Mr. Brack got into a heated argument in alt.flame.
>He replied to someone else's note with the message "fuck you". (This
>is exactly the kind of message for which alt.flame was designed.) The
>note that Mr. Brack replied was set so that by default all replies
>would go to not only alt.flame but also rec.aquaria. Thus, Mr. Brack
>posted the message "fuck you" to the aquarium newsgroup.
>
>ACS's viewpoint: Mr. Brack is trying to make Ohio State look bad by
>posting rude messages to the world.
>
>Brack's viewpoint: I was tricked into posting to rec.aquaria. I didn't
>even know that replies could be directed to other groups.
Again, correct. Note, however, that it was not a simple "fuck you" that
could be dashed off in five seconds; it was a bannered one that took
longer to produce and introduce into the news article (and therefore not
the mark of a total computer illiterate) and also took many more bytes
and was harder to read than the equivalent simple comment.
Once again, making the mistake is quite forgivable. Claiming he had no
way of knowing it was happening (that his newsreader didn't show the
Newsgroups: line, which was first denied for most Ohio State systems
and then for his system in specific after he said his wasn't like
all the others) and then claiming it wasn't his responsibility to check
it anyway is much harder to forgive. I think, though, that his belief
about his newsreader was still a mistake and not a deliberate lie.
Mr. Brack's most serious action (as seen from the rest of the net), in
my opinion, is not even on your list. He posted [possibly libelious
accusations against Karl Kleinpaste.] [[I've deleted the specific
accusations since I don't want to repeat what might be libel. - Carl]]
[...] Barring authentication problems and worrying about
whether this was libel or slander, this posting was likely actionable.
(The charges were categorically denied by Karl and half a dozen other
admins in Ohio; Mr. Brack could produce no evidence, or even examples,
when challenged, but repeated his accusations of crimes and "mere" gross
violations of netiquette several times.) Given that I am *quite* sure
that Karl, with his record of donating time and energy to Ohio
connectivity and Internet archives, is innocent of the charges, I can't
bring myself to believe any other part of Mr. Brack's story without
supporting evidence (which I haven't seen).
I do agree that many of the charges on your list were inconsequential.
But it seems to be the way of all indictments to list everything possible,
and I don't see anything unusual there.
>I would hope that the charges against Mr. Brack would be dropped and
>that his computer expulsion would be ended. In the future, I hope that
>ACS will handle problems less hystically and more professionally by:
>
>1) working with the user community to create and implement a good
>written policy
A good idea in general, but I'm not really sure there is such a thing.
Everything I've seen either relies on unwritten rules, rules out lots of
quite acceptable things, or doesn't rule out unacceptable things. The
usual problems with physical property law not extending well to computers,
leading to illegally read digital watches and such.
>2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem
Mr. Brack managed not to comprehend a number of polite explanations when
things first broke in news.admin. I see no reason to believe he would do
any better with explanations in person.
>3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
Free speech does not imply the right to repeatedly scream your views in
the midst of unrelated classes. I find Mr. Brack's views immature and
whiny, as you suggested, but I object far more to their presentation than
their content. (Verbal speech is also checked by slander laws...)
>4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when
>neccessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing.
Just as people can be arrested and jailed pending trial (for sufficiently
serious offenses), it should be possible to revoke accounts (for sufficiently
serious offenses) pending hearings. Due process has to exist, and should
come first when possible. Your position, though, is more like claiming
the police should always leave dangerous weapons in the hands of drunks
waving them around until after a trial. I prefer confiscating the weapons
[and only the weapons -- not all other property in reach], charging the
people, having a [fair] trial [in a reasonable length of time], and then
possibly (depending on outcome) giving them back. Just because the
bracketed things don't always happen isn't a reason to outlaw confiscation.
There should be clear rules on what alleged offenses can cause the account
to be suspended during the proces, though.
>What do you think?
See above. :-)
-------
[Here is more information about the reference to illegal digital
watches - Carl]
(Um, a couple years ago a computer crime bill was introduced in Congress
which managed to define things such that reading the time off someone
else's digital watch was a misdemeanor and setting the time on their
watch a felony. Accessing and changing electronically stored information
without authorization, or something along those lines. Fortunately the
bill died before becoming 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: Fri, 12 Jul 1991 22:33:14 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul12.223314.7174@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References <1991Jul11.182120.12042@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.213245.14980@eff.org>, <1991Jul12.222703.6825@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul12.222703.6825@eff.org> an anonymous poster writes:
>
>Carl, I'm very uneasy about you defending Steven Brack, but certainly
>don't want to get into the public debate about it. I just wanted to
>let you know that, as an EFF supporter, I worry about "tainting" the EFF
>with users who refuse any responsibility for their actions.
As far as I know, EFF has no direct relationship to Steven Brack.
Alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and comp.admin.policy are unmoderated
open forums. I really do speak only for myself.
- 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: 13 Jul 91 00:00:44 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Texas A&M University
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!cnh5730@world.std.com
References: , <9107111757.AA09780@visix.com>u
Subject: Re: Adventures at Ohio State
In article <9107111757.AA09780@visix.com> amanda@visix.COM (Amanda
Walker) writes more than a few comments to make about the continuing
saga of "Students vs.OSU:"
>>As a disclaimer, I'll point out that I was an OSU student from
1984-1988, and was employed by the CIS department for most of that
time,
Take note of the perspective from which the following comments arrive,
i.e. from the admins and their apologists.
[... quixotic ramblings deleted ..]
>> Sometimes things that look like malice are simply inexperience.
not if it involves a power-trip being laid-down by a sys-admin bully.
[... text deleted ...] here we get into a lecture about mistakes made
and things done right. Note how the mistakes involve expressions of
freedom of speech and the things done right involve knuckling-under to
the neo-totalitarian threats to the exercise of freedom of speech.
>> But, I got into trouble on news. [...] Well, I was having an
argument
with a man in alt.flame.
>That, I'd say, was part of your second mistake :).
How, Ms Walker, could involving oneself in a flame war on alt.flame be
a mistake? Apparently, it's not enough that those irrascible obnoxious
users go off to a USENET newsgroup dedicated to flames and engage in
an argument. It would seem clear that the only thing that can satisfy
the guardians of the speech of others is to have them not exercise
that speech at all.
>> My followup contained some "not so polite" language, & OSU's
systems people received e-mail about my crossposted article.
