Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 11:44:44 -0400
From: Steve Romig
Message-Id: <9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 [should be 1.16?]
[Carl Kadie:]
>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.
I know that the ACS employees have been instructed not to discuss this
case on the net. I suspect that this is at least in part due to
concern for Mr. Brack's privacy in this affair.
[Karl Kleinpaste:]
>>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.
>
[Carl Kadie:]
>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.
Discussions about the various "charges" seem somewhat moot to me. The
rest of us aren't privy to the original copy of those accusations, and
so we don't know whether this is a correct representation of what ACS
tol Mr. Brack, or whether he has misunderstood or is misrepresenting
their statements to him.
Not that I'm accusing him of doing so, but I think that we should bear
in mind that we have not heard from both sides of the case, and that
to make judgements about either Mr. Brack or Ohio State's ACS group at
this point would be grossly unfair.
[Karl Kleinpaste:]
>>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]."
>[...]
>
[Carl Kadie:]
>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.")
Sigh. Or maybe Dr. Dixon simply (and literally) meant that there was
more to the case than had appeared in the newsgroups. He certainly
has at least one good reason for NOT making more information known:
consideration for Mr. Brack's privacy in this case. McCarthy is a
convenient demon to conjure up, but I think the comparison is needless
and unfair to Dr. Dixon.
It seems to me to be a bit unjust (or at least premature) to make any
claims about whether ACS is treating Mr. Brack unjustly or not, since
we don't have access to the the rest of the facts (the other side of
the story). I doubt that we are likely to get an account of ACS's
side at any point.
If the University's Judicial Affairs Committee decides against Stephen
on any of the charges brought up against him (which are not
necessarily the same as the ones that Carl has posted), does that
automatically make that an unjust decision? Can we really claim
anything like that without access to the rest of the story? That
seems to be what some people are saying, and that strikes me as
unjust.
--- Steve Romig, CIS Department, The Ohio State University
-------------------
From kadie Thu Jul 18 11:19:57 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 18 11:18:26 EDT 1991
In this issue:
act31797@uxa.cso.u : Re: Freedom of communication
Jim Nettleman
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <9107170543.AA25687@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1991 13:56:20 GMT
Lines: 27
In article <9107170543.AA25687@eff.org> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
> [....]
>Arguments can and have been made here
>for using elements of just about every regulatory scheme that humans have
>devised to control communication. Until the U.S. Supreme Court speaks with
>authority (or until the 27th Amendment to the Constitution proposed by
>Professor Tribe at Harvard Law is passed) we will continue to argue.
I'm not familiar with Prof. Tribe's proposed amendment. Would
someone mind filling me (and several others, I'm sure) in on the details
of this?
>In my mind, computers bring us much closer to a vital democracy than other
>forms of communication. Everyone can say what he or she thinks on computers
>and circulate it far and wide. The result is truly a marketplace of ideas.
>We should encourage all to join in the discussion. Every communication from
>someone should be assumed to carry disclaimers.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes!
>Dean M. Gottehrer
>Anchorage, Alaska
>
--
Andrew Trapp
act31797@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
-------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1991 10:13 EDT
From: Jim Nettleman
Subject: Re: Freedom of communication
Message-Id:
Tribe's proposed constitutional amendment is described in the
April 1, 1991 issue of Computerworld (p. 99). A search of a major index
to national newspapers fails to turn up any coverage of this preeminent
scholar's proposal.
-------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 14:08 GMT
From: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
Subject:
Message-Id: <63910717140836/0003158580NB1EM@mcimail.com>
Subject: Freedom of communication
I would like to second the model proposed by Dean M. Gotterher.
The more freedom this medium can support the better. I would remind all
users that disorder will invite regulation by authority. Anarchy is not
synonymous with freedom. If you would preserve your freedom, you will
use it politely, considerately, judiciously, and conservatively.
The conflict that we have seen in this dialogue has all been at the
extremes. While it can be ameliorated by better agreements in advance
and more polite communications when instances arise, it is not typical
of the majority use of the medium. The conflict has involved rude
behavior on the part of users, not simply naivete. It has involved
over-reaction on the part of administrators, not simply attempts to
preserve order. It has not arisen out of misunderstanding or ignorance,
but out of arrogant disregard for the rights of others.
It is not typical, and it should not be seen as characteristic of the
use of the medium. It should not be permitted to become the model or
even to be the prime consideration in the drafting of the model.
This is a medium created by individuals and institutions acting as peers
by agreement. There has been benign sponsorship but no central
authority. No medium in the history of the world, constructed on such a
model, has become so powerful without inviting intervention by authority
in general, and the state in particular. We have a unique opportunity:
since we are already super-national, we have the opportunity to avoid
that intervention altogether. We should not let that opportunity be
lost because of the excesses of a few.
The way to defend this freedom is by responsible models and responsible
behavior, not by defending the extremes. We are lucky to live in a
world that can tolerate such diversity, but we must not confuse the
extremes with the norm. When we see rude behavior, we should
characterize it as such. We need not over-react, but neither should we
defend it in the name of freedom.
William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, Connecticut
WMURRAY@MCIMAIL.COM
-------------------
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: pwh
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: Freedom of communication
Message-Id: <1991Jul17.164422.14087@bradley.bradley.edu>
Organization: Bradley University
References: <9107170543.AA25687@eff.org>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 16:44:22 GMT
Lines: 18
It would seem to me that the simplest analogy to current regulated
media is this:
The computer itself is a press (even if it is a publicly available
press).
The network, either phone or ether, is a common carrier. The computers
involved in linking the net have agreed to be part of that common
carriership (?) and anything they carry with intent to be forwarded
along the net is being transported on that common carrier, and is not
considered to be generated by a press (since the machine is only forwarding,
not creating).
Any reasons why this is not acceptable?
--
-----
Pete Hartman Bradley University pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
Haazavaa?
-------------------
Message-Id: <9107171705.AA11091@eff.org>
6041; Wed, 17 Jul 91 11:02:37 CDT
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 11:00:08 CDT
From: stan kulikowski ii
Subject: say it aint so, joe
the nren discussion group from psi has been chewing on the censorship issue
since a reporter from the houston chronicle came online asking for some
information about networking. someone then wrote in that from previous
experience, he was not be trusted to faithfully report what he gathered.
eventually his previous article was entered into the discussion, it started
with a description of a high school kid reading alt.sex on his terminal...
networks were described as government-supported repositories of pornographic
filth.
sure, sensationalism designed to sell newspapers.
in this group we have not really chewed on what academic freedom means to the
lower grades levels. this issue of pornography is certain to be foremost on
the minds of K-12 networkers, probably overshadowing most positive uses of
network facilities. much like 'moral turpitude' is the achilles heel of
tenure, censorship seems to be the weakness of the uniform network access
which we assume is part of what is needed for future academic freedom.
thought i would stick in a pointer to this discussion.
stan
. stankuli@UWF.bitnet
===
| | close your eyes, my darling, or three of them at least
--- -- old venusian lullaby
==============================================================================
!>
!> Message-Id: <9107161420.AA06503@fernwood.mpk.ca.us>
!> Subject: Re: The shibboleth of censorship?
!> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 07:20:25 MST
!> From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow
!>
!>
!> >While pornography is an issue in the US, it is not an issue for many of
!> >the other countries connected to the Internet.
!> ...
!> >So an odd problem is that while one may not want pornography in the US
!> >part of the Internet, the US-part of the Internet is connected to a
!> >number of countries where having pornography on the network is both
!> >legally and socially OK.
!>
!> Wasn't it last year (early this year?), after all the CONUS alt.sex.*
!> archive sites were closed down by Governement Powers That Be, that an
!> archive site 'cross the big puddle opened for business/was known to exist
!> for the convenience of network users in Europe? My memory gets hazy at
!> this point (and I'd recommend any reporter wanting to write a story about
!> it to check out all the facts) that the US folk hungry for net.porno
!> started using this NON-CONUS archive site so much it totally swamped the
!> inter-country link. At some point a US Government Employee of a federal
!> funding agency "ordered?" the non-CONUS archive site to pull the plug on
!> the porno stuff under threat of disconnection from the Global Internet
!> (i.e. the same threat that has been leveled against the CONUS archive
!> sites).
!>
!> Don't actions like these potentially put the Government in the role of
!> censor?
!>
!> How is threatening to pull the net.plug on a CONUS or NON-CONUS archive
!> site, much different from, say, pulling a museum's or an artists federally
!> funded endowment just because a person in the Government food chain didn't
!> like the "art"/"material"?
!>
!> How are standards set for what is OK to put on an Internet archive site?
!> What body sets them? Where are they published? How to system
!> administrators and users find out about them?
!>
-------------------
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: tk0jut1
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Subject: Re: Freedom of communication
Message-Id: <1991Jul17.165159.5534@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <9107170543.AA25687@eff.org> <1991Jul17.135620.23433@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1991 16:51:59 GMT
Lines: 17
In article <1991Jul17.135620.23433@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>In article <9107170543.AA25687@eff.org> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>
> I'm not familiar with Prof. Tribe's proposed amendment. Would
>someone mind filling me (and several others, I'm sure) in on the details
>of this?
>
The text of Prof. Tribe's proposed amendment can be obtained from the
CuD ftp (ftp.cs.widener.edu) or EFF (eff.org) ftp sites
>
>
-------------------
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: 17 Jul 91 17:58:48 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!ox.com!umich!umeecs!zip!bagchi@world.std.com
References: , u
Subject: Re: Freedom of communication
In article NETTLEMAN@zodiac.rutgers.EDU (Jim Nettleman) writes:
>
>
>
> Tribe's proposed constitutional amendment is described in the
>April 1, 1991 issue of Computerworld (p. 99). A search of a major index
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
+--> Realizing that this is April Fool's Day, perhaps you should
take a second look to make sure it wasn't a joke.
>to national newspapers fails to turn up any coverage of this preeminent
>scholar's proposal.
yeah, I think so...
-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi | All I need to know I learned in the Marines:
bagchi@eecs.umich.edu | Eat all your vegetables; Make your bed
------------------------+ every day; warm moist footware leads to
severe problems with fungus; When someone tells you to, run full
speed at another person and stab them with a bayonet.
-------------------
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: 17 Jul 91 18:15:22 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul17.181522.10978@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo.eng.umd.edu!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References: ,
Subject: Re: Freedom of communication
In article NETTLEMAN@zodiac.rutgers.EDU (Jim Nettleman) writes:
>
> Tribe's proposed constitutional amendment is described in the
>April 1, 1991 issue of Computerworld (p. 99). A search of a major index
^^^^^^^
Don't trust ANYTHING with this date.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
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: 17 Jul 91 17:16:51 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu>
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston
From: ukma!psuvax1!hsdndev!cs!ra.cs.umb.edu!betsys@seismo.css.gov
References <1991Jul15.141516.20768@eng.umd.edu>, <1991Jul15.203851.7073@visix.com>, <1991Jul16.150130.29953@eng.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul16.150130.29953@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>Official grievance channels? I don't know about ACS, but we don't have any
>here. That is what I was proposing. Here, if a sysadmin does something to
>a student, the student has the options to
>1) Beg and plead with sysadmin and superiors
>2) break the rules
>3) Bend over and take it.
