From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 20 09:24:32 1991
Received: from a.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA09763; Tue, 20 Aug 91 09:24:29 -0500
Received: from eff.org by a.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA13439
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Tue, 20 Aug 91 09:23:57 -0500
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA04436; Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:23:33 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Return-Path:
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA04428; Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:23:28 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:23:28 -0400
From: helen@eff.org (Helen C. O'Boyle)
Message-Id: <9108201423.AA04428@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Aug 20 09:50:37 EDT 1991
In this issue:
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM : Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net ON HOLD
xanthian@zorch.SF- : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
kadie@eff.org (Car : CAF-news 1.21 abstract
away@mwvm.mitre.or : Mail for Hugh A Pritchard
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net ON HOLD
Status: O
I am going to put my Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net
project on hold for a little while until I check things out. . .PLEASE! Send
no congress-letters, or money. . .I have to look into a certain detail
before I continue.
Thank you.
--
Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
Ask me about the Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net projectb
Apple II Forever! Ask me about the GNOmultitasking project!
kill all overthrow government kill kill bomb bomb hi NSA
-------------------
Date: 16 Aug 91 10:44:52 GMT
From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug16.104452.28266@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
References: <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>, <1991Aug15.004054.2852@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, <1991Aug15.152232.20198@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
In article <1991Aug15.152232.20198@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>> ALTERN) There is an alternative computer on
>>> which extracurricular activities are
>>> allowed.
>> This one's the kicker -- I see nowhere supported
>> by _anything_ a "right" to use someone else's
>> computer resources for any purpose whatever. The
>> access to computers for students _must_ continue
>> to be voluntary on the part of the institution,
>> but I think one can argue that it should be
>> _fairly_ given if it is given at all, and work on
>> defining "fairly".
> Would you also then say that students have no
> right to use a classroom for, say, a club meeting?
> Assume that the classroom is not otherwise being
> used (NOT LOADED) and that no alternative space,
> such as a student union, exists (NOT ALTERN).
Exactly the same principal -- you have a right to
peacably assemble, but not at my expense -- you have
to find a place dedicated to public assembly, such
as a park, or find a place volunteered to you.
In the case, this privilege to use school facilities
is very frequently extended, but it is visibly often
denied. You have another Problem of the Commons
here; if the _public_ school is treated as a
_publically_ _demandable_ property, then no one has
control of it and no one will take care of it, on
the old "with responsibility must come authority"
principal.
As that won't work, our society is structured
oppositely. Public property is under the authority
of administrators, responsible for adjudicating
access and use just like a business would do, to
further some assigned mission objective.
Kent, the man from xanth.
-------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 14:40:04 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug16.144004.19266@eff.org>
Subject: CAF-news 1.21 abstract
This is the abstract for Computers and Academic Freedom News 1.21.
CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk. If you know folks
who might be interested in these issues, but don't have time to read a
dozen of notes a day, you might recommend CAF-news to them.
CAF-news is available as newsgroups alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscript. For info on email delivery, send email to listserv@eff.org.
Include the lines "help" and "longindex".
cafv01n21
[The week ending August 11th was slow. There are only four notes in
this CAF-news. The first argues for the importance of academic freedom
<9108050251.AA18992@eff.org>. The next is a list of the files in the
CAF archive <1991Aug6.174158.4108@eff.org>. The third is excerpts from
a 100 page on-line document. The document advises on site security and
also makes some good suggestions about policy making
<1991Aug7.163131.23490@eff.org>. The final note in a story about
single-word censorship <9108071845.AA26106@eff.org>. - Carl]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Friday, 16 Aug 1991 11:16:41 EDT
From: away@mwvm.mitre.org (AWAY -- Mail router on MWVM)
Message-Id: <9108161516.AA18573@mwunix.mitre.org>
Subject: Mail for Hugh A Pritchard
Hugh A Pritchard is away from the office until 08/19/91.
The mail you sent will be held until then.
-------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 20:13:14 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug16.201314.25699@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug15.004054.2852@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, <1991Aug15.152232.20198@eff.org>, <1991Aug15.212141.11573@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>They have the *privilege* of using it, just as they have the *privilege*
>of attending the university in the first place. If a student is in the
>UK College of Engineering, he enjoys the *privilege* of access to my
>systems; his counterparts in, say, Architecture, do not enjoy that
>*privilege*. It is not, nor will it ever be, a right; access to com-
>puter systems is not listed in UK's "Student Rights and Responsibilities".
>Attendance at a university is a contracted service, not a right. Under
>that contract, one may have certain *privileges*.
[...]
What is the difference between a privilege and a right? Everything
that I have read (and quoted from) has referred to "contractual
rights". I don't know if I've every heard the phrase "contractual
privileges".
In everyday use a privilege is a license to do something that can be
revoked at the pleasure of an authority. For example, TV watching
may be a privilege that I give to my child.
In legal use, a privilege is a license or right that is applicable to
only some. For example, the attorney-client privilege is a right that
only applies to attornies and their clients.
Thus, the word "privilege" is ambiguous and the assertion that,
say, computer access is a privilege doesn't really tell us how
access permission is granted and how it is withdrawn.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 20:33:42 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug16.203342.26268@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>,
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
[...]
>Well, if a chemistry lab isn't fully utilized, and I have a key to it
>for class work, can I make explosives in my spare time? The
>university doesn't have any alternate facilities where I can make
>explosives, so I should be able to use this one, right? No? There
>goes my academic freedom...
[...]
Free expression is different than free chemistry. Free expression, but
not free chemistry, is explicitly protected by the Code of most
universities, the Joint Statement, and (for public universities) the
First Amendment.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 20:28:48 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug16.202848.26086@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug15.004054.2852@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, <1991Aug15.152232.20198@eff.org>, <1991Aug16.104452.28266@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
[...]
>Exactly the same principal -- you have a right to
>peacably assemble, but not at my expense -- you have
>to find a place dedicated to public assembly, such
>as a park, or find a place volunteered to you.
[...]
>As that won't work, our society is structured
>oppositely. Public property is under the authority
>of administrators, responsible for adjudicating
>access and use just like a business would do, to
>further some assigned mission objective.
The legal theory that the government holds title to all public places
(including public universities) and can grant or limit access as it
sees fit in exactly the same manner as a private landowner was
affirmed by the Supreme Court a little less than 100 years ago.
In the last 90 years, however, the law has changed. Restrictions
"must now meet three requirements in order to be constitutional:
1) Any restriction must be content-neutral -- that is, it must not be
based upon either content or subject matter of the communications
being controlled.
2) The restriction must serve a significant government interest.
3) The restriction much leave open ample alternative means for
communicating information."
[From "The First Amendment Book" by Robert J. Wagman]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: 16 Aug 91 18:06:42 GMT
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Message-Id: <1991Aug16.180642.29968@eng.umd.edu>
References: <9108152234.AA00248@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
In article <9108152234.AA00248@eff.org> LIBRK329@ksuvxa.kent.edu (Diane Kovacs) writes:
>Can we think about the issues of privacy in terms of faculty instead of
>students? I think many of the comments here have concerned the undergraduates
>_privilege_ to use computers...but what about the account that a researcher
>is paying for through grants? It is distinctly different...as is the
>account that a faculty member receives as part of their departmental allocation.
>We are 'paying' for our access. We should be able to store data/information
>in our accounts without fear. We should be able to correspond with whomever
>we desire on the networks without fear of our conversations being monitored.
And undergraduates ARE NOT PAYING? Come, now, there's even a 'workstation
fee' included as part of 'tuition and fees' (at UMCP, anyway).
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1991 02:26 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>
>Free expression is different than free chemistry. Free expression, but
>not free chemistry, is explicitly protected by the Code of most
>universities, the Joint Statement, and (for public universities) the
>First Amendment.
>
>- Carl
>
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
What if Chemistry is my form of expression. What about Chemistry
students. What if in whatever that has been discussed about
computers in this forum if the word computer was replaced by
chemistry lab and expression/freespeech/academicfreedom by
chemistry experimentation by a graduate or undergraduate
student.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1991 02:37 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>The legal theory that the government holds title to all public places
>(including public universities) and can grant or limit access as it
>sees fit in exactly the same manner as a private landowner was
>affirmed by the Supreme Court a little less than 100 years ago.
>
>In the last 90 years, however, the law has changed. Restrictions
>"must now meet three requirements in order to be constitutional:
>
>1) Any restriction must be content-neutral -- that is, it must not be
>based upon either content or subject matter of the communications
>being controlled.
>
>2) The restriction must serve a significant government interest.
>
>3) The restriction much leave open ample alternative means for
>communicating information."
>
>[From "The First Amendment Book" by Robert J. Wagman]
>
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court reversed the past 90 years of precedents when
it ruled that the US Government can muzzle doctors at family planning clinics
owned/supported by the US.
We are back to the law as it existed 100 years back.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1991 02:45 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>>is paying for through grants? It is distinctly different...as is the
>>account that a faculty member receives as part of their departmental allocation.
>>We are 'paying' for our access. We should be able to store data/information
>>in our accounts without fear. We should be able to correspond with whomever
>>we desire on the networks without fear of our conversations being monitored.
>
>And undergraduates ARE NOT PAYING? Come, now, there's even a 'workstation
>fee' included as part of 'tuition and fees' (at UMCP, anyway).
>--
>Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
> .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
>Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
>(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
You pay to see a movie also, but can be thrown out if you engage in disorderly
conduct.
You pay to join a health club but your membership can be terminated for a
large number of reasons.
Some universities charge laboratory fees for chemistry courses, yet a student
can be expelled from a chemistry lab.
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 comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 20 09:24:38 1991
Received: from a.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA09770; Tue, 20 Aug 91 09:24:36 -0500
Received: from eff.org by a.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA13441
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Tue, 20 Aug 91 09:24:01 -0500
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA04444; Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:23:39 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Return-Path:
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA04439; Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:23:34 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:23:34 -0400
From: helen@eff.org (Helen C. O'Boyle)
Message-Id: <9108201423.AA04439@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Aug 20 09:50:46 EDT 1991
In this issue:
Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <01E95FB6DC009827@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>I see computing resources as more closely analagous to libraries. I think
>lots of people would yell loudly if a student was thrown out of a library
>for reading a book not directly related to a class they were taking.
>
>--
>".. organized crime is the price we pay for organization." - Raymond Chandler
>Greg Broiles | CI$: 74017,3623 | greg@agora.rain.com
>PO Box 8988, Portland, OR 97207-8988 | MCIMail: gbroiles
I would agree that a computing resource is closely analogous to library
under one condition:
ONLY WHEN IT IS FUNDED IN AN ANALOGOUS MANNER TO A LIBRARY.
Most computing facilities are funded as laboratories rather than libraries and
so follow laboratory rules rather than library rules.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: 17 Aug 91 21:28:14 GMT
From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug17.212814.3895@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
References: <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>, , <1991Aug16.203342.26268@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> Free expression is different than free chemistry.
> Free expression, but not free chemistry, is
> explicitly protected by the Code of most
> universities, the Joint Statement, and (for public
> universities) the First Amendment.
True, but "free" there means "free of prior
censorship", not "free at someone else's expense" --
don't let the different senses of the word free
confuse your thinking to confound quite different
issues together.
If you are publishing a newspaper, an activity done
at your own expense, I may not tell you what to
print and what not; if you are writing a letter to
me, the editor of that newspaper, I have every right
as a representative of the owner to chose whether or
not to publish your letter, on any basis whatever,
and you have no recourse.
If you are renting time on a public computer, and
you post an article, I as a person not involved in
running that machine have no right to tell you what
you can and cannot publish.
If you are using _my_ computer, even renting time on
it, then I have every right to determine what does
and does not constitute proper use of that machine;
it is not a "commons".
Kent, the man from xanth.
-------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 19:43:36 PDT
From: bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.edu (Bruce Brown)
Message-Id: <9108180243.AA02387@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
Free???
What is it going to cost?
I breath air does that give you a right to
cut it off???? After all we are only following
orders!!! What you want free air and clean
water too? Are you saying there is something
called human what? Did I hear you say RIGHTS?
Come on if you don't own your own server;
GO TO THE BACK OF THE BUS
Bruce the Brown
-------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 23:24 EDT
From: Diane Kovacs
Message-Id: <9108180327.AA04923@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
re:
>I would agree that a computing resource is closely analogous to library
>under one condition:
> ONLY WHEN IT IS FUNDED IN AN ANALOGOUS MANNER TO A LIBRARY.
>Most computing facilities are funded as laboratories rather than libraries and
>so follow laboratory rules rather than library rules.
Sanjay, et al, This is nonsense. Many computer facilities are adminstered by
the same provost or vice president as the libraries are. In fact I've observed
the library and the computer facilities competing for funds and space.
At several institutions the library and the academic computer facilities are
part of the same organization.
I think that a crucial distinction needs to be made between "administrative"
computer facilities and "academic computer facilities" It is my opinion that
the administrative computer facilities need to be governed by the same
security principles as the filing cabinets and offices of the registrar and
accounting departments. If this is a problem for you then keep the facilities
seperate...The military does know how to handle this...they put security stuff
on computers off the network but I've noticed that they provide e-mail access
to the network at many of their sites. I've got several military persons on
my lists.
Academic computer facilities have an a different reason for being
than adminstrative computer facilities....
When was the last time you visited the library? Cd-Roms, Internet access
terminals, microcomputer networks with connections to the bitnet/internet,
Computer assisted Instruction laboratories, bibliographic and full-text
databases?
We use the networks as a reference source for our faculty. (Isaac Asimov
is describing the academic library of 1991 in the book _Prelude to
Foundation_ when Hari Seldon goes to the University on Trantor to use
the library)
The academic computer facilities *are* like libraries, in fact there
a number of parallels (texts,databases, information services,. etc.)
Libraries *are* "laboratories" for learning. What the He double toothpicks
do you think libraries are for anyway?...They are for research and exploration
and discovery and this is key..ensuring that the current generation of students
has access to the accumulated knowledge of the past and current explorers and
discoverers...that is what the mission or raison d'etre of the entire
university is supposed to be...just read some of the words engraved on the
older buildings on your campus...or the land grant agreement if you are at
a land grant university.
Speaking as a Librarian,
Diane
-------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 00:12 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <78B013805C00BA5E@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
The sarcasm in the quoted article below is lost on me.
I do not understand the mentality of someone who regards their connection to
the network something essential for survival and then are not willing to pay
for it.
>Free???
>What is it going to cost?
About $75/month for a commercial grade high quality connection.
About $15/month for other connections.
>I breath air does that give you a right to
>cut it off????
Yes, If I own the air it most certainly does.
>After all we are only following
>orders!!!
Yes. Do not equate the Nazis with computer system administrators. You are
very confused and are really insulting people who suffered under the Nazis.
> What you want free air and clean
>water too?
So now you equate air with computer access!!! What a stupid and dangerous
equation!!!
And most people pay quite a bit for clean water. My last water bill at home
was $69.14. I do not have a swimming pool. If I can pay that much for clean
water you can certainly pay for commercial computer access.
> Are you saying there is something
>called human what? Did I hear you say RIGHTS?
Human rights are very costly and NEVER, EVER FREE.
>Come on if you don't own your own server;
The freedom of the press has always meant and still means only
the freedom of the owner of the press to make a statement. Nothing more.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two distinct freedoms.
>GO TO THE BACK OF THE BUS
Do not make a mockery of the civil rights struggle. Access to commercial
servers is affordable and available in a non-discriminatory manner. There is
no discrimination on the basis of race/sex/gender/age/national origin etc.
>Bruce the Brown
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 22:09:25 PDT
From: bbrown@pepvax.pepperdine.edu (Bruce Brown)
Message-Id: <9108180509.AA02811@pepvax.pepperdine.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>
> I do not understand the mentality of someone who regards their connection to
> the network something essential for survival and then are not willing to pay
> for it.
>
> >Free???
> >What is it going to cost?
>
> About $75/month for a commercial grade high quality connection.
> About $15/month for other connections.
I have my own slip tell me how much it costs.
> >I breath air does that give you a right to
> >cut it off????
>
> Yes, If I own the air it most certainly does.
Are you going to put a parking lot in the grand canyon?
That's the point do you own electrons?
> >After all we are only following
> >orders!!!
>
> Yes. Do not equate the Nazis with computer system administrators. You are
> very confused and are really insulting people who suffered under the Nazis.
After what the Nazis did to what is left of my family you
don't need to explain the difference... ZOHAR *Remember*
> > What you want free air and clean
> >water too?
Are you for pollution?
> So now you equate air with computer access!!! What a stupid and dangerous
> equation!!!
>
> And most people pay quite a bit for clean water. My last water bill at home
> was $69.14. I do not have a swimming pool. If I can pay that much for clean
> water you can certainly pay for commercial computer access.
I will give you the water point!
> > Are you saying there is something
> >called human what? Did I hear you say RIGHTS?
>
> Human rights are very costly and NEVER, EVER FREE.
>
> >Come on if you don't own your own server;
>
> The freedom of the press has always meant and still means only
> the freedom of the owner of the press to make a statement. Nothing more.
>
> Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two distinct freedoms.
Should a person have the right to communicate unpopular
views verbably over the phone? Is electronic speech different?
> >GO TO THE BACK OF THE BUS
>
> Do not make a mockery of the civil rights struggle. Access to commercial
> servers is affordable and available in a non-discriminatory manner. There is
> no discrimination on the basis of race/sex/gender/age/national origin etc.
I hope you never have to deal with Bull Connor in the flesh.
I did!!!
Bruce
-------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 14:51 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>Should a person have the right to communicate unpopular
>views verbably over the phone? Is electronic speech different?
>Bruce
>
When you use the phone you pay for it. Unless you place a collect call that I
accept, I DO NOT PAY for it.
I do not object to unpopular speech at all. In fact I strongly believe that
unpopular speech is essential for a dynamic and free society. I will defend
your right to speak freely and publish without any censorship on whatever
topic your heart desires.
What I strongly object to is being forced to pay your expenses either directly
or indirectly (through taxes, tuition etc.) while you make a speech or
publish something I happen to disagree with.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 21:53:50 GMT
From: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Message-Id: <1991Aug18.215350.21835@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References:
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
In article comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>
>What I strongly object to is being forced to pay your expenses either directly
>or indirectly (through taxes, tuition etc.) while you make a speech or
>publish something I happen to disagree with.
I object to KKK types travelling on public roads that I've paid for to
my meetings, to some library material that I pay for, and to a long list
of other stuff. But, we are an interconnected society, and to ensure
freedom of communication, movement, and other activitity that ultimately
benefits everybody, shared channels to which we all contribute are
a small price. Given the importance of information production and
dissemination, "free" net access is as important as "free" highways.