>And this was the rest of your second mistake. As you have noticed,
your actions reflect on the people who run the machine you are using,
and on the university. Even though you may put disclaimers in your
signature, in the eyes of the rest of the world, the university is
vouching for your behavior.
Poppy cock. This is a classic canard of the worst sort, and it was
practised against Lenny Bruce, who was hounded to death by the
guardians of the State. It's no different now. In the '30's, the
power-medium was the book. In Germany, students and professors
actually burned books in support of the Nazis. In the '90's the
power-medium is the TV. In Central Texas, the local TV cable company
pulled MTV from their cable package because in their opinion, the
content was "unsuitable for our youth." In the future, the
power-medium will be the computer. And those who would ensure that
nothing controversial go across their precious ethernet will waste no
time at following in the footsteps of the censors who preceed them.
And isn't it interesting how Ms Walker now speaks for "the eyes of the
world." Ms Walker, you don't speak for my eyes, I can assure you. I am
capable of reading a disclaimer, and I am certainly capable of
deciding whether it is appropriate for me to read or not read a USENET
article in which strong language is used. Personally, I don't feel a
justification of the virus of sys-admin censorship reflects on
someone's employer, and I would expect the same respect from others.
This "what you say reflects on me" justification for shutting-up
someone is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. If this is to hold as a guideline on
freedom of speech in our culture, then any
employer/university/apartment-owner can control the speech of others.
Please read the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. You will not
find a qualification such that "freedom of speech will not be abridged
unless I say it reflects on me."
>> I posted an article in news.admin, from another InterNet account
I had at Ohio State, detailing what had happened, & asking their
opinions.
>This was your third mistake. Even if you didn't intend it that way,
it looks like an attempt to intimidate the HPUXA staff into changing
their decision. This is a guaranteed way to screw yourself over:
taking a private complaint to a public forum. OSU has plenty of ways
to resolve disputes--if going up the chain within the IRCC didn't
work, there's always your faculty advisor or the ombudsman's office.
OSU is big enough that there's almost always a way to fix anything,
and there's even probably already a form made up for the purpose.
Yelling "help, help, I'm being repressed!" around the world is only
going to get more people mad at you. At this point in the dispute,
this will not act in your favor...
Hmm. seems to be a thread here. Exercise your freedom of speech, make
a mistake. I would suggest that what happened is that the sys-admins,
perhaps for the first time, found their absolute power questioned. And
in public, too. Grab the reins here, folks. What you have here are a
cluster of computer programmer/managers with a "castle-defender"
mentality. The users are a great horde of unwashed barbarians who want
to come play with their toys and break them, no less. This begs the
question, how did these folks ever get the idea that the systems they
maintain belong to them? Who do they think owns the large land-grant
or public universities, and thereby the computer systems in them? As
for going up the chain of protest, did the sys-admins describe to the
freshman all his options in trying to redress his grievance against
them? I would bet not. I would be they gleefully pulled the plug,
muttering something like "Of all the nerve" and "This'll show him."
>> 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.
>Another mistake. However much injustice you may feel was done to
you,
as a student (and, I'm sad to say, especially as a freshman), you will
not win a public faceoff with the administration of a state university
unless you have someone like a state senator on your side (and even
then it's not very likely). Even if your arguments would have
convinced
people in the privacy of their own offices, conducting the argument in
a worldwide public forum ensured that you wouldn't succeed.
Sigh, and yet again, speak and it's a mistake. But now look,
apparently, if you have someone poweful on your side, you can now
protect yourself. If you are an average citizen with no connections,
you're nobody, and that means that you're fresh road-kill for some
power-crazed sys-admin that hasn't had their bully-fix recently.
>> Owing to several less-than-scrupulous people, the discussion
degenerated into a flame war.
>If this was at all a surprise, I'd say you haven't been reading
Usenet
long enough to be posting to alt.flame or news.anything.
My, deciding when others should post are we?
>> I was called "an ME freshman who thinks he has the world by the
sensitive appendages" by Karl Klienpaste, OSU's resident net.god.
>Well, Karl is nothing if not blunt :). However, from what you
yourself have described, I can see how he'd feel that way. It sounds
descriptive, if a little colorful...
Let's look at the insult. First of all, the person the sys-admin
attacked picked the wrong major. Ooops, his mistake. In the class
society ruled by compuGeeks, I guess the ME's lose, huh. And a
freshman. Certainly unworthy of any respect. Imagine here comes this
lesser of mortals (lesser than Mr Klienpaste, anyway) with his free
speech and everything. How troubling. Well, we can't have that, can
we. Pull the account, shut up the little beggar.
>> That was not exactly the epitome of proper conduct, but because
of his
reputation, he was allowed to get away with it.
>Well, since he was not involved in the decision in the first place,
he
was just as much a spectator as anyone else on the net. Who exactly
do you think "should" have censured him for it? The Ohio
Supercomputer Center? Why should they care? OSU overall? You've
caused them more trouble than he has...
I'd say OSU should have fired him on the spot. After all, where was Mr
Klienpaste's disclaimer? Not present, you say. Of course not. Because
unlike the lowly freshman arguing in alt.flame under a disclaimer, Mr
Klienpaste acted/spoke as a University employee. Now, what is said
does indeed reflect upon OSU. Directly. But wait, where is the roar of
disapproval and reaction? Sounds pretty quiet out there to me. Can you
say "hypocrisy?"
>> Shortly thereafter, I realized it was a losing battle, packed it
in, &
left the debate in news.admin.
>Your first good move.
Of course. knuckle under to the sys-admin bullies, and you're now
moving good.
>> 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.
>Fair enough, since that's what the account was provided for. The
fact
that undergraduates *can* read & send mail & news from engineering and
CIS workstations is a consciously taken risk on the part of the staff
(I know-- I was there during the discussion when CIS first got its
hordes of Suns). Someone who has already acted irresponsibly on the
net makes it an even greater risk.
Bull. Freedom of speech does not mean shackled with provisos and
conditions such as these. If these "staff-oids" want to run a computer
system as though they are gods, they should go out and buy their own
systems and run them. The student was certainly not yelling fire in a
theatre nor was he engaging in libel or slander nor was he speaking
for anyone but himself. Under these conditions, it is unacceptable
that a bunch of propeller-headed bullies should be imposing conditions
on his speech.