If a sysadmin does something to a student which affects that student's
studies in any way, the student may appeal to:
1) their academic advisor
2) their department chair
3) the appropriate Dean of Studies
4) the grievance comittee (usually the student/faculty senate)
All colleges should have something like this in their regulations. If your
studies are affected, there is an appeals process. It may not be specifically
computer related, but it must be there. I beleive all accredited universities
have similar poliies.
It sounds to me like most of the painful stories here happened because
two people got into a fight and then started charging around looking for
emotional support. A good mediator could solve most of these issues. A
good policy could prevent quite a few of them but no policy can cover every
possibility. You've just GOT to be able to talk things through!
--
Betsy Schwartz Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
System Administrator BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
U-Mass Boston Computer Science Dept.
Harbor Campus Boston, MA 02125-3393
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 19:15:49 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul17.191549.1175@visix.com>
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
From: visix!news@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9107170543.AA25687@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Freedom of communication
[Very refreshing message, Dean. This is the kind of discussion I was hoping
to find here.]
I agree that finding or constructing a good model of electronic
communication is a critical issue. One of the problems that crops up
in discussions about it is the fact that different people can have
very widely varying perceptions about what the status quo consists of.
If, for example, you are a member of the computer science or engineering
department of a major university, with a T1 connection to the
Internet, it often feels as though news and email are much more
ubiquitous than they actually are, even for that university.
While it may seem that the net ought to be treated as something of a
cross between a telephone system and a public message kiosk, it is
currently closer to an elite private message service. Now, I think
and I hope that data connectivity will become a "utility," just like
water or electricity, but we have a ways to go yet.
In case anyone has jumped to conclusions from my recent messages about
Ohio State, I am a First Amendment absolutist (and, in fact, a Bill Of
Rights absolutist in general), and I believe that speech of any sort
must be permitted (I have never questioned anyone's right to speak,
electronically or otherwise, only their wisdom in doing so). Even
libel and slander laws make me nervous--claiming that speech,
unaccompanied by actions, can cause active harm is treading on very
thin ice, as far as I am concerned. On this basis, I have been very
pleased to see developments like the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, and have opposed recent proposals to require that all electronic
communication be open to the scrutiny of law enforcement officials.
It's not just the First Amendment that is applicable to electronic
communication, after all. There are also issues of:
- unreasonable search and seizure (wiretapping and monitoring, not to
mention the overzealous Secret Service)
- the right to keep and bear arms (private possession or use of data
encryption and cryptanalysis, as well as so-called "dangerous"
information)
and so on.
However, one of the things that is often glossed over is that with
each of these rights comes a corresponding responsibility. The right
to free speech does not mean that I can say whatever I like without
worrying about the result, only that I can say it in the first place;
the right to own tools of deadly force does not mean I can use them to
murder my neighbor...
--
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"Those parts of the system that you can hit with a hammer (not advised) are
called hardware; those program instructions that you can only curse at are
software." --Richard P. Brennan
-------------------
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: 17 Jul 91 21:38:04 GMT
Message-Id: <17042@life.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: The Internet
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!ai-lab!wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu!helen@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jul16.133123.25502@ms.uky.edu>te.
Subject: "User recourse" (LONG) (was: Ohio State)
Since this discussion seems to have taken a turn here and there, it
looked like time for a new thread name that more closely fits.
In article <1991Jul16.133123.25502@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>helen@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Helen O'Boyle) writes:
>>I would like for it to be as easy for a student to challenge a sysadmin's
>>action as it is for a sysadmin to challenge a student's action.
Wes adds....
>I agree [ ... users ... ] should have such rights.
>However, Helen then writes:
>>Only trouble is, it takes DAYS to prepare a good complaint letter
>There's an inconsistency here.
>[...] you want the student/user to
>have an effortless means of complaint/appeal? If something is worth
>fighting for, it's worth the expenditure of some effort.
An inconsistency? In the procedures? Yes. In my rhetoric? I beg to
differ. I did not advocate an "effortless" avenue of recourse for the
user in all cases. However, it is reasonable to want the effort required
to bring action against either side to be near-equal, such that there is
at least a small disincentive to each side to pursue unnecessary actions.
At VCU, the procedures are currently biased in favor of the sysadmin (no
assumptions made about anywhere else, not even the current status at my
undergrad institution).
>This underlying thread has been rampant in these discussions. No offended
>party wants to seek help within the University.
Not entirely true, in my case. In fact, I sought help SOLELY within
the University. It's that we (or at least I) tried and found it doing
so to be more difficult than we (I) ever would have believed possible.
Not only did it prove extremely difficult to convince people something
was going on which needed to be stopped, but I found many people
unwilling to listen to 5 minutes worth of my concerns.
> We've seen such phrases
>as "I'm too busy to go sit in an office to complain" or "I didn't ask for
>help from my advisor because he just wouldn't understand". That, dear
>readers, is a crock.
Wes, a couple of points about _my_ situation, which might explain why the
first (or second) response of someone who finds him or herself in this
situation might not always be the most rational or the most effective:
1. They broadcast accusations of my wrongdoing, across most of the
University computing world before I'd lost enough Freshman naivete
to understand the structure of the school or even detect that the
complaints about "that user" referred to me.
2. I was accustomed to believing everything said by an authority figure
and thus spent several months SERIOUSLY wondering if I truly was as
much of a "computer criminal" as the sysadmin claimed. I could
believe that I didn't completely understand the rules of electronic
community, yet doubted that in my well-intentioned ignorance I
could possibly have violated them as severely as was alleged. In
order to accept that I did perhaps have a justifiable reason for
complaint, I first had to change some of my core beliefs and accept
that the sysadmin might be at least partially wrong.
3. For someone who spent her life in parochial school collecting
scholastic and service awards, the fact that "this is happening to
me" takes a minute or two to sink in, and it takes even longer to
understand how to defend oneself against it.
4. I _was_ a computer novice and didn't even understand some of their
accusations against me.
5. I'd never experienced a bureaucracy before.
There are a whole list of phrases which describe this feeling, including
"Help, I don't know where to turn!" and "I will seek help from anyone
who might effectively provide it." College students are often notoriously
lacking in maturity, University connections, and background. What may
be your first choice, or mine today, might not be someone else's -- not
because it's not a wonderful idea, or because the student didn't expend
a specific degree of effort thinking of alternatives, but because other
factors were involved.
> If you have a problem, WORK TOWARD A RESOLUTION!
All my posts have had a basic undercurrent of "Please, everyone,
communicate and cooperate!", which is my summary opinion on this issue
and many problems in the world today. When working as a sysadmin in
the Real World, I tried to follow that from "the other side of the
fence" as well, to avoid problems before a resolution became necessary.
>What's wrong with expending a bit of effort for something about which
>you feel so strongly?
Nothing! It acts as a "barrier-to-entry" to the Bureaucratic War Zone,
and is thus a Good Thing if it applies to everyone. If the University
requires a student user to do hundreds of hours of work to defend
himself against a sysadmin who did much less work to put the user into
water hot enough that a defense is required, however, I understand (not
necessarily "condone") the student's inclination to feel annoyed.
This is THE FIRST time I have discussed my situation in a public forum.
Prior to the resolution in the mid-1980's, my free time was spent on
action, not on rallying The World to my cause. However, I see it as
constructive to mention it, more than 5 years after the fact. I'd like
to see the related issues discussed enough by both users and system
administrators that some consensus can be reached on how to avoid these
situations, and how to solve them least-painfully when they do occur.
Part of this includes identifying what leads to such situations.
>Just out of curiosity, to whom did you present your problem? [long
>list of alternatives, all addressed in the next paragraphs]. I don't
>think that your jerk sys-admin could reach *all* of those people.
I would not have thought so either! Alas, the perception that such
an awkward situation is "not possible" contributes to the problem,
because it delays its recognition even further. If anyone gets
anything out of all the posts on this subject, let it be "it CAN
happen," and if it does, denial of it will exacerbate the situation.
My initial attempts were to enlist the assistance of the faculty of the
two computer-related departments in which I was taking classes. I had
not yet declared a major, and did not have a faculty advisor (though
after I had declared my majors, I went to my advisors for help). Some,
the sysadmin had reached first, others did not wish to speak up on my
behalf (especially true for the many untenured). I went to the Deans
whose authority included those academic departments. Wrong chain of
command, since they had no administrative authority over the academic
campus computer center, which was not an academic department at all,
and could do nothing outside of chat unofficially with the person in
question (tried... didn't work). Over the years, a number of faculty
wrote letters in my defense. Others said they could not afford the
political problems it could create for their departments, since the
central computing department apparently had a bit of a say in
departmental computing funding as well. Nothing helped. There was
no Ombudsman -- and VCU doesn't have one either. When I read that Ohio
State did, my reaction was, "Wow, what a WONDERFUL idea! Every school
should do that!". The Dean of Student Affairs also took the sysadmin's
word for things, as did the Vice President for Academic Affairs (the
director's boss), and the Med-school and Administrative computer
centers. Pragmatically, it is much "safer", and the path of least
resistance / least expected hassle in a bureaucratic environment, to
believe the PhD director of a campus computing center and all his staff
who would back him up, than to believe a student accused of wrongdoing
and a few faculty who'd take the political risk of stating to others
that the student hasn't had a fair chance.
Again, I think much of the problem is that I did not recognize its
existence until gossip had made the rounds SO far and wide that there
was No Way the damage could ever be undone. This was during the "War
Games" era, when suspicion to the point of paranoia was socially
acceptable. People refused outright to tell me what the accusations
were, preferring to say, "You know what you've done". They did not
officially charge me with any of it, nor did they present evidence on
which the accusations were based (nor would anyone else acknowledge to
me that they'd seen any). Still the range of my "activities" was
"common knowledge", because people heard it from "a reliable source."
>>[regarding defending oneself against excessive sysadmin'ing]
>>It is not fun, and in most cases is not worth the trouble.
>It's "not worth the trouble", but it's easy enough to post to Usenet
>about it? That's great. If you don't want to expend any effort, how
>can you ever expect change to occur?
As stated in a previous post, I _did_ expend SUBSTANTIAL effort, and
still _do_ today. Constructive effort. I now try to see that no one
at my current institution get into the same no-win situation. This
entails both occasionally defending the actions of well-meaning students
to sys admins I know, AND helping students learn in such a way that
mistakes which impact the system, and bad impressions left on sysadmins,
are minimized. Disclaimer: I am not a VCU "cracker defender," and
consistently refuse to help such people when they ask.
> Most of the people who have been
>slighted by sysadmins seem to see themselves as Don Quixote, tilting
>against the administrative windmill. You have other resources available
>to you in the bureaucratic morass; use them!
Yes, Wes Morgan, there are other resources available, such as the
Provost's office and the University's general conduct policy. It took
three years before I'd even known something like that, which governed
faculty and staff as well as students, existed AND could pertain to
my situation. It's not that I hadn't asked, or hadn't looked for such
a document on my own. Even once I knew the TITLE of the policy, it
STILL took a week to find someone with a copy! It took another several
months to to steel my conscience to the idea of "attacking" someone else
(via charges of violation of the conduct policy) as a defense of myself.
I could bring myself to do it only when it appeared that my academic
future at the University would be extremely jeopardized if I did not.