Yes, they cost money, but it's a shared expense with massive benefits,
and available to everybody.
Jim Thomas
From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 20 09:30:23 1991
Received: from a.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA09789; Tue, 20 Aug 91 09:30:20 -0500
Received: from eff.org by a.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA13482
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Tue, 20 Aug 91 09:29:43 -0500
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA04656; Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:29:17 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Return-Path:
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA04651; Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:29:12 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:29:12 -0400
From: helen@eff.org (Helen C. O'Boyle)
Message-Id: <9108201429.AA04651@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Aug 20 09:50:57 EDT 1991
In this issue:
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
Sanjay Kapur
References:
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
Concerning free expression and public property, I wrote:
>>Restrictions
>>"must now meet three requirements in order to be constitutional:
>>
>>1) Any restriction must be content-neutral -- that is, it must not be
>>based upon either content or subject matter of the communications
>>being controlled.
>>
>>2) The restriction must serve a significant government interest.
>>
>>3) The restriction much leave open ample alternative means for
>>communicating information."
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>Unfortunately the Supreme Court reversed the past 90 years of precedents when
>it ruled that the US Government can muzzle doctors at family planning clinics
>owned/supported by the US.
[...]
This is not true (at least no yet). The plurality opinion (there was no
majority opinion) in the gag rule decision, explicitly said that their
reasoning does not apply to universities (because free expression
is essential universities).
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 21:33 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <2BA7F63B2C00965B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
>[...]
>>Unfortunately the Supreme Court reversed the past 90 years of precedents when
>>it ruled that the US Government can muzzle doctors at family planning clinics
>>owned/supported by the US.
>[...]
>
>This is not true (at least no yet). The plurality opinion (there was no
>majority opinion) in the gag rule decision, explicitly said that their
>reasoning does not apply to universities (because free expression
>is essential universities).
>
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Let us hope so.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 21:57 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <2F0D768BFC00965B@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>From: Diane Kovacs
>
>re:
>>I would agree that a computing resource is closely analogous to library
>>under one condition:
>> ONLY WHEN IT IS FUNDED IN AN ANALOGOUS MANNER TO A LIBRARY.
>
>>Most computing facilities are funded as laboratories rather than libraries and
>>so follow laboratory rules rather than library rules.
>
>Sanjay, et al, This is nonsense. Many computer facilities are adminstered by
>the same provost or vice president as the libraries are. In fact I've observed
>the library and the computer facilities competing for funds and space.
>At several institutions the library and the academic computer facilities are
>part of the same organization.
>
I think we agree that those computing facilities funded as libraries should be
open as libraries. You are neglecting those computing facilities that are NOT
so funded.
>I think that a crucial distinction needs to be made between "administrative"
>computer facilities and "academic computer facilities" It is my opinion that
>the administrative computer facilities need to be governed by the same
>security principles as the filing cabinets and offices of the registrar and
>accounting departments. If this is a problem for you then keep the facilities
>seperate...The military does know how to handle this...they put security stuff
>on computers off the network but I've noticed that they provide e-mail access
>to the network at many of their sites. I've got several military persons on
>my lists.
>
>Academic computer facilities have an a different reason for being
>than adminstrative computer facilities....
What about research computing facilities that you do not talk at all about?
What about departmental computers which are used for both administrative
purposes and academic purposes? What about mainframe computers which an
instituition can not afford to buy multiples of? The military is rich and at
times wasteful and should not be cited as an example for a University to
follow.
>
>When was the last time you visited the library? Cd-Roms, Internet access
>terminals, microcomputer networks with connections to the bitnet/internet,
>Computer assisted Instruction laboratories, bibliographic and full-text
>databases?
Not all Universities are that advanced and I have five CD-ROM players (1 on
my PC and 4 on my VAXstation) in my office. Only very few CD-ROM titles
(relative to print) exist. Because of the cost of the databases, it is often
impractical for a library to buy more than a few anyway.
>We use the networks as a reference source for our faculty. (Isaac Asimov
>is describing the academic library of 1991 in the book _Prelude to
>Foundation_ when Hari Seldon goes to the University on Trantor to use
>the library)
>
To quote you from above: This is nonsense. That kind of reference information
does not yet exist.
>The academic computer facilities *are* like libraries, in fact there
>a number of parallels (texts,databases, information services,. etc.)
>Libraries *are* "laboratories" for learning.
They are just not funded that way: That is my complaint.
> What the He double toothpicks
>do you think libraries are for anyway?...They are for research and exploration
>and discovery and this is key..ensuring that the current generation of students
>has access to the accumulated knowledge of the past and current explorers and
>discoverers...that is what the mission or raison d'etre of the entire
>university is supposed to be...just read some of the words engraved on the
>older buildings on your campus...or the land grant agreement if you are at
>a land grant university.
>
I know you are waxing philosophical but lets get back to earth.
My main complaint is that sufficient number of computing sites are NOT treated
as libraries are treated when it comes to funding and are forced because of
University politics to charge access fees and usage fees.
You may want to read some of my postings on this list about four months back
when I was arguing that Computing Facilities ought to be treated like
libraries for all purposes not just one.
Computing Facilities should
1) not be Forced to charge access and usage fees.
2) get funded like libraries
3) have freedom of choosing what hardware/software should be used just as
a librarian chooses books/software/hardware.
Also Systems staff (people like me) should get the same privileges as Librarians
do (e.g. most Universities give Librarians Faculty status and a 9 month
academic year work schedule)
>Speaking as a Librarian,
>
Obviously.
>Diane
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 02:17:38 GMT
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Message-Id: <1991Aug19.021738.25965@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <1991Aug18.215350.21835@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
In article <1991Aug18.215350.21835@mp.cs.niu.edu> tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (Jim Thomas) writes:
>Yes, they cost money, but it's a shared expense with massive benefits,
>and available to everybody.
Except it is not really available to everybody. It is available only to
those with sufficient education and technical skills to be able to make
effective use of it. It is largely true that those who can make use of
computers and networks are also those whose abilities should enable them to
find employment at a level they can afford to pay for it. Those who can
least afford to pay the taxes to make it freely available are largely those
who can least benefit.
I'm all for making computer and network access fully available to all students
and including the cost in their tuition - but only if this is accompanied by
a curriculum designed to make sure that the resources really are effectively
available to them all.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 22:31 EDT
From: Diane Kovacs
Message-Id: <9108190234.AA22623@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
Sanjay,
Perhaps you would explain just exactly what you mean by "funded like
libraries".
Diane
-------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 23:55:44 -0400
From: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph Franklin)
Message-Id: <9108190403.AA14986@ecse.rpi.edu>
Subject: universities shutting down
Universities shut down with some regularity, but they tend to be small
liberal arts colleges that no one's ever heard of. Frequently they
close by joining with another, as banks do. Universities also do lay
off tenured faculty for financial reasons. See the newspaper Chronicle
of Higher Ed or the journal Academe. In the last 2 weeks I've seen 4
newspaper articles on financial probs in higher ed, so we may see more
of these layoffs. One Calif. campus threatens to lay off 300 people
next week. The way the rules work they needn't give any notice before
the start of the year. Wonder what effect that has on academic freedom?
--------
Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180
-------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 23:56:43 EDT
From: Aydin Edguer
Message-Id: <9108190356.AA00235@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
> Perhaps you would explain just exactly what you mean by "funded like
> libraries".
As an example of how a computer facility can be funded in a way different
from libraries, I will offer as an example, my department. I am a member
of the Computer Engineering and Science department. We are an academic
department as opposed to an adminstrative department. Our university
runs itself on a cost-center basis. Each department receivs sufficient
funding for salaries and administrative costs. Any additional funds,
such as for new equipment must come from outside resources such as
research grants or symposiums. Thus all the equipment in the CES department
is specifically for research, with education as a secondary goal. We
do not even attempt to support all CES undergraduate students. Only those
doing research with faculty members or who are taking courses which require
the use of our facilities.
The library on the other hand, receives a new book and equipment budget
funded out of the resources of the university in the expectation that it
will support as best as possible the goals of the university. If our
department was to receive such funding, I would hope we would operate
on a similar basis. We would prevent people from using an unfair portion
of the resources (having an overdue book) and would try to meet the goals
of the university (concentration on supporting research as opposed to
popular reading).
Please note, that this is only one way in which a department can be funded
in a different way from a library. There are others.
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 00:16:08 -0400
From: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph Franklin)
Message-Id: <9108190423.AA15013@ecse.rpi.edu>
Subject: tenure and academic freedom
Correcting some misapprehsions about tenure.
1. It takes 7 years to get (10 years at some places) and is not
automatic at all. The default condition at many universities is not to
grant it. How would you like to have a review of your job after 6 years
where you have to prove to 4 levels of committees why you should be
allowed to keep your job? Your proof involves getting recommendations
from sometimes 20 other people, mostly at other places.
Any level of committee can blackball you for any reason including that
although you might be a good scholar they don't think you are compatible
with them. The votes are secret so you don't even know who did it, and
of course are never given a reason.
Also, your research area, although hot when you were hired, may have
cooled off so they want to replace you by someone new in the current hot
field. Nothing personal, and no reflection on your abilities, but a
department has to keep current or students won't come.
In one group of 60 faculty I know of, most of whom already have tenure,
4 nontenured faculty have been forced to leave in the last 2 years
alone. That's about half of those coming up for tenure.
At places like MIT or Harvard, almost no assistant professor gets
tenure. After 10 years they're almost all fired.
2. Even if someone has tenure, he still has to perform routine duties,
like teach his classes. A chairman who really wants him out can
increase his duties enough to make life intolerable. I've never seen it
happen, but it could.
Also, the unwanted tenured prof might get no salary raises or expense
money or teaching assistants or ....
3. Even if someone has tenure his job can be reorganized out from under
him by closing the whole department and offering some people jobs in
another.
------------------
The nontenure track faculty have it even worse. Many universities staff
the low level courses with faculty on annual contracts with no security.
E.g., at the University of California, if you haven't been told by April
(I think) that they want you next year, you may start lookin for another
job. In some cases, you can be fired up to the first day of classes. I
think Cal State is like this, and is exercising this option this year.
Public schools are also like this sometimes.
------
Tenure is nice; it gives me the freedom to criticize our Board of
Trustees w/o worrying about being fired. However it's not the free
lunch most of the nonacademic world thinks.
There are also other compensations to universities; else I wouldn't be
here. I can organize my day the way I like, and pick interesting
problems freely provided they bring in money. My students are great and
often keep in touch after they graduate.
-------------------
Date: 19 Aug 91 05:20:37 GMT
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Message-Id:
References: <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
In article <1991Aug16.203342.26268@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
(Carl "Geraldo" Kadie) writes:
>Free expression is different than free chemistry.
...free expression is different from free computing, too, which was
the point of my sarcasm.
>Free expression, but not free chemistry,
To continue in this vein, what is it about free computing that makes
it more like free expression than free chemistry?
"While not a master of
intellect, the blatantly
obvious things WE often
take for granted never
escape HIS keen eye!"
"Horse."
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 01:34 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <4D5A2D8A7C00DC4D@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>From: Diane Kovacs
>
>Sanjay,
>
>Perhaps you would explain just exactly what you mean by "funded like
>libraries".
>
>Diane
Individual users/departments etc. are charged for computer usage and that pays
for a portion of the computing budget. The more a person uses the computer,
the more the person pays. This is normally different from the library system
of funding where the end user does not pay based on usage.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 01:12 CDT
From: TK0JUT1%MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU@UICVM.uic.edu
Message-Id: <9108190613.AA02583@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
> Individual users/departments etc. are charged for computer usage and that
> pays for a portion of the computing budget. The more a person uses the
> computer, the more the person pays. This is normally different from the
> library system of funding where the end user does not pay based on usage.
>
> Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
This depends on the university (as a previous post explained). At our
university, faculty and staff are not charged in any obvious manner.
Students pay a fee for courses requiring computer use. However,
departments are charged for certain kinds of printing on the laser
printer. Library charges are more tangible. The library has some
standing orders for certain types of books, and individuals (through
their department--procedures vary across departments) can order books
within a preset budget line. Many journals and newspapers have been
discontinued, and the book budget shrinks. The "cost" to the end user is
real, but it shows up in non-purchasing or non-replacement of some lost
books.
However, quibbling over fiscal differences between libraries and computer
facilities begs the question. Information is a resource, and it should be
freely accessible to the end user. Neil Rickert's recent point is
well-taken: Most (but hardly all) students are literate, but most have at
least a vague notion of where the library is. Some even, perforce, use
it. We should invest the same energy in creating minimal computer
literacy as we do in attempting to expand other forms of literacy. Given
the growing importance of computers in information processing and
communication, all students should be "computer fluent," aware of the
internet, and given the right to participate as freely in the cyberworld
as they have in other forms of social existence. One way to curtail
techno-elitism in such a critically important realm of social life is to
teach computer-related skills and issues, make them available, and
encourage administrators and others to fight for the necessary resources.
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 09:21 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <8E8F9580FC00BD81@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>From: TK0JUT1%MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU@UICVM.uic.edu
>
>However, quibbling over fiscal differences between libraries and computer
>facilities begs the question.
However, to an administrator who decides how a resource will be utilized,
these fiscal differences are all important.
> Information is a resource, and it should be
>freely accessible to the end user.
agreed.
> Neil Rickert's recent point is
>well-taken: Most (but hardly all) students are literate, but most have at
>least a vague notion of where the library is. Some even, perforce, use
>it. We should invest the same energy in creating minimal computer
>literacy as we do in attempting to expand other forms of literacy. Given
>the growing importance of computers in information processing and
>communication, all students should be "computer fluent,"
agreed.
>aware of the
>internet,
Although the internet appears to us as the only network worth knowing about,
there are other networks/computer organizations out there which should not be
ignored. If the internet is commercialized (as some companies hope), it will
become too expensive for quite a few institutions.
>and given the right to participate as freely in the cyberworld
>as they have in other forms of social existence.
Although a laudable goal, this is a matter for the society as a whole to
decide and Universities should not be the ones solely responsible for this.
Public Libraries, high schools, adult education should all get involved in
this also.
Participation in most forms of social existence is not free and costs money,
this should not be different for the cyberworld.
> One way to curtail
>techno-elitism in such a critically important realm of social life is to
>teach computer-related skills and issues,
Who should teach them, the ultra-techno-elites of the computer science
department? A separate department set up for this? Should computer literacy
be required for graduation?
>make them available, and
>encourage administrators and others to fight for the necessary resources.
THere should be some incentive for the administrator to fight for it. What do
you propose as the encoragement?
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 14:42:13 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug19.144213.6379@eff.org>
References: , <1991Aug16.203342.26268@eff.org>,
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
[...]
>To continue in this vein, what is it about free computing that makes
>it more like free expression than free chemistry?
[...]
Computer media, such as Email and Netnews, are important forms of
expression. I'm arguing that under many conditions they should be
available (without censorship) to students and faculity.
I've *not* argued that every computer activity (for example, game
playing) deserves the same protection and support as the computer
media.
Thus, (for now at least), I'm arguing only for free expression
that happens to involve computing, not for free computing in general.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: 19 Aug 91 14:37:43 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>
References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: I don't get it.
aganguli@irus.rri.uwo.ca (Ami Ganguli) writes:
>
> My greatist criticism of administrators in general ( and perhaps one
>that can be explained away? ) is that many seem to feel that controlling who
>accesses the system and for what purposes is a goal unto itself. When you
>make a rule against running games or sending personal e-mail or reading alt.
>sex, or any of those horrible things that users like to do, do you ever ask
>yourself why?
>
OK, let me explain the rationale behind my site's policies:
1) We do not allow games or game playing.
Our systems are used by 1800 students, staff, and faculty members. For
about 10 years, our only systems were an AT&T 3B20 and a Harris HCX-7.
Anyone with experience on these systems can testify to their computational
sloth. There is no such thing as "occasional" game playing when there are
1800 userids on a system. When we profiled the system performance and load,
we found that games were burning about 20% of the available CPU time at
peak usage. That was unacceptable.
2) We do not support Usenet.
At one time, my site participated in Usenet. Several things combined to
cause us to drop our feeds:
- Disk space. Since we have to give priority to academic use,
we did not have the disk space to support a full feed. Rather
than provide a "crippled" Usenet, we decided to drop it alto-
gether.
- Public relations. Several users at my site caused some con-
sternation on the net, which resulted in USMail being dispatched
to the Dean of our College, as well as to the Director of the
computing center. This was not your typical flamage; these users
really did "go over the line".
- The aforementioned CPU time problem. Usenet was eating huge
chunks of CPU time, both in transport and user-interface.
Now that we have upgraded our hardware (to StarServer Es and SPARCStations,
with an HP-9000 thrown in for good measure), we hope to reestablish our shop
as a Usenet site. However, we will not carry certain groups, such as the
alt.sex.* hierarchy. Our rationale for this decision is simple:
We cannot properly ascertain the identity of our users. We do
not have access to personal user data, such as birthdates. We
cannot guarantee that user "jqpubl01" is John Q. Public; it might
be his roommate, his girlfriend, or his 10-year-old brother. Since
many of the discussions and images in the alt.sex hierarchy are
oriented towards adults, they should be restricted to adults, just
as adult movies and periodicals are restricted. Since we cannot
reliably enforce such restrictions, we will not carry those groups
at all.
> A computer that isn't begin used is a very expensive piece of trash.
>If somebody want's to play a game, why not let them? Instead of making a
>policy like "thou shalt not play video games", why not just say, "if you're
>playing a video game, we have the right to boot you off if somebody else needs
>the computer"? That way at least the machine will be used.
Because this doesn't work. Can I spend all my time policing the student labs,
which are spread all over campus? After I leave at 5 PM, who is going to per-
form the "booting"? Students don't listen to other students; the most common
reply I've heard in student labs is "F*** off, I was here first". This is
hardly an enforceable restriction.
> On mainframes, why not check your average cpu usage sometime. Is
>it only at 50% ? How's your disk space? 70% ? If so, then why are you
>trying to place so many restrictions on your users? Did the university spend
>all that money because they wanted a really expensive paperweight?
Well, during the school year we usually run at 75% CPU utilization and above.
Disk space is usually running at about 85%. Can you imagine what those sta-
tistics would look like without our restrictions?
> People will generally respect rules if you make them reasonable and
>provide some justification.
I hope that this has given you some insight into our situation. I don't
claim that our restrictions should apply to everyone; the measures I des-
cribe here are merely our method of dealing with our situation. When the
hardware upgrade is in place, we will reevaluate our restrictions. We've
already decided to reimplement our Usenet feed; personally, I hope that
we can allow more recreational use of our systems. Our first priority,
however, must be the academic users.