And just what risk are we talking about here? An argument in
alt.flame? Come on, Ms Walker, I know you were "part of the staff,"
but don't you think it's time to "break on through to the other side,"
to quote Jim Morrison.
[... assorted "shut up == good moves" deleted ...]
>> If you wish to get Ohio State's perspective on this matter,
you may write to the parties involved on the OSU side:
>Once agin, I point out that Karl Kleinpaste, at least, is only a
spectator, albeit one with a very well-earned good reputation.
Mr Klienpaste will apparently have to live the rest of his life with
the certain knowledge that he at least tacitly supported the bullying
of an "ME freshman" due to that persons exercise of his freedom of
speech. I hardly think of this as a way to maintain a well-earned good
reputation.
>From your message, it is obvious that you write well, and can present
your case calmly and rationally. I wonder why you didn't try to use
that skill within the university's channels for resolving disputes.
You aren't stupid, and you don't sound malicious, but you certainly
sound like you've excercised poor judgement. It may seem unfair to be
punished for this, but I assure you, it's far better for this to
happen in college than in the "real world(tm)" :).
>Most places, being irresponsible doesn't get your account turned off.
It gets you fired.
Sigh. The "real world" is such a sterling example of justice and
liberty. One gets to look forward to going to work on computer systems
maintained by sys-admins with even more unchecked power. How lucky to
find out in advance that our computer technology is locked in the
death-grip of the dreaded Dark-Force compuSysAdmin. One suspects this
is to give you a chance to whimper and moan a bit before you enter the
"real world" where you'll then be trained to shup-up and kow-tow to
the sys-admins whenever they need a bully-fix. Please avoid poor
judgement in the future. Please don't speak.
-------------------
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: 13 Jul 91 01:39:01 GMT
Message-Id: <16945@life.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: The Internet
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu!helen@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>.edu
Subject: Re: Ohio State
% cat my_background
Former undergrad and frequent user of an academic campus network. (4+ years)
Former academic computer center consultant/programmer. (2+ years)
Former corporate UNIX network sysadmin. (4 years)
Current grad student and frequent user of an academic campus network.
(ie, someone who *has been* a sysadmin, but is currently a user)
%
Sanjay Kapur and William Murray summarized the sysadmin vs. users conflict in
long-ago messages:
SK> My experience has taught me that ALL problems of abuse etc. come
SK> about due to lack of communications between the Systems staff and the
SK> users. [...]
WM> The student knows that systems are robust. [...]
WM> The system administrator knows that systems are fragile. [...]
Hmmm.... OK, good.... We seem to have defined a general class of problem
which arises due to misunderstandings between users and administrators,
due to environmental, educational and perhaps other differences between
the two sets of people. Acknowledging the difference in perspective is a
good first step. Now, where to from here?
Let's pick a specific situation. Let's choose Brack (Russotto would be
another, perhaps). As Kadie states in a message from July 11:
CK> The Ohio State affair could be a case study in what happens when
CK> communications breaks down and all actions are ascribed to malice.
Continuing in <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org> Kadie analyzes the situation
from that perspective and makes some interesting points. He goes on to
discuss nine charges/complaints regarding Mr. Brack's alleged actions,
presenting explanations/clarifications of those statements. I didn't see
the original message which apparently listed the complaints against Mr.
Brack, but one of them was:
??> 3) being expelled by ACS from all University networks
Kadie's comment on this was:
CK> This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part. If ACS expelled Mr. Brack
CK> without due process, they have committed an offense.
I could not agree more! Here at Virginia Commonwealth University, the
"Computer Ethics Policy" is considered a separate document from the
"University Rules and Procedures Policy" which regulates general VCU
community member conduct. Both of those are in turn considered separate
from the "Academic Integrity Policy" which regulates student conduct
with respect to academic coursework. Guess which of the three DOES NOT
specifically mention "due process" as being required in the application
of the policy? Guess what that means for students and staff accused of
violating it? Additionally it is common opinion here on the part of
Faculty and high level Administration that sysadmins are effectively
exempt from compliance with the Computer Ethics Policy because most of
it is defined by what the sysadmins themselves consider "appropriate"
use of VCU "computing resources" on a case by case basis (thus, when
accounts are turned off wrongfully, etc., sysadmins cannot even be held
liable for a denial of service). I am just curious if the bureaucratic
maze of policies at Ohio State (an even larger university than VCU) has
similar loopholes. Anyone care to comment?
Noting that "this whole affair has more to do with poor communications
than with computer vandalism," Carl Kadie recommends:
CK> I would hope that the charges against Mr. Brack would be dropped and
CK> that his computer expulsion would be ended. In the future, I hope that
CK> ACS will handle problems less hystically [sic] and more professionally by:
CK>
CK> 1) working with the user community to create and implement a good
CK> written policy
CK>
CK> 2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem
CK>
CK> 3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
CK>
CK> 4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when
CK> neccessary) [sic] users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing.
Except for #1 (which I think is an admirable but unachievable goal), it
sounds great from the user's perspective. It also sounds non-expedient
from a system administrator's perspective. Not all system administrators
are used to taking the time to do this. It will be seen as increasing
their workload. "We" were busy enough doing support. We wouldn't want
to spend time listening to users explain why they did things whose end
result created more work for us; we'd just want to stop those things
from happening again. (note: addressing ONLY the time-constraint
factor, not the power-trip factor which seems sometimes to come into
play.) Another area of concern is the relationship between the system
admins and the user community. System administrators don't want to be
seen as tolerating too much, lest users get the idea that they can do
ANYTHING without fear of reprisal. At the same time, users don't want
to be blasted for doing something they didn't know was against rules.
It seems to me that from the pragmatic time-constraint perspective,
the key to making this sound like a good idea to the sysadmins who now
prefer harsher action is to PROVE it results in a time savings FOR THEM.
I believe it would, but don't know how to prove it. Ideas, anyone?