The 7 page, 19 count grievance accused him of harassment -- including
the monitoring of my email and files, malicious untrue comments which
harmed my academic reputation, and a creative charge that I had violated
the school computer use policy, which was apparently due to the sysadmin
noticing that I had made some uncomplimentary but true statements about
him in private email to other students. After four years of unfounded
accusations, my mail was the first and only thing he prosecuted me for
-- by that time, his accusations no longer had the same effect, since
members of the university had recently begun to question his judgement
on other dissimilar matters as well, and I was acquiring the community
support an unknown first year student typically lacks. Also included
in my allegations were denial-of-service concerns which would sound
familiar to Mr. Brack. Overkill, but in years, this was the first idea
which stood a chance of resolving the situation. The potential
ramifications of the action did not hit home until the faculty
investigator on the case asked me, "What do you want to see happen to
him as a result of your grievance?". My reply: "Please, just make
him stop."
The grievance was found to have merit. When the person in question
failed to comply with the (confidential) terms of the resolution, it
was necessary for the Provost to remind him of them again. This
situation was only one of a number of political problems the admin had
at work, and several months later, his staff employment contract was not
renewed. Final notification of the resolution was given me only after
I had written to the Governor of the state in which I was attending
school, requesting that he intercede on my behalf.
It is likely that the grievance, which took the department TOTALLY BY
SURPRISE, would not have been as effective if they had not maintained
the view, "She's just an undergrad who already has a reputation as
trouble on school computers (created and reinforced by them!). She
can't do anything to us. No one will listen to her." What they did
not take into account was that the director's credibility had eroded
somewhat, and mine had increased somewhat (as a non-student computing
employee of the university), to the point that my concerns could not
be laughed off as those of a student troublemaker, whereas they might
have been, years before. AT LAST some people had been able to take
a neutral view of the situation (whereas previously, they had been
certain that the sysadmin was right), and reason prevailed.
>A sysadmin or computing staff would certainly pay attention to any of
>the following:
> - Email from a significant number of users (real email, not
> just some form letter)
Tried it, among friends and acquaintances. Didn't work. It made things
worse, as it was perceived as an attempt to round up a "hacker gang."
Similar to another poster's experience, these students, MERELY by being
associated with me, became targets themselves (and were not happy about
it, thus worsening "The Gulf of Understanding"). At least one was not
considered for a job at school because of it. Another faced charges
under the Computer Use policy for engaging in an activity other students
did, and continued to do, with no objection by the administration.
> - A petition loaded with user signatures (faculty and staff
> signatures would help your case even more)
> - The typical college newspaper *loves* a rhubarb; why not
> invite them to do a story?
Didn't want to advertise what I considered a private matter to the world.
It should not be necessary for a student to forego his/her privacy to
gain relief from such a situation. I wanted to avoid "stirring up the
waters" at all costs, because the sysadmin in question had threatened
to blackball me, in terms of local computer related employment, and any
references for which he was asked (I once worked for his department),
if I openly challenged his actions. Since he had been able to get a
false statement inserted into my University records, I believed he could
do it even if the school tried to stop him. It appeared that he would
find some way to wave a petition or newspaper article in such a manner as
it would help _his_ case, not mine. "Not worth it", not because of TIME
but because of increased risk to me.
> - A group of calm, well-spoken users who want to pre-
> sent a problem in a rational manner.
Tried it. Didn't work.
> - If you have "local" Usenet groups, start a discussion there.
Wes, the EXACT SAME administrator justified our school's TOTAL lack of
NetNews by saying that some student might post something which was
"embarrassing to the school" (Hi Mr. Brack, reading this? ;-). However,
Wes, I agree, that's a good list of suggestions on where to start.
Some people may refer to this discussion as a continued flamefest,
but I believe it is valid to engage in a bit of brainstorming on the
subject, undisciplined though it may be at times, in order that we
all learn a bit more about the issues involved. I like to read about
the creative ideas that some people have come up with.
Lest it turn into a flamefest with three vocal people on each side, and
the rest wondering when those people will give up, further comments on
my specific experience will be addressed ONLY in email. I hope other
prominent posters in this thread will follow suit.
>I'm sure that a little thought will generate more ideas along these
>lines. If, in your opinion, these ideas require "too much effort", then
>I don't think you're taking this problem seriously.
>
> 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
OK, then let me make a suggestion. Since many of the same suggestions
appear over and over, let's collect a "non-editorial" list of such ideas
and put them somewhere in the comp.admin.policy or caf archives. That
way, people might be able to benefit from more ideas than they can think
up themselves at a moment's notice if they find themselves or a friend
in this situation. Likewise, what about a list of creative ways for
sysadmins to deal with these situations?
--
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: 17 Jul 91 22:21:54 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul17.225333.26871@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Organization: Florida State University
From: europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!fsu1.cc.fsu.edu!otto@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jul16.133123.25502@ms.uky.edu>om
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul16.133123.25502@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes...
>helen@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Helen O'Boyle) writes:
>>I would like for it to be as easy for
>>a student to challenge a sysadmin's action as it is for a sysadmin to
>>challenge a student's action.
>I agree with this statement completely. Students (or users, in a commercial
>environment) should have such rights.
>However, Helen then writes:
>>Only trouble is, it takes DAYS
>>to prepare a good complaint letter (more effort by the student), and
>>even then, there's no guarantee that the matter will ever be
>>investigated further (unless appealed by the student).
It should be equally easy (or difficult, or time-consuming, or travel
requiring) for a student to make or defend against a charge as it is for
an administrator to make or defend against a charge. Both should be easier
than for a punishment to be imposed.
>>which will be politely left unnamed. At that University, several
>>higher-level administrators dismissed my concerns out-of-hand upon
>>hearing my name, because they'd "heard all about" me from the sysadmin
>>in question. They would not listen to my side of the story, let alone
>>try to understand it.
>Just out of curiosity, to whom did you present your problem? I can
>understand (and sympathize with) your past problem if you only spoke
>to people *in that part of the university*. Did you attempt to en-
>list the assistance of any faculty members? How about the University
>Ombudsman? Your Dean of Students? I don't think that your jerk sys-
>admin could reach *all* of those people.
What if the faculty member, ombudsman or dean is the other party - the one
about whom you wish to file a complaint or the one from whom you need to
defend yourself? By the same token, what if one's adversary is a friend or
close co-worker with the faculty member, ombudsman or dean? (This latter
happens all too frequently.) [I am not disparaging all deans, ombudsmen or
faculty members - a few of my friends are deans, department chairs, faculty
senators or other faculty members. Most, but not all, I believe, can be
fairly impartial, when the need exists. Alas, FSU has no ombudsmen.]
>>You have to want to VERY, VERY much, and you have to be willing to put
>>enough time into it that it becomes, for all intents and purposes, a
>>"course" in and of itself (on everything from computing to ethics to
>>management to psychology to law). It is not fun, and in most cases is
>>not worth the trouble. But, speaking from experience, it CAN be done.
>It's "not worth the trouble", but it's easy enough to post to Usenet
>about it? That's great. If you don't want to expend any effort, how
>can you ever expect change to occur? Most of the people who have been
>slighted by sysadmins seem to see themselves as Don Quixote, tilting
>against the administrative windmill. You have other resources available
>to you in the bureaucratic morass; use them!
It's more like slugging it out with a vat of old jello, or the prisoner
struggling with the "guardians" at the periphery of the village. What are
these "other resources in the bureaucratic morass"?
>>I'm just not quite sure how to get them to listen to mere
>>STUDENTS.
The phrase "mere students" must, in the halls of academe, be said with
a pronounced sneer - variations include "student job", "student account",
"student office"...
>A sysadmin or computing staff would certainly pay attention to any of
>the following:
> - Email from a significant number of users (real email, not
> just some form letter)
Why would other people wish to endanger their own accounts and be labelled
subversives so as to prejudice their own possible later claims or hurt
their chances for that next raise?
> - A petition loaded with user signatures (faculty and staff
> signatures would help your case even more)
Ditto?
> - The typical college newspaper *loves* a rhubarb; why not
> invite them to do a story?
No. They only love the ones that promote their own agenda. I've gone this
route before.
> - A group of calm, well-spoken users who want to pre-
> sent a problem in a rational manner.
But what they say in their calm, well-spoken manner, is often heard as
wild ranting and raving for the impossible (and/or very inconvenient).
> - If you have "local" Usenet groups, start a discussion there.
This might help, if the administrator hadn't already cut off access and was
not censoring a la the alleged activities of Prodigy.
You've got the right idea, here, but I've already tried most of them on
occasion and had them fail miserably.
As computing center staff (currently, lead consultant on the hot-line),
I've been drawn into several conflicts over the years, and done my best
to act as mediator. In one case, I was asked to provide a transcript of
the customer's complaint. It was very difficult to keep it neutral. I
didn't know the customer at all, but I could tell (he said as much,
himself) that he was very impatient compared to the laid-back style of the
people with whom he had the disagreement. The manager of the group was
new - hired just a few weeks before, but was very defensive of "his
people". A lot of the disagreement had to do with how much hand-holding -
consulting - tutoring - doing work for the user - that the computing center
(CC) people should be doing given the funding, experience level & size of
the staff the CC could afford to hire balanced against the customers'
expectations. As in other cases discussed - the "punishment" wielded by
the CC was denial of access to facilities. The CC people saw this as only
an attempt to avoid further conflict, not as punishment, but it was taken
as punishment by the customer, due to the additional inconvenience and
cost it would mean).
John G. Otto jgo@fsu.bitnet jgo@rai.cc.fsu.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: 17 Jul 91 23:39:34 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul17.233857.27897@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Organization: Florida State University
From: europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!fsu1.cc.fsu.edu!otto@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul15.203851.7073@visix.com>, <1991Jul16.150130.29953@eng.umd.edu>, <1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu>
Reply-To : otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu>, betsys@ra.cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes...
>In article <1991Jul16.150130.29953@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>Official grievance channels? I don't know about ACS, but we don't have any
>>here. That is what I was proposing. Here, if a sysadmin does something to
>>a student, the student has the options to
>>1) Beg and plead with sysadmin and superiors
>>2) break the rules
>>3) Bend over and take it.
> If a sysadmin does something to a student which affects that student's
>studies in any way, the student may appeal to:
> 1) their academic advisor
> 2) their department chair
> 3) the appropriate Dean of Studies
> 4) the grievance comittee (usually the student/faculty senate)
Several people have mentioned appeal to an academic advisor. This makes no
sense to me. Is this really the way some Us operate? Here, an academic
advisor is just a person you can go to to tell what you've decided to
take the next term. (At one time, they had to give prior approval before
you could register. They're all available for making suggestions about
what you should take, but mostly, they just parrot from the department's
check-lists of required classes and keep a file of what you've taken.)
They have nothing to do with grievance procedures that I know of.
I've appealed something to a dean and been told that the next person I'd
have to go to to apeal her decision would be one of her underlings. That
doesn't make any sense at all. It hadn't occurred to me that there might
exist a faculty senate or student gov't grievance committee; I'll have to
check it out if I ever save up enough to re-enroll.
>All colleges should have something like this in their regulations. If your
>studies are affected, there is an appeals process. It may not be specifically
>computer related, but it must be there. I beleive all accredited universities
>have similar policies.
> It sounds to me like most of the painful stories here happened because
>two people got into a fight and then started charging around looking for
>emotional support. A good mediator could solve most of these issues. A
>good policy could prevent quite a few of them but no policy can cover every
>possibility. You've just GOT to be able to talk things through!