Best,
Wes
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Aug 20 09:30:29 1991
Received: from a.cs.uiuc.edu by herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(5.62+/IDA-1.2.8) id AA09796; Tue, 20 Aug 91 09:30:26 -0500
Received: from eff.org by a.cs.uiuc.edu with SMTP id AA13485
(5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu); Tue, 20 Aug 91 09:29:49 -0500
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA04666; Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:29:25 -0400
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Return-Path:
Received: by eff.org (5.61+++/Spike-2.0)
id AA04661; Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:29:18 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:29:18 -0400
From: helen@eff.org (Helen C. O'Boyle)
Message-Id: <9108201429.AA04661@eff.org>
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: RO
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Tue Aug 20 09:51:05 EDT 1991
In this issue:
galt@baby.dsd.es.c : Re: Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net ON HOLD
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net ON HOLD
"Mary Alice Ball, : Unsubscribe
kadie@eff.org (Car : CAF-news 1.22 abstract
kadie@eff.org (Car : Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get
Aydin Edguer
References: <1991Aug16.150031.5854@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Subject: Re: Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net ON HOLD
A while ago, I noticed "house.gov". I sent mail to a possible username for
my representative, and it didn't bounce, but I didn't get a reply...
maybe someone more in the know could check this out...
GReg
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 18:11:44 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug19.181144.10016@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug16.150031.5854@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, <1991Aug19.132624.23930@dsd.es.com>
Subject: Re: Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net ON HOLD
galt@baby.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) writes:
>A while ago, I noticed "house.gov". I sent mail to a possible username for
>my representative, and it didn't bounce, but I didn't get a reply...
>maybe someone more in the know could check this out...
> GReg
According to postmaster@house.gov, representatives cannot be
contacted via email to house.gov.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 11:19 CDT
From: "Mary Alice Ball, Loyola Univ."
Message-Id: <9108191844.AA11349@eff.org>
Subject: Unsubscribe
Sorry but I am not sure how to unsubscribe other than to send this to
the whole list and ask that some all powerful take me off. Thanks.
Mary Alice Ball
Loyola University of Chicago
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 20:53:38 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug19.205338.14046@eff.org>
Subject: CAF-news 1.22 abstract
This is an abstract for the most recent Computers and Academic
Freedom News. CAF-news is a weekly digest of notes from
CAF-talk.
---------------------------- begin abstract cafv01n22 -----
[This week in CAF-News includes the beginning of a discussion about
when universities can legitimately restrict free expression on
computers <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>
<1991Aug14.182241.26728@eff.org>. (Is it enough, for example, to
declare a computer "for classwork only"?)
The third article explains that users are required to keep their
passwords confidential to increase accountability
<1991Aug15.033650.8313@bradley.bradley.edu>.
Next, a note explains that although private universities do not have
Constitutional obligations to their students, they often have
contractual obligations to their students to provide, for example,
provide due process <1991Aug12.145434.3380@eff.org>. Another note
argues that the university lawyer cannot be trusted to give a correct
opinion on proposed computer policies <1991Aug12.173421.5645@eff.org>.
And a note lists three books on library selection policy. These books
would be useful to anyone who wants to setup a newsgroup selection
policy that respects academic freedom. (The books also tell how to
defend the selection of controversial books/newsgroups.)
<1991Aug15.200628.27084@eff.org>
The last two notes list the abstracts of earlier issues of CAF-News
<1991Aug15.174837.23862@eff.org><1991Aug15.193552.26018@eff.org>.
- Carl]
----------------------------end abstract ----------------
If you know folks who might be interested in these issues, but don't
have time to read a dozen of notes a day, you might recommend CAF-news
to them. CAF-news is available as newsgroups
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via email. If you read newsgroups but
your site doesn't get alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your
sys admin to subscript. For info on email delivery, send email to
listserv@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "longindex".
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 21:18:51 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug19.211851.14599@eff.org>
References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca>, <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get it.)
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>2) We do not support Usenet.
>At one time, my site participated in Usenet. Several things combined to
>cause us to drop our feeds:
> - Disk space. Since we have to give priority to academic use,
> we did not have the disk space to support a full feed. Rather
> than provide a "crippled" Usenet, we decided to drop it alto-
> gether.
> - Public relations. Several users at my site caused some con-
> sternation on the net, which resulted in USMail being dispatched
> to the Dean of our College, as well as to the Director of the
> computing center. This was not your typical flamage; these users
> really did "go over the line".
> - The aforementioned CPU time problem. Usenet was eating huge
> chunks of CPU time, both in transport and user-interface.
[...]
While Disk and CPU limitations can be legitimate reasons for dropping
Usenet, public relations is not.
In email, I asked Mr. Morgen for details about the so-called "over the
line" notes. He can not substantiate his characterization. (The
incidents happened before he was hired and so he has no first-hand
knowledge of them.)
Even if the notes were over the line (say, libelous), that is not a
legitimate reason to deny all users access to Usenet.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 17:42:45 EDT
From: Aydin Edguer
Message-Id: <9108192142.AA00731@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get it.)
> Even if the notes were over the line (say, libelous), that is not a
> legitimate reason to deny all users access to Usenet.
It certainly _is_ a legitimate reason to so. Current BBS law is very
undefined, but there does exist evidence that the current law would be
interpreted as saying that the owner of the equipment on which a BBS
article is stored would be held liable as the _publisher_ of libelous
note. This would leave the University open for civil law suits.
It is certainly legitimate for a University to decide that it is unwilling
to open itself up to such problems. Unfortunate, perhaps, but certainly
a reasonable worry in today's litigious society.
Aydin Edguer
-------------------
Date: Monday, 19 Aug 1991 17:56:35 EDT
From: away@mwvm.mitre.org (AWAY -- Mail router on MWVM)
Message-Id: <9108192156.AA15320@mwunix.mitre.org>
Subject: Mail for Hugh A Pritchard
Hugh A Pritchard is away from the office until 08/19/91.
The mail you sent will be held until then.
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 21:55:39 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug19.215539.15837@eff.org>
Subject: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get it.)
References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca> <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Now that we have upgraded our hardware (to StarServer Es and SPARCStations,
>with an HP-9000 thrown in for good measure), we hope to reestablish our shop
>as a Usenet site. However, we will not carry certain groups, such as the
>alt.sex.* hierarchy. Our rationale for this decision is simple:
> We cannot properly ascertain the identity of our users. We do
> not have access to personal user data, such as birthdates. We
> cannot guarantee that user "jqpubl01" is John Q. Public; it might
> be his roommate, his girlfriend, or his 10-year-old brother. Since
> many of the discussions and images in the alt.sex hierarchy are
> oriented towards adults, they should be restricted to adults, just
> as adult movies and periodicals are restricted. Since we cannot
> reliably enforce such restrictions, we will not carry those groups
> at all.
[..]
I am happy to hear that the University of Kentucky will be restoring
Netnews. I am sorry to hear that the University has banned alt.sex.*.
Most recent censorship attempts claim to be modivated by a desire to
protect childern. But, in fact, they deny materials to adults.
[This case is mostly from memory] When the FCC tried to ban all
dial-a-porn (to protect childern), the Supreme Court struck the rule
down (Sable Communications v. FCC ?). It said that there were other
ways to protect children that did not require banning the material.
What law in Kentucky are you in fear of? Does it really say that if
you cannot reliably enforce restrictions on children, you can not
carry alt.sex.*? How does it define reliable? How does it define
adult-oriented material?
If you want to be selective about what newsgroups you subscribe to, I
suggest that you create a netnews selection policy with the help of
the librarians at the U. of Kentucky. You may be suprised to discover
that U. of Kentucky already owns much adult-oriented material and that
it does not restrict access to that material based on age.
If you want to read about selection policy, I recommend these
books:
Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers for Schools
Before and After the Censor: a Resource Manual on Intellectual Freedom
Intellectual Freedom Manual
(full references in <1991Aug15.200628.27084@eff.org>)
Finally, read over this:
Library Bill of Rights
The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for
information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide
their services.
1. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest,
information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library
serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background,
or views of those contributing to their creation.
2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all
points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be
proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their
responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.
4. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned
with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.
5. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged
because of origin, age, background, or views.
6. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to
the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable
basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups
requesting their use.
Adopted June 18, 1948.
Amended February 2, 1961, June 27, 1967, and January 23, 1980,
by the ALA Council.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 18:18:11 GMT
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Message-Id:
References: <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
In article <1991Aug19.144213.6379@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Computer media, such as Email and Netnews, are important forms of
>expression. I'm arguing that under many conditions they should be
>available (without censorship) to students and faculity.
"Yes, but..." The conditions you established are the problem. Simply
put, they don't hang together (particularly "ALTERN"). If the system
is funded for a specific purpose and its resources are mostly taken up
by that purpose, no further conditions are needed to restrict it to
that purpose. News and e-mail have measurable costs in both computer
and staff resources, and if the funding doesn't leave room for them,
too damn bad.
Now, if a service exists, and it is restricted to members of a
certain group (oh, let's say "operators"), there *may* be room for
argument. "Only operators can post news" is a fairly clear example,
but I think that's the exception rather than the rule.
>Thus, (for now at least), I'm arguing only for free expression
>that happens to involve computing, not for free computing in general.
Don't you mean "free computing that happens to involve expression"?
"But I'm not a *bad* person..."
"Good? Bad?! What's *that* got to do with
it? In *your* religion, what you got is
covenants. Contracts. Deals. Who cares
what you're like deep down? Did you do the
rites right? Did you observe the forms?
*Fine*. You go to heaven. If not, you go to
Hell. It's a straight-forward deal with your
god. Don't start messing it up and bringing
*values* into it."
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
Date: 20 Aug 91 01:22:02 GMT
From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Message-Id: <1991Aug20.012202.16000@ms.uky.edu>
References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca>, <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug19.211851.14599@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get it.)
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>At one time, my site participated in Usenet. Several things combined to
>>cause us to drop our feeds:
>> - Disk space. Since we have to give priority to academic use,
>> we did not have the disk space to support a full feed.
>> - Public relations. Several users at my site caused some con-
>> sternation on the net [...]
>> - The aforementioned CPU time problem. Usenet was eating huge
>> chunks of CPU time, both in transport and user-interface.
>While Disk and CPU limitations can be legitimate reasons for dropping
>Usenet, public relations is not.
>Even if the notes were over the line (say, libelous), that is not a
>legitimate reason to deny all users access to Usenet.
The engineering dept. has a perfect right to decide how its computers are
used, and if they perceive usenet as a potential public relations bomb they
have the perfect right not to participate. They are not forbidding everyone
in the dept. from participating in usenet, but simply declining to provide
access from their equipment. Usenet access from any particular machine is
a privilege granted by the people responsible for that machine.
For what it's worth, the math department here maintains a full usenet feed
and feeds about seventeen other sites, and we permit nntp reader access to
any other department that wishes it. Some of the labs on campus will
give basically anyone an account (and you can telnet from anywhere to
anywhere) so nobody who truly wants usenet is cut off.
--
Kenneth Herron kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky +1 606 257 2975
Department of Mathematics
"You don't carve 'ARGH,' you just say it!" "Perhaps he was dictating?"
-------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 02:39:35 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug20.023935.19470@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug19.211851.14599@eff.org>, <9108192142.AA00731@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get it.)
>> Even if the notes were over the line (say, libelous), that is not a
>> legitimate reason to deny all users access to Usenet.
After reading edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) note, I take
this back. A fear of legal liability might be a legitimate reason to
deny all users write access to Usenet. But ...
It is not a reason to deny users read access to Usenet.
If the troublesome behavior was limited to a few students, it
is unfair to remove everyone's access.
As far as I know, no university has ever been found liable for
something their students or staff wrote to the net. (I don't
think any university has even been sued.) Universities have,
however, been successfully sued for improperly banning student
expression.
If the "over the line" material offended some people but was not
illegal or libelous, then it should not have been suppressed.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 01:16 EDT
From: Diane Kovacs
Message-Id: <9108200525.AA21807@eff.org>
Subject: The story of UmNews?
The current discussion of a university's liability for student expression
reminds me of a question I've wanted to ask. What happened with UmNews
which was CSNews when I first signed on to it? I know it disappeared but
don't know why?
Diane
-------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 03:31 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <26E77EDC1C200482@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get it.)
>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
>After reading edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) note, I take
>this back. A fear of legal liability might be a legitimate reason to
>deny all users write access to Usenet. But ...
>
>It is not a reason to deny users read access to Usenet.
>
>If the troublesome behavior was limited to a few students, it
>is unfair to remove everyone's access.
Once burnt twice shy is a common rule followed by administrators.
>
>As far as I know, no university has ever been found liable for
>something their students or staff wrote to the net. (I don't
>think any university has even been sued.) Universities have,
>however, been successfully sued for improperly banning student
>expression.
The potential for libel damage awards reaching into millions exists.
I would be very much interested in the maximum monetary damage awarded a
student for improper banishment of free expression.
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: 20 Aug 91 05:00:54 GMT
From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug20.050054.11937@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
References: <1991Aug16.203342.26268@eff.org>>, , <1991Aug19.144213.6379@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> Computer media, such as Email and Netnews, are
> important forms of expression. I'm arguing that
> under many conditions they should be available
> (without censorship) to students and faculity.
You are still confounding censorship (content based
action) with administrative control (content
independent action).
There is a large difference between saying "you
can't post news on my machine" and saying "you can't
post _that_ news on my machine".
When the machine is controlled by a governmental
entity, the second is objectionable; the first is
not.
Kent, the man from xanth.
-------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 00:31 EDT
From:
Message-Id: <9108201135.AA01950@eff.org>
Subject: Computer Access
Neill Rickert Writes:
>It is also true that those who can make use of
>computers and networks are also those whose abilities should
>enable them to find employment at a level they can afford to pay
>for it. Those who can least afford to pay the taxes to make it
>freely available are largely those who can least benefit.
>I'm all for making computer and network access fully available to
>all students and including the cost in their tuition - but only if
>this is accompanied by a curriculum designed to make sure that the
>resources really are effectively available to them all.
--
This is not always the case. Some handicapped people who are not
working have received grants for equipment to enable them to learn
a skill to gain employment and to gain access to information which
they would not otherwise have available to them. In many
instances, little or no training in any formal way has been given
to them. They are given taped manuals in some cases, minimal in-
person instruction and still manage to use the networks
effectively. And indeed many of these people will not work because
there is not an appropriate job for them among many other reasons.
We educators must not assume that all who use the networks can
afford commercial access. --Betsey Doane
From helen@eff.org Thu Aug 22 13:34:19 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Return-Path:
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 12:13:33 -0400
From: helen@eff.org (Helen C. O'Boyle)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Wed Aug 21 12:07:59 EDT 1991
In this issue:
russotto@eng.umd.e : Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re
russotto@eng.umd.e : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
Sanjay Kapur
References: <26E77EDC1C200482@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get it.)
In article <26E77EDC1C200482@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sanjay Kapur writes:
>
>Once burnt twice shy is a common rule followed by administrators.
>
>>
>>As far as I know, no university has ever been found liable for
>>something their students or staff wrote to the net. (I don't
>>think any university has even been sued.) Universities have,
>>however, been successfully sued for improperly banning student
>>expression.
>
>The potential for libel damage awards reaching into millions exists.
>
>I would be very much interested in the maximum monetary damage awarded a
>student for improper banishment of free expression.
I guess we have to sue you (sysadmins) to get you to treat us (students) like
human beings and not merely nuisances getting in the way of running your
machine in the way involving the least work and the least risk for yourself.
And then you wonder why we have such a litigious society!
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
Date: 20 Aug 91 13:36:34 GMT
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Message-Id: <1991Aug20.133634.16291@eng.umd.edu>
References: , <1991Aug19.144213.6379@eff.org>, <1991Aug20.050054.11937@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
In article <1991Aug20.050054.11937@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>
> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>> Computer media, such as Email and Netnews, are
>> important forms of expression. I'm arguing that
>> under many conditions they should be available
>> (without censorship) to students and faculity.
>
>You are still confounding censorship (content based
>action) with administrative control (content
>independent action).
>
>There is a large difference between saying "you
>can't post news on my machine" and saying "you can't
>post _that_ news on my machine".
>
>When the machine is controlled by a governmental
>entity, the second is objectionable; the first is
>not.
There is a third case, probably the most common, and it IS censorship--
_YOU_ can't post news on my [the Universities] machine.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
-------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 10:54 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <64B545EBBC20102F@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky (was Re: I don't get it.)
>From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
>
>I guess we have to sue you (sysadmins) to get you to treat us (students) like
>human beings and not merely nuisances getting in the way of running your
>machine in the way involving the least work and the least risk for yourself.
>And then you wonder why we have such a litigious society!
>--
I was talking about policy making administrators, not system administrators.
Anyway, how much do you think a University can be (succesfully) sued for by a
student? Maybe a few hundred dollars for breach of contract damages. The
potential for a libel suit is much more daunting where the awards can easily
reach into the millions of dollars.
I am still very much interested in learing the maximum amount succesfully
collected by a student who was wrongfully denied freedom of expression by a
University. I will assume that such suits are part of the "urban myth"
otherwise.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 10:23 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <606A3D88CC200482@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer Access
>This is not always the case. Some handicapped people who are not
>working have received grants for equipment to enable them to learn
>a skill to gain employment and to gain access to information which
>they would not otherwise have available to them. In many
>instances, little or no training in any formal way has been given
>to them. They are given taped manuals in some cases, minimal in-
>person instruction and still manage to use the networks
>effectively. And indeed many of these people will not work because
>there is not an appropriate job for them among many other reasons.
>We educators must not assume that all who use the networks can
>afford commercial access. --Betsey Doane
Was the grant received from a University?
Providing such zero cost access to all who "need" it may be the job of the
local public library or high school but NOT a University.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: 20 Aug 91 20:00:05 GMT
From: greer@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Greg Greer)
Message-Id:
References: <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
All this talk about _privilige_ makes me uneasy. The following
comments apply to PUBLIC schools...
In article <1991Aug15.212141.11573@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes
Morgan) writes:
They have the *privilege* of using it, just as they have the *privilege*
of attending the university in the first place. If a student is in the
UK College of Engineering, he enjoys the *privilege* of access to my
systems; his counterparts in, say, Architecture, do not enjoy that
*privilege*. It is not, nor will it ever be, a right; access to com-
puter systems is not listed in UK's "Student Rights and Responsibilities".
Attendance at a university is a contracted service, not a right. Under
that contract, one may have certain *privileges*.
Courts have declared that public education and other entitlements are
_rights_ which may not be denied without due process. Use here of the
word _privilege_ upsets me greatly. It makes it sound like the
University is the great god arbiter of who should be educated and who
should not. That's false. If the university, for arbitrary or
capricious reasons, denies a qualified student access given to other
students, they have violated a _right_. If computer access were
really a _privilege_, you could deny it to any student at any time for
no good reason at all, and this you cannot do. Humpf.