Regarding keeping things from becoming a free-for-all, I think the key
is simple communication -- and I don't mean a list of specific "Thou Shalt
Not's" posted in the computer room. Computer use policies will be vague,
and appropriateness of specific actions WILL be up to interpretation. As
computer people, we know the value of applying "heuristics". Presumably
the "algorithm" of determining what is and is not acceptable use of a
computer includes not just the initial "black and white" knowledge (The
Policy, known specific rules like "students are not permitted to give
out their passwords to other students"), but also a bit of information
gained by observation and experience which can be used as a guide in the
interpretation of basic policy guidelines. From both the system admin's
perspective and the user's perspective, this would seem to include
information about the environment, the expectations of the people in it,
and the characteristics of people in it, etc. The better the heuristics,
the better each person's interpretation of the policy is likely to be,
and the less chance of misunderstandings occurring. Now, how to develop
that background knowledge? Communication is one way, though I still don't
think the system administrator is going to feel it is worth the time.
And unfortunately, experience is another way. Yes, this implies that
some small mistakes probably will be made initially -- by both users and
system administrators -- and that tolerance of them is very important.
But it also implies that there are learning and growth processes, and
provides for taking them into account. This would surely result in a
more positive, cooperative environment which encourages constructive
problem resolution as opposed to attempting to beat problems to death
with policies. Seems like an "everyone wins" situation to me...
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Disclaimer: just a VCU grad student in no
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | way speaking for the 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: 13 Jul 91 08:06:53 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul13.080653.2300@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.
From: ogicse!orstcs!prism!mickelp@decwrl.dec.com
References: , <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org>rstcs
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[This was originally posted to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk - Carl]
>
>Last quarter Steven Brack, a student at Ohio State, was indefinitely
>expelled from Ohio State's Academic Computing Services (ACS)
>computers. Next month he is scheduled for his first hearing before
>the Judiciary Committee. The original charges were very vague (for
>example, he was accused of violating "miscellaneous rules"). At Mr.
>Brack's request, he was recently given a list of specific charges.
>
>Mr. Brack is accused of (this list is based on my notes from a
>telephone conversation; any mistakes are mine):
>
>1) typing the command "shutdown" on a Unix computer
Did he do this as a superuser, or from his own account. Intuitively, it
would seem like one should not be able to do this w/o root privs, and have
it work anyway.
>2) posting obscenities (i.e. the phrase "fuck you") to national
>builtin boards (i.e. the alt.flame and rec.aquaria newsgroups)
For groups like alt.flame, this is a common ocurrance (the reason why I
unscribed to that group).
>3) being expelled by ACS from all University networks
What were the orginial grounds for the expulsion???
>4) continuing his behavior on a student account on the engineering computer
>
>5) The free print job of another student's account was charged to Mr.
>Brack's social security number
Is this against *written* policy???
>6) Another student's account at Ohio State was used to access Mr.
>Brack's public account at the University of Denver.
Was there *expressed* permission from Mr. Brack that that person could
access his account??? Is it against *written* policy???
>7a) keeping nonacademic files on the Mac server
Is there a *written* policy that is given to the students that states that
this is against policy???
(Here one can store personal files on the lab server so long as it is put
in a particular place, and this is written policy.)
>b) used multiple (i.e. two) Macs at the same time
Again, the same question as 7A
>
>8) Stored 24 copies of a program, maliciously
As for #copies, so??? As for maliciously, well what was the criteria used
to define "maliciously"???
(In some cases, I store 5 copies of a program, in case I accidently the one
I'm working on. I agree that storing 24 copies is wasteful of resources, but
it's the user's disk space, isn't it [unless by doing so they exceed their
disk limit. Then action is justified])
>9) [same as #6?] Used an ACS computer, on which he did not have an
>account, to access his account at the University of Denver.
>
>- Carl
>
>p.s. A collection of caf-talk notes relating to Steven Brack and
>Ohio State are available via anonymous ftp from eff.org as file
>academic/ohio-state.
>--
>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.
The moral of the story is that if these actions were prohibited by policies
that were stated clearly to the user when he signed up for the account, then
maybe the expulsion is justified. If not, then these actions, IMNSHO, are
a crock [to put it politely].
Basing a conclusion on this article, I'd say that it's shaky *at best*.
Paul M. Mickel mickelp@prism.cs.orst.edu
Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331
#include
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where there's life and food, there is hope."
- own saying
-------------------
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: 13 Jul 91 08:28:54 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul13.082854.3398@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.
From: ogicse!orstcs!prism!mickelp@decwrl.dec.com
References <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>, <16945@life.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <16945@life.ai.mit.edu> helen@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Helen O'Boyle) writes:
>% cat my_background
>Former undergrad and frequent user of an academic campus network. (4+ years)
>Former academic computer center consultant/programmer. (2+ years)
>Former corporate UNIX network sysadmin. (4 years)
>Current grad student and frequent user of an academic campus network.
>(ie, someone who *has been* a sysadmin, but is currently a user)
>%
[lots deleted for brevity]
>
>Except for #1 (which I think is an admirable but unachievable goal), it
>sounds great from the user's perspective. It also sounds non-expedient
>from a system administrator's perspective. Not all system administrators
>are used to taking the time to do this. It will be seen as increasing
>their workload. "We" were busy enough doing support. We wouldn't want
>to spend time listening to users explain why they did things whose end
>result created more work for us; we'd just want to stop those things
>from happening again. (note: addressing ONLY the time-constraint
>factor, not the power-trip factor which seems sometimes to come into
>play.) Another area of concern is the relationship between the system
>admins and the user community. System administrators don't want to be
>seen as tolerating too much, lest users get the idea that they can do
>ANYTHING without fear of reprisal. At the same time, users don't want
>to be blasted for doing something they didn't know was against rules.
My question here is, in a sense, which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
In this case, you cannot have a system that is used, yet you need people
knowledgeable in the system to handle admin problems. It seems to me that
the user must be given more consideration that you imply here, since w/o
the user, you have no system to admin. And the user who is unhappy w/ the
service is likely to take their work elsewhere, if possible.
[more deleted for brevity]
>with policies. Seems like an "everyone wins" situation to me...
With the rest of your points, I agree.
>--
>Helen C. O'Boyle | Disclaimer: just a VCU grad student in no
>isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | way speaking for the University
Paul M. Mickel mickelp@prism.cs.orst.edu
Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331
#include
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Where there's life and food, there is hope."