>
>--
>Betsy Schwartz Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
>System Administrator BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
>U-Mass Boston Computer Science Dept.
>Harbor Campus Boston, MA 02125-3393
John G. Otto jgo@fsu.bitnet jgo@rai.cc.fsu.edu
-------------------
Message-Id: <9107180458.AA23651@eff.org>
From: "Dean Gottehrer"
Subject: Freedom of communication
Thanks to William Hugh Murray, Pete Hartman and Amanda Walker for their
responses to my note yesterday on freedom of communication. My comments:
Thanks to Mr. Murray for supporting the model I presented and supporting the
idea of greater freedom. I have read his posts here and on other forums and
have admired his ability to be lucid and concise, attributes we all could
emulate more.
He discusses the conflict in our dialogue being at the extremes. I suspect we
are not fully at the extremes, but we are probably pretty close. I also would
strongly support the desire he has that we be polite, considerate, judicious
and conservative. But I must most respectfully disagree with him when he
says, "The way to defend this freedom is by responsible models and responsible
behavior, not by defending the extremes." I have no problem with responsible
models and responsible behavior. In my view, however, our freedom and our
democracy is tested at the extremes. Our tolerance for extreme speech and
behavior demonstrates the breadth of our freedom. Without tolerance of
extreme speech and behavior we have limited our freedoms. This is the same
principle attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it."
If we don't defend the rights of communists, nazis, fascists, Trotskyites,
skin heads, dopers and all other kinds of people Mr. Murray and I might find
socially abhorrent or outcasts, where do we draw the line between what is free
to be spoken and what is not free to be spoken. (Parenthetically, that's the
danger of the recent Supreme Court opinion on abortion counseling--where will
the court draw the line between what people who receive government subsidies
can and cannot say.)
We *are* lucky to live in a world that tolerates diversity and even celebrates
it (I, for one at least, do). And I would never confuse those extremes for
the norm. But I think we must defend the extreme in the name of freedom or we
soon will see our freedom diminished if not lost.
I also think that the likelihood of the nets continuing without some sort of
regulation through a more or less desirable model, is nil. In our litigous
society, someone will eventually file a suit that will wind up in the U.S.
Supreme Court and we will have regulation of communication via computer. For
me that is not a matter of if, but rather one of when. The only way that
might be prevented is through legislative intervention or the 27th Amendment
Professor Tribe proposes. I'm willing to put energy in to discussing what the
model should be because I think the court will listen to those of us who have
thought about this when it tries to decide the question.
Pete Hartman asks why not see the computer as a press and the network as a
common carrier. I see no problem in considering my home computer and printer
as a press. I do have a problem considering the mainframe I dial in to as a
press. As its owner, I am responsible for what I publish from my home
computer. I would not want to see the owners of mainframes made responsible
for what is published from their computers. If they are made responsible,
they will have to read what is published and exercise the rights of
publishers, which are to decide what is and is not published. Ever try to
make your local newspaper print an ad that it disagrees with or does not like
for some reason--it does not have to and you can't make it. Freedom of the
press belongs to the person who owns one, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken. That's
why I much prefer something akin to common carrier or public forum models
where regulation is diminished and freedom flourishes.
Amanda Walker raises a number of issues I have been thinking about a lot in
recent months (maybe even years). The one that hits closest to home is her
view of the net as more of an elite private message service rather than a
utility. If the net or whatever electronic superhighway we devise eventually
creates the global mind, I worry about those who have neither the financial or
intellectual wherewithal to gain access to it. If we are going to avoid the
creation of information elites or information haves and have-nots, we have to
do something to provide free and easy access for those who do not have the
money it takes to somehow get access to the net. We have somewhat begun to
confront this problem in Alaska with our state government.
Because of the distances from many parts of Alaska to our capital in Juneau
(remember, we are the biggest state in land area of the 50--if we were divided
in half, Texas would become the third largest state!), it is not possible for
people to travel there to lobby or testify. So when the pressure was on to
move the capital to Anchorage, where half the state's population lives, the
response was to create a legislative information system. It is a combination
of teleconferenced committee hearings and meetings when enough people (usually
one or two) request them and a computerized system for looking at what the
legislature is doing. That system is available in what many of you would
think of as minor population centers (I think some of them are in places with
populations under 500) and it is freely accessible. I can dial in from home
and find out anything I want about bills that have been introduced, their
history and where they are in the process and when they will be heard next if
a hearing has been scheduled.
That system would not work if it were not provided to all Alaskans free at
their Legislative Information Office. We recently enacted legislation that
will allow state agencies to sell electronic products and services. I was
successful in persuading the person who sponsored the bill to include a
provision that any database offered for sale will be provided free to the
public on a publicly available terminal.
In short, I agree with Ms. Walker that we have a ways to go, but here too I
think our freedom is at stake and this will be a battle for our democracy.
She raises another question that concerns me and that is the different
perceptions different folks have about the purpose of the computers and how
news and email can confound those purposes. I am beginning to think that part
of the model needs to allow for different purposes for different computers for
reasons of resource allocation. Much as I would like to see every computer
hooked up to the net with everyone having email and news access, I realize
that that may not be economically viable in some situations. Some computer
operators may have to decide that news and email are not in their mission. My
response is, fine. As long as everyone who gets a userid on that computer
knows that and is treated the same I have no problem.
I think universities should provide faculty, staff and students access to
computers that have access to the net, but nothing in the models I propose
would force them to do that. Problems will arise where universities decide to
take computers that did have access and remove it. I haven't figured out a
way to deal with that. I suppose if they do it with sufficient advance notice
to their users, they should have that right. Much as I would like to see it
happen, I haven't figured out a way to compel any institution to provide free
and easy access to the net to everyone. I just don't think we can establish
that as a right.
Ms. Walker is also correct that there are other concerns we have to consider
beyond those analagous to free speech. I think they will likely fall into
line once we can get some sort of decision on what model will be used to
regulate (or not) computer communication.
Finally, a short word on absolutist views of libel and slander. My education
and background is as a journalist, so these subjects are ones that have
affected me directly from time to time. Speech can be a weapon of deadly
force, at least metaphorically. Owning that tool of deadly force does not
mean I can use it to murder anyone at random, to paraphrase Ms. Walker. I
worry about individuals truly harmed by speech done in knowing disregard for
the truth. While that happens rarely, the problem exists and remedies should
exist. I could say more, but I would rather be concise now.
Thanks again to one and all who participated and read. That's the joy of the
net.
Dean M. Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
-------------------
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, 18 Jul 1991 00:57:28 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul18.005728.24196@colnet.uucp>
Organization: Little to None
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!colnet!res@uunet.uu.net
References <16945@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul15.141516.20768@eng.umd.edu>, <16989@life.ai.mit.edu>=J
Subject: Re: Ohio State
> When VCU tried to make it against rules for its user services
>department to access user files/mailboxes, the computing center folks
>simply issued a statement that such access was required on a continuing
>basis for routine system maintenance and such a rule would make them
>unable to do their jobs, and the University dropped the FACULTY's
>request for such a rule, taking the computing center's word without
>question.
Well, although the faculty may have had the best of intentions, strictly
speaking, such a policy would have indeed made it impossible for the systems
people to do their jobs. Think about it -- they couldn't do backups.
Now, you may counter "But, we didn't mean *that*." However, if I were
one of the comp center folks, I would really be concerned about having
such a policy on paper.
--
Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh
-------------------
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: 18 Jul 91 13:26:18 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul18.132618.10026@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY
From: lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!ukma!sean@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jul16.133123.25502@ms.uky.edu>, <17042@life.ai.mit.edu>a
Subject: Re: "User recourse" (LONG) (was: Ohio State)
helen@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Helen O'Boyle) writes:
|OK, then let me make a suggestion. Since many of the same suggestions
|appear over and over, let's collect a "non-editorial" list of such ideas
|and put them somewhere in the comp.admin.policy or caf archives. That
|way, people might be able to benefit from more ideas than they can think
|up themselves at a moment's notice if they find themselves or a friend
|in this situation. Likewise, what about a list of creative ways for
|sysadmins to deal with these situations?
This is an *excellent* idea. I wish it had been published in the
"unofficial" student handbook when I was a student.
Sean
--
** Sean Casey
** Recent subject line in comp.sys.handhelds: Printing BIG GROBS
-------------------
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: 18 Jul 91 14:28:12 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul18.142812.21327@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!rex!ukma!morgan@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul16.150130.29953@eng.umd.edu>, <1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu>, <1991Jul17.233857.27897@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:
>
>Several people have mentioned appeal to an academic advisor. This makes no
>sense to me. Is this really the way some Us operate? Here, an academic
>advisor is just a person you can go to to tell what you've decided to
>take the next term.
>They have nothing to do with grievance procedures that I know of.
They can (and do) help you get your "foot in the door". When I was a
student at another university, a friend was involved in a protracted legal
case (as a plaintiff, not a defendant). Despite the fact that his department
gave him permission to miss classes and receive grades of "Incomplete", one
faculty member in that department gave him a failing grade for "violating
attendance/homework policies". When that professor refused to change the
grade, the student went straight to his advisor. The advisor, while not
actively taking part in the grievance procedures, secured an appointment
with the Dean of Students and escorted the student there, in order to ensure
that his rights were observed. The matter was soon resolved in favor of
the student.
>It hadn't occurred to me that there might
>exist a faculty senate or student gov't grievance committee; I'll have to
>check it out if I ever save up enough to re-enroll.
I can't speak for other universities, but *every* incoming UK student
receives a copy of the "Student Rights and Responsibilities". This
document, updated yearly, explicitly details those rights and respon-
sibilities. Students also receive "Crossroads", a general student
handbook providing campus addresses and phone numbers for use in many
situations, including those described here.
A brief examination of the current "Student Rights and Responsibilities"
(which stays in my desk as a reference), reveals a complete description
of the procedures for implementation *and* appeal of University actions
against students.
I would think that most Universities make a document such as this
available to all students, either via surface mail or during the
student's advising/registration/enrollment procedures.
--
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: Thu, 18 Jul 1991 15:29:20 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul18.143313.19289@oar.net>
Organization: Viento Gigabit Testbed, Ohio Supercomputer Center
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi!osc.edu!karl.kleinpaste@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jul15.142636.20841@eng.umd.edu>e.
Subject: Re: Ohio State
karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu writes:
| >I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me.
| >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.
russotto@eng.umd.edu writes:
| [SAMPLE] INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMO
| FROM: ACS
| TO: EE, CIS, Speech and Hearing
| Re: John. Q. Slimeball
| We have learned that a certain John Q. SLimeball has been posting
| from accounts on eevax, cssun, and the Speech and Hearing
| Integerated Transputer. Mr. Slimeball has been banned from ACS
| machines and networks. This includes indirect access through the
| previously mentioned machines. If Mr Slimeballs access to ACS
| networks is not prevented, the network connections of the above
| machines may be pulled.
| Thank you
| J. Goebbels
| ACS Network admin.
| I've heard that this is a common tactic with NSF, why not on a
| smaller scale.
1. As a matter of personal opinion, you should have put "SAMPLE> " in
front of every sentence of that, to ensure its continued perception as
fiction.