In article <1991Aug16.---@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
(Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
Exactly the same principal -- you have a right to
peacably assemble, but not at my expense -- you have
to find a place dedicated to public assembly, such
as a park, or find a place volunteered to you.
First, a park or other public place are maintained, in part, at your
expense, throught your taxes. Secondly, it is law that the government
may restrict your right peacably to assemble only with respect to
reasonable times, places, and manners. Protest marches often take
place on city streets, for example, causing traffic to be re-routed.
In the case, this privilege to use school facilities
is very frequently extended, but it is visibly often
denied. You have another Problem of the Commons
here; if the _public_ school is treated as a
_publically_ _demandable_ property, then no one has
control of it and no one will take care of it, on
the old "with responsibility must come authority"
principal.
Public schools, as public property, are usually open for public use,
subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. This
being so does not imply that no one has control of it and that no one
will take care of it. Community property, likes parks and schools, are
not regarded generally by people as places where they can run amok.
As that won't work, our society is structured
oppositely. Public property is under the authority
of administrators, responsible for adjudicating
access and use just like a business would do, to
further some assigned mission objective.
Not just like a business. A business caters to the public because
it's good for profits. A government caters to the public because it's
good for the citizens.
Greg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory G. Greer (301) 286-5999 | under contract to:
August Automation, Software Developers | Code 743
8781 Oxwell Lane, Laurel, Maryland 20781 | NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
(301) 470-4020 | Greenbelt, Maryland 20771
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 20:05 EDT
From:
Message-Id: <9108210005.AA14983@eff.org>
Subject: RE Computer Access
The grants of equipment for handicapped students are usually federal grants
administered either by state agencies or some rehabilitation agency.
--Betsey Doane
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 02:45:50 GMT
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <1991Aug20.183745.8709@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
In article <1991Aug20.183745.8709@eff.org> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>
>Here is some more info about students's legal rights to free
>expression.
>
>Rights, 3rd ed" by Janet R. Price, et al., 1988. (It is talking about
>public schools -- universities, high schools, etc).
>
>"[Question:] Can students use school facilities such a bulletin
>boards, loudspeakers, mimeograph machines, and meeting rooms to
>express their views?
>
>[Answer:] If the use of these school facilities for expression of
>student views would not be likely to disrupt regular school
>activities, students should be able to use them. However, a school may
>legitimately refuse to allow students to use its mimeograph machine
>if, for example, it is used all day long in the preparation of course
>material. If the loudspeaker is used only for school business, such as
>the announcement of school activities, program changes, and special
>events, a court would probably hold that student groups may legally be
>prevented from using for the expression of particular opinions. On the
>other hand, facilities such as bulletin boards should present no
>problem since space for the use of students can almost always be made
>available.
If you really believe this garbage, I suggest you file a law suit
against every school in the USA, for they all violate this. It is common
to not make mimeographs available to students, even when they are not
used all day long for preparation of class material. It is common to
have some bulletin boards for administrative use and not permit students
to post to these bulletin boards. It is common to have some bulletin boards
restricted to particular topics (say arranging rides into town, or finding
housing) and to only allow students to post to these bulleting boards if
they keep to these restricted topics. Yet each of these very common
practices clearly violates the principles you apparently believe in.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
Date: 21 Aug 91 07:33:55 GMT
From: Larysa.Fabok@samba.acs.unc.edu (Larysa Fabok)
Message-Id: <5317@beguine.UUCP>
Subject: Life, the Universe, and NO Internet!
I am from the Queensland University of Technology, in Brisbane,
Australia. For a number of years we have suffered from "limited resources".
This is the reason that is proffered up by our computer Admin when we ask
why we are not on the Internet. Even as I write this, I watch the door
of the lab... THEY have been known to patrol the far reaches of our campus
looking for "non-course-related activities".
A brief history: we found telnet, and have used it to our maximum
advantage. QUT students have become well-known and popular and even missed
on the bbs and MUDs of the world.
Now, there has been a clamp down. Things like packet tracing are
uttered in hushed tones in darkened rooms.
We stand to lose everything. all contact is going to be cut off.
The latest thing is going to be losing our ftp. We cannot e-mail and we
cannot post to news. But we can read news!! But for how long?
This may sound garbled; I am sorry. HELP US PLEASE!!
This calls for desparate measures. Can you please post suggestions,
reasons, excuses for why we should get our ftp back. Some suggestions on
how to get more access, sympathy ANYTHING!
The staff club together at these institutions.
So must we.
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 128.109.157.30
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 09:27:12 GMT
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Message-Id:
References: <5317@beguine.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Life, the Universe, and NO Internet!
In article <5317@beguine.UUCP> Larysa.Fabok@bbs.oit.unc.edu
(Larysa Fabok) writes:
["oh, woe is us" deleted]
> This may sound garbled; I am sorry. HELP US PLEASE!!
The basic problem is that you have supplied no information that lets
anyone outside your site evaluate the situation. From here, I can't
tell if you're being treated fairly, if there are good reasons for the
actions being taken, or if in fact any actions are being taken outside
of enforcing existing policies.
"THEY have been known to patrol...", "...uttered in hushed tones in
darkened rooms". What seems to be missing is an attempt to deal with
the administrators as human beings, instead of faceless stormtroopers.
Your article is a classic example of the "us against them" attitude,
and as a card-carrying member of "them", I have little sympathy for
you. Take a deep breath, count to ten, and start over.
If you're not part of the solution,
you're part of the precipitate.
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 10:12:27 GMT
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Message-Id:
References: <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
In article <1991Aug20.183745.8709@eff.org> kadie@eff.org
(Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Here is some more info about students's legal rights to free
>expression.
Interesting reading. The problem with your use of "proof by
authority" is that you're avoiding what I see as the basic issue in
this discussion, namely: when is a university-owned computer properly
regarded as an instrument of free expression? Your answer seems to be
"when it's turned on".
"We're not lost. We're
locationally challenged."
--
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 14:36:39 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.143639.356@eff.org>
References: , <1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
In article <1991Aug20.183745.8709@eff.org>
comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>>
>>Here is some more info about students's legal rights to free
>>expression.
>>
>>Rights, 3rd ed" by Janet R. Price, et al., 1988. (It is talking about
>>public schools -- universities, high schools, etc).
>>
>>"[Question:] Can students use school facilities such a bulletin
>>boards, loudspeakers, mimeograph machines, and meeting rooms to
>>express their views?
>>
>>[Answer:] If the use of these school facilities for expression of
>>student views would not be likely to disrupt regular school
>>activities, students should be able to use them. However, a school may
>>legitimately refuse to allow students to use its mimeograph machine
>>if, for example, it is used all day long in the preparation of course
>>material. If the loudspeaker is used only for school business, such as
>>the announcement of school activities, program changes, and special
>>events, a court would probably hold that student groups may legally be
>>prevented from using for the expression of particular opinions. On the
>>other hand, facilities such as bulletin boards should present no
>>problem since space for the use of students can almost always be made
>>available.
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
> If you really believe this garbage, I suggest you file a law suit
>against every school in the USA, for they all violate this. It is common
>to not make mimeographs available to students, even when they are not
>used all day long for preparation of class material. It is common to
>have some bulletin boards for administrative use and not permit students
>to post to these bulletin boards. It is common to have some bulletin boards
>restricted to particular topics (say arranging rides into town, or finding
>housing) and to only allow students to post to these bulleting boards if
>they keep to these restricted topics. Yet each of these very common
>practices clearly violates the principles you apparently believe in.
I don't think the Answer paragraph is making as strong a claim as you
suggest. It gives an example of when use of a mimeograph could be
refused. It did not not spell out when use could not be refused.
As far a bulletin boards. My experience is that while some bulletin
boards are restricted, others are available to students. I think this
is consistent with the law as expressed in the Answer paragraph. In
other words, I don't think the paragraph says that *all* bulletin
boards must be made available to students, only that *some* must
"almost always be made available."
- Carl
p.s. I've ordered half a dozen books about school law and student
rights from the library. I hope that they will contain detailed
answers to questions like: Can (or under what conditions can) the
engineering department at a public university refuse a room for a
meeting space to 1) an engineering student 2) a business students 3) a
member of the general public? Our discussion seems stuck on this (and
related questions).
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 15:04:50 GMT
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi)
Message-Id:
References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca>, <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: I don't get it.
In article <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>2) We do not support Usenet.
[...]
>Now that we have upgraded our hardware (to StarServer Es and SPARCStations,
>with an HP-9000 thrown in for good measure), we hope to reestablish our shop
>as a Usenet site. However, we will not carry certain groups, such as the
>alt.sex.* hierarchy. Our rationale for this decision is simple:
>
> We cannot properly ascertain the identity of our users. We do
> not have access to personal user data, such as birthdates. We
> cannot guarantee that user "jqpubl01" is John Q. Public; it might
> be his roommate, his girlfriend, or his 10-year-old brother. Since
> many of the discussions and images in the alt.sex hierarchy are
> oriented towards adults, they should be restricted to adults, just
> as adult movies and periodicals are restricted. Since we cannot
> reliably enforce such restrictions, we will not carry those groups
> at all.
>
I'll tell you...if I were at UKy, I could get around this,
and being the kind of person I am, I'd probably spread the word.
Usenet isn't a difficult-to-get resource...for god's sake, GNUS lets
you specify your nntp server...just because UKy doesn't have one
doesn't mean that I can't find one off site. And let's not
forget the news<->mail gateways. The benefit of having on-site
USENET is that rather than having several hundred compudweebs getting
partial usenet feeds in their mailboxes, you save the redundancy and
only keep one copy on site.
-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi | All I need to know I learned in the Marines:
bagchi@eecs.umich.edu | Eat all your vegetables; Make your bed
------------------------+ every day; warm moist footware leads to
severe problems with fungus; When someone tells you to, run full
speed at another person and stab them with a bayonet. (stolen quote)
From comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Mon Aug 26 12:31:09 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 13:26:41 -0400
Sender: helen@eff.org (Helen C. O'Boyle)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Aug 26 12:27:20 EDT 1991
In this issue:
rickert@cs.niu.edu : Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM : Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net
Sanjay Kapur
References: <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu> <1991Aug21.224553.10512@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
Shortly after my posting, we see a good example of what I am complaining
about.
In article <1991Aug21.224553.10512@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes:
>
>In my opinion, a university administrator's opinion that a student's
>notes are "over the line" should have no bearing on whether Netnews
>service is continued or discontinued. In my opinion, considering the
>student's perceived-over-the-lineness is no more legitimate than
>considering the student's race or religion.
Fair enough. Carl has every right to state his opinion, and we can choose
to agree or disagree.
But,
>Here is my attempt at an analogy: Suppose the University journalism
>department closes down the student paper 1) mostly because it loses
>money and 2) in part because the editor is African-American. In my
>opinion, the University (not just the department) would be guilty of
>racial discrimination.
Here we go. Most of us are instinctively opposed to racism, so we
have the "motherhood and apple pie" issue. But no university is going
to stand up and state "We are closing the paper mostly because it
loses money, but partly because the author is Aftrican-American". So
what this argument does is provide an excuse for the reader to impute
a motive which may be totally inapplicable, but which can be stated
in a way that makes the university's position seem indefensible.
This is an illegitimate debating trick. As long as Carl insists on using
these kinds of debating tricks, I will continue to see red, even though
I often agree with the main points Carl is trying to make.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
Date: 16 Aug 91 07:43:42 GMT
Sender: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Message-Id: <1991Aug16.074342.12863@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Subject: Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net
I would like to change a small item in my Mail Your Congressman
Project.
Instead of sending money for each letter you would like sent, I
would find it easier if people who want my service to continue would just
send any donation that they find reasonable. I think you would find that
method much simpler.
Please mail the checks to this modified address:
Sameer Parekh
c/o Media Dept.
Libertyville High School
708 W. Park Ave.
Libertyville, IL 60048
Thanks.
--
Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
Ask me about the Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net projectb
kill all overthrow government kill kill bomb bomb hi NSA
-------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 03:29 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <01E95FB6DC009827@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>I see computing resources as more closely analagous to libraries. I think
>lots of people would yell loudly if a student was thrown out of a library
>for reading a book not directly related to a class they were taking.
>
>--
>".. organized crime is the price we pay for organization." - Raymond Chandler
>Greg Broiles | CI$: 74017,3623 | greg@agora.rain.com
>PO Box 8988, Portland, OR 97207-8988 | MCIMail: gbroiles
I would agree that a computing resource is closely analogous to library
under one condition:
ONLY WHEN IT IS FUNDED IN AN ANALOGOUS MANNER TO A LIBRARY.
Most computing facilities are funded as laboratories rather than libraries and
so follow laboratory rules rather than library rules.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 21:47:17 -0400
Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <9108220147.AA00342@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
My department (Computer Science at U of I) has a library that
is funded as a laboratory (all private grants and department
funds; no University money).
- Carl
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 23:10:59 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.231059.11412@eff.org>
References: <6EE0D201F2202556@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Aug21.174312.4047@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Aug21.213237.9069@mp.cs.niu.edu>
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>I am not so sure that what Carl wrote is the law of the land. It seems
>more like wishful thinking (propoganda?) on the part of the ACLU. For every
>court case which supports the ACLU viewpoint that the ACLU cites, there are
>normally an equal number or greater court cases decided in the opposite
>direction. (sorry I do not have citations :-))
[...]
I don't think that this is the case. As far as I can tell, the book
gives a fair assessment of the law (as of 1988). I'm sure that famous
decisions such as Tinker are still the law. In any case, I'm expecting
some written-for-the-school-administrator books from the library which
should offer more info. Also, I certainly don't have a monopoly on
quoting from law books; I'd welcome company.
Finally, remember that the law only sets minimum requirements. Most
academic freedom (especially at private universities) comes not from
judges, but from people like us deciding how things should be.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 16:10:13 EDT
Sender: Ami Ganguli
Message-Id: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca>
Subject: I don't get it.
Mr. Kapur writes:
>Just because system administrators are in general disgusted with this mailing
>list and being defamed and dumped on and therefore do not bother to comment
>and give reasons does not mean that the reasons do not exist.
Perhaps a more constructive response would be to try to logically
explain your position. This isn't a criticism of Mr. Kapur, he has debated
quite well.
My greatist criticism of administrators in general ( and perhaps one
that can be explained away? ) is that many seem to feel that controlling who
accesses the system and for what purposes is a goal unto itself. When you
make a rule against running games or sending personal e-mail or reading alt.
sex, or any of those horrible things that users like to do, do you ever ask
yourself why?
A computer that isn't begin used is a very expensive piece of trash.
If somebody want's to play a game, why not let them? Instead of making a
policy like "thou shalt not play video games", why not just say, "if you're
playing a video game, we have the right to boot you off if somebody else needs
the computer"? That way at least the machine will be used.
On mainframes, why not check your average cpu usage sometime. Is
it only at 50% ? How's your disk space? 70% ? If so, then why are you
trying to place so many restrictions on your users? Did the university spend
all that money because they wanted a really expensive paperweight?
People will generally respect rules if you make them reasonable and
provide some justification.
... Ami.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aganguli@irus.rri.uwo.ca
Ami Ganguli at Images R Us, Robarts Research Institute, University of Western
Ontario, Canada
-------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 02:23:33 GMT
From: aviksroy@athena.mit.edu (Avik S Roy)
Message-Id: <1991Aug22.022333.4180@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: * The Advocates of Rational Discourse *
This post is to announce the formation of a new organization, based in
Cambridge, Mass., called the Advocates of Rational Discourse. If you are
interested in any aspect of the organization or its function, please send
email to ard-request@athena.mit.edu.
-----------------------------------
The Advocates of Rational Discourse : Statement of Purpose
-----------------------------------
Today, a cloud of conflict hovers above college campuses. In a noble
effort to affirm and protect distinct minority groups, universities
have put numerous reforms into place. If these reforms
are poorly designed, however, "multiculturalism" is attained at
the expense of honest scholarship; freedom of expression is
stifled in hopes of easing campus tensions.
Concerns have been raised by those who vehemently oppose the contemporary
approaches to multiculturalism. Due to an unwillingness of both sides to
openly seek constructive approaches to the issues, however, progress has
degenerated into intractable deadlock. We, the Advocates of Rational
Discourse, have resolved to promote thoughtful consideration of these issues,
by all parties, in an attempt to arrive at solutions to the genuine
challenges facing American society.
We feel that our approach to these issues is novel, for we wish to be part
of the solution and not part of the problem. We are unencumbered by an
explicit political dogma, except for an unequivocal support of civil
liberties and free expression.
Our aims are ambitious: to encourage and foster a free exchange of ideas to
promote constructive change; to address serious social ills; to generate
a legitimate national student voice on these issues;
and to restore the relentless pursuit of knowledge and truth to the
University. If reason can prevail over emotion and rigid partisanship,
we can and will succeed.
-------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 01:04 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>My department (Computer Science at U of I) has a library that
>is funded as a laboratory (all private grants and department
>funds; no University money).
>
>- Carl
>
What are the access rules (entry, borrowoing privs etc) for
1) Computer Science faculty
2) Computer Science staff
3) Other department faculty
4) Other department staff
5) Other department students
6) members of another University
7) Local residents who are not affliated to the University. (local residents
with their public library cards can at times borrow University library books)
Is the Computer Science library part of any inter library loan arrangement?
The answers to the above question will determine if the computer science
library is really a library or just a fancy laboratory.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 01:14 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>Finally, remember that the law only sets minimum requirements. Most
>academic freedom (especially at private universities) comes not from
>judges, but from people like us deciding how things should be.
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
I did say that I personally agree with most of what the ACLU stands for,
including what the book was saying.
I also believe that freedom is like a muscle which withers away if not
excersiced regularly and grows in size and strength when properly excersied.
Unfortunately, I also believe it shares one more attribute with a living
muscle in that improper excercise can strain and injure it.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 12:34:32 GMT
Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug22.123432.13604@eff.org>
Subject: Light bulb jokes
There is a sys admin joke in rec.humor.funny. But before I quote that
one, here's a try at an original another light bulb joke:
Q: How many Carl Kadies does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, the Joint Statement says that I have a right to light.
>From: ross-c@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Ross Clement)
>Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
>Subject: Some original LBJs
[...]
>Q: How many system administrators does it take to change a light bulb?
>A: None, just remove the [access permissions] of everybody allowed to
> go into the room.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 8:42:18 EDT
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Message-Id: <9108221242.AA12470@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
[Carl's analogy about journalism/rasicm, and Neil's 1st 'graph,
deleted]
>
> This is an illegitimate debating trick. As long as Carl insists on using
> these kinds of debating tricks, I will continue to see red, even though
> I often agree with the main points Carl is trying to make.