- own saying
-------------------
Message-Id: <9107131220.AA18703@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 08:04:47 EDT
From: Charles Bowman
Subject: Stony Brook Sysadmin
Since the system at Stony Brook that Myron A. Calhoun has so maligned falls
within my responsibility, I will respond. Sanjay Kapur is not the sysamin
of this system. Sanjay is a dedicated, hard working, caring, staff member
here and should not be the object of your attack. The sysadmin of this
system is equally as dedicated, hard working and caring. We have 1.5 sysadmins
for this system that handles 2400 users. During your workshop the 1 out of
the 1.5 was on his first vacation in two years. The .5 had not only this
system to handle but others in other departments. In addition this was over
the Fourth of July holiday. The first job of a sysadmin is to keep the system
running. Programming assistance is supplied by student programming assistants.
By the way, we have recently had about a 30% cut in our student assistant
budget. During the summer we purposely cut down on these assistants so that
we can have as many as possible during the school year. In the fall the 1.5
sysadmins will go down to 1. due more budget cuts.
I am very proud of the faculty, staff, and students at Stony Brook. I think
what we have done with the resources we have is impressive. I quess we can't
please everyone. If you think this is a heartless attitude let me give you
a little more background. When I was given responsibility for this area I
began to have regular meetings with the users of this system (about 98%
undergraduate students). We outlined the priority of things that were needed.
I have just finished work on pruchase requisitions that will provide a
considerable upgrade to this system. Tables and chairs were real low on this
list. We all agreed that increased performance and disk capacity were of
highest priority. Students, staff and faculty worked together to make the
administration aware of these requirements. And successfully (I hope)
convinced administrators to allocate money at a time when all budgets are
being reduced on all the SUNY campuses.
As far as "error", as I understand it. It is not part of an HP-UX system and
cannot be installed. During our regular terms, items like this might be ported
to our system and stored in a shareware area that is maintained by students.
Also, during regular terms, there are other avenues for assistance, TAs,
faculty, student assistants, etc. Since we do meet with uses on a regular
basis (during the school term) I feel most users of the system know where
and how to voice their concerns.
I am sorry you had a bad experience at Stony Brook, but you were really off
base jumping on Sanjay. Since this is not the purpose of this list, please
E-mail me directly if you have anymore comments or suggestions for improvements
in our systems.
-=CB=-
-------------------
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: 13 Jul 91 15:15:08 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul13.141842.15316@oar.net>
Organization: Viento Gigabit Testbed, Ohio Supercomputer Center
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!paperboy!think.com!sdd.hp.com!caen!malgudi!osc.edu!karl.kleinpaste@world.std.com
References: , <16945@life.ai.mit.edu>.mit.ed
Subject: Re: Ohio State
Pre-disclaimer:
I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me.
I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me.
I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me.
Four things.
1. Organizational note. What was once OSU's IRCC (instructional and
research computer center) organization was renamed ACS (academic
computing services) a number of months back (about 8, I think) at its
own request. This was due to the fact that then-IRCC's focus had long
since shifted from "computer center"-like activities, leaning much
more heavily to network and workstation support and related things.
However, they do still run the Big Bluish Beasties as well.
2. Bogosity check. helen@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu writes:
[Kadie] goes on to
discuss nine charges/complaints regarding Mr. Brack's alleged actions...
??> 3) being expelled by ACS from all University networks
Kadie's comment on this was:
CK> This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part. If ACS expelled Mr. Brack
CK> without due process, they have committed an offense.
I could not agree more!
You are agreeing with what is, to the very best of my knowledge, a
factually incorrect statement in the first place.
I believe that ACS does not have the authority to ban someone from the
entire university's networks. They are responsible for the health of
their own systems (hpuxa and magnus, notably), and for the campus
Proteon ring and its off-campus connections. They are not responsible
for, and have no authority over, individual departments' machines and
subnetworks.
If EE or CIS or Speech&Hearing or Ag wants to give Mr Brack access,
they can do so, and they can let him use email & news, too, if they
want. If ACS determines that Mr Brack is the source of some other
network offense while operating from such other machines, then ACS
technically has the authority to, e.g., disconnect the entity as a
whole. ACS has never done such a thing, nor even threatened to do so.
Believe me, if they'd even threatened such a thing, it would have been
big news around campus. ACS has no authority over individuals' access
to other departments' machines.
3. The topic of Mr Brack came up very, very briefly (all of about 4
sentences' worth) in last Thursday's network working group meeting.
Dr Robert Dixon, ACS director, noted that, per the OSU Academic
Misconduct Committee, ACS will have no response to the current debate
pending completion of the Committee's investigation.
4. Dr Dixon also observed, in the 3rd of those 4 sentences, that there
is "much more to the situation than has been said [in the newsgroups]."
Post-disclaimer:
I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me.
I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me.
I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me,
recalling things said in a public forum 2 days ago.
neither postmaster nor newsadmin any more,
and thank heavens for small favors,
--karl
-------------------
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, 13 Jul 1991 15:40:53 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul13.154053.19782@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <16945@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul13.141842.15316@oar.net>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
I thank Karl Kleinpaste for posting. Several email notes to me have
said maybe folks at ACS would like to join the debate, but can not.
the debate. Thus, except for (my notes of) the charges against Mr.
Brack, this debate is likely lopsided.
karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu writes:
[...]
>I believe that ACS does not have the authority to ban someone from the
>entire university's networks. They are responsible for the health of
>their own systems (hpuxa and magnus, notably), and for the campus
>Proteon ring and its off-campus connections. They are not responsible
>for, and have no authority over, individual departments' machines and
>subnetworks.
According to Mr. Brack, ACS did banned him from all university
networks. He says a literal reading of the "agreement" would prohibit
him from using Ohio's computerized library system. I think Mr. Brack
agrees with Mr. Klinepaste that such a ban (would/does) exceeds ACS's
authority.
>3. The topic of Mr Brack came up very, very briefly (all of about 4
>sentences' worth) in last Thursday's network working group meeting.
>Dr Robert Dixon, ACS director, noted that, per the OSU Academic
>Misconduct Committee, ACS will have no response to the current debate
>pending completion of the Committee's investigation.
Just a clarification. ACS tried but failed to level charges against Mr.
Brack in the OSU Academic Misconduct Committee. Apparently someone
involved in the Committee was wise enough to note that using two Macs
at once in a nearly empty computer lab is not an academic offense. Mr.
Brack *is* being charged by the Judicial Committee. This is the
committee that would hear charges against a student who maliciously
broke a window on University property. [I hope the punishment for
allowing someone to charge a free print job your social security
number is not more severe than the punishment for breaking a window.]