2. You've "heard"? From where? The stuff of urban legend, I think.
3. You skillfully avoided the crux my comment:
>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.
There has never been such news, ever; and I've been around here since
long before there existed a campus network.
--karl,
for myself
From kadie Tue Jul 23 23:22:22 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 23 23:21:07 EDT 1991
In this issue:
cs.utexas.edu!heli : Re: Adventures at Ohio State
cs.utexas.edu!heli : Re: say it aint so, joe
Sanjay Kapur
Organization: Texas A&M University
From: cs.utexas.edu!helios!cnh5730@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9107111757.AA09780@visix.com>helios
Subject: Re: Adventures at Ohio State
In article <1991Jul16.202704.23761@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
After this, I'm out of this discussion.
I'm sure all the dead horses appreciate that their continued flogging
will some cease.
Sigh. I don't think he was a victim, except of his own inexperience and
overconfidence in the face of a bureaucracy. One could argue that learning
to cope with this sort of situation is an important part of the college
experience :).
This point falls under the "if it's inevitable, relax and enjoy it"
heading, and as such is logically fallacious.
> I'd advise you to go take a course in consitutional law.
Well, I could point out that I have done so,
Did you pass? If so, I am surprised at your loose grasp of the law,
and of constitutional rights. However, your grasp the law, or your
academic success, is hardly my concern. It was simply a suggestion.
That this was "simply a suggestion" is a bald-faced lie. It was a
sarcastic attempt to insinuate that the referenced person was so
ignorant of the pertinent issues, (s)he needed to "take a course." I'd
suggest arguing points of logic and philosophy and avoiding
cutesy-snide little comments like these, which seem to have become
endemic amongst the pride-laden compuYuppies who infect USENET these
days.
[... traditional histrionic analogy deleted ...]
I think it can safely be said that if Mr. Brack can reach a worldwide
audience, his speech has not been abridged, especially in the face of a
total lack of effort on the part of OSU ACS to stop him... Think about it.
What is at issue here is the attempt to abridge speech, not the issue
concerning whether or not this attempt was successful.
Two, I wonder if the admins at Berkeley (UCB)
said this about Mario Savio and the Free Speech Movement in the '60's?
Probably, and it is quite true that the Free Speech Movement *has* affected
people's perceptions of Berkeley, both positively and negatively. This is,
in fact, a wonderful example. Thank you.
Just to add to the example for which so much gratitude is expressed,
it it an incontrovertible historical fact that free-speech is by
orders of magnitude alive and well at UCB today more than ever before.
Were I to hear someone dispute or criticize this, I would dismiss them
out of hand.
Even [...name of some computer system...] is not really an openly
provided service. To use it, you have
to sign an application, which I believe states that you will abide by the
rules and policies of the ACS. It is only "public" in that it is not tied
to a particular department or class, as all other computer accounts at
OSU are. The ACS does reserve the right to revoke your access if you
cause problems, much as a theatre can kick you out if you are rowdy.
No one can make you sign away your inalienable rights. This is a
tactic which has been tried repeatedly ever since the Bill of Rights
was ratified, and at every turn, it has been found to have no legal
weight at all.
Never. And Mr. Brack has not been censored. The ACS staff is, but I
suppose that doesn't count, since they must be the "bad guys," right?
You can't have it both ways.
Well, as I understand the issue (and I discuss with reference to my
knowledge of the specifics of this case, which certainly may not
mirror fact at OSU), this guy posted an "expletive deleted" and was
threatened with loss of his computer account and was told not to
speak-out on USENET and then lots of other stuff happened, of
course...).
This isn't censorship? Shades of Lewis Carroll. As for continuing not to
be able to see the difference between speech on the part of a
private individual and a paid employee of the "state," sigh.
One could suggest that the inability to tolerate the fact that
somewhere, someone is saying something you don't like is testimony
to the smallness of a person.
I agree, but this seems irrelevant. OSU ACS doesn't seem to care that
Mr. Brack is saying anything he wants. He just can't say it from ACS's
podium.
Beautiful. This deserves to stand without comment.
Today's windmill-tilter-at has often proved to be tomorrows visionary.
Not to mention tomorrow's crackpot. Too bad we can't tell the difference
in advance, eh?
We? Speaking for ourselves again, are we?
--
- I speak _ONLY_ for myself. _ONLY_. I do _NOT_ speak for anyone _BUT_ 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: 18 Jul 91 15:03:47 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Texas A&M University
From: cs.utexas.edu!helios!cnh5730@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9107171705.AA11091@eff.org>u
Subject: Re: say it aint so, joe
In article <9107171705.AA11091@eff.org> STANKULI%UWF.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (stan kulikowski ii) writes:
this issue of pornography is certain to be foremost on
the minds of K-12 networkers, probably overshadowing most positive uses of
network facilities. much like 'moral turpitude' is the achilles heel of
tenure, censorship seems to be the weakness of the uniform network access
which we assume is part of what is needed for future academic freedom.
Pointer appreciated. Be forewarned, though, that those who would
regulate freedom of speech almost invariably start with pornography as
their target issue. What comes next depends on how vigorously the Bill
of Rights is defended.
--
- I speak _ONLY_ for myself. _ONLY_. I do _NOT_ speak for anyone _BUT_ myself.
-------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1991 11:53 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Adventures at Ohio State
Message-Id: <7E83B9ED3CE0E8AD@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: cs.utexas.edu!helios!cnh5730@uunet.uu.net
>No one can make you sign away your inalienable rights. This is a
>tactic which has been tried repeatedly ever since the Bill of Rights
>was ratified, and at every turn, it has been found to have no legal
>weight at all.
>
This issue has come up before in this mailing list an my response then as now
was to list various circumstances where you DO sign away your rights. Instead
of repeating myself, I will list just one instance of this:
When you join the armed forces. (a recent example was the freedom of
religion of US forces in Saudi Arabia)
In general US government employees are restricted in what they can say as are
private sector employees, especially if the have access to secrets of state or
of trade. They can go to Jail for long periods of time if they divulge this
information (i.e. excercise their freedom of speech) for fame or money.
One of the types of contracts that are found invalid are long term and binding
employment contracts because they are too much like involuntary servitude
(i.e. slavery)
The other type of invalid contract is a contract that goes against state
policy, an example is a pimp-prostitute contract in most states (except in
certain cases in Nevada).
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: 18 Jul 91 15:11:09 GMT
Message-Id:
Organization: Texas A&M University
From: cs.utexas.edu!helios!cnh5730@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jul15.141516.20768@eng.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul17.233857.27897@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) writes:
Several people have mentioned appeal to an academic advisor. This makes no
sense to me. Is this really the way some Us operate?
I've appealed something to a dean and been told that the next person I'd
have to go to to apeal her decision would be one of her underlings.
With regards to the appeal processes available at Univ's, I too worry
that these venues of redress may indeed be dead-end backwaters
contstructed not to provide redress for the person appealing, but to
manufacture a sort-of bureaucratic "run-off ramp," designed to deflect
appeals into an area where they can be quietly nullified.
I'd like to hear from people who have had experience (first-hand or
second-hand) with "the system." What, in your opinion, happened? Did
the system work, or was it designed not to work?
--
- I speak _ONLY_ for myself. _ONLY_. I do _NOT_ speak for anyone _BUT_ 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: 18 Jul 91 15:22:42 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul18.152242.18998@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
From: mojo.eng.umd.edu!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu
References <1991Jul16.150130.29953@eng.umd.edu>, <1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu>, <1991Jul17.233857.27897@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>o.e
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul17.233857.27897@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:
>In article <1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu>, betsys@ra.cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes...
>>In article <1991Jul16.150130.29953@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>>Official grievance channels? I don't know about ACS, but we don't have any
>>>here. That is what I was proposing. Here, if a sysadmin does something to
>>>a student, the student has the options to
>>>1) Beg and plead with sysadmin and superiors
>>>2) break the rules
>>>3) Bend over and take it.
>
>> If a sysadmin does something to a student which affects that student's
>>studies in any way, the student may appeal to:
>> 1) their academic advisor
>> 2) their department chair
>> 3) the appropriate Dean of Studies
>> 4) the grievance comittee (usually the student/faculty senate)
>
>Several people have mentioned appeal to an academic advisor. This makes no
>sense to me. Is this really the way some Us operate? Here, an academic
>advisor is just a person you can go to to tell what you've decided to
>take the next term.
Same here. There is no official grievance procedure except against professors
who have given an arbitrary grade.
>I've appealed something to a dean and been told that the next person I'd
>have to go to to apeal her decision would be one of her underlings. That
>doesn't make any sense at all.
That is known as the runaround, a common bureacratic technique designed to
frustrate someone into dropping their complaint. Of course, the bureacrats get
real self righteous if, when they do this, you take action on your own. The
only way I've found (through much trial and error) to get around the runaround
is to find the True Head of the department (the one they DON'T want you
to talk to), and mail a certified letter explaining the situation, and
threatening to send copies to that persons superiors. (i.e. for a State
university, Senators and Representatives at both the federal and state level,
the governor, and in general, the president/chancellor of the University)
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1991 12:32:09 -0500
From: jim thomas
Message-Id: <199107181732.AA19170@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Freedom of communication
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Cc:
AT LAST! Somebody finally shifted the discussion from personal grievances
and defensive bickering back to an intelligent issue. Congrats.
-------------------
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: 18 Jul 91 19:16:11 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul18.191611.6084@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
From: haven.umd.edu!uvaarpa!murdoch!fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@ames.arc.nasa.gov
References <1991Jul15.141516.20768@eng.umd.edu>, <16989@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul18.005728.24196@colnet.uucp>aven.
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul18.005728.24196@colnet.uucp> res@colnet.uucp (Rob Stampfli) writes:
>Well, although the faculty may have had the best of intentions, strictly
>speaking, such a policy would have indeed made it impossible for the systems
>people to do their jobs. Think about it -- they couldn't do backups.
It seems fairly trivial to me to write a policy which allows admins to
backup mail without being allowed to peruse it. I have no trouble
telling the difference between "reading a file to write it on tape,
without looking at it" and "reading the file so that I can enjoy all
the nice sexy stories you've been exchanging with your girlfriend".
Claiming that computer administrators must be able to do anything they
want to any file on the system in order to perform their duties is a
silly argument, and goes against what the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act mandates, if your users have an expectation of privacy.
"Your Honor, at Foobar University we occasionally make backups by
having the staff write backups out with pencil and paper..."
-------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 17:42:19 CDT
From: chron!magic322!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9107182242.AA15170@magic322.magichron-c>
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Professor Tribe's proposed 27th Amendment would have communications
treated equitably by the law, regardless of the transmission medium.
A search of DataTimes on the keywords "tribe and 27th and amendment" will get
six relevant stories stemming from last spring's First Conference on
Computers , Freedom and Privacy in San Francisco.
-------------------
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: 18 Jul 91 21:58:52 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul18.221720.24347@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Organization: Florida State University
From: europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!fsu1.cc.fsu.edu!otto@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu>, <1991Jul17.233857.27897@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, <1991Jul18.152242.18998@eng.umd.edu>
Reply-To : otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Subject: conflict resolution was Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul18.152242.18998@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes...
>In article <1991Jul17.233857.27897@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:
>>In article <1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu>, betsys@ra.cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes...
>>>In article <1991Jul16.150130.29953@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>>>Official grievance channels? I don't know about ACS, but we don't have any
..