>
Sorry, I don't think this is so. Carl simply proposes an analogy in
order to support his point. There is nothing inherently wrong with
arguing by comparison, of which analogy is but one subset. The
principle criterion for argument by analogy is that the analogy be
valid, i.e., that it accurately reflect the situation which it
attempts to explain. Of course, it's the responder's burden to
point out any perceived flaws in the analogy, which Neil has done.
But there is nothing that I can find which says that argument by
analogy is a "trick." Rather, it is an accepted and often useful
persuasive device. Whether or not Neil particularly _likes_ Carl's
analogy is another matter.
Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil
Assistant Debate Coach, Capital University
Columbus, OH 43213
-------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 15:05:06 GMT
Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug22.150506.16529@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug22.001215.18708@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
> Here we go. Most of us are instinctively opposed to racism, so we
>have the "motherhood and apple pie" issue. But no university is going
>to stand up and state "We are closing the paper mostly because it
>loses money, but partly because the author is Aftrican-American". So
>what this argument does is provide an excuse for the reader to impute
>a motive which may be totally inapplicable, but which can be stated
>in a way that makes the university's position seem indefensible.
[...]
I stand by the analogy. Here is how I see things:
Legitimate factors when considering sponsorship of student media:
profit/lost
circulation
cost
etc.
Illegitimate factors
over-the-lineness
race
sex
handicap
etc.
The analogy tried to show that illegitimate factors do not become
legitimate just because they are considered along with legitimate
factors. Racism was used because it is widely recognized as
illegitimate. Sex or handicap could have been used just as well.
One way to argue against this position would to claim that
over-the-lineness is "semilegitimate", that is that while it cannot be
used as the sole factor in deciding sponsorship, it can be one of
several factors. This claim could be strengthened with an new analogy
to another factor that is widely recognized as semilegitimate.
(Personally, I can't think of any semilegitimate factors.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 15:51:44 GMT
Sender: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug22.155144.21136@ms.uky.edu>
References: <1991Aug19.211851.14599@eff.org>, <1991Aug21.210341.5322@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug21.224553.10512@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (that's me) writes:
>
>>If this were the sole reason, or if Usenet access was only partially
>>restricted, I would agree with you.
>
>In my opinion, a university administrator's opinion that a student's
>notes are "over the line" should have no bearing on whether Netnews
>service is continued or discontinued. In my opinion, considering the
>student's perceived-over-the-lineness is no more legitimate than
>considering the student's race or religion.
>
OK, why don't we consider the other relevant situations I described?
The following is from my original reply:
>>Those of you who argue that this should not be a consideration need to
>>consider some other parallels. That's like saying that I shouldn't
>>anticipate mailing list traffic when I install electronic mail, or that
>>I shouldn't anticpate GIF traffic when I enable ftp.
If I'm not supposed to consider "over the line" usage in administrative
decisions, what do I do in these situations? The systems we use and/or
administrate have a myriad of applications, many of which can be used
as vehicles for personal expression; NetNews is only one. If we're going
to discuss policies, we need to generate a policy that applies to ALL
such applications. Let's keep away from seizing upon one topic (NetNews)
and beating it to death; we have to develop a broader view.
>Here is my attempt at an analogy: Suppose the University journalism
>department closes down the student paper 1) mostly because it loses
>money and 2) in part because the editor is African-American. In my
>opinion, the University (not just the department) would be guilty of
>racial discrimination.
I agree, but what the heck does racial discrimination have to do with
electronic expression? Let's reword your analogy a bit:
Suppose the University journalism department closes down the student
paper 1) mostly becuase it loses money and 2) in part because of libel
suits brought (or seriously threatened) against it, and 3) its refusal
to abstain from the libelous statements.
This is close to a possible analogy with NetNews. Comments?
Here's a situation in a related area that you may want to consider.
Suppose that one of my users, without my knowledge, starts a "white supremacy"
mailing list, which is distributed to random addresses he gets from
NetNews/BBS/Compuserve/whatever. I get calls from B'nai Brith and
the NAACP, threatening legal action, protest campaigns, and the like.
What action should I take? Everything he mails out has "University
of XXXXXXX" attached to it. Is this a proper use of electronic
communication? Is this a proper use of MY electronic communications?
Can I implement a policy of "no personal mailing lists"?
>While it is important to treat users equally, it is not sufficient.
>Users should also be treated fairly. I believe that this is not just a
>good idea, but also the law.
Well, let's assume (for the moment) that I have a system that is capable
of supporting Usenet, as well as its academic mission (which has specific
priority). If I have a group of users who are creating legal problems via
their postings, what do I do? I don't agree with cutting off NetNews on
an individual basis without due process, so that's out; I think most of
the posters here agree with that. Read-only access, on an individual basis,
is just about the same as cutting it off completely, in my opinion; it's not
a valid option. Now you're telling me that I can't even make the decision
to stop supporting it on a system-wide basis without consultations with
everyone and his brother. What the heck am I supposed to do?
If the newsstand I patronize stops carrying XXX Magazine, I find another
newsstand that does. The newsstand owner knows that he's going to lose
some customers due to his action. Why can't the same idea be applied to
NetNews/ftp/email?
>"In other cases, courts have barred school officials from cutting
>off funds to campus newspapers because they disapproved of the newspaper's
>content. {65}
A nice quote, but NetNews has not yet reached the same legal status
enjoyed by newspapers.
I would also point out that schools DO have the ability to remove newspaper
staff who engage in such things as libel and slander, as do the owners of
commercial publications.
Many people draw parallels between NetNews and campus newspapers. There is
a significant difference. Newspapers have editorial boards and central
controlling authority, comprised of students or faculty. NetNews has no such
central control. Do you want that controlling influence to be installed?
I certainly don't.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
-------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 18:40:36 GMT
Sender: warnold@eff.org (William W. Arnold)
Message-Id: <1991Aug22.184036.20080@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug21.210341.5322@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug21.224553.10512@eff.org>, <1991Aug22.155144.21136@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
In article <1991Aug22.155144.21136@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>morgan@ms.uky.edu (that's me) writes:
>>>Those of you who argue that this should not be a consideration need to
>>>consider some other parallels. That's like saying that I shouldn't
>>>anticipate mailing list traffic when I install electronic mail, or that
>>>I shouldn't anticpate GIF traffic when I enable ftp.
>
>If I'm not supposed to consider "over the line" usage in administrative
>decisions, what do I do in these situations? The systems we use and/or
>administrate have a myriad of applications, many of which can be used
>as vehicles for personal expression; NetNews is only one. If we're going
>to discuss policies, we need to generate a policy that applies to ALL
>such applications. Let's keep away from seizing upon one topic (NetNews)
>and beating it to death; we have to develop a broader view.
>
Mostly, we are, it's just that NetNews is one of the best examples of
most of the problems we are encountering.
>
>>Here is my attempt at an analogy: Suppose the University journalism
>>department closes down the student paper 1) mostly because it loses
>>money and 2) in part because the editor is African-American. In my
>>opinion, the University (not just the department) would be guilty of
>>racial discrimination.
>
>I agree, but what the heck does racial discrimination have to do with
>electronic expression? Let's reword your analogy a bit:
>
>Suppose the University journalism department closes down the student
>paper 1) mostly becuase it loses money and 2) in part because of libel
>suits brought (or seriously threatened) against it, and 3) its refusal
>to abstain from the libelous statements.
>
>This is close to a possible analogy with NetNews. Comments?
>
this is a fairly good analogy, however a better one would be:
(assume a university with more than one student paper)
The University closes down all the student papers because
1) they lose money.
2) libel suits have been brought (or seriously threatned) against one.
3) That one refuses to abstain from the libelous statements.
It appears to me that NetNews should be looked at as many student papers, not
just one. Each student is his own paper. It becomes apparent that if a
student does something wrong, then something should be done about that
student.
>Here's a situation in a related area that you may want to consider.
>
>Suppose that one of my users, without my knowledge, starts a "white supremacy"
>mailing list, which is distributed to random addresses he gets from
>NetNews/BBS/Compuserve/whatever. I get calls from B'nai Brith and
>the NAACP, threatening legal action, protest campaigns, and the like.
>What action should I take? Everything he mails out has "University
>of XXXXXXX" attached to it. Is this a proper use of electronic
>communication? Is this a proper use of MY electronic communications?
>Can I implement a policy of "no personal mailing lists"?
>
Suppose that the same user starts a "white supremacy" club on campus
following all current university guidelines for clubs. The university
gets calls from B'nai Brith and the NAACP, threatening legal action,
protest campaigns, and the like. What action should it take?
Everything he mails out has "University of XXXXXXX" attached to it. Is
this a proper use of University facilities? Can it implement a policy
of "no campus clubs"?
>>While it is important to treat users equally, it is not sufficient.
>>Users should also be treated fairly. I believe that this is not just a
>>good idea, but also the law.
>
>Well, let's assume (for the moment) that I have a system that is capable
>of supporting Usenet, as well as its academic mission (which has specific
>priority). If I have a group of users who are creating legal problems via
>their postings, what do I do? I don't agree with cutting off NetNews on
>an individual basis without due process, so that's out;
uhhhh, that's the whole point of the discussion, YOU HAVE TO HAVE DUE
PROCESS. Once you establish due process for how to cut off NetNews
access on an individual basis, You then follow said due process and
that's it. If you don't care enough to go through the trouble then the
problem is obviously not serious enough to warrant a reaction.
> I think most of
>the posters here agree with that. Read-only access, on an individual basis,
>is just about the same as cutting it off completely, in my opinion; it's not
>a valid option. Now you're telling me that I can't even make the decision
>to stop supporting it on a system-wide basis without consultations with
>everyone and his brother. What the heck am I supposed to do?
to repeat myself for emphasis:
Establish due process guidelines, and follow them.
>>"In other cases, courts have barred school officials from cutting
>>off funds to campus newspapers because they disapproved of the newspaper's
>>content. {65}
>
>A nice quote, but NetNews has not yet reached the same legal status
>enjoyed by newspapers.
But it should have similar status.
>
>I would also point out that schools DO have the ability to remove newspaper
>staff who engage in such things as libel and slander, as do the owners of
>commercial publications.
>
And they follow due process in those removals. As should you in the
removal of people from NetNews.
>Many people draw parallels between NetNews and campus newspapers. There is
>a significant difference. Newspapers have editorial boards and central
>controlling authority, comprised of students or faculty. NetNews has no such
>central control. Do you want that controlling influence to be installed?
>I certainly don't.
>
Actually it does, it's just that while a newspaper has many people
getting together to form said board, NetNews has many people each
forming individual boards, and then sending their papers out over the
same distribution system.
>--
> morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
> morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
> morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
-------------------
Date: 23 Aug 91 01:28:30 GMT
Sender: sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen P. Marting)
Message-Id:
References: <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>, , <8cge2vm00WDJ0=eFBu@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Verifying users, was Re: I don't get it.
Excerpts From Captions of netnews.alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:
21-Aug-91 Verifying users, was Re: I .. Wes Morgan@ms.uky.edu (1270)
>sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen P. Marting) writes:
>>
>>Or how about a really easy fix to the situation: it is completely
>>illegal to give anyone your password. Period. Therefore, if JQP's
>>roommate or little brother is reading the alt.sex.* heirarchy, it is
>>because John has broken the rules. In the same paragraph, you can
>>probably absolve yourself from blame in situations like these.
>
>Yes, but JQP's parents aren't going to care about that. The only
>thing which will hold their attention is the fact that JQP's little
>brother was pulling down GIFs of Traci Lords or reading about the
>latest Swedish Erotica catalog. They won't blame JQP for giving
>out his password; they'll rail, in righteous anger, about public
>schools carrying "pornography". It's already happened; it will
>happen again, regardless of any policy you care to develop. The
>best solution is to can alt.sex.* and the like entirely. As has
>been mentioned several times, they are usually available from several
>other systems that aren't my concern.
It has happened? And what were the results of these cases? Has a
school ever been successfully sued for "allowing" one of their students
to perform an illegal act?
Sounds like CMU could be sued if I give some underage freshman alcohol
and (s)he falls down and hits his/her head - being as I'm only 19 myself.
And if it's available from other sites, and those other sites can be
reached from your stations, then what would be the difference in the
situation you described?
a) Johnny gives Jimmy his password - illegaly. Johnny shows Jimmy how
to use 'rn'. Jimmy uudecodes some alt.sex.pictures postings, prints
them out on the campus' neat little color laser printer, and hangs them
in his room. Mommy and Daddy sue the school for corrupting the little
Satanist.
b) Johnny gives Jimmy his password - legally. Jimmy ftp's some juicy
gifs from an .nz or .fi site or somesuch and the rest follows as in a).
c) Johnny gives Jimmy his password - legally. Jimmy connects to an
outside news server (default for Johnny's account) and a) more or less
happens.
The only difference to *my* eyes is that in a), Johnny is clearly
breaking the school's rules. I know the court system is seriously
f*cked around here, but that still has gotta count for something. Looks
like the safest route is what I suggested.
Of course, all of this has been mere speculation [in other words, pulled
out of my *ss like most bullsh*t [God, I hate vowels...] I've been known
to spout from time to time].
Yes, of course you'll say that if giving out passwords is *always*
illegal, then the school may be protected just as well in b) and c) as
it is in a). You would probably be right. But just how far are you
willing to compromise the abilites of your users just to CYA in some
hypothetical situation that you heard happened to some school out there
somewhere (just a point - do you have facts about the supposed lawsuits
or is it a bit of UL?)? "We don't have ftp, rn, or even email. Hey,
man, that stuff's *dangerous*."
-------------------
Date: 23 Aug 91 06:07:48 GMT
Sender: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Message-Id: <1991Aug23.060748.21932@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Subject: Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net (ACTIVE)
Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net
I realized that congresspeople should be on the net so
that they are closer to their constituency. Of course, I
mailed my congressperson asking him to look into it. Of
course, he didn't.
Therefore, I thought that people on the net should
still be able to mail their congressperson through the net.
I got the idea from the Cleveland Free-Net's Mail Your
Congressperson thing. (I am not sure of the exact name.) I
was excited by the name and looked into it. Unfortunately,
all it does is give you the address of a congressperson. It
is a good service, but not worthy of the name.
So I got this idea. Mail me at zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
with the subject "MAIL CONGRESS." (If you don't have that
subject it will be harder for me.) In the letter you should
tell me the name, house (Senate or HoR), and state that you
want to write to. Due to a slight problem in my list, I have only
the initial of the last name and the first name for many of the names.
(The last name has been blurred.) Therefore, I would need
the first name of the person too.
The rest of the letter should be the letter you want
sent to the congressperson. This should be completely
formatted, except for page breaks. I will place the headers
on the letter. (That which states your name, address, date,
and the congressperson's name and address.) I don't have a
laser printer, so it will be printed at only 160 X 72 dpi.
(If someone is willing to give me a laser printer, or even
an inkjet printer, I would gladly accept. :-)
Someone had pointed out to me that some may think that I would only
send those letters with which I agree with. I see no way I can prove to you
that I am not filtering the letters, but I don't.
After your signature (if the mail you send me contains
a usenet sig, I will delete that.) I will append a small
note saying:
---
The Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net Project
Call (708)-362-9659 and ask for Sameer Parekh,
or mail zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM for more information.
Hopefully, many letters to congresspeople will invoke
their curiosity.
I am a student with a student's money, so I would go broke if I didn't
ask for money. If you think my service deserves to continue, I would
appreciate a donation of any amount.
Please send the check to:
Sameer Parekh
829 Paddock Lane
Libertyville, IL 60048-3743
Thanks.
--
Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM zane@infopls.chi.il.us
Ask me about the Mail Your Congressperson Through the Net projectb
Apple II Forever! Ask me about the GNOmultitasking project!
From comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Mon Aug 26 12:31:09 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 13:22:25 -0400
Sender: helen@eff.org (Helen C. O'Boyle)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Aug 26 12:24:05 EDT 1991
In this issue:
"Manavendra K. Tha : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
rickert@cs.niu.edu : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.0
tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu. : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.0
"Manavendra K. Tha : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.02
sm6h+@andrew.cmu.e : Re: I don't get it.
amanda@visix.com ( : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
kadie@eff.org (Car : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.02
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
rickert@cs.niu.edu : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
kadie@eff.org (Car : Email ethics (was Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentuck
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
"Manavendra K. Tha : Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.02
morgan@ms.uky.edu : Verifying users, was Re: I don't get it.
Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <9108211525.AA01871@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
<1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu>
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 1991 02:45:50 GMT, rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) said:
>>"[Question:] Can students use school facilities such a bulletin
>>boards, loudspeakers, mimeograph machines, and meeting rooms to
>>express their views?
>>
>>[Answer:] If the use of these school facilities for expression of
>>student views would not be likely to disrupt regular school
>>activities, students should be able to use them. However, a school
>>may legitimately refuse to allow students to use its mimeograph
>>machine if, for example, it is used all day long in the preparation
>>of course material. If the loudspeaker is used only for school
>>business, such as the announcement of school activities, program
>>changes, and special events, a court would probably hold that
>>student groups may legally be prevented from using for the
>>expression of particular opinions. On the other hand, facilities
>>such as bulletin boards should present no problem since space for
>>the use of students can almost always be made available.
> If you really believe this garbage, I suggest you file a law suit
> against every school in the USA, for they all violate this. It is
> common to not make mimeographs available to students, even when they
> are not used all day long for preparation of class material. It is
> common to have some bulletin boards for administrative use and not
> permit students to post to these bulletin boards. It is common to
> have some bulletin boards restricted to particular topics (say
> arranging rides into town, or finding housing) and to only allow
> students to post to these bulleting boards if they keep to these
> restricted topics. Yet each of these very common practices clearly
> violates the principles you apparently believe in.
Neil, Neil, ease up for a moment, would you? Carl's quotation didn't
imply that ALL students have the right to access ALL school facilities
ALL the time.
Look again at what Carl quoted and what you said (I'll concentrate on
the statements about bulletin boards):
Carl's quotation:
facilities such as bulletin boards should present no problem
since space for the use of students can almost always be made
available.
Your response:
It is common to have some bulletin boards restricted to
particular topics (say arranging rides into town, or finding
housing) and to only allow students to post to these bulleting
boards if they keep to these restricted topics.
Please correct me if I'm wrong; it seems to me that you and Carl are
saying the same thing.
Carl is saying that it would be unjustified to completely ban students
>from using bulletin boards since additional bulletin board space for
student use can "almost always be made available."
You are saying that schools commonly allocate bulletin board space (a
resource, if you will) for specific purposes.
Both of you are right! And to my mind, neither of you are
contradicting each other. You're simply saying the same thing, albeit
in different ways.
Perhaps the misunderstanding arises from the inherent ambiguity of the
phrase "... should present no problem ..." in Carl's quotation. Most
likely, you interpreted this to mean that students cannot be denied
access to any bulletin board space no matter what. Most likely, Carl
did not mean this at all; rather, he was pointing out that barring
students from using all bulletin boards in general is an abuse of
legitimate administrative control over resources.
The irony of all this is that the thrust of Carl's quotation actually
affirms the validity of administrative control over resources! I've
been following this list since it began, and not once have I read
anything written or quoted by Carl that says institutions cannot
maintain administrative control over their resources.
What I've heard Carl arguing over and over is that administrative
control is a legitimate function of academic institutions and that
such administrative control must be done in a manner that is fair,
equitable, and consistent with widley accepted principles of academic
freedom. (Hence Carl's quotation of authoritative statements from
various academic organizations, professional societies, etc).
I have a hard time believing that anyone could actually disagree with
that. So I'm at a loss to understand why these eminently reasonable
statments end up getting blown out of proportion and misunderstood.
Instead of flaming and hurling venom at each other, can't we try to
identify the set of assumptions and understandings being brought into
the discussion? Bringing these out into the open would probably
eliminate a large proportion of the ill will that seems to be
lingering in this newsgroup.
Perhaps a good rule of thumb for future discussion in
this newsgroup would be to:
1) Assume nothing
2) Ask probing questions to eliminate any ambiguities or
misunderstandings and avoid jumping to conclusions
Note that I'm not simply asking people to "be nice"; rather, I'm
trying to point out that personal invective in this newsgroup (as with
any newsgroup) tends to bog down any substantive discussion of the
issues at hand. If we could get past all the elements that raise
people's hackles, and concentrate instead on what this newsgroup is
supposed to be about, maybe we'd all learn something and perhaps even
get something constructive accomplished.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 17:33:46 GMT
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.173346.10209@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <9108211525.AA01871@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu>
In article <9108211525.AA01871@zerkalo.harvard.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>
>Neil, Neil, ease up for a moment, would you? Carl's quotation didn't
>imply that ALL students have the right to access ALL school facilities
>ALL the time.
>
>Look again at what Carl quoted and what you said (I'll concentrate on
>the statements about bulletin boards):
>Please correct me if I'm wrong; it seems to me that you and Carl are
>saying the same thing.
No. I don't agree. Carl quoted some libertarian claptrap, and then
added comments which implied that he believed that garbage.
The reasoning "bulletin boards should present no problem since space for
the use of students can almost always be made available" is not the
kind of thing I would expect courts to sustain. If a school adopted a
policy of never letting any student ever post to a bulletin board,
it is very likely that would be sustained, even if there were plenty
of spare space. If a school allowed christian notices to be posted to
a bulletin board in a popular area, but only allow athiest notices to be
posted to a bulletin board in a dingy basement that nobody ever visits,
I suspect that school would be in lots of trouble with the courts.
The availability of bulletin board space, or of the mimeograph, etc, has
very little to do with it. It is the fairness and consistency of the policy
which is important. Freedom of speech does not require a school to provide
a bulletin board as an open forum, but if the school does provide such a
bulletin board, then freedom of speech requirements greatly limit the schools
ability to control the contents of postings to that bulletin board.
>The irony of all this is that the thrust of Carl's quotation actually
>affirms the validity of administrative control over resources! I've
>been following this list since it began, and not once have I read
>anything written or quoted by Carl that says institutions cannot
>maintain administrative control over their resources.
I haven't either. But I have read many quotations that Carl has
initially interpreted as prohibiting such control.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 17:43:12 GMT
Sender: tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.174312.4047@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <9108211525.AA01871@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu>
In article <9108211525.AA01871@zerkalo.harvard.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>
>Note that I'm not simply asking people to "be nice"; rather, I'm
>trying to point out that personal invective in this newsgroup (as with
>any newsgroup) tends to bog down any substantive discussion of the
>issues at hand. If we could get past all the elements that raise
>people's hackles, and concentrate instead on what this newsgroup is
>supposed to be about, maybe we'd all learn something and perhaps even
>get something constructive accomplished.
Communicative style is important, and probing questions are helpful.
But, there was no personal invective in the post to which you refer.
Perhaps it was a bit strident, but the original post addressed the content
of an idea, not the characteristics of the poster of that idea. There is
a place for a bit of obstreperousness, even an occasional swipe, as
a means of communicating. It's unwise to limit the tropes of discourse
to some uniform set of sanitized procedures that exclude irony, bathos,
and other rhetorical ploys. "Polite" discourse is not necessarily
reasoned discourse. In a forum on academic freedom, we should be aware that
even informal impositive of rhetorical styles is a form of power--it
puts at a disadvantage those people who find "nicespeak" overly narrow
for communicating a full range of ideas *and* emotions. Attempts to
tame language have a place, but domestication does pose a danger to
the full range of expressing ideas.
Jim Thomas
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 14:16:30 EDT
Sender: "Manavendra K. Thakur"
Message-Id: <9108211816.AA02246@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu>
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 1991 17:43:12 GMT, tk0jut1@mp.cs.niu.edu (jim thomas) said:
> There is a place for a bit of obstreperousness, even an
> occasional swipe, as a means of communicating. It's unwise to limit
> the tropes of discourse to some uniform set of sanitized procedures
> that exclude irony, bathos, and other rhetorical ploys. "Polite"
> discourse is not necessarily reasoned discourse. In a forum on
> academic freedom, we should be aware that even informal impositive
> of rhetorical styles is a form of power--it puts at a disadvantage
> those people who find "nicespeak" overly narrow for communicating a
> full range of ideas *and* emotions. Attempts to tame language have a
> place, but domestication does pose a danger to the full range of
> expressing ideas.
Your point is well-taken, and you are of course correct.
I was not asking for "polite" discourse as a goal in and of itself.
However, when hackles get raised to the point that people start
talking past one another and interpreting comments without bothering
to ascertain what the speaker actually meant -- then that is a clear
sign that more heat than light is being shed.
In such situations, it helps to take a deep breath, count to ten, and
then respond.
I believe there is plenty of room for heated arguments and
hotly-debated points during the course of a discussion. But these
should be arguments about the *issues* involved, and not on
assumptions or rigid preconceptions. When the debate starts becoming
fueled by personal animosity, pigeon-holing ("We sysadmins always get
dumped on in caf-talk" or "All sysadmins are evil scum"), then the
debate isn't real or meaningful anymore. That is the situation I
hoped to avoid by making my remarks.
I'm not saying that Neil was doing all of these things in his post;
I'm just pointing out that there is a danger of this discussion
degenerating and that we can all do certain things (like
double-checking to make sure that we receive the same message that the
speaker intended to send) to reduce that danger.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my remarks. I agree with
your comments, and I hope that the debates on caf-talk return to the
scintillating levels they have reached on occasion in the past.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
-------------------
Date: 21 Aug 91 17:19:55 GMT
Sender: sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen P. Marting)
Message-Id: <8cge2vm00WDJ0=eFBu@andrew.cmu.edu>
References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca>, <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: I don't get it.
Excerpts from alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk: 21-Aug-91 Re: I don't get it.
Ranjan Bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (1897)
> In article <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes
> Morgan) writes:
> >2) We do not support Usenet.
> [...]
> >Now that we have upgraded our hardware (to StarServer Es and SPARCStations,
> >with an HP-9000 thrown in for good measure), we hope to reestablish our shop
> >as a Usenet site. However, we will not carry certain groups, such as the
> >alt.sex.* hierarchy. Our rationale for this decision is simple:
> >
> > We cannot properly ascertain the identity of our users. We do
> > not have access to personal user data, such as birthdates. We
> > cannot guarantee that user "jqpubl01" is John Q. Public; it might
> > be his roommate, his girlfriend, or his 10-year-old brother. Since
> > many of the discussions and images in the alt.sex hierarchy are
> > oriented towards adults, they should be restricted to adults, just
> > as adult movies and periodicals are restricted. Since we cannot
> > reliably enforce such restrictions, we will not carry those groups
> > at all.
> >
> I'll tell you...if I were at UKy, I could get around this,
> and being the kind of person I am, I'd probably spread the word.
Or how about a really easy fix to the situation: it is completely
illegal to give anyone your password. Period. Therefore, if JQP's
roommate or little brother is reading the alt.sex.* heirarchy, it is
because John has broken the rules. In the same paragraph, you can
probably absolve yourself from blame in situations like these.
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 17:55:55 GMT
Sender: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.175555.8112@visix.com>
References: <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
greer@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Greg Greer) writes:
Courts have declared that public education and other entitlements are
_rights_ which may not be denied without due process.
No. Courts have declared that *access to* public education and other
entitlements are rights. Public education itself is not a right. This
is why the government provides grants and loan assistance, but will not
pay for an education outright--it will only assist with *access* to an
education.
If the university, for arbitrary or capricious reasons, denies a
qualified student access given to other students, they have
violated a _right_.
Part of the problem here is what constitues "arbitrary or capricious
reasons." Students and sysadmins seem to have very differing ideas of
this, for example :).
Protest marches often take place on city streets, for example,
causing traffic to be re-routed.
True, and a good analogy. However, even a public university is not
in general a public place or commons (even though parts of it may be
so). University instructional facilities are almost never open to the
public, and are generally not even open to the general student body.
Public schools, as public property, are usually open for public use,
subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
This has not been true in my experience, which includes both private and
public universities.
A government caters to the public because it's good for the citizens.
What a beautiful theory. I haven't seen much evidence for it, though.
A government caters to the public because it's good for the government.
--
Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda
--
"....Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not
subject to the regulation of conscience." --Adam Smith
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 20:01:26 GMT
Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.200126.6251@eff.org>
References: <9108211525.AA01871@zerkalo.harvard.edu>, <1991Aug21.173346.10209@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu>
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
> Carl quoted some libertarian claptrap, and then
>added comments which implied that he believed that garbage.
[...]
Let me clarify what I posted. Almost everything (everything after the
reference) was a quote from the book "The Rights of Students". I added
no comments.
The book "The Rights of Students" was written by Janet R. Price, Alan
H. Levine, and Eve Cary. It is published by the Southern Illinois
University Press. It is part of the American Civil Liberties Union
handbook series.
According to the bio in the book, Janet R. Price is director of the
Manhattan Borough President's Task Force on Education and
Decentralization (and an attorney). Alan H. Levine is a constitutional
lawyer, a partner in the law form of Steel Bellman and Levine, and a
former director of the NY Civil Liberties Union's Student Rights
Project. Eve Cary is a teacher at the Brooklyn Law School. Formerly
she was the senior supervising attorney at the Criminal Appeals Bureau
of the Legal Aid Society.
Here is the beginning of the preface of the book:
-----begin quote----
"This guide sets forth your rights under the present law and offers
suggestions on how they can be protected. It is one of a continuing
series of handbooks published in cooperation with the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU).
Surrounding these publications is the hope that Americans, informed of
their rights, will be encouraged to exercise them. Through their
exercise, rights are given life. If they are rarely used, they may be
forgotten and violations may become routine.
This guide offers no assurances that your rights will be respected.
The laws may change, and in some of the subjects covered in these
pages they change quite rapidly. An effort has been made to note those
parts of the law where movement is taking place, but it is not always
possible to predict accurately when the law will change.
Even if the laws remain the same, their interpretations by courts and
administrative officials often vary. In a federal system such as ours,
there is a built-in problem since state and federal law differ, not to
speak of the confusion between states. In addition, there are wide
variations in the ways in which particular courts and administrative
officials will interpret the same law at any given moment.
If you encounter what you consider to be a specific abuse of your
rights, you should seek legal assistance. [...]
If you encounter a specific legal problem in an area discussed in one
of these handbooks, show that book to your attorney. Of course, he or
she will not be able to rely exclusively on the handbook to provide
you with adequate representation. But if your attorney hasn't had a
great deal of experience in the specific area, the handbook can
provide helpful suggestions on how to proceed."
------end of quote---
Now a quote from the introduction:
----begin quote---
The purpose of this book is to define the scope of school officials'
power to regulate students' lives, and their reponsibilities to provide services and protections to students.
The following chapters outline the law in specific areas, but they all
reflect a common theme: school officials can make and enforce only reasonable
rules of behavior that are directly related to the students' education.
They may not act arbitrarily. [...]
Most of the cases discussed in this book involve high school students,
although a few college cases are mentioned. Most courts now agree that
'the relevant principles and rules apply generally to both high
schools and universities.' {2} [...]
Despite the developments in the law, you may still find that your
principal continues to suspend students with hearings, keeps
confidential records on students which parents are not permitted to
see, and forbids student newspaper editors from printing satire on
school policy because such criticism is 'irresponsible journalism.'
Although those practices violate students' rights and would probably
be declared illegal if challenged, rights do not have any effect
merely because they exist in a lawbook. They are meaningful only if
exercised.
[...] That such a policy is illegal means nothing if it is not challenged.
Having said that, we should add a word of caution. Challenging
practices that violate your rights can sometimes be costly. [...]
{2} Scoville v. Board of Education of Joliet Township, 425 F. 2d 10 C
7th Cir. (1970)."
--- end quote ---
Finally, here are the legal references for the paragraph about
bulletin boards:
---- begin quote----
Bonner-Lyons v. School Committee of Boston, 480 F. 2d 442 (1st Cir.
1973). See also National Socialist White People's Party V. Ringers,
473 F.2d 1010 (4th Cir. 1973); Zucker v. Panitz, 299 F. Supp. 102
(S.D.N.Y. 1969); Garvin v. Rosenau, 455 F.2d 233 (6th Cir. 1972), on
remind, Civil Action No. 36093 (E.D. Mich. 1972); A.C.L.U. v. Radford
College, 315 F. Supp. 893 (W.D. Va. 1970).
----end quote ---
If anyone knows an authority (i.e. not me or Neil) with an explanation
of the law that contradicts the book, they should post a note.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 21:03:41 GMT
Sender: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.210341.5322@ms.uky.edu>
References: <9108172010.AA21385@vega.irus.rri.uwo.ca>, <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug19.211851.14599@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
The HypeMaster strikes again!!
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>In email, I asked Mr. Morgen for details about the so-called "over the
>line" notes. He can not substantiate his characterization. (The
>incidents happened before he was hired and so he has no first-hand
>knowledge of them.)
>
Gee, and I thought email was private. This instance doesn't bother
me (several others who sent inquisitive email received the same reply),
but I would point out that Carl neither requested nor received
permission from me to post details of our email. Thanks for respecting
my privacy, Carl.
>Even if the notes were over the line (say, libelous), that is not a
>legitimate reason to deny all users access to Usenet.
If this were the sole reason, or if Usenet access was only partially
restricted, I would agree with you.
I mentioned three reasons that Usenet was dropped at our site. Carl,
true to his hyperbolic form, seized upon the issue from which the most
mileage could be drawn. A judicious header renaming, and voila! Let's
all cry "censorship" and implicate the entire University!!! This is the
second time that Carl has done this to me personally; I've lost count of
the number of times that it has occured to other posters. Let's try to
step back and look again.
The predominant reasons for dropping Usenet were the disk and CPU
consideration I described. The "public relations" angle was minor,
but it was an indication of possible problems. After discussing this
with several people who had first-hand knowledge of the incident, I
get the impression that the PR problem was not the deciding factor.
NOTE FOR HYPERBOLICS: see the words "I get the impression"? That
means that this is a PERSONAL OPINION, not a statement of first-hand
fact.
I agree that the "quality of postings" is not a valid reason, IN AND
OF ITSELF, for the removal of Usenet from a given site. However, if
you tell me that it shouldn't even be a factor, you're wrong. Sites
come and go from the Usenet on a regular basis. How many times have
we seen postings along the lines of "my site's phone bills are too big,
so we're dropping usenet" or just "my site's dropping usenet"? I'm
sure that the "public relations" angle plays a factor in those decisions.
It may not be a major factor (it wasn't at my site), but it is a factor
nonetheless.
Those of you who argue that this should not be a consideration need to
consider some other parallels. That's like saying that I shouldn't
anticipate mailing list traffic when I install electronic mail, or that
I shouldn't anticpate GIF traffic when I enable ftp. You must consider
*all* aspects of the situation. As long as the decisions made affect
all users equally, I don't think that it is an issue of censorship. Heck,
I *was* a user of this site when Usenet went away, and I didn't feel
particularly censored; I just found a few other systems and BBSs,
and went my way rejoicing.
Wes Morgan
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 21:32:37 GMT
Sender: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.213237.9069@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <9108211816.AA02246@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Aug21.174312.4047@mp.cs.niu.edu>
In article <9108211816.AA02246@zerkalo.harvard.edu> comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org writes:
>I believe there is plenty of room for heated arguments and
>hotly-debated points during the course of a discussion. But these
>should be arguments about the *issues* involved, and not on
>assumptions or rigid preconceptions. When the debate starts becoming
>fueled by personal animosity, pigeon-holing ("We sysadmins always get
>dumped on in caf-talk" or "All sysadmins are evil scum"), then the
>debate isn't real or meaningful anymore. That is the situation I
>hoped to avoid by making my remarks.
>
>I'm not saying that Neil was doing all of these things in his post;
I most certainly was not trying to do these things. I was reacting to
Carl, who has a habit of posting messages which give us the impression
he is saying things approaching "All sysadmin's are evil scum". Or
more specifically, Carl has a habit of taking a very complex situation
and making a terribly simplistic statement which is completely out of
context and which totally ignores the complexities of the situation.
Worse still, Carl's statement is often worded so as to suggest that anyone
opposing it is against motherhood and apple pie.
It is admittedly the case that Carl is often quoting some other document.
But he does so without supplying any of the missing context.
If you don't like the way I (and several others) react to Carl, you might
try persuading Carl to be a little less provocative himself.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 21:48:30 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.214830.8822@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug19.211851.14599@eff.org>, <1991Aug21.210341.5322@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Email ethics (was Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky)
>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>>In email, I asked Mr. Morgen for details about the so-called "over the
>>line" notes. He can not substantiate his characterization.
[...]
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Gee, and I thought email was private. This instance doesn't bother
>me (several others who sent inquisitive email received the same reply),
>but I would point out that Carl neither requested nor received
>permission from me to post details of our email. Thanks for respecting
>my privacy, Carl.
[...]
The mere fact that Wes and I had different expectations shows a
problem. I apologize for that.
I try to be careful to never to quote email without permission. I
confess that I did not generally consider the gist of an email message
(or a conversion) confidential.
I will, however, reconsider this personal policy. Suggestions are welcome.
(I think reporters have concepts like "for the record", "not for attribution",
and "for background.")
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 21:39:49 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.213949.14269@ms.uky.edu>
References: <1991Aug15.152232.20198@eff.org>, <1991Aug15.212141.11573@ms.uky.edu>,
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
greer@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Greg Greer) writes:
>
>Courts have declared that public education and other entitlements are
>_rights_ which may not be denied without due process. Use here of the
>word _privilege_ upsets me greatly. It makes it sound like the
>University is the great god arbiter of who should be educated and who
>should not. That's false.
Then why do we send out grades each term? Why do we have academic
probation and/or suspension?
As a secondary question: if higher education is a right, why do we
have selective admissions? Why do we charge for the "right" to attend
universities? Could it be that *gasp* is isn't a "right" after all?
>If the university, for arbitrary or
>capricious reasons, denies a qualified student access given to other
>students, they have violated a _right_.
Ah, now we see the word "qualified"!!
That's the crux of the discussion. There are those who argue that a
student who violates an existing policy is no longer "qualified" to
use them.
>If computer access were
>really a _privilege_, you could deny it to any student at any time for
>no good reason at all, and this you cannot do. Humpf.
Now, the word "qualified" disappears. Humpf.
Let's try another analogy.....
CASE #1:
- Parking on campus is a privilege.
- A student must be "qualified", as determined by the authorities, in
order to park on campus. Criteria might include:
- class standing (some schools only allow upperclassmen to
park on campus)
- police record (no outstanding parking tickets, etc.)
- Valid University status (faculty, staff, student)
- Your agreement to follow the stated rules.
- A student's parking privilege may be denied with "good reason".
This "good reason" may be either a result of:
- due process (outstanding parking tickets, DUIs on
campus, other violations of the stated rules, etc.)
- administrative action (you forgot to send in your
renewal money, you are no longer affiliated with
the University, you lost your driver's license, etc.)
CASE #2:
- Computing on campus is a privilege.
- A student must be "qualified", as determined by the authorities, in
order to use the computer system. Criteria might include:
- class standing (some systems might be upperclass-only)
- Valid University status (faculty, staff, student)
- Your agreement to follow the stated rules.
- One's computing privilege may be denied for "good reason".
This "good reason" may be either a result of:
- due process (academic suspension, violation of the stated
rules)
- administrative action (you're no longer affiliated with
the organization providing computing services, you're no
no longer affiliated with the University at all, etc.)
Now, can you show me a similar analogy that proves that computing is
a right?
>First, a park or other public place are maintained, in part, at your
>expense, throught your taxes. Secondly, it is law that the government
>may restrict your right peacably to assemble only with respect to
>reasonable times, places, and manners.
Manners, eh? Gee, could that be akin to "manners" in one's use of
a computer system? Could "disorderly conduct" be akin to "running
15 background jobs computing pi, just to tie up a system"?
>Protest marches often take
>place on city streets, for example, causing traffic to be re-routed.
Yup, and people get arrested at protest marches all the time. See the
current situation in Wichita for examples. Those people exceeded their
rights.
>Public schools, as public property, are usually open for public use,
>subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. This
>being so does not imply that no one has control of it and that no one
>will take care of it. Community property, likes parks and schools, are
>not regarded generally by people as places where they can run amok.
Then why should a computer system be regarded as a digital playground,
where all is forgiven and no one else ever uses the swings?
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 18:14:24 EDT
From: "Manavendra K. Thakur"
Message-Id: <9108212214.AA02596@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Aug21.174312.4047@mp.cs.niu.edu>
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Aug 1991 21:32:37 GMT, rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) said:
> I most certainly was not trying to do these things. I was
> reacting to Carl, who has a habit of posting messages which give us
> the impression he is saying things approaching "All sysadmin's are
> evil scum". Or more specifically, Carl has a habit of taking a very
> complex situation and making a terribly simplistic statement which
> is completely out of context and which totally ignores the
> complexities of the situation.
Do you feel he did this in the quotation regarding student use of
school resources? I thought that paragraph did an admirable job of
outlining the complexities of the situation. It struck a proper
balance between the needs of school administrators and the rights of
students. Here is the passage that Carl quoted:
> "[Question:] Can students use school facilities such a bulletin
> boards, loudspeakers, mimeograph machines, and meeting rooms to
> express their views?
>
> [Answer:] If the use of these school facilities for expression of
> student views would not be likely to disrupt regular school
> activities, students should be able to use them. However, a school
> may legitimately refuse to allow students to use its mimeograph
> machine if, for example, it is used all day long in the preparation
> of course material. If the loudspeaker is used only for school
> business, such as the announcement of school activities, program
> changes, and special events, a court would probably hold that
> student groups may legally be prevented from using for the
> expression of particular opinions. On the other hand, facilities
> such as bulletin boards should present no problem since space for
> the use of students can almost always be made available.
Where in this quote -- i.e. specifically which words -- are "terribly
simplistic", or "out of context"?
> Worse still, Carl's statement is often worded so as to suggest that
> anyone opposing it is against motherhood and apple pie.
And in order to respond to him you need to denigrate his views (or at
least his quotations) as "garbage"? I hardly think so. Perhaps you
should be pointing out the failings you see in his arguments more
clearly so that others can have a chance to decide which one of you
makes more sense.
If Carl repeatedly uses a particular debating tactic, then the correct
response (IMHO) is to point out that he is using a particular tactic
and engage him in debate at that level. Not by resorting to
denigration of his views.
> It is admittedly the case that Carl is often quoting some other
> document. But he does so without supplying any of the missing
> context.
Perhaps due to your prodding, Carl did post to caf-talk a
clarification of the context of what he was quotting. Much of what he
quoted was attempting to describe the law of the land (note the court
case citations regarding use of bulletin board space). It was not
just idle fancy or wishful-thinking.
> If you don't like the way I (and several others) react to Carl,
> you might try persuading Carl to be a little less provocative
> himself.
Well, that's putting the cart before the horse. No matter how Carl or
anyone else behaves, that's no justification for ill-advised behavior
on your own part.
But your point is well taken. And I believe that Carl has shown a
welcome willingness to revise his behavior (witness his note
apologizing to Wes Morgan for summarizing the contents of an email
message without prior permission) when it was pointed out to him that
his behavior was lacking. I hope you will try to point out his
failings (we're all human, after all) in a more constructive manner --
that's more likely to achieve the result you want.
Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur
Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 21:57:23 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.215723.17260@ms.uky.edu>
References: <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>, , <8cge2vm00WDJ0=eFBu@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Verifying users, was Re: I don't get it.
sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen P. Marting) writes:
>
>Or how about a really easy fix to the situation: it is completely
>illegal to give anyone your password. Period. Therefore, if JQP's
>roommate or little brother is reading the alt.sex.* heirarchy, it is
>because John has broken the rules. In the same paragraph, you can
>probably absolve yourself from blame in situations like these.
Yes, but JQP's parents aren't going to care about that. The only
thing which will hold their attention is the fact that JQP's little
brother was pulling down GIFs of Traci Lords or reading about the
latest Swedish Erotica catalog. They won't blame JQP for giving
out his password; they'll rail, in righteous anger, about public
schools carrying "pornography". It's already happened; it will
happen again, regardless of any policy you care to develop. The
best solution is to can alt.sex.* and the like entirely. As has
been mentioned several times, they are usually available from several
other systems that aren't my concern.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 18:39 EDT
Sender: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id: <6EE0D201F2202556@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines
>From: "Manavendra K. Thakur"
>Perhaps due to your prodding, Carl did post to caf-talk a
>clarification of the context of what he was quotting. Much of what he
>quoted was attempting to describe the law of the land (note the court
>case citations regarding use of bulletin board space). It was not
>just idle fancy or wishful-thinking.
>
I am not so sure that what Carl wrote is the law of the land. It seems
more like wishful thinking (propoganda?) on the part of the ACLU. For every
court case which supports the ACLU viewpoint that the ACLU cites, there are
normally an equal number or greater court cases decided in the opposite
direction. (sorry I do not have citations :-))
It just so happens that I agree with ACLU on quite a few topics and am in
general agreement with them about student rights as quoted by Carl.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 22:45:53 GMT
Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.224553.10512@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug19.143743.21042@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug19.211851.14599@eff.org>, <1991Aug21.210341.5322@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>The HypeMaster strikes again!!
[...]
I will try to explain why I think this case is important.
>If this were the sole reason, or if Usenet access was only partially
>restricted, I would agree with you.
In my opinion, a university administrator's opinion that a student's
notes are "over the line" should have no bearing on whether Netnews
service is continued or discontinued. In my opinion, considering the
student's perceived-over-the-lineness is no more legitimate than
considering the student's race or religion.
>I mentioned three reasons that Usenet was dropped at our site. Carl,
>true to his hyperbolic form, seized upon the issue from which the most
>mileage could be drawn.
I agreed with the legitimacy of two of reasons (#1 and #3). That does
not change the legitimacy or illegitimacy of #2. In my opinion,
reason #2 deserved condemnation.
>A judicious header renaming, and voila! Let's
>all cry "censorship" and implicate the entire University!!!
In my opinion, a University is responsible for the official actions of
its departments and employees. Also, in my opinion, the decision to
remove a communication medium because of "over-the-line" content is
censorship, even if content is only one factor.
Here is my attempt at an analogy: Suppose the University journalism
department closes down the student paper 1) mostly because it loses
money and 2) in part because the editor is African-American. In my
opinion, the University (not just the department) would be guilty of
racial discrimination.
[...]
>As long as the decisions made affect
>all users equally, I don't think that it is an issue of censorship. Heck,
>I *was* a user of this site when Usenet went away, and I didn't feel
>particularly censored; I just found a few other systems and BBSs,
>and went my way rejoicing.
[...]
While it is important to treat users equally, it is not sufficient.
Users should also be treated fairly. I believe that this is not just a
good idea, but also the law. To quote, "The Rights of Students":
"In other cases, courts have barred school officials from cutting
off funds to campus newspapers because they disapproved of the newspaper's
content. {65}
[...]
{65} Joyner v. Whiting, 477 F.2d 456 (4th Cir. 1973); Stanley v.
Magrath, 719 F.2d 279 (8th Cir. 1983)."
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 23:10:59 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.231059.11412@eff.org>
References: <6EE0D201F2202556@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines <1991Aug21.024550.22138@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Aug21.174312.4047@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Aug21.213237.9069@mp.cs.niu.edu>
SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes:
[...]
>I am not so sure that what Carl wrote is the law of the land. It seems
>more like wishful thinking (propoganda?) on the part of the ACLU. For every
>court case which supports the ACLU viewpoint that the ACLU cites, there are
>normally an equal number or greater court cases decided in the opposite
>direction. (sorry I do not have citations :-))
[...]
I don't think that this is the case. As far as I can tell, the book
gives a fair assessment of the law (as of 1988). I'm sure that famous
decisions such as Tinker are still the law. In any case, I'm expecting
some written-for-the-school-administrator books from the library which
should offer more info. Also, I certainly don't have a monopoly on
quoting from law books; I'd welcome company.
Finally, remember that the law only sets minimum requirements. Most
academic freedom (especially at private universities) comes not from
judges, but from people like us deciding how things should be.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 23:22:03 GMT
Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug21.232203.11662@eff.org>
References: , <8cge2vm00WDJ0=eFBu@andrew.cmu.edu>, <1991Aug21.215723.17260@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Verifying users, was Re: I don't get it.
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Yes, but JQP's parents aren't going to care about that. The only
>thing which will hold their attention is the fact that JQP's little
>brother was pulling down GIFs of Traci Lords or reading about the
>latest Swedish Erotica catalog. They won't blame JQP for giving
>out his password; they'll rail, in righteous anger, about public
>schools carrying "pornography". It's already happened; it will
>happen again, regardless of any policy you care to develop. The
>best solution is to can alt.sex.* and the like entirely. As has
>been mentioned several times, they are usually available from several
>other systems that aren't my concern.
[...]
I think a better solution would be to adopt the policies of the
American Library Association. (These policies help librarians defend
controversial material.) This is what Stanford has done. Here
the story, as posted on Nov 2, 1991 to comp.org.eff.talk by
Professor John McCarthy.
----
-------------------
From comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Mon Aug 26 12:31:09 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 13:23:28 -0400
Sender: helen@eff.org (Helen C. O'Boyle)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Aug 26 12:24:05 EDT 1991
In this issue:
jmc@Gang-of-Four.u : Re: Censorship on the USENET
jmc@Gang-of-Four.u : Re: Censorship on the USENET
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
[ Today's batch is being sent out in two parts, to keep the size
of the message batches below 50K. This is part TWO.
-- Helen ]
-------------------
Date: 2 Nov 90 05:38:32 GMT
From: jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy)
Message-ID:
References:
<1990Oct21.141502.26557@hoss.unl.edu>
<1990Oct31.141646.25350@ifi.uio.no>
<1990Nov01.064916.19218@looking.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET
In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford
University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed
in those computers. It was never suppressed in the Computer
Science Department's computers. There follow two relevant
documents. The first is self-explanatory, and the second
came about through the following sequence of events.
(1) Donald Kennedy, Stanford's President, told the Academic
Senate that he supported the suppression but would defer to
the Senate.
(2) The Senate Steering Committee asked the Committee on Libraries
for a general policy recommendation on how to treat electronic
newsgroups. Referring the issue to the Committee on Libraries
indicated what kind of issue the Steering Committee thought was
involved.
(3) The Committee on Libraries made the statement given below.
(4) The Steering Committee asked the Vice-President for Information
Resources (i.e. the boss of the computer centers) whether
he preferred to back down and re-establish rec.humor.funny
or have the matter discussed by the full Senate.
(5) He backed down somewhat grumpily.
The following statement was passed unanimously at a meeting
of the Computer Science Department faculty of Stanford
University on Tuesday, Feb 21, 1989.
Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny.
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
Censorship is not an appropriate tool for preventing or dealing
with offensive behavior.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny. The Computer Science Department has also decided
not to censor Department Computers.
*****
Here's something else - a statement by the Stanford faculty
committee on libraries.
Office Memo, Stanford University Libraries
about 10 minutes a day at the moment because I still have not moved
my scripts
The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the April 10th meeting
of C-Lib which considered the matter of computer bulletin boards on campus.
The Preamble to the Statement on Academic Freedom (1974) states that
``Expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free
>from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion.''
It is the view of the Academic Council Committee on Libraries that this
statement pertains to materials received on computer bulletin boards on
campus. Acquisition and access to information in new forms should be
subject only to financial limits and other standard criteria of collection
such as the useful life of the materials, storage capacity, etc.
- approved by Academic Council Commmittee on Libraries, April 10, 1989.
XC: Gerald Gillespie
=======
-------------------
Date: 21 Oct 90 18:56:43 GMT
Sender: jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy)
Message-ID:
References: <21282@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET
The cost saving in suppressing a particular newsgroup are trivial.
At Stanford they were probably negative, since personnel time went
into it.
We won the restoration by the following means:
1. There were faculty and student petitions on the subject, mostly
>from computer science people.
2. There was only one strong-minded bad guy and he was rather
perfunctory in his "off with its head" decree.
3. The Academic Senate Steering Committee was persuaded to refer
the issue to the faculty committee on libraries. This committee
came up with a statement to the effect that the policy of an
electronic library should be the same as that of a print library -
universality tempered only by cost.
From comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Mon Aug 26 12:31:10 1991
Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Precedence: bulk
To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 13:26:50 -0400
Sender: helen@eff.org (Helen C. O'Boyle)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Status: R
Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition)
Mon Aug 26 12:31:10 EDT 1991
In this issue:
Mark Evans
Message-Id: <19560.9108231155@uk.ac.aston.uhura>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
Surely the configuration on usenet postings should be set up to automatically
append something of the form
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions contained herin should NOT be taken to represent the official
view point of The Astrology Department University of Alexandria
Unless this is so stated and endorsed by SMITHJ@AST.ALEX.EDU (head
of Dept.)
Mark Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.B. I am speaking on behalf of no other person or organisation.
-------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 13:32:38 GMT
From: warnold@eff.org (William W. Arnold)
Message-Id: <1991Aug23.133238.10616@eff.org>
References: <19560.9108231155@uk.ac.aston.uhura>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
In article <19560.9108231155@uk.ac.aston.uhura> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>Surely the configuration on usenet postings should be set up to automatically
>append something of the form
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The opinions contained herin should NOT be taken to represent the official
>view point of The Astrology Department University of Alexandria
>Unless this is so stated and endorsed by SMITHJ@AST.ALEX.EDU (head
>of Dept.)
>
yes it could be set up, and in fact at 2 sites that I know of it has
been. If you post from the bbs at bbs.oit.unc.edu it adds a disclamer
to the end, and at another site, that I don't remember the name of, it
adds one in the headers.
>Mark Evans
--
| William W. Arnold | warnold@eff.org | has8wwa@cabell.vcu.edu |
| Co-moderator: Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing list |
| I speak for myself, not {him, her, it, eff}. |
-------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 14:52:58 GMT
Sender: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>
Subject: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
At many (most?) universities, a computer organization can suspend or
expel a user from the computer for any reason and with no right of
appeal. This power is sometimes justified by defining it away. (For
example, Due process is only necessary if there is a punishment.
Computer expulsion is defined not be a punishment. Therefore, due
process is not needed.)
Other times, it is justified as an administrative action. But what
other university officials have this much unchecked power?
At my school, the University of Illinois at Urbana, faculty can punish
a student for cheating by (among other things) assigning the student a
failing grade. Also, the library can fine a patron for keeping a book
too long. In both cases, however, everything is outlined in the
student handbook (even the amount of the library fines).
Also, the handbook's rules for the classroom and library can not be
changed at the whim of the dean or the head librarian. The rules are
part of the official University code and all changes must be discussed
and approved by the University government and administration.
For many students and faculty, computer facilities are now as
important as libraries. The time for informal, ad hoc, and local
computer policies has passed. It's time to put computer policies in
the student handbook.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 15:06:37 GMT
Sender: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug23.150637.11652@ms.uky.edu>
References: <1991Aug21.224553.10512@eff.org>, <1991Aug22.155144.21136@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug22.184036.20080@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
warnold@eff.org (William W. Arnold) writes:
>
>It appears to me that NetNews should be looked at as many student papers, not
>just one. Each student is his own paper. It becomes apparent that if a
>student does something wrong, then something should be done about that
>student.
>
Each student is his own paper? Interesting; you want to compare NetNews
access to student newspapers and student organizations, but you don't want
there to be a "checks and balances" system until due process gets involved?
Student organizations have officers and advisors, and student newspapers
and magazines have editorial boards and advisors; can you really group
them together with a "one-man" NetNews paper?
>uhhhh, that's the whole point of the discussion, YOU HAVE TO HAVE DUE
>PROCESS. Once you establish due process for how to cut off NetNews
>access on an individual basis, You then follow said due process and
>that's it. If you don't care enough to go through the trouble then the
>problem is obviously not serious enough to warrant a reaction.
We are explicitly implementing due process; it has been available on an
implicit basis for a long time at this site.
The whole due process question, in my opinion, boils down to the question
of NetNews (and computer access in general) as a right or a privilege. We
are on opposite sides of that debate, but I'm perfectly willing to work
for compromise.
>>
>>I would also point out that schools DO have the ability to remove newspaper
>>staff who engage in such things as libel and slander, as do the owners of
>>commercial publications.
>>
>And they follow due process in those removals.
If you believe this, I *strongly* suggest that you talk to some student
newspaper staff.
>As should you in the removal of people from NetNews.
I agree. However, this particular discussion wasn't about removing
individual users from Usenet. It's about wholesale removal of Usenet
>from a system. They are very different subjects.
>>NetNews has no such
>>central control.
>>
>Actually it does, it's just that while a newspaper has many people
>getting together to form said board, NetNews has many people each
>forming individual boards, and then sending their papers out over the
>same distribution system.
Huh? Individual boards? Please explain how "individual boards" become
"central control". Please explain how a 17-year-old freshmen posting
to alt.romance.chat can be compared to a group of 21-year-old journalism
majors and older faculty members who comprise the editorial board of a
college newspaper.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
-------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 11:32 EDT
Sender: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
>
>At many (most?) universities, a computer organization can suspend or
>expel a user from the computer for any reason and with no right of
>appeal. This power is sometimes justified by defining it away. (For
>example, Due process is only necessary if there is a punishment.
>Computer expulsion is defined not be a punishment. Therefore, due
>process is not needed.)
Carl,
Are we going to go over this all over again for the fourth time???
Are you out of topics again?
I was under the distint impression that we had all agreed that suspension
pending a hearing is NOT punishment and that permananent expulsions should be
after an appropriate judicial hearing only.
>
>Other times, it is justified as an administrative action. But what
>other university officials have this much unchecked power?
>
Actually, quite a few normally have more power.
Also, if you think it it unchecked, think again.
>At my school, the University of Illinois at Urbana, faculty can punish
>a student for cheating by (among other things) assigning the student a
>failing grade. Also, the library can fine a patron for keeping a book
>too long. In both cases, however, everything is outlined in the
>student handbook (even the amount of the library fines).
>
That is good and having things in writing removes uncertainity.
>Also, the handbook's rules for the classroom and library can not be
>changed at the whim of the dean or the head librarian. The rules are
>part of the official University code and all changes must be discussed
>and approved by the University government and administration.
>
The buddy system in an administration makes most of the approval process a
process of rubber stamping anyway. But it does exist.
>For many students and faculty, computer facilities are now as
>important as libraries.
A debatable point but one I will concede for now.
>The time for informal, ad hoc, and local
>computer policies has passed. It's time to put computer policies in
>the student handbook.
I agree. I also agree that the policy should NOT be LOCAL and that such a
policy should apply to ALL computing facilities on campus, including
departmental, research, instructional and central computing facilities. All
such policies should be global and not local to a particual computer facility
owned by one department or just apply to the computing center.
However, there should be provisions for periodic revisions since Computer
technology is still changing at a fast pace. A policy that is an excellent
policy today may be a very bad and outdated policy in a few years. This is
the main reason why ad hoc policies are put in place in the first place. Ten
years back, no one could even conceive of global and local area computer
networks of the scale we have now. It would have been asking too much for a
policy that covered network (ab)use to have been written ten years back.
>
>- Carl
>
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: 23 Aug 91 15:21:39 GMT
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Message-Id: <1991Aug23.152139.15501@ms.uky.edu>
References: <8cge2vm00WDJ0=eFBu@andrew.cmu.edu>, <1991Aug21.215723.17260@ms.uky.edu>,
Subject: Re: Verifying users, was Re: I don't get it.
sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen P. Marting) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (that's me) writes:
>>
>>Yes, but JQP's parents aren't going to care about that. The only
>>thing which will hold their attention is the fact that JQP's little
>>brother was pulling down GIFs of Traci Lords or reading about the
>>latest Swedish Erotica catalog. They won't blame JQP for giving
>>out his password; they'll rail, in righteous anger, about public
>>schools carrying "pornography". It's already happened; it will
>>happen again, regardless of any policy you care to develop. The
>>best solution is to can alt.sex.* and the like entirely. As has
>>been mentioned several times, they are usually available from several
>>other systems that aren't my concern.
>
>It has happened? And what were the results of these cases? Has a
>school ever been successfully sued for "allowing" one of their students
>to perform an illegal act?
It is not a question of lawsuits; I didn't even mention legal action.
It's a question of letters to the editor, pickets, complaints
up and down the adminstrative hierarchy, and general nastiness.
It's a question of reporters such as Joe Abernathy of the Houston
Chronicle; remember his articles about the "govenment-sponsored
porno ring", otherwise known as alt.sex? It's a question of the
folks holding the moneybags asking probing questions about "why
you have this stuff on your systems". None of this requires legal
action, and some of it never sees the light of day, but it happens.
>Sounds like CMU could be sued if I give some underage freshman alcohol
>and (s)he falls down and hits his/her head - being as I'm only 19 myself.
This case would be different, because CMU didn't provide the alcohol.
In our hypothetical case, however, they would have provided the
item of contention (alt.sex, alt.drugs, whatever).
>And if it's available from other sites, and those other sites can be
>reached from your stations, then what would be the difference in the
>situation you described?
The difference is in the presentation of the material. My shop would
provide neither the material nor pointers to other sources. If the
student took it upon himself to find out how to get it, that's his
problem, not mine. If you use my car to drive down and buy some crack,
do I get arrested?
>c) Johnny gives Jimmy his password - legally. Jimmy connects to an
>outside news server (default for Johnny's account) and a) more or less
>happens.
That's the difference; we don't advertise an outside news server.
We don't support an outside news server. We don't point people to
an outside news server. If they discover it on their own, it's their
problem.
>Yes, of course you'll say that if giving out passwords is *always*
>illegal, then the school may be protected just as well in b) and c) as
>it is in a). You would probably be right. But just how far are you
>willing to compromise the abilites of your users just to CYA in some
>hypothetical situation that you heard happened to some school out there
>somewhere (just a point - do you have facts about the supposed lawsuits
>or is it a bit of UL?)? "We don't have ftp, rn, or even email. Hey,
>man, that stuff's *dangerous*."
I never said anything about lawsuits; please read what I post before
accusing me of spouting ULs.
Nor do I compromise the abilities of my users. They have full access to
telnet, ftp, and email. If, through some combination of those, they find
other services elsewhere, it really isn't my concern, since I'm not the
provider of those services. I just give them the keys to a car; where they
drive it is their responsibility.
--
morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
-------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 18:14:44 GMT
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Message-Id: <1991Aug23.181444.12021@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
In article <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org> kadie@eff.org writes:
>
>Also, the handbook's rules for the classroom and library can not be
>changed at the whim of the dean or the head librarian. The rules are
However the conditions for assigning a failing grade can be changed at
the whim of the instructor, and the faculty will fight - on the grounds
of academic freedom - to retain this power.
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 13:53 CDT
From: TK0JUT1%MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU@UICVM.uic.edu
Message-Id: <9108231854.AA16007@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
In article <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org> kadie@eff.org writes:
>>Also, the handbook's rules for the classroom and library can not be
>>changed at the whim of the dean or the head librarian. The rules are
rickert@cs.niu.edu resonds:
> However the conditions for assigning a failing grade can be changed at
>the whim of the instructor, and the faculty will fight - on the grounds
>of academic freedom - to retain this power.
Not to be picky, but even under the broadest interpretation of academic
freedom an instructor can't change the conditions for assigning grades on
a whim, or even on good-faith substitution of new cart-pulling rules in
mid-stream. If professors assign a grade for "poor citizenship," there
should be an explicit delineation for the sanctions either in a university
judicial procedures manual or in the course syllabus lest grades become a
tool for social control rather than a reflection of academic performance.
Granted, there can sometimes be a thin line, but I suspect we've all seen
a few occasions when that line was grossly encroached.
Jim Thomas
-------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 19:42:49 GMT
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Message-Id: <1991Aug23.194249.16681@eff.org>
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org>, <1991Aug23.181444.12021@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
[...]
> However the conditions for assigning a failing grade can be changed at
>the whim of the instructor, and the faculty will fight - on the grounds
>of academic freedom - to retain this power.
[...]
While faculty academic freedom gives the professors broad power to
assign grades, this power is not unchecked. At U. of Illinois a
student can appeal a grade that the student feels is capricious. The
procedure for this is detailed (eight paragraphs) in the Student
Handbook.
- Carl
p.s. The Handbook defines a capricious grade as 1) the assignement of
a grade to a partiuclar student on some basis other than performance
in the course; 2) the assignemnt of a grade to a particular student by
resort to more exacting or demanding standards than were applied to
other students in that course; 3) the assignment of a grade by a
substantial departure from the instructor's previously announced
standards.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
-------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 19:46:53 GMT
Sender: covin@tartarus.uchicago.edu (David Covin)
Message-Id:
References: <8cge2vm00WDJ0=eFBu@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Verifying users, was Re: I don't get it.
In article <1991Aug23.152139.15501@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> It is not a question of lawsuits; I didn't even mention legal action.
> It's a question of letters to the editor, pickets, complaints
> up and down the adminstrative hierarchy, and general nastiness.
> It's a question of reporters such as Joe Abernathy of the Houston
> Chronicle; remember his articles about the "govenment-sponsored
> porno ring", otherwise known as alt.sex? It's a question of the
> folks holding the moneybags asking probing questions about "why
> you have this stuff on your systems". None of this requires legal
> action, and some of it never sees the light of day, but it happens.
Well...
Is hastening to anticipate the demands of such people, and bow to them,
really an appropriate response?
If you do feel that carrying the alt.* hierarchy, and/or alt.sex in particular,
is morally wrong; or, more importantly (perhaps), if your school or your
department (whoever actually owns the facilities in question) officially feels
that it is wrong, then you should not carry it. It would then be the students'
burden to petition the school if they did not like the policy, and (if your
school is anything like my undergraduate institution was) to be completely
ignored by the administration. ( :-) )
If, on the other hand, you see nothing wrong with it, and your school sees
nothing wrong with it, why should you spend such effort trying to second-
guess what the most prudish of the population will say if they find out,
and to mold your policy to their expected whims? It seems as if you are...
well, knuckling under to people you don't like. And knuckling under, not
to their assault, but to the slightest expectation of their displeasure.
Admitting their power over you.
On the other hand, not being one of your students, I can't argue with you
if you feel that Mr. Abernathy & company are right, or partly right. You
are certainly under no obligation not to knuckle under to people *I* don't
like. :-)
> The difference is in the presentation of the material. My shop would
> provide neither the material nor pointers to other sources. If the
> student took it upon himself to find out how to get it, that's his
> problem, not mine. If you use my car to drive down and buy some crack,
> do I get arrested?
Well, your car can be seized and sold to benefit the police department, but
that's a topic for a different newsgroup. :-)
More relevant, perhaps: reading alt.sex is not a crime...
> --
> morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
> morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
> morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
--
David Covin covin@despair.uchicago.edu
-------------------
Date: 23 Aug 91 21:19:43 GMT
From: pmoloney@unix1.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Message-Id:
References: <1991Aug22.155144.21136@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Aug22.184036.20080@eff.org>, <1991Aug23.150637.11652@ms.uky.edu>
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>Each student is his own paper? Interesting; you want to compare NetNews
>access to student newspapers and student organizations, but you don't want
>there to be a "checks and balances" system until due process gets involved?
>Student organizations have officers and advisors, and student newspapers
>and magazines have editorial boards and advisors; can you really group
>them together with a "one-man" NetNews paper?
Probably. Here in Trinity I edit, along with three others, a College
magazine. You could argue that four people make an 'editorial board',
but several other magazines here are edited (and some, indeed, written)
by one person.
By the way, of the four editors, three have had their access to news
removed at one stage or another. The fourth never posts. I wonder is there
a genetic correllation or something? Or are we Editors just Too
Dangerous To Live????? (ta-dah)
In my opinion, Usenet _does_ resemble a magazine that anyone can write
to. For that reason, there should be freedom of opinion there, without
restraint, except of course by the law of the land (libel and slander
should of course apply to Usenet as well as to any other publication.
The realities of actually enforcing libel suits against someone halfway
across the globe are another matter - a matter for the law, not for the
university.)
The problem with the university, business, whatever being liable for
whatever is written seems to me to be a misunderstanding by the law as
to what the computer's function is as regards Usenet. If there exists a
magazine to which anyone can mail articles (I use mail here in the
Postman Pat sense of the word), then of course the postal service
shouldn't be liable for any slander suits - the person who mailed the
articles should be. Likewise with Usenet. The computer, that the
university had provided to you, is only a means of _accessing_ Usenet.
The same a postbox or a phone is to a regular magazine.
Opinions? Or an I talking bullshit (it _is_ quite late here)?
P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the rem
james Trinity College, Dublin mind." PMOLONEY%VAX1.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
-------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 18:15 EDT
Sender: Sanjay Kapur
Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky
Message-Id:
>From: pmoloney@unix1.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
>
>In my opinion, Usenet _does_ resemble a magazine that anyone can write
>to. For that reason, there should be freedom of opinion there, without
>restraint, except of course by the law of the land (libel and slander
>should of course apply to Usenet as well as to any other publication.
>The realities of actually enforcing libel suits against someone halfway
>across the globe are another matter - a matter for the law, not for the
>university.)
Is a magazine liable for anything published therein?
I am arguing that if you want to use the magazine model then the University on
whose computers you read Netnews is liable for the material published on
Netnews even though the author is half a globe away.
>
>The problem with the university, business, whatever being liable for
>whatever is written seems to me to be a misunderstanding by the law as
>to what the computer's function is as regards Usenet. If there exists a
>magazine to which anyone can mail articles (I use mail here in the
>Postman Pat sense of the word), then of course the postal service
>shouldn't be liable for any slander suits - the person who mailed the
>articles should be. Likewise with Usenet. The computer, that the
>university had provided to you, is only a means of _accessing_ Usenet.
>The same a postbox or a phone is to a regular magazine.
>
Netnews/usenet is much more than a mail service. The correct analogy would be
a post office publication not a post office box. How are the liability laws
for services like France's Minitel(?) and Britain's Prestel (if I got the names
right?) and U.S. services like Prodigy and Compuserve?
Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu
Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB
State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR
Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046
-------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 23:38:43 GMT
From: rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Message-Id: <1991Aug23.233843.25066@mp.cs.niu.edu>
References: <1991Aug23.145258.12240@eff.org> <1991Aug23.194249.16681@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
In article <1991Aug23.194249.16681@eff.org> kadie@eff.org writes:
>rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>[...]
>> However the conditions for assigning a failing grade can be changed at
>>the whim of the instructor, and the faculty will fight - on the grounds
>>of academic freedom - to retain this power.
>[...]
>
>While faculty academic freedom gives the professors broad power to
>assign grades, this power is not unchecked. At U. of Illinois a
>student can appeal a grade that the student feels is capricious. The
>procedure for this is detailed (eight paragraphs) in the Student
>Handbook.
And, to get back to the point, presumably at most institutions a
student can appeal a suspension of a computer account.
Faculty are given broad power to assign grades partly because it is
a complex process which cannot easily be defined in simple rules that
can be published in a handbook. We presume the faculty to be intelligent
people capable of exercising good judgement, and trust them to set the
standards, with some appeal procedure to deal with unusual circumstances.
But administering a computer in the face of rapidly changing technology and
software is also very complex, and it can be very difficult to define in
simple rules exactly what the limits are. We also need to trust the
administrators to exercise good judgement in setting standards, again with
some appeals procedure to deal with unusual cases.
>p.s. The Handbook defines a capricious grade as 1) the assignement of
>a grade to a partiuclar student on some basis other than performance
>in the course; 2) the assignemnt of a grade to a particular student by
Does the handbook define what constitutes "performance in the course?"
>resort to more exacting or demanding standards than were applied to
>other students in that course; 3) the assignment of a grade by a
>substantial departure from the instructor's previously announced
>standards.
Does the handbook require that the instructor publish his standards?
--
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
-------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 11:32 EDT
From: Sanjay Kapur
Message-Id:
Subject: Re: Computer Policy in the Student Handbook
>
>At many (most?) universities, a computer organization can suspend or
>expel a user from the computer for any reason and with no right of
>appeal. This power is sometimes justified by defining it away. (For
>example, Due process is only necessary if there is a punishment.
>Computer expulsion is defined not be a punishment. Therefore, due
>process is not needed.)
Carl,
Are we going to go over this all over again for the fourth time???
Are you out of topics again?
I was under the distint impression that we had all agreed that suspension
pending a hearing is NOT punishment and that permananent expulsions should be
after an appropriate judicial hearing only.
>
>Other times, it is justified as an administrative action. But what
>other university officials have this much unchecked power?
>
Actually, quite a few normally have more power.
Also, if you think it it unchecked, think again.
>At my school, the University of Illinois at Urbana, faculty can punish
>a student for cheating by (among other things) assigning the student a
>failing grade. Also, the library can fine a patron for keeping a book
>too long. In both cases, however, everything is outlined in the
>student handbook (even the amount of the library fines).
>
That is good and having things in writing removes uncertainity.
>Also, the handbook's rules for the classroom and library can not be
>changed at the whim of the dean or the head librarian. The rules are
>part of the official University code and all changes must be discussed
>and approved by the University government and administration.
>
The buddy system in an administration makes most of the approval process a
process of rubber stamping anyway. But it does exist.
>For many students and faculty, computer facilities are now as
>important as libraries.
A debatable point but one I will concede for now.
>The time for informal, ad hoc, and local
>computer policies has passed. It's time to put computer policies in
>the student handbook.
I agree. I also agree that the policy should NOT be LOCAL and that such a
policy should apply to ALL computing facilities on campus, including
departmental, research, instructional and central computing facilities. All
such policies should be global and not local to a particual computer facility
owned by one department or just apply to the computing center.
However, there should be provisions for periodic revisions since Computer
technology is still changing at a fast pace. A policy that is an excellent
policy today may be a very bad and outdated policy in a few years. This is
the main reason why ad hoc policies are put in place in the first place. Ten
years back, no one could even conceive of global and local area computer
networks of the scale we have now. It would have been asking too much for a
policy that covered network (ab)use to have been written ten years back.
>
>- Carl
>
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
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