>4. Dr Dixon also observed, in the 3rd of those 4 sentences, that there
>is "much more to the situation than has been said [in the newsgroups]."
[...]
I posted (to the best of my ability) *all* the charges against Mr.
Brack. Dr. Dixon's observation reminds me of something Senator Joseph
McCarthy might have said. ("I have in my pocket a list of known
hackers.")
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 15:34 GMT
From: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
Subject:
Message-Id: <60910713153406/0003158580NB3EM@mcimail.com>
Subject: Freedom of Speech
The understanding here seems to be that the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States is intended to protect the individual
from all consequences for what they say or write. The understanding
seems to be that what is guaranteed is "free speech." There seems to be
a further understanding that speech is really not free if it is subject
to any consequences whatsoever.
I would like to suggest that this understanding is fundamentally flawed.
The literal words of the First Amendment are that "Congress shall make
no law........abridging the freedom of speech..." Note that there is no
guarantee of freedom of speech. It does not say that there shall be no
penalties for speech acts. It does not even say that the several states
could not punish speech acts. It merely says that Congress may not
abridge. It does not say that one has the right to slander or libel.
It does not say that one has the right to plagiarize. It does not say
that one has the right to lie.
Rather, the intent was to prevent the Congress from using powers, which
were to be granted by the several states, to oppress the citizens
of the states. The intent was to protect political speech, not all
speech, from the power of the state, not from all consequences.
It should be noted that the amendment was motivated by fear of the
government that was created by the Constitution. It was not motivated
by "free speech" as a value in and of itself.
Thus, I may still, and will, ostracize someone for rude speech. Indeed,
I may, though I will not, ostracize someone for political speech. The
law does not entitle anyone to rude speech, and it does not restrict
anyone but the state from punishing, in any otherwise legal way, any
speech.
The Fourteenth Amendment is widely interpreted as extending this
restriction to the several states. More narrowly, the Fourteenth is
extended to Federally funded institutions and such creatures of the
several states as state universities (yes, I understand that "state
university" is an oxymoron*). Thus, some universities are prohibited
from using official sanctions to restrict political speech. However,
even they are not required to tolerate all rude speech or malicious
lies.
Note that there are other guarantees of free speech, usually embraced
under the rubric of "academic freedom," that apply to the university but
not to the state. However, at most universities academic freedom does
not protect abusive speech, and at a few, currently described as
"politically correct," neither academic nor political speech are
protected if the majority judges them to be errant.
History teaches us that authority, the state, the church, and academia,
is often in error. Indeed it teaches that the majority is, at least in
the short run, often, perhaps even usually, in error. Thus, if truth is
to out, we must, in our own narrow self interest, be extremely tolerant
of all speech. However, there may still be a boundary between that
tolerance and the kind of license often claimed in its name.
Those who use "free speech" to justify their own excesses are not
friends of truth or freedom.
William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, Connecticut
* The role of the state is to govern; that of the university
to enlighten. Those roles are fundamentally incompatible. In spite of
this conflict, it is possible to get an excellent education at most of
our state universities.
-------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1991 13:37 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: State University
Message-Id: <9F34E8C8D2A02923@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
>Subject: Freedom of Speech
>William Hugh Murray
>New Canaan, Connecticut
>
>* The role of the state is to govern; that of the university
>to enlighten. Those roles are fundamentally incompatible. In spite of
>this conflict, it is possible to get an excellent education at most of
>our state universities.
Have you not heard of the phrases "enlightened government",
"benovalent dictatorship", etc. :-)
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: 13 Jul 91 17:12:32 GMT
Message-Id: <16957@life.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: The Internet
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu!helen@world.std.com
References <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>, <16945@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul13.082854.3398@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>=a
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul13.082854.3398@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> mickelp@prism.cs.orst.edu (Paul M. Mickel ) writes:
>In article <16945@life.ai.mit.edu> helen@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Helen O'Boyle) writes:
>[lots deleted for brevity]
>> [...] It also sounds non-expedient
>>from a system administrator's perspective. Not all system administrators
>>are used to taking the time to do this. It will be seen as increasing
>>their workload. "We" were busy enough doing support. We wouldn't want
>>to spend time listening to users explain why they did things whose end
>>result created more work for us; we'd just want to stop those things
>>from happening again. [...]
>>[...] System administrators don't want to be
>>seen as tolerating too much, lest users get the idea that they can do
>>ANYTHING without fear of reprisal. At the same time, users don't want
>>to be blasted for doing something they didn't know was against rules.
>
>My question here is, in a sense, which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
How about trying both at the same time.... VERY cautiously.
>In this case, you cannot have a system that is used, yet you need people
>knowledgeable in the system to handle admin problems. It seems to me that
>the user must be given more consideration that you imply here, since w/o
>the user, you have no system to admin.
Oooops... My "expediency" comments, and any others which seemed to be
less considerate of users, were meant to describe the kind of sysadmins
who view users as more of an annoyance in their daily life (which
involves keeping named running correctly, hacking features into Elm,
testing file transfer systems and ... um ... displaying "interesting"
GIFs on their workstations when they think no one is looking). Or to
describe organizations which encourage that view. In the interview for
one SA position, I was asked if I would be able to "stay away from the
users", allowing the Help Desk to ALWAYS act as an intermediary (ie, SA
wouldn't be able to talk to a user without a Help Desk person present).
I would hope most sysadmins are encouraged to work more closely with
their users (certainly we've seen examples of that here.... Sanjay
Kapur, Wes Morgan, etc.). However, _some_ aren't, and I believe THAT is
where the problem comes in. It is necessary to find a "business reason"
for them to change (after all, they're happy NOW, going along their own
merry way, trifling with users only when the administration thinks a
user has "done wrong"), or they won't. This sounds unnecessarily cold,
but it IS the way some of them think -- "business reason" is in quotes
because someone I knew a couple years ago used that term in describing
why it wasn't practical for him to learn more about the user comunity he
was supposed to be serving. Remember that everyone is different. If
you don't understand why a certain sys admin views things as he/she
does, that sys admin probably doesn't understand why YOU view things as
you do, either. It is not necessary to agree with everyone, but it
sure can be helpful to understand why they hold the views they do, even
(rather, especially) when those views differ from your own.
>And the user who is unhappy w/ the
>service is likely to take their work elsewhere, if possible.