>>Several people have mentioned appeal to an academic advisor. This makes no
>>sense to me. Is this really the way some Us operate? Here, an academic
>>advisor is just a person you can go to to tell what you've decided to
>>take the next term.
>Same here. There is no official grievance procedure except against professors
>who have given an arbitrary grade.
>>I've appealed something to a dean and been told that the next person I'd
>>have to go to to apeal her decision would be one of her underlings. That
>>doesn't make any sense at all.
>That is known as the runaround, a common bureacratic technique designed to
>frustrate someone into dropping their complaint. Of course, the bureacrats
>get real self righteous if, when they do this, you take action on your own.
>The only way I've found (through much trial and error) to get around the
>runaround is to find the True Head of the department (the one they DON'T
>want you to talk to), and mail a certified letter explaining the situation,
>and threatening to send copies to that persons superiors. (i.e. for a
>State university, Senators and Representatives at both the federal and
>state level, the governor, and in general, the president/chancellor of
>the University)
It's been done. Certified snail doesn't work at FSU. I paid extra for
date, time, restricted delivery, person to whom delivered... and gotten
back the card with just a date. I talked with the man to whom I had
originally handed the letter (and paid the fees) and he ran it back through
the mill. The result was that the name of some third party was added to
the card. The reason... the "business services" division of the U acts as
a sub-contractor and as far as they're concerned, once it arrives at the
campus post office, it's been delivered (more or less).
The copies to congresscritters resulted in grave "I'm looking into this for
you" letters which turned into "well, there you are" letters with a copy of
the letter they got back from the U repeating the "he must crawl on his
knees into my presence" which was the deadlock in the first place. Since
then, the one US critter who responded at all has been unseated.
Nope, I went from registrar, to his boss - the dean of undergraduate studies,
(I thought that organizational arrangement odd, and so, triple checked it)
to her boss - the provost, to his boss - the U president, to the
congress-critters, with copies all along the way fanning out to the CPSR,
NASIRE Committee on Security Privacy & Confidentiality, ACLU (I'd met their
chief lobbyist a couple times), Libertarian Party of Florida ExComm (of
which I was a member at the time B-), Am Soc of Access Professionals,
Privacy Journal... plus a couple sheister friends. I did not send or copy
to the board of regents, the chancellor, the secretary of educationism,
the state rep or senator or the governor. I shall do so, if I am ever
able to pursue it further (for that matter, I've a friend who is making
a bid to unseat the local state rep; I may be better off helping him with
his campaign by way of preparation, but he's in that R party B-).
John G. Otto jgo@fsu.bitnet jgo@rai.cc.fsu.edu otto@fsu1.hepnet
-------------------
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: 18 Jul 91 23:26:48 GMT
Message-Id: <6596@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
From: cs.utexas.edu!bcm!pavlov.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu!rick@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul15.141516.20768@eng.umd.edu>, <16989@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul18.191611.6084@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul18.191611.6084@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>
> Claiming that computer administrators must be able to do anything they
> want to any file on the system in order to perform their duties is a
> silly argument, and goes against what the Electronic Communications
> Privacy Act mandates, if your users have an expectation of privacy.
> "Your Honor, at Foobar University we occasionally make backups by
> having the staff write backups out with pencil and paper..."
Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you a systems administrator?
Under normal circumstances I don't need to look at files but there are cases
where I have to have access to a file on the system. [I really don't care what
contents it has but need access to it for other reasons.] I cannot predict
what failure modes some system programs will display and in some cases I
need access to the source [read user files] to debug the program. If you
restrict me from accessing files when required, don't complain when things
don't work. (As an example, writing a print filter to take a symbiont file
from our 2200 to Unix turns out to be very dependent on the contents of the
input data and to get it to work correctly, I need the file)
Also, the ECPA specifically allow systems administrators access to user
Email for the purpose of maintaining the quality of service. This was
explained to me that as a sysadmin I cannot decide to look through your
mail file on a whim, but, if your mail is causing a problem, I can look
at whatever I need to solve the problem.
I also expect that any system administrator will have the ethical sense to
keep what they learn as part of their duties to themselves.With the 'power'
that comes as part of system administration comes responsibility to not abuse
that power.
--
Richard H. Miller Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
Houston, Texas 77030
-------------------
Received: from RJONES@USMCP6 by CP-6 MAIL Exporter B02 @USMCP6;18 JUL 91 22:07:3
4 CDT
Date: 18 JUL 91 22:07:34 CDT
From: ROBERT ERVIN JONES
Subject: ^^^
Message-Id: <910718.22062344.013036@USM.CP6>
Comments: Please Acknowledge Reception
Tribe's proposed amendment sounds great.
But, it's only a "catcher" to get the attention
of those interested. This is the year the
techno-wizards got the word out to our nation
that we not only want to be recognized, but
we also DEMAND rights.
The extremism of Tribe's proposal not only outlines
the proposals we need in cyberspace, but also the
severity that those of us that reside in virtual
reality will go to protect ourselves.
I applaude Tribe's efforts. Whether this transpires
or not, the public and like ilk will understand what
we are saying. We are a community that wants order and
structure to our world.
But, let it be a free virtual world and not a dictatorship.
* aka Frosty ---* | GCMS, SotMESC, DPMA, ACM, CSQ, FP
I speak for none . . . Just to be safe | What a great bunch of acronyms
From kadie Tue Jul 23 23:42:51 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 23 23:41:49 EDT 1991
In this issue:
zaphod.mps.ohio-st : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 (s
spool.mu.edu!news. : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
haven.umd.edu!uvaa : Re: Ohio State
cs.utexas.edu!heli : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 (s
cs.utexas.edu!bcm! : Administrator Access (Was Re: Ohio State)
"Manavendra K. Tha : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
"Manavendra K. Tha : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
William Hugh Murra :
"Dean Gottehrer" < : 27th Amendment
visix!news@uunet.u : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 (s
visix!news@uunet.u : Re: (none)
visix!news@uunet.u : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
snorkelwacker.mit. : Re: 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: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 17:19:44 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul19.162337.28426@oar.net>
Organization: Viento Gigabit Testbed, Ohio Supercomputer Center
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi!osc.edu!karl.kleinpaste@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu>udi
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 [should be 1.16?]
[Karl Kleinpaste:]
>>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]."
[Carl Kadie:]
>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.")
Blow it out your ear. Rather than searching fervently for evidence
which simply supports your worst fears, perhaps you should consider
that the folks at ACS are aware that they're being painted with a
hideously broad brush and with the rudest strokes imaginable, and that
Dr Dixon was saying nothing more than that there exist issues
regarding the situation, presumably on the ACS side, which have not
been seen on the Usenet. That's all. A hunt for nefarious motives
will get you nowhere.
And Kadie, if you must quote me, at least have the common decency to
learn to spell my name correctly.
flammable,
--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: 19 Jul 91 17:21:01 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul19.172101.1306@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: ADPC, Purdue University
From: spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!iies.ecn.purdue.edu!psmith@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9107182242.AA15170@magic322.magichron-c>, ecn.pu
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
In article bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi) writes:
>In article <9107182242.AA15170@magic322.magichron-c> edtjda@magic322.UUCP (Joe Abernathy) writes:
>>Professor Tribe's proposed 27th Amendment would have communications
>>treated equitably by the law, regardless of the transmission medium.
>>
>>A search of DataTimes on the keywords "tribe and 27th and amendment" will get
>>six relevant stories stemming from last spring's First Conference on
>>Computers , Freedom and Privacy in San Francisco.
>
> Hmm...y'know, it's not like I don't agree with the spirit
>of the amendment, but it's much too ad hoc to be an amendment,
>compared to the others. I'd much rather, for instance, have an
>amendment establishing the right to privacy (which would probably
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>cover Tribe's with the help of the good ol' 1st).
>
I'm no lawyer or constitutional law expert, etc. But I just wanted to
comment on the idea of a right to privacy amendment...
This is a BAD idea.
Thank you.
:-)
No, really...
It seems to me that right to privacy was specificly left *out* of the
constitution for the simple reason that society can't function in
such a mode. The right to privacy implies (IMO) that I can do what
I want "as long as it's private". Any such constitutional amendment would
almost certainly be misconstrued this way. (Just give the ACLU a chance,
they'll do it!)
The problem here is: what is private?
Very little of what we do (at least the things that would test this
amendment) can be said to not effect other people. A major example
is abortion. Yes, it is a very personal decision, but it effects
the baby as well as everyone else (small example: no population:
no social security taxpayer base, a problem today)
[Please no war on abortion here, just used as an example].
Other examples include legalizing drugs for private use, information on
AIDS carriers etc. (imagine: "My right to privacy says I'm NOT a
criminal for not telling my partner that I'm HIV positive!")
We can't all run around doing what we want because we have a right
to privacy. The result would be total chaos. Our society would collapse.
Just my $.02. Thanks.
-Paul Smith
--
//
// Paul F. Smith - ADPC - Purdue University
// PFSMITH@freh-01ms.apdc.purdue.edu or
// psmith@ecn.purdue.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: 19 Jul 91 18:18:17 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul19.181817.5287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
From: haven.umd.edu!uvaarpa!murdoch!fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@purdue.edu
References <16989@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul18.191611.6084@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, <6596@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>ia.
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <6596@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@pavlov.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
>In article <1991Jul18.191611.6084@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>>
>> Claiming that computer administrators must be able to do anything they
>> want to any file on the system in order to perform their duties is a
>> silly argument, and goes against what the Electronic Communications
>> Privacy Act mandates, if your users have an expectation of privacy.
>
>Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you a systems administrator?
Yes. I find that I have no trouble keeping my system running without
reading my user's email. If I need access to a file to debug a print
symbiont, I ask the user to see their file. Nobody is unhappy.
>Also, the ECPA specifically allow systems administrators access to user
>Email for the purpose of maintaining the quality of service.
Right. But I have no problem maintaining my email without looking at
my users' mail without their permission. My sense of ethics requires
that since I don't NEED to do so, I will not do so.
>I also expect that any system administrator will have the ethical sense to
>keep what they learn as part of their duties to themselves.
I hope so also. That's why I point out (frequently) that there are
very few reasons, if any, to be in a position to learn things "like
that" as part of their duties. And I don't believe I need a rule that
states that I can access any file for any reason at any time.
-------------------
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: 19 Jul 91 21:01:20 GMT
Message-Id: <19035@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
From: cs.utexas.edu!helios!garys@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu>, <1991Jul19.162337.28426@oar.net>
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 [should be 1.16?]
In article <1991Jul19.162337.28426@oar.net> karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu writes:
> A hunt for nefarious motives
>will get you nowhere.
Yes, but defending accusations with 'there is more to the situation
than has been said' will also get you nowhere.
Until someone comes foward and gives the real meaning behind 'there is
more to the situation than has been said' the folks at ACS will continue
to be suspect.
If they don't come forward out of respect for privacy, good for them.
But I for one always question unsupported claims.
- gary (osu stands for oklahoma state university) smith
-------------------
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: 19 Jul 91 21:03:55 GMT
Message-Id: <6620@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
From: cs.utexas.edu!bcm!pavlov.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu!rick@uunet.uu.net
References: , <16989@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul19.181817.5287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Administrator Access (Was Re: Ohio State)
In article <1991Jul19.181817.5287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>
> I hope so also. That's why I point out (frequently) that there are
> very few reasons, if any, to be in a position to learn things "like
> that" as part of their duties. And I don't believe I need a rule that
> states that I can access any file for any reason at any time.
