From kadie Tue Jul 23 23:45:07 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Jul 23 23:44:26 EDT 1991
In this issue:
"Dean Gottehrer" < : Drawing the line
Dolfyn of the Dese :
haven.umd.edu!uvaa : Re: Reading files/making backups
Aydin Edguer
From: "Dean Gottehrer"
Subject: Drawing the line
I plead guilty to William Hugh Murray for staking out the rhetorical high
ground. It usually is a pretty easy place from which to defend your
positions, unless you climb a tree and walk out on a rhetorical limb. Perhaps
I have stepped out on that proverbial limb, but let me see if I can edge back
to the trunk.
In the continuum of behavior from responsible, moral, ethical and legal to
irresponsible, immoral, unethical and illegal, there are extreme behaviors
worthy of defense. Others extreme behaviors are illegal and unworthy of
defense. (That may sound obvious, but remember Martin Luther King also taught
us there are illegal behaviors worthy of defense.)
Clearly not all speech and all behavior are defensible. In fact, in my work I
deal with convicted murderers, rapists, child and wife abusers, thieves, drug
users and pushers on a fairly regular basis. Society has clearly condemned
their behavior.
Mr. Murray asks me to define where I would draw the line between speech and
behavior I would tolerate and that which goes beyond the bounds.
A good place to start to draw the line is between your fist and my nose.
Amanda Walker in her post today used Mill's concept of harm, which appeals to
me. The limits the U.S. system of law has historically placed on speech were
related to harm. Harm my reputation and I can sue you for libel (although
that right has been greatly limited and you must knowingly disseminate false
information about me for me to be successful in my suit against you). Harm
the society by advocating violent overthrow of the government and beginning to
act and you can be punished. Society has decided harms were likely to be
suffered by at least some if pornography and obscenity were permitted.
The short answer to Mr. Murray's question is that distinctions can be drawn
between extreme behaviors. Most I personally find worthy of punishment are
already illegal.
Government can punish those who harm others. But I would not use the power of
government (any government, and I consider administrations at state
universities to be government for this purpose) to punish extreme speech or
behavior that does not cause demonstrable harm. Those were the areas I
referred to when I said we need to defend them.
Beyond those areas, a class of behavior involving computers is extreme and not
defensible and probably ought to be made illegal. Laws relating to technology
will probably never be up to the moment with the new opportunities for
behaviors technology presents us with that ought to be illegal. And of course
penalities can vary as crimes vary in their seriousness.
Another class of behavior and speech, however, that I personally would not
defend as civilized worthy of decent folk is extreme but worthy of political
defense. That is the speech that is rude, even perhaps obscene, but that our
freedom guarantees. I have a very difficult time drawing a line outlawing the
use of words of ideas. I'm willing to guarantee the rights of those I hate,
who hate me, who oppose everything I stand for and to guarantee their right to
voice those thoughts publicly.
There are those who would draw lines between political and non-political
speech. That is extremely difficult to accomplish. Who will have the power
to draw the line? What is political to one person is not to another. I'm
much more comfortable not drawing that line and allowing all speech that the
courts have not determined to be illegal. That means that we must tolerate
ethnic, religious and racial insults to preserve freedom of speech, a far more
important value in my opinion that the academic freedom I hold quite dear.
I have fought the racist pigs. The beauty of our government is that those
same racist pigs are guaranteed the right to their opinions and to voice them
subject only to time, place and manner restrictions applied evenly and equally
to all. If they lose their freedom, I'm likely to lose mine. The limit of
their freedom begins where their fists collide with the noses of their
victims.
If speech fails is assault justified? Greater minds than mine have tackled
that question. Tyranny that resists the persuasion of speech can be toppled
with violence. The very existence of our country is evidence of that.
Jefferson believed periodic revolutions would be good for the country. So
while assault might be justified, we are correct is trying to avoid it and in
sanctioning it.
Mr. Murray also raises several questions about the net and attacks on it. My
knowledge of computers and the nets is about the same as my knowledge of cars
and their motors. I'm a pretty decent driver, but don't ask me to take my
truck apart, repair it and put it back together. While there are behaviors
not now illegal that ought not be tolerated and eventually made illegal, I
don't know enough to know what they are and define them. Computers may be
special cases where actions that might be acceptable in other contexts should
be unacceptable and illegal here.
No all motives or intentions are equal. But how are we to judge among them?
Is a hostile act on a computer committed in all innocence worthy of different
treatment than the same act done for political reasons? How should they be
treated or punished differently?
Authority is not inherently repugnant to freedom. A balance needs to exist
for freedoms to continue to be exercised. The courts recognize that
constitutionally guaranteed freedoms can conflict and they are experienced at
balancing them. Sometimes authority ensures that freedom can be exercised, as
when the police hold back mobs that would like to hurt those saying thoughts
the mob cannot tolerate. At other times, authority prevents actions from
being taken. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
The paradox of freedom is that you cannot only guarantee it to those who would
act responsibly. You would soon have no more freedom. You must guarantee it
to those who would be rude, outrageous, and gratuitous to simply test its
limits. They ultimately will cause far less damage to our society than other
more insidious influences that operate much more subtly. We are in far worse
shape as a society because the impact of television on the family and the need
it creates in our young for drugs to make life interesting every second (as it
is on TV) than from the extremists who have a difficult time finding a
platform from which to speak to more than a few of their friends.
Finally, let me return to an area where Mr. Murray and I were in agreement
from the beginning--the need for responsible models and responsible behavior.
We set legal limits to punish those who will not be otherwise influenced to
behave responsibly. But there is no substitute for those who show others how
to do it responsibly
Part of the problem we have seen in the discussions on this forum is that the
technology is so new and its application so recent that we have had precious
little time to transfer models of responsible behavior from other endeavors to
this one. Those models are at least as important as the laws, if not more so.
Laws will tell us what is legal, models will provide ethical and moral
examples of what is right.
Freedom may not be the ultimate value in helping us answer difficult
questions, but it is pretty high on my pantheon--still.
Dean M. Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
-------------------
Received: from Arizonet by Arizona.edu with PMDF#10282; Mon, 22 Jul 1991 09:10
MST
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 09:10 MST
From: Dolfyn of the Desert
Message-Id: <8C6D29A6828062A7@Arizona.edu>
please remove me from this list
-------------------
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: 22 Jul 91 16:51:03 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul22.165103.25198@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 <1991Jul18.005728.24196@colnet.uucp>, <1991Jul18.191611.6084@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, <1991Jul21.183642.1096@colnet.uucp>aarpa
Subject: Re: Reading files/making backups
In article <1991Jul21.183642.1096@colnet.uucp> res@colnet.uucp (Rob Stampfli) writes:
>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.
Ah. This makes much more sense -- at the beginning it looked like
everyone was talking past each other, when in fact both sides know the
difference between making backups and chasing crackers, and are
disgreeing on how to chase the latter. I don't think I need to read
other's email to chase crackers, but I must be strange.
-------------------
From: Aydin Edguer
Message-Id: <9107221912.AA06451@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: Re: your mail
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 15:12:41 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL6]
> >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.
>
> Ah. This makes much more sense -- at the beginning it looked like
> everyone was talking past each other, when in fact both sides know the
> difference between making backups and chasing crackers, and are
> disgreeing on how to chase the latter. I don't think I need to read
> other's email to chase crackers, but I must be strange.
A cracker's electronic mail can give strong clues to their identity.
It can also help locate associates and colleagues and track their
activities.
But reading their electronic mail is a relatively minor violation of
privacy compared to other activities.
One important way of tracking system crackers and determining how they
operate is to actually watch the exact keystrokes being made by the
intruder. Readers of "The Cuckoo's Egg" will recognize this tactic
as being a useful tool for determining the extent of a security breach.
In neither of the above cases would one want to notify the cracker of
the facilities actions.
An important way of tracking down network problems is to use a protocol
analyzer or "sniffer". The sniffer works by capturing packets traveling
over a network segment and then displaying the packets of interest.
We trust the engineers to be ethical when doing this task and most network
engineers would say they could not do their jobs properly without a network
analyzer.
If you stop and think, both reading packets on a network and reading
keystrokes of from a modem/terminal would be considered invasions
of privacy of a much broader nature than accessing a user's files.
And yet both are accepted and acceptable practice in the field.
Rather than trying to limit a facilities choice of actions in extreme
situations, rules should [IMHO] focus on limiting what is done with the
information that might be gained. Writing rules for the extremes is
always a bad idea. Witness all the attempts at making computer viruses
illegal without making "rm/del" illegal or branding anti-viral authors
criminals due to their collections of viruses.
The ECPA does a reasonable job of trying to limit the abuse of power available
to administrators. It does not say that reading electronic mail is unlawful
for administrators, it says that using that knowledge or disclosing that
knowledge is unlawful.
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
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: 22 Jul 91 19:18:33 GMT
Message-Id: <3522@sparko.gwu.edu>
Organization: The George Washington University, Washington D.C.
From: seas.gwu.edu!sheryl@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jul12.222703.6825@eff.org>, <14104@uwm.edu>
Subject: Re: Ohio State
In article <14104@uwm.edu> jgd@uwm.edu writes:
>From article <1991Jul12.222703.6825@eff.org>, by kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie):
>>
>> In article <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org> you write:
>>>Remember how this all started. Mr. Brack reformatted the system manual
>>>pages on an HP workstation.
>>>
>>>Academic Computer Services's (ACS) viewpoint: Mr. Brack vandalized the
>>>system.
>>>
>>>Brack's viewpoint: It was an accident; I assumed it would only
>>>reformat only my personal manual pages. If reformatting is such a
>>>terrible thing to do, why are the file permissions set so that anyone
>>>can do it?
>
>This puzzles me. Why is reformatting manual pages considered an
>"actionable offense" by Ohio State's ACS? (Has anyone commented on
>that? If so, I must have missed it. A pointer to, or copy of, such
>comments would be appreciated.) How does one _read_ a manpage if it
>is _not_ formatted? Is this, perhaps, a problem of lack of sufficient
>disk space for the formatted manpages? If not, what _is_ the problem?
>
I haven't seen any replies on this either, so here goes and my
apologies to the net if it's been done.
In general, man pages are written in nroff and stored on disk that
way. The "man" command runs the file through nroff and pipes it
to "more" so that you see it in a useful format on your screen.
(I'm describing function, not code, because I haven't seen the
code). So the pages ARE formatted, but they are transient -- they don't
take up space on the disk.
>
>On all the Unix systems I am familiar with, one *must* format a
>manpage in order to (intelligibly) read it.
>
>Since HP was specifically mentioned, am I correct in assuming this
>workstation is running HPUX? I only know of HPUX by "reputation"
>(as told to the net by others, and what I hear isn't particularly
>flattering); I have no personal experience with HP UNIX products [1].
>Bearing this in mind, I ask if this manpage situation is yet another
>way in which HP treats things in their own unique way -- "differently"
>than other Unixen?
>
HP-UX is "different" in many ways, some good and some annoying. I
think a lot of it depends upon what "culture" you were brought up
in. I worked with HP-UX for about 5-6 years before I saw another
flavor of UNIX. Whether HP is better or worse depends upon what
you're trying to do with it, although in general I can see how it
would be REAL upsetting to people who were BSD worshipers.
The manual pages are stored in up to 4 different formats under HP-UX,
with a different set of directory structures for each type. They
are nroff, compressed nroff, formatted and compressed formatted.
There is no duplication between nroff/compressed nroff or formatted/
compressed formatted, but there can be between nroff/formatted and
compressed nroff/compressed formatted. I assume that the "man"
program uses "cat" instead of "nroff" as a filter to "more" since HP
decided to name the formatted directories "cat*" and cat*.Z" where
the unformatted directories are in the form "man*" and "man*.Z",
where * is the manual section (also a little different under HP-UX).
Of course, the compressed pages would have to pass through an
"uncompress" filter.
By default, the systems are set up so that the first time a user
runs "man" on a command the file is formatted and stored in the
corresponding structure. The unformatted file is not harmed. This
can be a nice feature if the man command is used frequently on
certain commands, because the access is much faster.
Depending upon the availability of disk space, some sites let
the default go on, some go ahead and format everything and some
disable the formatting entirely by removing the parallel
directories entirely. I have operated in all 3 modes depending
upon the situation.
I have had users format all of the pages before. In one case I
am thinking of, the user came from a system where they kept
formatted pages around and thought he was taking care of an
oversight. I left them formatted until we needed the space, then
I "zapped" them.
If the description in the quote is accurate, it is safe to say
that the admin went overboard. If you're close on disk space,
the admin can easily disable the formatting entirely by removing
directories. If a user formats the man pages it might be annoying,
but it's hardly vandalism. Any way I can think of that a user
might format everything, the original versions are not replaced.
The problem with my saying this, though is that I wasn't there
and don't know exactly what happened. Even the original poster
didn't seem to say how he did it, and we haven't seen the admin's
side.
--
Sheryl Coppenger SEAS Computing Facility Staff sheryl@seas.gwu.edu
The George Washington University (202) 994-6853
-------------------
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: 22 Jul 91 23:31:14 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul22.233114.9146@visix.com>
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
From: visix!news@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jul22.165103.25198@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>ool.m
Subject: Re: your mail
edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.EDU (Aydin Edguer) writes:
The ECPA does a reasonable job of trying to limit the abuse of
power available to administrators. It does not say that reading
electronic mail is unlawful for administrators, it says that using
that knowledge or disclosing that knowledge is unlawful.
I agree.
One thing to think about here is how other kinds of invasion of privacy
are treated. For example, the idea of "probable cause" constrains when
law enforcement officials can violate privacy, and "extenuating
circumstances" can balance something that would otherwise be punished.
These tested legal principles can, I think, be quite easily applied to
the problem of file and email privacy.
--
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"Experience is a good teacher, but she sends in terrific bills."
--Minna Antrim
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 16:02:27 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul22.160227.12830@tygra.Michigan.COM>
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!sharkey!tygra!jp@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu>, <1991Jul17.233857.27897@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, <1991Jul18.142812.21327@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Wayne State Just Ignores Student Rights (was Re: Ohio State)
In article <1991Jul18.142812.21327@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
"
"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.