> [...]
>Paul M. Mickel mickelp@prism.cs.orst.edu
>Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331
>#include
I like that line of reasoning a lot, but think that the key is "if
possible." Many times, for undergraduates, there IS NO alternative.
Assignments for certain classes are done on certain systems. Many
times, the bulk of computing funding goes to the central campus
computing organization, and individual departments just don't have
the money to develop their own alternatives. The people who run
these systems have a monopoly. They do not need to compete on
"service" with anyone else, because in practicality there is no one
else. Whether you think this is good or bad, the situation exists.
It is necessary to work within this constraint, attempting to understand
the position these people are in, to have even a moderate chance of
improving the way things are.
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Disclaimer: just a VCU grad student in no
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | way speaking for the 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: 13 Jul 91 19:33:56 GMT
Message-Id: <16959@life.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: The Internet
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu!helen@uunet.uu.net
References: , <16945@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul13.141842.15316@oar.net>.ai.mi
Subject: Re: Ohio State (and user account suspensions)
In article <1991Jul13.141842.15316@oar.net> karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu writes:
>Pre-disclaimer:
>I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me.
(above included again just to make sure Karl's position is known)
>2. Bogosity check. helen@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu writes:
> [Kadie] goes on to
> discuss nine charges/complaints regarding Mr. Brack's alleged actions...
> ??> 3) being expelled by ACS from all University networks
> Kadie's comment on this was:
> CK> This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part. If ACS expelled Mr. Brack
> CK> without due process, they have committed an offense.
>
> I could not agree more!
>
>You are agreeing with what is, to the very best of my knowledge, a
>factually incorrect statement in the first place.
Thanks for the input. I sense a syntax/semantics problem here. It's
time for a quick bit of clarification work. I agree with:
1. "This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part." The act of suspending
a user from any computer is not an offense of that user (it may be a
RESPONSE to an offense, or to an alleged offense, but it is NOT an
offense by that user). Mr. Kadie, was that a correct interpretation
of your remark?
2. "If ACS expelled Mr. Brack without due process, they have committed
an offense." "If X then Y" is not necessarily the same thing as
"X therefore Y". The former implies nothing of the actual truth
value of phrase X, only that if phrase X _is_ true, Y will be
necessarily true as well. Kadie, wasn't that meant as, "If kicking
Brack off the computer was an offense on the part of anyone, it was
an offense by ACS, not by Brack"?
I believe that suspending a user from ANY comupter access due to
_ALLEGED_ misconduct is an inappropriate action unless the department
has good reason to believe that the user's continued presence on the
system pending a hearing is dangerous to the functioning of the system
or the work of other users. I.E., the reasoning should be better than,
"any user who does something we don't like, who has the intelligence to
do something much worse, is automatically a threat", because it isn't
fair to well-meaning users for ability to be considered the primary
determinant of likelihood. INTENT is in there as well.
Just as the university staff have work to do and cannot leave what they
are currently doing to resolve a situation immediately when it comes up,
students have their own work to do and schedules to keep. I know
students who have worse schedules than many university staff around
here. Neither side should be forced to be at the whim of the other's
timetable. The inconvenience should be SHARED. If it is prior to the
conclusion of a hearing, the student has not yet been found guilty and
should not be expected to bear the bulk of the inconvenience of dealing
with the situation. Note that this would have the interesting side
effect of perhaps causing an administration to think "Is it really
worth it?" before taking action on ridiculously minor matters.
Still, I understand why Karl would be concerned about a misleading
statement being quoted by others, and agree that by repeating it I may
have contributed to an increase in the number of people who believe it
is fact. I've seen far greater leaps in logic from people reading News
before. :-)
Another interesting leap in logic which I've seen all too often at VCU
is faculty and staff assuming guilt The Very Minute they hear that
someone's computing privileges have been suspended, even if that action
is ONLY pending further discussion / hearing, and despite any number of
disclaimers by all involved. The very act of suspending a student's
access can result in increased suspicion, or the beginnings of suspicion
where none existed before. Some people read "we accuse A of doing B" as
"A did B." Add in "We are sufficiently concerned that A might do B
again, that we have taken the necessary precautions against it
happening," and the situation instantly worsens. Right or wrong, it
does happen, and more than once at VCU has literally resulted in
self-fulfilling prophecies. The potential impact on a student of having
his/her account suspended (even in cases of it being suspended so that
the user will have to go talk to the sysadmin about something) is far,
far greater IN REALITY than it should be in theory. This is perhaps the
primary reason I am very uncomfortable with the idea.
>I believe that ACS does not have the authority to ban someone from the
>entire university's networks. [...]
>ACS has no authority over individuals' access
>to other departments' machines.
Given the size of Ohio State, this is highly likely to be true. Before
the thread goes any further, let's make that clear.
>3. [...] Dr Robert Dixon, ACS director, noted that, per the OSU Academic
>Misconduct Committee, ACS will have no response to the current debate
>pending completion of the Committee's investigation.
>
>4. Dr Dixon also observed, in the 3rd of those 4 sentences, that there
>is "much more to the situation than has been said [in the newsgroups]."
It seemed worth repeating that, if only to remind people that Ohio State
hasn't yet closed the matter, and that no one will probably ever know
the full story.
>Post-disclaimer:
>I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me.
>recalling things said in a public forum 2 days ago.
>
>neither postmaster nor newsadmin any more,
>and thank heavens for small favors,
>--karl
I know the feeling, Karl ;-)
--
Helen C. O'Boyle | Disclaimer: just a VCU grad student in no
isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | way speaking for the University
From kadie Sun Jul 14 16:48:00 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Jul 14 16:47:53 EDT 1991
In this issue:
kadie : You can help (was Ohio State)
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, 14 Jul 1991 20:35:48 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul14.203548.6278@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>
Subject: You can help (was Ohio State)
You may be able to help Steven Brack. Steven would be greatful for
e-mail letters of support. He will offers these letters to the Ohio
State Judicial Affairs Committee as evidence for his position that
many the charges against him are ridiculous or petty. (In the worst
case, Steven will be expelled for typing "fuck you" to alt.flame
[intentionally] and rec.aquaria [accidentally]). Even very short notes
may be helpful.