I think we are basically saying the same thing but coming from opposite
directions. I do believe that under normal circumstances there is no reason
or need for a system administrator to the contents of private files. I think
where our views diverge is the feeling on your part [and please correct me
if I have distorted your views] that there needs to be a formal prohibition
of a system administrator accessing the contents of files and mail. I
believe that the system administrator cannot be prohibited from doing anything
since we cannot predict all failure modes. I don't want to be caught at 3:00
AM with a problem which requires that I access the contents of a file in
order to allow work to complete [and no, I don't have a specific example
since it truly is hypothetical]. With a formal prohibition of access this
file, I either don't do it and let production come to a halt or access the
file risk termination for violating the policy.
What I would like to see is a rule that under normal circumstances, the
system administrator is not allowed to access the contents of users'
data w/o permission but, in an emergency, the site administrator is allowed
to do it but must inform the affected user(s) as soon as practical.
Note also that I am making a distinction between the contents of a file and
a file. I reserve the right to look at a user's directory to see how much
data he/she is using and I can ask why they have a 23 megabyte file called
sexy-pictures online and do they really need it [if I am short of disk space].
(I would also ask the same question if the file was called general-ledger-test)
Another note here is that I am speaking as the administrator of a mainframe
system doing corporate production work in which uptime and schedule
completion are the primary concern. In this environment, we do not have
the luxury of waiting to get in touch with of a user but must solve a problem
then.
In summary, my feeling are that absolute rules on system administrators
are bad things since the rulemakers cannot anticipate all problems. What
I would support is prohibitions during normal times with the authority to
violate the rule in an emergency so long as the affected user and the system
administrator's next level of management are informed. Since i also manage
administrators I would look very seriously if an administrator kept having
emergencies as to why it was happening.
--
Richard H. Miller Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
Houston, Texas 77030
-------------------
Message-Id: <9107200107.AA21346@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
<1991Jul19.172101.1306@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 21:07:36 EDT
From: "Manavendra K. Thakur"
>>>>> On 19 Jul 91 17:21:01 GMT, PFSMITH@freh-01ms.apdc.purdue.edu (Paul F. Smith) said:
> It seems to me that right to privacy was specificly
> left *out* of the constitution for the simple reason that society
> can't function in such a mode.
Could you document this please? I've not heard with any such claim
before. If you could, please, cite the appropriate article in The
Federalist Papers, or list newspaper editorials or books or whatever -
but I would like to see some evidence backing up this claim.
> The right to privacy implies (IMO) that I can do what I want "as
> long as it's private". Any such constitutional amendment would
> almost certainly be misconstrued this way. (Just give the ACLU a
> chance, they'll do it!)
That may be the way you would interpret it, but there's no guarantee
that the courts (or even the ACLU) would interpret it in the same way.
I'm sure you're aware that judicial interpretation of a Constitutional
amendment is subject to change over time. The intent of the authors
of the amendment is certainly an important factor in interpreting the
amendment, but as Judge Irving Kaufman said at a conference at West
Point in November 1986, ascertaining the original intent of the
framers is the *beginning* of the judicial inquiry, not the end of it.
Unforseen events and evolving societal views/attitudes since the
amendment's ratification also play a role in interpreting the meaning
as well. So can legal developments (such as new amendments, court
decisions, legislation, or new legal theories) can also affect an
ongoing re-evaluation of a particular Constitutional amendment.
So my point is that even if you helped write a privacy amendment and
publicly attached your interpretation to it, there is no guarantee
that the courts would continue to interpret it in the same way in the
future.
And I doubt that your interpretation would be the one widely used. I
think a more favorable interpretation is more likely. Somthing like
this: "I can do what I want as long as it's private AND there isn't
any valid and compelling societal or governmental interest to act
otherwise." Or something to that effect.
> The problem here is: what is private? Very little of what we do (at
> least the things that would test this amendment) can be said to not
> effect other people. A major example is abortion. Yes, it is a very
> personal decision, but it effects the baby as well as everyone else
> (small example: no population: no social security taxpayer base, a
> problem today) [Please no war on abortion here, just used as an
> example].
Well, I don't intend to get into an abortion flame either, but you do
need to make your case more cogently! Please specify more clearly
what you feel is the compelling government interest in regulating or
banning abortion. If ithe issue is "no population," should the
government go further and outlaw or restrict birth control as well?
Why or why not?
If the issue is promoting a social security taxpayer base, is there no
other way that the government can achieve this goal? You seem to be
saying that this societal interest is compelling enough that the
government should have the authority to override decisions about
whether to have a child or not (which you acknowledge is "a very
personal decision"). If my understanding of your comments is correct,
then I hope you will help explain 1) why you think a social security
tax base is an overridding compelling interest, and 2) why no other
solution is capable of accomplishing the goal. Otherwise, I'm not
sure I at all agree with your claim.
The point I'm making here is not to debate abortion rights or whatever
[there's plenty of heat without light on that subject in
talk.abortion], but to instead ask you to explain in more detail how
you balance state interests vs personal privacy.
> We can't all run around doing what we want because we have a right
> to privacy. The result would be total chaos. Our society would
> collapse.
I'm sorry, but I can't see anyone who seems to be advocating total
chaos via a privacy amendment. Where did that come from?
You seem to have concluded that no privacy amendment, no matter how
carefully phrased or balanced, would be unworkable and lead to chaos.
I ask you: is there no middle ground? Are we really restricted to the
extremes of totalitarian dictatorship and total chaos?
I also ask: do you think you and other residents/citizens of the US
have no right to privacy today? If so, then wouldn't Robert Bork be
an Associate Justice by now, and wouldn't be we living in total chaos
today?
I would be most interested if you would elucidate more on your views.
I'm intrigued by your reasons for opposing a privacy amendment, but
I'm not sure I understood the full intellectual basis for your
opposition.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
-------------------
Message-Id: <9107200228.AA21384@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) <1991Jul19.172101.1306@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
<9107200107.AA21346@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 22:27:51 EDT
From: "Manavendra K. Thakur"
I wrote in a previous message:
> You seem to have concluded that no privacy amendment, no matter how
> carefully phrased or balanced, would be unworkable and lead to chaos.
Too late, I saw the typo. Of course, I meant to say the following:
> You seem to have concluded that any privacy amendment, no matter how
^^^
> carefully phrased or balanced, would be unworkable and lead to chaos.
Sorry for the mixup.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
-------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 02:35 GMT
From: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
Subject:
Message-Id: <13910720023531/0003158580NB2EM@mcimail.com>
Well, I suppose I walked into this one with my eyes open. Mr.
Gotterher has staked out the rhetorical high ground. First, he is
defending the most American of all virtues. Second, he is on the turf
of "academic freedom." Third, he is defending a value whose definition
as a word means "without bounds." Having caught me suggesting limits, he
has me looking up hill, on foreign territory, and on the defensive.
Dean M. Gotterher:
>But I must most respectfully disagree with him (Murray) when he says,
>"The way to defend this freedom is by responsible models and
>responsible behavior, not by defending the extremes." .... Models and
>responsible behavior. In my view, however, our freedom and our
>democracy is tested at the extremes. Our tolerance for extreme speech
>and behavior demonstrates the breadth of our freedom. Without
>tolerance of extreme speech and behavior we have limited our freedoms.
Agreed in principle. However, I was not speaking in general. I did not
suggest that we need not or should not tolerate any extreme speech or
behavior. I referred to a certain kind of extreme speech and behavior
defended in this forum. I referred to certain speech and behavior at
the far extremes of the what goes on in the net. I said "rude behavior
on the part of users" as contrasted to naivete, and "over-reaction on
the part of administrators" as contrasted to "simply attempts to
preserve order." I submit that an agreement among us to forego that kind
of extreme behavior would not infringe anyone's freedom. I suggested
that the defense of such behavior in the name of freedom serves freedom
poorly.
However, "Without tolerance of extreme speech and behavior we have
limited our freedoms" can be read as suggesting that in the name of
freedom we must give all speech and all behavior, no matter how
disruptive or poorly motivated, the same tolerance. If that is the
intent, then I am prepared to part from even such distinguished company,
for I find that position to be ethical nihilism.
Before we part, let us struggle on a little further. I have tried to
draw distinctions between that behavior which clearly must be tolerated
in the name of established values such as "freedom of speech," "academic
freedom," and "human rights" and that which must be resisted
because it is disruptive to such values as public trust, order, freedom
from interference from arbitrary authority, and the enjoyment of the
benefits of the network. In so doing, I appear to have alarmed you; to
have caused you to take a dangerous position.
Therefore, you tell me. How far are you prepared to go? Is there no
speech or behavior so extreme that you are not prepared to tolerate it
in the name of the defense of freedom? Is there no principle so trivial
that it cannot be sacrificed without damage to freedom? If my limits
offend or alarm you, tell me where yours are. Perhaps we can still find
common ground.
Are there no distinctions to be drawn between extreme behaviors? While
some must be tolerated, even protected, is there none that we can reject
out of hand?
Do you believe that all behavior in the name of principle is to be
accorded the same protection as speech, or are you willing to stipulate
that speech is a special case? Suppose speech has failed to carry the
day; is assault then justified? Can we resist such assault without
damage to freedom, or must we tolerate it? Suppose that speech and
assault both have the same potential for success; do we then not have an
obligation to prefer speech?
Do you believe that all speech is equally protected? Must all
non-political speech be protected in order to preserve the freedom of
political speech? Must we tolerate ethnic insult to preserve
academic freedom?
Must we defend, in the name of freedom, the right of a hacker to send
attack messages through the network to systems that he chooses on the
basis of nationality or vulnerability? If his mentors defend him on the
basis that "it is not illegal" is that the end of it? Is everything
that is not explicitly illegal to be tolerated? While I am prepared to
tolerate some such behavior, what would be the effect if everyone engaged in
it?
Are all motives equal? Does freedom demand that we defend the right of
a user of a multi-user system to enter "shutdown" for no better reason
than to see what will happen? Is such a motive equal to that of someone
acting out of political conviction or conscience.
Is all authority equally repugnant to freedom? Must I, or even, may I,
engage in rude or outrageous behavior simply to demonstrate how free I
am? Or, if I engage in gratuitous behavior, am I not simply abusing
license? Is self-restraint not to be preferred to external authority?
Is the authority of one's peers and colleagues not to be preferred to
that of the state?
Likewise, are all remedies equal, and are they all equally repugnant to
freedom. Would it be too damaging to freedom to say "do not do that?"
Would it be too chilling if, in order to achieve compliance, some number
of students had to be excluded from the net? Are all remedies equally
effective? Am I obligated to choose those, like fines, which, while
they do not interfere with freedom, are not very effective, over those
like suspension of privileges, which while demonstratively effective,
limit freedom? How far are you prepared to go in the name of freedom.
It is clear that you are a dedicated Libertarian, but how far?
While these choices are rhetorical, they are typical of the kinds of
choices that confront our community. All freedom is not equal; there
are choices to be made. All extreme behavior is not equal, equally
tolerable, or equally to be tolerated. All non-toleration is not the
same; some kinds are to be preferred over others. Rhetorical appeals to
freedom, while perhaps emotionally satisfying, trivialize the real and
difficult choices that confront us. Holding up freedom as the ultimate
value will not help us answer these difficult questions.