"
"
You know, all of the rules and student rights policies and "rights to a
fair hearing" make no difference when the entire chain of command summarily
ignores those rights.
I know of a case at Wayne State University, in Detroit where that has
happened.
Students with greivances go first to their department head, then to the
deans office. The student has a RIGHT under the "Student Due Process
Policy" to have a formal hearing and to be able to call witnesses. Those
witnesses, if employees or students of the University, are compelled to
be there.
In this particular case (involving computer access), the Ombusdman's
office ran into a brick wall at EVERY step of the procedure!!
* The department head didn't want to hear about it. He said
"go see the Dean".
* The Dean said she could do nothing and refused to schedule
a hearing.
* The Vice Provost didn't know what the hell the Ombusdman was
talking about. "Due process policy? Never heard of such a
thing!"
* The matter was taken to the Board of Governors, since it was
their policy which was being circumvented. It didn't get past
their executive secretary who just referred it back to the
Ombudsman's Office for resolution.
It seems that at Wayne State University, there is a shadow policy
which goes along with the Due Process Policy. This shadow policy
must be a set of rules outlining how the various departments are
to avoid actually implementing the Due Process Policy. The result:
(last I heard): Litigation will begin in the courts this autumn if
the University fails to respect the student(s) rights after being
given one last chance.
The moral of the story: BEWARE: It doesn't matter how finely crafted
your "Students Rights and Responsibilities Policy" is: There is
often a conspiracy of "good old boys" who have an unwritten agreement
to "help each other out" and avoid having to answer for their crimes.
In the case of Wayne State University, the corruption runs the entire
chain of command, from the departmental level right on up to the
Board of Governors.
--
CAT-TALK Conferencing System | "Buster Bunny is an abused | E-MAIL:
+1 313 343 0800 (USR HST) | child. Trust me - I'm a | jp@Michigan.COM
+1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP) | professional..." |
********EIGHT NODES*********** | -- Roger Rabbit |
-------------------
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: 23 Jul 91 19:51:36 GMT
Message-Id: <23.Jul.91.155137.81@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>
Organization: JHU Cognitive Science Center, Baltimore, MD
From: cogsci!wjb@umd5.umd.edu
References <16989@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul19.181817.5287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, <6620@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Administrator Access (Was Re: Ohio State)
In article <6620@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@pavlov.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
>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.
As both a system administrator and a user this seems quite
reasonable to me. The only thing I would add is that if a users' data has
been accessed as a result of an emergency situation that the user must be
informed of that access after the emergency has been alleviated or a fixed
time period has passed. (a week or two?). The user should also be informed
what emergency required this action. This would probably even cover
investigating possible "crackers" as that would seem to be an emergency
situation.
Bill Bogstad
-------------------
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: 24 Jul 91 01:01:24 GMT
Message-Id: <17183@life.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: The Internet
From: wupost!usc!samsung!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu!helen@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul19.181817.5287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, <6620@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, <23.Jul.91.155137.81@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: Administrator Access (Was Re: Ohio State)
In article <23.Jul.91.155137.81@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu> wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu writes:
>In article <6620@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@pavlov.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
>>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.
>
> As both a system administrator and a user this seems quite
>reasonable to me. The only thing I would add is that if a users' data has
>been accessed as a result of an emergency situation that the user must be
>informed of that access after the emergency has been alleviated or a fixed
>time period has passed. (a week or two?). The user should also be informed
>what emergency required this action. This would probably even cover
>investigating possible "crackers" as that would seem to be an emergency
>situation.
>
> Bill Bogstad
And that is exactly the policy that was proposed at VCU, pursuant to
faculty concern over the academic computing staff browsing student mail
and obvoius text files for purposes of content review. It was vetoed by
the AC staff with the explanation that it made it impossible to do their
work (must be nice to be able to veto any rule you don't like before it
becomes part of a policy!). The "notification" period in this case was
24 hours, which may have been a bit extreme. However, AC objected not
on the grounds of 24 hours being too narrow a window, but on the grounds
that it was impractical to (1) agree to stay out of user files to begin
with and (2) notify affected users each time an emergency access took
place.
The "browsing" incident had two primary policy- related results:
1. Faculty tried to institute the rule about file access by
admins, unsuccessfully.
2. Admins IMMEDIATELY removed read permission from the
process accounting file so that in the future, no student
would be able to, through careful matching of file access
times (via stat) and process accounting file entries (a
small C program did the job nicely) determine who had last
accessed certain of their files, and what commands they
used on them.
The process accounting file is unreadable by students to this day.
Requests to make it readable have been repeatedly denied. I guess I
can see some reasons for wanting a "secret" pacct file, but as far as
I'm concerned, it sure doesn't do much for an academic computing dept's
reputation to institute that policy immediately after a student used that
data to catch dept personnel doing something which met with WIDESPREAD
disapproval. (Again, note the differences possible between perception
and reality)
IMHO, it's this kind of incident which makes students want to be less
than open with system administrators. In exchange for being forthright
enough to admit to the administrators how the access-tracking had been
done so precisely, the students got a read-restricted process accounting
files for themselves and the rest of the (uninvolved) university.
--
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: 23 Jul 91 20:35:08
Message-Id:
Organization: Lehman Brothers Fixed Income Division
From: shearson.com!newshost!escott@uunet.uu.net
References: , <16989@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul19.181817.5287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>=W
Subject: Re: Administrator Access (Was Re: Ohio State)
> From: wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu
> As both a system administrator and a user this seems quite
>reasonable to me. The only thing I would add is that if a users' data has
>been accessed as a result of an emergency situation that the user must be
>informed of that access after the emergency has been alleviated or a fixed
>time period has passed. (a week or two?). The user should also be informed
>what emergency required this action. This would probably even cover
>investigating possible "crackers" as that would seem to be an emergency
Not entirely. Say you thought a user might be doing something naughty, like
keeping a personal copy of some company-owned source code. You take a look at
his files, and find that not to be the case. Should you then send him email
saying "we thought you might be a dishonest jerk, but we checked it out and
decided you aren't one?"
Even when I worked in academia this wouldn't have been a popular approach 8^).
--
E. Scott Menter, First Vice President
Manager, Information Resource Management Group
Lehman Brothers
escott@shearson.com
From kadie Wed Jul 24 04:43:58 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Jul 24 04:43:41 EDT 1991
In this issue:
Steve Romig
Message-Id: <9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 [should be 1.16?]
[[This is a note by Steve Romig. He posted it over a week ago, but it
messed up my program for putting together CAF-batch (CAF-talk was not
effected). I think I've fixed (kludged up) the program. So *this*
problem should not occur in the future - Carl ]]
[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
-------------------
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, 24 Jul 1991 04:10:12 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul24.041012.1592@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Ohio State ACS policy
[From: Mitchell D Dysart - Carl]
Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks
The Office of Academic Computing
The Ohio State University
Approved June 6, 1990
The use of computers and computer networks in no wat exempts us from the
nominal requirements of ethical behavior in the University community. Use
of a computer network that is shared by many users imposes certain obligations.
In particular, data, software, and computer capacity have value and must be
treated accordingly.
Legitimate use of a computer or computer network does not extend to whatever
we are capable of doing with it. Although some rules are built into the
computer's operating system, these restrictions do not limit completely what
we can do and see. We are responsible for our actions whether or not the
rules are built into the system, and whether or not we can circumvent those
rules.
The following specific principles of computer and network systems operated
under the direction of the Office of Academic Computing are applicable to Ohio
State students, faculty, staff, and contract employees. As users we must:
o Respect the privacy and rules governing the use of any
information accessible through the computer system or
network, even when that information is not securely
protected.
o Respect the ownership of proprietary software. For example,
do not make unauthorized copies of such software for your
own use, even when that software is not physically protected
against copying.
o Respect the finite capacity of systems, and limit your own
use so as not to interfere unreasonably with the activity of
other users.
o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the
system.
Those who cannot accept these standards of bahavior may be denied access to
the relevant computer systems and networks. Violators may also be subject to
penalties under the regulations of the University and under laws of the State
of Ohio or the United States of America to the extent applicable.
I have read the above conditions and agree to abide by these standards.
Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: ____________
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 04:46:24 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul24.044624.2161@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: ,
Subject: Re: Why are there two groups?
mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
>I have been reading the CAF material in alt.comp.acad-freedom.news and
>alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk since they were newgroup'ed, and while I
>enjoy the forum(s) I can't see any difference at all between the
>tone/content/subject/etc. of the moderated digest group
>alt.comp.acad-freedom.news and the unmoderated discussion group
>alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk. Why do we need two groups? -- they're
>basically indistinguishable except that one is in digest form (ugh for
>most newsreaders) and one is not.
CAF-talk (the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup and the
comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list) is an unmoderated open forum.
Traffic on CAF-talk sometimes exceeds 100 notes per week.
The central rationale for CAF-talk is that unfettered exchanges of
opinion will ultimately lead to truth.
134 people subscribe to the CAF-talk (and the related CAF-batch) mailing lists.
It is estimated that thousands read CAF-talk via net news.
CAF-news (the alt.comp.acad-freedom.news newsgroup and the
comp-academic-freedom-news mailing list) is a compilation of the best
(in my opinion) notes from CAF-talk. It is published about once a
week. In usually contains less than a dozen notes, plus a short
introduction written by me.
The central rationale for CAF-news is that an unfettered exchanges
of ideas can take too long to read.
154 people subscribe to CAF-news. I have seen no estimate of its netnews
readership.
Five of the 278 mailing list subscribers get both CAF-talk and
CAF-news.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.
-------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 01:49:47 -0400
From: kadie (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <9107240549.AA04802@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Freedom of communication
[This note did note make it out to all the mailing list readers, so
I'm reposting it - Carl]
Subject: Re: Freedom of communication
Message-Id: <1991Jul17.135620.23433@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
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
From kadie Thu Jul 25 09:48:44 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Thu Jul 25 09:48:22 EDT 1991
In this issue:
act31797@uxa.cso.u : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
kadie (Carl M. Kad : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
"Manavendra K. Tha : Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch ed
fallout!system (T- : Re: Wayne State Just Ignores Student Rights (was Re: Ohio
ROBERT ERVIN JONES : ^^^
desyvax.BITNET!pos : Re: Wayne State Just Ignores Student Rights, CAT-TALK on
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
-------------------
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!act31797
From: act31797@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Pogo Possum)
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Message-Id: <1991Jul24.195959.27805@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <9107241913.AA10712@sunburn.ec.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 19:59:59 GMT
Lines: 46
In article <9107241913.AA10712@sunburn.ec.usf.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>In article <910718.22062344.013036@USM.CP6>, ROBERT ERVIN JONES
> writes:
>
>Tribe:> This Constitution's protections for the freedoms of speech,
>Tribe:> press, petition, and assembly, and its protections against
>Tribe:> unreasonable searches and seizures and the deprivation of
>Tribe:> life, liberty, or property without due process of law, shall
>Tribe:> be construed as fully applicable without regard to the
>Tribe:> technological method or medium through which information
>Tribe:> content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted, or
>Tribe:> controlled.
>
>Let's see. The Amendment extends the protections of the First Amendment
>(speech, press, petition, and assembly), Fourth Amendment (unreasonable
>searches and seizures), and Fifth Amendment (due process) to electronic
>communications, or, rather, to any medium of communication "...through
>which information content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted, or
>controlled..." at all. I don't see what's so extreme about _that_.
>
Does this mean the FBI will have to get a search warrant (or
equivalent) if they wanted to do a wire tap of your phone line? How does
"grounds for suspicion" fit into all this?
>In any case, the Tribe Amendment is not, I feel, an extreme measure.
Agreed.
>Moreover, a state of affairs in which the Amendment is felt to be extreme
>(this is _not_ intended as a flame to Mr. Jones) is an excellent argument
>in favor of its passage.
Oh? And suppose some day crime gets so bad that Congress decides to
pass an Amendment which repeals rights to due process, etc.? While I don't
think that's too likely in the near future, I hope you get the point. (Anyone
read about Chicago's Supt. Robert(?) Gates' desire to "suspend" some Consti-
tutional rights?)
> Mitch Silverman
> silverma@sunburn.ec.usf.edu
> Student, New College of the University of South Florida
> I speak only for myself, and sometimes not even that.
--
Andrew Trapp
act31797@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
-------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 16:55:02 -0400
From: kadie (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <9107242055.AA22189@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
[I'm reposting this note, because many mailers bounced it the first time -Carl]
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <9107241913.AA10712@sunburn.ec.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 19:59:59 GMT
Lines: 46
In article <9107241913.AA10712@sunburn.ec.usf.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>In article <910718.22062344.013036@USM.CP6>, ROBERT ERVIN JONES
> writes:
>
>Tribe:> This Constitution's protections for the freedoms of speech,
>Tribe:> press, petition, and assembly, and its protections against
>Tribe:> unreasonable searches and seizures and the deprivation of
>Tribe:> life, liberty, or property without due process of law, shall
>Tribe:> be construed as fully applicable without regard to the
>Tribe:> technological method or medium through which information
>Tribe:> content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted, or
>Tribe:> controlled.
>
>Let's see. The Amendment extends the protections of the First Amendment
>(speech, press, petition, and assembly), Fourth Amendment (unreasonable
>searches and seizures), and Fifth Amendment (due process) to electronic
>communications, or, rather, to any medium of communication "...through
>which information content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted, or
>controlled..." at all. I don't see what's so extreme about _that_.
>
Does this mean the FBI will have to get a search warrant (or
equivalent) if they wanted to do a wire tap of your phone line? How does
"grounds for suspicion" fit into all this?
>In any case, the Tribe Amendment is not, I feel, an extreme measure.
Agreed.
>Moreover, a state of affairs in which the Amendment is felt to be extreme
>(this is _not_ intended as a flame to Mr. Jones) is an excellent argument
>in favor of its passage.
Oh? And suppose some day crime gets so bad that Congress decides to
pass an Amendment which repeals rights to due process, etc.? While I don't
think that's too likely in the near future, I hope you get the point. (Anyone
read about Chicago's Supt. Robert(?) Gates' desire to "suspend" some Consti-
tutional rights?)
> Mitch Silverman
> silverma@sunburn.ec.usf.edu
> Student, New College of the University of South Florida
> I speak only for myself, and sometimes not even that.
--
Andrew Trapp
act31797@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
-------------------
Message-Id: <9107242141.AA27051@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
<1991Jul24.195959.27805@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 17:41:31 EDT
From: "Manavendra K. Thakur"
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jul 1991 19:59:59 GMT, comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org said:
> In article <9107241913.AA10712@sunburn.ec.usf.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>>Let's see. The Amendment extends the protections of the First Amendment
>>(speech, press, petition, and assembly), Fourth Amendment (unreasonable
>>searches and seizures), and Fifth Amendment (due process) to electronic
>>communications, or, rather, to any medium of communication "...through
>>which information content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted, or
>>controlled..." at all. I don't see what's so extreme about _that_.
>>
> Does this mean the FBI will have to get a search warrant (or
> equivalent) if they wanted to do a wire tap of your phone line? How does
> "grounds for suspicion" fit into all this?
They already have to get a warrant to wiretap a phone. Congress
outlawed wiretapping when it passed the Communications Act of 1934.
With the exception of wiretaps conducted under the guise of
"counterintelligence operations" (procedures for which were laid down
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978), the police, the
FBI, and other law enforcement authorities are required to get a
proper warrant from a judge or magistrate and must show probable cause
to justify the warrant in advance. That is the standard for "grounds
of suspicion," as you put it. Of course, different states play
different variations of this theme, but usually the well-known
standards of "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" must come into
play.
Please look in any introductory textbook on American Constitutional
law. It explains all this and much more.
>>Moreover, a state of affairs in which the Amendment is felt to be
>>extreme (this is _not_ intended as a flame to Mr. Jones) is an
>>excellent argument in favor of its passage.
> Oh? And suppose some day crime gets so bad that Congress
> decides to pass an Amendment which repeals rights to due process,
> etc.? While I don't think that's too likely in the near future, I
> hope you get the point. (Anyone read about Chicago's Supt.
> Robert(?) Gates' desire to "suspend" some Consti- tutional rights?)
Congress by itself cannot amend the constitution. Congress has to
pass the amendment, and then the states have to ratify the amendment.
Yes, you are correct in that any amendment can be repealed or
replaced. But the fact still remains that Constitutional amendments
are difficult to pass and equally difficult (except perhaps in the
case of prohibition) to repeal. In fact, the prohibition amendment is
the only Constitutional amendment to be repealed.
So yes, while what you hypothesize could happen, it would be very
difficult to convince a large number of people ("supermajorities" is a
term you often hear) that repealing the 4th amendment is a good idea.
And if such a supermajority does come into existence, then it would be
within its rights under the Constitution to repeal the 4th amendment
if it so wished.
I would not stop believing in due process of law if such an event
happened, of course. But I hope I've made the clear point that
Constitutional rights cannot be suspended unilaterally (except during
wartime), and while it is possible for the American electorate to
repeal the 4th amendment, it is highly unlikely that they will do so
anytime soon.
Finally, Mr. Gates is the police chief in Los Angeles, not Chicago
(unless there is another Mr. Gates who is chief of police in Chicago).
I have not heard of his desire to suspend Constitutional rights, but
he announced his plans to retire by April 1992, so I wouldn't worry
about him being a threat to Constitutional rights. (His successor and
the LAPD as a whole is another matter.)
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
-------------------
Received: from GATEWAY by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org)
Date: 23 Jul 91 21:18:12 GMT
From: fallout!system (T-H-E John Wisniewski?!?)
Message-Id: <7967@fallout.uucp>
Organization: DECUS DFWLug BBS - Dallas, TX
References: <1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu>
Subject: Re: Wayne State Just Ignores Student Rights (was Re: Ohio State)
In article <1991Jul22.160227.12830@tygra.Michigan.COM>, jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
> In article <1991Jul18.142812.21327@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> "
> "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.
> "
> "
>
> You know, all of the rules and student rights policies and "rights to a
> fair hearing" make no difference when the entire chain of command summarily
> ignores those rights.
>
> I know of a case at Wayne State University, in Detroit where that has
> happened.
>
> Students with greivances go first to their department head, then to the
> deans office. The student has a RIGHT under the "Student Due Process
> Policy" to have a formal hearing and to be able to call witnesses. Those
> witnesses, if employees or students of the University, are compelled to
> be there.
>
> In this particular case (involving computer access), the Ombusdman's
> office ran into a brick wall at EVERY step of the procedure!!
>
> * The department head didn't want to hear about it. He said
> "go see the Dean".
>
> * The Dean said she could do nothing and refused to schedule
> a hearing.
>
> * The Vice Provost didn't know what the hell the Ombusdman was
> talking about. "Due process policy? Never heard of such a
> thing!"
>
> * The matter was taken to the Board of Governors, since it was
> their policy which was being circumvented. It didn't get past
> their executive secretary who just referred it back to the
> Ombudsman's Office for resolution.
>
> It seems that at Wayne State University, there is a shadow policy
> which goes along with the Due Process Policy. This shadow policy
> must be a set of rules outlining how the various departments are
> to avoid actually implementing the Due Process Policy. The result:
> (last I heard): Litigation will begin in the courts this autumn if
> the University fails to respect the student(s) rights after being
> given one last chance.
>
> The moral of the story: BEWARE: It doesn't matter how finely crafted
> your "Students Rights and Responsibilities Policy" is: There is
> often a conspiracy of "good old boys" who have an unwritten agreement
> to "help each other out" and avoid having to answer for their crimes.
> In the case of Wayne State University, the corruption runs the entire
> chain of command, from the departmental level right on up to the
> Board of Governors.
>
> --
> CAT-TALK Conferencing System | "Buster Bunny is an abused | E-MAIL:
> +1 313 343 0800 (USR HST) | child. Trust me - I'm a | jp@Michigan.COM
> +1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP) | professional..." |
> ********EIGHT NODES*********** | -- Roger Rabbit |
-------------------
Received: from RJONES@USMCP6 by CP-6 MAIL Exporter B02 @USMCP6;24 JUL 91 23:44:3
7 CDT
Date: 24 JUL 91 23:44:11 CDT
From: ROBERT ERVIN JONES
Subject: ^^^
Message-Id: <910724.23441148.019218@USM.CP6>
Comments: Please Acknowledge Reception
MITCH SILVERMAN AND ALL . . . A chance to elaborate on
my earlier phreses ( sp at no acdditional chanrge since I
can't back-space and I've been programming all day ) . . .
---
Tribe's proposed amendment will be what CyberSpace needs.
Yet, in comparisson with the normal frow ( sp -flow ) of
legislation and how far those have encompassed before, it
is definitely extreme in the amoun t that Tribe brings forth
at once. I applausd and desire it. It is great, even if it
is a lot at once. but it seems right and necessary.
---
I associated Tribe's statement as a 'catcher' due to a du
discussion I had with Mitch Kapor and another EFF person on
GEnie during an RTC that was ongoing. When questioned about
Tribe's proposal, the reply from the EFF was that it was intended
to get attention and not be taken literally.
---
I would love to see it taken literally, myself. I would also love
to see it implemented. In relative reality ( sp upon sp ) . . .
it seems that Tribe's amendment will come about solely in piece
by piece of other bills that eveolve into laws. Until, eventually,
everythin he stated will have come to pass. The sooner the better.
---
YEs, to me it is extreme, and all of it necessary.
And, from what I had heard from the EFF, they played that
it was only to get attention and nothing more.
If it becomes more, then that is terrific.
---
To the Church of the SubGenius . . . Go with Bob . . .
---
CyberSpace - A Virtual Reality
---
* aka Frosty ---* | GCMS, SotMESC, DPMA, ACM, CSQ, FP
I speak for none . . . Just to be safe | What a great bunch of acronyms
-------------------
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: 25 Jul 91 13:25:32 GMT
Message-Id: <9107251136.AA29609@aludra.usc.edu>
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS
From: desyvax.BITNET!poser@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
References: , <1991Jul22.160227.12830@tygra.Michigan.COM>r
Subject: Re: Wayne State Just Ignores Student Rights, CAT-TALK on freedom of expression
In article <1991Jul22.160227.12830@tygra.Michigan.COM>,
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes in alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:
|>
|>In article <1991Jul18.142812.21327@ms.uky.edu>
|>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
|>"
[...deleted...]
|>
|>You know, all of the rules and student rights policies and "rights to a
|>fair hearing" make no difference when the entire chain of command summarily
|>ignores those rights.
Do You do this on purpose? Or is this just rampant hypocrisy?
[...Muchly deleted...]
Say, aren't You the guy who forged control messages, approvals to
moderated groups, cancel messages and made a general stinking nuisance
of himself on the net.
Say, aren't You the guy who had to change username and domain name at
least twice to evade the odious reek of his prolonged sysop
I-am-god-on-this-site egotrip and save his business?
Say, aren't You the guy who threatens anybody who writes something he
objects to with any, some or all of the following in dispicably smarmy
litigousness:
o His lawyer(s) ?
o The FBI ?
o The CIA ?
o The Secret Service ?
Say, aren't You the guy who filters out any message emanating from a
certain SF site, effectively censoring the input of all Your downstream
sites, for fear that Your customers might hear about Your nefarious
doings?
Say, aren't You as qualified to talk about freedom of expression, users
rights and due process in the computer world as good old Joe Stalin, or
J.Edgar?
Till Poser poser@desyvax.bitnet Standard Disclaimer
Ps.: This is being posted to news.admin, alt.config, alt.flame,
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, comp.admin.policy, where no doubt it'll
be appreciated.
From kadie Fri Jul 26 12:00:51 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Fri Jul 26 11:59:00 EDT 1991
In this issue:
William Hugh Murra :
William Hugh Murra :
kadie : Ethics of "Peeking;" requirement to notify subject
Sanjay Kapur
Subject:
Message-Id: <50910725144205/0003158580NA1EM@mcimail.com>
Subject: Ethics of "Peeking;" requirement to notify subject
>It seems to me that the "popularity" of this approach
>(peeking at user i/o or files)
>with the systems administration staff is irrelevant
>with respect to whether it is ethical behavior
>and whether it is or should be legal.
Agreed. It is my experience that system administrators, and indeed
even system programmers, arrogate unto themselves, or have simply by
default, complete logical and physical control over the system. They
have it on a set of assumptions including: 1) "someone has to have it" in
order to maintain availability; 2) their number is limited; 3) continued good
behavior.
I do not buy in to numbers 1 or 2. I believe that systems can be configured
such that no one must or does have unilateral discretion to do anything he
wants. I do not even believe that it is conducive to availability for anyone
to have such discretion. I acknowledge that the system administrator sincerely
believes that he must have it, but that does not make it so. The occasions
on which the system administrator really must look at the content of user
input, rather than simply the event, or of a user file, rather than simply
the existence and description, is sufficiently rare that it can be normally
reserved and granted on an "as needed" or collaborative basis only.
Likewise, the population ofsystem administrators is now numbered in the
hundreds of thousands. We add more to the population every day than
there were in the whole world as recently as two decades ago. Their
discretion extends from their own system to any to which they are peer
connected and to some to which they should have only a limited
connection. There can no longer be a presumption that they all know
what they are doing and that they will exercise their discretion with
appropriate consideration and restrait.
That leaves us with the assumption of continued good behavior. My
observation is that most system administrators believe that their
control over the system includes the right to exercise it, except as
they are explicilty told otherwise. Again, it is my observation, that
while most behavior of system administrators is benign, or at least
ethically neutral, most are guilty of some abuse of their discretion.
Sometimes such abuse is justified in the name of some higher good, but
more often it is done without even considering its ethics.
The system administrator who suggested that if you peeked, in the name
of uncovering a wrong doing, and if you found nothing to justify
peeking, then you probably would not want to inform the user that you
peeked is a good example of their thinking. The ability to peek
includes the right. That one was peeking in the name of "uncovering
wrong doing" justifies it. There is no assumption in this analysis that
peeking is in and of itself evil and exceptions to that rule cannot be
made unilaterally by anyone, no matter how good their intentions are.
It does not even occur that the intent of the requirement to inform the
user was to deter unwarranted peeking in the first place.
People exercising arbitrary power over others often attract resentment,
no matter how well they may exercise their power. However, in this case
there is more justification for the resentment than the system
adminstrators are prepared to recognize. It is no wonder that they are
increasingly perceived by their constituents as arrogant, arbitrary, and
abusive. Like many of us in other situations, they want to be judged by
their rationale rather than by their behavior.
William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, Connecticut
-------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 14:41 GMT
From: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
Subject:
Message-Id: <93910725144139/0003158580NA1EM@mcimail.com>
Subject: Ethics of "Peeking;" requirement to notify subject
>Not entirely. Say you thought a user might be doing something naughty, like
>keeping a personal copy of some company-owned source code. You take a look at
>his files, and find that not to be the case.
Say you did that. Did you have probable cause? Did you have a warrant, i.e.,
concurrence from a higher authority that you that had probable cause? If not,
you are on very thin ethical ice, whether or not you subsequently inform the
user that you looked.
The following analysis may be helpful.
The original hypothetical, to which this one is offered in response, was
posed in an academic setting. This one is posed by the administrator of
a commercial system. Let us look at one of each.
The ethics of the situation depend, in part, upon the understanding and
agreement between the parties. The academy has always pretended that it
stands in loco parentis. That is, its relationship to the student is
one of parent to child, rather than one of peers agreeing to exchange a
service for a fee. Under this assumption, or presumption if you prefer,
the school is responsible for the ethical indoctrination of the student
and has an inherent right to invade or limit his privacy in that
interest. Of course, even under this assumption, the school would not
normally convey full authority to act in this manner to all of its
minions, to include system administrators. I doubt that many system
administrators operate under the belief that they are responsible for
the ethical training of users.
In a commercial setting, the assumption is one of agreement between
peers. the ethics of the situation would depend upon the agreement.
What did each promise? What demonstrations of fulfillment were agreed
to. What remedies for breach were provided? For example, let us take a
large computer manufacturer, often associated with the color blue, but,
for sake of this use, need not be oherwise identified. Blue tells its
employees that it is its intent to respect the rights of program
authors, and abide by all of its contracts. It tells them that it is a
condition of continued employment that all of its employees cooperate in
this intent. It goes on to tell them that access to such resources as
desks, phones, and computers is provided to help them do their jobs and
restricted to management approved uses. While it gives, its managers a
great deal of latitude in deciding what is to be approved, it does not
permit them to approve exceptions to the first two rules. Further it
tells its employees that its desks and computers are its own property,
that it reserves the right to look in them, and that employees put
personal things in them at the risk that they will be seen by
management. Now Blue does not really intend to look; they say what they
say in part to protect themselves in the event that one of their agents
does look. However, it does reserve the right to do so. Thus it would
be ethical for Blue, as a corporate person, to look, but probably not
ethical for any of its agents, except as an explict part of his job, to
do so.
In both cases we end up with a user who is not entitled to an
expectation of privacy, and a system adminitrator who is not entitled,
except in very limited and explicit circumstances, including probable
cause, to peek.
Now take no comfort in any of this. It is a comparative anyalysis of
two hypotheticals. It is a guide to ethical analysis, not to
ethical action. I do not pretend that either hypothesis does or
ethically should correspond to the real world. For example, I do not
pretend to know whether or not a university is an agent of the parent or
a vendor of a service to the student.
William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, Connecticut
-------------------
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, 25 Jul 1991 15:26:14 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul25.152614.11476@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <50910725144205.0003158580NA1EM@mcimail.com>
Subject: Ethics of "Peeking;" requirement to notify subject
Here is what the Joint Statement says about searches:
[From AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 1977 Edition]
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms
of Students
[...]
B. Investigation of Student Conduct
1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied
by students and the personal possessions of students should not be
searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For
premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an
appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom
application should be made before a search is conducted. The
application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects
or information sought. The student should be present, if possible,
during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution,
the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed.
[...]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 11:30 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: peeking
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
>
>Agreed. It is my experience that system administrators, and indeed
>even system programmers, arrogate unto themselves, or have simply by
>default, complete logical and physical control over the system. They
>have it on a set of assumptions including: 1) "someone has to have it" in
>order to maintain availability; 2) their number is limited; 3) continued good
>behavior.
>
>I do not buy in to numbers 1 or 2. I believe that systems can be configured
>such that no one must or does have unilateral discretion to do anything he
>wants.
In a few years maybe. Current operating systems do not have as much
flexibility as computer salesbeings will have you assume.
>
>People exercising arbitrary power over others often attract resentment,
>no matter how well they may exercise their power. However, in this case
>there is more justification for the resentment than the system
>adminstrators are prepared to recognize. It is no wonder that they are
>increasingly perceived by their constituents as arrogant, arbitrary, and
>abusive. Like many of us in other situations, they want to be judged by
>their rationale rather than by their behavior.
I have been using computers for about twenty years now. Systems
Administrators were much more arrogant and arbitrary then compared to
now.
The way Computing is organized in many places, the administration does not
want to be bothered with computer discipline or anything connected with
computers. That is why they appoint systems administrators who will take care
of problems as the systems administrator sees fit. This is never written
policy or even spoken policy. No (non-computer) administrator will admit to
such an abdication of power to the systems administrator but that is how it is
in reality.
As far as the "powers that be" are concerned, systems administrators normally
do an excellent job of keeping trouble away and so they are given whatever
powers they need to carry out their jobs. This again is unspoken and
unwritten but very real policy.
One major disadvantage to systems administrators of such policy is that when
the "shit hits the fan", they are convenient scapegoats since they were never
officially given the power to do what was expected of them. Since there are
"hundreds of thousands" of systems administrators out there, a new one can be
hired without problems.
>
>William Hugh Murray
>New Canaan, Connecticut
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: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 15:36:49 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul25.153649.11765@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <50910725144205.0003158580NA1EM@mcimail.com>
Subject: Ethics of "Peeking;" requirement to notify subject
Here are the University of Illinois' and the U.S. Constitution's rules
for searches:
{I think University rules concerning assigned office space provide the
best model of how disk space and e-mail should be treated. - Carl}
"IV. Privacy
A. Members of the University community have the same rights of
privacy as other citizens and surrender none of those rights by
becoming members of the academic community. These rights of privacy
extend to residence hall living. Nothing in University regulations or
contracts shall give University officials authority to consent to a
search by police or other government officials of offices assigned or
living quarters leased to individuals except in response to a properly
executed search warrant or search incident to an arrest.
B. When the University seeks access to an office assigned or living
quarters leased to an individual to determine compliance with
provisions of applicable multiple-dwelling unit laws, ordinances, and
regulations, or for improvement or repairs, the occupant shall be
notified of such action not less that twenty-four hours in advance.
There may be entry without notice in emergencies where imminent
danger to life, safety, health, or property is reasonably feared and
for custodial service.
C. The University may not conduct or permit a search of an office
assigned or living quarters leased to an individual except in
response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to
an arrest."
{The 4th Amendment:}
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
{A government institution, such as this University can not ignore
these protections just because it owns the facilities [Mancusi v.
DeForte 392 U.S. 364, 368 (1967); Gillard v. Schmidt 579 F.2d 825, 829
(3d Cir. 1978)] - Carl}
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 10:51:58 -0500
From: "Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <9107251551.AA14954@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: FYI: Re: Ohio State (who does a new law prof see for net
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!verber
From: verber@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Mark Verber)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Ohio State (who does a new law prof see for net access?)
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Jul 91 15:04:11 GMT
References: <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org> <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>
<16945@life.ai.mit.edu> <1991Jul15.141516.20768@eng.umd.edu>
<1991Jul15.203851.7073@visix.com> <26125@well.sf.ca.us>
Organization: Ohio State University; Physics Department
Lines: 74
In-reply-to: hank@well.sf.ca.us's message of 16 Jul 91 03:25:21 GMT
People...
I am getting really tired of the thread about "Ohio State" policies.
First of all, that title is misleading because it is not Ohio State
policies, but the policies of the computer center (ACS). Secondly the
student in question certainly given a biases accounting, and the staff
at ACS aren't permited to get their biases (but balancing
perspective), so everyone is shooting in the dark. If you want to
continue this thread why don't you start talking about the abstract
issues, because that is what you are doing right now. You are just
pretending the issues you are concerned about are being played out at
OSU. The "facts" in this case that people have been throwing around
are more like opinions and impressions. Third, while I have done more
that my share of battling the what was the "evil empire's" crazy
policies, but I have found the ACS originization at OSU to be getting
more and more reasonable. I don't like seeing ACS' name getting
dragged through the mud when it is clear that they are trying very
hard to cope with a lot of changes and improve the services that they
are delivering to our campus.
I am in general a hater of bureaucracy. But in the 13 years I have
been around OSU I have come to appreciate grudgingly the way things
work. OSU does have an ombudsman. While not perfect, I have seen the
ombudsman get action. I have even seem tenured profs getting the axe
from proceedings that were started by the ombudsman.
Many, many years ago I was banned by IRCC (what ACS used to be
called). While they over-reacted, the bureaucracy (a mandatory
meeting with my chairman) cooled them out. I was banned for an
indeterminant period of time. Later, I not only got my account back,
but 'wheel' privs (it was a -20) when it was clear that I had learned
my lesson and I was in need of an account for work. Not that the IRCC
people from the first conflict were happy with me getting an account,
but they did install it. They follow the rules religiously.
> Seeing all the OSU discussion encourages me to inquire, for an old
> friend who's a new teacher at OSU's law school, and wants net access
> (and relevant handholding). Sounds like the school's got a lot of
> systems -- who should she inquire of? Local phone number/name there?
The system that Steven Brack was removed from (magnus) sole purpose in
life is for students and staff to read and send electronic mail and
news. Anyone can get a free account provided they are associated with
the university, and agree to the policies for the machines. Your
friend could walk over to the ACS service desk, show them his staff
id, and get an account and their getting-started guide.
BTW: This is one of the reasons that the policies on magnus are so
restrictive. If everyone on campus requested an account as they are
permitted, there would be 60,000 acounts. Right now they have a mere
3114 accounts. ACS has limited resources. They have to be "fair", eg
they can't give better service to any particular group for individual
for fear of someone crying "foul", so they offer the best service
they think they can afford to give to everyone. The result is what
seems to most of us to be overly restrictive.
Finally, I would like to second Amanda Walker's resentment of:
> what seems to be a common characterization of sysadmins as
> self-serving tools of "the administration." When I worked for OSU
> CIS, I and the rest of the staff spent a lot of time and effort
> defending our users from the onslaught of stupid bureaucracy.
Many of the privileges we all enjoy right now we have because sysadm
and system staff fought for those privileges. Relatively free mail,
news, and Internet access at OSU were initially driven by the system
staff at OSU/CIS.
If it weren't for serious elisp kill algorithm for GNUS I wouldn't
bother reading this news group. To much noise, not enough substantive
discussion.
Disgusted,
Mark
-------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 11:56 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: security and peeking.
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
>
>Say you did that. Did you have probable cause? Did you have a warrant, i.e.,
>concurrence from a higher authority that you that had probable cause? If not,
>you are on very thin ethical ice, whether or not you subsequently inform the
>user that you looked.
The question should be of security and not ethics. Ethics are part of
religion and so everyone has a right to what ethical beliefs they follow.
What are the ethics of the situation when a security officer at a high school
opens a student's locker looking for stolen property? The security officer
does not need a warrant, probable cause or anything.
A computer account is very much like a high school locker. The insides belong
to the student and the physical structure belongs to the school. There is an
individualized lock/password on each locker. Lockers/computer accounts are
given free of charge to students. A student can stuff only so much in his
locker/disk space before the space/diskquota runs out. Breaking into another
student's locker is frowned upon. Some of the discussion on the network
sometimes takes on the language of the locker room :-). If you store dead
fish in a locker and it smells, everyone gets upset at you.
However there are a few major differences. A locker can not use up more than
its fair share of resources (floor space) and can not print up ten thousand
sheets of paper. A locker can not be used to break into another locker (
except adjacent lockers).
Analogies and hypothetical situations can be extended ad absurdum.
>and has an inherent right to invade or limit his privacy in that
>interest. Of course, even under this assumption, the school would not
>normally convey full authority to act in this manner to all of its
>minions, to include system administrators. I doubt that many system
>administrators operate under the belief that they are responsible for
>the ethical training of users.
But they are interested in securing the system and keeping its availabilty
high for ALL users.
>does look. However, it does reserve the right to do so. Thus it would
>be ethical for Blue, as a corporate person, to look, but probably not
>ethical for any of its agents, except as an explict part of his job, to
>do so.
That depends on the company. A high security company or a company plagued
with employee theft may frisk everyone leaving the building and still be
ethical.
>
>In both cases we end up with a user who is not entitled to an
>expectation of privacy, and a system adminitrator who is not entitled,
>except in very limited and explicit circumstances, including probable
>cause, to peek.
>
Yes, in your very hypothetical scenario. Real life is not that simple.
>Now take no comfort in any of this. It is a comparative anyalysis of
>two hypotheticals. It is a guide to ethical analysis, not to
>ethical action. I do not pretend that either hypothesis does or
>ethically should correspond to the real world. For example, I do not
>pretend to know whether or not a university is an agent of the parent or
>a vendor of a service to the student.
I agree, Ethicists love to extremely oversimplify real life conflicts.
>
>William Hugh Murray
>New Canaan, Connecticut
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: 25 Jul 91 17:40:30 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul25.174030.12966@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: University of Chicago
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!ellis.uchicago.edu!swsh@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jul24.195959.27805@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, <9107242141.AA27051@zerkalo.harvard.edu>hica
Subject: Chicago's Supt. of Police (was Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition))
In article <9107242141.AA27051@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) quotes somebody,
whose reference I've lost:
[much deleted]
>> Oh? And suppose some day crime gets so bad that Congress
>> decides to pass an Amendment which repeals rights to due process,
>> etc.? While I don't think that's too likely in the near future, I
>> hope you get the point. (Anyone read about Chicago's Supt.
>> Robert(?) Gates' desire to "suspend" some Consti- tutional rights?)
[much deleted, including points about how Congress alone can't change
the Constitution]
>Finally, Mr. Gates is the police chief in Los Angeles, not Chicago
>(unless there is another Mr. Gates who is chief of police in Chicago).
>I have not heard of his desire to suspend Constitutional rights, but
>he announced his plans to retire by April 1992, so I wouldn't worry
>about him being a threat to Constitutional rights. (His successor and
>the LAPD as a whole is another matter.)
The Superintendent of Police in Chicago is named Leroy Martin. He
recently returned from a trip to China, and expressed his admiration
for their law enforcement and prison policies, and a desire to do away
with some civil rights (due process, and protection from search and
seizure) in order to emulate them. There has been hardly any public
outcry about his statements.
(Is it ironic to hear such things from a black man in a heavily
segregated city, or is my irony meter out of whack?)
--
Janet Swisher Internet: swsh@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago Phone: (312) 702-7608
Academic and Public Computing P-mail: 1155 E. 60th St. Chicago IL 60637, USA
-------------------
From: William W. Arnold
Message-Id: <9107252042.AA23906@cabell.vcu.edu>
Subject: Re: security and peeking.
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 16:42:36 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
I would like to dispute your analogy.
Sanjay.Kapur@sunysp.edu writes ---
>
>What are the ethics of the situation when a security officer at a high school
>opens a student's locker looking for stolen property? The security officer
>does not need a warrant, probable cause or anything.
>
>A computer account is very much like a high school locker. The insides belong
>to the student and the physical structure belongs to the school. There is an
>individualized lock/password on each locker. Lockers/computer accounts are
>given free of charge to students. A student can stuff only so much in his
>locker/disk space before the space/diskquota runs out. Breaking into another
>student's locker is frowned upon. Some of the discussion on the network
>sometimes takes on the language of the locker room :-). If you store dead
>fish in a locker and it smells, everyone gets upset at you.
>
I would like to suggest that the correct analogy is to either a college
locker, or to a grad-students desk. In so happens that in both these
cases the school is required to have a search warrent except in case of
"imminent danger to life ...." In the case of the desk this is
specificaly mentioned in the VCU policy and procedures manual. In the
case of the locker, on at least one occasion a security guard here was
yelled at for going into a student's locker without a warrent.
>Analogies and hypothetical situations can be extended ad absurdum.
very true!
>Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
/------------------------------\ /----------------------------------\
| William W. Arnold | Is the universe an accident, |
| has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu | a mistake, or did someone |
| warnold@gnu.ai.mit.edu | do it to us on purpose? |
| someone.else@someplace.else | --ME-- |
\------------------------------/ \----------------------------------/
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 20:37:49 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul25.203749.15750@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
Subject: Help Wanted
Help Wanted - Mailing List Manager/Assistant Editor
In an effort to give me more time to work on my thesis, I'd like
recruit someone to help me with the Computers and Academic Freedom
lists. (Also, I think that delegation of work/authority is generally a
good thing.)
* Exact Responsiblities are Open. Here is what I do now:
Manage the mailing list
Type the command to send out CAF-batch about once a day
Debug/work around the mailing programs (mostly shell scripts)
Promote the CAF mailing lists
Answer email as politely as I can
Select the best notes from CAF-talk for CAF-news
* The Ideal Candidate would
have enthusiasm for the project
be a student or other academic
have good network connections
be able to program shell scripts
* Compensation
Satifaction of advancing a worthy cause
The fame/infamy of being a net.personality
You may also be able to get an account on the eff.org machine
If you are interested, please send email to
kadie@eff.org
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 25 Jul 91 20:14:52 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul25.201452.836@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!xanthian@uunet.uu.net
References <6620@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, <23.Jul.91.155137.81@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>, =]
Subject: Re: Administrator Access (Was Re: Ohio State)
escott@clippers.shearson.com (E. Scott Menter) writes:
> wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu writes:
>> As both a system administrator and a user this
>> seems quite reasonable to me. The only thing I
>> would add is that if a users' data has been
>> accessed as a result of an emergency situation
>> that the user must be informed of that access
>> after the emergency has been alleviated or a
>> fixed time period has passed. (a week or two?).
>> The user should also be informed what emergency
>> required this action. This would probably even
>> cover investigating possible "crackers" as that
>> would seem to be an emergency
> Not entirely. Say you thought a user might be
> doing something naughty, like keeping a personal
> copy of some company-owned source code. You take a
> look at his files, and find that not to be the
> case. Should you then send him email saying "we
> thought you might be a dishonest jerk, but we
> checked it out and decided you aren't one?"
> Even when I worked in academia this wouldn't have
> been a popular approach 8^).
And for good reason; that is not an _emergency_,
that is a "show probable cause" type of situation,
and at the least, the person's account should be
frozen or a protected copy of the file made, and a
procedure gone through in which evidence supporting
admin access to that file's insides is presented,
subject to owner's rebuttal, and adjudicated by
higher authority before the file is browsed by other
than its owner.
Kent, the man from xanth.
-------------------
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: 25 Jul 91 20:45:44 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul25.204544.1555@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix
From: spool.mu.edu!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!xanthian@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul17.233857.27897@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, <1991Jul18.152242.18998@eng.umd.edu>, <1991Jul18.221720.24347@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: conflict resolution was Re: Ohio State
With that much evidence, I'd have gone right to the
media; nothing like a little op-ed page or sixty
second local news spot consisting entirely of a
description of the derelection of duty at all levels
of command to regain the attention of authorities.
Whatever passes for an alumni association could have
been valuable friends, too, since the hands that
hold the purse strings seem to wield an inordinate
amount of power, and mostly be ex-students who've
been given that runaround themselves.
Kent, the man from xanth.
-------------------
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: 25 Jul 91 20:37:16 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul25.203716.1274@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix
From: spool.mu.edu!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!xanthian@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul17.233857.27897@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, <1991Jul18.142812.21327@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul22.160227.12830@tygra.Michigan.COM>
Subject: John P. Palmer rides again!
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
> The moral of the story: BEWARE: ... There is often
> a conspiracy ... to ... avoid having to answer for
> their crimes.
Much similar to ddmi.com (aka tygra.com, aka
michigan.com, aka cat-talk), having to censor
outside exposures of its sysadmin's pecadillos, so
his site won't have to answer to its subscribers for
his crimes against USENet?
> In the case of Wayne State University, the
> corruption runs the entire chain of command, from
> the departmental level right on up to the Board of
> Governors.
Much like the corruption at ddmi.com runs from the
president chief stockholder and sysadmin, right down
through the ranks?
[Many thanks for putting my site on your "drop news
from this site on the floor" list, John; it is _so_
nice to be able to warn people about you right "in
front of your eyes" and have you helpless to answer,
or even to see what information they have that you
don't know they're getting. Losing cat-talk's
subscribers as an audience when you've lyingly
claimed to give them a full USENet feed is a sad
small penalty to pay in exchange. They are the
innocent victims of your ongoing net misbehavior,
and your frantic attempts to cover it up or deny it
ever happened.]
Kent, the man from xanth.
-------------------
From: William W. Arnold
Message-Id: <9107252245.AA03474@cabell.vcu.edu>
Subject: Re: in loco parantis
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 18:45:01 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org writes ---
> The academy has always pretended that it stands in loco parentis.
>
while this may have been true in the past, My understanding is that
this in no longer true, and hasen't been true for many years. if it
is, I find the idea offensive, and so would the the 50 year old college
student sitting across from me.
> William Hugh Murray
> New Canaan, Connecticut
>
/------------------------------\ /----------------------------------\
| William W. Arnold | Is the universe an accident, |
| has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu | a mistake, or did someone |
| warnold@gnu.ai.mit.edu | do it to us on purpose? |
| someone.else@someplace.else | --ME-- |
\------------------------------/ \----------------------------------/
-------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 22:32 GMT
From: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
Subject:
Message-Id: <12910725223221/0003158580NA4EM@mcimail.com>
Amanda Walker submits:
>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.
Well, there is toleration and toleration, tolerators and tolerators. I
agree that the state must tolerate anything that is not illegal. I further
agree that, under our Constitution, there are limits to what the state may
make illegal. The limits were placed in the Constitution to prevent the
government from using the power of the state to perpetuate itself.
[I am confident that Ms. Walker understands this distinction; however I
am not so sure that she grants it.]
Now that leaves the remainder of behavior and the rest of us. Let us
begin with me. There is a great deal of rude and outrageous, but
otherwise legal, behavior that I am prohibited from engaging in. First,
I may not engage in behavior, which if engaged in by everyone, would be
damaging to public order or public trust, invite the otherwise
unjustified intervention of arbitrary authority, or interfere with the
enjoyment of other things which I, or the community, value.
[I note Ms. Walker's qualification: "as long as it causes no harm." I
would like to hope that qualification is big enough to embrace some of
these examples.]
The origin of this prohibition is my perception of my obligation to the
rest of the community. The authority for the prohibition is my own
well-formed conscience.
Second, I may not engage in behavior that would reflect discredit on my
profession. The origin of this prohibition is the cannon of ethics of
my profession. The authority for the prohibition is a non-enforceable
agreement that I consented to when I joined the profession. This
agreement is between me and my professional peers and colleagues. Among
other things, I agree not to embarass them in return for which they
agree not to embarass me.
For the same reason, I may not hire or sponsor for professional
advancement anyone who is not professionally competent or who cannot be
relied upon to abide by the professional ethics. Perfectly legal, but I
may not do it. There are some sanctions available to my colleagues if
do not meet my obligation. That is, they are not forced to tolerate my
behavior simply because it is legal. They may not prevent me in
advance, but they can sanction me after the fact.
Incidentally, refusing to sponsor someone for professional advancement
is a form of non-toleration. Note that there are circumstances under
which, not only may I elect not to, but have a positive obligation not
to tolerate some classes of perfectly legal actions. [Perhaps Ms.
Walker has undertaken no such obligations; perhaps I remind her of some
that she has overlooked. Perhaps she only engaged in hyperbole or
posturing.]
Third, I may not engage in behavior which is embarassing to my
business associates or colleagues. I hope that those of you who have
not yet learned the origin, authority, and sanctions for this behavior
learn it without too much permanent damage.
On a different plane, I may not speak in a manner which I calculate to
be damaging to the delicate emerging persona of a child. The source of
this prohibition is my perception that the child is God's handiwork,
that She has difficulty enough making the child come out the way that
She would like, and that while She may tolerate my interference in the
short run, in the long run, I suspect that She may maintain a special
place in hell for people who do violence to children.
I may not interfere with the intended operation of a computer, release,
or even write a computer virus, play with fire, or otherwise experiment
with things beyond my ken or control. [Oh, Ms. Walker there are all
kinds of limits on my freedom short of law, far too many to enumerate
here. Let these few serve as examples.]
None of this is to say that there are not causes in which I will take up
rude, extreme, or outrageous behavior. I hope that none of them are so
trivial as merely demonstrating that I can get away with it.
William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, Connecticut
-------------------
Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom
Path: uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!act31797
From: act31797@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Pogo Possum )
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) <1991Jul24.195959.27805@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Message-Id: <1991Jul25.234720.25358@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <9107242141.AA27051@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 23:47:20 GMT
Lines: 40
In article <9107242141.AA27051@zerkalo.harvard.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jul 1991 19:59:59 GMT, comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org said:
>
>> In article <9107241913.AA10712@sunburn.ec.usf.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>> Oh? And suppose some day crime gets so bad that Congress
>> decides to pass an Amendment which repeals rights to due process,
>> etc.? While I don't think that's too likely in the near future, I
>> hope you get the point. (Anyone read about Chicago's Supt.
>> Robert(?) Gates' desire to "suspend" some Constitutional rights?)
>
>Congress by itself cannot amend the constitution. Congress has to
>pass the amendment, and then the states have to ratify the amendment.
>
[....]
>
>Finally, Mr. Gates is the police chief in Los Angeles, not Chicago
>(unless there is another Mr. Gates who is chief of police in Chicago).
>I have not heard of his desire to suspend Constitutional rights, but
>he announced his plans to retire by April 1992, so I wouldn't worry
>about him being a threat to Constitutional rights. (His successor and
>the LAPD as a whole is another matter.)
>
Mea culpa...There IS a Gates in Chicago, but his name isn't Robert.
I not only screwed up the first name but the last as well. The correct
name is LeRoy Martin. He had just returned from China and had been mightily
impressed by the way they handle crime over there. Anyways, my point was
that under certain unfavorable conditions (e.g. high crime) the "super-
majority" can be "persuaded" to give up their rights.
For those interested in the story, check the July 12 Chicago Tribune
(likely available at a good public library :-).
>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
>
--
Andrew Trapp
act31797@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
-------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 20:20 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: OS limitations.
Message-Id: <45789325DCA06C5D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>
>And for good reason; that is not an _emergency_,
>that is a "show probable cause" type of situation,
>and at the least, the person's account should be
>frozen or a protected copy of the file made, and a
>procedure gone through in which evidence supporting
>admin access to that file's insides is presented,
>subject to owner's rebuttal, and adjudicated by
>higher authority before the file is browsed by other
>than its owner.
>
>Kent, the man from xanth.
>
A sufficently privileged person can browse a file without any trace whatsoever
in almost all the general purpose operating systems in use today. This is the
nightmare that makes Systems Administrators paranoid about crackers.
Any policy requiring systems administrators to get permission to browse is
totally unenforceable because the system administrator can browse without any
trace or proof of such browsing. Any user or policy maker who assumes
otherwise is living in fantasyland (or is it Xanth?)
An unenforceable policy is bad policy as it devalues all other policies.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
From: William W. Arnold
Message-Id: <9107260112.AA11221@cabell.vcu.edu>
Subject: Re: OS limitations.
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 21:12:56 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Sanjay.Kapur@susysb.edu writes ---
>Any policy requiring systems administrators to get permission to browse
>is totally unenforceable because the system administrator can browse
>without any trace or proof of such browsing. Any user or policy maker
>who assumes otherwise is living in fantasyland (or is it Xanth?)
>
If you can not trust your system admins to obey the rules that have
been established, they you have problems that go beyond what can be
reasonably solved here.
The current problem is that there are no clear rules against this sort
of thing, or, if you are on the other side of the argument, there is no
clear permision granted to do this.
>An unenforceable policy is bad policy as it devalues all other policies.
>
> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Any policy is unenforcable, if the people who are hired to enforce it
are the ones violating it.
/------------------------------\ /----------------------------------\
| William W. Arnold | Is the universe an accident, |
| has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu | a mistake, or did someone |
| warnold@gnu.ai.mit.edu | do it to us on purpose? |
| someone.else@someplace.else | --ME-- |
\------------------------------/ \----------------------------------/
-------------------
Received: from USENET by eff with netnews
for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org);
contact usenet@eff if you have questions.
Date: 26 Jul 91 01:03:16 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul26.010316.19498@NCoast.ORG>
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
From: europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!jpp@uunet.uu.net
References <1991Jul18.142812.21327@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul22.160227.12830@tygra.Michigan.COM>, <7967@fallout.uucp>
Subject: Re: Wayne State Just Ignores Student Rights (was Re: Ohio State)
In article <7967@fallout.uucp> system@fallout.uucp (T-H-E John Wisniewski?!?) writes:
"
" [A duplicate of my original article]
"
Did you mean to say something, John?? All that came across was a duplication
of my original article, without any text of your own.
John
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 04:37:16 EDT
From: Mitchell Silverman (SARASOTA)
Message-Id: <9107260837.AA12303@sunburn.ec.usf.edu>
Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
In Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) Thu Jul 25
09:48:22 EDT 1991 <9107251348.AA09917@eff.org>, his message-id
<910724.23441148.019218@USM.CP6>, ROBERT ERVIN JONES
writes:
> MITCH SILVERMAN AND ALL . . . A chance to elaborate on
> my earlier phreses ( sp at no acdditional chanrge since I
> can't back-space and I've been programming all day ) . . .
> ---
> Tribe's proposed amendment will be what CyberSpace needs.
> Yet, in comparisson with the normal frow ( sp -flow ) of
> legislation and how far those have encompassed before, it
> is definitely extreme in the amoun t that Tribe brings forth
> at once. I applausd and desire it. It is great, even if it
> is a lot at once. but it seems right and necessary.
> ---
> I associated Tribe's statement as a 'catcher' due to a du
> discussion I had with Mitch Kapor and another EFF person on
> GEnie during an RTC that was ongoing. When questioned about
> Tribe's proposal, the reply from the EFF was that it was intended
> to get attention and not be taken literally.
> ---
> I would love to see it taken literally, myself. I would also love
> to see it implemented. In relative reality ( sp upon sp ) . . .
> it seems that Tribe's amendment will come about solely in piece
> by piece of other bills that eveolve into laws. Until, eventually,
> everythin he stated will have come to pass. The sooner the better.
As Manavendra K. Thakur points out (quite eloquently, I might add) in his
message <9107242141.AA27051@zerkalo.harvard.edu> in the same mailed digest, in
reference to Andrew Trapp's comments on my original message:
> Congress by itself cannot amend the constitution. Congress has to
> pass the amendment, and then the states have to ratify the amendment.
>
> Yes, you are correct in that any amendment can be repealed or
> replaced. But the fact still remains that Constitutional amendments
> are difficult to pass and equally difficult (except perhaps in the
> case of prohibition) to repeal. In fact, the prohibition amendment is
> the only Constitutional amendment to be repealed.
>
> So yes, while what you hypothesize could happen, it would be very
> difficult to convince a large number of people ("supermajorities" is a
> term you often hear) that repealing the 4th amendment is a good idea.
> And if such a supermajority does come into existence, then it would be
> within its rights under the Constitution to repeal the 4th amendment
> if it so wished.
There is an enormous difference between a Constitutional amendment and
protections granted by force of law. My free exercise of religion, for
instance, or my freedom of speech are fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution, to which _every_ other law in the United States is inferior,
and is a standard to which every law, Federal or state, may be compared.
If any law infringes upon those rights unnecessarily, that law is
unconstitutional.
I do say "unnecessarily." The Federal government does have the right to
regulate _some_ conduct: religious conduct, for example.
In _Cantwell v. Connecticut_, 310 U.S. 296(1940), the case in which the Supreme
Court extended the First Amendment's protection of freedom of religion to the
states, the Court wrote:
The Amendment embraces two concepts,-- freedom to believe and freedom to act.
The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.
Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. (310 U.S.,
at 303-304.)
I use freedom of religion as an example, because I am somewhat familiar
with the case law. But Federal regulation of protected conduct extends to
any sort of protected conduct.
But only conduct protected in the Constitution is entitled to even this
much protection. Were the Bill of Rights a Federal statute, its
protections would be nowhere near so ironclad as they are. Congress might
decide that "We need to take a look at it and maybe, from time to time, we
should curtail some of those rights." That's what Chicago Police
Superintendent LeRoy Martin suggested be done to the Constitution, by the
way, not Los Angeles police chief Darryl Gates.
In any case, I sincerely hope that the Tribe Amendment passes. Failing
the Amendment's passage, I hope that the EFF and its attorneys are
successful in persuading the courts to interpret the Constitution's
existing protections so as to "...be construed as fully applicable without
regard to the technological method or medium through which information
content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted, or controlled."
Which, after all, is the sole purpose of the Tribe Amendment, IMHO--to
explicitly extend a protection implicitly extended already.
When the authors of our Bill of rights wrote that "Congress shall make no
law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances," they didn't intend to omit electronic
communications.
One could argue that they did not intend to _include_ them either, true.
But in 1789 there were three basic means of distributing information were
known: speech, the printing press, and protest. The Framers did not wish
repetitions of incidents under British rule such as the Zenger case, the
Boston riot in which Crispus Attucks was killed, or even William Penn's
imprisonment and "show trial," (in England) in which the _jury_ was jailed
and threatened in an attempt to force a guilty verdict.
Had they been but aware of the changes that our nation would see in two
hundred years, or had they been aware that some day the courts would find
that obscenity, of any sort would not be protected by the Constitution's
provision for freedom of speech, I feel certain that they would have been
more explicit in their drafting.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a
question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil
magistrate. Are we to censor whose imprimatur shall say what book may be
sold and what we may buy?
Shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for
what we are to read? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether
they are rational beings or not.
Of course Jefferson was out of the country during the Constitutional
Convention and the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Would that he had been
in Philadelphia!
As I think you can see, I am squarely in agreement with Amanda Walker's
(also quite eloquent) statements with regard to the Bill of Rights'
protections. The Bill of Rights protects obnoxious speech, such as that
of the Chicago police superintendent above. But should that superintendent
attempt to "...curtail some of those rights...." without having first
_changed_ the Constitution, he will, I hope, find that violations of
individual civil rights are Federal crimes, just as smoking crack and
prostitution are state crimes.
Mitch Silverman
silverma@sunburn.ec.usf.edu
Student, New College of the University of South Florida
I speak only for myself, and sometimes not even that.
-------------------
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, 26 Jul 1991 15:38:10 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul26.153810.5953@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
From: kadie
References: , <1991Jul24.041012.1592@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Ohio State ACS policy
This is a critique of a policy that was recently posted to the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup. Everything in quotes ("") is
from the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students.
> Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks
> The Office of Academic Computing
> The Ohio State University
> Approved June 6, 1990
It doesn't say. But policy "should be developed at each institution
within the framework of general standards and with the broadest
possible participation of the members of the academic community." In
other words, this policy should be consistent with the University's
general policies and should be developed with the help of the system's
users.
>The use of computers and computer networks in no wat exempts us from the
>nominal requirements of ethical behavior in the University community. Use
>of a computer network that is shared by many users imposes certain
>obligations.
>In particular, data, software, and computer capacity have value and must be
>treated accordingly.
>Legitimate use of a computer or computer network does not extend to whatever
>we are capable of doing with it. Although some rules are built into the
>computer's operating system, these restrictions do not limit completely what
>we can do and see. We are responsible for our actions whether or not the
>rules are built into the system, and whether or not we can circumvent those
>rules.
Agreed.
>The following specific principles of computer and network systems operated
>under the direction of the Office of Academic Computing are applicable to Ohio
>State students, faculty, staff, and contract employees. As users we must:
> o Respect the privacy and rules governing the use of any
> information accessible through the computer system or
> network, even when that information is not securely
> protected.
The policy could be improved by mentioned that ACS will respect
the privacy and freedom of expression of its users.
> o Respect the ownership of proprietary software. For example,
> do not make unauthorized copies of such software for your
> own use, even when that software is not physically protected
> against copying.
> o Respect the finite capacity of systems, and limit your own
> use so as not to interfere unreasonably with the activity of
> other users.
What is unreasonable? Who decides? Is any warning given?
> o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the
> system.
What procedures? How are they decided? Are they posted?
>Those who cannot accept these standards of behavior may be denied access to
>the relevant computer systems and networks.
Will they be expelled from the computer forever? Can they ask for a
hearing? Are the standards every made explicit? Who decides that
the user cannot accept the standards? Is there any due process
build in? Are students told of their rights?
This policy lacks due process protections. The gist of the policy
seems to be that 'if we decide that you break a rule (that we created,
and you may not even know about), we can expel you from the computer
forever.'
Note that (at most schools) faculty can not (by themselves) expel a
students from a class. It would be very strange of nonacademic
University employees could (by themselves) expel students from a
computer.
Here are excerpts from the Joint Statement about due process.
" VI. Procedural Standards in Disciplinary
Proceedings
In developing responsible student conduct, disciplinary
proceedings play a role substantially secondary to
example, counseling, guidance, and admonition. At the same
time, educational institutions have a duty and the
corollary disciplinary powers to protect their educational
purpose through the setting of standards of scholarship and
conduct for the students who attend them and through
the regulation of the use of institutional facilities. In the
exceptional circumstances when the preferred means fail
to resolve problems of student conduct, proper procedural
safeguards should be observed to protect the student from
the unfair imposition of serious penalties."
"The jurisdictions of faculty or student judicial bodies,
the disciplinary responsibilities of institutional officials and the
regular disciplinary procedures, including the student's right to
appeal a decision, should be clearly formulated and communicated in
advance."
"In all situations, procedural fair play requires that the student be
informed of the nature of the charges against him, that he be given a
fair opportunity to refute them, that the institution not be arbitrary
in its actions, and that there be provision for appeal of a decision."
"The institution has an obligation to clarify those standards of
behavior which it considers essential to its educational mission and
its community life. [...] Offenses should be as clearly defined as
possible and interpreted in a manner consistent with the
aforementioned principles of relevance and reasonableness.
Disciplinary proceedings should be instituted only for violations of
standards of conduct formulated with significant student participation
[...]."
"2. Students detected or arrested in the course of serious violations
of institutional regulations, or infractions of ordinary law, should
be informed of their rights. No form of harassment should be used by
institutional representatives to coerce admissions of guilt or
information about conduct of other suspected persons."
"C. Status of Student Pending Final Action
Pending action on the charges, the status of a student
should not be altered, or his right to be present on the
campus and to attend classes suspended, except for
reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and
well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being
of students, faculty, or university property."
"When the misconduct may result in serious penalties and if the
student questions the fairness of disciplinary action taken against
him, he should be granted, on request, the privilege of a hearing
before a regularly constituted hearing committee."
>Violators may also be subject to
>penalties under the regulations of the University and under laws of the State
>of Ohio or the United States of America to the extent applicable.
>I have read the above conditions and agree to abide by these standards.
>Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: ____________
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
From kadie Sat Jul 27 10:47:33 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sat Jul 27 10:46:59 EDT 1991
In this issue:
cs.utexas.edu!heli : Re: Chicago's Supt. of Police (was Re: Computers and Acad
europa.asd.contel. : Re: Administrator Access (Was Re: Ohio State)
visix!news@uunet.u : Re: (none)
"Carl M. Kadie"
Organization: Texas A&M University
From: cs.utexas.edu!helios!tamsun!cnh5730@uunet.uu.net
References: , <1991Jul24.195959.27805@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>un
Subject: Re: Chicago's Supt. of Police (was Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition))
In article <1991Jul25.174030.12966@midway.uchicago.edu> swsh@ellis.uchicago.edu (Janet M. Swisher) writes:
The Superintendent of Police in Chicago is named Leroy Martin. He
recently returned from a trip to China, and expressed his admiration
for their law enforcement [...]
(Is it ironic to hear such things from a black man in a heavily
segregated city, or is my irony meter out of whack?)
Your irony meter is just functioning as a low-pass filter. If you turn
up the threshold, you'll see that just as we had suspected all along,
black men are remarkably similar to everyone else...
some of them are butt-head neo-totalitarians just like white persons.
In Texas, when presented with a local issue which involved
censorship of freedom of expression, a local black male city
councilperson (the only councilperson of color)
told me that he supported censorship, that the morals of
America were becoming degraded, and that we had to have some
censorship to fix the situation.
Moral of the story?
When all persons are free, they will be free to be idiots.
--
- 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: 26 Jul 91 17:14:10 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul26.170647.28903@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 <16989@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul19.181817.5287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, g
Reply-To : otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Subject: Re: Administrator Access (Was Re: Ohio State)
In article , escott@clippers.shearson.com (E. Scott Menter) writes...
>> From: wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu
>>reasonable to me. The only thing I would add is that if a users' data has
>>been accessed as a result of an emergency situation that the user must be
>>informed of that access after the emergency has been alleviated or a fixed
>>time period has passed. (a week or two?). The user should also be informed
>>what emergency required this action. This would probably even cover
>>investigating possible "crackers" as that would seem to be an emergency
>Not entirely. Say you thought a user might be doing something naughty, like
>keeping a personal copy of some company-owned source code. You take a look at
>his files, and find that not to be the case. Should you then send him email
>saying "we thought you might be a dishonest jerk, but we checked it out and
>decided you aren't one?"
>Even when I worked in academia this wouldn't have been a popular approach 8^).
It would make you think before violating someone's property, though.
Such mistakes should be acknowledged. If you lose good employees as a
result of too much spying, there will be a chance that you'll get the
boot, as well. Trying to cover up such mistakes is dishonesty and I don't
care to work for or with dishonest people.
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: Fri, 26 Jul 91 18:40:40 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul26.184040.8090@visix.com>
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
From: visix!news@uunet.uu.net
References: , <12910725223221.0003158580NA4EM@mcimail.com>=>
Subject: Re: (none)
0003158580@mcimail.COM (William Hugh Murray) writes:
> Well, there is toleration and toleration, tolerators and tolerators.
> [I am confident that Ms. Walker understands this distinction; however I
> am not so sure that she grants it.]
As I understand you so far, I believe that I do. To elaborate a
little, I understand the multiple meanings of "tolerate," and I have
been addressing only one of them. "Tolerate" can, among other things,
mean both "approve of" and "permit." Now, what you approve of, or like,
is completely up to you and is no one's business but your own. Now, I
personally think that broad "tolerance" by this meaning is a good thing,
but I certainly cannot demand it of anyone. I have been adressing only
the sense of "permit," i.e. the degree to which we must not interfere with
others who are speaking or acting in ways we do not agree with.
> [I note Ms. Walker's qualification: "as long as it causes no harm." I
> would like to hope that qualification is big enough to embrace some of
> these examples.]
Indeed.
> The origin of this prohibition is my perception of my obligation to the
> rest of the community. The authority for the prohibition is my own
> well-formed conscience.
Agreed. There is also a flip side to this: there are quite legal (and
conceivably mandatory) actions which I will not perform and words I
will not speak, also because of my conscience. For example, I will
not serve in the armed forces, or do work whose primary purpose is the
construction of military equipment of any sort.
> Second, I may not engage in behavior that would reflect discredit on my
> profession. [...]
True. These are, however, obligations that you took upon yourself, and
could lay aside if you wished. I have been concerned in this discussion
primarily with coercion--voluntary restrictions on behavior are not
coercion. In fact, once again as long as it does not cause harm to
others, I support the right to regulate your own behavior as much as
you want, ranging from professional codes of ethics to bizarre bedroom
behavior. Consent, especially informed consent, is another one of my
primary values.
> Incidentally, refusing to sponsor someone for professional advancement
> is a form of non-toleration. Note that there are circumstances under
> which, not only may I elect not to, but have a positive obligation not
> to tolerate some classes of perfectly legal actions. [Perhaps Ms.
> Walker has undertaken no such obligations; perhaps I remind her of some
> that she has overlooked. Perhaps she only engaged in hyperbole or
> posturing.]
Not only have I undertaken such obligations, I have fulfilled them in
just such a manner.
> [... more examples ...]
> [Oh, Ms. Walker there are all kinds of limits on my freedom short of law,
> far too many to enumerate here. Let these few serve as examples.]
Yes and no. I think you are blurring the distinction between what you
*may* not do and what you *do* not do. It is quite apparent that you have
a strong sense of obligation and self-discipline, and I commend you for
it. However, as you yourself have pointed out, the authority for these
restrictions that you have taken onto yourself is your own conscience and
beliefs, not an external (or more specifically, governmental) authority.
There are many things I do not do, but which I would greatly resist being
prevented from doing. To take a trivial example, I do not own or bear a
firearm, for my own personal reasons, but I very much value my right to do
so.
> None of this is to say that there are not causes in which I will take up
> rude, extreme, or outrageous behavior. I hope that none of them are so
> trivial as merely demonstrating that I can get away with it.
Grin. I never said I *recommended* it, just that I allowed it.
The law sets the *minimal* set of constraints on our behavior. What we
do beyond that is up to us.
--
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach
for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory
is won." --Louisa May Alcott
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 15:14:01 -0500
From: "Carl M. Kadie"
Message-Id: <9107262014.AA00439@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: FYI: Proposed law on computer searches
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 14:53:15 PDT
From: xanadu!hibbert@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Proposed law on computer searches
Don Ingraham was one of the prosecutors who talked at the Conference on
Computers Freedom and Privacy in March. At the last session, he said he would
write and propose new guidelines for prosecutors to follow that would take into
account the concerns that were brought up at the conference. Last month, he
gave a talk at the first meeting of the Berkeley SIG on Freedom, Privacy, and
Technology (affiliated with BMUG and CPSR-Berkeley). He mentioned at that
point that he had a draft, and I later asked him for a copy. When I asked him
if I could redistribute it, he not only gave me permission, but encouraged me
to do so.
If you have suggestions on how to improve the draft, or if you represent a
relevant group (CPSR, EFF, ACLU, and ACM come to mind) and would like to offer
Don official support, he'd very much like to hear from you. Don isn't
electronically connected, so you'll have to send him fax or paper mail, or call
him on the phone. If there is interesting discussion here, I'll tell him about
it, but I don't promise to show him every word.
What follows is first Don Ingraham's summary, then the draft bill, and finally
his commentary on what it means, and what he'd like to have happen with it.
This is an important proposal, and it looks like quite a good law.
Chris
hibbert@xanadu.com uunet!xanadu!hibbert
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
PROPOSAL FOR PENAL CODE SECTION 1538.6:
ELECTRONICALLY STORED MATERIAL.
Revised 11 June 1991
Donald G. Ingraham, Assistant District Attorney, Alameda County,
1225 Fallon Street, Oakland CA 94612 4292 (415) 272-6232 fax 271-5157
The following is a proposal to add to the existing search warrant provisions
of the Penal Code some particular restraints on the issuance of warrants which
are required by federal law; it would also establish controls on the
examination of electronically stored evidence seized in the course of a
criminal investigation, and empower the Attorney General to monitor and
regulate compliance with this law.
There are four main aspects:
first, it recognizes the existing restraints of federal law, in particular
the Privacy Protection Act (42 USC 2000aa) portion of the Civil Rights Act, and
also chapter 212 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2700 et
seq) dealing with stored electronic communications. The portion of the ECPA
which addresses the interception of electronic communications is covered by
existing law.
second, it establishes the Attorney General of California in a monitoring
and regulatory function, not unlike the function now performed in regard to
criminal offender record information. In the following text, references to
federal law appear in parentheses.
third, it establishes criteria for the inventory and analysis of
electronically stored evidence, and affords the person from whom it was seized
and other interested parties standing and information to present their
interests and concerns to the issuing magistrate.
fourth, it balances law enforcement's necessary investigative authority with
the privacy and personal interests of persons affected by the investigation.
This topic is of such significance that it is suggested there be a specific
legislative declaration such as this:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Legislative finding:
The legislature finds that investigation and prosecution of crimes in which
computers are involved engenders a risk to other rights, including those to
conduct a business, to publish, and to conduct private communications. This
section clarifies existing requirements of the federal Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and the Privacy Protection Act, and also invests the
Attorney General with authority to regulate the analysis and examination of
electronic media seized under the authority of this chapter.
Addition to Chapter 3, Search Warrants, Title XII, Special Proceedings
of a Criminal Nature, California Penal Code.
Section 1536.5
A search warrant for computer-related material cannot be authorized except
in compliance with the following restraints. All electronically stored
material seized, under a search warrant or otherwise, shall be retained and
analyzed as follows:
[a] if the content is reasonably apparently identifiable as intended for
publication, a search warrant may be authorized only if the affidavit to that
warrant specifically provides probable cause that the material is contraband or
the fruits of a crime or things otherwise criminally possessed, or is property
designed or intended for use, or which is or has been used as, the means of
committing a criminal offense.
(This is directly from Title 42 USC 2000aa(7).]
[b] if examination of electronically stored communications indicates that any
particular file is a communication intended to be private and neither party
thereto is named as a subject of the search warrant, and the material has been
in such storage for under 180 days, the investigating officer may not continue
the analysis nor proceed further without obtaining a search warrant for stored
electronic communication, as defined by regulations issued by the Attorney
General.
(This is adapted from Title 18 USC 2703: the term
'search warrant for stored electronic communication'
appears in that Title as a term of art.]
[c] within five court days of any seizure of stored electronic material, the
investigating officer will file a supplement to the inventory required by
section 1537 which will list all electronic material with all available
specificity, including but not limited to file names then identified, and
indicate what procedures for analysis are being taken. A copy of that and any
subsequent inventories will be furnished to the subject of the search warrant.
A further supplement will be filed with the issuing magistrate every tenth
court day thereafter until all electronic material has been analyzed. A copy
of all such inventories will be part of the court record and open to public
inspection.
[d] Electronic stored media will be analyzed as expeditiously as possible and
in the following order: first, material recognizably necessary to the conduct
of legitimate business and private communications; second, material
recognizably central to the crime under investigation; third, material
reasonably suspected of relating to the crime under investigation. The
magistrate shall direct the investigating office or prosecutor to return or
copy such material to the owner, providing a receipt for the court record.
[e] After the filing of the initial inventory, any person who has reason to
believe that he or she would be unfairly adversely affected in business or
communications by the retention or analysis of the seized electronic material
may petition the issuing magistrate for a hearing to demonstrate that the
proposed retention and/or analysis would result in significant injury to a
legitimate purpose.
[This provision expands upon existing Calif PC
1538.5, but is specific to electronic media; there
is no known federal counterpart. The provision
for return by DA, receipt to Court, regular
accounting and standing to others affected is not
fantasy: we did as much in our Draper prosecution
with mutually beneficial effect.]
[f] The Attorney General shall establish regulations for the seizure,
examination, and disposition of electronic material obtained in the process of
criminal investigations consistent with the intent of this section that
intrusion and disruption be as minimal as the requirements of an investigation
permit, and in keeping with federal regulation.
[This section empowers the Attorney General to
keep computer related criminal investigations by
our law enforcement agencies consistent with
federal law, without the need to go to the
legislature to accommodate changes in the federal law.]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Comment, primarily intended for prosecutors, but open to all
This is the draft of a bill on search warrants for electronically stored
material, which will probably be introduced next session: I need to line up AG
and other support for it to fly. To put the idea in context, please be aware
that Penal Code 1538.5 covers review of searches and is the basis of our
traverse motions. It seemed the logical place to put this, rather than in our
Computer Crime section-502- or under privacy.
The idea is to get a legislative purpose statement, and then flag areas of
concern and potential federal liability:
(a) flags the First Amendment Privacy Protection Act, 42 USC
2000aa, which addresses : ... any work product materials possessed by a person
reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper,
book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting
interstate or foreign commerce.." which I try to boil down by the phrase
"intended for publication", adding a prefatory qualification, that it be
"reasonably apparently identifiable" as such. The federal act makes no such
allowance, although I cannot imagine a court imposing it: as it now reads it is
rather like forbidding us to open any cabinet that may contain more than one
paper clip, at our peril.
(b) does the same flagging as to Chapter 212, Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 18 USC 2700 et seq, again clarifying that it does not apply if one
of the parties is already named in the warrant. This would assume that the
possibility of electronically stored communications was anticipated by the
warrant, which should always be the case. The legislative history is barren on
this, but what standing would an intruder have to object?
(c) through (e) create something new, not in the federal law. This
basically is a response to the main complaint about the usual investigation,
which is that the gear and files disappear into the maw of the eagle, and are
seldom if ever heard from again. Having someone say "we're working on it"
every other month is not what I think James Madison had in mind. I think that
such limbo should not be imposed, assuming that it ever is, and the best way to
keep that from happening would be to require a regular accounting and progress
report. This would not only be reasonable, but it would also accomplish two
other boons: it would give us a need to keep our investigation going instead of
watching our resources get reassigned, and it should forestall more draconian
controls if this perception gets any more widespread. We did exactly this when
we prosecuted John "Captain Crunch" Draper, and it worked well. I wouldn't try
to process evidence any other way.
(f) would empower our Attorney General to establish regulations for the
search of electronically stored material much as the AG now sets the policies
on confidentiality and privacy of Criminal Offender Record Information/"rap
sheets". Going by administrative regulation rather than by way of additional
legislation guarantees that we will not stray from federal rules, which should
keep civil rights prosecutions of prosecutors per 42 USC 1983 at a minimum.
What is needed to bring this about?
The basic hope is to have it debugged and ready to submit by October: ready
to submit means, among other things, that we have some organized support from
concerned citizens. The immediate hope is that both law enforcement and civil
libertarians will see the wisdom of structuring what is now not as structured
and be willing to support it. The idea is to keep it clean and simple; if
glitches later develop, we could amend it again, but the essential aspect at
this point is to get legislative recognition of the fact that search warrants
for electronic material are already different from search warrants for other
things. If we do that, and can get the Attorney General to agree, it should
fly. My fondest hope is that come October I could represent to the appropriate
legislator that the AG, the CDAA, the ACLU, the CPSR, and the academic and
business communities thought this a heck of an idea, and in their view
essential.
In summary, and in particular regard to the concerns of prosecutors like me,
this proposal would avoid the need to develop an electronic privacy measure in
California by adopting the federal law, and giving the Attorney General the
responsibility to keep up with its amendments through the California Code of
Regulations. Two other states, Utah and Florida, have crafted their own
versions of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act; that independent
course risks inconsistencies and uncertainties as the judicial process
construes the ECPA. The enactment of this proposal would avoid that, while at
the same time providing all available guidelines to law enforcement and to
citizens concerned with the freedom to use computer technology and with
electronic privacy, who are, after all, a significant portion of the People in
whose behalf we prosecutors are privileged to appear.
-------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 21:44 GMT
From: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
Subject:
Message-Id: <43910726214434/0003158580NA3EM@mcimail.com>
Amanda Walker, I believe that we are kindred souls. I hope that I
can win your support.
>However, as you yourself have pointed out, the authority for these
>restrictions that you have taken onto yourself is your own conscience and
>beliefs, not an external (or more specifically, governmental) authority.
Just so. However, what concerns me here is the evidence in the thread
that many take license from the limits of governmental authority. That
is they believe that all things which are not prohibited by government
are permissable, and perhaps even mandatory.
History is clear that license encourages government. There are all
kinds of bills working their way through the legislatures which are
intended to limit what we do here in the name of public order. All of
them look for their justification to a tiny bit of atypical, but
outrageous behavior. Those who have perpetrated that behavior, and put
our freedoms at risk, have justified that behavior on the basis that it
is not prohibited or is a justified rebuke to abusive authority.
What you are concerned about is protecting those freedoms already
guaranteed by the Constitution. What I am trying to protect is that
zone of freedom between what the government already regulates and that
which the Constituion says it may not. That zone is very fragile; it is
being put at risk by outrageous behavior, essentially gratuitous, by a
small few. They are taking comfort and justification from your
arguments which I do not believe that you intend. It is clear that you
have a strong ethical sense which they do not share. Your refusal to
characterize that behavior as extreme or outrageous, to personally
forego it in the name of preserving freedom, contributes to the problem.
I am willing to forego rude, extreme, and outrageous behavior in the
name of order to and to forestall authoritarian intervention in an area
where it is not needed or useful. I invite you to join me. I am
willing to characterize and condemn as abusive of freedom, that behavior
which invites authoritarian intervention. We need your support.
Your example of gun control is perfect. I too do not and would not own
a firearm. As a matter of conscience, I, the world's ultimate toy
freak, forego a toy that I have every right to own and am trained and
qualified to use. I too cherish the right to own one and do not want
the government to interfere with that right. But if you do not believe
that "the powers that be" will restrict that constitutionally guaranteed
right to bear arms if all these shootings do not diminish, then you have
not read enough history.
Now you and I agree that the right to use a computer is fundamental and
subject to Constitutional guarantees. You likely agree with me that the
use of computers is fundamentally orderly and does not need to be
regulated. But I guarantee you, if the extreme, but atypical, behavior
in the net continues, government will be all too quick to step in.
Now you and I will agree that that behavior is not significant. It is
not even in the same realm with people shooting members or their
families, their neighbors, strangers on the freeway, or babies in their
beds. But neither is the right to use a computer any way one wants on
the same list as the right to bear arms. As fundamental as it may be,
it is derivative, not explicit. As trivial as the offenses in the net
are, they frighten people. Frightened people turn to protective
government and they voluntarily surrender their rights. Government
feels justified and is all too happy to oblige.
Now quite candidly, as much as I value the freedom to bear arms, I have
already personally given it up. When little babies are not safe from
stray bullets in their beds, I am ready to surrender some of your
freedom. If things get much worse, I may be ready to support a
constitutional amendment. If you believe that it will not get a lot of
support, then you do not watch enough TV.
And if you think that people cannot become sufficiently frightened of
computer hackers to surrender your right and mine to use computers as we
like, then you must think that they value freedom one hell of a lot more
than I do.
William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, Connecticut
-------------------
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: 27 Jul 91 02:38:53 GMT
Message-Id: <1991Jul27.023853.22723@bradley.bradley.edu>
Organization: Bradley University
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!bradley.bradley.edu!dave@world.std.com
References <1991Jul24.195959.27805@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, <9107242141.AA27051@zerkalo.harvard.edu>, <1991Jul25.174030.12966@midway.uchicago.edu>du
Subject: Re: Chicago's Supt. of Police (was Re: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition))
swsh@ellis.uchicago.edu (Janet M. Swisher) writes:
>The Superintendent of Police in Chicago is named Leroy Martin. He
>recently returned from a trip to China, and expressed his admiration
>for their law enforcement and prison policies, and a desire to do away
>with some civil rights (due process, and protection from search and
>seizure) in order to emulate them. There has been hardly any public
>outcry about his statements.
People are naive that way. People figure that it will only effect them by
removing people from the street easier. All it takes is one false
accusation against them, though, and they change their mind in a hurry.
But as long as it's against 'criminals' it's okay.
My mom has been with our Sheriff's Department back home for 13 years, and
about 6 years as a detective. She honestly believes that people nowadays
have too many rights. The first time she said that, I damn near fell out
of my chair....
--
========*davE*......making the world safe for intelligent dance music.========
This section may be skipped if you are not interested in b-trees. You can
use Informix-4GL without knowing what a b-tree is.
(David Vessell) (Bradley University Computing Services) (dave@bradley.edu)
-------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 03:22 GMT
From: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
Subject:
Message-Id: <25910727032252/0003158580NA2EM@mcimail.com>
>"All these shootings"? What does gun control have to do with crime?
>Certainly none of the current bills (with the possible exception of
>the Stagger's bill defeated in the House) have anything to do with
>crime. They are merely regulation for regulation's sake.
Exactly, Mr. Greely. If you will not hear my words, then re-read your
own -- over and over -- until you get the message. When people are
frightened they turn to government. That government is not effective
has little to do with it. That the laws proposed limit freedom without
dealing with the problem does not make any difference. I may not be able
to limit your freedom Mr. Greely, and have little motive to do so, but
government can and will. It thrives on anger, disorder and fear.
Take me at my word, Mr. Greely, and spare me your righteous indignation;
it is wasted on me.
William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, Connecticut
-------------------
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: 26 Jul 91 23:29:39 GMT
Message-Id: <5493@orbit.cts.com>
Organization: Orbit TimeSharing [orb], Minneapolis, Mn.
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bu.edu!stanford.edu!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest!orbit!whir@world.std.com
Subject: Hamline Univ shuts off account w/o notice or stated reason
This tale tells more of traditional institutional politics (and
its inertia), I guess, than of how technology is pushing rights
and liberties. I have been a reader and sometime speaker in the
Usenet since 1984, having had access at a big government place.
I've been getting back to school and found them open to making
papers in a Unix environment and keeping access to this
community.
Last fall i began an MALS (liberal studies not library science)
at Hamline U and approached the computer people about a Unix
machine and account. "Sure, we have this new Sequent, it's
primarily used for administration, but there's a math professor
who is interested in those packages and is getting them. And we
are going to connect to the Internet in a couple weeks." And it
was a fine semester, even though the Internet connection wasn't
made until the very end of it. Everyone was friendly including
the to-be-mentioned cheese.
Before the next semester began I approached (perhaps the wrong
guy and at the wrong time) the system administrator's boss, as I
was steered, because my schedule had changed and I was wondering
about getting printout. He was miffed that `word processing' was
happening on his machine, I was flabbergasted -- I wondered what
constituted word processing. That evening i found, without any
notice, that my account had been disabled.
I did meet shortly thereafter with the previously quite
congenial, ow completely mute system administrator and his (the)
director of computing and telecommunications services. To make a
long story short, no one else at Hamline was competent nor
willing to listen to my case. The only person who new what kind
of issue this was was the math professor, who no one would call.
Before the end he took it on himself to see the MALS director,
who "was like a brick wall." I did find after repeated searches
that Hamline has an ombud, a good listener though ineffectual.
(BTW, early on when no one was listening, I refused to pay my
tuition until someone would. I found the ombud and withdrew from
Hamline a couple days too late as far as they are concerned.
They have now threatened collection...)
What happened? It seems pretty clear that this Unix-naive guy
above the system administrator was uncomfortable with the
combination of Internet, administration parts of the file system
and a user who wasn't using a mainframe in the manner that
computers were used before communication merged. Other accounts
were given to novices shortly after I was disconnected. The
teacher, of course, retains his account. I did hear second-hand
noises about putting my files on tape or letting *me* back on
when they got things "set up," in some undefined period. But
between the lines clearly and singly was, "We don't trust you."
It was for this reason and a deaf administration that I withdrew.
I will in a matter of days no longer be at this address,
returning to the net about Sept 7, most likely as
whir@csd4.csd.uwm.edu. If someone would keep a file of any
follow-ups generated I'd appreciate it. Mail will also, I think,
be held at allard@max.bnl.gov. Thanks are to Wojciech.
ooooooooooooootter#spoon in bowl
!!!!!!!!!!!!& RooM &
!!!!!!!!!!!!R oooo M
-------------------
Message-Id: <9107270416.AA19799@eff.org>
From: "Dean Gottehrer"
Subject: Perilous thread?
William Hugh Murray makes wonderful arguments about responsible behaviors as a
way to guarantee freedom. I couldn't agree more that responsible behavior
means little likelihood of freedoms being limited. But I'm not quite ready to
go the next step and predict that unless we condemn extreme behaviors we will
lose our freedoms.
I have been close enough to the legislative process in my state (I worked as
an aide to my representative for a session and was legislative liaison for the
commissioner of administration for another session) to understand how
difficult it is to get laws passed. I guarantee you it is much easier to kill
legislation than it is to breathe life into it. And despite all of the polls
that show lack of support for the Bill of Rights, I have a basic fundamental
faith in the ability of the American people to preserve their freedoms through
all the threats technology can and has posed in recent decades.
So while I support responsible, moral, ethical behavior and am willing to
attack anti- or undemocratic behavior, I don't believe that our freedoms hang
from so perilous a thread that unless we speak out against extreme behavior we
will lose our freedoms or some part of them.
One other area where I diverge from Mr. Murray and Ms. Walker is that I
believe freedom is a use it or lose it commodity. Reading their discussions
about the right to bear arms, I was struck how different they might seem if we
substituted freedom of speech or press.
(To edit and paraphrase Mr. Murray with a smile: I too do not and would not
own a printing press. I too cherish the right to own one and do not want the
government to interfere with that right. But if you do not believe that "the
powers that be" will restrict that constitutionally guaranteed right to a free
press if all this free speech does not diminish, then you have not read enough
history.)
I do own guns. I never owned one before I moved to Alaska. I only bought one
most reluctantly when I had to worry about the prospect of
difficult-to-deal-with bears when I lived 15 miles from town and had some
neighbors who did not believe in owning guns. Fortunately I never had to use
them, but there are millions of people who believe in the right to bear arms
and I suspect many of them don't believe in freedom of speech or press.
Finally, government *will* intervene and regulate the net and computers. I
don't think it is a matter of if, it is a matter of when. Our society is too
litigious. Someone will sue over an extreme and outrageous act of a system
administrator somewhere and law will be built on those actions. These laws
will first be written by courts rather than Congress or the state
legislatures. Deliberative bodies move very slowly and not at all if the
constitutents of a problem do not reasonably agree what the solution is. Only
the light of public opinion shining on a problem speeds up the process. I
doubt that is likely to happen any time soon with computers.
A freedom preserved but unused is no freedom at all.
Dean Gottehrer
Anchorage, Alaska
-------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 13:49 GMT
From: William Hugh Murray <0003158580@mcimail.com>
Subject:
Message-Id: <83910727134938/0003158580NA1EM@mcimail.com>
Dean Gottehrer:
>William Hugh Murray makes wonderful arguments about responsible
>behaviors as a way to guarantee freedom.
Did not intend to so argue. Rather, I argue that it takes all too
little gratuitous outrageous behavior to cause its loss. Freedom is
never finally won and guaranteed. The U.S. Constitution notwithstanding,
freedom is under constant attack. It must be defended and contended for
every day, forever. The argument is how best to do so.
>Finally, government *will* intervene and regulate the net and computers. I
>don't think it is a matter of if, it is a matter of when. Our society
>is too litigious. Someone will sue over an extreme and outrageous act
>of a system administrator somewhere and law will be built on those
>actions. These laws will first be written by courts rather than
>Congress or the state legislatures.
Perhaps, but let it not be said that any of the things that we did
to rush it were trivial or poorly motivated. At any rate, bad precedent
is easier to remedy than bad law. Bad regulation is the most resistant
to remedy of all.
>A freedom preserved but unused is no freedom at all.
True, and probably more true of speech than of other freedoms. I do not
argue that we should foreswear speech. I do not argue that we foreswear
outrageous speech in the name of principle or significant causes. I
argue that we foreswear gratuituous outrageous speech in the name of
trivial causes so as not to take unnecessary risk of inviting
unnecessary intervention in our freedoms. Specifically, to bring the
argument back to where it began, I argue that we should forego, as a
matter of personal discipline, but collegial authority if necessary,
certain limited kinds of abusive behavior that we have seen here in the
net. Specifically and to wit, "rude (inconsiderate of the rights of
others) behavior on the part of users, not simply naivete" and
"over-reaction on the part of administrators, not simply attempts to
preserve order."
Now it seems to me that that is little enough to ask. It amazes me how
much rhetoric, passion, and anger this very limited argument has raised.
It amazes me that so much has been said so well in defense of such
behavior. It saddens me that there has been so much defense of outrage
and only a little grudging consent to responsibility. I take what
comfort I can in the fact that, while few will argue for polite
behavior, most of the net continues to be orderly.
William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, Connecticutt
From kadie Sun Jul 28 14:34:47 1991
To: cafb-mail
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Sun Jul 28 14:34:35 EDT 1991
In this issue:
snorkelwacker.mit. : Re: (none)
Sanjay Kapur
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely@world.std.com
References: , <25910727032252.0003158580NA2EM@mcimail.com>l.
Subject: Re: (none)
Thank you for posting private mail without at least the courtesy of
asking. It's nice to see that you are rude as well as ignorant.
In article <25910727032252.0003158580NA2EM@mcimail.com> 0003158580@mcimail.COM
(William Hugh Murray) writes:
>Exactly, Mr. Greely. If you will not hear my words, then re-read your
>own -- over and over -- until you get the message.
I got the message that I wrote. I haven't the slightest idea what you
read.
>When people are frightened they turn to government.
What a lovely sweeping generalization! Bullshit, but still lovely.
>Take me at my word, Mr. Greely, and spare me your righteous indignation;
>it is wasted on me.
Your word is scribbled in crayon, and as for righteous indignation,
"Mr. Kettle, Pot on line 1".
"Spontaneous combustion!
What a stroke of luck!"
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1991 15:54 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Perilous thread?
Message-Id:
X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook
X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR
>Sender: Dean Gottehrer
>
>(To edit and paraphrase Mr. Murray with a smile: I too do not and would not
>own a printing press. I too cherish the right to own one and do not want the
>government to interfere with that right. But if you do not believe that "the
>powers that be" will restrict that constitutionally guaranteed right to a free
>press if all this free speech does not diminish, then you have not read enough
>history.)
>
There is one error in the paraphrase:
The right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to shoot people.
The right to free speech and a free press both are separately enumerated.
I do not believe that Mr. Murray was referring to shooting as in hunting,
firing range practice or self defense but to random shootings or shootings
related to other crimes like drugs or muggings.
The last sentence in the paraphrase should be modified to:
But if you do not believe that "the powers that be" will restrict
that constitutionally guaranteed right to a free press if all this
printing that does grevious injury to persons does not diminish, then
you have not read enough history.
Freedom of speech has been and still is restricted quite often in this
country and throughout the world when outrageous speech is uttered.
A good example is freedom to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
Another good example on the restriction of both press and speech is the
restriction on the freedom to publish defense secrets.
Another example is the beating of peaceful anti-war demonstrators in the late
sixties and early seventies (right of the people peaceably to assemble)
Another example is a dictator shutting down presses only after they
criticized the dictator.
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: 28 Jul 91 05:05:30 GMT
Message-Id: <26367@well.sf.ca.us>
From: apple!well!nagle@decwrl.dec.com
References: , <5493@orbit.cts.com>le
Subject: Re: Hamline Univ shuts off account w/o notice or stated reason
I respect this person for putting his money where his mouth is, by
withdrawing from the school over this issue. An effort by the school to
collect from him could be interesting, since he's raising a breach of
contract issue. I doubt that they will make a major effort to collect
if it is made clear that they will have to justify their behavior
in court.
John Nagle
Prof: "Me professor. You student."
Student: "Me customer. You employee."