The address to write to is: sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com
I know from notes and e-mail that some people think that Steven "needs
an attitute adjustment". (I hope that a bad attitude is not a hanging
offense at Ohio State University.) Even if you don't want to support
Steven personally, I urge you write a letter in support of the
principles of free expression and fair play.
If you have specific information that could help Steven; that would,
of course, be especially welcome. If you fear my characterization of
the charges against Steven is inaccurate, I suggest you preface your
letter with something like "If Carl Kadie's characterization of the
charges against Steven Brack is accurate, ..."
I'm enclosing my original critique of the charges against Steven.
There is more information in recent notes in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and comp.admin.policy newsgroups (and in
the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list).
- Carl
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------=========---------------
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Ohio State
Message-ID: <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1991 15:37:12 GMT
One of most important lessons I have learned from our discussions on
the Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list is that good
communications between users and sys admins is critical. As Sanjay
Kapur, a sys admin at SUNY Stony Brook, wrote on June 20th:
"My experience has taught me that ALL problems of abuse etc. come
about due to lack of communications between the Systems staff and the
users. Direct access to the systems staff who actually manage the
system in addition to access to a front office (e.g. an accounts
offoce, a user support office, Student assistants) has to be a central
element of any policy."
The Ohio State affair could be a case study in what happens when
communications breaks down and all actions are ascribed to malice.
Remember how this all started. Mr. Brack reformatted the system manual
pages on an HP workstation.
Academic Computer Services's (ACS) viewpoint: Mr. Brack vandalized the
system.
Brack's viewpoint: It was an accident; I assumed it would only
reformat only my personal manual pages. If reformatting is such a
terrible thing to do, why are the file permissions set so that anyone
can do it?
In the next event, Mr. Brack got into a heated argument in alt.flame.
He replied to someone else's note with the message "fuck you". (This
is exactly the kind of message for which alt.flame was designed.) The
note that Mr. Brack replied was set so that by default all replies
would go to not only alt.flame but also rec.aquaria. Thus, Mr. Brack
posted the message "fuck you" to the aquarium newsgroup.
ACS's viewpoint: Mr. Brack is trying to make Ohio State look bad by
posting rude messages to the world.
Brack's viewpoint: I was tricked into posting to rec.aquaria. I didn't
even know that replies could be directed to other groups.
So how can ACS and Mr. Brack view the same events so differently?
William Murray's note of June 29 addresses this question:
"The student knows that systems are robust. 'Pac-Man' never broke.
'King's Quest' never broke. You could push as hard as you wanted to;
it never broke. You could not get out of the 'land.' It did not
break. Yet. Push! Problems are related to hardware and software,
not users. The rules of the game are implicit in the game. If you
can do it, it is legitimate. The way you 'win the game' is to explore
the land to its outermost boundaries."
"The system administrator knows that systems are fragile. Most have
come about by elaboration of earlier systems. They were not designed
of a piece. Even when we do a major upgrade, we often include
function from earlier systems, usually as an accomodation to users.
This functionality often includes gratuitous generality and
flexibility. The systems have often been extended to support user
populations which are much larger and less orderly than the ones for
which the systems were conceived. The result is systems which are not
as robust as might be indicated or expected for their current use and
user populations. The system administrator knows this."
Here are my comments on the specifics of the Ohio State affair. [I'm
quoting from my previous note.] Recall that the Joint Statement
on Rights and Freedoms of Students says that "[t]he burden of proof
should rest upon the officials bringing the charge."
>Last quarter Steven Brack, a student at Ohio State, was indefinitely
>expelled from Ohio State's Academic Computing Services (ACS)
>computers. Next month he is scheduled for his first hearing before
>the Judiciary Committee.
Either 1) Mr. Brack was punished without the chance for a hearing or
2) that he is in jeopardy of being punished twice for the same offense
(double jeopardy).
>1) typing the command "shutdown" on a Unix computer
He is not accused of executing this command; as an ordinary user
it would be impossible for him to execute this command.
>2) posting obscenities (i.e. the phrase "fuck you") to national
>builtin boards (i.e. the alt.flame and rec.aquaria newsgroups)
The phrase "fuck you" is rude, but protected speech. It is not
obscene. The posting to rec.aquaria was accidental. The posting
to alt.flame was consistent with the purpose of that newsgroup.
>3) being expelled by ACS from all University networks
This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part. If ACS expelled Mr. Brack
without due process, they have committed an offense.
>4) continuing his behavior on a student account on the engineering computer
Without more specific information this is not a legitimate charge.
>5) The free print job of another student's account was charged to Mr.
>Brack's social security [number]
The other student charged the free print job to Mr. Brack's social
security number with Mr. Brack's permission. They did this because
the file that contained the other student's SSN was corrupted.
>6) Another student's account at Ohio State was used to access Mr.
>Brack's public account at the University of Denver.
The other student accessed Mr. Brack's account at the University of
Denver. This violates no Ohio State rules (or rules of the University
of Denver system).
>7a) keeping nonacademic files on the Mac server
This violated no Ohio State rules. (Rather than ask
Mr. Brack to remove his files; all his files were deleted.)
>b) used multiple (i.e. two) Macs at the same time
This is a petty accusation. Using multiple Macs when the lab is nearly
empty violated no Ohio State rules. When asked to move to one Mac
(because a class was expected), Mr Brack did.
>8) Stored 24 copies of a program, maliciously
This is false. Mr. Brack used 24 meg of disk space, but did
not store 24 copies of any programs. This violated no Ohio State
rules. When asked to free up disk space, Mr. Brack did.
>9) [same as #6?] Used an ACS computer, on which he did not have an
>account, to access his account at the University of Denver.
Same as #6.
In sum, you may not like Mr. Brack. You may have found his "fuck you"
note offense and his subsequent defense of himself whinny. But whether
you like him or not, the pettiness and weakness of the charges against
Mr. Brack (he is not accused of causing any actual damage), support
the conclusion that this whole affair has more to do with poor
communications than with computer vandalism.
I would hope that the charges against Mr. Brack would be dropped and
that his computer expulsion would be ended. In the future, I hope that
ACS will handle problems less hystically and more professionally by:
1) working with the user community to create and implement a good
written policy
2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem
3) respecting their user's freedom of expression
4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when
neccessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing.
What do you think?
- Carl
References
The full text of all the notes I quoted from are available via
anonymous ftp to eff.org in files academic/news/June,
academic/ohio-state, and academic/student-rights.
--
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.