While each of us may think that he knows the answers to these questions,
the dialogue in this forum demonstrates that there is no concensus or
agreement. Perhaps no two of us would answer all of them the same.
We are looking for principles that can be relied upon to guide our
current individual behavior without compromising our long-term common
interests. These principles must account for all of the values. It is
not useful to say that only one value counts. I am not yet convinced
that freedom is so superior to these other values or so antithetical to
them that eveything else must be sacrificed to it. Convince me.
Even if it is, that still leaves me with many hard problems to solve.
Propose a framework for their solution.
We are on shaky ground here; I am looking for a firm and reasonable
place to stand. I am looking for a place that I can confidently
recommend to others. I cannot reconcile myself to a position that
treats all extreme behavior the same in the name of freedom.
If I must tolerate some extreme behavior in order to preserve freedom,
then so be it; but I must be able to recognize it when I see it. I must
be able to distinguish it from that extreme behavior which I must resist
in the name of other values. To suggest that one cannot distinguish is
not useful. To suggest that, in the absence of the ability to
distinguish, one must tolerate everything equally is not helpful. To
assert that there is no distinction is obscene.
I have committed. I have suggested one line that I think most people
ought to be able to live with. It does not solve or resolve all
conflicts, but it takes a large and contentious set off the table.
You reject that line, but you do not
propose an alternative. You seem to suggest that there may be none you
can tolerate. If so, clearly we must part. If not, tell me where you
are prepared to draw the line.
-------------------
Message-Id: <9107200443.AA08721@eff.org>
From: "Dean Gottehrer"
Subject: 27th Amendment
Here's the text of the 27th Amendment:
This Constitution's protection for freedoms of speech, press, petition and
assembly, and the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and
the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law,
shall be construed as fully applicable without regard to the technological
method or medium through which information content is generated, stored,
altered, transmitted, or controlled.
For those who may not be familiar with Laurence Tribe, who proposes this
amendment, he is Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School
and is one of the nation's foremost scholars studying the Supreme Court and
Constitutional Law.
I'd like to clarify a few things in the discussion today about privacy. 1.
Privacy was not considered by our Founding Fathers. The right of privacy was
first articulated by Brandeis when he was a student or soon after he graduated
in a Harvard Law Review article in the late 19th century, as I recall. 2.
Privacy does not lead to chaos. The concept was built around the idea that
there are somethings we all (or most of us) expect will be private. The U.S.
Supreme Court has found that expectation in the penumbra (their word, not
mine) of a number of amendments to the constitution. Simply put, there are
areas where government has no business being. The bedroom is one of the
places and it led to legalizing contraceptive devices (yup, it was illegal to
possess them or to tell people about them once upon a time in some states) and
was also key in the argument to legalize abortion--that is a matter between a
woman and her physician, the court said in Roe v. Wade.
The right of privacy does not imply that you can do whatever you want as long
as it is private. (Although the Alaska Supreme Court did legalize personal
use of marijuana under the state's constitutional right of privacy. It was
made illegal under a referendum last year and it will be interesting to see
what the court does when that law is challenged.)
You can't kill someone in private and claim privacy to get away with it. But
there are areas where you have an expectation of privacy and the government
has no right to invade them. Also, there are occasions when what is normally
expected to be private may be looked at when violation of the law is suspected
with reasonable cause. You can't look at my bank account and neither can the
government. But the government can if it finds some evidence I have committed
a crime and evidence of that crime can be found in my bank records.
Many states make circulation records at libraries private. I don't want the
government looking at the books I check out to see what I am reading.
There is a long history of privacy law dating back to Brandeis and I don't
believe it has led to chaos in this country. But that's just my humble
opinion and I suspect others will disagree.
Finally, I don't think that a privacy amendment to the constition would
accomplish all of the same things Professor Tribe's amendment would. What he
is talking about is extending the rights we already have under the
constitution to anything new that technology can devise. For me it would
certainly clear up the questions of whether you are free to say what you want
on the computer of a state university tied into the net. It would clearly
extend that right. And I think it would also prevent unreasonable searches
and seizures on computers at state universities and require due process.
While I don't give it much chance of ever being written into the constitution,
I think it will draw attention to the problems and it offers a good political
point from which to start. As I've said before, I think the courts will
establish these rights for us once a sufficient number of cases create law.
Unless there is a sudden uprising of opinion, and I don't sense it except in
relatively few places, the Congress is not likely to act. Nevertheless, I
think the amendment would be beneficial.
Dean M. Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
-------------------
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, 21 Jul 91 22:52:22 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul21.225222.790@visix.com>
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
From: visix!news@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 [should be 1.16?]
In article <19035@helios.TAMU.EDU> garys@cs.tamu.edu (Gary Wayne
"Batman" Smith) writes:
Until someone comes foward and gives the real meaning behind 'there is
more to the situation than has been said' the folks at ACS will continue
to be suspect.
I have found that "there is more to the situation than has been said"
is almost always true, in any context. Nothing is ever as simple as it
seems.
--
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"Trust in Allah, but tie your camel." --Arabic proverb
-------------------
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, 21 Jul 91 22:48:06 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul21.224806.731@visix.com>
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
From: visix!news@uunet.uu.net
References: , <13910720023531.0003158580NB2EM@mcimail.com>=>
Subject: Re: (none)
The argument over what speech and actions are "allowable" has an old
and distinguished history. I have found that the best descriptions of
my own feelings on the matter are to be found in the writings of
Thomas Jefferson and John Stuart Mill, who could be described as
"inidividual rights absolutists." Mill in particular wrote a wonderful
treatise on the subject called "On Liberty."
Mill's central thesis is that all actions must be permitted except
insofar as they cause harm to others. Now, the issue what consitutes
"harm" is also sticky, but I find it more tractable, and a good place
to "draw the line," as Mr. Murrary puts it. Given the principle that
all people start out with equal rights, the only behavior for which
coercion is a justifiable response is coercion itself.
For those of you who have never read "On Liberty," here is a relevant
selections from Chapter 1:
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or
collectively interfering with the liberty of action of any of their
number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can
be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community,
against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either
physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully
be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do
so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of
others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons
for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him,
or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with
any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from
which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to
some one else."
As I see it, debate about freedom of speech, or more specifically academic
freedom, often revolves around two specific points: what constitutes "harm,"
and what constitutes "interfering with the liberty of action." Especially
when two parties have incompatible goals, it can be very hard to determine
whether or not this fact leads to the infringement of the rights of one
(or even both) parties. In general, the legal precedent seems to be to
decide in favor of the party who has suffered (or who stands to suffer)
"greater" harm, but again, this can be hard to determine.
However, I very much agree with Mr. Gotterher that to protect our
freedom, we must also protect extremes of behavior that we may not
ourselves agree with, or may find "disruptive" or "poorly motivated."
And to answer some of Mr. Murray's rhetorical questions, I will submit
that yes, "anything not explicitly illegal must be tolerated," as long
as it causes no one harm (and I do not classify insult or offense as
"harm"). Yes, you may engage in rude or outrageous behavior simply to
demonstrate how free you are. And yes, I hold freedom to be an ultimate
value. Not an easy one, but one nonetheless.
Freedom is a sword with two edges. Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses are
free to knock on my door and try to convert me; I am free to throw
them out of my house at my pleasure, but not free to prevent them from
going next door. I am free to write polemics; my newspaper is free
not to print them, but not free to prevent me from printing them
myself, or finding another publisher.
Amanda Walker
Visix Software Inc.
--
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
--Sir Thomas Moore, in "A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt
-------------------
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, 21 Jul 91 23:00:00 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul21.230000.852@visix.com>
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
From: visix!news@uunet.uu.net
References: , <9107182242.AA15170@magic322.magichron-c>8
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul F Smith) writes:
I'm no lawyer or constitutional law expert, etc. But I just wanted to
comment on the idea of a right to privacy amendment...
This is a BAD idea.
I disagree.
The right to privacy implies (IMO) that I can do what
I want "as long as it's private".
And in the absence of other factors (such as probable cause, etc.). I hold
that, yes, anyone can do what they want as long as it's private, and does
not harm anyone else.
Any such constitutional amendment would almost certainly be
misconstrued this way.
Good!
A major example is abortion.
Bad example, and one not appropriate here, as it has nothing to do with
academic freedom, and is prone to flamefests.
Other examples include legalizing drugs for private use,
Which I support...
(imagine: "My right to privacy says I'm NOT a criminal for not
telling my partner that I'm HIV positive!")
Damn straight, you're not. You may be if you infect that partner, and
you may feel a *responsibility* to share the information with them,
but it does come under privacy. Are you obligated to tell your lover
that you've murdered all of your other lovers? No. You're only in
trouble if you continue the pattern...
We can't all run around doing what we want because we have a right
to privacy.
As long as it doesn't cause harm to others, why not?
The result would be total chaos. Our society would collapse.
I disagree. Evidence, please.
--
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all
human wisdom." --Robert A. Heinlein
-------------------
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: 21 Jul 91 18:36:42 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul21.183642.1096@colnet.uucp>
Organization: Little to None
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!paperboy!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!colnet!res@world.std.com
References <16989@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul18.005728.24196@colnet.uucp>, <1991Jul18.191611.6084@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <1991Jul18.191611.6084@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>In article <1991Jul18.005728.24196@colnet.uucp> res@colnet.uucp (Rob Stampfli) writes:
>
>>Well, although the faculty may have had the best of intentions, strictly
>>speaking, such a policy would have indeed made it impossible for the systems
>>people to do their jobs. Think about it -- they couldn't do backups.
*** This is the rest of my original post, which was deleted from Greg's quote:
>>Now, you may counter "But, we didn't mean *that*." However, if I were
>>one of the comp center folks, I would really be concerned about having
>>such a policy on paper.
*** End of insersion
>
>It seems fairly trivial to me to write a policy which allows admins to
>backup mail without being allowed to peruse it. I have no trouble
>telling the difference between "reading a file to write it on tape,
>without looking at it" and "reading the file so that I can enjoy all
>the nice sexy stories you've been exchanging with your girlfriend".
>
>Claiming that computer administrators must be able to do anything they
>want to any file on the system in order to perform their duties is a
>silly argument, and goes against what the Electronic Communications
>Privacy Act mandates, if your users have an expectation of privacy.
>"Your Honor, at Foobar University we occasionally make backups by
>having the staff write backups out with pencil and paper..."
My original comments were along the lines that the comp center may well
have been more concerned with the form, rather than the substance of what
the faculty was trying to achieve -- something that would have been clearer
if Greg had not deleted the remainder of my original message. I made no
assertion that the comp center people should have unconstrained powers to
peruse private files.
In response to my original posting, I received email from Helen C. O'Boyle,
the author of the message which prompted my comments. In her email, she
clarifies that the proposed policy was more detailed than originally
described, and allowed for certain administrative functions like backups.
The comp center's concern was apparently that the policy not impede their
ability to track security violators. Even after several iterations, the
faculty and the comp center could not reach consensus on a workable policy.
So the point of debate now appears to be how much latitude should the
system administrators have in the pursuit of "crackers".
--
Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh
